The following is an excerpt from Karthik Ramanna’s new book, “The Age of Outrage: How to Lead in a Polarized World,” now out at Harvard Business Review Press. Ramanna will discuss his new book tomorrow, October 31, 2024, at an event cohosted by the Stigler Center and the Rustandy Center. You can register here to attend the event in-person or on the livestream.
Between February and March 2022, Florida’s House, Senate, and governor passed into law a bill that prevented the state’s public schools from hosting discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity “in a manner that is not age-appropriate.” As the bill moved through the stages of passage, local media reported that the Walt Disney Company had made political contributions to the bill’s key proponents.
The matter immediately set off a firestorm of criticism within Disney, as numerous affiliated creators and employees noted that the company’s support was at odds with its stated values and aspirations. They pointed out that Disney had attempted to profit from a progressive image, hosting, for example, unofficial “Gay Days” in its Orlando theme park, even as it tried to walk both sides of the fence across America’s culture wars.
Disney’s then CEO, Bob Chapek, at first reacted defensively, arguing that the company would neither support nor condemn Florida’s new “Don’t Say Gay” bill, as it came to be called. Then, he quickly relented and offered a $5 million donation to America’s leading LGBT+ organization, the Human Rights Campaign. This donation was about twenty-five times the size of its original campaign contributions to the bill’s supporters, but the Human Rights Campaign turned it down. The damage was done.
Disney, as a cultural force in modern America—a company that through its action (or inaction) shapes American values over the long run—seems especially vulnerable to this age of outrage. What Disney’s make-believe princesses and princes do today shape societal norms for tomorrow. Parents, activists, and politicians across the spectrum understand this reality, and so the company is very much their target as a means to mold the country in their vision.
But as America, and a good bit of the rest of the world, seemingly tears itself apart over issues like climate change, demographic shifts, stagnating wages, intergenerational inequities, and racism—let alone LGBT+ rights—what is a company like Disney to do? How can it keep its image and attention focused on its core purpose—of delivering wholesome entertainment? When should it wear its values on its sleeve, and when should it defer to pragmatism? And where does pragmatism stop and hypocrisy begin? Whom can it trust for advice and input, internally and externally, as it navigates these questions? And how does it not deplete and exhaust its employees and leadership in what is apparently a never-ending litany of angry outpourings?
Disney is certainly not alone among companies in confronting these questions. And beyond companies, nonprofits and government agencies too must navigate the age of outrage. What are the lessons to learn from those who are successfully managing through these times and even from those who are arguably just muddling through?
A Practical Framework for Managing in the Age of Outrage
The framework that I present in this book offers an approach through which leaders faced with angry stakeholders can make sense of the outrage they are confronted with, work with relevant stakeholders to progress through it, and perhaps even emerge stronger for it. At the framework’s core is an approach to “turn down the temperature” in the moment, making discussion, analysis, and better decision-making possible. That approach is based on a behavioral theory (known as the general aggression model) and an associated set of managerial protocols, which then support four further processes that, I argue, leaders should engage in as they seek to reconcile the organization’s decisions with the age of outrage they encounter: (1) an analysis of the root causes and catalysts of the proximate crisis (i.e., making sense of the outrage); (2) the scoping 2 and bounding of organizational responses; (3) identifying tactics for progress and getting things done (i.e., the art of implementation); and (4) building and renewing individual and organizational resilience.
To bring this framework to life, consider again the case of Disney. Foremost, as CEO Chapek tried to manage the fallout from “Don’t Say Gay,” was the need to cool emotions—his own, and those of activists, politicians, employees, customers, and investors on the left, right, and center. Without a protocol for calming the environment, any stakeholder engagement would likely make things worse. Then, he needed to understand what was driving the outrage at Disney—with a view to know what he could and could not control. Next, he could formulate a response—one that was both authentic to the company and sustainable over the intermediate run. For both preceding steps, he needed a trusted team of insiders and outsiders. Thereafter, he had to decide how to put his decisions into action in a way that helped him at least retain, if not build, goodwill for the next (inevitable) crisis. And finally, recognizing how exhausting all this was for himself and his team, he needed to create conditions for ongoing emotional renewal.
An organization and its stakeholders can enter the age of outrage framework through any one of the stages or processes, but once in the system, progress is usually sequential and may well require multiple iterations of all the activities involved. The core platform to turn down the temperature both informs and is informed by the results of the four processes, and its primary function is to maintain a temperate emotional context around the four processes as people engage in them to work through outrage events.
To apply the age of outrage framework effectively, leaders must first understand just what is driving and intensifying the palpable aggression that they experience. Knowledge and acknowledgment of the socioeconomic and technological underpinnings of people’s outrage in general will be very helpful in that endeavor. So, although the bulk of this book presents a managerial guide to the concepts, processes, and capabilities required for leading in an age of outrage, I discuss in the remainder of this chapter the drivers of the outrage that we are now confronted with, and to which I will be referring throughout the book. Thereafter, in subsequent chapters, we will dive into the framework’s components.
The Drivers of the Age of Outrage
Outrage can stem from multiple causes, and I have found it helpful to generalize these causes into three groups. In some cases, as noted in the preface, a decision affects a particular stakeholder’s economic and social prospects—perhaps depriving them of a future they had taken for granted. In others, the outrage stems from a historical grievance that makes the stakeholder suspicious of the decision-maker’s motives. A third factor is the perception that the decision-maker is in some sense removed or alien to the stakeholder in terms of values and interests, siding with some other inimical stakeholder group.
One can argue that outrage has always existed and generally derives from the same causes as it always has. For instance, in the early twentieth century, with the emergence of organized labor, business leaders had to confront similar outbreaks of outrage at decisions that previously had been easy for them to make. Going further back, the British East India Company, perhaps one of the most profitable firms in history, went out of business in the middle of the nineteenth century because it attracted popular condemnation that forced the British government to act. Given this historical context, leaders must under- stand what is so different about the outrage that they are experiencing today. I submit that the difference often stems from the fact that all three traditional sources of outrage are unusually salient. There is growing despair at prospects for the future across more people than perhaps at any time since before the Second World War. Meanwhile, anger among more and larger groups of people at perceived biases and the legacies of past decisions is spilling over. At the same time, increasing migration across borders is bringing inimical groups with different values together, while the legacy of education and social policies has (sometimes justly) encouraged new groups to emerge with values that offend traditional sensibilities. What’s more, all these factors are being collectively amplified through modern communication technologies—notably the rise of social media, which enables people with shared ideas and goals to form information bubbles and reinforce each other’s fear, grievance, and identities.
So, when confronted with a crisis, a leader must ask, Does it stem from fear for the future, an experience of prior injustice, or from innate hostility to some other stakeholders—or some combination of the three, and if so, what combination? Only after understanding which drivers are in play, and how they are interacting with each other, can the organizational leader identify what possible avenues for progress exist and whether those are realistic options for the organization. Let’s begin by looking at what’s behind our fears for the future.
Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review Press. Adapted from “The Age of Outrage: How to Lead in a Polarized World” by Karthik Ramanna Copyright 2024 Karthik Ramanna. All rights reserved.
Articles represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of ProMarket, the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty
