All Companies Have Social Impact

Hi friends!

Yesterday, the founders of Basecamp, a software company that I admire greatly, announced that they were banning political discussion within their company chat system. Jason Fried, one of the founders, announced this in a blog post along with a few other policy changes the company was making internally.

Normally, I agree with a lot of opinions the Basecamp team has on workplace culture. In fact, their blog posts, books, and podcasts have had a profound impact on me and, by extension, Lumastic - including turning us onto the idea of platform cooperatives.

Usually, Fried’s work is inspirational for how counter-cultural it is to the predominant beliefs of the role of business in life and society. So, when I read this post, I was shocked by the extreme lack of leadership and empathetic thinking that went into this decision. This line in particular compelled me to speak up:

“We make project management, team communication, and email software. We are not a social impact company. Our impact is contained to what we do and how we do it.”

For centuries, companies, economists, and politicians have been trying to make this case that there is no direct relationship between private companies and public society - that they can and should only interact through the government.

I think this belief is idiotic.

Companies are inherently social institutions. They are organizations that gather people together to affect the world in bigger ways than any one person could alone. They are not disconnected from society; they are designed to directly impact it by creating value for their stakeholders, employees, and customers.

And it’s been proven time and time again that the relationships and connections we make at work dramatically affect our relationships and social well-being outside of work. So, it’s just wrong to say that “Our impact is contained to what we do and how we do it.” Like it or not, my guy, your company has a lot of influence and power.

When Fried says, “We are not a social impact company” I think he is actually just saying that wielding that power and influence is hard - and that…

The easier thing to do is ignore it.

But business avoiding these issues and believing that they can act without consequence to society contributes massively to environmental, economic, and social injustice. So, yes, discussing these problems “saps our energy, and redirects our dialog towards dark places”, but that only means we should be discussing them more. What disappoints me so much is that Fried fails to see how privileged being able to take that position is.

Believing that it’s “not our place” and “we don’t have to solve deep social problems” is the response of old-school business - the response of cowards who put efficiency and profit before people. Because what takes real leadership and courage is believing that your organization exists in service of its stakeholders and communities.

It takes courage to believe that your company exists for social impact.

And I know that part of Basecamp believes this. They had an entire team work for months to evaluate their carbon footprint as a company and come up with a 10 year plan to go carbon-neutral. So, for what it’s worth coming from another workplace collaboration software company: grow up, lean in, own your power, speak up, and…

Do what’s right, not what’s easy.

At Lumastic, we think about the long game. We know the legacy of this company is not “contained to what we do and how we do it”. No one is going to care about our current product 200 years from now, but hopefully they’ll remember how a small software company impacted the conversation around social and economic justice in the 21st century.

That’s a way better story.