Commentary on Fezzey et al. (2024): CEO Activism Takes Courage!

Abstract

The article by Fezzey, Drnevich, and Borgholthaus (2024) examines CEO activism, where business leaders publicly take stances on social and political issues to influence stakeholders. This commentary suggests enhancing Fezzey et al.'s CEO Activism Decision Matrix and model by integrating workplace courage—acting for a worthy cause despite risks. Workplace courage influences CEOs' activism decisions, execution, and outcomes, impacting the choice of strategies and altering expected results. The commentary argues that workplace courage challenges the linear model by Fezzey et al. and interacts with CEO-related moderators, such as identity concerns. It calls for future research on workplace courage's role in different phases of CEO activism, its temporal dynamics, and its presence at team levels, aiming to deepen understanding and foster interventions to address societal challenges through courageous leadership.

Introduction

The article by Fezzey et al. (2024) addresses a highly timely and important issue in contemporary societies: CEO activism, which refers to business leaders publicly taking stances on social or political debates with the aim of influencing stakeholder views (Hambrick & Wowak, 2021). Recent examples include the CEOs of Delta Air Lines and Patagonia, who resisted political attacks on their DEI initiatives in the U.S. (Jeyaretnam, 2025).

Fezzey et al. (2024) developed a CEO Activism Decision Matrix and a conceptual model that explains how CEOs engage in activism, as well as the potential downstream consequences of the four identified strategies. While these considerations offer a much-needed nuance to the current understanding of CEO activism, we aim to further extend this discussion with an additional concept: workplace courage. Detert and Bruno (2017) define workplace courage as a work-domain relevant act undertaken for a worthy cause, despite significant risks perceived by the actor in the moment. Similarly, CEO activism concerning socio-political causes entails risks for both the firm and the CEOs themselves, while the expected outcomes remain uncertain (Fezzey et al., 2024). This suggests a close interplay between the two concepts.

In this commentary, we discuss the implications of workplace courage for the conceptual model proposed by Fezzey and colleagues (2024) and suggest how incorporating workplace courage can extend the model, offering additional directions for future research. We propose that workplace courage plays a critical role and serves as an important mechanism in the CEO activism decision-making process as it involves deliberative contemplation of potential risks and outcomes typically inherent in CEO decision-making. It also influences the later stages of activism (stance-taking and post-stance) suggested by the three-stage process model by Olkkonen and Morsing (2022). In doing so, courage as a construct advances our understanding of CEOs’ choice and enactment of activism strategy as outlined by Fezzey et al.

Furthermore, systematic consideration of workplace courage challenges the linearity of Fezzey et al.’s model, which suggests that CEO activism strategies lead directly to specific reputation and performance outcomes for both the CEO and the firm and may even reverse the causality suggested by the model. We also consider how workplace courage interacts with CEO-related moderators in the activism strategy-outcomes relationship in the model. Importantly, the extension of the model with the construct of workplace courage allows us to highlight the importance and implications of identity concerns in the context of CEO activism and consider temporal dynamics. Lastly, integrating workplace courage and CEO activism literatures can offer new directions for scholars studying workplace courage.

The Role of Courage in Influencing How CEOs Engage in Activism

We begin our commentary by examining the Activism Decision Matrix developed by Fezzey et al., which outlines strategies for CEO engagement in activism. The Matrix categorizes four activism strategies based on two behaviors: CEO talk and CEO action. These strategies are: (1) Inactive Activism (low talk, low action); (2) Symbolic Activism (high talk, low action); (3) Covert Activism (low talk, high action); and (4) Substantive Activism (high talk, high action). We propose that this Matrix aligns with the degrees of workplace courage required for CEOs to engage in activism. When considering the two dimensions of workplace courage, namely, worthy cause and risk, the worthiness of the cause increases as we move up the y-axis (from low action to high action), and the risk to the actor becomes greater as we move right on the x-axis (from low talk to high talk).

Following this logic, inactive activism may exemplify “dis-courage,” where a CEO choosing not to address societal issues might be seen as lacking the courage to take a stand on important matters. Fezzey and colleagues note that while neutrality might have been safe historically, today it could harm a CEO’s reputation as stakeholders increasingly expect engagement in social issues. However, CEO inaction can also embody workplace courage. For instance, defying unethical orders or maintaining one’s values and identity could be considered courageous forms of inactivity (Detert & Bruno, 2017; Koerner, 2014) and present a form of “passive activism,” something that Fezzey et al. don’t consider in their theorizing.

We argue that substantive activism demands highly courageous behavior, involving both communicative influence and the commitment of (economic) resources to advance an issue (Fezzey et al., 2024). Such actions are also characteristic of workplace courage (Koerner, 2014; Tkachenko et al., 2018), where risks are substantial, yet the cause is deemed worthy. Conversely, symbolic activism—where influencing upper management or speaking against authority occurs without corresponding action—might reflect workplace courage related to less worthy causes (Schilpzand et al., 2015; Tkachenko et al., 2018). Covert activism, characterized by actions that outweigh words, such as managing uncertainty or safeguarding others behind the scenes, can be perceived as less risky than substantive activism but still requires workplace courage (Schilpzand et al., 2015). However, it involves lower risk and thus requires less courage than substantive activism.

In conclusion, the CEO Activism Decision Matrix offers a valuable framework for not only categorizing activism strategies but also understanding how they both involve and necessitate workplace courage.

The Role of Courage in the Different Outcomes of CEO Activism

In her qualitative inquiry, Koerner (2014) found that nearly all courageous acts in workplaces are intended to benefit others, whether individuals, businesses, or society, like activism. In their model, Fezzey and colleagues (2024) focus on outcomes from the perspective of the activist (e.g., influence and reputation) and the firm (e.g., performance and reputation) but don’t discuss the impact of activism on the intended beneficiaries. Furthermore, they posit these outcomes as results of the chosen activism strategy. We argue that the integration of workplace courage into the model allows us to view the expected CEO and firm-specific outcomes as an integral part of CEOs’ sensemaking process regarding whether to engage in activism in the first place, and thus, influencing the choice of an activism strategy. In other words, the consideration of expected outcomes and the willingness to accept risk reflect and intertwine with CEOs’ courage to take a stance on a given issue, and hence also influence the choice of activism strategy.

Specifically, workplace courage involves consciously deliberating outcomes and risks before engaging in action. In their process model of CEO activism, Olkkonen & Morsing (2022) refer to a pre-stance phase where CEO and company motivations align, and the decision to take a stance is made. Similarly, the dual-process model of courage by Chowkase et al. (2024) begins with the deliberate consideration of potential risks and meaningful outcomes. Therefore, it seems plausible that the expected outcomes and potential risks involved in activism interact with CEO courage and influence the activism strategy they choose.

Fezzey et al. (2024) further argue that CEO and firm outcomes can be examined from both short- and long-term perspectives. For example, the actual impact of CEO activism on an issue may manifest relatively quickly, whereas the CEO’s reputation and career trajectory are outcomes that develop over the long term. Similarly, workplace courage can have both positive and negative outcomes in the short and long term. In the short term, courageous actors may gain peace of mind but also risk being disliked by peers. In the long term, they may be seen as having higher executive potential (Detert & Bruno, 2017) or gain respect for virtuous behavior (Bai et al., 2020; Zwank et al., 2024).

To summarize, workplace courage and CEO activism exhibit many similarities in terms of their outcomes. Endorsing the definition of workplace courage, which always aims to create worthy outcomes that are other-focused, the potential benefits CEOs derive from activism, such as career advancement or enhanced reputation, should, in our view, be considered side effects and indirect consequences of acting for a worthy cause.

The Role of Courage Influencing the CEO Activism – Outcomes Relationships

Fezzey et al. (2024) identify two key categories of moderators that influence the relationship between activism strategies and their outcomes: CEO-based moderators (e.g., celebrity status, power, and perceived authenticity) and issue-based moderators (social vs. economic issues, episodic vs. ongoing issues, multiplicity of issues, and issue frequency). Similarly, existing research identifies various moderators that may influence workplace courage. Individual resources such as autonomy, dispositions, skills, and traits—which parallel CEO power and celebrity—can be fostered and accumulated over time (Kaltiainen et al., 2024).

Schilpzand and colleagues (2015) discuss the relative power advantage CEOs may recognize and perceive to hold, leading them to perceive a responsibility for courageous action when needed. Furthermore, Koerner (2014) argues that courageous behavior at work is likely shaped by—and shapes—a person’s (moral) identity, helping individuals minimize incongruities between their self- and social identities. In the context of CEO activism, workplace courage and its connection to questions like “Who am I?” and “What kind of a leader am I?” may explain why CEOs engage in courageous actions, including activism.

Moreover, identity concerns can elucidate how CEO authenticity, as perceived by stakeholders, influences the outcomes of CEO activism by aligning individual values with those of the organization (Koerner, 2014). Koerner (2014) describes different types of identity tension that may influence workplace courage; we believe these, or similar tensions, can act as catalysts for CEO activism. For example, in the context of CEO activism, the tension between “self-identity versus position identity” (Koerner, 2014) can create a self-threatening situation for CEOs if their personal values demand a stance on a specific cause, but their formal position does not allow for it. Furthermore, intrinsically driven CEO activism is often perceived as authentic by stakeholders (Fezzey et al., 2024).

All in all, courageous CEO activism can resolve identity tensions by (1) aligning behavior with internal values, (2) allowing the expression of high concern for social and organizational issues, and (3) illustrating personal confidence to handle challenging situations (as opposed to relying on CEO power or celebrity) (Koerner, 2014). CEOs also need courage to endure public scrutiny when taking a stance and in the post-stance phase (Olkkonen & Morsing, 2022), as activism often receives divided responses from different stakeholders.

Interestingly, Fezzey et al. (2024) note that involvement from others and support from the corporate board may reduce the risks associated with activism for the CEO, implying lower levels of courage required. In other words, the presence of supporting others influences the strategy-outcomes relationship. In contrast, workplace courage is primarily seen as an individual act. Detert and Bruno (2017) emphasize that when autonomy is constrained, it becomes difficult to assess the courage of the actor. CEO activism, however, can result from the volition of a collective leadership team. Further, engaging in activism on an ongoing basis (vs. episodic) or addressing multiple issues, regardless of the strategy, can undermine the credibility of activism; “being all over the place” may undermine authenticity and dilute the perceived impact (Fezzey et al., 2024). Similarly, Olkkonen & Morsing (2022) refer to the normalization of CEO activism, indicating that ongoing engagement may cease to be seen as activism after a period. A CEO who continuously engages in multiple sociopolitical issues may, however, continue to be perceived as a courageous individual.

In sum, it seems likely that courageous CEOs who act consistently with their values generate the most positive and enduring long-term outcomes through their activism. Indeed, individuals with strong character exhibit less variation in their behavior across time and situations, irrespective of external context and situational pressures (Zwank et al., 2024).

Concluding remarks and Future Research Directions

This commentary extends the conceptual work of Fezzey and colleagues by incorporating workplace courage into the dynamics of activism and considering the pivotal role of identity concerns. Additionally, as overlapping constructs, courage and CEO activism share many moderators within the activism strategy-outcomes relationship. Based on these insights, we have taken a step to enhance the CEO activism engagement model, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Enhanced CEO activism model with workplace courage: Courage as sense-making mechanism in CEO activism process shaping individual identity (building on Fezzey et al., 2024).

Drawing on Olkkonen and Morsing (2024), we suggest that courage is present in the different phases of CEO activism, albeit with varying levels of intensity. The pre-stance phase is a time of individual contemplation, where courage plays a key role in considerations of the associated risks and activism strategies. It is also likely the most intense phase for CEOs and may involve identity tensions and concerns (Koerner, 2014; Olkkonen & Morsing, 2024).

During the active stance-taking, courageous activism is modelled and exposed to stakeholders, potentially inspiring others (Detert & Bruno, 2017; Olkkonen & Morsing, 2024). We suggest that in this phase, courage intensity varies depending on the type and duration of activism and the available resources. Lastly, in the post-stance phase, the activism is subject to public scrutiny, and the CEO needs to reconcile the wider societal role of their activism until the situation normalizes. This can require courage, even if endurance is not typically described as a quintessentially courageous act. However, this phase can significantly shape the CEO’s identity and influence their future courageous engagement in activism.

We identify several opportunities for future research on CEO activism and workplace courage. First, our enhanced model offers a framework for empirical studies to assess the role of workplace courage in the different phases of CEO activism and its interaction with CEO-based or situational factors. Second, how identity concerns play out in CEO activism merits further research, given their multifaceted role in workplace courage. As Koerner (2014) suggests, identity tensions serve as strong motivators for workplace courage, prompting individuals to make difficult choices that maintain coherence with their values and identity. It would be worthwhile to explore how this occurs in the context of CEO activism, especially when formal expectations set clear boundaries for the CEO role, power dynamics are at play, and public scrutiny is high. Thus, we encourage future research to elaborate on different identity tensions as catalysts for CEO activism and how courage can act as a sense-making mechanism in the CEO activism decision-making process.

Third, empirical research on the temporal aspects of CEO activism could deepen our understanding of short-term and long-term outcomes and how the passage of time affects courage and CEO activism from the perspective of the individual actor and stakeholders. For example, at what point does CEO activism become normalized and cease to be viewed as activism? Future research could also examine the temporal dynamics of courage intensity in activism. How does engagement in activism influence CEOs identity and courage, and thereby also their willingness and likelihood of engagement in further activism? Evaluating courage from the perspectives of the individual actor, organizational followers, and stakeholders could deepen our understanding of the influence of time.

Finally, scholars could examine whether workplace courage can exist at the team level, rather than solely as an individual phenomenon. In CEO activism research, organizational activism is already an emerging concept (Olkkonen & Morsing, 2024). As some companies state courage as their core organizational value with strategic relevance, it would be worthwhile to examine courage at the organizational level (e.g., as a value or cultural feature) and weather individual courage especially at the CEO level can—through role-modelling and trickle-down effect—contribute to the development of courageous organizations.

In conclusion, a closer integration of the constructs of workplace courage and CEO activism can enrich and add theoretical nuance to both concepts and academic research. The matrix and model by Fezzey et al. provide a strong foundation for such considerations. An improved understanding of the interaction between these two concepts could also contribute to practical interventions that address societal challenges. As Bai and colleagues (2020) note, “Society benefits when good people are admired, emulated, and placed in charge,” […] “yet too often, unworthy and dishonorable individuals hold top leadership positions in our institutions and societies.” In the current social and political climate, both workplace courage and CEO activism are crucial for promoting actions toward worthy collective purposes.