Posts tagged as:

Marriott Hotels

The Case Against a Marriott Boycott: Marriott is not a Mormon organization

by cv harquail on November 25, 2008

Dont Boycott Marriott churchsign proposition 8 GLBT rights Many GLBT-rights and marriage equality rights activists are up in arms in protest against individuals, business and institutions that supported California’s Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage. Letters to prominent individual contributors, protests in front of churches, and calls for boycotts figure prominently in these activists’ efforts both to punish the individual, businesses and institutions and to demonstrate the size and passion of the marriage equality movement.

Mormon churches, Mormon individuals and Mormon businesses have all become targets of activists, because of the Mormon Church’s comprehensive efforts, directly and indirectly, to mobilize its members to fight against marriage equality .

Marriott Hotels and Resorts, because of its prominence and its purported link to the Mormon Church, has been a focal target of these boycott efforts. While it might be comforting to some to have a big target, I think that boycotting Marriott is the wrong thing to do, because it punishes the organization for being something that the organization is not.

Calling for a boycott against Marriott is wrong, for two reasons:

1. Marriott is not an "authentically Mormon" organization.

2. Marriott is LGBT-friendly, not "anti-gay".

For this post, let’s just address the first issue– of Marriott’s authentic identity. (I’ll address the second issue, that Marriott is LGBT-friendly, not "anti-gay", in a follow-up post.)

Tier 1: Convincing demonstrations of a Mormon Organizational Identity

In a previous post, I identified two levels of criteria by which we might answer the question: Is this a Mormon organization? In the first tier of criteria are those organizational features that convincingly demonstrate the Mormon identity– and on all six of these criteria, Marriott fails to qualify as a "Mormon" organization.

Criteria for being a
"Mormon" Organization

Is this true of Marriott?
Tier One:
Convincing demonstration of identity
1. The organization is wholly or majority-owned by the Mormon Church. no
2. Tenets, principles and priories of the organization are based on those of the LDS Church. no
3. Part of the organization’s mission is furthering the causes and principles of the LDS. no
4. Being a practicing Mormon is a criterion for employment or advancement in the organization. no
5. Practices and activities that are explicitly Mormon are official parts of the organization’s operation. no
6. The organization looks to the Mormon Church and to Mormon Church leaders for guidance on issues related to its business. no

gay wedding prop 8, marriott, marriage equality, boycott, What’s critical with any of the criteria in Tier 1 is that an organization could only have these features if they were "designed in". With the exception of #6 (Looking to the LDS Church for guidance), these features would be created and supported by official organizational systems — like HR systems, operational procedures, mission statements and communication practices — that are structured into the organization. And, because they are structured in, they are less likely to shift with the personalities of the leaders, the pressures of the business cycle, or management fads. They are more likely to be enduring practices, and thus closer to the core of the organization’s sense of itself.

Tier 2: Suggestive but not sufficient indicators of a Mormon Organizational Identity

It’s in the second tier of criteria where things get a little blurrier. These criteria are used by outsiders to infer a Mormon identity– but none of these features insures that the organization operate in a way that is officially Mormon. Said another way, none of these features ‘makes’ the organization behave in one way or another– all of them require some other kind of agency (like a CEO dictating certain practices) to move from some person’s identity as a Mormon to the organization being assigned the identity of Mormon.

As for the ways in which Marriott is related to Mormons or the LDS Church — through its current CEO, through some and certainly not that many employees and some shareholders– there is a legal (and operational) separation between the "organization" and these individuals. The behavior or an employee (whether CEO or housekeeper) can’t make the organization Mormon, and even the influence of shareholders (if some of these shareholders advocate for more Mormon practices) is diluted and indirect enough to be negligible. And, the identity of any given employee(s) does not dictate the identity of the organization.

Tier 2:
Suggestive but not sufficient indicators
1. Practices and activities that are consonant with Mormon principles but are not explicitly Mormon are part of the organization’s informal culture. no
2. The organization contributes to the Mormon Church and/or to the Church’s initiatives through its philanthropic activity (e.g., sponsorships, CSR, pro bono work, etc.). no
3. The organization is endorsed by prominent members of the Church. no

4. The majority of the organization’s employees are practicing Mormons.

 no
5. The organization’s CEO is a practicing Mormon. yes
6. Some employees of the organization donate money and time to the LDS Church. yes
7. Some percentage of the organization’s shareholders are Mormon. yes

lesbian_wedding, authentic organizations, leadership, mormons, prop 8, homophobia, organizational values If an activist argues that boycotting Marriott is the right thing to do -because Marriott is a Mormon organization– the activist is wrong. Marriott is not a Mormon organization.

The only potentially persuasive links between Marriott and the Mormon church are through the church membership of the CEO and the idea that some shareholders’ personal wealth comes from Marriott corporation profits.

With regard to the CEO, Bill Marriott has publicly, clearly and officially articulated that his religious views and the values of the Marriott corporation are separate and distinct. Moreover, Bill Marriott explains:

Neither I, nor the company, contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8.

As for the ways that some shareholders choose to use their wealth, it would seem inappropriate to punish an entire organization for the church membership of those who hold 30% of the shares. This strategy punishes not only the 70% of shareholders who aren’t LDS members, but also assumes that the shareholders who are LDS members are against marriage equality– an assumption which is incorrect. A better strategy is to identify the individuals who contributed as individuals, and boycott or ‘out’ them.

What should marriage equality activists do instead of boycotting Marriott?

Given the arguments against punishing Marriott for being Mormon when it isn’t, there are more effective and more logical actions available to marriage rights activists. They should:

BlueCakes —  Boycott the organizations that have– as organizations- contributed to the Yes on 8 Campaign. These organizations include Container Supply Company , which as an organization donated $270,070.000 to the campaign against same-sex marriage rights. The Container Supply Company seems like a pretty "authentic" target– not only did the organization donate but also its owner, Robert Hurtt, contributed 300,000 of his personal money to the campaign against marriage rights.

— Publicly call for prominent Mormons who hold leadership positions in the LDS Church and who had shown some support for gay rights– folks like Bill Marriot — to advocate within the LDS Church for civil (if not religious) rights for GLBT individuals and families.

Stay tuned for the next post, The Case Against a Marriott Boycott (part two): Marriott is LGBT-friendly, not "anti-gay". In the meantime, share your thoughts about Marriott, Mormons and marriage rights, by adding to the comments, below.

If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...

{ 0 comments }

What Do Sarah Palin, Bill Marriott and John Templeton, Jr. Have In Common?

by cv harquail on November 17, 2008

They are all damaging some organization’s reputation, by causing "collateral reputation damage ® ".

Sarah Palin, right-wing Republican Sarah Palin is causing collateral reputation damage to Palin Wine.

bill marriott CEO of Marriott Hotels, Mormom, proposition 8 Bill Marriott is causing collateral reputation damage to The Marriott Hotels & Resorts Corporation.

John Templeton Jr., MD Proposition 8 supporter John Templeton Jr., MD, is causing collateral reputation damage to the John Templeton Foundation .

Palin, Marriott and Templeton — perhaps unintentionally yet certainly unavoidably — are all causing damage to organizations with which they are associated. These associations range from the spurious to the serious, but in each case, the associations are leading the organizations’ public stakeholders to downgrade the organizations’ reputations.

What is Collateral Reputation Damage ® ?

Collateral reputation damage is damage done to an organization’s reputation when advocacy by individuals or groups who may or may not be associated with the organization is interpreted by stakeholders as being action by the organization itself. It is collateral damage, not intentional damage, because the folks taking action don’t intend to damage the organization’s reputation. Instead, the damage occurs through"guilt by association".

Three Cases, Three pathways to damage

In all three cases:

  1. The organization and the individual share the same distinctive name.
  2. The organizations & their products have lost public support.
  3. The organizations themselves are innocent.

Although the cases of Palin, Marriott and Templeton share these three features, each one has some distinctive elements worth examining in more detail. With this post, I’ll explain the concept of collateral reputation damage and illustrate it with the simplest case, that of Sarah Palin and Palin Wine. In subsequent posts, I’ll unpack what makes the Marriott and Templeton cases so interesting. …

palin_syrah_limari Tarred by the same-name brush

The easiest way for collateral damage to occur is when the organization (or product) and an individual share the same name. This is what’s happening in the case of Palin Wines– especially with their Syrah.

There is absolutely no relationship between the organization that produces Palin Wines and the politician Sarah Palin. The association between Palin Syrah and Palin (Sarah) is clearly coincidental; everyone knows that Sarah Palin lives in Alaska, an area not known for its vineyards. And Sarah Palin is more interested in the war on terror than the preservation of terroir.

Yet, the name "Palin" conjures up a certain set of values, which get transferred from one Palin to the other, through the cognitive processes of attribute transfer. People who do not support what Palin does or what she stands for establish a negative assessment of the Palin wine. When they think of Palin Wine, they think less of it, because they associate it with a person whose actions, etc. they disagree with.

Association leads to loss of public support…

Even though only a name is shared between Palin and Palin , liberal consumers have responded negatively to the wine. Maybe they are unconsciously acting on their distaste for what the Governor advocates, maybe they are jokingly demonstrating that they can’t swallow a ‘conservative’ perspective.

Whatever it is, some liberal customers are (either jokingly or unconsciously) rejecting the Palin Wine as a way to demonstrate that they reject what it stands for in their minds. They have chosen not to order this wine in restaurants or to purchase it at wine stores, and this has lead to a steep decline in sales of Palin Wines. (It’s not clear whether right-wing wine consumers have increased their consumption of Palin Syrah.)

… Even though the organization is innocent.

Down in Chile, Viñedos Organicos Emiliana, lead by winemaker Alvaro Espinoza (the winemaker who introduced biodynamic viticulture into South America) works hard to produce their organic wines. Over at North Berkeley Imports, they "look for independent growers who… ideally farm their land naturally (often organically or biodynamically)" and who share their vision.

Even though their organizations have no relationship at all to Sarah Palin or to right-wing politics, these organizations are being penalized. Their reputations have been damaged, through no fault of their own.

And the irony is —

Both the winemaker and wine importer are organizations that are committed to values that many liberals (the same folks dismissing the wine) would otherwise embrace.

{ 0 comments }