1、 2021 Boston Consulting Group1Growing Apart: Understanding andAddressing the Business Ramifications ofSocial PolarizationAPRIL 12, 2021 By Martin Reeves, Mathieu Lefvre, and Leesa QuinlanDebates around social and political issues are increasingly unavoidable, especially associal media platforms allo

2、w people to make their views public. This has increasedboth the pressure on business leaders to weigh in and the opportunity for them todo so.However, the emotional intensity around politicized issues means speaking out,even in a measured manner, can provoke antagonistic responses. After a tragic 20

3、21 Boston Consulting Group2school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, one major airline eliminated adiscount for NRA members. Though the change affected only 13 people, it set off asignificant backlash; state lawmakers threatened to eliminate $50 million in fuel taxexemptions. Not only did the b

4、acklash have negative effects for the company, italso threatened to undermine its well-intended societal impact agenda byinadvertently fueling additional antagonism.Remaining silent increasingly comes with risks as well, especially as consumersbelieve businesses should have a voice in political and

5、social issues. For example, aride hailing company faced a boycott for allegedly remaining neutral and failing tosupport efforts against the travel ban on majority-Muslim countries in 2017.Employees can also exert intense pressure on CEOs to take a stance: after theJanuary 2021 riots on the US Capito

6、l, employees of a major tech player successfullydemanded that hosting services for a social media app allegedly used to organizerioters be withdrawn.In these heated times, CEOs have thus been left to wrestle with a vexing dilemma“Should I take a stand on this issue, or should I just stay out of it?”

7、withseemingly no good answer. How did this arise, and what can CEOs do about it?The predicament CEOs currently face is largely due to the phenomenon of socialpolarization, which is already impacting businesses and the societies in which theyoperate. Developing a nuanced intervention strategy will re

8、quire a fullerunderstanding of the ways in which polarization arises and escalates, as well as itsimpacts and implications.THE GROWING SOCIAL DIVIDESocial polarization can be defined in many ways, but a useful definition forunderstanding the phenomenon and its effects is “a lack of overlap of indivi

9、dualsbeliefs or traits across different groups. ” This can in many cases also lead to a lack ofintergroup communication, shared perceptions, and positive sentiment.1 2021 Boston Consulting Group3Polarization is at the extreme end of a spectrum of social differentiation. (SeeExhibit 1.) Increased dif

10、ferentiation is not uniformly negativeclearly definedidentities can create strong bonds within a group (sometimes called “bonding”).However, when it progresses to extreme levels, heterogeneity of beliefs withingroups and interactions between groups (“bridging”) are reduced or eliminated,with damagin

11、g effects. In crosscutting societies, groups contain heterogenous belief systems,and group traits are broadly defined. Individuals are likely to be exposed todiverse perspectives within their groups, which increases the ability to innovateand accept new ideas. Additionally, because traits are shared

12、 across groups,individuals may have many beliefs or traits in common with members of othergroups, increasing their ability to communicate, cooperate, and relate. Thoughdifferences of opinion can cause friction within groups, the traits thatindividuals share across groups can create common ground and

13、 enhanceintergroup cooperation. 2021 Boston Consulting Group4Evidence suggests that societies are shifting toward a more polarized state,particularly in the United States, and this shift manifests in multiple ways.One manifestation of polarization is an increase in the distance between groupposition

14、s. Dissention between major groups within the United States has beenincreasing over the past several years. For example, between 1994 and 2014,Democrats and Republicans median views on issues like the environment, In fragmented societies, groups have a narrower set of definingcharacteristics, and be

15、liefs can be sorted into corresponding groups;however, individuals can hold diverse, group-spanning beliefs. Thesesocieties also contain diverse individual identities and perspectiveshowever,as group identity becomes defined by specific beliefs or traits, competition canarise between groups with dif

16、ferent goals, leading to conflict over contentiousor consequential issues. Despite this conflict, broad individual belief networksenable coordination between groups based on shared traits or interests, whichfacilitates collective action while preventing the collapse of society intopermanent, antagon

17、istic camps. In polarized societies, group beliefs are narrowly defined and rarelyoverlap. Clear group definitions can provide individuals with a sense ofbelonging, and basing identity on clearly defined in-group characteristics suchas political views can increase engagement in civic life. However,

18、bridging orcross-group interactions are severely limited in polarized societies, and groupidentity becomes defined by a few narrow traits. Individual activities may belimited by group membership, which can restrain social interactions andeconomic opportunities. Polarized societies may be characteriz

19、ed byacrimonious “us versus them” public debates, which can be exacerbated by apolarized media and ubiquitous “one-sideism” that leaves little room forcommon ground. Misinformation spreads easily because members of differentgroups do not directly interact, leading to increases in misperceptions andi

20、ntergroup antagonism. 2021 Boston Consulting Group5corporate regulation, and immigration drifted apart significantly, especially amongthe most politically active.This may be due partly toan increase in intergroupmisperceptions. A 2019study found that, onaverage, Democrats andRepublicans believe that

21、55% of the opposing partyhold “extreme” views, butonly about 30% actuallydo, a misperception thathas been increasing sincethe 1970s. Additionally, aMore in Common study found that, in 2018, 87% of Americans believed the countrywas more divided than at any point in their lifetimes.Finally, intergroup

22、 antagonism has intensified recentlynotably, between 2014 and2016, the share of Democrats and Republicans who view the other party asdangerous to the nations well-being rose by more than 10%.This is not just a political phenomenon. The job market in most advancedeconomies has also become increasingl

23、y polarized: both high-skill and low-skill jobshave increased, while there has been a hollowing-out of mid-level employment.Between 1980 and 2010, the share of US middle-class jobs dropped by almost 10percentage points (pp), while high-skill and low-skill jobs both grew by nearly 5 pp.In the Eurozon

24、e over the past two decades, mid-level skilled industrial employmentdropped by 22%, while unskilled service jobs grew by about 18%.THE PROGRESSION TOWARD POLARIZATIONWhats behind the increase in polarization? Systems analysis suggests two ways inwhich societies move from crosscutting states to more

25、dangerous polarized states2A 2019 study found that, onaverage, Democrats andRepublicans believe that 55%of the opposing party hold“extreme” views, but onlyabout 30% actually do.34567 2021 Boston Consulting Group6each of which has recently been accelerated by contextual factors.To ensure their surviv

26、al, early humans often needed to quickly identify others whocould offer support by sharing resources or providing security. Kin group or tribemembers were most likely to be able to provide these survival necessities and couldoften be identified through shared traits. This led to a reliance on simila

27、rity as aheuristic: people preferred interactions with others who were similar to themselves(referred to as “homophily”) and tended to develop additional common interestswith people they liked, whereas they tended to avoid and shift their traits to appeareven more distinct from dissimilar others. Th

28、is resulted in a pattern of attractionand repulsion based partly on similarity and dissimilarity.Growing societies tend to naturally absorb newcomers and new perspectives andbecome diverse. If a diverse society is crosscutting, individuals will tend to interactmore freely with members of other group

29、s. However, because attraction andrepulsion cause people to move closer to others who are similar to them, acrosscutting society can easily become fragmented if groups become toohomogenous. Despite this change, important group-spanning beliefs andconnections can be maintained, and new ones can be cr

30、eated.Recent advances in communication technology have amplified these effects andaccelerated the transition from fragmented societies to polarized ones. Technologyenables access to new perspectives without geographical proximity, such as sharedneighborhoods. This lack of basic commonality may hinde

31、r social interactions orempathy and may amplify intergroup bias, especially once people begin to engageonly with opinions that reinforce their current beliefsoften without recognizingthat the information they consume may be biased or inaccurate.8910 2021 Boston Consulting Group7Additionally, technol

32、ogy creates a new attention economy that effectivelyprioritizes sensationalism over objectivity. A small number of extreme voices candominate public discourse and group image by taking advantage of this attentioneconomy, prompting opponents to further differentiate themselves in response.These extre

33、me voices additionally drive the propagation of divisive and inaccuratenarratives that further repel other groups. For example, Democrats who use socialmediaand are therefore more visible in the public conversationareoutnumbered two-to-one by the more moderate, more diverse Democrats whoengage less

34、on social media.Though the consequences are significant, these factors alone will not trigger theprogression toward a fully polarized state if traits and beliefs are still crosscutting, inwhich case opportunities for bridging and social contact still exist. Polarizationrequires the additional narrow

35、ing of group norms and the correlation of previouslyindependent beliefs, which contributes to the collapse of group belief networkdimensionality by reducing the set of acceptable beliefs within each group. (SeeExhibit 2.)Technology creates a new attention economy thatprioritizes sensationalism over

36、objectivity.111213 2021 Boston Consulting Group8When beliefs are independent and uncorrelated, groups can include many differenttraits, which enables the emergence of broad, overlapping belief networks.Individuals can share beliefs or traits across groupswhile maintaining one ormore group identities

37、and the potential for cross-group interaction increases. Inthis state, a society can remain fragmented.However, when beliefs become highly correlated or “stacked”such as duringtimes of conflict or resource scarcitythey begin to align more closely with groupidentities. Group belief networks become mo

38、re homogenous and cluster tightlyaround narrow sets of highly correlated beliefs, which hinders overlap acrossgroups. As this occurs, society is more likely to progress toward a polarized state.Today, we also see the progression toward a more polarized society being fueled byincreased economic and s

39、ocial insecurity, including income inequality. Inequality,hardship, and insecurity can compel individuals to join social groups that canprovide resources or security, so individuals increasingly prioritize traits that willfacilitate acceptance into those groups. Additionally, as societies become mor

40、e14 2021 Boston Consulting Group9complex, individuals increasingly rely on external authorities to provideinformation and to interpret complicated issues; these trusted authority figures canoften be easily identified through social groups. Each of these factors further alignsbeliefs and behavior wit

41、h narrow group norms and decreases group overlap.As identities align under group labels, people react more emotionally to views thatthreaten their group, and they increasingly mistrust those not in their group,hindering impartial discourse. Partisan “super-identities,” for example, are commonin two-

42、party political systems and occur when support for political parties (orindividual candidates or leaders) subsumes other aspects of social identity. Ingroups defined by these identities, beliefs that do not align with ones politicalaffiliation are considered unacceptable, and political opponents bec

43、ome enemies,leaving little room for moderate, shared, or apolitical positions.As group overlap declines further, individuals may have easy access only to theinformation and opportunities that other group members can provide, which candisadvantage members with lower economic standing and lead to clus

44、tering ofeconomic outcomes. Furthermore, as negative misperceptions spread, the frictionbetween groups can cause some individuals to be actively excluded from certainopportunitiessuch as employmenton the basis of their group identity.With few shared spaces or activities (both online and offline), gr

45、oup interactionsfurther devolve. Negative misinformation spreads easily, increasing perceivedintergroup differences and antagonism, while also driving growth of real differencesand antagonism. As differences between groupsboth real and perceivedincrease, the forces of attraction and repulsion become

46、 even stronger, which in turnprompts further group sorting and clustering. As this progression continues, societybecomes increasingly polarized.This progression can have severe consequences for how a society operates. Incrosscutting or fragmented societies, groups can respectfully engage and disagre

47、eon a broad range of issues despite their group labels. Once polarized, however, therise in antagonism and mistrust can lead to a persistent breakdown of civic norms, 2021 Boston Consulting Group10and groups may become unable to respectfully engage and disagreeeven longafter the conditions that caus

48、ed the polarization have been resolved. Debate anddisagreement may descend into unproductive group conflict, prompting largemajorities in polarized societies to disengage: 86% of Americans say they feelexhausted by division in politics, while 60% say so in the UK.THE PROBLEM FOR BUSINESSESPolarizati

49、on has the potential to alter individual behaviors outside of politics aswell, and major changes to the everyday choices of companies customers,employees, or other key stakeholders can have significant consequences.To a certain degree, polarization can increase in-group affinity and engagement forbu

50、sinesses that are able to harness its effects. Companies and brands that engage inpartisan behavior can benefit from a first-mover advantage and differentiatethemselves from their competitors to capture additional market share. Forexample, Patagonia stands out from peers by proactively taking steps

51、to beenvironmentally conscious and leading the industry in a more sustainable direction.When social differentiation fully descends into polarization, however, the potentialnegative impact on companies can be severe. The consequences for businessesoften align with the manifestations of a polarized so

52、ciety: increases in the distancebetween group positions, increases in intergroup misperceptions, and intensificationof intergroup antagonism.1516Once polarized, groups may become unable to engageand disagree respectfully, even long after theconditions that caused the polarization have beenresolved.

53、2021 Boston Consulting Group11Because polarization is driven by psychological and structural forces, we cannotsimply reverse its progress. However, that does not mean that its consequencescannot be managed proactively. As polarization, accelerated by social media,moves from the ballot box to the fam

54、ily dinner table to the boardroom, doingnothing may no longer be an option. And taking a stance on one side of a debate,however well-intentioned, may be too crude. Instead, CEOs need more effectiveand nuanced ways to respond. Increases in the distance between group positions can harm businessesthrou

55、gh decreased loyalty from consumers with different opinions, restrictedmarket size, restricted access to top talent with different political affiliations, orinefficiencies and frictions from employee protests or walkouts. For example,in 2018, employees of a major tech player pressured the company to

56、 drop itsbid for a project with the Department of Defense by threatening not to workon it because the views of the DoD were seen as antithetical to manyemployees personal beliefs. Increases in intergroup misperceptions can harm businesses through timespent crafting public statements to counter misin

57、formation, decreased accessto capital during or after major scandals, friction costs from internal conflict,market unpredictability, or cost of additional security measures to protectemployees from physical harm. For instance, after the 2020 US election, amanufacturer of voting systems faced serious

58、 threats against its employees,some of whom had to be moved to secure locations. Intensification of intergroup antagonism can harm businesses throughrestricted access to certain customer segments based on groupaffiliation; limited availability of external partnerships; increased employeeattrition; i

59、ncreased cost of additional recruiting activities; inefficiencies frominternal conflict, leadership changes, market unpredictability, or risk;opportunity restrictions; or reduced sales from boycotts. For example, a majorfood chain was targeted by protests and boycotts for nearly a decade becauseof i

60、ts donations to organizations that had allegedly taken anti-LGBTQ stances.17 2021 Boston Consulting Group12TAKING ACTIONNOT JUST TAKING A STANDCurrently, many CEOs respond to social issues by asking themselves, “Should I takea stand, or should I stay silent?” At a recent leadership conference, CEOs

61、themselvesironically appeared to be polarized on the issuesome said that it is not their joband that their boards would not tolerate taking a stance, while others said that theiremployees and their own moral convictions left them no choice. Although eitheroption may be useful in certain circumstance

62、s, each can backfire as well. Ratherthan choosing between these binary options, CEOs can instead take a deeper, moresystemic view of the problem and identify ways to address polarization structurallyand reduce its negative consequences for businesses and societies: Reduce the distance between group

63、positions. As groups become morenarrowly defined and cross-group interactions decrease, groups are more likelyto adopt opposing views than to compromisebecause of the lack ofoverlapping perspectives. CEOs can introduce individuals to novel and diverseperspectives that will help broaden their thinkin

64、g. For example, this can bedone by developing regular forums for cross-group engagement, such as aspeaker series for employees or moderated discussions on social media.Additionally, CEOs can develop diverse employee teams and activelyencourage cross-group collaboration. The workplace has an importan

65、t role toplay in fostering cross-group collaboration across society. Reduce intergroup misperceptions. The lack of cross-group interactions andthe development of extreme views promote the spread of misinformationabout other groups members. CEOs should not fall into the trap of “both-sides-ism”, but

66、they can provide balanced, evidenced information andcontribute to building trust in facts. For example, CEOs can deny verbal andfinancial support to groups or individuals that spread misinformation orconspiracy theories, or they can promote the use of fact-based research anddata-based analytics to i

67、nform business decisions and public communications. Reduce intergroup antagonism. Decreasing interactions and widespreadmisinformation can contribute to the development of negative sentiment 2021 Boston Consulting Group13Polarization is not going to go away anytime soon. By helping to structurally r

68、educeand mitigate the negative consequences of polarization, CEOs reduce the level ofharm that polarization can inflict within their broader societies and within theircompanies. (See Exhibit 3.) As members of different groups engage more sincerely,they may discover that they have more in common, enc

69、ouraging attraction andreducing repulsion. Increasing cross-group interactions will decrease the spread ofdivisive narratives and, consequently, intergroup antagonism. A decrease inantagonism will enable individuals to embrace diverse, overlapping group identitieswithout fear of social backlash, pre

70、venting further clustering and radicalization ofgroup identities.toward members of other groups. CEOs can help to create a shared sense ofcommunity and purpose that spans the boundaries of traditional groupidentities. For example, CEOs can use inclusive branding techniques thatpromote an apolitical

71、shared identity, or they can identify and eliminate thecompanys use of language, euphemisms, or social processes that inadvertentlytarget certain groups and drive further division. In one such instance, Unileverrecently announced it would stop using the word “normal” in its productpackaging to preve

72、nt some consumers from feeling excluded. Additionally,CEOs can highlight inclusiveness as a key company value, to emphasize theimportance of cooperating with dissimilar others, and develop internal andexternal forums to address intergroup antagonisms. Once a brand develops areputation for openness,

73、honesty, and inclusivity, customers will be more likelyto trust it, and a trustworthy brand will be better equipped to withstand thepotential dangers of increasing polarization.18 2021 Boston Consulting Group14Polarization is a complex issue that can create severe ramifications for businesses.Howeve

74、r, with a better understanding of the mechanisms behind polarization,CEOs will be better able to both recognize the changes occurring in their societiesand understand their options going forwardoptions that go beyond the simplechoice of taking a stand or not.The BCG Henderson Institute is Boston Con

75、sulting Groups strategy think tank,dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business,technology, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. TheInstitute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expandthe boundaries of business theory an

76、d practice and to translate innovative ideasfrom within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration from the Institute,please visit our Latest Thinking page and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter. 2021 Boston Consulting Group15AuthorsMartin ReevesManaging Director & Senior Partner, Chairman o

77、f the BCG Henderson InstituteSan Francisco - Bay AreaMathieu LefvreCEO and co-founder of More in Common.Leesa QuinlanConsultant; Ambassador, BCG Henderson InstituteAtlanta1Komiya. “A majority of consumers expect brands to take a stand on issues beforepurchasing, survey finds,” Barrons, July 7, 2020.

78、2Pew Research Center. “Political polarization in the American public,” 2014.3Yudkin et al. “The perception gap: how false impressions are pulling Americansapart,” More in Common, June 2019.4More in Common. “Hidden Tribes Midterm Update,” November 2018.5Pew Research Center. “Partisanship and politica

79、l animosity in 2016,” June 2016.6Autor. “The polarization of job opportunities in the US labor market,” Center forAmerican Progress, April 2010.7Artus. “Les conomistes apportent peu de solutions pour rduire la “bipolarisation”du march du travail,” Le Monde, January 2017.8Read and Grushka-Cockayne. “

80、The Similarity Heuristic,” Journal of BehavioralDecision Making, 2007.9Richerson and Boyd. “The evolution of subjective commitment to groups: a tribalinstincts hypothesis,” University of California, 2000(http:/www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/comgrps.pdf)10 Flache. “Between monoculture and cult

81、ural polarization: agent-based models of theinterplay of social influence and cultural diversity,” Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory, 2018.11 Furthermore, 80% of content on Twitter in the US comes from 10% of users. Wojcikand Hughes. “Sizing up Twitter users,” Pew Research Center, April 201

82、9.12 More in Common. “Hidden Tribes Midterm Update,” November 2018 and Cohn andQuealy. “The Democratic electorate on Twitter is not the actual Democratic 2021 Boston Consulting Group16ABOUT BOSTON CONSULTING GROUPBoston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle theirmo

83、st important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was thepioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely withclients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholdersempowering organizations to grow, build sustainable com

84、petitive advantage, and drivepositive societal impact. Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range ofperspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutionsthrough leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corpora

85、te anddigital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm andthroughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clientsthrive and enabling them to make the world a better place. Boston Consulting Group 2021. All rights reserved. For informatio

86、n or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at .To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others,please visit . Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and Twitter.electorate,” The New York Times, April 2019.13 DellaPosta. “Pluralistic Collapse: The Oil S

87、pill Model of Mass Opinion Polarization,”American Sociological Review, June 2020.14 Stewart et al. “Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline,” ScienceAdvances, December 2020.15 More in Common. “Hidden Tribes: Midterms Report,” November 2018.16 More in Common. “Britains choice: commo

88、n ground and division in 2020s Britain,”2020.17 Heil. “Chick-fil-A drops donations that angered LGBTQ groups, and conservativeleaders cry betrayal,” The Washington Post, November 2019.18 Denham. “Unilever set to strip normal from all beauty products and advertising,”The Washington Post, March 2021. 2021 Boston Consulting Group17