Symbols, Substance, and Leadership
What Happens When Organizations Confuse Visibility with Influence
Recently, several San Francisco Giants players made headlines after writing Bible verses on their Pride Night hats. Major League Baseball responded by warning the players that altering uniforms violated league rules.
Predictably, the story quickly became another political flashpoint.
Some viewed the players as standing up for their religious convictions. Others viewed their actions as disrespectful to the LGBTQ community. Before long, the conversation became another battle in our seemingly endless culture war.
I’ll be honest.
My initial reaction to the story wasn’t particularly charitable.
As someone who has often questioned whether highly visible gestures achieve the outcomes organizations hope for, my first thought was that this was another example of symbolism taking precedence over substance.
But the more I thought about it, the more I found myself asking different questions.
Why did this story generate such strong reactions?
Why were reasonable people viewing the same situation so differently?
And what can leaders learn from it?
I’ve spent much of my career leading teams and organizations. Along the way, I’ve come to believe there is an important distinction between telling people how to act and telling them how to think.
Organizations have every right to regulate behavior.
In fact, they have a responsibility to do so.
They should establish expectations around professionalism, safety, ethics, performance, and respect.
If we ever worked in a place where people were excluded or denied opportunities because of who they were rather than their ability to contribute, shame on us.
But behavior and belief are not the same thing.
A leader can require respectful behavior.
A leader cannot require genuine conviction.
Organizations can require compliance.
Genuine belief is another matter entirely.
One of the earliest lessons I learned during my years at Disney involved something as simple as pointing.
Cast Members were taught to point with two fingers rather than one because a single-finger point is considered offensive in some cultures.
The lesson wasn’t really about pointing. It was about recognizing that intent and interpretation are not always the same thing.
Disney understood that people from different backgrounds could experience the same gesture differently. Rather than dismissing those differences, the company adjusted its standards accordingly.
Looking back, I’ve come to appreciate the lesson behind it.
Disney required the behavior, but the lesson wasn’t really about the behavior itself.
It was a recognition that people can experience the same action differently.
That reality didn’t require agreement. It required awareness.
It was a simple but important reminder that people do not all experience the world in the same way.
I’ve thought about that lesson often while watching many of today’s cultural debates unfold.
The rainbow controversy in Major League Baseball is a perfect example.
For some people, the rainbow represents inclusion, acceptance, and belonging.
For others, the rainbow carries religious significance rooted in the biblical account of Noah and God’s covenant with humanity after the flood.
Both perspectives are rooted in beliefs that people hold deeply.
The same symbol can carry very different meanings depending on who is looking at it.
If people come from different backgrounds, experiences, cultures, and belief systems, why would we expect them to interpret every issue the same way?
The goal isn’t necessarily to eliminate those differences.
The goal is to recognize that they exist and create an environment where people can work together effectively despite them.
Great leaders understand that people don’t have to agree on everything in order to treat one another with dignity and respect.
