You’ve probably read the Wall Street Journal account and other news reports about the backlash to Target from their recent political contributions to Minnesota Forward.

My gut reaction was that there was probably a very simple reason why this happened, why the backlash was so severe, and it had to do with how Target did (or did not) communicate the importance of political engagement and the nexus between politician’s votes and Target’s bottom line. I was discussing the situation with a client a few weeks ago and her gut reaction was like mine: “Isn’t this about getting back to basics? Target needs to get back to basics.”

A Politico article stated that many of Target’s employees “expressed outrage at the company’s foray into politics.” That confirmed my suspicion. Isn’t that a part of the problem? If you are an industry leader, and your employees are “outraged” that you have made a “foray into politics” that tells me that the Target culture has not persuaded Target employees (and sending an email doesn’t mean you have persuaded someone) that legislative decisions are a part of the external environment that has to be managed like all other external risks, and that part of that involves electing people who support policies that help Target.

And, do they know why certain legislators and candidates receive contributions and others do not? Do they know the rationale behind contribution decisions?

Target CEO Greg Steinhafel stated that Target will institute a “review process for future political donations.” Amen! Let’s get back to basics!