Don’t Ban “Politics” at Work

“Speak up!” “Bring your whole self to work!” This invitation (or is it a command?) has been ringing down the hallways and Zoom calls of many organizations in the past few years. Leaders should hardly be surprised when employees take that invitation at face value and speak up on political issues they deeply care about: Climate change, human rights issues in the supply chain, sexism, and racism. But leaders are worried because political conversations in the workplace come fraught with risk. In our research on employee activism, we’ve found that leaders are concerned that these discussions may become ungovernable or toxic, create workplace discord, distract people from getting on with the job and so undermine productivity, or result in people fighting for union recognition and so usurp managerial authority, any of which might in turn blossom into a PR fiasco. The result is that some organizations have banned such conversations altogether. It appears that there’s enthusiasm for such a strategy: According to a Harris poll, for example, 70% of Americans say they would support companywide policies that limit the discussion of politics in the workplace, and according to Glassdoor, 60% of U.S. employees believe that discussing politics at work at all is unacceptable. Meanwhile, YouGov in Germany reported 44% of workers thought it to be inappropriate to talk about politics at work. But banning political speech has consequences. Recently Basecamp CEO Jason Fried announced a number of policy changes, including that there would be “no more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account.” Within a matter of days around one third of its employees had resigned and Fried ultimately apologized. Basecamp was hot on the heels of another controversial ban on political speech, by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, which also resulted in the loss of a number of employees. Instead of instituting a ban or seeking to diminish voices seeking political change, leaders would be better served by building a culture that handles political differences in the workplace more productively. Let’s look at why that is — and how to do it well. The Disadvantages Banning political speech is fundamentally implausible because it is impossible to draw a clean, objective line between what counts as “politics” and what doesn’t — or which issues are “acceptable” to discuss because they relate to the company’s mission and which aren’t. The problem is that the kinds of issues that are debated in the political sphere often do have bearing on the company’s goals and operation. Take, for example, a retail CEO we recently spoke to. He found himself embroiled in a heated debate with employees who wanted him to speak up publicly about a sexist remark made by an industry commentator, while he was reticent and felt out of his depth. He could have simply banned the discussion, dismissing sexism as a “political” issue. But sexism was related to the company’s mission, which relied on the patronage of women (their primary customers) and on having a reputation that allowed it to attract and retain key talent. The CEO chose to speak out as his employees had urged him to do. What could have been a potentially explosive situation with walkouts and a furor in the local (and even national press) was resolved without drama. With political debates it is the capacity to defuse situations which is often the marker of success. Banning politics can also backfire in two ways: First, employees may not take kindly to it. The theory of Transactional Analysis from psychology helps to explain why: When a “critical parent” lays down the law, they frequently get a “rebellious child” response in which the reprimanded party lashes out. A company leader banning speech about difference is likely to drive difference underground only for it to explode — as with the widely publicized mass exodus at Basecamp. Secondly, if your rule is accepted, you may end up with a lot of “compliant child” behaviors: a minefield of employees expecting you to make more and more detailed guidelines around what is and isn’t allowed and arbitrating every time something unexpected comes up. We’re not suggesting there aren’t situations where a leader needs to use their positional power to set boundaries. Clearly, there may be a need for leaders to step in if employees are being harassed or debates have turned aggressive. But this should not be a default reaction. Instead, we believe that there is considerable space between the two extremes of a full ban and letting political speech run riot. The Right Way to Handle Political Difference If your instinctive answer is to ban political discussion, then we’d suggest asking a different question: How can we support employees and encourage them to handle difference, respect one another, listen, and learn? In fact, this is a question worth asking regularly anyway because innovation, safety, motivation, agility, and performance all rely on the answer. In Transactional Analysis terms, this alternative approach is called “adult-to-adult inquiry,” in which people consider an issue — and their differences — in an attentive and curious way. Leaders who want to build their organizations’ muscle for this approach to political dialogue should focus on four elements: Build empathy and respect for others’ views. Leaders who wish to build political empathy in their organizations need to establish spaces where employees can learn informally about one another and find ways to negotiate their boundaries and differences — learning how to be different from each other while still having enough mutual respect to get on with the job in hand. We’ve seen bosses bringing home-baked (or not) cake in to encourage impromptu chat or Zoom meeting agendas that include a few minutes for participants to explain one non-work thing they are finding challenging or are proud of. These conversations may seem small, but political empathy and respect grow through the day-to-day sharing of personal stories and vulnerabilities and when we can see past the habitual labels and judgements we apply to others. Invite different perspectives into the senior leadership fold. The next step is for leaders to actively invite difference into their own perspectives. In our research into speaking truth to power, we found that people valued their own opinion around a third more than that of others and that leaders often live in a self-assured bubble thinking that they know what matters to others even when they really don’t. This corresponds to the “strong leader” trope which is prominent in organizations, business schools, and society and which equates leadership with control, strength, and a single truth or vision. It takes skill and self-awareness for leaders to welcome different opinions. A leader we’ve worked with introduced a formal devil’s advocate role into their teams, where at every meeting someone is tasked with being the voice of opposition. In an organization where leaders are seen as considerably more powerful than line staff, we’ve been invited in by the HR director to collate the unofficial story about employees’ experiences of speaking up and being heard to share with the senior executive team. Accept mistakes gracefully. Political dialogue can’t happen if everyone has to always be perfectly articulate, polished, and on-message. Our research shows that the top two reasons we stay silent are that we fear being perceived negatively and we fear upsetting or embarrassing the other person. But it is often the case that the more impassioned people are about something, the less articulate they become. As role models for the rest of the organization, leaders in particular should ask themselves: How are employees received when they speak up but are inarticulate or unskilled in doing so? Is the reaction likely to lead them to learn and try again or will they silence themselves? By coaching leaders on mindfulness techniques, we’ve helped them to be more aware of their reactions and choose more productive responses. Teach people how to disagree. Developing the ability to disagree well has benefits beyond the company’s ability to handle political difference — it’s integral to the organization’s ability to innovate. To make their people more comfortable with conflict, leaders must model disagreeing, and disagreeing well. At one company we work with, leaders are open with employees about conflicts that exist at the board level and explain that these disagreements (and their successful resolution) are essential for performing well. To disagree well, organizations must understand that disagreement turns destructive only when it is seen by one or both parties as an existential battle where “I’m right” and “You’re wrong.” One organization we work with has drawn on the field of mediation for its executive training around conflict. There the focus is on ensuring that the other party feels that you have fully understood their case before you put yours forward yours — especially if you’re in a higher-status position. If you have an impulse to ban political speech at your organization, it may signal that the organization cannot handle difference and challenge — a bad sign for the company’s ability to be agile and innovative. Before you ban certain conversations, check whether you are attempting to cover up a deficiency in one or all of the four areas above. If you are, the ban is just a Band-Aid; what lies beneath still needs your attention.

Don’t Ban “Politics” at Work

Summary.

Partner Center