Q: How will workplaces navigate these intensely divisive political times?
It might be wise to pay attention to “what do we want to create?” It might be better to focus on how we speak to each other rather than what we say. Focus on process rather than content. In such situations, lobbying your coworkers to subscribe to your political stance may not be considered a win. The workplace is not going to be open for an exhaustive discussion of your personal politics. Few workplaces exist for that reason.
People are confused about that, especially these days. The pandemic has blurred the lines between personal and professional even more than they were before. I think we’re in a time when people are a little bit fuzzier about where their politics lie and where they have the authority to bring their personal aspirations and hopes for what it means to be a citizen in a broader sense. But there’s a difference between being a citizen of a society and being a citizen of an organization.
Q: Can you elaborate on that?
Obviously, humans are both. We have diversity. But “bringing your whole self to work” doesn’t mean your whole world fits into your job. You are a fuller person than the functions your job requires. For example, let’s say you’re passionate about bowling. Still, can you understand that not everyone is like that? Would you insist on only working with people who bowl?
We want people’s humanity to show up, but that’s not quite the same as bringing personal passions and assertiveness to the table. Identity in the workplace can be confusing for many reasons. Perhaps it’s even more pressured in the current political climate because of identity politics and the sense that work is everywhere in our lives. I’ve talked to people at a variety of professional levels who are wondering where to draw the line between which versions of themselves to leave at home and which versions of themselves matter at work.
Q: What happens if someone talks politics at work?
Ultimately, I think how you talk is more important than what you talk about, and I don’t think hard and fast rules are of much use here.
If, for some reason, you end up talking about politics, it can be a positive or negative thing overall, depending on how the conversation plays out. For example, it’s one thing to talk to your colleagues with curiosity, to listen with interest to what they have to say, and to understand what they care about. But it’s another thing to criticize or condemn candidates, or even to show disgust or contempt.
These conversations are impactful. I believe that such toxic behavior doesn’t stay in conversation, and it’s especially dangerous in the workplace. We know from emotion science that contempt is a combination of anger and disgust. It’s easy to get into this realm where people, including presidential candidates, publicly express very strong feelings about other people’s values and preferences. I’m particularly concerned that workplace conversations should include contempt. I’m uncomfortable that contempt has become part of the everyday norm in workplace conversations.
These are real relationships with real colleagues that you need to talk to and work with again. You might need to go to the next room and discuss a project deadline or who’s going to do what to collaborate on some deliverable or deliverable, but the feelings about the disrespectful conversation will stick with you. We impact each other. People need to be aware of the context that they’re co-creating.
Q: How do you create a positive work environment?
It goes without saying that it’s better to enjoy and feel happy being part of an organization, and your relationships with other people at work contribute to that. In other words, it’s not just the transactional, collaborative element of work that’s important. If we enjoy the social environment and our team processes are effective, we contribute more and grow together.
On the other hand, we spend so much time collaborating on tasks and projects that it’s kind of ridiculous to think we can pursue a happy, learning life if we’re not happy or learning alongside our colleagues.
I often think about how much time people spend from childhood through early adulthood aspiring and studying for a career, and then how disappointing their relationships are in the workplace. All they end up doing is looking forward to the weekend.
So, my hope is that we can take more advantage of this very intentional design of spending time with these very people in this profession, in this context, that so many people in the knowledge economy have worked so hard for so many years.
Q: Does that intentional design include keeping politics out of the office?
Making rules about what people can and can’t discuss is complicated. Managers, especially middle managers, find themselves in a sticky situation. If you say “no politics in the workplace,” what does that mean exactly? If someone has a mug with a statement on it, does that mean it shouldn’t be there? If someone says they’re going to vote, is that a violation of the rules? It’s confusing.
These are dangerous times, and I appeal to wisdom, compassion, and empathy. I suggest that we prioritize learning and curiosity.
I think forcing clarity on things that aren’t clear can actually create confusion, which is why I’m not very interested in the energy of policing. I think what’s called for us as members of organizations is to support a functioning society in the workplace, and it’s the responsibility of leadership, formal and informal, to foster a healthy culture.
These are dangerous times. I am calling for wisdom, compassion, and empathy. I am suggesting that we prioritize learning and curiosity. And let’s draw the line: We are a workplace, a small society, where people are intentionally trying to get along and support each other’s well-being and happiness.
I think organizations have the authority to emphasize the set of obligations that organizational citizenship entails, and again, organizational citizenship is not exactly the same as national citizenship, so we may need to rethink what is expected of each.
It may be helpful for leaders at all levels to emphasize that differences in perspectives are respectful and ask everyone to do all they can to be part of an organization that helps everyone thrive during this time.
Q: Do leaders have to explicitly request it?
In many organizations, that request isn’t a basic premise, so it’s a bit odd to suddenly assert it. This is where the underlying culture of the organization comes into play. Problems with workplace politics may just be a manifestation of other grievances. This is just an escalation, not a new dynamic.
If you’re someone who’s already feeling tense in the workplace, feeling like you’re not being heard and you can’t be your true self, it can get a little complicated because you might end up using your political affiliation as a kind of wedge.
One of the ways people feel psychologically safe is knowing they have a voice in the workplace, that they have the ability to resolve and address disagreements, and that norms can be discussed. We know how our organizations have handled or not handled stressful times in the past. These are the moments when organizations break apart. The strengths and weaknesses of group dynamics emerge under stress.
Q: Will the election, political developments and people’s current emotions impact the workplace?
This will be a factor in our work lives. Will it interfere with our ability to do our jobs more than any other situational factor? There are many reasons for people to feel scared, defensive, self-protective, and worried about their loved ones. This is a time of heightened emotions. We have had a very tense year with the pandemic, political unrest, and now the US presidential election. But clearly, this is not the first time that people within organizations have experienced political conflict.
Q: How should I think about my own behavior in the workplace?
I believe it takes wisdom and personal responsibility to decide when and how to speak with coworkers.
When we feel defensive, self-protective, and wanting to react to the world, maybe it’s because we feel defeated, in control, or self-righteous. We’re not really our best selves. It might be time to double down on a little self-reflection. Go for a walk and really think, “What is it that is causing me so much pain?”
Or, if you are so interested in politics, find a place to express those thoughts. Maybe the workplace is not the right place. It is not the place to vote. So I would encourage people to take responsibility for the impact they have on the day-to-day dynamics of their workplace. I am impressed by organizations that can successfully navigate complex conversation dynamics across political differences. Much of my career has been spent cultivating courageous organizational communities and cultivating deeper capacities to address the toughest problems of our time. Organizations like this are beacons of hope for what organizational citizenship can look and feel like, and I am heartened by the promise of what it means for business and society.
