What to Do When Politics Enters the Workplace Chat

Discussing politics in the office has become a flashpoint — and a generational one at that. Three out of five US workers have discussed politics with colleagues, according to a recent Glassdoor survey, and they expect companies to be vocal on current issues.

Taking a stand and voicing a political alliance, however, can prove perilous, as 49% of Gen Z workers would not apply to a company that is not aligned with their personal views.

So, how can leaders navigate that fine line, allowing employees to share views freely all the while avoiding chaos when politics enters the workplace chat?

Turns out, it can be done. But success hinges on planning adequately for these conversations.

Banning Conversation Doesn't Work

In 2019, Google created community guidelines for discourse posted on its internal message board, Memegen. It called for a respectful baseline with “no trolling, no name-calling, no politics.” That guidance has evolved in recent years, particularly in recent months, with its latest iteration removing the virtual thumbs-down and adding algorithmic changes that maintain a façade of decorum that feels a tad dystopian.

It’s an offshoot of the Coinbase debacle in 2020 that demanded “political neutrality” in the workplace, which was a bad idea. When fiery political discussions ignite in the workplace, they need to be encased in a mindful framework, not tightly bound and left to smolder in the center of the office. Why? Because that binding always works itself free, and the outcome ranges from lost talent and lawsuits to pricey severance packages and boycotts.

Despite companies’ best intentions at setting guidelines, history has shown that these attempts inevitably backfire.

“To tell an employee how they can engage on something they feel strongly about and have personal ties to can feel like an irrational demand,” said Daniel Space, an HR consultant also known as DanFromHR.

A ban on all non-work discussions often also has multiple unintended consequences with far-reaching impacts.

“Rather than eliminating conflict, banning these discussions can push conversations underground,” said Carl Miller, strategist and high-performance culture champion. “This leads to the formation of cliques and hidden tensions.”

This setting then becomes the opposite of the connected and welcoming space most companies claim. Cracks form instead of a commonality that can help facilitate relationships.

“And these micro-connection points are important,” said Seujan Bertram, global C-suite leader. “They can help ease friction that naturally arises when there are competing priorities and agendas.”

Having worked with two companies professing the best intentions for bans — ideas that actually sounded reasonable — Space said in the end, each fell flat and opened up far more complex and nuanced conversations between identity and politics. That’s because it’s practically impossible to boil down nuanced constitutional specifications to a narrow conversational framework.

Related Article: 5 Tips For Confronting Conflict in Remote Teams

Let Them Speak … Within Guidelines

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this situation. Bertram believes communication guidelines should be based on company values and workplace and communication standards — but conversations should be allowed to take place.

“If there is a respectful discourse, these conversations should not be stopped from happening, as they can lead to better understanding,” she said.

Space said a bespoke, education-first approach has its merits. “I really liked one company that would monitor channels from time to time and encourage open discussion between employees as part of a hosted event.” These discussions, he said, were used to inform, not to attack, and this distinction is crucial. After all, it’s unlikely you’ll convince someone to adopt a different point of view over a Slack message board. “People need to have the dignity of being understood before they are open to changing their minds.”

Miller shared considerations to keep top of mind when creating a bespoke solution:

Encourage empathy and respect: Foster a culture where empathy and respect are core values, reminding employees to consider multiple perspectives.
Promote constructive dialogue: Train employees on engaging in constructive dialogue, focusing on listening skills and constructive feedback rather than confrontational or accusatory language.
Provide escalation pathways: Ensure there are clear pathways for employees to report concerns or conflicts arising from discussions.

That third point is especially important in a remote or virtual setting because online communications can rapidly escalate. Bertram believes this is because people feel more confident to speak when hiding behind a keyboard and not having to look the other person in the eyes.

“I would recommend if a topic is hot or potentially controversial that a skilled facilitator run the discussion,” she said. “In-person preferably, but a second choice would be over video — with cameras on, and everyone is accountable for their questions and contributions.”

Ultimately, it’s important to take a thoughtful and tailored approach. Contentious topics are rough, but avoiding these discussions entirely means you might miss opportunities to address and sensitize staff to diversity and inclusion issues, potentially leading to a less inclusive workplace culture and lots more headaches down the road.

Rather than micro-managing the threat of inflammatory posts and “trying to walk the fine line of allowing employees to speak their minds, while ensuring that comments aren't offensive nor distract people from their jobs,” treat employees like the adults they are. Offer guideposts with clear boundaries, and trust that you’ve hired a team with sound judgment.

Learning Opportunities

Conference