Politics in the Workplace: How Can Managers Keep the Peace?

In an age of increased polarization in which political ideology and identity have become intertwined, workplace political discussions may be more common, but they can have detrimental outcomes. At Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange company, the hesitancy of CEO Brian Armstrong to make a public announcement in support of Black Lives Matter following the death of George Floyd resulted in employee walkouts. Later, in September 2020, Armstrong announced a new policy prohibiting social activism within Coinbase and subsequently offered severance packages to employees unsatisfied with the company’s apolitical mission. Coinbase ultimately lost 60 employees — 5% of its 1,200-employee staff — as a result.

At the software company Basecamp, internal discussion about a list of “funny” customer names sparked political discussions about diversity, inclusion, and tolerance. Disagreement between employees and a cofounder regarding the severity of the situation resulted in a similar ban on workplace political discussions. In response, nearly 30% of the company’s employees chose to leave.1

In this fraught political climate, is it possible to have fruitful workplace political discussions? Many scholars and consultants say yes. The solution involves employing the right style and technique. If people were to adopt a listening mentality, practice empathy, and provide ground rules for debate that allowed employees to disagree respectfully, then political discussions would be less acrimonious.2 In a perfect world, we would always follow these steps, but the unfortunate reality is that many political discussions are doomed from the start. The people who are least likely to compromise in a situation — the most ideologically extreme partisans — are also the ones who most frequently desire to talk about politics.3

Political discussions make visible what is often ambiguous, if not invisible: partisanship. When workers’ political identities are made known, they are often stigmatized. Instead of being seen as individuals, they are labeled and stereotyped by others as opposing partisans. More than a third of workers in a recent survey (34%) said their workplace is not inclusive of differing political perspectives.4

Both scholarly studies and anecdotal data show many examples of political bias in action in the workplace. A recent Glassdoor survey of U.S. workers found that 60% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans believe discussing politics at work could negatively impact their career opportunities.5 Moreover, 23% of employees would not want to work with a coworker who plans to vote for a presidential candidate they dislike.6 One study found that partisans will openly admit their willingness to disadvantage opposing partisans in the job hiring and assessment process.7 The threat of discrimination is so severe that about 16% of employees feel compelled to lie about their political views at work.8

Statistics also show that workers are affected when their partisan identity is disclosed. Nineteen percent of workers say that they have difficulty working with a colleague due to their political beliefs, 13% report feeling bullied by coworkers due to their political beliefs, 22% report feeling disrespected by coworkers because of their political beliefs, and 38% report feeling uncomfortable at work due to political discussions.9 Feeling like the political black sheep of the office can result in social isolation and loneliness, which affects engagement and can lead to absenteeism and attrition. These workers also often fear that they might face reduced advancement opportunities or even be fired.10

Moreover, research on political polarization seems to indicate that this discriminatory behavior might be difficult to uproot, given that participants’ willingness to engage in political discrimination persisted, even at significant cost to themselves. Specifically, the researchers found that people were willing to work for fellow partisans for less money and were almost twice as likely to do business with a seller who shared their partisanship. Additionally, most partisans said they would not engage in a transaction that would benefit a buyer from an opposing party, even when the buyer offered a higher monetary payment. The authors concluded by saying, “The impact of party attachments on economic choices is likely to be stronger and more widespread than generally recognized.”11

These stories, statistics, and studies show that although political discussions may last but a few minutes, they can have long-term consequences. In other words, civil discussions are no antidote to post-discussion discrimination.

Considering this, what can managers do beyond providing guidelines for civil political discourse? I offer five recommendations.

1. Create a top management team that is ideologically diverse. It’s important that the organization’s key decision makers are politically diverse, for the reasons outlined above. It is difficult to take a credible stance for political diversity and tolerance when diverse representation is not modeled in the corporation’s top management ranks.

2. Avoid political bias in making key decisions. Important decisions around issues such as pay, promotions, and performance evaluations should be conducted by a politically diverse group. When consequential decisions are made by only one individual, there is a greater likelihood for error or oversights. Moreover, biases and prejudices, intentional or not, may creep into these decisions, thus reducing their overall quality.12

3. Provide resources on constructive political dialogue for employees. Companies and managers can implement interventions to reduce political animosity, which often stems from false stereotypes and simplistic thinking.13 To encourage complex thinking and reasoned dialogue, consider sponsoring a discussion series or book group that invites participation and presents different perspectives. For example, Oxford University Press has a debating ethics series that examines a wide array of topics from two perspectives. False stereotypes may be dispelled and empathy fostered when partisans hear the other side.14

4. Highlight the value of bipartisan cooperation. Companies and managers can take note that more than 65% of partisans have friends who support an opposing party.15 Managers can reinforce this point by sharing stories of friendships across partisan lines. The overarching message should be that disagreement should not preclude cooperation in scenarios where opposing parties share common ground: doctors when saving lives, military service members when defending their country, and employees when serving customers.

5. If all else fails, set limits on political discussions at work. I am not alone in making this suggestion: Seventy percent of Americans say that they would support limits on workplace political discussions.16 Some conflicts and disagreements are intractable. As a result, there is little value and much harm that can be produced by revisiting topics where there is no common ground. What can be done in these scenarios? Avoid conversations that threaten relationships and other cooperative endeavors. From a study on political discussions, one participant said of his best friend, “I will not discuss politics with him. He is as passionate on the other end of the scale as I am.”17

Thus the best option for some friends, coworkers, and spouses is to avoid political discussions that increase the salience of their differences and instead put their focus where agreement does lie or compromise can be brokered.18

While this may not be an ideal rule or the most courageous option, it keeps the peace, enables bipartisan collaboration in other areas, and, most importantly, keeps the relationship intact. Many of us have learned this same lesson during the Thanksgiving holiday: Pass the dressing, and skip the politics. Therefore, if interventions fail and organizational chaos abounds, setting limits on political discussions at work might be a better option than watching the organization come apart at its seams.