In a context of polarization, some employers seek to ban or control political debate during working hours, while others let it slide.
In mid-April, dozens of Google employees were fired after staging a protest at the company’s offices in California, demanding an end to the tech company’s contracts with the Israeli government.
Earlier that month, NPR suspended editor Uri Berliner after he published an article accusing the station of political bias. The Berliner would later resign.
And the American newspaper The New York Times has launched an investigation into its staff after the leak of information relating to its coverage of the conflict in Gaza.
Similar episodes of tension are playing out in workplaces around the world, dividing employees and pushing companies to act.
“Politics is increasingly something that is no longer limited to the political arena alone,” says Edoardo Teso, professor of business economics and decision sciences at Northwestern University, in the United States, adding that personal opinions can “overflow” into the place of Work.
As elections take place in dozens of countries this year – including the UK, US, India, Pakistan and Belgium – political discussion could emerge in workplaces, leaving business leaders to decide how it will be treated and under what circumstances they cross the line.
“In the wrong place, at the wrong time”
In 2020, leaders at global software company Intuit began looking for ways to help employees talk constructively about political issues.
They noted increased tension in political discussions as the Covid-19 pandemic progressed and professionals disagreed on health care and vaccination guidelines.
After the murder of George Floyd, the authorities also began to talk heatedly about race relations.
As a result, Intuit has set a limit on how employees can talk about controversial topics on company channels.
“We want you to focus on how you feel and how things affect you as a person, and less on using our internal channels as a platform for your political opinions,” predicted the company’s approach, according to Humera Shahid, director of diversity, equity and inclusion at Intuit, told the BBC.
There are moderators, usually from HR, who monitor company channels for “language that may be offensive or exclusionary,” according to company policy. And they are asked to remove content that may be inflammatory.
“We found that in 99.9% of cases the intention is very good,” says Shahid. “They just don’t recognize that they could cause harm to another employee.”
Some employers ban political discussions in the workplace altogether. One of these is the technology company 37Signals, owner of the Basecamp project management platform.
In 2021, the company’s CEO, Jason Fried, asked employees to refrain from political conversations in the company’s communication channels.
As a result, about a third of Basecamp’s employees resigned.
“It caused a lot of pain for people,” Fried says. “I felt bad about it. We anticipated there would be some internal and probably external reactions, but not that much. I think it destabilized the company for a short period of time.”
Fried says he made this decision because many employees were tired of being involved in political discussions during work hours.
“Some people said, ‘Look, I have my opinions, my colleagues have their opinions, but I don’t want to argue and discuss world events at work.’”
It was these employees who remained after Fried’s announcement.
The policy has not changed and Fried stands by the decision he made three years ago.
“It was the right decision then. It would be the right decision now,” he says.
“It was a harder decision at the time, just because of the time. It was probably one of the best decisions we’ve ever made. We’re much more focused now. There’s no off-topic conversations and ‘We’re here to do what we do.’ , that is, developing project management software. We don’t stop here. [política].”
The company added the new policy not only to its employee handbook, but also to its open job postings.
“We respect everyone’s right to participate in political demonstrations and activism, but we avoid political debates in our internal workplace communications systems. 37signals, as a company, does not publicly express opinions on politics, outside of topics directly related to our business. “
Since then, “we’ve never had a single situation where we had to say something to someone internally,” Fried explains.
“The people who strongly opposed it [à política] They ended up leaving early, and those who remained fully agreed with their point of view. Since then everything has been pretty quiet.”
GrowthScribe, a small marketing software company based in the United States, has also decided to completely ban the topic of politics in the workplace. The company’s founder, Kartik Ahuja, says relations between employees soured in 2022, when two professionals got into an argument about US President Joe Biden. The disagreement turned into an exchange of insults.
It was then that Ahuja decided to ban this type of discussion.
“It was happening in the wrong place and at the wrong time,” he says, adding that this type of conflict interferes with work outcomes.
Ahuja says politics was largely well received and there was no immediate resistance to the initial ban on talking about politics. But when another discussion ensued, he added the rules to the employee handbook, as did 37signals.
“Harassment and exclusionary behavior is unacceptable, including…discussing political parties.”
“It’s part of the dialogue”
In some cases, political discussions are unavoidable – they are even part of everyday work. But some argue that these conversations also need some sort of management.
Quorum, a company that makes software for public policy professionals, is used to this. The company – which has about 400 employees in the United States, Brazil, Belgium and Moldova – offers employees the freedom to speak out about political issues and sensitive workplace topics.
Brook Carlon, director of human resources at Quorum, explains that due to the nature of the company’s work, conversations about politics are expected among employees.
“Most people are very interested in the political environment, how politics happens, how laws are made and what candidates are doing,” he says. “It’s something that’s always been part of the dialogue.”
In some areas, professionals are walking on eggshells, he adds. For example, conversations tend to be about political choices rather than support for specific candidates. But differences emerge. One topic that sparked debate was the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Among employees, support for one side of the conflict was seen as widespread condemnation of the other.
The company quickly took action to establish rules: Be aware of how your statements might be received by someone who disagrees with your opinion; insert a link to a document with a more in-depth opinion so that the channels are not cluttered; and if you are unsure of the language, HR can review it.
Some employees are more likely to use the company’s open forum.
“Our U.S.-based employees are much happier to participate in this dialogue and have these conversations than our team members in Moldova or Brazil,” Carlon notes.
Wider implications
In addition to the way political discussions can complicate relationships between employees, some researchers have also found that alignment – or misalignment – between subordinates and leadership can even influence hiring decisions.
Academics studying the relationship between employment and politics in Brazilian workplaces have shown that entrepreneurs are more likely to hire people who share their political views.
Researchers found that professionals who share the same political views as their employer are 48% to 72% more likely to be hired than those who don’t.
They have not determined exactly why employers discriminate in favor of members or supporters of their political party, although Teso, one of the study’s authors, suspects that some employers think that a workplace where employees have similar political beliefs is likely to be a productive environment.
“This is probably why many companies prohibit talking about politics at work, because they think it can lead to conflict,” he says.
While Teso expected to see some favoritism from the party, he was surprised by the influence politics can have on hiring.
According to him, political alignment appears to be a bigger determining factor than race or gender in hiring decisions.
“The scale of it all is something like this [nós] We didn’t expect to find it.”
Read the full text of this report (in English) on the site Working life of the BBC.
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
