An old saw says that you should never talk about religion or politics in polite company. But when it comes to politics, it appears that a lot of people talk anyway: According to a Gallup survey conducted earlier this year, nearly half of U.S. workers (45 percent) said they had discussed politics with a coworker. That percentage has likely only increased in the run-up to a tight presidential election where the rhetoric has often been (to put it politely) heated.
Is it a leader’s job to police this? Outright bans on political conversation at the office, all the way down to saying you can’t pin a candidate’s button to your cubicle wall, aren’t illegal, but a SHRM article notes that gag orders like that get tricky. In addition to hurting morale, they can put leaders in hot water: “While employers can prohibit employees from having certain discussions, it’s illegal to ban them from talking about their work conditions,” the article notes. Given how tightly bound political conversations are around the economy, healthcare, and opportunities for advancement, it’s not hard to look at just about any political conversation as about “work conditions.”
Nearly 40 percent of workers aged 18-34 would leave a job over political differences.
One response is to figure that this doesn’t matter all that much. According to Gallup, only 12 percent of workers say they’ve felt uncomfortable at work because of political conversations, and a miniscule percentage (3 percent) say they’ve been treated unfairly because of their political views.
But that, too, is tricky. A larger proportion of younger workers reported discomfort in the Gallup survey, and a recent Indeed/Harris Poll survey suggests the risks of tha discomfort are pronounced: “Nearly 40% of workers aged 18-34 would leave a job because of political differences at work, and 40% of this same age range would also leave if their CEO expressed political views they disagreed with.” Moreover, two-fifths of workers say they’ve experienced discrimination over politics, and 16 percent say they avoid colleagues with different politics.
Leaders can’t—shouldn’t—be in the business of telling their people how to think politically. And even associations that do a lot of advocacy should avoid directives to their people about what levers to pull on Election Day. But they should be alert to the fact that both surveys, though they diverge in terms of their sense of consequences, acknowledge that your people are going to talk. Or at the very least overhear. And you can speak to how civil those conversations are.
The Gallup report stresses the importance of establishing a culture of respect in the workplace. “Establish ground rules for respectful behavior as well as systems to address disrespect or discrimination. If guidelines are in place for managing these discussions at work, ensure they are well-communicated and understood by every employee,” it notes.
And SHRM notes that leaders should point out that politics don’t get a free pass when it comes to honoring the organization’s overall values. The same attitude of curiosity, empathy, and integrity should hold sway around the coming election, including respect for people who don’t want to engage in the subject. Leaders can ease the tension, but they can’t micromanage it, or pretend it doesn’t exist.
“Acknowledge that regardless of individuals’ political party or beliefs, tensions are running high throughout the community, and many team members may be feeling stress or fear related to the upcoming election,” SHRM advises. Good leaders are adept at responding to all sorts of pain points with empathy and respect. Politics in the office should be no different.
