Keeping the Peace: Navigating Politics in the Office

It’s safe to say that politics is increasingly becoming a part of our everyday lives. Where conversations on such matters were once thought best avoided, opinions and views on polarizing current events are regularly making their way into our social media feeds, dinner chats and, even, our office discussions.

“Unfortunately, few people can navigate the potential pitfalls of political discussions at work,” explains Matthias Spitzmuller, associate professor of organizational behaviour at Smith School of Business. “These discussions often get emotional, and trigger feelings of fear, anxiety, frustration and alienation—emotions that can create a toxic mix of actions and social behaviours that can derail team functioning and performance in the office.”

Instinct might lead people managers to want to encourage the norms of the past, but placing limitations on free speech can have its own unintended side effects, undermining well-meaning efforts to maintain balance and harmony in the workplace.

While it may seem like a no-win situation, there are strategies leaders can leverage to help mitigate the potential drawbacks political discussions can have on the workplace, while reaping some of the benefits.

Set the tone

Fading certainties of the post Second World War era, combined with big changes in the geographical, generational and socioeconomical distribution of wealth and increasingly rigid political orientations, have created powerful fault lines in society and a renewed surge of political interest.

It’s unsurprising that, amid such major societal shifts, political conversations have made their way into the workplace, where there is the potential for them to do damage.

Spitzmuller agrees. “Few topics create so much tension and friction in organizations today as politics.” But he says placing hard limits on these discussions—outside of those that prohibit the unethical treatment of others based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation and age—won’t yield the intended results.

“Employees will always resent not being able to speak openly about topics that are important to them,” Spitzmuller notes, adding that the introduction of limitations on free speech undermines perceptions of autonomy in the workplace, which can in turn reduce creative and innovative behaviours that would facilitate growth in the organization.

Instead, managers can work to convey that their workplace is an inclusive space that tolerates all opinions and viewpoints, so long as they do not discriminate against employees of varying backgrounds or belief systems.

They can do this, Spitzmuller says, by taking themselves out of political discussions (i.e. modelling impartiality), and ensuring that conversations remain balanced and respectful.

 “Proponents of divergent political positions should be given the right to speak such that an organization learns to see divergent views as the norm and as a source of learning and growth and not as a threat.”

Focus on the issues

Organizations tend not to be as politically heterogenous as society at large. On one hand,  this means political discussions can reinforce internal solidarity and cohesion among employees with similar views, but it also means those with dissenting views can feel increasingly alienated, Spitzmuller says.

“When individuals feel that their political viewpoints can’t be expressed because of a general sentiment in the organization that only one viewpoint is acceptable, then political debates can lead to division, political infighting and a toxic climate,” he says. 

Managers can seek to side-step these fault lines by shifting discussions from partisan (Liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican) to those focused on the issues. What are our thoughts on free trade? How do we feel about the strength of transatlantic alliances? Should healthcare be private or public?

“Even though viewpoints on these topics are highly correlated with political preferences, discussing them is not as explosive as our underlying voter preferences,” Spitzmuller explains. 

He says managers can also try to minimize disagreements by emphasizing agreement at a higher level.

“For example, even though Liberals and Conservatives may differ in their views on health care, they agree there is a critical shortage of family doctors that the country needs to address. Similarly, while Conservatives and Liberals may have different viewpoints on how Canada should deal with a Trump-led U.S., both parties agree that Canada should remain an independent country with a right to self-governance.”

Spitzmuller adds managers who take the lead and show interest in employees’ thoughts and viewpoints on different issues will more likely see their employees engage in political debates with curiosity and less of a divide-and-conquer mindset. And perhaps a more tolerant workplace.