Opinion: The turmoil in the workplace over political views represents an extension of the growing politicisation of corporate life
Politics and the workplace have often proved a volatile mix. In the US, the mere mention of Donald Trump at work is likely to set off heated discussions and these can have negative consequences for workers and organisations. In Ireland, discussions of issues like housing or the environment have the potential to set off broader conflicts about values and these can have similarly negative consequences in the workplace.
Recent events in the Middle East have dramatically upped the stakes surrounding political debate and disagreement in the workplace. In the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel, a Dublin woman employed by Israeli software company Wix was sacked for posting anti-Israeli views on her social media page.
Donors to major US universities have withdrawn their donations because of anti-Israel and pro-Hamas demonstrations and protests. Some have taken steps to blackball students' future employment opportunities because of the political views they expressed. In the wake of 30 student groups at Harvard signing a statement holding Israel responsible for the Hamas attack, a conservative group paid for a truck with a digital billboard flashing the names and pictures of several of the students who signed this letter, describing them as Harvard's leading antisemites.
We need your consent to load this YouTube contentWe use YouTube to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From NBC News, how the Israel-Hamas war is escalating tensions on US college campuses
Discussions of this war have been especially heated because of the barbarity of the Hamas attack and the suffering and death of civilians in Gaza that have resulted from Israel’s responses to this attack. But the intensity of responses to events in the Middle East and the resulting turmoil in the workplace likely represent an extension of the growing politicisation of corporate life.
Employees, particularly younger employees, often expect the corporations they work for to take stands on virtually all social issues, and there are often serious conflicts if the corporation takes the "wrong" stand (i.e., one that differs in even minor ways from the stand they prefer). Organisations or even coworkers who attempt to take a neutral stance on politically charged issues are increasingly likely to be seen as traitors by partisans on both sides of the issue.
There are several reasons for the increasing politicisation of the workplace, but many observers believe that generational differences are an important part of the explanation. It is widely felt that younger employees are more socially conscious than their older peers, and it is also believed that they are less tolerant of traditional norms and attitudes. The evidence for generational differences in social attitudes is surprisingly weak, but it is reasonable to believe that people are more idealistic when they are younger. I have spent 40 years interacting with college students, and many are strongly committed to often laudable (and sometimes laughable) ideas. At their age, I certainly found it easier to be idealistic than is the case today.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Brainstorm, does where you work influence your political beliefs?
Idealism and social consciousness are wonderful in many ways, but they can also be a source of conflict. This conflict is especially likely in the workplace because this is one domain where people with very different values, preferences, experiences and ideas are thrown together for sustained periods of time. Preferences and values are often an important factor when sorting people into friendship groups, marriages, social clubs and other informal groups, and we tend to spend lots of time with people whose core beliefs, preferences and values are reasonably similar to ours. This is often not the case in the workplace.
Beliefs, preferences, and values can play a role in attracting people to some organisations and retaining them, but most workplaces put their employees in situations where they might spend a lot of time interacting with people who disagree with them about many important topics. People who get on an idealistic high horse in the workplace are apt to find a less receptive audience than they would in more homogeneous groups, and disagreements with idealists can easily degenerate into intense conflict.
There is an old saying that you should never talk politics or religion in polite company. Some people add a third taboo topic - money - but I am all for talking about money in the workplace. Pay secrecy and other sorts of confidentiality policies have been used for years to keep employees in the dark about what they are worth and what others doing similar jobs are paid.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, career consultant Angela Burke on how being in a workplace where people are friends as well as colleagues is better for everyone - usually.
But I do think a case can be made for keeping politics and religion out of the workplace. People often feel very strongly about these topics, and these feelings are rarely based solely on evidence or logical argument. One implication is that discussing these topics in the workplace is more likely to lead to conflict than to changing peoples’ minds.
Organisations that take clear positions on political matters, even when they do so because of strong pressure from employees or customers, can wander into a minefield. Consider the case of Disney, which put out a mild statement in opposition to a controversial Florida law (the so-called "Don’t Say Gay" law regulating how sexuality is discussed in Florida schools) after an intense pressure campaign led by employees and advocacy groups. The company is still tied up in lawsuits and legislation designed to punish them for stepping out of line.
Organisations that take clear positions on political matters, even when they do so because of strong pressure from employees or customers, can wander into a minefield
One way to reduce the politicisation of the workplace is to recognise that there are some issues that are outside the competence or range of concerns that are relevant to the organisation and its mission. Suppose you work for a small manufacturer that uses potentially harmful plastics in manufacturing. Should that company have policies regarding the environment? They probably should. Should they step into the debate over housing, or the future expansion of Dublin Airport or over conflicts in the Middle East? Perhaps not. Should they get grief from their employees for not stepping into these debates? Probably not.
Similarly, should you talk about politics (or religion) in the workplace? It probably depends on the purpose of initiating this discussion. If political issues are relevant to your work, discussions of potentially contentious issues might be more easily justified than if these issues are largely irrelevant to your work. If your goal is to drum up support for a cause that is dear to your heart, it's important to recognise that you are less likely to get a warm reception in the workplace than in those settings where people voluntarily sort themselves into groups that share similar preferences and values. Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valour.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
