It is frequently said that never, in the past several decades has our country ever experienced the degree of political 
polarization than that which exists today. What used to be the ability to have civil conversations with friends and family about our different views and the reasons for them, has, for many, gone out the window. At family gatherings, talk about current politics is often forbidden. Getting together with friends who have a different leaning means avoiding such conversations in order to maintain the friendship. In more extreme cases, those who were friends for years are no longer able to spend time together through an apparent loss of respect or tolerance for that ‘other’ person’s viewpoint.
Every Monday morning we walk into work prepared to do the expected job we were hired to do. What so many have discovered is that with the varying and prevalent political beliefs of all co-workers, the increased polarization is unfortunately not left at the door. In fact, the questions we hear awaken in all the diverse perspectives that exist … unrelated to the actual work we perform and accomplish. Comments like these: Could you believe the Sunday news show and the biased viewpoint? Did you hear the lies that so and so told the attendees at her/his rally? Did you watch the debate’ and wasn’t it a joke? Too often we hear such questions and we can’t help but to make decisions about a co-worker based on their political beliefs rather than their skill, knowledge and/or contribution to the team’s effort. 
To the extent that this is today’s reality … the new normal … and because this issue is raised with increased frequency with coaching clients, it warrants some exploration. The key questions become what are the negative impacts that such differences have on the workplace and the work to be done? Conversely, what might the benefits be to the organization due to the diversity existing among employees? Randstad, an employee solution organization conducted an in depth survey uncovering U.S. employees’ feelings about and experiences with political discussions in the workplace. The report also examines how an employer’s approach to political issues can influence employee engagement and retention.
“Our study shows the topic of politics itself is extremely divisive in the workplace, reflecting our country’s current polarized political climate,” said Randstad North America chief diversity and inclusion officer Audra Jenkins in a statement. “It seems there’s no escaping politics, even on supposedly neutral ground, and unfortunately this can contribute to feelings of alienation as well as deteriorating relationships in the workplace.”
Key Findings:
- Some employees see the benefits of discussing politics at work, but the risk of negative consequences is high.
- Differences in political viewpoints, whether expressed in person or online, can be alienating and damage workplace camaraderie.
- Political viewpoints can drive employees to quit their jobs, or determine the employment opportunities they seek.
- Workers are divided on whether employers should take a stance on political issues.
- Politics matter more to millennials than other generations.
It becomes very evident that there are clearly some negatives that tend to arise when political opinions and the belief that we have the freedom to express them become workplace fodder. And yet there is the other side … that teams of people charged with working together to achieve the project or overall goal can get results that truly benefit from conversations that represent all sides of the approach. In this sense, it is very possible that today’s political discourse that is flowing more and more freely, is, in fact, making a good contribution.
The Harvard Business Review published a study conducted by a team of scientists that found there was a big cost in having a team of people charged with working together who vote just like all the others. They reached these conclusions in following political arguments that took place on Wikipedia:
- The most effective teams fight about politics. Mixed teams of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats,ended up writing way better Wikipedia pages than those written by teams that consisted largely of people who all agreed or had no strongly held position. In other words, fighting about politics led teams to do far better work.
- Hiring both Democrats and Republicans helps weed out group think and broaden the knowledge of the team to find more creative solutions.
- They insist that while political diversity can pay hefty dividends, in order to cash in leaders need to set the stage for a healthy exchange of ideas. Here are a few of their recommendations in brief –
- One token Republican/Democrat does not a politically diverse team make.
Translation: one token diversity hire tends to end poorly. True diversity demands a greater balance between different viewpoints. - Set clear expectations for the discussion from the get go.
Translation: it probably pays to create a rule book for respectful conversations before you dig into meaty discussions and make sure there is a transparent process for handling violations of these rules. Talk about how you’ll talk before you talk. - Be upfront from the beginning about your commitment to diversity.
Translation: be upfront about your commitment to political diversity and productive debate with those with whom you work so they can self-select into the challenges and rewards of this sort of workplace.
- One token Republican/Democrat does not a politically diverse team make.
What extensive research concludes is that diversity in the workplace as related to one’s political persuasion, has clear
benefits to results achieved … provided it is done respectfully, with curiosity and genuine interest in understanding other perspectives. When this path is followed it can and does result in richer and more complete decisions and actions that are truly beneficial to the organization. Would it be great if such an approach could be followed when we are with our family and friends?
Mike Dorman
Several long time friends have decided that they no longer desire to be my friend because I do not like the work of our current president. I have been kind and respectful to my friends but they do not approve of my opposition to the actions of the president. They attack me because I say that he behaves as a racist person. They attack me when I complain about his policies and politics. They are upset when I complain about his lack of civility in public discourse. All I have said to them is I prefer another person as president because the job he is doing is dividing our country. He behaves as if he is taking orders directly from Vladimir Putin. They get angry when I make that observation. I can imagine it is challenging to have civil conversations about our current president. He is a polarizing figure and he likes to be divisive. He encourages those who believe in him to despise those who criticize him. To a large extent the polarization we have today is due to his behavior. It does not matter to him that he is making civil discourse a challenge. I agree with you that having a diverse workplace is beneficial to the work done, having civil discourse on the political issues of the day may be unwise in 2019-2020. I hope that the election results of 2020 will move the nation to a better place when it comes to political discourse.
Politics inside the work environment are more destructive to the business than personal perspective of government policy. My business was based on sustainable progress, employee advancement, and community based economy. All was well until I made partners with a family member whose corporate model based solely on self achievement and financial greed pushed me out. This partner has no talent, work ethic, or people skills. Consistency in small community based enterprise is essential to growth and achievement as well a good place to be employed. I am thankful for thethirdzone in helping me achieve my goals, unfortunately no one is prepared to face the destructive actions of those with narcissistic tendencies.
This post was made anonymously as follows and is being posted by Mike Dorman:
I wanted to commend you and your team for putting the “Political Polarization” article on the table. There have been issues in the past from Civil War, Civil Rights, Viet Nam etc. that seem to fall in the category that has divided our country. Is this different? I am not sure but it sure doesn’t feel good.
Family, friends and even good golfing partners fall into the divide. I do feel that once the “chosen one” or a similar successor is off the “throne” then we may get back to a more normal political divide.