In today’s polarized climate, politics often seeps into various aspects of life, including the workplace. However, integrating political opinions and discussions at work can create conflict, discomfort, and reduce productivity. It is critical for employees, especially supporters in a business environment, to maintain an apolitical stance to preserve a harmonious and focused workplace. This article will discuss strategies for employees to remain apolitical, how to politely advise others to refrain from political discussions, and tips for managing political activities outside the workplace.

Sources for this Article:

1. Black, J.S. et al (2012). Organizational Behavior. OpenStax. Rice University, 13.3 (accessed on 01 October 2024 at https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/13-3-political-behavior-in-organizations).

2. Rage Against the Machine. ratm.com.

3. Schneider, G.S. (2017). Che Was a Racist, Homophobe and Mass Murderer. Human Progress Blog Post.

4. Shaw, L. (2024). Netflix Cancellations Spiked After Reed Hastings Donated to Kamala Harris. Bloomberg.

In a broader sense, politics is defined as “the resolution of differing preferences in conflicts over the allocation of scarce and valued resources” (Black, J.S. et al., 2012). In a simpler sense, it is taking sides at work. In a more detrimental sense, it is harassing or enforcing political views on other employees without consent. Politics is a symptom or result of human interaction forming groups. So whether it is political party ideologies, political maneuvering, or controversial subjects, I want to give you the reader some tips to manage politics in your workplace.

Politics is impossible to avoid because it derives from “an absence of established rules and procedures and a reliance on ambiguous and subjective criteria” (Black, J.S. et al, 2012). We see a need to resource an event, group, or person, and we establish the rules for that resourcing. Others might disagree with that decision and political maneuvering ensues. Readers should remember that politics will happen in your workplace especially as scarcity gets greater and when uncertainty increases.

What political climate we want to avoid in the office is on resources or ideas that have little to no interest in the organization. In cases where politics have an impact on the business, it is still prudent to avoid heated discussions at work and supporters should never impose their views onto others. It is always better to pick your arguments well and avoid controversial subjects, especially if others are not consenting (cubicles do not offer soundproofing). Supporters must know what political discussions are taboo, remain cognizant of what conversations they engage in, and when to stay silent.

Remaining Apolitical in the Workplace.

Remaining apolitical in the workplace is not about hiding one’s beliefs or being passive, but about recognizing that professional settings function best when focused on shared goals rather than divisive topics. Employees can maintain an apolitical stance by refraining from initiating political conversations, avoiding public displays of political affiliations (e.g., wearing buttons, displaying posters), and ensuring that their social media presence does not bring political controversy into work-related discussions. By choosing to keep political opinions private, supporters can protect the collaborative nature of the workplace and avoid the risks of alienating others with differing viewpoints.

As an interesting example, I offer the band Rage Against the Machine. Band Members Brad, Tim, Tom, and Zack originated in 1991, in Orange County, California (ratm.com). They were widely known as political activists in the music world. In fact, in concerts that I attended, there were always political activist booths set up in the arenas, outside the stadiums, or inside the venues they played. Even their music is charged with political commentary and lyrics.

The band, when inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, claims they were the first band to shut down the New York Stock Exchange, sue the U.S. State Department, and help support Mexican rebel Zapatista (ratm.com). The lead singer Zack was also well known for wearing a shirt and supporting Che Guevara. Both of these leaders are communists. The reason I mentioned this is that as a former fan, this is the point that I learned the first lesson of not bringing politics into work.

If you are against government oppression and the evils of tyrants, like this band espoused, the worst thing you can do is support communism or socialism. That form of government has oppressed and killed more people than any other ideology in the history of humanity. My point is that their views are hypocritical, and if you express political views like this at work, you risk others finding you untrustworthy and less productive within your team. As a supporter, taking on hypocritical political views is a great way to eliminate you from a cohesive team.

I am not saying that you can never discuss political topics or even erase politics from human interactions, including at work. I am saying that if you do decide to discuss politics as a business, or at work, you should choose to not take sides or focus on the facts. You can remain apolitical by not taking sides. This allows you to highlight something that happened without joining a particular viewpoint, which is important if that ideology is horrific. Representing a political ideology with only facts also allows you to discuss those beliefs as an observer rather than a participant. It would have resonated differently if the band had just said people are fighting in Mexico for their independence. Instead, they choose to participate, hypocritically from their music’s message, and alienate part of their fans. 

Predictively, I was not the only one who noticed the political stance and became a former fan. Especially when learning that their support for Che Guevara, and others like him, was supporting a racist, homophobe, and mass murderer (Schneider, G.S., 2017). It was the nail in the coffin for my support for the band. I learned when you take political stances at work, you risk alienating customers and profits. It also shows that some topics require severe limitations or outright banning for being grossly offensive.

Another outright ban should be an employee who harasses others with political views. Someone who inputs their opinions into conversations they were not invited into or imposes their political views onto others in the office. This pushes people away to working with other members on that team or finding other ways to work around that employee. People are excluded from events, work, and productivity. Instead of developing positive topics that are appropriate or valuable, the team is weakened.

Fostering an inclusive environment often means recognizing that not all topics are appropriate for every setting. Politics can ignite strong emotions and create unnecessary divisions among teams that should focus on collaboration. Supporters reducing dangerous political discussions can focus on shared professional objectives and finding common ground within the business context. Helping employees work together harmoniously, regardless of their personal political beliefs.

However, political conversations at work are not the only detrimental form of politics. Human interactions between people will always generate political dynamics when resources are in question. This is a key part of business, making politics at work an inevitability. But since politics can benefit those interactions, politics is not inherently bad, I will label the negative aspects of politics at work as power corruption.

Power corruption occurs when someone tries to undercut a leader or attempts to seize informal power without credentials. You may have witnessed an employee who always tries to take charge, but when in charge, fumbles their way through the project. Maybe you encountered that person that tears others down to give them the appearance of power. Each, and other examples like it, are political plays to control resources. Resources such as attention, time, top-rated performance reviews, or funds. 

Power corruption is a quick way to create a negative work culture. Supporters should focus on team efficiency over how much better they are over the rest. I was taught as a young officer that there is no better indicator of a good officer than success. Once I learned to directly impact my success, I was taught to impact others’ success. Success created a better work environment and a positive culture that others wanted to join. Instead of in-fighting and power plays, we accomplished our goals and spent our precious time winning. Eventually, we celebrated as a team versus focusing on how to undermine the next team that showed promise. This also held much more value as a top-rated evaluation.

Power corruption compromises good ethics by using negative politics and creates a lack of innovation. A team or supporter that introduces a new way of accomplishing the company’s goals is met with “a barrage of resistance from different sectors of the company” (Black, J.S. et al, 2012). Employees use the “famous ‘not-invented-here syndrome,’ the tendency of competing groups to fight over turf, and the inclination to criticize and destroy any new proposal that threatens to change the status quo. Other groups within the company simply see little reason to be supportive of the idea” (Black, J.S. et al, 2012). Political opinions over resources become the stagnation that kills your organization.

It is a difficult situation to avoid. The critical piece for an apolitical workplace in this situation is to remain professional and supportive. Everyone needs to fight for the resources they need. Networking and informing leaders is a better and more efficient way to get those resources. Negative culture appears from jealousy, back-stabbing, and tribalism. When supporters develop an us versus them attitude, it does nothing to help your business. It is no longer positive competition but cliques. Politics becomes central to getting what you can, post-apocalyptic style, rather than facts and innovation.

An apolitical environment thrives on mutual trust between teams. Supporters who present facts that best relay their requirements over time will win their leader’s resource decisions. You shouldn’t need to back-stab another supporter to get what you need, and you shouldn’t need to tear down new ideas just to get ahead. If you do not agree with an idea, consider why, and present that in a professional manner. Let the facts determine the decisions and who should get the resources that are needed. You will find this builds a positive culture where everyone can succeed in their endeavors.

Advising Others to Avoid Political Discussions.

Supporters who witness colleagues engaging in political discussions may need to step in and guide the conversation toward more productive, work-related topics. This can be done tactfully by shifting the focus and reminding colleagues of the professional setting. Phrases like, ‘I understand you’re passionate about this, but let’s focus on the project at hand,’ or ‘we should discuss it after work,’ can help gently steer the discussion away from potentially divisive topics.

Listening to others is a great way to learn topics that are normal or taboo. When you are discussing something and someone says they don’t want to talk about it, this is a good sign that this topic is not safe for work. Supporters can also provide topics that are not appropriate to their leaders. Working as a team to reduce political topics that are taboo is a good exercise in positive team dynamics.

In more formal contexts, companies can create policies that promote professional conduct and discourage political discussions, especially when they distract from work tasks. Supporters and employees in leadership positions can advocate for and uphold these policies, helping ensure the workplace remains neutral and focused. They can also serve as role models by emphasizing the importance of inclusion, respect, and focusing on common professional goals.

When political discussion gets out of hand, supporters and leaders can admit their mistakes and work to remedy the infraction. Many conversations that went sour can be easily remedied with a simple apology and insistence to work out a solution. Supporters should recognize good faith discussions and allow for those situations to repair themselves.

For power corruption, it is important to understand where leadership is formally established. As a supporter, do your best not to cut others out, or belittle others for your gain. As we talked about last week, don’t use rumors to take advantage of your fellow employees or your leaders. If you do not know who is in charge, ensure that your leaders assign leadership appropriately.

Another way to reduce power corruption is to hold your comments about what another team is doing if you have nothing to do with them or their project. The adage of ‘stick to your lane’ applies to avoiding political conversations just as much as remaining competent at work. Wise supporters know when they need to speak and when they need to listen.

Supporters who use power corruption as a work ethic eventually find themselves alone and unsuccessful. I often find that people get short gains, or successes, only to trade them with failures or struggles long term. How you treat others does get reflected upon you in time. It also erodes trust and confidence throughout the team. In my articles, trust is a major part of building a great place to work. As we discussed above, if you want the best evaluation for bonuses or promotions, your best actions are to personally succeed and then help others to succeed.

Join Mark Folkerts’s subscriber chat

Available in the Substack app and on web

Join chat

Managing Political Life Separate From the Workplace

In our Week 38 article, we discussed social media for leaders. Supporters have a role as well making sure they make good decisions when posting on social media. Ensuring that sensitive material is withheld or operational secrets are not exposed is part of the decisions you should make before hitting that submit button. Using private accounts to discuss political topics might be ok in your organization, but remember to remain legal and learn the lessons from this article as well.

It is natural for employees to have political views and engage in political activities outside of work. However, managing the separation between personal political life and professional responsibilities is crucial. Employees should ensure that their political engagement, including any social media posts or public activities, remains independent of their professional lives. This is especially important in roles where political statements may be associated with the company, potentially creating reputational risks.

To effectively manage this separation, employees can adopt practices such as compartmentalizing their social media presence by maintaining separate professional and personal accounts. Additionally, being mindful of privacy settings and how public posts may be perceived can help protect an individual’s professional standing. Ensuring that personal political activities are conducted outside work hours and not using company resources for political purposes are also essential for maintaining the separation. (Check out Week 38 for more tips).

Also, understanding what political views are detrimental versus those political opinions that are more mundane can save you from meeting with human resources or leadership. It can also help you avoid legal actions, lawsuits, or administrative actions. Posting that you are glad a group of people were killed will spotlight negative opinions on you that not many organizations will be fond of you saying even off duty. Conversely, posting a horrible incident that happened is reporting on facts and most businesses would find it mundane. See the difference?

A great example of this just happened in July 2024. The Netflix Executive Chairman, Reed Hastings, posted on x.com that he supported Kamela Harris and hoped she would win the upcoming election in the U.S.A. He also stated in an interview that he donated $7 million to the Democrat Party. Although Reed Hastings did not do this on behalf of Netflix, “three days later after the donation became public, July 26, was the single worst day for Netflix cancellations this year” (Shaw, L., 2024). I doubt these two events were coincidental.

You might take these events as to never talk about politics or a CEO should not get political. I would argue, and after reading this article I hoped you would agree, that it is impossible to separate from politics. The takeaway from Mr. Hasting’s actions is that he made it public. Almost, gloated about how he was helping a particular political side to win. If Mr. Hastings, who we all knew supported previous Democratic Party candidates and policies, made a donation privately and never discussed it, I believe that there would have been a different outcome.

In that case, even if that donation was leaked, and he made it clear it was private, Netflix would not have incurred such a loss. The lesson learned for leaders and supporters is that you have political opinions, and it can be effective to share those opinions in the right settings. Share them appropriately, make sure it is stated that they are your private opinions, and never force your beliefs onto others. If we can live in such a way, I believe your workplace will thrive, business will not suffer, and you might bring back some sanity to your private life.

Maintaining an apolitical workplace is critical for fostering unity and collaboration. By focusing on shared professional goals, tactfully advising colleagues to avoid political discussions, and maintaining clear boundaries between political and professional life, employees can help create a harmonious work environment. These strategies promote productivity and protect the organization from potential conflicts and divisions that can arise from political engagement at work.

“Mistakes should be examined, learned from, and discarded; not dwelled upon and stored.”– Tim Fargo

In modern organizational structures, bottom-up feedback is increasingly recognized as a crucial mechanism for fostering transparency, innovation, and a cohesive culture that encourages growth and adaptation. Bottom-up feedback, in which supporters (employees) offer their leaders insights, evaluations, and constructive criticism, enhances a collaborative and responsive environment. Today we explore the benefits of bottom-up feedback in the workplace, outline effective methods for submitting feedback to leadership, and for premium members, we will discuss tips for supporters to approach feedback constructively and professionally.

Sources for this article:

1. Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., & Choragwicka, B. (2015). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 1-16.

2. Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 251-280.

3. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

4. London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multisource feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self‐evaluations, and performance‐related outcomes? Theory‐based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 803-839.

5. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

6. Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2013). The extraordinary leader: Turning good managers into great leaders. McGraw-Hill Education.

Share

Organizations practicing bottom-up feedback see improvements in morale, productivity, and overall decision-making, as this type of feedback provides leaders with a closer look at operational realities, workplace dynamics, and evolving challenges. We discussed many ways to conduct after-action reviews (post-mortems) in Week 29, and we also discussed constructive feedback in Week 12. Organizations that are not able to provide, process, and adapt to feedback become stagnate and fail at learning from their mistakes and successes. However, addressing feedback to leaders can either become a minefield or a huge benefit to workplace culture. Let’s learn these benefits to the workplace and how to give feedback correctly.

The Benefits of Bottom-Up Feedback in the Workplace.

Bottom-up feedback is part of open communication between employees and leaders. It enhances transparency and mutual respect. That means that employees and leaders have a culture of predictability and trust. When supporters can trust their leaders, they care about the supporters' concerns, and they can predict the actions or efforts of their leader; it makes work a place where people want to stay. Supporters who can make relevant points on a leader’s actions also lead to them having a voice.

When employees feel empowered to voice their thoughts, leaders gain access to diverse perspectives that may be overlooked in top-down decision-making structures. According to research by Anseel et al. (2015), feedback in this direction creates a culture of trust, which strengthens relationships and improves engagement across the organization. Leaders become more receptive to concerns and insights, knowing they are grounded in the day-to-day experiences of their team members.

When I was a commander, I created (well my Soldiers built it but it was our idea) an anonymous feedback box that my First Sergeant and I had the only key to unlock. The purpose of this box was to allow anyone to say anything with anonymity. In the age of computerized communication, handwritten notes become harder to identify. The feedback that I received was instrumental in improving the quality of life for my Soldiers while deployed to Iraq. Much of the feedback was items that I could impact, while some pushed me to fight for my Soldiers in other organizations. 

It was a great way to receive feedback that otherwise some of my Soldiers would not have given me. Losing out at making those improvements. Leaders and supporters need to understand that bottom-up feedback will give you a better chance to improve the workplace and productivity. “We found that reflection without feedback did not improve performance” (Anseel et al., 2015). In other words, their study showed that errant improvements, ideas without feedback, were less likely to have improvements that benefited the workplace.

Supporters can use these ideas to build trust with their leaders, and I have found that the leader gains trust with their supporters. The supporter should know about their leader's work and have an understanding of what is important. But when feedback is two-way, and meant for constructive improvements, I gained a lot of faith and trust in my supporters. It gives you a chance to hear that they know the mission. It also gives you a chance to observe how they provide good feedback. This gives leaders and supporters a solid understanding of where their minds are, as well as what their concerns are at that moment.

The process also mitigates the “echo chamber” effect, where leaders may otherwise only receive information that reinforces their existing beliefs. With diverse viewpoints, leaders can make better-informed decisions that consider both strategic objectives and operational realities. Common existing beliefs can be correct, but supporters that give their leaders conflicting viewpoints will allow the leader to make the better choice. If everyone just goes with the flow of opinions, that echo chamber creates one-way solutions in many cases. More ideas assist with more innovation.

Employees working directly with clients, projects, or on the front lines often identify challenges and inefficiencies that leaders might not see. Through regular feedback, employees can suggest alternative approaches, new ideas, or corrective actions that lead to improvements. Employees who actively participate in solution generation are more engaged and satisfied with their roles, contributing positively to organizational success (Scott & Bruce, 1994). You can also see this in cross-team feedback, helping other teams improve their processes. Regular feedback creates positivity that enhances commitment and accountability, driving continuous improvement across departments. Let’s discuss how organizations can receive feedback to assist supporters.

Leave a comment

Appropriate Ways for Supporters to Submit Feedback.

Organizations can implement formal channels, such as suggestion boxes, regular feedback sessions, or anonymous surveys, to facilitate open communication. Such structured approaches allow employees to express themselves without fear of retribution, especially in cases where feedback may be sensitive. Structured feedback channels ensure that feedback is organized, making it easier for leaders to analyze trends and prioritize areas for action.

One military method for feedback was called a sensing session. This was a group discussion based on rank. It was set up with those supporters and the commander (leader) to allow direct feedback. In some ways, the group style provided barriers for people to open up, but in many cases, group support of an idea enhanced that direct feedback. Once the floodgates opened with one topic, sharing became easier and easier. It also takes a leader who can understand to not get defensive and allow supporters to open up. Much of what we talked about in the Week 12 article.

Conversely, the military also had an open-door policy. This allowed supporters to meet with leaders at all levels individually without any other leaders getting in the way to stop them. Of course, supporters should attempt to solve problems or provide feedback at the lowest level, but when that doesn’t work, an open door with the senior leader could be just the right move to get action. Supporters who use individual interactions with leaders correctly can have great effects with bottom-up refinement.

Regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings between employees and leaders offer another effective format for bottom-up feedback. These meetings allow for real-time communication and immediate clarification, which is essential for sensitive topics. In a supportive setting, employees can voice concerns directly and discuss their ideas in depth, while leaders have the opportunity to respond and seek further insights (London & Smither, 1995). Regular one-on-one meetings also allow supporters to prepare effectively.

After a project is completed, project-based debriefs such as after-action reviews or post-mortems serve as an ideal opportunity for employees to provide feedback on the project’s challenges, successes, and areas for improvement. This type of feedback session is particularly effective because it is focused and relevant to recent experiences, making it easier for both leaders and employees to identify actionable insights. “Fast-paced work environments require learning behavior to make sense of what is happening as well as to take action” (Edmondson, 1999). Teams that learn from their actions perform better and have improved psychological safety.

Tips for Supporters on How to Give Feedback to Leaders. (Premium Content Below)