Subscribed
Sources for this Article:
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).
Rage Against the Machine. ratm.com.
Schneider, G.S. (2017). Che Was a Racist, Homophobe and Mass Murderer. Human Progress Blog Post.
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.
Thanks for reading Leaders and Supporters! This post is public so feel free to share it.
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.
Thanks for reading Leaders and Supporters! This post is public so feel free to share it.
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.
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.
Leaders and Supporters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribed
