💛5 approaches to navigating an election season

Hello and Happy Friday!

Did you see last week’s announcement? Politics at Work: A Toolkit for Navigating the Election Season in the Workplace is now live! This toolkit has been a labor of love and is our way of helping you get proactive leading up to the U.S. election. We’re still finalizing a few pieces of the toolkit, but we know many of you have been waiting to get your hands on this. With that in mind, we’ve released this at a discounted price of $150 (originally $250) and will publish additional sections in the coming weeks! 

Get an inside look at the toolkit here >>

In the spirit of helping as many people as possible, today’s newsletter covers the five most common “stances” we see companies taking on politics at work. 

Now, I hope it goes without saying, but there is truly not one “right” way to manage politics in the workplace. There is only what’s right for your organization. It’s our hope that in sharing these examples, you’ll be able to see the impact of different decisions and make a more informed choice for your team.

Let’s get into these approaches.

Your political seas captain,

Jill

p.s. You know that feeling when you shoot out of bed realizing that you completely spaced doing something you were supposed to do yesterday.... That was me this morning about sending this newsletter. Hopefully, it found you at the right time on this Friday morning!

5 Approaches to Navigating an Election Season

Approach 1: “Politics are off-limits”

This approach is exactly as it sounds. Conversations about politics are completely off-limits for all employees in all situations. There are a variety of reasons organizations come to this conclusion, from risk aversion to the belief that “it’s none of our business” to know what our employees think.

Pros:

• May reduce arguments or conflicts among employees

• Could protect the company from potential legal issues

• Can reduce distractions for employees

Cons:

• Employees may feel restricted in expressing their personal beliefs

• Difficult to enforce and leaves a lot of room for interpretation

• Creates extra pressure on managers to enforce within their teams

💡 (Case Study: Basecamp) In April 2021, Basecamp banned political discussions in the workplace to reduce stress and improve focus. However, what started with good intentions, led to the resignation of about 20 employees and significant public backlash.

Approach 2: “Highly-moderated discussions”

In this approach, employees can talk about politics, but only in a controlled setting. The organization invites (or train) facilitators to lead conversations around politics that allow employees a safe and moderated place to speak their minds.

Pros:

• Can allow employees to share personal view in a constructive manner

• May help employees be informed about different viewpoints and issues

• Trained facilitators can help manage difficult conversations

Cons:

• Resource intensive (time, money, etc.) to hire or train facilitators

• Any perceived bias among facilitators can undermine effectiveness

• Difficult to mandate employees to attend facilitated discussions

💡 (Case Study: General Mills) Last election season, General Mills facilitated “Courageous Conversations” to allow employees to discuss political issues in a moderated, respectful environment, promoting understanding and empathy across different perspectives. 

 Approach 3: "Lightly-controlled discussions" 

This approach is a less extensive version of the above. In this case, organizations are clear that political discussions are allowed, but only in designated forums, such as a Slack channel dedicated to the topic. In this example, the channel will be moderated, but only comments deemed harmful will be removed.

Pros:

• Can give employees a place to express their beliefs freely

• Employees can choose when to interact with the conversation (or choose to opt-out)

• Lower administrative effort to create forums (as opposed to moderated discussions)

Cons:

• Without strict moderation, there’s a higher risk for conflict to arise

• Determining a “harmful comment” can be subjective and may lead to bias

• Forums like this can be distracting and time-consuming for everyone

 Approach 4: “Freedom of Expression” 

Our research showed that a general freedom of expression is the most common approach organizations take to political conversations in the workplace. This is likely because it’s also the default if no other decision is officially made. In this approach, organizations choose to be hands-off in conversations about politics, deciding not to interfere and trusting their team to be respectful, as they would in any other workplace conversation. If difficult situations arise, the organization must deal with it individually.

Pros:

• Seemingly minimal administrative burden or effort required

• Can create a sense of autonomy and freedom among employees

Cons:

• Creates a significant risk for conflicts and arguments

• Can create divisions among teams and damage company culture

• Difficult to resolve conflicts as they arise

Approach 5: “Strong stance in support of [party/candidate]”

We've declared our company in support of a particular party or candidate. Everyone knows this is our stance (the public and our employees) and we’re prepared to deal with any backlash that may cause.

Pros:

• Clearly identifies the company’s values and priorities

• Employees and customers who are aligned may become more loyal

• Can generate media attention and visibility for the company

Cons:

• Employees and customers who disagree may feel alienated

• May produce negative backlash from media attention

• Can put the company at risk if the party or candidate faces controversy

💡 (Case Study: Sticker Mule) The online sticker company faced a major debacle in July 2024 when the CEO sent an email to their entire customer base with the subject line “Trump 2024,” highlighting the assassination attempt and voicing a strong support of Trump’s presidential campaign.

---

What do you think? Did one of these approaches stand out as fitting for your organization? Again, we share these examples to help you make a more informed decision - not to tell you exactly what to do. It’s up to you to make the final call! (and we know you’ll make the right one for your organization).

If you want some help in making a decision, operationalizing the choice, training managers, and leading the rollout, check out the new (and ever-improving) Politics at Work toolkit >>