The American Psychological Association recently released a report discussing the potential upsides and downsides of having conversations about politics – and specifically the upcoming U.S. Presidential election – in the workplace. Not surprisingly, 27 percent of workers reported at least one negative outcome as a result of political discussions in the workplace during this election season. Granted, some workers also felt more connected to their co-workers (24 percent) or had a more positive view of their co-workers (23 percent) as a result of political discussions.
I will not attempt to summarize all of the results here, though I recommend people to take a look at the full report as there were some differences that emerged as a function of sex and age. Perhaps most importantly (and surprisingly to some folks), this is not a Republican versus Democrat or a Liberal versus Conservative issue, as there were hardly any differences between the various political affiliation or philosophical classifications.
Instead, the positive and negative consequences of discussing sensitive – and sometimes divisive – issues at work can happen to anyone regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.
But politics is not the sole source of potential divisiveness in the workplace, as different individuals and groups have lined up to voice their support or displeasure about NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s and other players actions during the playing of the National Anthem, to argue their perspective on gender-neutral restrooms, or various other controversial issues that emerge over the course of any given year.I could list one example after another, but in truth, they would all have at least one core commonality: they tend to evoke strong opinions on both sides of the issue. If these events become the topic of conversation at work, those conversations could degrade the quality of the work environment if not managed properly.
While the majority of workers in the APA poll reported that co-workers were generally respectful of those with differing political views (60 percent), that means a large minority of workers were either neutral or disagreed with this sentiment. In other words, there could be very real consequences for an organization, especially in terms of productivity and employee relations.
Should organizations actively promote or discourage conversations surrounding sensitive issues?
Idealistically, one could argue that an organization’s culture might be such a supportive environment that workers could constructively share their opinions on topics like these without ridicule or negative consequences. While this may be an accurate descriptor of some organizations, I would be surprised to learn that it was accurate of more than a small minority of them (especially, given that most organizations develop sub-cultures that vary to a fairly large extent).
On the other hand, without deliberate consideration of ways to address the occurrence of these conversations (by either promoting or dissuading them), managers and organizational leaders may be increasing the likelihood they will occur – and possibly occurring to the detriment of productivity. Therefore, it may be in the organization’s best interest if it takes a deliberate stand – not on the issue itself, but on it position regarding the discussion of sensitive and potentially divisive topics in the workplace.
from Good Company Blog http://bit.ly/2e94ZQ1
via Tumblr http://ift.tt/2eirjVp
