Politics

Don't Ban “Politics” at Work – Harvard Business Review

Published

3 years ago

July 7, 2021

With political polarization on the rise and companies gauging the risks of employees’ internal political activism, some are opting to ban political speech at work entirely. The authors, experts in speaking up at work, explain the pitfalls of this approach and instead suggest asking a different question: How can we support employees and encourage them to handle difference, respect one another, listen, and learn? The answer, they suggest, requires four actions on the part of leaders: Building empathy and respect for others’ views, inviting different perspectives into the leadership fold, accepting mistakes gracefully, and teaching people how to disagree.

“Speak up!” “Bring your whole self to work!” This invitation (or is it a command?) has been ringing down the hallways and Zoom calls of many organizations in the past few years. Leaders should hardly be surprised when employees take that invitation at face value and speak up on political issues they deeply care about: Climate change, human rights issues in the supply chain, sexism, and racism.

But leaders are worried because political conversations in the workplace come fraught with risk. In our research on employee activism, we’ve found that leaders are concerned that these discussions may become ungovernable or toxic, create workplace discord, distract people from getting on with the job and so undermine productivity, or result in people fighting for union recognition and so usurp managerial authority, any of which might in turn blossom into a PR fiasco.

The result is that some organizations have banned such conversations altogether. It appears that there’s enthusiasm for such a strategy: According to a Harris poll, for example, 70% of Americans say they would support companywide policies that limit the discussion of politics in the workplace, and according to Glassdoor, 60% of U.S. employees believe that discussing politics at work at all is unacceptable. Meanwhile, YouGov in Germany reported 44% of workers thought it to be inappropriate to talk about politics at work.

But banning political speech has consequences. Recently Basecamp CEO Jason Fried announced a number of policy changes, including that there would be “no more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account.” Within a matter of days around one third of its employees had resigned and Fried ultimately apologized. Basecamp was hot on the heels of another controversial ban on political speech, by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, which also resulted in the loss of a number of employees.

Instead of instituting a ban or seeking to diminish voices seeking political change, leaders would be better served by building a culture that handles political differences in the workplace more productively. Let’s look at why that is — and how to do it well.

The Disadvantages

Banning political speech is fundamentally implausible because it is impossible to draw a clean, objective line between what counts as “politics” and what doesn’t — or which issues are “acceptable” to discuss because they relate to the company’s mission and which aren’t.

The problem is that the kinds of issues that are debated in the political sphere often do have bearing on the company’s goals and operation. Take, for example, a retail CEO we recently spoke to. He found himself embroiled in a heated debate with employees who wanted him to speak up publicly about a sexist remark made by an industry commentator, while he was reticent and felt out of his depth. He could have simply banned the discussion, dismissing sexism as a “political” issue. But sexism was related to the company’s mission, which relied on the patronage of women (their primary customers) and on having a reputation that allowed it to attract and retain key talent. The CEO chose to speak out as his employees had urged him to do. What could have been a potentially explosive situation with walkouts and a furor in the local (and even national press) was resolved without drama. With political debates it is the capacity to defuse situations which is often the marker of success.

Banning politics can also backfire in two ways:

First, employees may not take kindly to it. The theory of Transactional Analysis from psychology helps to explain why: When a “critical parent” lays down the law, they frequently get a “rebellious child” response in which the reprimanded party lashes out. A company leader banning speech about difference is likely to drive difference underground only for it to explode — as with the widely publicized mass exodus at Basecamp.

Secondly, if your rule is accepted, you may end up with a lot of “compliant child” behaviors: a minefield of employees expecting you to make more and more detailed guidelines around what is and isn’t allowed and arbitrating every time something unexpected comes up.

We’re not suggesting there aren’t situations where a leader needs to use their positional power to set boundaries. Clearly, there may be a need for leaders to step in if employees are being harassed or debates have turned aggressive. But this should not be a default reaction. Instead, we believe that there is considerable space between the two extremes of a full ban and letting political speech run riot.

The Right Way to Handle Political Difference

If your instinctive answer is to ban political discussion, then we’d suggest asking a different question: How can we support employees and encourage them to handle difference, respect one another, listen, and learn? In fact, this is a question worth asking regularly anyway because innovation, safety, motivation, agility, and performance all rely on the answer. In Transactional Analysis terms, this alternative approach is called “adult-to-adult inquiry,” in which people consider an issue — and their differences — in an attentive and curious way.

Leaders who want to build their organizations’ muscle for this approach to political dialogue should focus on four elements:

Build empathy and respect for others’ views. Leaders who wish to build political empathy in their organizations need to establish spaces where employees can learn informally about one another and find ways to negotiate their boundaries and differences — learning how to be different from each other while still having enough mutual respect to get on with the job in hand. We’ve seen bosses bringing home-baked (or not) cake in to encourage impromptu chat or Zoom meeting agendas that include a few minutes for participants to explain one non-work thing they are finding challenging or are proud of.

These conversations may seem small, but political empathy and respect grow through the day-to-day sharing of personal stories and vulnerabilities and when we can see past the habitual labels and judgements we apply to others.

Invite different perspectives into the senior leadership fold. The next step is for leaders to actively invite difference into their own perspectives. In our research into speaking truth to power, we found that people valued their own opinion around a third more than that of others and that leaders often live in a self-assured bubble thinking that they know what matters to others even when they really don’t. This corresponds to the “strong leader” trope which is prominent in organizations, business schools, and society and which equates leadership with control, strength, and a single truth or vision.

It takes skill and self-awareness for leaders to welcome different opinions. A leader we’ve worked with introduced a formal devil’s advocate role into their teams, where at every meeting someone is tasked with being the voice of opposition. In an organization where leaders are seen as considerably more powerful than line staff, we’ve been invited in by the HR director to collate the unofficial story about employees’ experiences of speaking up and being heard to share with the senior executive team.

Accept mistakes gracefully. Political dialogue can’t happen if everyone has to always be perfectly articulate, polished, and on-message. Our research shows that the top two reasons we stay silent are that we fear being perceived negatively and we fear upsetting or embarrassing the other person. But it is often the case that the more impassioned people are about something, the less articulate they become.

As role models for the rest of the organization, leaders in particular should ask themselves: How are employees received when they speak up but are inarticulate or unskilled in doing so? Is the reaction likely to lead them to learn and try again or will they silence themselves? By coaching leaders on mindfulness techniques, we’ve helped them to be more aware of their reactions and choose more productive responses.

Teach people how to disagree. Developing the ability to disagree well has benefits beyond the company’s ability to handle political difference — it’s integral to the organization’s ability to innovate.

To make their people more comfortable with conflict, leaders must model disagreeing, and disagreeing well. At one company we work with, leaders are open with employees about conflicts that exist at the board level and explain that these disagreements (and their successful resolution) are essential for performing well.

To disagree well, organizations must understand that disagreement turns destructive only when it is seen by one or both parties as an existential battle where “I’m right” and “You’re wrong.” One organization we work with has drawn on the field of mediation for its executive training around conflict. There the focus is on ensuring that the other party feels that you have fully understood their case before you put yours forward yours — especially if you’re in a higher-status position.

If you have an impulse to ban political speech at your organization, it may signal that the organization cannot handle difference and challenge — a bad sign for the company’s ability to be agile and innovative. Before you ban certain conversations, check whether you are attempting to cover up a deficiency in one or all of the four areas above. If you are, the ban is just a Band-Aid; what lies beneath still needs your attention.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Politics

‘Disgraceful:’ N.S. Tory leader slams school’s request that military remove uniform

Published

1 day ago

November 8, 2024

Anne Joseph

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says it’s “disgraceful and demeaning” that a Halifax-area school would request that service members not wear military uniforms to its Remembrance Day ceremony.

Houston’s comments were part of a chorus of criticism levelled at the school — Sackville Heights Elementary — whose administration decided to back away from the plan after the outcry.

A November newsletter from the school in Middle Sackville, N.S., invited Armed Forces members to attend its ceremony but asked that all attendees arrive in civilian attire to “maintain a welcoming environment for all.”

Houston, who is currently running for re-election, accused the school’s leaders of “disgracing themselves while demeaning the people who protect our country” in a post on the social media platform X Thursday night.

“If the people behind this decision had a shred of the courage that our veterans have, this cowardly and insulting idea would have been rejected immediately,” Houston’s post read. There were also several calls for resignations within the school’s administration attached to Houston’s post.

In an email to families Thursday night, the school’s principal, Rachael Webster, apologized and welcomed military family members to attend “in the attire that makes them most comfortable.”

“I recognize this request has caused harm and I am deeply sorry,” Webster’s email read, adding later that the school has the “utmost respect for what the uniform represents.”

Webster said the initial request was out of concern for some students who come from countries experiencing conflict and who she said expressed discomfort with images of war, including military uniforms.

Her email said any students who have concerns about seeing Armed Forces members in uniform can be accommodated in a way that makes them feel safe, but she provided no further details in the message.

Webster did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At a news conference Friday, Houston said he’s glad the initial request was reversed but said he is still concerned.

“I can’t actually fathom how a decision like that was made,” Houston told reporters Friday, adding that he grew up moving between military bases around the country while his father was in the Armed Forces.

“My story of growing up in a military family is not unique in our province. The tradition of service is something so many of us share,” he said.

“Saying ‘lest we forget’ is a solemn promise to the fallen. It’s our commitment to those that continue to serve and our commitment that we will pass on our respects to the next generation.”

Liberal Leader Zach Churchill also said he’s happy with the school’s decision to allow uniformed Armed Forces members to attend the ceremony, but he said he didn’t think it was fair to question the intentions of those behind the original decision.

“We need to have them (uniforms) on display at Remembrance Day,” he said. “Not only are we celebrating (veterans) … we’re also commemorating our dead who gave the greatest sacrifice for our country and for the freedoms we have.”

NDP Leader Claudia Chender said that while Remembrance Day is an important occasion to honour veterans and current service members’ sacrifices, she said she hopes Houston wasn’t taking advantage of the decision to “play politics with this solemn occasion for his own political gain.”

“I hope Tim Houston reached out to the principal of the school before making a public statement,” she said in a statement.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

Source link

Politics

Saskatchewan NDP’s Beck holds first caucus meeting after election, outlines plans

Published

2 days ago

November 8, 2024

Anne Joseph

REGINA – Saskatchewan Opposition NDP Leader Carla Beck says she wants to prove to residents her party is the government in waiting as she heads into the incoming legislative session.

Beck held her first caucus meeting with 27 members, nearly double than what she had before the Oct. 28 election but short of the 31 required to form a majority in the 61-seat legislature.

She says her priorities will be health care and cost-of-living issues.

Beck says people need affordability help right now and will press Premier Scott Moe’s Saskatchewan Party government to cut the gas tax and the provincial sales tax on children’s clothing and some grocery items.

Beck’s NDP is Saskatchewan’s largest Opposition in nearly two decades after sweeping Regina and winning all but one seat in Saskatoon.

The Saskatchewan Party won 34 seats, retaining its hold on all of the rural ridings and smaller cities.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

Source link

Politics

Nova Scotia election: Liberals say province’s immigration levels are too high

Published

2 days ago

November 7, 2024

Anne Joseph

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia‘s growing population was the subject of debate on Day 12 of the provincial election campaign, with Liberal Leader Zach Churchill arguing immigration levels must be reduced until the province can provide enough housing and health-care services.

Churchill said Thursday a plan by the incumbent Progressive Conservatives to double the province’s population to two million people by the year 2060 is unrealistic and unsustainable.

“That’s a big leap and it’s making life harder for people who live here, (including ) young people looking for a place to live and seniors looking to downsize,” he told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.

Anticipating that his call for less immigration might provoke protests from the immigrant community, Churchill was careful to note that he is among the third generation of a family that moved to Nova Scotia from Lebanon.

“I know the value of immigration, the importance of it to our province. We have been built on the backs of an immigrant population. But we just need to do it in a responsible way.”

The Liberal leader said Tim Houston’s Tories, who are seeking a second term in office, have made a mistake by exceeding immigration targets set by the province’s Department of Labour and Immigration. Churchill said a Liberal government would abide by the department’s targets.

In the most recent fiscal year, the government welcomed almost 12,000 immigrants through its nominee program, exceeding the department’s limit by more than 4,000, he said. The numbers aren’t huge, but the increase won’t help ease the province’s shortages in housing and doctors, and the increased strain on its infrastructure, including roads, schools and cellphone networks, Churchill said.

“(The Immigration Department) has done the hard work on this,” he said. “They know where the labour gaps are, and they know what growth is sustainable.”

In response, Houston said his commitment to double the population was a “stretch goal.” And he said the province had long struggled with a declining population before that trend was recently reversed.

“The only immigration that can come into this province at this time is if they are a skilled trade worker or a health-care worker,” Houston said. “The population has grown by two per cent a year, actually quite similar growth to what we experienced under the Liberal government before us.”

Still, Houston said he’s heard Nova Scotians’ concerns about population growth, and he then pivoted to criticize Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for trying to send 6,000 asylum seekers to Nova Scotia, an assertion the federal government has denied.

Churchill said Houston’s claim about asylum seekers was shameful.

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” the Liberal leader said. “He is overshooting his own department’s numbers for sustainable population growth and yet he is trying to blame this on asylum seekers … who aren’t even here.”

In September, federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller said there is no plan to send any asylum seekers to the province without compensation or the consent of the premier. He said the 6,000 number was an “aspirational” figure based on models that reflect each province’s population.

In Halifax, NDP Leader Claudia Chender said it’s clear Nova Scotia needs more doctors, nurses and skilled trades people.

“Immigration has been and always will be a part of the Nova Scotia story, but we need to build as we grow,” Chender said. “This is why we have been pushing the Houston government to build more affordable housing.”

Chender was in a Halifax cafe on Thursday when she promised her party would remove the province’s portion of the harmonized sales tax from all grocery, cellphone and internet bills if elected to govern on Nov. 26. The tax would also be removed from the sale and installation of heat pumps.

“Our focus is on helping people to afford their lives,” Chender told reporters. “We know there are certain things that you can’t live without: food, internet and a phone …. So we know this will have the single biggest impact.”

The party estimates the measure would save the average Nova Scotia family about $1,300 a year.

“That’s a lot more than a one or two per cent HST cut,” Chender said, referring to the Progressive Conservative pledge to reduce the tax by one percentage point and the Liberal promise to trim it by two percentage points.

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Houston announced that a Progressive Conservative government would make parking free at all Nova Scotia hospitals and health-care centres. The promise was also made by the Liberals in their election platform released Monday.

“Free parking may not seem like a big deal to some, but … the parking, especially for people working at the facilities, can add up to hundreds of dollars,” the premier told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

— With files from Keith Doucette in Halifax

Source link