How to Handle Fraught Sociopolitical Issues at Work
When sociopolitical issues occur, the most important functions of a company are maintaining a civil workplace and ensuring grace for those directly affected. Companies don’t exist to discuss sociopolitics; they exist to provide goods and services.
Silence is Golden; Statements Are Not
It seems almost impossible to check a news feed without encountering a serious sociopolitical situation that sparks a reaction (in fact, social media does its damnedest to guarantee it!). As social creatures, we human beings want to discuss these issues for the betterment of ourselves and our society, as well as for other personal reasons that none of us is proud to admit to. Especially in recent times, there has been an increasingly prevalent desire for people to have the freedom to discuss issues where and how they please. But, these conversations about the issues in our society are, like all speech, subject to time-and-place limitations that make it inappropriate in a variety of contexts, like the workplace. Such restrictions are critical to ensuring a civilized society/workplace and any given group’s ability to retain a diverse membership while still maintaining the requisite respect and decorum that is necessary for effective functioning.
One of the challenges, however, is the fact that people are starting to expect the businesses for which they work and from which they purchase goods and services to be ideologically aligned with their sociopolitical viewpoints, and likewise to make statements about whatever is going on in the news. This is a fraught subject/endeavor by any lights, but presents an especial challenge for the people team in a given organization. For better and worse, a company’s people team needs to ensure that the people in the company are able to conduct their work as effectively as possible, which is often conflated with a mandate to protect the health and wellbeing of employees. As with speech, protecting the health and wellbeing of employees has time-and-place limitations, and, for better and worse, the company is legally obligated to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities, which means the people team’s mandate for protecting the employees often comes with too short of a leash for many people’s comfort.
Despite the desires of a company’s employees and customers, it is rarely safe, effective, or appropriate for a company to comment on a sociopolitical situation where there are multiple perspectives, and likewise highly inappropriate for a company to get involved in attempting to regulate speech around complex sociopolitical issues. Pick any notable sociopolitical situation, and you find myriad conflicting opinions that are often held very strongly. Rare indeed is the person who knows enough to explain the many sides without judgment or gross bias, and nearly all of those people have years of academic study on that particular subject. Almost none of those people works in a typical company, and it is statistically likely that even fewer work on the people team of a company. So, who at the company actually has the requisite knowledge to make a defensible and justifiable comment with any level of depth or nuance? Without one such educated person, a useful comment is impossible. Even with that person, however, it is unlikely that the employees are sufficiently educated about the issue to refrain from seeing the comment as taking a side or failing to represent the[ir] truth, and that practically guarantees some affected employees. What is left for the company, however, is making a generic comment that constitutes little more than virtue signaling and that will alienate those who wanted a stronger reaction.
What about the watercooler, be it actual or in a virtual company chat channel? Can people discuss sociopolitical issues there? My recommendation is a resounding absolutely not! Any collection of coworkers that wishes to have a private conversation that will not be overheard, will not coopt company resources (after all, it isn’t work), and that will accept the risks that someone who attends the conversation will file a complaint, is more than welcome to gather and discuss what they please as long as the work gets done. But, discussing controversial issues that are irrelevant to business within hearing of those who may not appreciate the conversation is a recipe for disaster, because there is too great of a risk of saying something that will offend or that may be construed as hate speech or discriminatory.
A Practical Example: The Israel-Gaza War
As of this writing, the war between Israel and Gaza continues, and is into its ninth month. The sociopolitics of the region are so complex that it would take a book long enough to rival a work of Proust to explain it. Even the fact of my using “Israel”, the current legal name of the Jewish state, instead of “Palestine,” the name to which some people believe it should be returned, is going to arouse some ire, as is the mere fact that I validated the existence of people who use a different name for the state. This very simple example is meant to show a devastatingly simple point: you just can’t win on these sorts of issues. One might expect, however, that surely it is valid to condemn the capturing of hostages, the killing of civilians, and the mistreatment of women that occurred on October 7th, 2023, and yet there is a notable number of people who consider such actions to be “justified resistance” on the part of the Gazans/Palestinians, and thus laudable. People are welcome to form their own judgments of the situation, but it is beyond the purview of a company to select one perspective and run with that as the official viewpoint of the company. Companies don’t exist to discuss sociopolitics; they exist to provide goods and services. A stick of gum doesn’t care what happens in the Middle East on any day, and a plumber fixing a toilet is not paid to unclog moral issues.
The next illustrative detail is Israel’s military response to the actions of October 7th, which led to the deaths of civilians in Gaza, and while some readily find this outcome a condemnable overreach, others consider these deaths to be the unfortunate byproduct of war, and with this one runs into the next challenge of discussing such complex issues: why comment on this outcome and not other, similar outcomes in other places? Civilian casualties readily occur in military operations, regardless of the factors that led to the operation (and these serve only to complicate the views on the civilian deaths), so commenting on the war in Israel without commenting on all of the other wars that are yielding civilian casualties is a demonstrable example of demographism (in this case, anti-Semitism). A similar problem occurs for many other sociopolitical issues: why comment on this one and not that one? Best to stay out of it and get back to work!
Focus on Supporting Employees
But, what about the challenges that employees deal with?
I don’t know about you, but when there are sociopolitical events that affect me on a personal level, the last thing I want to hear is a weak tea statement from the company. And, knowing that it’s impossible for the company to make an informed and effective statement without getting things wrong and upsetting people is justification enough for its silence. As the saying goes: better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove any doubts. Uninformed opinions and their weak-comfort counterparts are not helpful; they are counterproductive. What people do want, however, is understanding that they may not be firing on all eight cylinders during that time, just as they wouldn’t be when personal/familial issues are affecting them. One would hope that people would take off if they really can’t function, and that the company would provide the time if need be, and that there would otherwise be grace for working remotely or not quite having enough spoons for highest-level performance during that times. This is where the people team can make itself known as being available for liaising between affected employees and their teams, and likewise for facilitating time off and/or remote work.
That grace is the most important thing a company can provide, and it is well within the purview of the firm! For the people team, the key is knowing when sociopolitical issues may be affecting certain people and potentially checking in on the employee to see if grace is needed. Similarly, in the wake of major events like October 7th, the company can remind employees of the resources available and the people with whom to speak if some grace is needed. At times of demographic tensions and major events, there is also an opportunity for the people team to remind folks about appropriate behavior and to limit public conversations out of deference to those who are dealing with the impact of the situation. Again, I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to hear people talking about a sociopolitical issue that deeply affects me when I’m trying to work, and I definitely don’t want to overhear a conversation among people with no skin in the game and who cannot comment intelligently and sensitively on the topic.
While there may be a desire for additional resources besides maintaining civility in the workplace, grace during major events, wellbeing benefits, and an apolitical water cooler, there isn’t much else that falls under the purview of the company’s responsibility to its employees, and consequently many companies don’t have any additional resources (especially smaller ones!).
When to Make a Statement, and Which Statement to Make
When a company is considering making a statement about a sociopolitical issue, here are a few questions that are helpful to ask:
1. Is it your purview? Does this affect the business?
If the issue has nothing to do with your business’s value proposition or the way in which your company executes upon it, there is no need to say anything. But, suppose the company actually does business with one or both sides of a sociopolitical issue, or sold the materials that were used in said sociopolitical issue. In that case, a statement is necessary, and I recommend finding a communications specialist (e.g., crisis communications) to help with it. The right message is critical in such a situation and warrants expert assistance.
2. Are a lot of our employees affected? Can we say something substantive that goes beyond lip service and virtue signaling?
If a lot of employees are affected, consider whether there is something substantive that can be said about the issue, but remember that silence is better than a weak statement, and it is rare that someone understands the situation enough to formulate a substantive stance that won’t set others off. If the company is comfortable facing the consequences of taking a side, which can mean losing business/reputation/face, lawsuits (e.g., discrimination, hostile work environment), and turnover, it is still strongly advised to tread carefully and consider hiring a communications specialist. But, if you’re going to make a statement that takes a stand, make a clear and strong one that is justified clearly and is based on the principles and values of the company, and don’t back down on it when the consequences come.
3. What are the resources we have for supporting our employees?
This should be your main focus, and any statement made by the company should be centered around support. For example: “We are aware that many employees have been affected by the events that occurred in the Middle East over the weekend. We ask that everyone be prepared to offer patience and grace to those affected, and remind everyone to be thoughtful and refrain from discussing the matter in public areas. The company offers wellbeing services through the Employee Benefits portal, and the People Team is available if anyone needs accommodations.”
4. What are the resources we have for protecting our employees?
Take stock of what the company is prepared to do if an incident happens in the workplace, and consider whether to offer any additional resources that can help people refrain from hitting a sensitive topic or saying something inappropriate. For instance, one might append to a statement, “For those who might not be as informed on the topic, here is some information about related sensitive topics and recommendations for how to refrain from conversations that may be upsetting to others.”
5. What if the issue is just a tragedy like an earthquake? Can we make a statement then?
Of course! But then, earthquakes and other assorted tragedies are not sociopolitical events, and it’s very easy to make an empathetic and informed statement in such circumstances. Of course, do keep in mind that many such statements without action are pretty weak tea. Consider a statement like this: “Our hearts are with the victims of the devasting [natural disaster] in [place] and their families. Please join us in directing your thoughts and prayers to those affected.” A lot of people roll their eyes at statements like that, and they consequently lead a company to lose face rather than look good for making the statement. If the company has to make a statement about a tragedy, make sure it’s backed up with some action; at minimum, coordinate a company-wide donation campaign, such as: “Please join us in donating to [charity], which is assisting with recovery efforts in the region. [donation link]”.
Do Your Best
Even with guidelines like these in place, there will still be people clamoring for something else and/or something more. The company cannot please everyone, nor is it in the business of doing so, and sometimes this hard line is the best one that a company can take. The optimum is neutrality on complex issues that do not affect the business, careful messaging on issues that do affect the business, and providing support to those who are affected is the best way to address such a sensitive issue. Ultimately, a company is in the business of providing goods and services, and that needs to be the primary focus. As much as possible, this should include ensuring that employees can maximize their contributions to that endeavor, and supporting and protecting their ability to do so as fully as possible.
As for the rest, that’s for society and politics to handle.
