Resolving the Tension Between Authenticity and Free Speech in the Workplace
After my most recent article providing guidance on how HR can handle discussions of the Israel-Gaza War in the workplace, which included guidelines for identifying anti-Semitic and Islamophobic statements and recommendations that limit what people should be saying/displaying in the workplace, I was asked a number of questions about whether such guidelines limit people’s ability to be authentic and whether it could be problematic to restrict the range of discourse in the workplace. I am removing the context of those questions (and other inappropriate comments) to protect the guilty, but suffice it that many people actively want to hold on to their biases, and even people in the DEI space said some appalling things.
So, one more time for the people in the back: Religion is a protected class in many civilized countries (including the US, UK, and Canada). Anti-Semitic and Islamophobic rhetoric are forms of hate speech for which people can and should be disciplined in the workplace.
Also, being anti-Semitic/Islamophobic makes you as much a jerk as any other demographist, and I can’t believe I actually have to explain that to anyone.
Then again, the very reason I had to write both the prior article and this one is the very fact that some people believe that their anti-Semitic/Islamophobic views are coherent with social justice. Just remember that what White Supremacists, Nazis, BLM protestors, and trans-rights activists all have in common is that they all think their cause is righteous and that their beliefs are in service to the greater good of humankind, and there are a whole lot of other people who disagree with them. No matter how much one may believe in fighting for/against these causes, the workplace water cooler isn’t the appropriate arena to do so.
Returning to the question of limiting discourse, let’s just cut to the chase: Does a person have the right to be openly demographist in the workplace?
If your answer is “no,” you’re in favor of speech restrictions in the workplace.
After all, people have the right to be demographist, if only because we all have the right to think whatever we wish in our own heads. People also have the right to be jerks, whether we like it or not, in part because there aren’t always clear-cut lines on where jerkdom begins and ends. Another part, which is an open secret, is that we’re all jerks at times and are in desperate need of grace for it. That said, we are most grateful to know that most nations’ laws restrict just how far that jerkiness can go, and that there are lines that people cannot cross without penalties. But, with that in mind, do we really want people to bring their full, authentic selves to work, knowing that they have the right to think things that are going to make us seriously uncomfortable if expressed openly? Do we really want people to be those full, authentic selves if it means they may want to do things that we won’t like (and sometimes they will do those things anyway)? I have some real concerns about anyone who answers “yes” to that one…
While people have the right to think as they will and that cannot and should not be restricted, speech is a bit more nebulous on the legal and policy front, if only because the harms that it causes often have no tangible/visible effect, and because the outcomes of speech affect different people in different ways across different contexts. To make matters more complex, speech involves a significant amount of interpretation, which can leave speakers and listeners with completely different views of the same communication. (If you question that, consider how many times you’ve had to say to someone “That’s not what I meant!” and wonder to yourself how in the world they managed to choose the worst possible interpretation of what you said. Don’t worry; we’ve all been there.)
To recap: our authentic selves sometimes involve our being jerks, and our speech can hurt other people regardless of whether we mean for that to happen.
As such, perhaps it’s a good thing to restrict speech in some cases; even the First Amendment, with its strong free-speech protections, actually contains limits.
For the workplace, specifically, it is critical to keep in mind that the first priority for a workplace is to make sure that it is conducive to work, because that is the fundamental purpose of the organization. Second, one must always keep in mind that people are often required to be at work (especially with the recent return-to-office mandates). They are not at liberty to relocate or do their work elsewhere, and are similarly restricted in their freedom for where/how they obtain refreshment, nourishment, and midday rest, all of which serve the purpose of ensuring that work gets done. As such, when we discuss things like authenticity and how we express ourselves in ways that are ancillary to work, or are not directly related to work, we must recognize that these are, at best, adjuncts to the main priority.
It is of course optimal to be one’s authentic self in any context, but human beings adapt to context and show different sides of themselves depending upon the situations they encounter. An authentic self has many facets, some of which may even appear contradictory at first glance (such as folks who are quiet in some places and energetic in others), and we often learn where we get the most value out of our different features and bring them out accordingly. As such, it is not a stretch to suggest that a workplace can safely create a context in which only certain facets of a person are likely to be made manifest. There is a constant tension, however, between the strictures that implies and the freedom to be oneself, but those balances are part of any civilized aspect of society, be it work, religious institutions, schools, and so on. Even the public town square has its rules (as indicated by the First Amendment’s limits).
As work is foremost a place where work gets done, conditions of civility must hew to that standard. For that reason, I mentioned in my recent article the distinction between public and private conversations, the fact that no one has the right to free speech in the workplace, and that workplace policy would be wise to include some guidelines and possibly some restrictions. For instance, it is very reasonable to require that people have discretion when engaging in non-work conversations in public areas like hallways, lounges, and the like, as these may offend other coworkers and consequently affect their ability to do their work. It is likewise reasonable for people to complain when their coworkers do not show discretion in what they discuss openly.
One would hope that reasonable adults can understand the need for such discernment, and recognize that there are appropriate and inappropriate places to “let it all hang out”. Authenticity and being able to bring one’s whole self to work is undeniably important, but so are polite relations and civility. Unlike the town square where people can either work out their differences or leave, the workplace is not a public zone where people can opt-out and go somewhere else if they don’t like the topic (and working out differences detracts from getting work done and is sometimes unacceptably uncivil). Maintaining respect for that fundamental fact means recognizing that the common areas of the office need to be zones of discretion where people maintain decorum and stick to safer topics. That said, it also means that people should have opportunities to engage in private discussions in more discreet locations where they have the freedom to speak as they will, regardless of whether others will like what they have to say. Protecting the wherewithal for people to be authentic at work is just as important as ensuring that everyone has a space that is conducive to work.
That’s precisely what rules and guidelines are for.
Still have additional questions? Book an appointment with me here.
