Good morning!
U.S. politics has never felt more divisive. And as America inches closer to the November presidential election, how business leaders broach these political conversations at work could have a big impact on company culture.
HR leaders view “political issues in general” and “political issues tied to the upcoming election” as two of the top five threats to company culture over the next 12 to 18 months, according to a report released today from the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business. The report defines political issues to include legal restrictions to abortion access, immigration, and DEI practices. The survey, which gathered responses from 153 CHROs, covered a wide breadth of topics but revealed one common thread: CHROs are afraid of political conflict creating a dysfunctional workplace.
“Some CHROs see this as being a tremendous threat to their culture,” Patrick Wright, associate dean of corporate relations at the University of South Carolina, tells Fortune. “There’s been so much that’s happened over the last five years, from COVID, to George Floyd, to Israel. It's event, after event, after event, that is creating these new conversations. It's now becoming more front of mind.”
One example of politics in the workplace is the battle over DEI. CHROs are worried about how diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives will be impacted by the upcoming election, according to the report. Out of the 153 CHROs who participated in the survey, 22 mentioned anxiety over diversity, equity, and inclusion—the fourth most discussed issue. Only geopolitics and political issues, economic uncertainty, and technological advancements were more top of mind for HR executives. DEI has come under attack by conservative leaders and politicians over the past few months, and CHROs are under a microscope to address criticisms and create meaningful strategies. Wright says that anecdotally, he’s heard from HR leaders about having to assuage the fears of one group of detractors in particular.
“Not surprisingly, CHROs say resistance was particularly [coming from] white males, who were concerned that this was going to threaten their mobility and positions. And so what CHROs were trying to emphasize [to the public] was: ‘This is about everybody. It's about inclusiveness. It's not about quotas,’” he says.
Aside from divisive political arguments, CHROs are also worried about how politics will directly affect their workers. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, employers have stepped up to offer benefits like subsidized abortions and IVF care. But while HR may be taking a stand internally, Wright says that leaders won’t be as forthright publicly.
“You'll see companies making internal statements about what their policy is in regard to IVF, but not necessarily standing up and saying, ‘We think this particular proposal is good or bad,’” he says. “But we know that every internal statement becomes an external statement, because somebody will leak it. So I think that's what will come up.”
Although approaching politics in the office is often fraught with tension, CHROs have already laid out a game plan, according to the report. The most popular method to manage political conversations in the workplace is asking employees to be clear on social media that their posts are their personal opinion, and not the stance of their companies. In measuring how often they scale certain approaches from zero, or no extent, and up to seven, to a great extent, this plan is ranked at 3.6. That’s followed by HR leaders outlining proper ways to discuss political issues in the office at 3.5, training managers in how to manage this dialogue at 3.0, and establishing a formal policy regarding political discourse at 2.7.
“CHROs are trying to stay away from acting like Big Brother, dictating what you can't say or what opinion you can't have. So their initial salvo is to say, ‘Just be careful what you do with social media,’” he says.
Notably, however, Wright has seen a shift in the way that CHROs approach politics at work. Rather than shying away from the topic altogether, they’re leaning more towards transparency.
“They are trying to be very cautious in how they approach it, yet see the need to be much more proactive and more vocal about it,” he says.
Emma Burleigh
emma.burleigh@fortune.com
