Politics and workplace etiquette - to speak out or stay quiet?

Thankfully times are changing. Where once upon a time, the golden rule for brands was to avoid politics and advocacy; today, consumers expect brands to take a stand. From #MeToo to #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) and climate change, staying silent is no longer an option, particularly for global brands with a ton of clout. But where does that leave the individual? When is it ok to express personal and political beliefs in the workplace?

 Let me share with you a personal anecdote. When I was just 22, I started my first office-based job. I was a temp completing some administrative work in a London-based media company. The year was 2006, and I had recently graduated from university. Also that year, Israel conducted its 34-day war in Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah’s cross-border raid on an Israeli armoured patrol. The outcome was the death of 1,200 Lebanese, namely civilians, including hundreds of children, 43 Israelis, 117 IDF, the displacement of 1 million people across Lebanon, and around $2.8 billion worth of damage to the country, with the significant bombing of the Lebanese capital Beirut and its infrastructure. Civilians were starkly caught in the crossfires of a war waged by Israel which sought to end civilian support for Hezbollah, a single political faction of Lebanon’s otherwise hugely complex political landscape. Those who could left the country, and many nations, including the US and UK, quickly evacuated their citizens.

Outraged, I had heard there was a Stop The War coalition demonstration taking place outside the UK houses of parliament. Young and na?ve and not knowing that any HR policy in place restricted me from doing so, I sent around a companywide email informing staff of the planned event for anyone wanting to join. Suffice to say, I was quickly summoned by HR, who kindly explained that it was against company policy to disseminate political content using company email. 

Now, most people would agree that the workplace is not the space in which to express your political views. But in recent years, in light of the many decisive political debates occurring, from the US elections in the face of Trump and Brexit in the UK, it’s hard to imagine not being able to discuss such topics in the workplace. (Luckily for me, working in PR and communications, such conversations are openly had and even encouraged, as the outcome of such political events have key implications for clients who want and need to stay abreast of current affairs.)

When it comes to personal beliefs in the workplace, the Equality Act has been invoked where legal disputes have arisen in the UK. Designed to protect individuals against discrimination, the Act regulates the protection of beliefs in the workplace, though it distinguishes between a viewpoint and a belief. The three criteria that allow the courts to distinguish between the two are as follows: 1) The belief should be genuinely held, 2) it should be a belief and not an opinion or a viewpoint, 3) the belief should have a substantial impact on behaviour. That, of course, still leaves some murky grounds, on which I won’t digress. To briefly return to my personal example, however, I feel I would have sufficiently been able to tick all these boxes. (I genuinely believe that the IDF has one of the worst human rights atrocities globally; it is a conviction that I hold till today, and I subsequently boycotted Israeli goods.) However, I would have still been in the wrong in my actions. Why? Because my email was the company’s property, their communication channels (rightfully) to be used solely for work purposes.

But let us leave aside personal political convictions for a second and return to brands and their responses to the #MeToo and #BLM movements. As millennials and later generations increasingly turn to purpose-driven brands that align with their values, more and more companies engage in brand activism. Indeed, Edelman’s 2020 Trust Barometer showed that 80% of consumers expect brands to “solve society’s problems”. As such, brands no longer have the option of staying silent. Of course, activism is divisive, and the chances are you run the risk of offending some. As profit-driven companies, executives will always need to weigh the risk to sales – but when you’re a billion-dollar a year profit company – such as the likes of Coca-Cola or Nike – what’s more important? Losing a few customers or doing the right thing? Of course, businesses are here to make money first and foremost and not to change the world. But as major players with significant resources in our economies and societies, they are today viewed much like citizens – as having a responsibility to better our world.

And indeed, in response to #BLM, numerous companies responded. From Nike to Netflix, Citi Group and Reebok, all utilised their communication channels for communicating their solidarity with the black community, and many committed company funds to various advertising and social justice campaigns to demonstrate their commitment to the movement. And indeed, I would argue, they were right to. Racial inequality in the case of #BLM, or sexual inequality in the case of #MeToo, are societal wide structural issues that, despite going back centuries, continue to persist today, placing individuals at a disadvantage. That they are structural means they are pervasive and institutional, making them difficult to weave out. While the impact of brand activism may be debated, with the more pessimistic among us likely arguing that it is driven solely by a company’s desire for profits and likely to make little change, I would argue that we need such companies to take a stand and in doing so, make clear that whether sexism or racism, they have no place in society nor the workplace.

And so, to return to the fundamental question at the heart of this article – ‘When can I express my political beliefs in the workplace? – I would answer where it has relevance. A company or brand cannot save the world – let us be clear on that. And not every battle needs to be fought. In the case of #MeToo, what was clear, however, is that decades of abuse had continued because of a culture of silence, and that needed to end. In the case of #BLM, that too is true in the case of institutional racism. Taking a stand on discrimination based on sex, race, religious beliefs or age, I would argue, is not only fair game, but we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens and colleagues to call them out when we see them. While issues of discrimination are deeply political as they raise fundamental questions of power, I would consider these topics to be better framed as fundamental questions of equality, which absolutely have a place in the workplace. And as a company is only a reflection of its employees, we too have a role to play in shaping company culture.

However, to return to the more sensitive question of, say, foreign policy or war, the subject is much more thorny and, arguably in most cases, likely best kept out of the workplace and in civil society. However, with the growing focus among millennials on engaging only with those brands that they feel align with their values – this is not only restricted to their purchases but also in terms of where they choose to work. And indeed, some consultancies allow their employees not to work on those accounts to which they conscientiously object. And so, the best advice would likely be, if as an individual you feel fundamentally opposed to the actions of your company, to have a discreet conversation with your line manager. Perhaps, if they are purchasing supplies from a company you believe has misplaced values, or are engaging with a dictatorship, you might raise this with your seniors. You may be bringing a viewpoint to the table they had not considered before and may even be thankful for your inputs. Indeed, as one too many brands have found out the hard way, their association with suppliers and clients that raise ethical concerns has resulted in a consumer backlash. This immediately brings to mind many fashion brands, from Benneton to Primark, that were found to be using suppliers that engaged in child labour, underpaid staff, or put their employees’ health and safety at risk. But perhaps the most poignant recent example of companywide unethical behaviour is the McKinsey scandal. The company worked to boost sales of Oxycontin amidst an opioid crisis in the US. Clearly, a companywide culture driven by profit reigned supreme at the company, and many unethical business decisions were made. Sadly, in this case, one questions whether the ethical concerns of staff would have been properly addressed in what appears on the face of it as a toxic environment. In some such cases, if the conflict in your personal and employers’ values is too extreme, the best decision may be to move on, where possible.

Finally, to wrap up, I would add another personal note to say that, more than ever, raising your political thoughts in our current climate is an extremely frightening perspective, particularly when one feels that this could damage your personal brand. In the last few weeks, I’ve been consistently seeing posts across LinkedIn that I feel are unbalanced concerning current events in the Middle East. Afraid of offending someone in my personal network, I have wavered between commenting and not. But in stopping to write this post – I now ask myself – ‘What am I afraid of?’. If I frame my question in a rational, considered and thoughtful way, surely, I have a right to respond? This is not a subject I would actively raise on my LinkedIn profile, but I feel obliged to respond to a subject I feel very strongly about when I see a one-sided representation of events. However, none of this is clear cut, and it’s a very careful line that needs to be tread. But to return to #MeToo and #BLM, we will not root out these inequalities in our societies while governments, companies and individuals stay quiet. And so, I would say, have the courage of your conviction if you feel your concerns are valuable and relevant to your environment. Just be sure to carefully deliberate your words and objectives before doing so.