By Dr. Marie Gould Harper
Program Director, Management at American Public University

All of this year’s presidential candidates have shared their priorities if they are elected president. However, the interpretation of those promises is based on who is speaking. In previous elections, party ideology and a candidate’s platform usually were aligned, but in the 2016 presidential election, increasing numbers of people base their opinions and support on how they feel about a specific candidate.

Politics Causing Hostility in Workplace

In a recent poll by the American Psychological Association, the level of workplace hostility among employees increased and the level of productivity decreased during this election campaign. Is anyone surprised?

Leigh A. Bradberry, a political science professor at California State University-Northridge, believes this election is more divisive than the past four elections because of the negativity to two hot topics– gender and race. Most people have a definitive position on these two topics, and they feel compelled to air their beliefs openly and with passion.

In certain situations, some employees lost their individual identities and became obsessed with whether or not their colleagues support their candidate. Indeed, they spend a good deal of time convincing others why their candidate is the best choice.

Katina Sawyer, an assistant professor of psychology and graduate programs in human resource development at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, suggests that people feel as if their identity is being discussed on a daily basis in the media, especially on cable television; social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) too can be included in that media group.

The negativity in this election is not just among the candidates. A.J. Marsden, an assistant professor of human services and psychology at Beacon College in Florida, says the negativity has provoked sharp emotions among voters and clashes between citizens. Families and friendships have been split as a result.

How the 2016 Presidential Election Affects the Workplace

Sawyer and Marsden’s comments validate concern about disruptions in the workplace. Employees used to be discreet in their public political conversations. Regardless of viewpoints, the conversations were mostly civil.

However, with the 2016 presidential election, the “openness” of political conversations created a level of tension in the workplace that previously did not exist. Some employees are reluctant to engage in conversations with co-workers who hold different political ideologies. That has led to such statements as “If you support _____, we are no longer friends” or “Are you saying that you support __________?” Support of diversity of thought does not seem to apply to this election.

Some of the results from the APA survey include:

• More than one in four employees has been negatively affected by conversations about the presidential election.
• 47% of the respondents stated they were more likely to discuss politics in the workplace this election year.
• One in five respondents avoided co-workers with different political views.
• 27% of respondents reported at least one negative outcome as a result of political discussions at work.
• Workers over 45 were less likely to avoid coworkers because of their political views, while those under 44 were twice as likely to keep away from coworkers who disagreed with their political views.
• Twice as many men as women reported that 1) political talk upset them enough to make them less productive; 2) made them feel isolated from co-workers because of political discussions at work and 3) they noticed increased workplace hostility.

What Employers Can Do About Decreasing Political Tensions in the Workplace

Employers recognize that they have to draw a line. While employers cannot dictate a person’s political views, they can put some guidelines in place regarding employee behavior. People have the right to voice their opinions, but that may come with consequences, especially if their actions adversely affect the work environment.

Employers should seek legal counsel regarding what types of policies and procedures can be put into place without violating employee rights. John A. Snyder of the Jackson Lewis law firm provided a “Top 10” list of guidelines, which include the following:

• Create blanket “no solicitation” policies (cover all areas and not just political viewpoints).
• Remind workers that company property is meant for business-related purposes, not political discussions. Employees should not use their company computers to promote their political viewpoints.
• Seek legal counsel before disciplining any employee for political activities (lawyers are well versed in what actions violate the First Amendment).
• Advise employees that all workplace speech, political or otherwise, should be respectful and tolerant of others’ views (many companies have this statement as a part of their company values statement).
• Have policies in place prior to election season and make sure employees are aware of them.

Remember the Long-Term View of 2016 Presidential Election

When we wake up on November 9, the presidential election will be over and one candidate will be the winner. Life goes on and we all will adapt. That is the reality of the situation.

With that said, why are we spending so much time attempting to convince people that our way and our thoughts are correct? It is in our best interest to have people around us who think differently than we do. It adds diversity of thought to the environment.

If we invest time and money discussing why employees all thinking alike may not be in the best interest of the organization, why would we believe that someone must share our political viewpoints in order to be a good co-worker or friend? It’s something to think about. Let’s end the stress, at least on this topic. Just be sure to vote.

About the Author

Dr. Marie Gould Harper is the Program Director of Management at American Public University. She holds an undergraduate degree in psychology from Wellesley College, a master’s degree in instructional systems from Pennsylvania State University and a doctorate in business from Capella University. She is a progressive coach, facilitator, writer, strategist and human resources/organizational development professional with more than 30 years of leadership, project management and administrative experience. Dr. Gould Harper has worked in both corporate and academic environments.

Dr. Gould Harper is an innovative thinker and strong leader, manifesting people skills, a methodical approach to problems, organizational vision, and an ability to inspire followers. She is committed to continuous improvement in organizational effectiveness and human capital development, customer service and the development of future leaders.