If you’re like me, you’ve always wondered why so many people in HR are uninterested in talking politics. Trying to get one of you guys to talk about health care reform out in the open is like pulling teeth without health insurance. Get it? Because I said… nah, forget it.
I always chalked it up to politics being an uncomfortable situation in general. It is one we often find easier to commiserate with like-minded folks. Then again, it seems like every other department I’ve worked with inside an organization wants to talk politics. My theory: if you want to be a big shot in HR, you’re going to have to have a political voice.
So HR is different but why? Here are the three primary reasons:
Poor Education
Some people aren’t going to like this reason and that’s too bad because it is one of the major reasons. I don’t know too many politically educated people who sit on the sidelines in other fields so it has to be a reason in at least some of the cases.
Political issues that impact the workplace are complicated certainly but it’s not like there isn’t a myriad of ways to get educated. So what could be the problem?
Could it be that SHRM’s emphasis on being an advocating and lobbying organization rather than an educational organization on legislative matters be demotivating to those that may disagree with SHRM on critical workplace issues?
Maybe the thing that has rubbed me the wrong way about SHRM’s issue advocacy on the part of all SHRM members is that they spend so few (comparative) resources on being proactive in workplace issues. Wouldn’t working within corporations to promote communication and openness serve as a better long term solution to the threat of easier unionization than advocacy? Shouldn’t we as a group of HR professionals be talking about more thoughtful approaches than just battling legislation?
Faux Neutrality
As the famous Burr/Hamilton duel suggests, we could just shoot people when we had political disagreements in the past. Now we have to take a slightly different approach.
One of the major reasons I hear smart and intelligent HR people say they don’t want to enter the political arena is that they want to maintain a sense of neutrality. I know this because I used to be that person as well. And there is a decent argument for it somewhere but it has nothing to do with being a leader. It has everything to do with marginalizing yourself out of important conversations going on in your organization.
While you may feel like you are being noble and fair, you are also missing an opportunity to show your skills as a contributor. Anybody can report how the laws changed. How do you bring it up within your organization? What’s your position on it? What is your plan for adapting and thriving?
When you take on your faux neutrality pose, it hinders your ability to have reasonable, adult level disagreements with people you respect and have to be around. That’s a political skill that translates over so well in business. You become a better person because you aren’t just commiserating with like-minded people anymore. You learn to disagree respectfully while still being firm in your beliefs.
Intimidation by Other Corporate Leaders
The last, and maybe most difficult, reason is corporate leader bullying. Now if you know me, you know that generally isn’t a problem. I am a big believer in free enterprise and that goes over well with other corporate leaders.
That being said, there are also some areas where there are some serious disagreements. That’s when some people who haven’t learned how to disagree like adults start the bullying and harassing.
Of course, the HR side of us wants to say, “Hey, some states prohibit that” which is admittedly funny in its own right. But the problem is much bigger than that. The assumption that most leaders are like-minded in political matters has to be one of the major threats to American business. If you think I am joking or being glib, my philosophy is that like-mindedness is bad for innovation and if there is anything American business needs right now, it is innovation.
So Now What?
So now what, what? Get politically active. Get educated, drop the silent treatment and stand up for yourself. Let’s talk about health care reform or unionization or affirmative action. Let’s talk about regulations that impact our core businesses. If you work in aviation, know about the major changes to flight safety going on now. If you work in ecommerce, read up on the developments around taxation for goods purchased.
None of this is rocket science but it is a change. Are you ready and willing? Have you been doing this for a while? Are you not ready to take the plunge? Let me know in the comments.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
The faux neutrality kills me. You’re not fair & balanced — you are in Human Resources!
Under your “so now what?” section, I’d add a few things:
1) Don’t always go by the conventional wisdom pushed by the (very biased) mainstream media. I recently went to an HR presentation about how companies may want to “go green” and try to attract eco-sensitive candidates by holding a farmers market. I’m not against farmers markets (love them), and certainly consider myself very environmentally conscious (I try not to waste kitchen sink water waiting for it to warm, and instead capture that water for plants) but farmers markets aren’t always so green. It can be way more efficient to transport a large number of vegetables to a supermarket than a small number a short way to a farmers market. You may think I’m being picky, but if you’re trying to attract candidates so concerned about the environment they factor it in when choosing a job, they’ll be picky too.
2) I agree with your point about being firm, but at the same time, be open-minded. I’ve seen Twitter posts saying things like “the three worst words are ‘I’m a Republican’” or something like that, and I’ve seen equally closed-minded things from conservatives. You can be firm and opinionated without being closed-minded.
3) You said “get educated,” which is good, but a lot of people get educated by reading more opinions like their own, and become more close-minded. It’s like that great Twain quote: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.” Too many people think getting educated means listening to the liberal Jon Stewart but not the conservative Sean Hannity or the Weekly Standard, or listening to the conservative Sean Hannity but not reading the liberal New Republic. This only leaves people more hardened in their views, and leads to people saying “I hate Bill O’Reilly” or whoever else, without ever watching his program.
Hey Lance: great post and great challenge to be a learner and take a position. I think some people sit on the sidelines because they think taking an informed position on an issue with legislation attached to it (like workplace flexibility or employment verification or labor management relations) is equated with being “political”. SHRM’s position on issues are not political. They are taken after a great deal of research, surveying of our members (250,000 who never line up 100% on any issue, as you can imagine), conversations with legislators on both sides of the aisle and other HR associations. And our approach really does include education — both on the issues and on the impact of legislation if/when passed. Our members need to know how to respond to legislation that has passed in order to keep their organizations legally compliant. In the current legislative environment that’s a tall order. This post is what I appreciate about your blog. You get the conversation going in the absolutely right direction! Thanks.
Hate to always be disagreeing but in today’s politically charged (and divisive) climate talking politics or religion in the workplace is a fool’s game.
To quote myself from a November 2004 blog post:
http://nobscot.blogspot.com/2004/11/aftermath-of-political-debates-in.html
“From a business perspective there is absolutely nothing positive to be gained. From a societal standpoint, there’s not much to be gained either. As we all know, few minds are changed from such debate. And while there are few if any positives, there are plenty of negatives. Many of which are potent and long lasting.”
Political discussion leads to political argument which leads to lack of respect which leads to dissolution of good work relationships.
If you think your boss is an idiot politically, how is that going to affect your working relationship and your productivity?
If your colleagues all rant against political positions that are important to you, will that aid in workplace cooperation?
As much as you may want to push your own agenda (for the good of the world), political discussions and debate are best left out of the workplace.
As usual, I agree with China. I’d like to add that I beleive it’s the responsibility of HR to have and express professional opinions. How can HR be viewed as a profession if those practicing HR refuse to provide their professional opinions? While I agree with you, Lance, that SHRM needs to be proactive with its members on workplace issues (and of course I’m biased when I say I think it has spent resources in this area) a lot of what SHRM also does is educate public policy makers on workplace issues — most hill staffers have never managed other people or met a payroll. It’s a big challenge. Finally, I absolutely agree that some are intimidated by their executives, but need to have the confidence to voice an opinion. As Dave Ulrich defines it, HR needs to be credible activists. Great blog, Lance!
Great comments all. Let me see if I can tackle them:
@Laurie – You’re right. Let’s stop pretending we are fence sitters and get on with it.
@Todd – Good additions all around. Here’s why I didn’t say “be open minded” and I think it is a fairly good reason. In my experience, many HR people are over-accommodating when it comes to alternative view points. I think the it is a tendency in our profession to want to hear both sides of a story. My problem is that a lot of HR people stop there. Firming up your core beliefs are a big part of that and I think people can find the right balance after that.
@China – To be fair, I should have mentioned the great work SHRM does in post-legislative briefing and education of its members. I honestly forgot to mention that and I truly meant to.
The rest of what your saying is all well taken. I just know that legislative advocacy costs money (big money). That’s how it works and I understand SHRM’s feelings on being involved. While you say it isn’t political, it sure feels that way when you get an e-mail literally saying “Vote NO on the Passage of SB 519″ (April 27th Oregon Legislative Alert).
It feels more like the tail wagging the dog. Maybe it is a perception issue because of the amount of effort and time that goes into researching it? I just know I’d much rather see something that says “Here’s important legislation being heard this week in your state. Here’s our research. What are your feelings on it? Contact us or your rep.”
I know you guys are looking at every dollar going in and out but educating politicians can be the shortest investment cycle in the world. It may always be necessary but it seems like addressing the core issues that lead to legislation with the member base could help.
@Beth – First of all, just forget about religion. That alone brings a host of legal issues that will just bore everyone if I talk about it.
As for the rest, I couldn’t disagree with you more. If I can cite myself too, we don’t live in a world of “should.” http://www.yourhrguy.com/we-dont-live-in-a-world-of-should/
Politics is being talked about at work whether it should or shouldn’t and you’re either choosing to not participate in it or you can be educated and know where to step in and give guidance.
Politics impacts the workplace in a very real way. Why shouldn’t you have a well thought out opinion and share it with people who will be impacted? Because you might disagree with them? Because you might think less of them? Bah!
That’s a great business skill right there. We need more disagreements at work, not less. We need more discussions of how outside influences (including legislation) are going to impact our business, not less. Ignoring politics is like not sharing your views on a competitor’s new product with your team. I can’t see any business in the US where the political sphere isn’t touching it at some point.
@Sue – I agree that SHRM has spent resources on education, probably in the millions. I am just thinking what percentage of total dollars are going in that direction for proactive member education about ways to prevent root causes of legislation vs legislative advocacy and education (lobbying). From what I’ve seen, it seems like the latter dwarfs the former which, as I mentioned to China, is partially to blame on how Washington politics are played.
I guess if it were up to me, I wouldn’t want SHRM to be seen as a junior US Chamber of Commerce lobbying body. I certainly think SHRM is more thoughtful about their efforts than the USCC (no offense to them since I agree with most of their stances) and perhaps it is a matter of showing those behind the scenes images to the membership. The small bit of idealist in me wants to feel like SHRM and other organizations representing HR understand that their role is unique and different than an all pro-business lobbying body. Maybe a greater purpose?
Good thoughts from everyone. Thank you so much.
>>> We need more disagreements at work, not less. We need more discussions of how outside influences (including legislation) are going to impact our business, not less. Ignoring politics is like not sharing your views on a competitor’s new product with your team. <<<
Ahh, but Lance, that is where you are mistaken. Challenging our colleagues about business decisions is where we should speak out – not about our political views.
Discussing something as personally divisive as politics eventually leads to a scenario like this:
Colleague A: "That GWB was a total moron. Our country is falling apart after 8 years under his lack of leadership."
Colleague B : "What are you crazy? Those do-gooder Dems who wanted to give mortgages to everyone is what did us in."
Colleague A: "Colleague B, your being brainwashed by those asinine talking heads you watch on the news. Our company would not be in this trouble if they hadn't removed important regulations."
Colleague B: "I'm not being brainwashed. I only watch news that is fair and balanced!"
Colleague A: "B, you ignorant slut…." *
* said with all due respect to Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin
There is never a good outcome and you never, ever change anyone's mind. It's merely an enjoyable and high blood pressure inducing volley for those of us who like to sink our teeth into a good political debate. (And mind you, those who know me from the good old HRMan Tough Topics days know the pleasure I take in political debate.)
It takes a lot of self control NOT to get into political debates at work but it is always the right thing for the good of the business.
Challenge your superiors, peers and subordinates on business issues not political.
@Beth – Many political issues impact the workplace whether you like it or not. So perhaps a clarification is due: My post was focused on political issues that impact the workplace, not on general political discussions. Health care? Impacts the workplace at certain points. Those points are worth discussing in a business environment but very few seem willing.
Presenting a fictional scenario where the conversation goes poorly isn’t good enough for me. I have had hundreds of political conversations at work that end up nothing like your demonstration. The scenario seems to be an extreme example of an uncontrolled political argument. I think people naturally show a bit more restraint at work and a great leader wouldn’t allow a conversation to degrade into that.
Maybe the issue is about the possibility of changing a person’s mind about a hot stove issue or having a good, raucous debate. That’s not what this is about at all. It is about speaking the politics of business and the business of politics with confidence. It is about being a subject matter expert and an opinion leader on political issues that could potentially impact the workplace. It is about HR people feeling empowered to speak about them and disagree with senior managers when political issues that impact the workplace are addressed.
It is also about knowing the limits of conversation. Not all political issues impact the workplace. Maybe some banter back and forth happens but I am not necessarily encouraging participating in those conversations.
Businesses should absolutely talk about whether it makes sense to support health care reform. It is a business issue. One that involves a lot of dollars and cents for the employer. Why isn’t HR in the front of this issue? That’s what my post is about.
>>Maybe the thing that has rubbed me the wrong way about SHRM’s issue advocacy on the part of all SHRM members is that they spend so few (comparative) resources on being proactive in workplace issues. Wouldn’t working within corporations to promote communication and openness serve as a better long term solution to the threat of easier unionization than advocacy? Shouldn’t we as a group of HR professionals be talking about more thoughtful approaches than just battling legislation?
I’m not an HR person. My common complaint about some HR pros is that they ascribe value to the practice of HR beyond its role in a business. No division or role is more important than its contribution to the business on which it depends. I can see how SHRM would get caught in this trap because so many HR pros, individually, get caught in this trap…the trap of not focusing on bottom line focused contributions that HR can make.
I’ve seen this in other industries. For example, trade associations in the auto glass industry zealously battle big players using various legal tools. They focus on long protracted battles rather than helping their stakeholders improve their business, get more customers, etc.
It’s a dangerous emphasis.
If you can keep political talk to pleasant and intelligent discussion on pros and cons of issues then major kudos to you. I’ve yet to see it happen without devolving. Remember that even if it doesn’t spiral openly, that doesn’t mean it’s not spiraling inwardly as colleagues begins to feel differently toward those colleagues and bosses whose political opinions differ from their own.
I understand where you are going with discussing political issues that affect the business rather than general political smack talk. It’s really though just a ruse of sorts to put ones own political positions on the table.
Whole Foods is a good example. It was a giant business mistake for the CEO to speak out publically on his personal political views. How many of his employees who believe otherwise did he alienate? (Not to mention his customers.) Those that agree with him will continue to agree with him. Those that disagree might decide it’s not a place they want to work at any longer. Truth is he was only preaching to the choir. I’ll guess that he changed exactly zero minds. And who knows what kind of arguments it brewed internally as the pro and con people “debated” the issue. These people have to work together. Having this fracture between them serves no good purpose. And it’s not going to change the future of healthcare one iota.
Self control is not easy. We all think we can sway others to our “correct” positions. But we never do. We only alienate each other and turn former friends into silent enemies.
I agree with Beth…and I actually DO remember her debates on the HRMan Tough Topics forum, so I can attest to her political debate skills. That board imploded in part because of the political discussions. Even among people who have been friends for years, things can get ugly.
The problem with having political discussions at work is that you can’t exclude the loonies. People on the far ends of the spectrum will inevitably piss each other off, and it slowly spreads to the larger crowd in the middle. It’s also hard to separate the inflammatory issues from the non-inflammatory ones, because “inflammatory” is relative. I said something the other day about this idea of death panels being very obviously untrue, and someone who overheard me attributed my remark to my religious beliefs and went someplace else entirely with the discussion. You can’t control how other people feel about what you say, no matter how hard you try.
If everyone could discuss politics rationally, that’d be great. That’s just not the case though…if it was, Glenn Beck would have no audience.
I certainly think HR people should be aware of the business impact of the things that go on in Washington and in their state capitols, and should make their voices heard. I was a political science major, so I’m pretty sure my representatives’ staffers know my email address by heart. But I try hard to refrain from spewing my beliefs on the people I work with, unless the legislation directly relates to what we do (like EFCA, for example). I don’t thinks views on Sarah Palin is necessarily going to make me more effective in my job.
@Chad – You’re absolutely right. Protracted battles might make good play for the news or some fired up members of associations, it often lacks a long term vision of how it’s going to help going forward. Associations are reflections of the membership though and I understand that but at a certain point, there needs to be some leadership towards long term prosperity.
@Beth – I don’t know how you have any disagreements with people at work and not resent them for feeling differently because you can’t convince them or “win.” How are political issues that directly impact the workplace any different than other issues that directly impact your business?
I imagine Mackey ticked off some of his employees but I also think it is important for a CEO to share his views on something that impacts their bottom line. He has been politically vocal on a number of things that impact his business. When you’re talking health care reform that could impact the slim margins grocers maintain, I don’t understand how you don’t expect a leader to speak up about it. The consequences of sitting by politely while a major workplace issue goes unaddressed seems like a much worse consequence.
@Kerry – It is one thing to say Palin is an idiot or that abortion is completely wrong but those aren’t the issues I am talking about. Health care legislation directly impacts a business though, right? In some businesses, health care can be the difference between profitability and tanking.
There’s a double sided risk though. If you don’t talk about a political issue that touches on the workplace, you risk alienating those people that want your leadership on the issue and you lose an opportunity to be involved in discussing the ramifications of it. If you do talk about a political issue that touches on the work place, you risk alienation of those who disagree with you in your organization.
I obviously feel that the latter risk is worth taking. But let’s not pretend that either strategy is risk free either.
If Mackey was worried about his bottom line and not his personal political views he would have kept his mouth shut.
A. His sales are going to be hard hit but those who will no longer shop at Whole Foods due to his political outspokeness.
B. His employees are sure to have been riled up which can not be good for productivity and employee retention.
C. It could just as easily be argued that his views on healthcare are bad for his business. (For example how much greater would Whole Foods’ profit margins be if they didn’t have to pay any healthcare costs at all?)
D. He didn’t change anyone’s mind by speaking out.
Speaking out was based on his own personal need to speak out. He was satisfying an itch. It wasn’t something he was doing for the good of the company (he just cloaked it in that). If I was on the Board of Directors for Whole Foods I would reprimand him strongly.
PS. He also broke a cardinal rule. No thy customers. What on earth was he thinking??
@Beth – You brought up Mackey, not me. He’s not an ideal case, we can both agree on that. That still doesn’t address my point though.
You seem to think that engaging in political discussions on issues that impact business are risky. I think not engaging in them is even more risky. Pretending they don’t exist is like pretending competitors, macroeconmics and other business risks don’t exist.
We can talk techniques and good and bad examples all day but are you seriously suggesting companies should simply ignore real, external threats to their company because they involve political actions? We need to be discussing them as much as the economy, competitors, and the market segments. HR has shirked away from that.
I would agree with you completely if I thought that engaging in those political discussions would make a difference or change things in a positive way. Even if it would positively change things just a little bit it would be worth it. For many years I tried to be that change. (*waving to Kerry!)
What I do think we (HR) should talk about is how we are going to respond to the changed conditions.
Take discussions on the Economy as an example. When the economy was taking a nose-dive, HR people needed to be thinking and talking about how it would impact staffing levels, morale, productivity, compensation, etc. We did not need to be talking about whose fault it was or why it happened or how the country was going to get out of it.
It’s the same with healthcare. I could talk about what I think would be smart and what would be stupid for the country to do with healthcare and give you all kinds of reasons to support my conclusions. But what good would that do? What I should be doing is discussing the various possible outcomes and how we as a company can do to maximize the situation for our company, our employees and customers. That is where we can add value.
Do you see the difference? Or maybe that is what you meant in the first place?
I must say that I have to agree with ‘bncarvin’, politics can be an extriemly risque subject and people do tend to get into very heated debates which can result in arguements and generally alot of tension. I thought the whole ethos of HR was to guide people in the delivery of the organisations goals?? Surely they wouldnt appreciate their staff having a brawl in the middle of the working day. Political discussions are all well and good but perhaps they are best left for the debating society!