The deep dive: Holding space for the political and the personal

Hannah Keal 5 min

There’s a lot weighing heavy on humanity right now. A rise in the far right across Europe, genocide in Gaza, a war on civilians in Sudan, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, human rights abuses in Congo, to name just a few of the conflicts and crises we’ve seen play out so far in 2024. Add the fact that more than half of the world’s population is set to go to the polls this year in hotly contested elections - and it’s no surprise that many of us are feeling a sense of overwhelm.

These geopolitical events can have a huge personal impact - whether that comes from living and working in a country that’s experiencing instability, having family members that are directly impacted, or just feeling a sense of helplessness and anxiety that lasts way beyond our daily doom scrolling through the news.

Given that a return to precendented times doesn’t seem all that imminent - however many memes we make about it - it’s reasonable to ask ourselves some complex questions about the role of both organisations and individual managers in supporting their teams through world events.

Is it fair or realistic to expect the human beings in our teams to just leave these issues at the door? What does showing up for political events with a personal impact look like as a manager? What even qualifies as ‘political’? In this blog, we’ll explore these questions - and articulate why there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to holding space for the political and the personal.

Defining the ‘political’

One of the difficulties in dealing with political dialogue at work is figuring out what exactly qualifies as political when public discourse has become increasingly polarised.

This polarisation means that the identity of some folks is politicised in a way that is completely outside of their control. This has long been the case given the established systems of oppression within our societies, but mainstream political parties in the US and the UK have fanned the flames by using dehumanising language and championing policies which target trans folks, the broader queer community and migrants.

Given that the structural inequities we see within society replicate in our workplace, it’s hard to see how we can have context-led and nuanced conversations on how to create a workplace that’s as inclusive as possible without things getting ‘political’.

Another interesting complexity when it comes to defining what exactly qualifies as political is the massive push we’ve seen in recent years for employees to ‘bring their whole self to work’. However on board you were with that concept prior to the pandemic, it has acted as something of a forcing factor, blurring the personal and professional. Our political views are often deeply linked to our core values and our identity, meaning it feels difficult to reconcile how we show up authentically without sharing at least some of this aspect of ourselves with our colleagues.

So - if even defining what qualifies as political is messy and challenging, it’s no surprise that companies are struggling to know how to deal with it.

Shut it down?

Some companies have responded by shutting down discussion of anything that could be considered political and announcing that they will not take a stance on current events. The leadership of Coinbase and Basecamp are two such companies. Both decisions were relatively unpopular with staff, with Basecamp losing a third of its team in the fallout, after employees judged this a poor response to concerns raised to leadership about equity and inclusion.

Blanket policies like this do not seem workable without widespread support across an organisation. Even when there is consensus, our lack of ability to define what actually constitutes political speech could be a blocker to successful implementation.

Beyond this, outright bans like this are highly paternalistic and could speak to wider cultural challenges. The ability to hold space for constructive conflict is key to building a culture of innovation and agility - something more necessary than ever as companies scramble to deal with continued economic turmoil.

Companies that are perceived to have made political statements that express solidarity for one group over another have also faced criticism. One recent example is Apple - whose CEO expressed solidarity with Jewish people after October the 7th, but has silenced and failed to support their Palestinian employees.

An uneven approach like this is particularly contentious in companies where there is evidence that they are profiting directly from conflict. Not having the ability to challenge AI that supports apartheid or hold your employer to account when there is evidence that illegal materials have entered their supply chain puts employees in a difficult position, which may conflict with both employees personal values and their company’s espoused values.

What are the alternatives?

It is clear that there is no one size fits all approach to political speech and how to respond to geopolitical events at work. Factors to consider include:

- What you do - some organisations are more overtly political due to the nature of their operations - some less so; consumer-facing companies also have to contend with customers who in are keen to spend in line with their values;

- Levels of psychological safety within your team - a necessity for respectful and compassionate discourse;

- The diversity of your team and cultural differences - in remote teams, there may be a huge difference from country to country when it comes to how common it is to address political issues at work;

- Finally, when it comes to assessing whether to offer targeted support in response to a particular event, it’s important to consider how directly impacted your employee population is.

Careful consideration of the above factors can help organisations find an approach that works for them. More and more companies are choosing to proactively document how they balance the reality of political events' impact on their teams with an awareness that those teams might contain people with vastly different perspectives.

Posthog for example makes it clear in their handbook that they will not support political or social causes, but is working on creating space for individuals - in particular those from underrepresented groups - to talk about the way wider societal issues affect them.

Another company that has documented their approach explicitly is Cal.com. Their handbook sets out some principles for protecting their team from harm and championing constructive, compassionate engagement.

It’s clear that a nuanced and progressive approach to political discourse requires that we provide support for managers. Training on emotional regulation, active listening, compassionate inquiry and constructive conflict can help those responsible for supporting others expand our capacity for difficult discussions and hold space for our team members when they need it most.

Showing up for your team members as a manager

If you currently manage team members who are feeling the impact of the current climate and are keen to offer support, there are a few things you can focus on.

The first is making space in 1:1’s to hear about the personal impact. Try using phrases like ‘I can see you feel strongly about this - why is this issue important to you?’ and ‘I’m hearing that this is causing you a lot of pain. Would you like to talk about it further?’

Offering the option of time off or signposting to existing mental health support can also help.

Another proactive step you can take is building mechanisms to allow your team members to share different aspects of their identity and personal boundaries. This may help individuals impacted by geopolitical events feel confident asking for the support they might need to help process things when they need to. This could be as simple as asking your team to build and share readme’s. Giving people this space to talk about what’s important to them helps to build empathy and openness to learning from others with different perspectives.

Finally - if there is an issue you believe, based on some of the factors above, requires a company wide approach - or if you feel you need additional support or training to be comfortable holding space for team members with differing beliefs, speak up and ask for it.

Bringing it all together

As we’ve explored - there’s no one way to deal with political speech and crises that might leave our team members reeling - but this certainly isn’t an issue that companies can avoid forever. If we want to create truly inclusive cultures, we must find ways to hold space for differing beliefs and a range of responses to the world around us. As managers, we may not always agree with our team members - but holding space and offering compassion when they’re in pain is a powerful thing to do if you have the capacity for it.

Up Next

We think you’ll like these other related articles.

Join the list.

Every two weeks our community newsletter is released to spark curiosity about the world around you and challenge your thinking. Sound good?