Liberals Versus Conservatives in Your Office: How to Cool Tensions
As political polarization heats up, so does office conversation. Leaders can help people disagree in more effective and collegial ways using a research-based communication strategy.
Carolyn Geason-Beissel/MIT SMR | Getty Images
The U.S. sociopolitical environment is increasingly becoming polarized and divisive. In recent years, multiple hot-button issues have caused deep concern for many people. Among them are climate change, pandemic-related policies, competing views of rights (regarding gender, LGBTQ+ people, and religion), immigration and border security, income (such as minimum wage, inflation, taxes, unemployment/welfare, and executive compensation), and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Then there’s the matter of the 2020 and upcoming 2024 elections. Although the dividing line in many of these disputes is rooted in the political values of conservatism versus liberalism, they are not limited to political and personal realms. They spill over into the workplace, and leaders must address the level — or lack — of civility in today’s workplaces.
Indeed, the workplace has become so interpersonally divisive that the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) recently launched the Civility Index to track civility trends across the nation. According to SHRM, incivility in U.S. workplaces accounts for a $1.2 billion loss in daily productivity and an additional loss of $828 million owing to excessive absenteeism, which adds up to an astounding $2 billion each workday. Yet, managing conflict related to thorny topics can be difficult for everyone, including executives.
Get Updates on Transformative Leadership
Evidence-based resources that can help you lead your team more effectively, delivered to your inbox monthly.
Please enter a valid email address
Thank you for signing up
Our goal is to offer an effective and collegial way to disagree better, especially in the context of workplace conversations. That’s important not only for watercooler conversation but also because many of these disputes directly relate to organizational policies and practices. Leaders need communication strategies that soften extreme stands on both ends of the sociopolitical spectrum and help people find common ground while diffusing strong emotions rather than ramping them up.
Meet the Jujutsu Persuasion Technique
People may use off-the-cuff, inflammatory rhetoric in workplace exchanges about politics, widening the gaps. While research-based communication techniques are available that can help managers bring people of different viewpoints together, the following options are seldom used.
Influence techniques. Soft influence practices, such as collaboration, consultation, ingratiation, inspirational appeals, and personal appeals, tend to be effective in cultivating relationships and accomplishing tasks. Hard influence approaches, which include pressuring, forming coalitions, and relying on one’s legitimate authority, are less effective and more likely to drive a bigger wedge in the division, and may even increase resistance.
References
1. K.E. Brink and R.D. Costigan, “Oral Communication Skills: Are the Priorities of the Workplace and AACSB-Accredited Business Programs Aligned?” Academy of Management Learning & Education 14, no. 2 (June 2015): 205-221.
2. K.E. Brink and R.D. Costigan, “Development of Listening Competence in Business Education,” Current Opinion in Psychology 50 (April 2023): 1-9; and A.N. Kluger, M. Lehmann, H. Aguinis, et al., “A Meta-Analytic Systematic Review and Theory of the Effects of Perceived Listening on Work Outcomes,” Journal of Business and Psychology 39, no. 2 (April 2024): 295-344.
3. Kluger et al., “A Meta-Analytic Systematic Review,” 295-344.
4. M.J. Hornsey and K.S. Fielding, “Attitude Roots and Jiu Jitsu Persuasion: Understanding and Overcoming the Motivated Rejection of Science,” American Psychologist 72, no. 5 (July-August 2017): 459-473; and R.D. Costigan and K.E. Brink, “Jujutsu Persuasion: Learning How to Coopt With Another’s Values,” Business Education Innovation Journal 14, no. 1 (June 2022): 82-92.
5. R.D. Costigan and K.E. Brink, “Persuading With a Collocutor’s Values,” Business Education Innovation Journal 13, no. 2 (December 2021): 86-94; and M. Feinberg and R. Willer, “From Gulf to Bridge: When Do Moral Arguments Facilitate Political Influence?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41, no. 12 (December 2015): 1665-1681.
6. Hornsey and Fielding, “Attitude Roots and Jiu Jitsu Persuasion,” 459-473.
7. Feinberg and Willer, “From Gulf to Bridge,” 1665-1681.
8. J. Graham, J. Haidt, and B.A. Nosek, “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, no. 5 (May 2009): 1029-1046.
9. Ibid.
10. Costigan and Brink, “Persuading With a Collocutor’s Values,” 86-94.
11. Costigan and Brink, “Jujutsu Persuasion,” 82-92; Costigan and Brink, “Persuading With a Collocutor’s Values,” 86-94; and Feinberg and Willer, “From Gulf to Bridge,” 1665-1681.
12. Costigan and Brink, “Jujutsu Persuasion,” 82-92; and Costigan and Brink, “Persuading With a Collocutor’s Values,” 86-94.