Yes – important. It does not prevent conflict to outlaw conversation.

That said – for complex conversations, an active workplace may not offer enough time for reflection or exchange, so the idea “let’s get back to work, and plan for anyone who wants to follow up on this conversation at the end of lunch hour (or other named time). I think universal rules do shut out some people, and worse, turn other employees into judges if they try to remind some to be quiet. But informally, most agree that work is the key focus, so reminding people informally on let’s get back to our work, is a kind way of reminding without judging.

Thanks for the recommended NYT article. I really like its concluding statement:
“I no longer believe it’s my place to change anyone’s mind. All I can do is try to understand their thinking and ask if they’re open to some rethinking. The rest is up to them.”

Spot On, Michael.

Less we forget these folks are humans and humans have opinions, beliefs, agreements, disagreements, etc. on all/every topic and that is part of what makes us great. We need these discussions, all discussions, (if done civilly/respectfully) everywhere.

We do not need them more now than ever, we have always needed them and will always need them.

And we are not looking for consensus of opinions and likely will not even get consensus of facts, although knowing where undisputed facts are is valuable.

I’ll check out The Upswing by Putnam.

Excellent response and I concur.

John, I agree with your rationale 100%. Very well articulated.

But even more destructive is that our society, our culture needs these discussions to go on in every setting, workplaces, clubs, churches, schools, etc. The discussions just need to done with civility and respect for differences of opinion. Check out the book UpSwing. The evidence is in that we have been driven to echo chamber extremes precisely because we have so few chances to have such discussions with people holding differing views in a safe environment characterized by mutual respect. Thats how we gravitate to more agreement on what is fact; what really is the problem, issue or challenge; and what solutions are reasonably likely to help us make progress.

In fact holding such discussions in many local settings including the work place gives us the practice needed to have civil and respectful discussions when stakes are high and emotions are charged about work related topics too.

Thanks for taking time to read the article and for sharing your thoughts. I can see what you are saying. You’ve surfaced a very valid point around the importance of addressing the heart of the questioner’s concerns. That principle is important when approaching tricky interpersonal situations in general. I think the tips I shared still stand for someone who fundamentally doesn’t believe politics should be shared in the office. Hopefully they’re helpful, actionable ideas for this manager who is looking to respectfully limit political discourse at work. Please share any additional ideas you might have for this manager. This open forum is such a wonderful place to share ideas and help one another through these tricky situations.

Perhaps the source of his/her perception that it’s a challenge has more to do with a belief that certain categories of conversation are not appropriate for the workplace because of their potential to offend and divide, than it has to do with his/her personal beliefs about specific statements or positions being shared under that category.

Perhaps a more engaging approach would be to first seek deeper understanding of the manager’s statement of “I believe people shouldn’t discuss politics in the workplace…” Initial questions related to that might have been more effective than suggesting that if there’s no current impact, there’s no need for concern, or that the problem may exist because the individuals’ opinions are “just different than yours and therefore unwelcome.”

Your questions are valid, but they could be perceived as dismissive or accusatory if they don’t relate to manager’s the true concern. And if you lead with those questions, you may lose the opportunity to get to the true concern.