Keeping Office Chat About Politics Civil — and Separate From a Charity’s Public Work

IN THE TRENCHES

By Peter Panepento

During most election years, partisan politics are rarely discussed in the lunchroom or hallways of the United Way of Erie County, in Pennsylvania.

But not this fall, says R.J. Zonna, the organization’s vice president of campaign. These days, employees are spending more time talking about the election battle between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry.

In turn, Mr. Zonna says, the United Way’s managers have also been talking about politics — reminding the charity’s workers not to share their partisan opinions with the group’s supporters.

“This year, especially with the heated presidential election, you have to be careful not to be partisan,” Mr. Zonna says. “Most times, it goes without saying. But the world has changed a lot, especially since 9/11. With the way things are today, we’ve had to talk about it.”

This election season, he says, seems particularly polarized, and national pundits and polls bear out his theory: Many surveys show the presidential candidates running neck-and-neck among voters.

As the election draws close, nonprofit managers like Mr. Zonna worry that their organizations will be painted as supporting one candidate or party, a notion that could endanger their legal status as a charity and their ability to attract supporters. Nonprofit managers must also worry about whether intensifying chatter about the election is putting unwanted pressure on their employees, some of whom are uncomfortable sharing their political views with their co-workers.

Heated Discussions

While many nonprofit organizations advocate for their causes with lawmakers, charities are prohibited by law from engaging in any politically partisan activities.

But even though many advocacy organizations take steps to shield donors and customers from partisan viewpoints, many of their employees hold strong opinions. During a rancorous race such as the one that pits President Bush against Senator Kerry, those views can cause discomfort when they spill into conversations around the water cooler or over the cubicle wall, says P.M. Forni, co-founder of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project at the Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore.

In many cases, he says, those discussions are appropriate and comfortable. But if they grow too heated or are used to single out employees who hold minority opinions, they can lead to conflict among colleagues. “Speaking about politics always raises the possibility of creating stress in the workplace, with consequences that can last beyond the period of the election,” Mr. Forni says. “That’s one of the reasons why we should not take lightly these discussions.”

A survey of 238 executives released last month by the American Management Association found that 26 percent of respondents said they are uncomfortable sharing their political views with colleagues. Another 35 percent said they are uncomfortable sharing their political views with their supervisors.

Those results show that while a majority of employees are willing to talk about politics with co-workers, a significant minority are skittish about sharing their opinions, especially with their bosses.

As a result, says Andrea Kay, a career coach in Cincinnati who has worked with clients from the nonprofit world, workers need to steer clear of provocative conversations about politics that could disrupt office harmony. For starters, she suggests avoiding discussions with those who are known to have strong opinions or be argumentative.

Mr. Forni suggests that workers think about how they will handle political discussions long before they are put on the spot. Employees should devise a strategy for handling political questions. Then, if questions arise, they are prepared to give their answers — or gracefully decline to join in the discussion.

“It is the individual worker that has to make an informed, thought-out decision,” Mr. Forni says. “We have to know ourselves. If you want to get into a discussion, know the consequences. You can always choose not to disclose information. Those around you do not have to oblige you to discuss your party affiliation.”

Indeed, says the U.S. Department of Labor, federal law protects workers from being forced to express their political views — and from being penalized when they do.

Political Passion

Many charities have already helped set the appropriate tone for political discussion because of their explicitly nonpartisan missions. And many nonprofit managers say they have created work environments that are largely apolitical.

But because of the nature of nonprofit work — and the devotion many workers have to social causes — it is often difficult for employees to appreciate that those around them might not share the same political views. Although no current data exists on the political affiliations of the nonprofit labor force, many charity managers say that the majority of their workers are Democrats, or align themselves with liberal causes.

For example, in academic settings, such as Johns Hopkins, he says, it is common for professors to assume that their co-workers share their politics. But that notion can damage relationships, he says: “One of the most common breaches of civility is assuming others share the same opinions, talking in a way that communicates to another person that ‘you think like me and, if you don’t, you should.’”

The same is true when workers represent their charities to donors or clients. Letting one’s political views slip into a presentation or discussion could offend a potential donor — and lead an organization aground of federal laws that prohibit political endorsements.

“It is a challenge,” says Alison Carl, executive director of Seattle Works, a nonprofit group that fosters civic involvement among the city’s residents younger than 40. “It’s hard to separate out what you believe personally from what you believe professionally. But we know our opinions cannot come out.”

As a result, while charity employees might have strong political views, nonprofit managers say they encourage them to leave those opinions at home. Most organizations stop short of crafting explicit policies that could be interpreted as stifling workers’ First Amendment rights. Yet discretion is embedded in the culture of many groups.

“It’s a nonissue for us. It’s not even something that needs to be mandated,” says Brad Kaufman, vice president of marketing for Junior Achievement, in Colorado Springs, Colo. “JA has always kind of touted the fact that we are nonpartisan. It’s the nature of what we do.”

Employees at the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, in New York, are encouraged to be politically active outside of work — but only outside. Like Junior Achievement, the organization cannot afford to send signals to donors or customers that it has a political agenda, says Arney Rosenblat, the society’s public-affairs director.

“If I took a straw poll, I’d say 90 percent of the employees are Democrats,” Ms. Rosenblat says. “Some are involved in the Bush campaign and some are involved in the Kerry campaign. But none of them take it into the office.”

Sometimes, nonprofit workers do more than merely aid a campaign — they run them. The United Way of Erie County was faced with a potentially tricky situation a year ago when one of its workers campaigned for a seat on the city’s school board.

The employee — who won the election and later left the organization — chose not to bring her campaign to work. She even avoided wearing a campaign button at the office. “It was handled perfectly,” Mr. Zonna says.

Leading by Example

Still, no matter how hard an organization tries to avoid political debates in the office, Mr. Forni says it cannot patrol every conversation between co-workers. Nor can it come out too strongly against employees having collegial discussions.

“You can open yourself up to accusations of stifling free expression,” he says. “But a manager can lead by example. If he or she is in a group that is debating politics and the discussion becomes heated, he or she should say, ‘I am not comfortable with this and we should stick to issues that are important to the organization.’”

In some nonprofit settings, though, political discussion is an important part of an organization’s mission. At Seattle Works, says Ms. Carl, debates about political topics crop up frequently at the office and in board meetings. The organization stops short of endorsing parties or candidates, she says, but it works under the idea that political discussion is both necessary and healthy.

“Politics and civic engagement should be part of every nonprofit,” she says. “The only way democracy will survive is if we talk about political issues.”

However, she adds, civic engagement should remain civil. Seattle Works, which plays host to regular public forums, asks participants in those forums to abstain from name-calling and to discuss their ideas in the spirit of open debate — not with the aim of ridiculing or chastising opponents. Implicitly, Ms. Carl says, those rules also extend to the organization’s trustees and workers.

“There is a general respect,” she says. “If anything, there is a curiosity about other viewpoints.”

How does your organization handle interoffice political discussions? Suggest your strategies for keeping civic discussions civil in the Share Your Brainstorms online forum.