Should Politics Be Left Off Of LinkedIn?
Rumor has it there have been some hot-button political issues taking over social media, and with any touchy topic comes debate, transforming conversations threads on LinkedIn from “We’re hiring!” and “Here’s a cool article about the future of work” to “You’re stupid” or “Of course a Trumpet would say that.”
Then there’s the category of the cool heads, the one I thought I fell into: “Keep politics off of LinkedIn. Keep that garbage on Facebook with your crazy cousins.”
However, with the more research I do on happy, innovative, and productive cultures, the more I realize they aren’t afraid to address their problems — in fact, they see problems as growth opportunities. Plus, they understand that their employees are actual humans with beliefs, passions, and personal lives outside of work, so “keep home at home” or “keep political beliefs out of the office” are akin to saying “Hey, don’t be yourself when you’re here.”
The reality is that the decisions made by our political overlords do have an impact on our lives, and we should talk about them.
HOW we talk about them is what could use a tune-up.
There’s a reason politics and work have been kept separate: discomfort. And what causes that discomfort?
When it comes to political conversation, we model the behaviors of politicians and the talking heads we see on the news: the goal is to win the debate and make the other person realize they lost.
If you know a single thing about human behavior, winning an argument just makes the other person resent you.
HOW TO BRIDGE IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDES?
The irony on LinkedIn is that when I’m on a conference stage rhetorically asking the audience whether they think leading from a place of curiosity will lead to better innovation and problem-solving, I see a resounding amount of nods among the hundreds of faces in front of me. Yet, when someone posts any form of politically charged statement about the 2nd Amendment, Roe v. Wade, or whether a hot dog is a sandwich, any curiosity from the commenters is replaced with an argument where each person is making a point about why the previous commenter is wrong.
Arguing to prove one’s rightness and another’s wrongness, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH DATA YOU HAVE, doesn’t lead to a solution — it leads to separation and stagnation. Lumping others under labels like “pro life,” “liberal,” “baby killer,” “religious nutjob,” or “idiot” doesn’t just dehumanize them, it dehumanizes you into a category of being right.
If you’re going to start a political conversation of any kind, whether at work or on LinkedIn, break away from the judgment-fueled debates that pollute the airwaves and lead with curiosity.
When I see comments or posts like “You don’t care about babies,” “Well you don’t care about women,” I don’t care about this conversation because no growth can come of it.
“What can we do about this?” on the other hand, creates a whole different conversation.
“What would the world look like if this weren’t a debate anymore?” leads to imagining a better world together.
But “A hot dog is a hot dog, not a sandwich, and that’s final,” creates a binary conversation that leads to argument and stifles connection, innovation, and progress.
THAT’S what we need.
So when it comes to addressing these hot-button issues at work, on LinkedIn, or anywhere else, absolutely do it, but when you do:
- approach from a place of curiosity instead of judgment
- find common ground instead of focusing on differences
- start the conversation by coming together to picture a world where this is no longer a debate.
What would that look like and how can we come together to create it?
