Politics at work: Can cooler heads prevail?

When President Bush started gearing up to send troops to Iraq, veteran Bruce Fenton broke away from his Republican roots - and stopped checking his political views at the office door.

As founder and president of Atlantic Financial in Westborough, Mass., Mr. Fenton had long avoided talking politics at work, but he feels liberated now that he's been speaking his mind. "Whatever side you are on, this is an important election ... and if people really care and they're keeping [their thoughts] bottled up inside, that's not conducive towards health and happiness," he says.

Whether he's offering up a sophisticated argument or occasionally blurting out his view that "George Bush is a raving lunatic," Fenton has discovered that "no one bites your head off." He encourages employees - including his "die-hard Republican friends" - to take a stand for their opinions, too, and says they all respect each other more for the debate. The lunch room is frequently abuzz - lately with people's take on the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the security measures leading up to this week's Democratic National Convention.

But as elections approach and memories of hanging chads resurface, not every workplace is so harmonious. As a result, managers are sharpening their strategies for defusing tense conversations or offensive jokes. Political discussion shouldn't be prohibited in the workplace, experts say, but employers are wise to assert some control over when and how it happens.

"Come November, this race is going to be over, but the company's going to go on ... and things that are said and done in the heat of the moment at a conference table ... may have far-reaching impact," says Earl Taylor, national spokesman for Dale Carnegie Training.

At a recent meeting Mr. Taylor attended in Raleigh, N.C., conversation during a break turned to the fact that John Kerry would be visiting the state to make appearances with his running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. "As the topic took on a little bit of exuberance, [one senior manager] stepped into it and said, 'You know, I really appreciate the fact that everybody has such an active interest in the politics of our nation, and there's a time and a place for it. Today, we're here to focus on....' and he talked about the business issues." Not everyone at the meeting was a fan of the two Johns, Taylor says, and the manager "had the balance to bring it to a halt before temperatures started to rise."

Even if tempers aren't flaring, political conversations or e-mails "can move into other topics that ... could arguably create a hostile work environment," says Stephen Paskoff, president of ELI (Employment Learning Innovations) in Atlanta. One client from Boston recently asked how to handle discussions about gay marriage. It's not always easy to draw the line between talking politics and denigrating categories of people, Mr. Paskoff says, but employers should not tolerate "divisive, negative, stereotypical, or offensive comments."

Co-workers should also be mindful not to cross ethical lines, says Bruce Weinstein, president of Ethics at Work, a consulting firm in New York. "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Passion of the Christ" have brought out strong reactions during water-cooler chats, he says. His advice: Think more about what kind of language you use, and keep in mind the Golden Rule. "Your first responsibility at work is to do the job, and disrespectful conversations about these topics ... violate the employer's right to have the employees focus on their work."

In one small department of a pharmaceutical company in North Carolina's Research Triangle, antiwar talk turned into a lesson about diversity. Leigh Morgan, a global project leader, says that she and her colleagues frequently vented their disagreement with President Bush's foreign policy when they gathered in the common area of the suite - until the administrative assistant interrupted them one day to point out that the conversations didn't sit well with her. She had formerly served in the Air Force and was much more trustful of the decision to go to war.

Page: 1 | 2