Productivity has long been a metric that ties people strategy to business success—and it’s in an especially bright spotlight at the moment, as ongoing political divisiveness in the workplace reaches a fevered pitch ahead of next month’s presidential election.
According to BetterUp’s recent Centered Organizations report, the business-altering distractions related to the election have been building in recent months. In the poll of more than 1,600 U.S. workers, the organization found that between June and August, the share of employees who reported negative impacts from political divisiveness in the workplace—in areas like focus, mental health, belonging and teamwork—jumped by 56% to 95%.
Those outcomes are likely to explode in the coming weeks. Looking at its historical proprietary data about nearly 250,000 employees in the last four years, BetterUp estimates that in the week before a major election, wellbeing drops from the year-round average of 4.07 to 3.89; meanwhile, productivity will likely decrease from a rate of 7.54 to 7.41 that week.
The loss of productivity—and the influx of absenteeism and presenteeism associated with lagging mental health—likely will cost large employers with at least 10,000 employees an average of about $900,000 the week before, and potentially after, the upcoming presidential election, the organization predicts.
Gabriella Kellerman, chief innovation officer at BetterUp, says that while historical data suggests employee stress will rise in the leadup to a presidential election in a “somewhat predictable pattern,” few organizations are adequately prepared.
“The interesting thing is, we don’t see a lot of awareness from employees and leaders, to a certain extent, to predict how stressful this will become,” she says.
How can HR minimize productivity losses and other impacts from political divisiveness in the workplace? According to BetterUp, people professionals need to help their organizations walk a “delicate balance”—creating space for civil dialogue while potentially preventing the organization from taking an overtly political stance.
“HR is there,” she says, “to pull those pieces together: What are the preferences [on the organization taking a stance] of the CEO, the shareholders? Who are the customers? What’s happening in the industry? What is the culture like? What do employees prefer?”
Employees surveyed overwhelmingly (93%) are opposed to leaders sharing their political views; however, Kellerman notes, the voices of those employees who do expect the organization to take a position often can be “very loud.”
“How we treat those individuals around those requests, how we show up with respect and empathy and care—or lack thereof—that gets witnessed and sets the model for how others will then interact around these issues,” she says.
Importantly, BetterUp found that trying to prevent political talk at work to avoid divisiveness can backfire.
The organization found that when organizations ban political talk in the workplace, team conflict rises by more than one-third, and nearly a quarter of employees at such organizations self-censor—beyond political conversations. Researchers found that this can drag down performance, resilience, and social connection while driving up burnout.
Instead, BetterUp found that organizations should lean into creating a more connected, cohesive organization, which, for HR, Kellerman says, can include doubling down on areas like employee wellbeing, DEI and helping employees connect to the company mission.
Role of managers in addressing political divisiveness in the workplace
This is work that often lands on the desks of managers.
In fact, Better Up found that managers have the most influence—more than individual and organizational factors—over individual levels of stress connected to political divisiveness in the workplace.
Manager behaviors that have the most detrimental impact on employee stress include making politically charged comments, ignoring employee concerns and intimidating employees. Conversely, managers who are adept at solving conflicts, listening to employees’ feelings and encouraging feedback from workers drive the best outcomes.
“Managers are really serving as a representative of the company in a way,” Kellerman says. “They are often frontline managers and in the role for the first time. That’s a really tough position, with a tremendous amount on their shoulders.”
Ideally, managers can be the lynchpin, she says, to creating a culture where political divisiveness doesn’t fester. Such cultures place a high value on professional development, recognition and coaching.
As managers navigate political conflicts among their reports, they’re often doing so from a coaching standpoint—leveraging listening, empathy and problem-solving to help their team alleviate stress. That can create a significant amount of “emotional labor” for managers, Kellerman says, and is increasing the need for coaches for managers.
“Where do they have a space? They have their own thoughts and feelings about [politics in the workplace], and they need to shore up their emotional regulation so they have the ability to do that emotional labor,” Kellerman says. “They need help.”
Credit: Source link
