The Office Is Political

Something has gone badly wrong in American public life. Our civility has given way to spite and suspicion. Disagreement has become contempt. Opinions have become orthodoxies. Arguments on college campuses have become harassment and physical altercations. Elections have become insurrections. The American polity is enduring a political, social, and civic crisis. Although the first two strands receive a lot of attention, the third is often overlooked, even though it is the root of the other two, and the one that more of us are in a position to solve.

Where might we begin to mend it? When we think of ourselves as civic beings, our families, schools, religious congregations, and public institutions usually come to mind. We should also think of our workplaces.

The importance of work in our lives cannot be overstated. One study showed that managers have as much impact on people’s mental health as their spouses do, and more than therapists. Work doesn’t influence only our mental health; it also shapes our skills, habits, and character.

Work is social. While remote work has changed the dynamics for many, a large proportion of the interactions of most working adults with other people still happens at work. The workplace is one of the only places where people from different backgrounds commonly and meaningfully interact. In an age when the movie theater is Netflix, the mall is Amazon, the grocery store is Instacart, and the confession booth is social media, our workplaces have increasingly become the hubs of social exchange.

Work is political. “Politics” isn’t just elections or the business of government. It is the interchange of power in all relationships. We practice politics in families, congregations, and clubs. Only a small fraction of the average American’s political activities involves direct contact with government. The space where most adults navigate, acquire, and accommodate power is the workplace. Being or reporting to a boss, experiencing inequalities, participating in decisions or not participating in decisions — these are all inherently small-p political experiences.

And work is civic.

At work, we practice association, discussion, persuasion, and coexistence. We experience speech boundaries, speech norms, and communal deliberation. Like the town meeting, the local club, and (God help us) social media, the workplace provides experiences that form and inform our civic skills and practices. We are incentivized to bridge differences to maximize our own and our shareholders’ value. Systems of professional accountability check people’s behaviors in ways that can shape and reshape our culture. Consider how people behave on LinkedIn as opposed to other social-media platforms: Some may see the “LinkedIn self” as inauthentic, or even a deception, but I see it as a valuable and worthy kind of restraint. When we take on our “workplace self,” we remember constructive ways to behave in society. The workplace is a powerful site for learning, practicing, and teaching civic behaviors. The pride, purpose, and profit that come from work shape the very fabric of our citizenry.

Since it is a site of learning and formation for our social, political, and civic character, work is often part of the problem — but it can be part of the solution.

We see this every day, whether we realize it or not. Work has become a primary zone of conflict and conversation about civics. Much of that conflict revolves around how we talk about, practice, and enforce diversity.

This is painful and unfortunate, because the evidence is clear: In the workplace, diverse teams are smarter and can get better results. If a group of people representing different ages, genders, roles, backgrounds, and cognitive strengths are brought together to solve a problem, they will process information differently, make better decisions, and open pathways to innovation. Diverse teams are less prone to groupthink or the proverbial echo chamber. If we eliminate workplace differences, evidence shows, we get poorer economic performance.

Over the past few years, and especially since October 7 in the Jewish community, there has been a backlash against DEI — as a buzzword, a concept, or both. This backlash is intimately connected to discourse about civics, often focusing on practices such as diversity statements in hiring or workplace training sessions where people may feel pressured to affirm views they don’t share.

The irony here is that some of this anti-DEI pushback in favor of employees’ right to dissent from predominant ideologies or approaches to DEI should be recognized as a DEI practice in its own right. One of the values of diversity at work — and, in some cases, the goal of diversity at work — is that it fosters viewpoint diversity. And one of the topics on which viewpoints can and should be diverse is how to approach diversity itself.

This should give DEI practitioners and its harshest critics alike some pause. While some disagreements are substantive, many arguments about diversity efforts in workplace settings boil down to confusion about the definitions of words or frustration over consistency of application. Improved civic skills in the workplace would turn down the temperature and turn up the productivity of these conversations. With better practice at listening and persuading, people on either side of these divides might find that they agree on more than they realized. More important, even when marked disagreements remain, a stronger focus on civic virtues could transform them from toxic to constructive.

Leadership is key. Through interviews with hundreds of leaders and survey data from more than 50,000 Jewish nonprofit workers, my colleagues and I at Leading Edge have seen how leaders have the power to improve their employees’ experience, a key driver of better performance. But leading across differences is challenging, especially in a deeply polarized and acrimonious environment. While the workplace is one of the last remaining places in American society where different people come together to advance a shared goal, leaders’ work to align those people is becoming harder and harder.

So it is workplace leaders who must, first, recognize that the organizations they helm are the biggest arenas of civic practice and formation in their employees’ lives; second, shift their mindset so they are intentionally trying to develop civic skills; and, third, change the organization’s practices to make that a reality.

The Jewish tradition can be instructive in this endeavor. Beyond the many texts that address civic life, it offers many examples of civic practices that strengthen communities. These same tools can be applied to workplaces. Given the large sphere of Jewish communal work, I propose that we treat our Jewish workplaces as laboratories of civic life.

The rhythms of Jewish practice involve three types of behavior: speech, action, and reflection. Each gives us a model for exploring how to transform our Jewish workplaces into spaces of civic development.

Speech. In Jewish practice, every day begins with words of gratitude — modeh ani — and ends with words of responsibility — the bedtime shema. The tradition teaches that these words are not meant merely to be thought but to be sounded out, in speech. They are testimonies to the importance of speech in human life. These acts of speech imitate the acts of divine speech that created the world, as described in Genesis.

When the Creator speaks the world into existence, it is a lesson to all leaders that change begins with speech. So Jewish leaders have an opportunity to begin this process of civic development by saying out loud what we plan to do: make our workplaces models of civic space. Our research shows that communication inspires confidence in leadership and is the currency for Jewish communal work. Stating intentions can be powerful, priming both the speaker and the listener to awaken the relevant parts of themselves.

What would it look like if leaders began meetings about contentious decisions and topics by reminding our teams that conversations at work are an opportunity to build the kind of civic space we all wish to be a part of — spaces that involve listening, persuading, and respect among people with diverse viewpoints, all working in the service of the organization’s mission? Might it not enrich discussion and constructive disagreement, to the benefit of a common goal?

Organizations can also improve civic skills through professional development programs. This should include training in active listening, managing disagreement, and creating spaces for respectful civic discourse.

Employee handbooks should make explicit statements that value viewpoint diversity as a core tenet of the organizational culture. This could mean establishing guidelines that encourage employees to share and engage with differing perspectives, while ensuring that debates remain respectful and focused on productive outcomes. Policies should set clear expectations for constructive disagreement and set procedures for handling issues that arise when boundaries are crossed.

Action. Also in Genesis, after creating the world through speech, God commands the first human “to work and to safeguard” that world. That work itself is among the first commandments testifies to its gravity. Judaism is about work in the world, about action. Jewish leaders are called to “work and safeguard” our workplaces as well, and this means establishing policies and practices designed to shape civic behaviors.

Leaders and teams should proactively facilitate conversations, events, or training dedicated to learning to speak about difficult topics relevant to the organization’s work, in a space where the conversation is structured and framed to advance civic exchange. These platforms could take the form of facilitated dialogues, town hall meetings, or smaller, thematic group discussions that encourage participation from all levels of the organization.

As leaders, we can engage our boards in shifting evaluation structures so that we are held accountable for fostering a culture of open, respectful discourse. Regular assessments of leaders’ effectiveness in cultivating these practices can be integrated into performance reviews. This can include surveys, 360-degree feedback mechanisms, and public accountability through transparent reporting on progress made toward cultivating a more civically engaged and inclusive workplace.

Reflection. The words of the shema are in the imperative, which is to say in the second person.

These words are meant to be heard by those who speak them. Jews do this every day and in a heightened way during the season of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

In the workplace, we leaders must likewise set aside time for intentional reflection on how well our organizations are fostering (or hindering) open discourse in safeguarding the workplace as a civic space. Do people feel they can speak honestly about their work and the organization? Do people feel able to listen, speak, persuade, and be persuaded despite differences on the team? Most important is the normalization of constructive dissent and critical reflection.

As one of the last remaining venues where diverse people regularly interact, the workplace holds tremendous potential to rebuild the social, political, and civic fabric of America. By focusing on developing the civic muscles of employees, organizations can become the front line of both personal and societal renewal. The Jewish community, with its rich tradition of debate, pluralism, and ethical action, is uniquely positioned to lead this charge.