We're not just talking about the stereotype of people standing around a water cooler declaring affiliations and throwing political talking points past each other.
Who said they aren't talking about just that?
At one of my first jobs people got a bit upset in a discussion at some point about religion. My then boss said 'I have learned to never talk about politics and religion at work.'. He didn't forbid it, but the point is valid: why talk about things that gets people unreasonably fired up?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-predicts...
That we can't talk politics over alcohol? I still don't see that being an issue unless you can't be civil about conflicting beliefs. If you can't be civil when confronted with conflicting beliefs then you have larger problems I think.
There are plenty of examples of relatively insular cultures (e.g. Sweden, Paypal) producing great stuff.
I don't hate diversity, I just don't buy this unquestioned "diversity is good" idea. It has pros and cons.
Like any such environment where conformity is the norm, it works until someone fails to conform.
I wonder if it's party because of the generalness and youngness of the industry. I imagine fields like oil rigging, therapy services for children, auto repair, or military service have more self-selecting cultures than building generic CRUD apps or web design for random clients.
I think I’ve, on appropriate occasion, discussed politics with friends and colleagues at every workplace I’ve ever been at. [Edit: some senior leadership] openly supports the DNC and has commented to that effect at town halls.
To pretend that people are apolitical or to ban all political discussions because some people can’t seem to handle disagreements in a professional manner is one way to handle the problem, but perhaps not the first nor optimal solution to implement.
Most of us can separate our politic beliefs from our work. Regardless of how we feel about certain laws and regulations, we have to work within the limitations they impose.
I’m openly Libertarian; I have people on my team who are openly pro-Trump. Being in MA and in tech, there are obviously many pro-left employees.
If you can only work for and with people with whom you agree politically, you might have (or be) a problem. “Not talking politics at work” is a bandaid over this problem, at best.
So yeah, any place that has functioning adults, or, better, mature people, can have mature discussions. But then it takes two to make this work. For example, if you belittle or insult people freely or mock those who you might not agree with, you aren't going to ever see that mature environment.
It should be ok to discuss politics in any and every space as it affects every single aspects of everybody's lives. Considering most adults spend around half of their awake time at work it seems silly to avoid it there.
To make it against whatever workplace "rules" there are seems overbearing and thought-controlling. Our personal beliefs and political experiences make up a lot of who we are, our individual perspective on the world and somewhat how we think.
How can you hold your organization to socially responsible policies and actions if you can't discuss what should be socially acceptable? Political beliefs form the ideas of what is the scope of the organization's responsibility.
In my recent experiences at a hedge fund and a very large investment bank, politics were discussed pretty openly in both environments (alas this was only in NYC). I found the discussions worthwhile and informative as it helped me understand my own beliefs more.
It's unwise to hold beliefs that you never have to justify. You should put in the intellectual work so that you can articulate and argue your own politics it will make sure your beliefs are well founded.
I'm not saying if it's OK or not as a philosophical matter, but it does help make the workplace more pleasant.
When a regular political talking point is whether it's ok to fire you for existing the hypocrisy of the "don't put politics in my <x>" becomes painful (and certainly less than pleasant).
Companies should be free to declare they support the status quo, but they should never get a free pass as if that's some sort of neutral, objective opinion. They've chosen to make a stance and should be appraised as such.
My company has a "no drama" policy. Our team could be a poster for diversity and inclusion from all across the spectrum and it works really really well. We all appreciate each other.
That sounds fine to me, because I think that's a good status quo. But twenty years ago I bet the status quo was different and a totally different set of people was being made uncomfortable and encouraged out.
I find it interesting that you make such an assumption about the places that I've worked.
Also, I should mention that I absolutely have had numerous political discussions with coworkers. They just don't usually happen in the workplace itself.
It's not a bad thing in my mind, it's heavy handed at times, I can see how it would rub some traditionalists the wrong way in an extreme way. If you held some form of conservative view then you'd almost certainly be a pariah in our company/studio.
But left-leaning politics is definitely promoted and discussed in the office.
What if you have reservations about specific things that have been lumped in with "left" politics, which you believe are inherently not "left" and do not benefit humanity?
( Not trying to reach for the 1984 language, but it's the most accurate terminology I can come up with.. :\ )
Thankfully most jobs won't touch this but if you're running internet services it'll probably come up.
What is the professional intuition on productivity when a large segment of the population considers homosexuality to be spiritually depraved?
Most people spend more time at work than with their actual families. This leads to all kinds of conversations, in the office, in the break room, or at a bar. Not everything is appropriate for every setting but pretending differing opinions don’t exist is ludicrous.
Even with very, very close co-founders, politics was an extremely rare discussion. When it did come up, it was generally in the context of how certain things affected the business. Even then, it was with a deep understanding that the other parties where smart, well-meaning individuals.