Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Polarization in the workplace: The next frontier for inclusive organizations

Polarization in the workplace: The next frontier for inclusive organizations
Deanna Troust

Deanna Troust is a communications and social change strategist and founder of 3 Stories Communications and Truth in Common, a new initiative that helps communities and businesses find common ground and restore fact-based decision making. She lives with her bicultural family and rescue dog in Washington, DC’s eclectic Adams Morgan neighborhood.

A group of Florida companies is suing their home state for its so-called Stop WOKE Act, claiming it inhibits their rights to free speech. They wrote that if allowed to stand the law will effectively “chill employers’ speech concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion and disrupt employers’ ability to determine how best to train their employees.”


The Act and its opposition are stark evidence that polarized viewpoints and decision making aren’t relegated to our communities. They’re affecting workplaces as well.

The irony is that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have the potential for stemming the very us/them dynamics the Act reviles. Done well, they remove shame and blame from conversations we need to be having, not enhance them, because no one learns that way. In today’s polarized environment, they’re wise to address viewpoint diversity – and the external information environment that’s helping to polarize those views – as well.

I’ve worked as a communications strategist in DEI consulting for six years and have seen the best results when the work is strategic – grounded in employee voices, aligned with organizational goals and courageous in addressing pain points. The latter can include inequities in pay or advancement, challenging leadership behavior, generational disconnects and more. Dynamics like these disproportionately affect employees of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, women, those with disabilities and so on; they just do. Some colleagues have worked in DEI for decades, and they’ve seen it all.

Enter polarization as a workplace dynamic. A recent report by Business for America and Civic Health Project found that 69 percent of leaders interviewed “ reported negative effects from political/social divides on their company’s employees and culture. ” Most workplaces include a mix of viewpoints, and stigmatizing those in the minority can lead to disenfranchisement and conflict. It can even affect retention – imagine you’re an employee who’s experiencing that and who works remotely? If you’re fortunate to have job mobility, how long would you stay?

Perhaps due to my small-town roots, I notice these dynamics. I also see them with my clients – I recently convened a focus group for employees with diverse political viewpoints, the first of its kind for me and an incredibly constructive and empathetic conversation. Common ground isn’t as elusive as we think.

Yet I’ve hesitated to talk much about DEI and polarization, perhaps from fear of a knee-jerk reaction or claims I’m distracting from other goals. As we approach National Week of Conversation, though, it seemed like the right time.

Polarization stifles conversation about anything, it seems, but the weather. It can disrupt productivity and hamstring the relationship-building organizations are desperately trying to revive. It thrives on misinformation and as Florida has shown, weaponizes the work itself.

Bridging political viewpoints – the work of over 500 organizations in the ListenFirst coalition – involves pausing to listen, checking our assumptions, conversing respectfully and recognizing that sitting with discomfort can help us grow. These same principles are foundational for creating cultures where people thrive. Bridging even adds a concept to our toolbox: intellectual humility, or people’s willingness to maintain open minds when presented with different viewpoints and moderate the urge to appear “right.”

Now some will say that DEI efforts are left-leaning by nature and those involved would have trouble welcoming “the other.” To that I’d ask, is that true or are we simply politicizing this work, as we do everything else? Perception is reality, though, and if this bias exists it’s on those involved to own it or take a more balanced approach.

There’s also the concern that embracing viewpoint diversity would make DEI initiatives less effective in helping those most affected by inequities. I hear that, and it’s OK to prioritize as long as you’re clear about it. But if a chunk of your workforce is refusing DEI trainings because they’ve been influenced by the critical race theory drama, shouldn’t you address the elephant in the room?

Cultures don’t automatically adapt to challenging external realities, and our current realities are tough. Like the business benefits of diversifying the workforce, though, the case for strengthening culture is clear: In a recent Korn Ferry report, leaders from top companies ranked organizational culture as the most crucial but underrated determinant of future business success.

Whatever culture-building strategies organizations choose – from mitigating bias in the HR lifecycle to fostering courageous conversations – leaders need to be intentional in explaining the “what,” “why,” and “who.” If we assume everyone in the organization has a different idea of the desired outcomes for the initiative and the pathways for achieving it, that’s the right starting point.

We need resilient organizational cultures more than ever right now, and we should embrace any attempts to make them so – while addressing here-and-now realities like polarization and division. As this year’s Edelman Trust Barometer study clearly found, at the moment workplaces may be our only hope.

Read More

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., January 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Summary

On June 9, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Secretary Kennedy claimed the move was necessary to eliminate “conflicts of interest” and restore public trust in vaccines, which he argued had been compromised by the influence of pharmaceutical companies. However, this decision strays from precedent and has drawn significant criticism from medical experts and public health officials across the country. Some argue that this shake-up undermines scientific independence and opens the door to politicized decision-making in vaccine policy.

Background: What Is ACIP?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory group that helps guide national vaccine policy. Established in 1964, it has over 60 years of credibility as an evidence-based body of medical and scientific experts. ACIP makes official recommendations on vaccine schedules for both children and adults, determining which immunizations are required for school entry, covered by health insurance, and prioritized in public health programs. The committee is composed of specialists in immunology, epidemiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, and public health, all of whom are vetted for scientific rigor and ethical standards. ACIP’s guidance holds national weight, shaping both public perception of vaccines and the policies of institutions like schools, hospitals, and insurers.

Keep ReadingShow less
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border
Way into future, RPA Airmen participate in Red Flag 16-2 > Creech ...

MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border

FT HUACHUCA, Ariz. - Inside a windowless and dark shipping container turned into a high-tech surveillance command center, two analysts peered at their own set of six screens that showed data coming in from an MQ-9 Predator B drone. Both were looking for two adults and a child who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and had fled when a Border Patrol agent approached in a truck.

Inside the drone hangar on the other side of the Fort Huachuca base sat another former shipping container, this one occupied by a drone pilot and a camera operator who pivoted the drone's camera to scan nine square miles of shrubs and saguaros for the migrants. Like the command center, the onetime shipping container was dark, lit only by the glow of the computer screens.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

As Trump’s second presidency unfolds, rural America—the foundation of his 2024 election win—is feeling the sting. From collapsing export markets to cuts in healthcare and infrastructure, those very voters are losing faith.

Getty Images, ablokhin

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Daryl Royal, the 20-year University of Texas football coach, once said, “You've gotta dance with them that brung ya.” The modern adaptation of that quote is “you gotta dance with the one who brought you to the party.” The expression means you should remain loyal to the people or things that helped you succeed.

Sixty-three percent of America’s 3,144 counties are predominantly rural, and Donald Trump won 93 percent of those counties in 2024. Analyses show that rural counties have become increasingly solid Republican, and Trump’s margin of victory within rural America reached a new high in the 2024 election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less