Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues
person in green pants sitting on white textile
Photo by Vanessa on Unsplash

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues

San Antonio, TX, has been working to reduce teen pregnancy for over two decades, making considerable progress through collaborations among the city, county, nonprofit organizations, and the University of Texas. A nine-time All-America City, one of San Antonio’s key community collaborations, SA 2020, harnessed civic muscle to create and achieve dozens of measurable goals, including a significant reduction in teen pregnancy.

The San Antonio Teen Pregnancy Collaborative (SATPPC) was formed in 2010 in response to news that Bexar County had one of the highest rates of teen births in the United States. The SATPPC brought together an impressive list of cross-sector organizations, including public entities, community-based organizations, and faith-based and secular institutions. The group’s overall goal was to reduce the Bexar County teen birth rate among females ages 15 to 19 by 15% by 2020, and it exceeded this goal even before that date.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.

Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods."

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods" on April 22, 2026 in Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Bears Ears has been a controversial Monument since it's creation in December of 2016.

George Frey / Getty Images

When Public Lands Become Real Estate

Last week, in his latest attempted liquidation of our shared heritage, President Trump signed two executive orders eviscerating protections for close to three million acres of our national monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. From the Oval Office, a president who has never even seen these sacred sites reduced them by roughly 90%, dwarfing his 2017 attempt at a similar land grab by about a million acres, leaving only 300,000 acres of protected land. These cuts will directly threaten critical wildlife habitats, put nearly 100,000 irreplaceable archaeological sites at risk of destruction, and fracture an interconnected indigenous homeland that has been stewarded by Native tribes since time immemorial. To Trump, it’s just another real estate deal.

The Trump regime has tried to portray this set-up to sell off as an effort to restore public access. During the Oval Office photo op where the president signed the proclamations, he said of the monuments: “You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.” That is, to put it mildly, a malicious lie. All your favorite forms of outdoor recreation—from hiking and camping to fishing and hunting—are allowed there, which Trump might know if he had ever visited the land he decided is not worth preserving. In fact, the Antiquities Act doesn’t limit ordinary public use but rather the extent to which an area can be subject to mining and drilling. So much for the land of the free. Trump wants to make it a whole lot easier for extractive industries and private development interests to privatize and pillage these sacred lands for financial gain. Home of the brave? Not an ounce of courage to refuse the fuel lobby when it comes to our public lands. At least the law is on our side. As the President of the National Parks Conservation Association put it, this is both “a betrayal to the American people and illegal.”

Keep ReadingShow less