Last month, as I watched the coup attempt at the U.S. Capitol unfold, every social media platform was rich in dialogue about what was happening. Every social media platform, that is, except my LinkedIn.
I’ve gotten into the habit of checking my LinkedIn as new sociopolitical issues explode on my other social media accounts. Since I work in policymaking, on any given day my feed is filled with commentary on political decisions and new governance initiatives.
But I’ve begun to notice a pattern of silence when every other social network is pregnant with discussions on hot topics that impact human rights.
This silence illuminates the perception of the workplace as an apolitical space, where workers fear being perceived as unprofessional and potentially harming their careers if they participate in conversations about politically charged issues.
The LinkedIn silence has shown me how necessary it is to have accountability from executive-level employers and organizations. By taking strong positions, those with power are able to expose the workplace’s true nature as a political entity participating in the systems that either embed or combat injustices for workers within and beyond the organization. When leaders do this, workers can feel safer engaging in discussions about the harmful elements of both their work and work environments.
Over the past year, many long-simmering issues have become central in public conversations. As COVID-19 continues to shift the way things are done, the cracks in our systems are being amplified and, in some cases, deteriorating at a faster rate.
At the same time, work has become the main social activity for those still employed during this pandemic, making collegial interactions on Zoom the main form of “face-to-face” conversation. As our social habits are forced primarily into work communications, it’s interesting to see the dynamic of our online professional identities remain unchanged.
My awareness of LinkedIn’s silence came out of frustration. The organization I was part of at the time failed to respond (until I demanded action) to the global call for acknowledgement and action that followed the horrific murder of George Floyd. I watched how across media outlets (even some right-wing ones), people were taking a moment to recognize the ongoing atrocities resulting from the systemic racism of police forces. Yet on LinkedIn I saw nothing except one post by a prominent Black professional who has thousands of followers.
The reason for the lack of political commentary on LinkedIn is obvious to many. Voicing political opinions at work is seen as unprofessional and a risk to continued employment. This is not a criticism of individual employees presenting themselves in a certain way to protect their employability. However, industry leaders, executive-level employers and organizations need to be held accountable for their continued silence, lack of action, or both.
Many employers have acknowledged that times are shifting and individuals are becoming more informed through social media. Having a social justice commitment, whether effective or not, is becoming a standard part of business practices, and diversity and inclusion offices are being implemented nationally and beyond. But what do these new departments do if organizations are not vocal about making the professional setting safe for discussion around major human rights issues? How are the necessary changes going to happen if employees fear major repercussions for voicing their values on important matters?
The reasons for keeping these discussions out of work settings seem obvious, but less well understood is how they can bring value to employers and employees alike if done sincerely. When human rights issues reach the point of global saliency, the socially enforced idea of the apolitical workplace no longer exists. When we acknowledge that race, gender and other factors determine workers’ access to jobs and platforms that their cisgender white colleagues have, we see the workplace is not apolitical. To maintain this unspoken norm is to continue harming those who have to navigate systemic oppression in every aspect of their life. Yes, even at work.
It’s true that harm can also be caused by allowing politics in the workplace, as right-wing extremists try to combat the supposed destruction of free speech. “The current wave of ‘free speech’ advocacy has coincided directly with the rise of social media, amateur publishing and the ‘citizen journalism’ that is now possible at virtually zero cost,” William Davies recently wrote in the Guardian. This movement to misconstrue the silencing of hate speech as the removal of constitutional rights comes as those who have actually faced barriers to having their voices heard in the media are now getting the chance to share their narratives. So while caution against political commentary may arise from a legitimate concern that it politicize the workplace in harmful ways, the oppressive structures that would facilitate this can be addressed by having more open and honest discussions that do not tolerate hate speech.
After I called out my previous employer on their failure to respond to a horrific tragedy that symbolizes the very real and terrifying reality of Black existence, I watched the CEO state “Caucasian lives matter too” to the entire organization. She did this to temper her acknowledgment of anti-Black racism, presumably hoping that this politically charged commitment would appear apolitical in the workplace. When a leader attempts to make a global social movement like Black Lives Matter more palatable to the masses, there are major repercussions.
Change is supposed to be uncomfortable.
To those who are aware of, or who have no choice but to be aware of, the insidious nature of injustice in our systems, none of this is news. Social posts on LinkedIn are not the solution, of course. More important is the change required of those with power. They need to change the norms by setting examples and doing more than simply creating a small new department within their offices. They need to understand that they actually have the least to lose when taking a stance and can have an umbrella effect on those below. Most importantly, they need to understand that this commitment involves a dedication to evolving education, questioning personal privilege and power, and practising empathy.
