There is No Such Thing as an Apolitical Workplace.
Written by HRuprise founder, Rebecca Weaver.
A few weeks ago, the founders of Basecamp began acting out an elaborate, multi-episode morality play on the corporate world stage.
Their lesson? Whether they meant to or not, Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson have expertly demonstrated the fallacy of the “apolitical workplace” and the downsides of using severance buyouts to cull employees who don’t agree with you.
Episode 1 of this parable dropped on April 26, when Basecamp founder Jason Fried abruptly announced that there would be “no more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account.”
Cue shitstorm.
Social media blew up with criticism, and many employees began plotting their exits.
The day after the announcement, Casey Newton dropped Episode 2 via a revealing report in the Verge about the backstory of the decision. It began back in December on the company Basecamp account, when employees began discussing a crowdsourced list of “funny” customer names titled “Best Names Ever.” The list included many Asian and African names, and had been anonymously updated and circulated internally for over a decade. Employees wanted to discuss why it was problematic and even racist, and how the company should do better going forward.
Founders Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson initially were receptive to the critique. But when some employees referenced the Anti-Defamation League’s “Pyramid of Hate” to illustrate how mockery of non-Anglican names exists within a greater structure of white supremacy, Fried and Hansson argued that such comparisons were unfair and disproportionate.
In response, two employees reported Hansson to HR for harassment and discrimination. As the outcry grew, Fried instituted the new policy banning political talk at work.
This brings us to the climactic Episode 3. When their employees rebelled against the new policy, Fried and Hansson adopted an ultimate white-fragility tactic for preserving power – they tried to buy their way out of the conversation by offering severance buyouts for any employees who disagreed with the new policy.
AND A THIRD OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TOOK THEM UP ON IT.
This is a favorite tactic among leaders when facing the “unproductiveness” of employee dissent: just offer a buyout to employees who disagree, and part ways in peace. Coinbase tried it last September, when their newly-declared “apolitical mission” led to an employee outcry.
And Zappos did it when employees were less than enthusiastic about the implementation of Holacracy, a decentralized “self-management” organizational model that left a lot of employees feeling sidelined in their own careers.
In all cases, it backfired. Not just in terms of decimating employee morale or eroding the company’s image, but also financially.
Five percent of Coinbase employees accepted the severance, while Zappos and Basecamp lost a third of their workforces! I don’t care how big your organization is; any business that loses 33% of its workforce in a week can’t easily absorb that loss.
Here’s why it’s a bad idea to offer your employees money to leave if they don’t like your culture:
This kind of severance appeals to all employees, not just those who are upset with you. You’re not buying ideological harmony with this tactic; you’re incentivizing your top performers to leave, regardless of their politics - and paying them for the privilege.
By silencing those who remain, you’re dampening individuality while encouraging a unified “company mindset.” This is a surefire way to disillusion your people and increase turnover in years to come. It’s also a great way to decrease diversity over time, which we know is a detriment to your bottom line.
Every severance package I’ve ever seen has included a non-disparagement agreement. If employees take the severance, they’ll likely be legally prevented from speaking negatively about the company afterwards, and more importantly, from telling their own story of their experience at the company. Silencing your former employees is not a move toward inclusion in the workplace.
The truth is, the severance tactic is a tried-and-true power play that allows leaders to perpetuate the white-supremacist myth of the “apolitical workplace.”
How does the “apolitical” label reinforce white supremacy? By making the people already in power feel more comfortable while prohibiting marginalized employees from speaking out about their experiences.
It is a function of extreme privilege to decide you’re going to “opt out” of political conversations, and oppressive to mandate your employees to do the same. For people of marginalized backgrounds and identities, their very existence is political. To say that “politics are a distraction” is to silence your employees about the core of who they are, while forbidding them and their allies from pointing out structural inequities and aggressions that keep them marginalized at work.
In his report, Newton paints a picture of “a company where workers sought to advance Basecamp’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by having sensitive discussions about the company’s own failures.”
These weren’t abstract arguments about the Second Amendment or the Green New Deal. These were self-reflective conversations about the very work environment in which they were taking place. And from all indications, they were constructive, thoughtful, and had the potential to change the company for the better.
Instead, Fried and Hansson first tried to shut down that particular conversation, and then to shut down ALL such conversations going forward.
Here’s my post-show message to all leaders and founders in the audience: If you have a group of employees saying there’s a problem with the company culture you helped create, the appropriate response is to listen and take responsibility, not to argue them down or invoke “changing standards” as an excuse.
We are accountable for our actions, regardless of whether something used to be “okay.” (News flash: it was never okay.) Listening to your employees will make you a better leader. And that, in turn, will benefit your company in the long term.
I know this style of response might feel foreign, so here’s a script: “I am embarrassed by my previous actions. I’m sorry for the harm that I caused, and I will work to do better going forward.”
If business leaders could learn to respond to criticism in this way, transformation and equity in the workplace might actually be possible.
Because talking about racism isn’t the problem that’s harming your company. Racism is.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: REBECCA WEAVER
Rebecca Weaver is the Founder and CEO of HRuprise, a marketplace that connects people with HR coaches to help them grow, develop, and navigate their toughest workplace challenges. LEARN MORE
