Management and Leadership: Talking About Political Violence and Emotions
Charles Chesnut and Ethan McCarty, at Integral, converse about understanding, risks and recommendations
Political violence is an eye opener and attention holder, even people are at work.
The assassination attempt against a former U.S. president, Donald Trump, which injured him and others and took the life of an rally attendee, impacted people heavily emotionally, one way or another.
What happens when people are still thinking about it when they are at work?
“Should organizations respond to this incident and if so, how?” asks Integral, an employee experience agency.
Charles Chesnut, vice president of Insights & Experience and Ethan McCarty, the CEO & founder, co-authored a piece about these questions, along with specific do’s and don'ts for crafting messages about that particular moment.
In their report — What to Say About This Weekend's Violence — they stated that "You’re clearly not looking for public attention, but you are showing care for your colleagues and your culture. Simply and warmly recognizing the stress and tumult your employees may be experiencing doesn’t require your organization to 'take a side.’"
Some leaders may not see this response as necessity and a duty.
“As leaders, it's our responsibility to care about our employees,” Chesnut and McCarty tell Communication Intelligence. “Not only is it the bare minimum in terms of human connection and decency, it’s important to make sure that they feel seen and heard.”
They elaborate as to why that is wise and responsible.
“When an act of violence occurs, it can impact peoples’ emotional and mental health,” Chesnut and McCarty state. “Not all employees may care what their organization’s leadership has to say but if a handful find the statement meaningful, then it matters and putting in that extra effort is worth it.”
There are benefits to that mindset and approach, for leaders and organizations as much as employees, they assert.
“Leaders who understand this not only foster a healthier workplace but also build resilience and trust within their teams,” Chesnut and McCarty say.
An elegant pathway forward that they recommend is coming to realize the value of understanding and believing, "This is time to look for common ground and shared values," Chesnut and McCarty write.
The question to ask is, how is this best done, especially when intense emotions are — or may be present? They have and provide guidance.
“Suggestions could include:
Assume the person is coming to you with the best intentions.
Approach conversations with those who may disagree with you from a learning perspective: try to understand their point of view, not just announce yours.
Look for areas where you agree, even if you draw different conclusions.
Remember that you will never persuade someone if you treat them with disrespect.
Also remember that your relationship with a colleague will last long after this event has passed. Value the relationship.
Ask yourself at the outset whether or not you would be open to changing your mind on the topic to any degree. If the answer is a hard ‘no,’ you may want to politely excuse yourself from the discussion.”
Humanness almost always pays helpful dividends. The lack of compassion is costly.
“There are many ways that leaders can promote respect and shared values,” Chesnut and McCarty say. “Facilitating open communication, restating the organization’s core values, leading by example, encouraging diversity and inclusion, celebrating success together, establishing a code of conduct and offering regular check-ins.”
They go back to our shared humanity and communicate it in the report, writing, "Please recognize that your colleagues are people of goodwill who may be feeling genuine stress right now. Show them compassion and understanding."
The reminder of kindness is beneficial because it can often be forgotten within the focus on work demands, requirements, progress and achieving metrics.
Chesnut and McCarty additionally mention the big picture.
"Remember that our culture depends on mutual respect and on relationships that will last long after this event — and well beyond the election,” they write.
“Stay focused on the work we do together and our company’s mission, purpose and values, for the benefit of all of us."
Employees may be deeply invested or overcome emotionally in the moment. To get their attention and gently, respectfully direct it in the right direction can prove challenging.
“An important aspect of prioritizing kindness and respect in any organization is time,” Chesnut and McCarty say.
“Allow your employees the time to ponder what happened and feel their feelings, discuss it respectfully and then encourage them to keep the ball rolling with whatever project or task they’re on.”
They discuss specifically how this can be done.
“There are many strategies: Acknowledging emotions directly, promoting empathy and understanding, redirecting focus toward the company’s common goals, establishing ground rules for discussion, providing supportive resources and monitoring workplace dynamics to address any behaviors outside of keeping with your shared values,” Chesnut and McCarty say.
As for who is doing this, they offer clarity.
“Some of these are leader-level actions; many are best handled by those who are close to the employees — team leads and managers,” Chesnut and McCarty advise.
Preventing escalation of intense emotion is an arduous task that first requires a full-and-clear understanding of escalation risks.
"What you think is ‘neutral’ can easily be perceived as 'false equivalence' by interested parties,” Chesnut and McCarty write.
They go on to mention a few types of statements to avoid.
“There has been inflammatory language from both sides.”
“We hope both candidates will …”
Quotations from any politician’s call for unity, even if the words themselves are harmless. Some will question why you chose that person’s words instead of someone else’s."
This may be experienced as stressful or bothersome by leaders because they feel they have to say something more or they mean well and are shocked at upset by the reaction or they are sick of the ‘problem’ detracting from focus and effort on the work to be done.
Caution and sophistication however are important.
“The key reason to avoid statements that seem to draw equivalences is that sensitive situations are typically rooted in perception and influenced by emotion,” Chesnut and McCarty say.
“We can’t possibly know everyone’s perspective on a given situation or what emotions it may trigger so by avoiding these types of statements leaders can maintain clarity, fairness and credibility in their communications,” they point out.
Why is that, people may wonder and ask? Chesnut and McCarty have a reply.
“Perception of bias or insensitivity: In highly-polarized environments, statements that suggest equivalency between differing viewpoints can be perceived as biased or insensitive,” they state.
“People may even disagree about which viewpoints should be open to debate (this is sometimes called the Overton window). Leaders should avoid statements that may inadvertently alienate employees who feel strongly about one side of an issue.”
It’s common knowledge that our words, tone and body language can be misunderstood. That’s dangerous.
“Risk of misinterpretation: Even well-intentioned statements that aim to promote unity or neutrality can be misinterpreted by employees, stakeholders and the public,” Chesnut and McCarty remind us.
“In a sensitive sociopolitical climate, words carry significant weight and those with strong opinions are sensitive to nuances — e.g. ‘why are you using the phrase ‘reproductive rights’ instead of ‘abortion?’ Any perceived misstep could lead to increased tensions or damage the organization’s reputation.”
Their research, study, experiences and conclusions restated:
“Avoiding these kinds of statements is all about maintaining credibility and ensuring that the organization remains focused on a respectful and humane culture,” Chesnut and McCarty say.
“Leaders can absolutely express empathy and a desire for unity without unintentionally fueling tensions or appearing dismissive of legitimate concerns.”
Thank you for reading this issue of Communication Intelligence. Please consider subscribing, free or paid, to support the work of this publication.
For those interested in advertising in Communication Intelligence: Contact me at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com or click here to learn more about communicating your business value offering. This publication offers links, ads and sponsorships.
Related! https://youtu.be/5Hr2R1tjXvo?si=I1QgnPAl2FwhPvZx