Political polarization is on the rise all around the world, with negative consequences for employees and employers alike. Luckily, new research on a phenomenon known as the “false polarization bias” finds that we often make the problem worse than it has to be by assuming those with differing political views disagree with us far more than they actually do, and that they dislike us on a personal level. In this piece, the authors draw on a large body of research to offer three strategies that can help managers combat this bias in the workplace, and thus reduce the negative impact of polarization on business outcomes such as employee turnover, productivity, and job satisfaction. These strategies encourage employees and managers alike to become more aware of their own biases, practice empathy for those with whom they disagree, and collaborate more effectively with colleagues from across the political spectrum.
Around the world, partisan allegiances have infiltrated almost every aspect of work and life. In the U.S., if you patronize Starbucks, you are likely a Democrat; Dunkin’ Donuts, a Republican. In Hungary, magazines dedicated to hobbies as seemingly benign as fishing and bird-watching are now split down ideological lines.
Research suggests that politics seep into non-political domains when differences of opinion are viewed not merely as disagreements, but as reason to disdain or even loathe the person holding those views. For example, studies have shown that Americans tend to regard those with differing political views as hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and a majority of both Republicans and Democrats feel that political polarization is more insurmountable than racial or socioeconomic divisions.
To be sure, there are real underlying differences of opinion driving these perceptions. But our recent research — including both an extensive literature review and a series of surveys and lab experiments with more than 4,000 American adults — suggests that people often overestimate the level of disagreement between themselves and members of opposing political groups, the prevalence of extreme beliefs among those groups, and the extent to which those people view them negatively.
We call this effect “false polarization bias” — and it is a global phenomenon. A study found evidence of this bias in people from 25 countries around the world, many of which exhibited even more polarization bias than the U.S. The tendency to assume others dislike us more than they actually do is a universal psychological phenomenon, driven not by any specific political context, but rather by a natural and deep-rooted “us versus them” mentality. And ironically, this bias is likely to drive even more polarization, as our assumptions about other people drive us to become even more sure of our own political stances.
So what does this mean for companies? Across multiple industries, research suggests that exaggerated perceptions of political difference can significantly increase employee turnover, create hostility between coworkers, and lead employees to try to hide beliefs they feel may be viewed negatively — all of which can reduce both job satisfaction and effectiveness. This hyperpolarized environment also means that both purchasing and employment decisions can be driven by political leanings, with businesses forced to pick a side to attract customers and talent.
Luckily, while this false polarization bias is very common, the international study described above also identified a simple yet effective intervention: When researchers simply informed participants that they overestimated the extent to which people from opposing political groups disliked them, this in turn reduced participants’ dislike and mistrust of those people. Based on these findings as well as our own research, we’ve developed three strategies that can help managers build awareness about and thus reduce the potency of the false polarization bias on their teams:
1. Build an environment of cooperation, not competition.
In our research, we found that building a cooperative culture can help to reduce the false polarization bias. This looks different in different workplace contexts, but a good start is to examine your incentive structures and replace competitive systems with ones that promote cooperation between employees.
For example, many companies use evaluation systems that force managers to rank employees, creating an environment that feels zero-sum: For every employee who gets a five, another must be given a one. Instead, managers should promote a cooperative mindset. For example, one London-based law firm developed an online tool that enabled employees to award points to their colleagues, thus incentivizing teammates to work together towards shared goals. Systems like these create opportunities for employees to connect on a deeper level and thus begin to look past their political differences.
2. Encourage meaningful contact between groups.
One of the best ways to overcome harmful stereotypes and assumptions about people with different political leanings is simply to spend more time getting to know them. To be clear, this doesn’t mean managers should force people to go to a slew of company picnics and baseball games. In fact, research has shown that in many professional settings, people often end up hanging out with their own in-group rather than actually mixing with other groups. Instead, managers should find opportunities to build deeper trust between coworkers who might not otherwise find themselves interacting.
For example, NASA organizes extreme wilderness expeditions before missions, throwing team members from diverse backgrounds into challenging situations that fast-track mutual trust-building. Extreme sports might not be right for your team, but it’s important for managers to find ways to encourage vulnerability and trust between employees. One strategy that research has shown to be effective is to identify a trust-building middleman: someone who knows both parties well who can formally or informally support the development of a relationship between two less-familiar colleagues. There’s no guaranteed solution to building relationships, but whatever managers can do to facilitate deeper connections among their teams will go a long way to reducing harmful biases and fostering a more productive working environment.
3. Create a safe environment for people to share their views.
Research shows that bans on talking about politics don’t work. Instead, managers should encourage open and honest discussions at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Leaders must model respect and compassion in political disagreements, demonstrating by example how to express potentially controversial views without alienating coworkers who may disagree.
In addition, studies have also shown that trying to explain something complex can be a humbling and eye-opening experience. When people actually start talking about why they favor certain policies, it can help them realize that they don’t have monopoly on the truth, making them more open to, and understanding of, different perspectives. While conflict can be uncomfortable in the short term, these honest conversations can help everyone see that holding a different opinion doesn’t define a person, ultimately reducing the false polarization bias between coworkers in the long run. You can hypothesize about other people’s perspectives all day long, but to truly understand another person, you need to talk to them.
***
All too often, we assume that if someone holds different political beliefs, it means they don’t like us as a person — and it’s a short leap from making that assumption to reciprocating those presumed negative feelings. But when we increase our awareness of our own biases and practice empathy for those with whom we disagree, we’re likely to discover that our differences aren’t as significant as they may seem. It’s up to managers to foster an environment that makes it possible to engage with our political opponents at work, learn from both sides of these difficult issues, and move forward productively.