When Politics Walk Into Work: Workplace Political Discourse and Organizational Consequences

Abstract

Political conversations are increasingly shaping organizational life, yet management research lacks a unified construct for understanding this phenomenon. We introduce workplace political discourse (WPD): episodic interpersonal communication in organizational settings that explicitly references partisan identities, political actors, or contested public policies. We delineate WPD's conceptual boundaries, distinguish it from six adjacent constructs, and specify three dimensions—behavioral, relational, and content—along which episodes vary. We propose a process model identifying five pathways through which WPD generates organizational consequences: four dysfunctional pathways (identity threat, resource depletion, self-censorship, and grim expectations) and one conditional constructive pathway that operates when communicative action and enabling conditions are present. Emerging evidence suggests that employees self-select into political discussions often with politically similar coworkers, meaning costs fall disproportionately on political minorities who suppress rather than express. We conclude with a research agenda targeting macro-to-micro translation, pathway differentiation, constructive versus dysfunctional conditions, and construct measurement.

Keywords

political ideology workplace political discourse affective polarization workplace incivility identity threat workplace communication employee well-being

Workplaces have become unavoidable sites of political exposure. Nearly half of U.S. workers report discussing political issues with coworkers monthly, with higher rates among on-site employees and in conservative-leaning industries (Hedrick & Saad, 2024). Political viewpoint differences rank among the most frequently cited contributors to workplace incivility, with salience rising sharply during the 2024 election cycle (SHRM, 2024). These indicators converge on a practical reality: political talk—whether initiated deliberately or encountered ambiently—now reliably enters the workday.

We call this phenomenon workplace political discourse (WPD). Existing work shows that political ideology and dissimilarity shape workplace experiences (He et al., 2019; Henderson & Jeong, 2022; Swigart et al., 2020), but discourse itself remains underspecified and conflated with adjacent phenomena. By distinguishing WPD from adjacent constructs, specifying its behavioral, relational, and content dimensions, and tracing the pathways through which it reshapes organizational life, we clarify when political talk corrodes cooperation, when it builds understanding, and which organizational conditions determine which pathway dominates. Political talk now recurs across workplaces, yet management scholarship has left its effects at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels underspecified— an omission this framework addresses—opening questions about how macro politics becomes workplace talk, when that talk corrodes cooperation rather than building it, and how to measure it

Why Now?

Qualitative shifts in political identity make WPD especially urgent now. Affective polarization—emotional animosity toward political outgroups rooted in identity rather than policy disagreement—has intensified over the past two decades (Iyengar et al., 2019). Finkel et al. (2020) characterize this trend as “political sectarianism,” in which othering, aversion, and moralization render partisan animosity increasingly persistent and resistant to resolution.

Organizational flashpoints underscore these stakes. Basecamp announced in 2021 that “societal and political discussions” would no longer be permitted on the company’s Basecamp account; within days, roughly one-third of the company’s 57 employees had announced plans to accept buyouts (Fried, 2021; Lyons, 2021). Coinbase similarly adopted a mission-focused posture discouraging internal debate over causes, political candidates, and activism unrelated to work; after the company offered employees an exit option, about 5% of employees, or 60 people, accepted the package (Armstrong, 2020; Kokalitcheva, 2020). Together, these episodes illustrate a governance dilemma: attempts to restrict political talk can provoke backlash and exit, while unstructured political talk can threaten collaboration and trust.

This dilemma matters because workplaces remain among the few settings that bring people into recurring interdependence with non-chosen others. Compared with families, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations, workplaces expose people to cross-cutting political views far more frequently (Mutz, 2002; Mutz & Mondak, 2006). That exposure makes political identities visible—and consequential. Thompson (2021, 2022) documented how such visibility activates discriminatory treatment in the workplace. We extend this line of inquiry by focusing on discourse as the specific behavioral mechanism through which political identities produce organizational consequences.

Defining Workplace Political Discourse

WPD is episodic interpersonal communication in organizational settings that explicitly references partisan identities, political actors, or contested public policies in ways that express, signal, or negotiate political positions. Four boundary conditions sharpen this definition.

First, WPD is interpersonal and involves spoken or written exchanges between organizational members. Second, WPD is explicitly political, referencing partisan identities, political actors, or contested public policies, and thus distinct from “organizational politics” concerning internal influence tactics (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010; Ferris et al., 2019). Third, WPD is work-contextualized, occurring within roles and relationships where power asymmetries, performance interdependence, and exit constraints shape consequences. Fourth, WPD is behavioral and episodic—discourse events measurable through event sampling, communication traces, or vignettes. This definition synthesizes prior work on cross-cutting political discourse (Mutz & Mondak, 2006), event-level political conversations (Kim et al., 2022), and ambient political exposure at work (Rosen et al., 2024).

Dimensional Structure

WPD episodes vary along three dimensions that jointly shape their organizational consequences (see Table 1). The behavioral dimension captures voluntariness (chosen participation vs. ambient exposure), publicity (private vs. public channels), initiation (self- vs. other-initiated), and formality (spontaneous vs. organized); it distinguishes WPD from stable trait constructs like political identity dissimilarity. The relational dimension captures power asymmetry (peer vs. supervisor), relationship closeness, and local opinion structure (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous); experimental evidence confirms that expected disagreement, relationship strength, and power dynamics each independently shape willingness to express political views (Carlson & Settle, 2023). The content dimension captures identity salience, moral conviction (Skitka, 2010), and intensity. It also includes discourse orientation—the subdimension that most directly governs which pathways a WPD episode activates.

Discourse orientation draws on Habermas’s (1984) distinction between strategic action and communicative action. In communicative action, “the actions of the agents involved are coordinated not through egocentric calculations of success but through acts of reaching understanding” (Habermas, 1984, p. 286; see also Johnson, 1991). Strategic action, by contrast, is oriented to success, where actors follow “rules of rational choice” and assess “the efficacy of influencing the decisions of a rational opponent” (Habermas, 1984, p. 285). Strategic WPD thus aims to persuade or position the speaker's views as dominant; communicative WPD aims to genuinely comprehend another's perspective.

These dimensional combinations generate distinct risk profiles: the same political statement produces different consequences when delivered by a supervisor versus a peer, encountered voluntarily versus ambiently, or moralized versus policy-focused. Discourse orientation can be assessed through self-reported discussion goals, behavioral coding of speech acts, or discourse quality indices developed for deliberative research (Niemeyer et al., 2024; Steenbergen et al., 2003).

Table 1.

Dimensional Structure of WPD.

Dimension	Subdimension	Variation	Illustrative Contrast
Behavioral	Voluntariness	Chosen → Ambient	Joining a discussion vs. overhearing one
	Publicity	Private → Public	Direct message vs. company-wide channel
	Initiation	Self → Other	Raising a topic vs. responding to a coworker
	Formality	Spontaneous → Organized	Breakroom talk vs. facilitated town hall
Relational	Power asymmetry	Peer → Supervisor	Lateral exchange vs. manager expressing views
	Relationship closeness	Weak → Strong	Acquaintance vs. close colleague
	Local opinion structure	Homogeneous → Heterogeneous	Similar workgroup vs. diverse team
Content	Identity salience	Low → High	Policy discussion vs. partisan identity disclosure
	Moral conviction	Low → High	Tax policy vs. human rights
	Intensity	Low → High	Casual mention vs. sustained argument
	Discourse orientation	Strategic → Communicative	Persuasion vs. genuine comprehension

Differentiating WPD From Adjacent Constructs

Establishing WPD's novelty requires distinguishing it from six adjacent constructs (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Conceptual Boundaries of WPD and Adjacent Constructs.

Construct	Definition	Key References	Distinction from WPD
Political identity dissimilarity	Difference in political affiliation or ideology between an employee and salient coworkers or the organization	Bermiss and McDonald (2018); He et al. (2019); Henderson and Jeong (2022); Swigart et al. (2020)	A relational/contextual condition that can shape outcomes without any discourse; WPD is an episodic communicative event
Workplace incivility	Norm-violating disrespect of ambiguous intent	Andersson and Pearson (1999); Cortina (2008)	WPD can be civil yet harmful; incivility is one outcome pathway
Employee voice	Speaking up to improve organizational functioning	Morrison (2011); Hirschman (1970)	WPD concerns external partisan issues, not primarily organizational improvement
Organizational politics	Internal influence tactics and self-serving behavior used to advance interests within the organization	Drory and Vigoda-Gadot (2010); Ferris et al. (2019); Mintzberg (1983)	Different domain (internal power and influence vs. external partisan politics)
Insider activism	Employee-led mobilization from within organizations to change employer policies on broader social issues	Briscoe and Gupta (2016); Heucher et al. (2024); Meyerson and Scully (1995)	Change-directed and organized; WPD is episodic, often dyadic, and expressive
Identity work	Ongoing efforts to form, repair, maintain, strengthen, or revise one's sense of self	Brown (2015); Caza et al. (2018); Snow and Anderson (1987)	WPD is not identity work but an interpersonal event that may trigger identity work

Political identity dissimilarity refers to differences in political affiliation or ideology between employees and salient coworkers or organizations (Bermiss & McDonald, 2018; He et al., 2019; Henderson & Jeong, 2022). WPD serves as the behavioral activation channel through which those identities become salient in interpersonal interaction. Crucially, dissimilarity is neither necessary nor sufficient for WPD: WPD occurs in homogeneous environments (co-partisan talk that amplifies moralization and norm pressure), and dissimilarity generates consequences without discourse through non-discursive pathways such as taste-based statistical discrimination (Thompson, 2026).

Workplace incivility involves norm-violating disrespect of ambiguous intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, 2008). WPD can trigger incivility—selective incivility is one possible manifestation of the identity-threat pathway—but political discourse can also be civil yet harmful. Overhearing political conversations impedes goal progress even absent mistreatment (Rosen et al., 2024). Incivility is thus one possible outcome of WPD, not its defining feature.

Employee voice concerns communication intended to improve organizational functioning (Morrison, 2011). WPD differs because its focal intent is typically identity expression or political positioning rather than organizational improvement—a distinction that matters because responses appropriate for voice, such as encouraging upward communication, may prove counterproductive for WPD.

Organizational politics concerns influence tactics and self-serving behavior deployed to advance interests within organizational authority structures (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010; Ferris et al., 2019). WPD differs because it references external partisan content—parties, candidates, contested public policies—rather than internal power dynamics.

Insider activism involves employee-led mobilization to change employer policies on broader social issues (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016; Heucher et al., 2024). WPD differs in three respects: it is episodic and often dyadic rather than organized and campaign-like; it is frequently expressive rather than directed at organizational change; and it centers political talk rather than sustained mobilization.

Identity work denotes ongoing efforts to form, repair, maintain, or revise one's sense of self (Brown, 2015; Caza et al., 2018). WPD is not identity work; rather, it is an episodic interpersonal event that may trigger identity work as a downstream consequence. Because identity threat is a key antecedent of identity work (Caza et al., 2018), cross-partisan WPD may disrupt employees’ sense of self and prompt identity-related responses.

A Process Model of Workplace Political Discourse

Figure 1 presents a process model linking environmental triggers to WPD episodes and their consequences. We offer this model not as a comprehensive theory but as a conceptual infrastructure demonstrating the consequentiality and fertility of WPD as a construct (Pek & Sonpar, 2025). By mapping four dysfunctional and one conditional constructive pathway, we identify the most productive targets for empirical investigation. WPD's dimensional structure—behavioral, relational, and content—shapes which pathways activate in any given episode.

Figure 1.

Process model of workplace political discourse.

External events (elections, court decisions, policy changes) and organizational events (CEO political statements, corporate activism) often trigger WPD episodes, though episodes also arise ambiently when workplace conversations drift toward contested public issues. The consequences of any given episode depend on its dimensional properties, channeling through the following pathways.

Pathway 1: Identity threat. Social identity theory predicts that salient political identities activate categorization and intergroup threat (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Employees experiencing moralized political issues may perceive challenges to their moral character (Skitka, 2010), which intensifies defensiveness and reduces tolerance. In WPD contexts, identity threat can yield overt incivility but also produces subtler costs—avoidance, diminished information sharing, and interpretive suspicion—without any explicit norm violation.

Pathway 2: Resource depletion. Political talk demands emotion management and strategic self-presentation. Conservation of resources theory predicts that such repeated cognitive and emotional demands generate strain and withdrawal (Hobfoll, 1989). Empirical evidence supports this mechanism: employees report higher depletion after political talk, which in turn predicts reduced helping behavior and increased withdrawal (Kim et al., 2022). Notably, WPD depletes resources even when employees are not direct participants— (this might be a better phrasing:— ambient political conversations can produce negative affect and impede goal progress under passive exposure alone (Rosen et al., 2024).

Pathway 3: Self-censorship. Employees who hold minority political views, feel politically ambivalent, or value privacy face uncertainty about social inclusion and career risk when political talk arises. Many resolve this uncertainty through self-censorship—suppressing authentic views to avoid conflict—at a cost to belonging and well-being (Sinclair et al., 2024). Thompson (2021, 2022) argues that political identity can function as a concealable stigma whose disclosure through political discussion activates discriminatory responses. Experimental evidence reinforces this pattern: individuals demand significantly more compensation to discuss politics with out-partisans than with co-partisans (Settle & Carlson, 2019). Beyond overt conflict, people also avoid political discussion with dissimilar others altogether (Carlson & Settle, 2022). In workplaces, Kuhn et al. (2026) find that employees discussing emotionally charged political news tend to select politically similar conversation partners. This pattern suggests that the apparent affective benefits of coworker political discussion may be unevenly distributed: employees who hold minority political views may have fewer safe partners and may therefore bear greater costs of silence. Kuhn et al. (2026).

Pathway 4: Grim expectations. The final dysfunctional pathway operates not through experienced conflict but through its anticipation. Dimant (2024) demonstrates that polarization reduces cooperation toward political outgroup members largely because people hold pessimistic expectations about outgroup cooperativeness—what he terms “grim expectations.” These expectations need not be accurate; research on second-order political beliefs reveals misperception of others’ political positions (Carlson & Hill, 2022), suggesting that employees may act on distorted inferences about coworkers’ views. In workplaces, once employees infer colleagues’ political identities—through explicit talk or subtle cues—they may preemptively reduce cooperation, information sharing, or trust, even absent any direct conflict. Thompson (2026) identifies a complementary mechanism: as demographic-partisan sorting intensifies, observable attributes—race, education, geography—increasingly predict political affiliation (Mason, 2018), enabling taste-based statistical discrimination even without identity disclosure. Together, grim expectations and taste-based animus can poison collaboration even when political discourse itself is rare, because coworkers need not hear each other's views to form partisan inferences that reshape behavior.

These pathways are not mutually exclusive: a single episode may activate multiple pathways simultaneously, and dimensional properties shape which pathways dominate. High moral conviction content primarily engages identity threat; power-asymmetric contexts disproportionately activate self-censorship; ambient exposure primarily drives resource depletion. A purely dysfunctional account, however, would be incomplete.

Pathway 5: Shared understanding. When organizational conditions for genuine dialogue are present, communicative WPD can yield constructive outcomes. Research on cross-cutting political networks shows that exposure to dissimilar views increases awareness of oppositional rationales and fosters political tolerance, though often at the cost of participatory engagement (Mutz, 2002). (Hedrick & Saad, 2024; Kuhn et al., 2026; Shi et al., 2019. In organizational contexts, emerging evidence suggests that coworker discussion of emotionally charged political news may improve affective well-being under some conditions (Kuhn et al., 2026), while Gallup survey evidence indicates that some employees report feeling included or closer to coworkers through political discussions even as others report discomfort or unfair treatment (Hedrick & Saad, 2024). Related evidence on politically balanced teams or crowds suggests that ideological diversity can improve output quality when strong norms govern collaboration (Shi et al., 2019). Yet these benefits remain highly conditional: such discussions often occur between politically similar coworkers, suggesting self-selection rather than robust cross-partisan deliberation. Communicative WPD, therefore, requires psychological safety, equal-status interaction, and governance that limits domination and moral shaming (Edmondson, 1999). When these conditions align, WPD can foster perspective-taking and cross-partisan understanding that other organizational mechanisms cannot readily provide.

Across these pathways, consequences cascade through multiple levels of analysis. At the individual level, WPD predicts negative affect, depletion, and reduced goal progress, especially under ambient exposure and high moralization (Rosen et al., 2024). Kuhn et al. (2026) found that perceived political dissimilarity predicted higher emotional exhaustion following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, even absent overt conflict. At the interpersonal level, WPD damages trust and relationship quality through incivility, avoidance, and suspicion. At the organizational level, WPD can catalyze ideological flight, contributing to political homogeneity (Bermiss & McDonald, 2018). These multilevel consequences underscore both the urgency of studying WPD and the breadth of the research agenda we now propose.

Research Agenda

The process model yields four research questions that target the most productive lines of inquiry: macro-to-micro translation, pathway differentiation, constructive versus dysfunctional conditions, and construct measurement.

RQ1: When do macro-political events translate into workplace WPD episodes, and what organizational factors govern this translation?

Elections, court decisions, and policy events create predictable shocks, yet organizations vary widely in whether those shocks become internal discourse episodes. Researchers should identify the organizational moderators governing this translation—communication architecture, leadership signals, norms around nonwork identity expression, and local political balance—using quasi-experimental designs around election periods and event-system theory (Morgeson et al., 2015). Communication trace data can reveal how political content diffuses through networks after external events. Comparative cases of organizations facing the same political event under different governance regimes would clarify when macro politics becomes WPD.

RQ2: Through which pathway does WPD generate consequences—and when do consequences accelerate?

Researchers should not assume that pathways co-occur uniformly. Studies should test whether pathways operate sequentially, conditionally, or multiplicatively and should identify dose-response thresholds—the exposure parameters (frequency, duration, moralization intensity) beyond which harm accelerates. A dose-response framing is warranted because allostatic load theory predicts that repeated stressors produce cumulative physiological wear that progressively dysregulates stress response systems (Ganster & Rosen, 2013; McEwen, 1998), and meta-analytic evidence reveals stronger stressor–strain relationships at the between-person than within-person level (Pindek et al., 2019). Together, these findings suggest that occasional WPD episodes and sustained WPD climates produce different harm trajectories.

Moralization intensity may serve as a critical threshold moderator. Highly moralized political attitudes generate intolerance and resistance to compromise that exceed ordinary disagreement (Skitka et al., 2021). The model therefore yields specific predictions: high moral conviction content should primarily activate Pathway 1; supervisor-initiated WPD under power asymmetry should disproportionately activate Pathway 3; and ambient exposure should primarily activate Pathway 2. Event-contingent experience sampling and multilevel growth models can test these within-person harm trajectories (Gabriel et al., 2019).

RQ3: Under what organizational conditions do constructive versus dysfunctional WPD pathways dominate, and what mechanisms explain the balance?

Because the constructive pathway operates conditionally (Pathway 5), researchers can move beyond asking whether constructive outcomes are possible toward specifying the mechanisms that govern pathway selection. Three levels of enabling conditions warrant investigation. Macro-organizational communication architecture—structured forums versus ambient political talk—may determine whether episodes activate Pathway 5 or default to Pathways 1–4. At the meso-level, leaders who model communicative rather than strategic orientations shape subordinates’ discourse norms. At the micro-level, individual differences in perspective-taking capacity and moral conviction may moderate whether employees shift to communicative engagement. Emerging evidence suggests that topic selection critically moderates these outcomes: cross-partisan conversations reduce affective polarization when they center on common ground rather than direct disagreement (Santoro & Broockman, 2022). Field experiments comparing ambient versus facilitated dialogue, longitudinal studies of discourse governance, and comparative case studies across political climates can address this question. Importantly, researchers must account for selective sharing (Kuhn et al., 2026): observed “constructive” outcomes may reflect safe same-partisan exchanges rather than genuine cross-cutting deliberation, requiring designs that capture the political composition of discourse dyads.

RQ4: How can WPD be reliably measured across its dimensional structure, and what methodological approaches best capture its episodic nature?

Testing the process model requires valid WPD measures. Instruments must capture behavioral, relational, and content dimensions, especially discourse orientation. Existing measures offer starting points (Kim et al., 2022; Rosen et al., 2024), but no single instrument captures the full dimensional structure. Communication traces can assess behavioral and content features at scale; diary methods can track episodes over time; and vignettes can isolate causal effects of specific dimensional properties. Multi-method triangulation will prove essential for construct validation and for maintaining WPD's distinctiveness from adjacent constructs.

Conclusion

WPD is increasingly common and consequential, yet it remains under-theorized as a focal construct in organizational research. By defining WPD, distinguishing it from six adjacent constructs, and mapping five pathways through which it generates organizational consequences, we provide conceptual infrastructure for systematic study. Our research agenda targets macro-to-micro translation, pathway differentiation, constructive conditions, and measurement. The payoff is both theoretical—integrating identity, communication, stress, and cooperation under polarization—and practical. Rather than debating whether politics belongs at work, researchers and managers can now ask sharper questions: when does discourse become harmful, when might it become constructive, and what organizational conditions tip the balance?

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Lemaro R. Thompson

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Andersson

L. M.

Pearson

C. M.

(1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131

Armstrong

(2020, September 27). Coinbase is a mission focused company. The Coinbase Blog. https://www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-company

Bermiss

Y. S.

McDonald

(2018). Ideological misfit? Political affiliation and employee departure in the private-equity industry. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2182–2209. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0817

Briscoe

Gupta

(2016). Social activism in and around organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153261

Brown

A. D.

(2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12035

Carlson

T. N.

Hill

S. J.

(2022). Experimental measurement of misperception in political beliefs. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(2), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.2

Carlson

T. N.

Settle

J. E.

(2022). What goes without saying: Navigating political discussion in America. Cambridge University Press.

Carlson

T. N.

Settle

J. E.

(2023). Freedom of expression in interpersonal interactions. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(2), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001342

Caza

B. B.

Vough

Puranik

(2018). Identity work in organizations and occupations: Definitions, theories, and pathways forward. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2318

10.

Cortina

L. M.

(2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27745097

11.

Dimant

(2024). Hate trumps love: The impact of political polarization on social preferences. Management Science, 70(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4701

12.

Drory

Vigoda-Gadot

(2010). Organizational politics and human resource management: A typology and the Israeli experience. Human Resource Management Review, 20(3), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.005

13.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

14.

Ferris

G. R.

Ellen

B. P.

McAllister

C. P.

Maher

L. P.

(2019). Reorganizing organizational politics research: A review of the literature and identification of future research directions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015221

15.

Finkel

E. J.

Bail

C. A.

Cikara

Ditto

P. H.

Iyengar

Klar

Mason

McGrath

M. C.

Nyhan

Rand

D. G.

Skitka

L. J.

Tucker

J. A.

Van Bavel

J. J.

Wang

C. S.

Druckman

J. N.

(2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715

16.

Fried

(2021). Changes at Basecamp. HEY World. https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5

17.

Gabriel

A. S.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Beal

D. J.

Scott

B. A.

Sonnentag

Trougakos

J. P.

Butts

M. M.

(2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626

18.

Ganster

D. C.

Rosen

C. C.

(2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1085–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475815

19.

Habermas

(1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

20.

Costa

P. L.

Walker

J. M.

Miner

K. N.

Wooderson

R. L.

(2019). Political identity dissimilarity, workplace incivility, and declines in well-being: A prospective investigation. Stress and Health, 35(3), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2856

21.

Hedrick

Saad

(2024, August 22). Talking politics at work: A double-edged sword. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/648581/talking-politics-work-double-edged-sword.aspx

22.

Henderson

A. A.

Jeong

S. S.

(2022). Political affiliation dissimilarity: Exploring lone affiliate employees’ work attitudes and experiences. Stress and Health, 38(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3089

23.

Heucher

Alt

Soderstrom

Scully

Glavas

(2024). Catalyzing action on social and environmental challenges: An integrative review of insider social change agents. Academy of Management Annals, 18(1), 295–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0205

24.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.

25.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

26.

Iyengar

Lelkes

Levendusky

Malhotra

Westwood

S. J.

(2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

27.

Johnson

(1991). Habermas on strategic and communicative action. Political Theory, 19(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591791019002003

28.

Kim

Lyons

Chung

Cho

(2022). The costs of political conversations at work: An experience sampling study during national election periods in South Korea. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 134, Article 103704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103704

29.

Kokalitcheva

(2020). Coinbase says 5% of employees took exit package. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2020/10/08/coinbase-says-5-of-employees-took-exit-package

30.

Kuhn

K. M.

Sheppard

L. D.

Loi

T. I.

(2026). Should we talk about the news? Coworker discussion and affective well-being in a polarized society. Academy of Management Discoveries. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2025.0034

31.

Lyons

(2021). Basecamp implodes as employees flee company, including senior staff. The Verge.

32.

Mason

(2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.

33.

McEwen

B. S.

(1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09546.x

34.

Meyerson

D. E.

Scully

M. A.

(1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.585

35.

Mintzberg

(1983). Power in and around organizations. Prentice-Hall.

36.

Morgeson

F. P.

Mitchell

T. R.

Liu

(2015). Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0099

37.

Morrison

E. W.

(2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

38.

Mutz

D. C.

(2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264

39.

Mutz

D. C.

Mondak

J. J.

(2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x

40.

Newton

(2021, April 27). Breaking Camp. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-political-speech-policy-controversy

41.

Niemeyer

Veri

Dryzek

J. S.

Bächtiger

(2024). How deliberation happens: Enabling deliberative reason. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000023

42.

Pek

Sonpar

(2025). New directions for the generative curiosity section. Journal of Management Inquiry, 34(2), 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926241309261

43.

Pindek

Arvan

M. L.

Spector

P. E.

(2019). The stressor-strain relationship in diary studies: A meta-analysis of the within and between levels. Work & Stress, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1445672

44.

Rosen

C. C.

Koopman

Gabriel

A. S.

Lee

Y. E.

Ezerins

Roth

P. L.

(2024). Hidden consequences of political discourse at work: How and why ambient political conversations impact employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(6), 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001171

45.

Santoro

Broockman

D. E.

(2022). The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized experiments. Science Advances, 8(25), eabn5515. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn5515

46.

Settle

J. E.

Carlson

T. N.

(2019). Opting out of political discussions. Political Communication, 36(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1561563

47.

Shi

Teplitskiy

Duede

Evans

J. A.

(2019). The wisdom of polarized crowds. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(4), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6

48.

SHRM. (2024). SHRM civility index: Q4 2024 results. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/content/dam/en/shrm/topics-tools/topics/civility/shrm-q4-civility-index-abstract.pdf

49.

Sinclair

Nilsson

Holm

(2024). The role of political fit and self-censorship at work for job satisfaction, social belonging, burnout, and turnover intentions. Current Psychology, 43, 20935–20947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05910-z

50.

Skitka

L. J.

(2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.x

51.

Skitka

L. J.

Hanson

B. E.

Morgan

G. S.

Wisneski

D. C.

(2021). The psychology of moral conviction. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612

52.

Snow

D. A.

Anderson

(1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1336–1371. https://doi.org/10.1086/228668

53.

Steenbergen

M. R.

Bächtiger

Spörndli

Steiner

(2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002

54.

Swigart

K. L.

Anantharaman

Williamson

J. A.

Grandey

A. A.

(2020). Working while liberal/conservative: A review of political ideology in organizations. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1063–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320909419

55.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

56.

Thompson

L. R.

(2021). Seeing red and blue: Political discrimination at work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(4), 454–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926211024358

57.

Thompson

L. R.

(2022, March 28). Politics in the workplace: How can managers keep the peace? MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/politics-in-the-workplace-how-can-managers-keep-the-peace/

58.

Thompson

L. R.

(2026). Taste-based statistical discrimination: A new framework for understanding organizational inequality in a polarized era. Journal of Business Ethics, 204(3), 663–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06113-7