Ask an Ethicist columnist Vera Cherepanova addresses a timely issue likely facing many workplaces in the US and around the world as President Donald Trump begins his second term in the White House: Can coworkers who deeply disagree politically be productive members of the same team?
I lead a team at a midsize company, and things have gotten tense lately. One of my team members is a vocal supporter of a controversial political figure and doesn’t shy away from sharing these views during work conversations. [Ethicist’s note: The political figure in question was President Donald Trump in the original question, but in almost every country, there is a Trump-like figure — Farage, Bardella and so on.] This has made a few other team members really uncomfortable — they’ve even come to me saying they don’t think they can work with this person anymore. At the same time, the employee in question is technically performing their job well. I’m stuck. Should I step in and try to mediate or set some boundaries for these conversations? Or should I let things run their course and hope the tension resolves on its own? I want to protect the team’s ability to collaborate and keep things productive, but I also feel like I owe it to everyone to respect their perspectives — even when they clash. How do I navigate this without betraying my own values or alienating anyone on the team? — AY
Your dilemma is a challenging but increasingly common workplace issue. According to the newly released Global Risks Report by the World Economic Forum, societal polarization is now the second top concern for businesses worldwide. Today’s workplaces are increasingly strained by tensions arising from divergent political, social and cultural views. These differences often surface in debates over DEI initiatives or ESG policies, areas where values and priorities can vary widely.
Social scientists have studied a phenomenon called “partyism,” a form of animus tied to political affiliation. Research shows that people’s positive feelings about their own political party have remained steady over decades, but negative feelings toward the opposing party have skyrocketed. This polarization extends beyond political views to perceptions of personal traits — honesty, generosity or selfishness — and even to preferences about working with or being friends with those from the “other side.” It’s a trend seen not just in the US but in many countries across the globe.
One way people rationalize these attitudes is by insisting that those with opposing views are either morally corrupt or hopelessly ignorant. Yet supporting a divisive political figure doesn’t necessarily mean someone shares all their flaws or vices. People vote — or support ideas — for many reasons: the policies they hope will come to pass, a belief in lesser evils or even a single issue they prioritize above all else. They might be wrong in their judgment, but misjudgement is a universal trait — neither side of the political spectrum is immune to it.
In your workplace, this means you have a role in reframing the conflict. Just as your vocal employee sees their political views as a personal choice, your other team members have the right to be disturbed by those views when they feel at odds with shared values. These tensions don’t need to be ignored, but they must be addressed constructively.
Your role as a leader isn’t to take sides but to promote understanding and professionalism, encouraging everyone to remember that their colleagues are more than their political identities. This is easier said than done, but moral philosophy can offer valuable guidance on how to convince your team members that it’s not only OK to maintain a relationship with someone who holds different views — it can also be an opportunity to practice and embody the ethical principles:
- Utilitarianism: Does maintaining this relationship create more overall benefit than harm? If the continued collaboration or collegial relationship benefits team dynamics, productivity or professional growth — and the harm caused by disagreements is minimal — then the relationship is worth maintaining.
- Virtue ethics: Virtue ethics focuses on embodying core virtues like kindness, compassion and tolerance. If you value kindness and fairness, treating a colleague with understanding despite differing views aligns with those virtues. This doesn’t mean condoning harmful behavior or compromising your principles, but it does call for patience and empathy in navigating disagreements.
- Kantian universal maxims: A Kantian approach asks, “What if everyone acted this way?” If you believe in a universal principle like treating others with dignity and respect, then continuing to treat your colleague with civility and professionalism — even when you disagree — upholds that principle. It sets a tone for the workplace where differences can coexist without devolving into hostility.
Ultimately, relationships — whether at work or in personal life — aren’t defined solely by agreement. They’re built on mutual respect, understanding and the ability to navigate differences constructively. Maintaining these principles strengthens team cohesion and fosters a healthy workplace culture of learning, improvement and growth.
Which Hills Are Worth Dying On?
Whistleblowing & the delicate art of knowing when to push back — and when to let go
Read moreDetailsReaders respond
The previous question came from a communications manager tasked with promoting their company’s sustainability achievements. The dilemma revolved around balancing honesty and inspiration — whether to highlight small wins to foster engagement or acknowledge the gap between those achievements and ambitious long-term goals, risking potential disappointment.
In my response, I noted: “Your dilemma touches on a common tension in corporate communication: balancing honesty with the need to inspire confidence and engagement. It reminds me of the Santa Claus debate many parents face — should they preserve the magic of childhood by perpetuating a beloved story, or be radically honest with their kids from the start? The stakes may be higher in your scenario, but the core question is similar: What role do truth and honesty play in building trust? […] Your messaging should be both honest and motivational. It must balance inspiration with verifiable truth. Celebrate your small but real achievements and pair these wins with an acknowledgment of the larger goals yet to be achieved. End by reaffirming your company’s commitment to sustainability and outlining clear next steps. Done right, your messaging can reinforce the trust and respect of those who rely on your leadership. In 2025, let’s make sure we don’t breed more Santa skeptics by trying to preserve belief at all costs — let’s keep the magic alive through authenticity.” Read the full question and answer here.
Here’s a look at some reader reactions:
Honesty should always come first, even if it’s uncomfortable. — Alex Koch
Love the jolly Santa analogy, but it’s indeed a difficult balancing act. Even at 1-2-1 communication level, whether in the work or other environment, balancing constructive feedback and motivation can be tough! — Sylwia Wolos
Vera Cherepanova
