The organization is now putting out fires it could’ve prevented with a clear internal communication policy, expert say
Microsoft recently came under scrutiny after the organization confirmed it had taken steps to reduce "politically focused" Outlook emails that contained words such as ‘Palestine’ and ‘Gaza’.
According to Microsoft spokesperson Frank Shaw, this move was done to prevent a number of politically focused emails from being sent to individuals who had not opted to receive them.
“Over the past couple of days, a number of politically focused emails have been sent to tens of thousands of employees across the company, and we have taken measures to try and reduce those emails,” he said.
Shaw reiterated that the blocking and censoring of emails would only occur if the emails were being widely distributed to a large number of people, according to The Verge, who reported on this issue.
However, a group of Microsoft workers belonging to No Azure for Apartheid (NOAA) said the censorship was happening to all emails that included those words.
Ashish Mahajan, a professor of management at the University of Windsor, says that while limiting internal mass messaging on sensitive topics isn’t inherently wrong, how it’s done makes all the difference.
“[If they] take these actions without really, sort of providing a context... that will create distrust among employees. It will create..., all sorts of opinions against an organization,” he says.
Mahajan notes that while mass messaging on politically sensitive topics can understandably create internal tension, relying solely on censorship to manage those conversations carries significant risks.
“The censorship doesn't really work in general, because of the fact that people are going to be hearing this thing from a lot of different places,” Mahajan says.
Employees, no matter what, are exposed to global issues through social conflict and external channels. Therefore, he says organizations like Microsoft—with a large global footprint—cannot pretend these political conversations are not going to exist, and that they can be emotionally challenging.
“Those things are bound to come in at the workplace,” he says.
Banning any political conversation, Mahajan says, is “putting the problem under the rug and hoping it goes away”.
Instead, organizations should focus on offering respectful spaces for these conversations to happen, he says.
A study done last year by Randstad on U.S. workplaces found that conversations about politics in the workplace are rising. In fact, 64 per cent of respondents said they felt comfortable sharing their thoughts at work — but the same report noted that such conversations can affect productivity.
One of the key mistakes, Mahajan says, Microsoft made in handling this situation is the lack of a clear internal policy on this kind of communication.
“I think they should have that, and the employees should really be made aware as to what they can communicate—through email, or what is not appropriate to communicate via email,” he says.
“When the organization makes it clear to people, ‘This is acceptable, this is not; this is something which, if we see it happening, we will take action,’ then it’s much clearer.”
Mahajan says that when organizations take action without having any policies in place to guide their decisions, it can lead to major distrust among employees.
In a statement, NOAA said they found Microsoft’s actions discriminatory. “We believe Microsoft limiting its employees' ability to report harassment and discrimination by limiting emails that contain the word 'Palestine' or 'Gaza' to be a flagrant discriminatory practice and a serious workplace concern.”
“Now they must put out these fires, and that will create issues. If these policies were put in place before, then hopefully these things would have been taken care of,” Mahajan says.
However, he notes that even with these policies, an organization should ensure they are driven by the values it holds. For example, if Microsoft holds neutrality as a value, then the policy should be grounded in that principle.
So, how can employers facilitate political discussions constructively? Mahajan says it’s through HR taking the lead.
“HR taking the lead on saying, okay, we recognize that the...the Palestine situation and the Israel situation are emotionally challenging for a lot of people, and we want to give a place for these conversations to happen,” he says.
That can involve creating a moderated open forum where employees have the opportunity to engage in discussion.
“Both sides can come and express their opinion without really any kind of hostility or animosity towards each other,” Mahajan says.
“Then, there should be a cooling hour as well—like a social hour where, you know, after [these forums], which typically might get heated, there’s a chance for people to come and kind of, over a drink or... have a little bit of a light-hearted conversation.”
For more on managing political conversations in the workplace, see HRD’s previous coverage on constructive dialogue at work.
