Employee activism: Where’s the middle ground?

The rise of social media has made disconnecting from real-world issues that much harder. This is especially so at work, where that disconnection has forever been a habitual practice.

Employee activism is a touchy subject throughout workplaces in Australia. The recent developments in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict has caused some discomfort and confusion about what discussions around political and social issues can be had within workplace parameters without facing consequences.

To alleviate some confusion on this topic, HR Leader recently spoke to Lucy Piper, corporate climate expert and director at WorkforClimate, about how organisations and employees can navigate this somewhat contentious terrain.

“There are lots of examples where leaders have voiced an opinion that they really care deeply about and their careers have maybe suffered or they’ve faced repercussions,” Piper said.

It is a very tedious area that often depends on the situation, it can be very difficult for employees and even leaders to know how to approach certain social, political and environmental topics that often have different opinions attached to them. However, employees across Australian business are screaming out for a middle ground, or clarity on the issue.

“Employees and people in the workforce, they are looking for leadership on this. People are feeling it, and they cannot ignore it. Their own sense of urgency is being translated into these acts of, for example, climate activism that don’t fit the traditional model of what activism looks like,” Piper said.

“They’re not the people who are going to be going out and throwing paint at a Picasso, but they are prepared to risk their safety at work in order to stand up and say, I’m not happy with the status quo. The status quo is not serving us; business as usual is not serving us. We need to start thinking differently inside our company. But I acknowledge that there is risk involved in that.”

The middle ground can be promoted by leaders within an organisation, although it is difficult. Therefore, it must be done through empathy and understanding to ensure that all employees feel comfortable within the space.

“Organisations and HR leaders who can lead with heart and lead with empathy, and look at someone in an organisation who is voicing an opinion that is coming from a place of vulnerability and love and care for people in the world, I think that’s the only way you can approach those situations and those conversations,” Piper said.

“The rise in both anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic sentiment since the terrorist attacks on October 7, and then the resulting military offence in Gaza has created deep trauma in so many people witnessing what’s happening around the world that it is something that companies must not turn away from. It’s a very, very challenging space, particularly with that subject in a lot of workplaces.”

There’s no straightforward or easy answer that can solve this issue or create that middle ground that employees yearn for within their workplace. Consistency, however, in terms of the potential consequences, must exist to avoid businesses showing any bias to either side.

An extreme example of the consequences of voicing a political opinion in the workplace is the case of Antoinette Lattouf, a senior journalist at ABC News, who was dismissed over expressing pro-Palestinian sympathies.

“Employees feel deeply about all of these issues, and I encourage corporate leaders and HR leaders to bring empathy into everything that they are doing. Yet there’s not an easy answer,” Piper concluded.

The transcript of this podcast episode was slightly edited for publishing purposes. To listen to the full conversation with Lucy Piper, click below: