What I do think we (HR) should talk about is how we are going to respond to the changed conditions.

Take discussions on the Economy as an example. When the economy was taking a nose-dive, HR people needed to be thinking and talking about how it would impact staffing levels, morale, productivity, compensation, etc. We did not need to be talking about whose fault it was or why it happened or how the country was going to get out of it.

It’s the same with healthcare. I could talk about what I think would be smart and what would be stupid for the country to do with healthcare and give you all kinds of reasons to support my conclusions. But what good would that do? What I should be doing is discussing the various possible outcomes and how we as a company can do to maximize the situation for our company, our employees and customers. That is where we can add value.

Do you see the difference? Or maybe that is what you meant in the first place?

You seem to think that engaging in political discussions on issues that impact business are risky. I think not engaging in them is even more risky. Pretending they don’t exist is like pretending competitors, macroeconmics and other business risks don’t exist.

We can talk techniques and good and bad examples all day but are you seriously suggesting companies should simply ignore real, external threats to their company because they involve political actions? We need to be discussing them as much as the economy, competitors, and the market segments. HR has shirked away from that.

A. His sales are going to be hard hit but those who will no longer shop at Whole Foods due to his political outspokeness.

B. His employees are sure to have been riled up which can not be good for productivity and employee retention.

C. It could just as easily be argued that his views on healthcare are bad for his business. (For example how much greater would Whole Foods’ profit margins be if they didn’t have to pay any healthcare costs at all?)

D. He didn’t change anyone’s mind by speaking out.

Speaking out was based on his own personal need to speak out. He was satisfying an itch. It wasn’t something he was doing for the good of the company (he just cloaked it in that). If I was on the Board of Directors for Whole Foods I would reprimand him strongly.

PS. He also broke a cardinal rule. No thy customers. What on earth was he thinking??

@Beth – I don’t know how you have any disagreements with people at work and not resent them for feeling differently because you can’t convince them or “win.” How are political issues that directly impact the workplace any different than other issues that directly impact your business?

I imagine Mackey ticked off some of his employees but I also think it is important for a CEO to share his views on something that impacts their bottom line. He has been politically vocal on a number of things that impact his business. When you’re talking health care reform that could impact the slim margins grocers maintain, I don’t understand how you don’t expect a leader to speak up about it. The consequences of sitting by politely while a major workplace issue goes unaddressed seems like a much worse consequence.

@Kerry – It is one thing to say Palin is an idiot or that abortion is completely wrong but those aren’t the issues I am talking about. Health care legislation directly impacts a business though, right? In some businesses, health care can be the difference between profitability and tanking.

There’s a double sided risk though. If you don’t talk about a political issue that touches on the workplace, you risk alienating those people that want your leadership on the issue and you lose an opportunity to be involved in discussing the ramifications of it. If you do talk about a political issue that touches on the work place, you risk alienation of those who disagree with you in your organization.

I obviously feel that the latter risk is worth taking. But let’s not pretend that either strategy is risk free either.

The problem with having political discussions at work is that you can’t exclude the loonies. People on the far ends of the spectrum will inevitably piss each other off, and it slowly spreads to the larger crowd in the middle. It’s also hard to separate the inflammatory issues from the non-inflammatory ones, because “inflammatory” is relative. I said something the other day about this idea of death panels being very obviously untrue, and someone who overheard me attributed my remark to my religious beliefs and went someplace else entirely with the discussion. You can’t control how other people feel about what you say, no matter how hard you try.

If everyone could discuss politics rationally, that’d be great. That’s just not the case though…if it was, Glenn Beck would have no audience.

I certainly think HR people should be aware of the business impact of the things that go on in Washington and in their state capitols, and should make their voices heard. I was a political science major, so I’m pretty sure my representatives’ staffers know my email address by heart. But I try hard to refrain from spewing my beliefs on the people I work with, unless the legislation directly relates to what we do (like EFCA, for example). I don’t thinks views on Sarah Palin is necessarily going to make me more effective in my job.

I understand where you are going with discussing political issues that affect the business rather than general political smack talk. It’s really though just a ruse of sorts to put ones own political positions on the table.

Whole Foods is a good example. It was a giant business mistake for the CEO to speak out publically on his personal political views. How many of his employees who believe otherwise did he alienate? (Not to mention his customers.) Those that agree with him will continue to agree with him. Those that disagree might decide it’s not a place they want to work at any longer. Truth is he was only preaching to the choir. I’ll guess that he changed exactly zero minds. And who knows what kind of arguments it brewed internally as the pro and con people “debated” the issue. These people have to work together. Having this fracture between them serves no good purpose. And it’s not going to change the future of healthcare one iota.

Self control is not easy. We all think we can sway others to our “correct” positions. But we never do. We only alienate each other and turn former friends into silent enemies.