Why are discussions of politically charged issues often so fraught in the workplace today? How can managers ensure that they aren't caught flat-footed by the conflict these issues sometimes create among employees? Not long ago such questions lay at the periphery of corporate life. But today they're central, according to the authors. In recent decades we've witnessed a surge in the proportion of people whose identities are deeply informed by their political allegiances and who believe they need to bring those identities to work. The result is often conflict that can spiral dangerously out of control. This is a new and rapidly evolving problem, and most leaders are ill-equipped to cope with it. The authors provide a framework to help managers understand when and how political conflict can become corrosive, and they explain how to navigate it more effectively and even harness its potential to strengthen the workplace.

Francoise Brougher was a high-powered technology executive in Silicon Valley. After successful stints at Google (where she rose to lead a $16 billion ad sales business) and Square (which she helped take public), she joined Pinterest as its first Chief Operating Officer in March 2018. As COO, Brougher increased the advertiser base eight-fold, expanded operations to 20 countries, and more than doubled Pinterest's revenue to $1.1 billion in less than two years. These achievements, among others, set Pinterest up for its successful IPO in April 2019. In the year after the IPO, however, Brougher was increasingly cut out of meetings with other leaders in the company and given little voice in critical decisions. When Pinterest's CEO and founder, Ben Silbermann, asked Brougher if they could connect, Brougher was ready to share her latest thoughts on the actions Pinterest could take to further grow and optimize its business. Ten minutes into their video call, however, Brougher realized she was being fired. Brougher pondered how her status as an outsider-a French woman-played into her treatment in the firm. Silbermann offered a severance package of six months' salary, suggested she tell her team she had decided to leave the company, and asked her to sign a non-disclosure agreement. What could Brougher do in response?

As founders of the software company Basecamp, Jason Fried and David H. Hansson were used to being the subjects of social media attention. Both maintained active and dedicated Twitter followings for their unique perspectives on management and life. But on April 26, 2021, Fried and Hansson found themselves in the spotlight for a very different reason: they had just publicly announced a new policy that would curtail the discussion of politics at work. The co-founders argued that this policy would prevent distractions and polarizing political differences that Basecamp employees could not hope to resolve amicably or productively. But just one day later, a number of their employees reached out to a journalist to report that Fried and Hansson were simply using their new policy to chill dissent about problematic practices within the company. The subsequent exposé yielded public outcry, and the co-founders were firmly in the crosshairs. In response, Fried held an all-hands meeting at the company to address the events, but tensions quickly escalated. Two hours into the meeting, one of his employees challenged Fried to publicly denounce another employee who had voiced an opinion on matters of racial bias and white supremacy that some viewed as deeply troubling. Basecamp, Fried had argued, could not afford to get distracted by talking politics at work. But could it afford not to?

Supplement to the (A) case.

In March 2020, the English Premier League football (soccer) season was suspended partway through due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two months later the season remained in limbo, with a looming deadline to decide whether to attempt to complete the season or curtail it-and if so, how. These decisions had major implications for a number of key stakeholders, each with their own incentive structures. One key point of contention was whether to temporarily cancel the system of relegation (i.e., demotion) from the league for the bottom teams. This case investigates the process by which a decision was reached, considering the role of historical and social context in shaping the eventual conclusion.