Navigating the Storming Stage: Fostering Collaboration and Resolving Conflict

Please lower your shield and spears, I swear I come in peace. Recently, I ran a poll where I ventured the question: “Has political correctness gone too far?” I knew I was opening a can of worms. But I had also grown weary of tip-toeing around issues that needed to be addressed, especially with regard to workplace communication. And honestly, I was curious. What is it about this topic that polarizes people so greatly?

As you might imagine, this poll generated both a lot of responses (over 2500) and a lot of comments justifying why they voted the way they did. This revealed some very interesting differences between the groups, as well as some surprising similarities. It also raised a few questions about political correctness and workplace communication.

Political Correctness: Social Evolution or Censorship?

For the purposes of this analysis, let’s look at the respondent groups separately. 

The Yes Group 

Those who said that political correctness has gone too far all justified their decision based on variations and combinations of the following beliefs:

• Political correctness is a form of censorship. Labeling something as un-PC is just another way of censoring the truth, resulting in the deceleration of cultural evolution.
• People are too quick to take things personally. People who label things as un-PC are too sensitive and can’t handle conflict.
• Political correctness tramples over some people’s opinions and not others. This results in a feeling of discrimination.

The No Group 

Conversely, those who don’t believe that political correctness has gone too far seem to have the following beliefs in common:

• Political correctness is a natural social evolution. It is a by-product of people becoming more enlightened about the effect our behaviors have on others.
• We do not fully understand our own biases and assumptions. Therefore, we do not always know the damage we are causing others.
• Political correctness is only vilified by bullies or those who don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.

Political Correctness and Communication Breakdown 

The differences between the two groups are clear. It’s the things they have in common that I found interesting. Both groups had assumptions, biases, and subjective viewpoints that made true communication and understanding nearly impossible.

Assumed Intent

Perhaps the most striking commonality between the groups was that they both assumed the other group harbored ill intent toward them.

• The Yeses assumed that the Nos were using political correctness to suppress free speech because they were too weak or too stupid to handle “the truth.”
• The Nos assumed that the Yeses were trying to misdefine the term itself as censorship so they could continue to voice every (presumably horrible) opinion they held. 

In essence, both parties assumed the worst of each other.

The assertions they made about each other fed the narrative of “evilness,” which further polarized and alienated everyone involved. 

Assume the worst about people and you get the worst

Ha-Joon Chang

I’m not saying there are no evil people in the world. But how likely is it that everyone in X group is evil just because they don’t agree with you on this point? Not very. In fact, I suspect that all the respondents, regardless of group, are more alike than they think. They are all looking at the information available to them and drawing conclusions that make sense as they see it. 

So how did they come to such different answers?

Filtering and Context: How and Why We Believe What We Do

Our brains are geared in such a way that they are constantly trying to make sense of the complexities surrounding us. We can’t ingest every single thing, so we filter out what seems unimportant in order to focus on what is. However, because everyone filters based on different criteria, none of us are viewing the world objectively (or accurately).

What you see is filtered through your beliefs. You rarely see “reality.” You see your version of it.

-Joe Vitale

Our ability to focus is a great asset. But when the majority of our beliefs are grounded in partial truths and a singular perspective, it becomes problematic. Even a little scary. Incomplete perceptions of reality can all too easily lead to ignorance, bigotry, and hate.

However, when we delve deeper into an issue–especially the opposing viewpoint–we learn the importance of context. What might be correct in one case is wrong in another. Or something might be both right and wrong at the exact same time.

If we rely solely on the information provided by our subjective experience, we will never reach the actual truth. Only by making a conscious effort to look at every facet of a situation can we come close to truly understanding it.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.”  Quite simply, if you look for evidence to support your opinion, you will find it–and will subsequently ignore all proof to the contrary, no matter how much of it there may be. 

“I think it’s outrageous if a historian has a ‘leading thought’ because it means they will select their material according to their thesis.”

-Antony Beevor

We saw this behavior in the reaction to the poll itself. The more people stated their opinion as unequivocally right, the more entrenched in that opinion everyone else became. 

Confirmation bias is like a feedback loop. Words said into a microphone come out of the speaker so loudly it is picked up by the microphone, then played out of the speaker, on and on until the cacophony is so loud that nothing else can get through. If left unchecked, it results in irreversible damage to the system and everyone listening to it.

Political Correctness and Workplace Communication

So where do we go from here? In all this polarized thinking, is a meeting of the minds still possible? 

And what of workplace communication? Is there a way to have honest dialog if we are constantly worrying about offending each other?

The short answer is yes, open and honest workplace communication is possible, even in an age of political correctness. But before you can journey down that path, it’s important to understand a few distinctions first.

Understand The Difference Between Values and Beliefs

Values are guiding principles that define our identities by guiding our efforts and behaviors. Though they may shift in priority over the years, one’s values tend to remain constantly present throughout their life.

Beliefs are things that one accepts as true, often without proof. Beliefs can and often do change as we grow and our understanding of the world becomes more refined.

When it comes to forming allegiances, we often place more importance on shared beliefs rather than shared values. However, because beliefs are by definition malleable, they are bound to be challenged or even disproven over time.

The highest-performing individuals and teams make a deliberate attempt to surround themselves with people who have like values but different beliefs. This diversity fuels innovation and creativity, but it doesn’t happen overnight. It requires confronting and breaking down inaccurate beliefs in order to rebuild them into something that more accurately reflects the reality we live in. 

Leading the Charge

This endeavor is not for the faint of heart. There will be a period of defensiveness, bruised egos, and uncertainty. It is in these moments when people might take offense, and others might cry that political correctness has gone too far. But if everyone in the group remembers that the goal is improved workplace communication, understanding, and growth, then what breaks occur will heal courtesy of your shared values. 

Don’t Take Offense

The moment you become offended by something an employee says, the dialogue stops. When the dialogue stops, you lose your influence. After that, it’s only a matter of time before you lose that employee too. The moment we as leaders take offense, we shift the focus onto our personal feelings and ignore the actual problem.

Our egos are the trap. They want us to come out on top at all costs, even if it means dismissing others’ input or hearing only the things we agree with and ignoring the rest. It takes significant fortitude and discipline to absorb someone’s message while taking into account the context of how they arrived at that conclusion. No matter what you’re personal feelings, when it comes to workplace communication, you must listen to and respect your team’s beliefs and opinions in their entirety.

Look for the Silent Majority

As a general rule, the loudest people in the room rarely have the best understanding of the group’s true values or beliefs. Just because they speak a lot doesn’t mean they speak for everyone. 

Instead of relying on these “squeaky wheels,” look around to see if there is a subgroup of individuals who are reticent to deal with the louder, more dominating participants. These individuals may believe that they are alone in their thinking when the opposite might be true. 

As the leader, however, you cannot fall into that trap. As discussed above, getting to the truth of a situation is not simply accepting what is presented to you. You must find a way to communicate with everyone, ideally by creating opportunities for their opinion to be heard. 

Beware of Festering Resentment

Perhaps the most important thing to recognize is that a lack of two-way communication in this process can quickly lead to resentment. This happened repeatedly with the two groups in the political correctness debate. After a period of entrenched and fruitless bickering, things devolved to the point where people simply shut down because they felt everything they said was being twisted and attacked.

If you think the damages associated with offending people are bad, wait until you see the results of drawn-out resentment. For a society as well as a business, there is nothing worse.

So: Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

The answer is yes, no, and it depends.

Very politically correct of me, I know. Still, the fact remains that the answer to the question “has political correctness gone too far” is case-specific to individual societies and cultures. To apply or vanquish political correctness in every arena without accounting for context is not only unhelpful but also fuels the biases that lead to polarization and breakdowns in communication.

One could argue that 84% of people responding one way is an objective indicator that something is amiss. But even if that is the case, fixing it is not as simple as labeling all political correctness as “censorship” and doing away with it altogether. To come to any consensus requires further analysis and contextualization to determine what has caused each respondent to answer the way they did. It also requires participants to let go of their assumptions, recognize their biases, check their egos at the door, and be willing to truly listen to each other.

On social media, civil discourse like that seems unlikely. But for a team of coworkers with shared values, you can hold different beliefs and still have productive workplace communication. And if a belief is confronted and proven inaccurate, it can be rebuilt from a place of mutual growth and support.

In the end, I hope that I inspired some of the 2500-odd respondents to reassess the way they communicate with others. Perhaps it challenged their preconceptions or pressure-tested their previously-held beliefs. Ideally, perhaps some would delve further combat their confirmation bias, and find a slightly different (and, I hope, more accurate) understanding of the world. And that’s a good thing. Regardless of our differing beliefs, I hope we can all agree on that. 

Still unsure about how to foster open and honest workplace communication without sowing discontent or losing respect amongst team members? Our 8-week online leadership training course might be the solution. With four self-paced modules, regular interactive workshops, and individualized coaching, we will make sure you get what you need to build a stronger team.