> But, what about the concept of engaging with and challenging people who have different beliefs?
What about not doing it at work, since that is not what anybody is there for?
What about not doing it at work, since that is not what anybody is there for?
I think what may happen is that it'd go underground. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. It may be a kind of secret reason to cause strife between employees.
It would have to be supported as a broader part of the company culture. No discussing things that aren't relevant to work. A "We're here to work and that's it." kind of policy.
When I lived in Berkeley everyone felt very free to start a conversation about politics with any random person they happened to encounter. Nice people, but that can cause fatigue. My current Midwestern corporate work environment is basically the opposite of that: someone can talk about politics but if they're speaking in a group or to someone they're not very close to, they're going to get a funny look and they'll generally take the hint and drop it.
I don't know what our employee handbook says about all that but it's being handled at a different, social level. It's not perfect (my boss's boss occasionally makes bizarre political jokes which would cause a little trouble if they made people feel stepped on, instead of amused) but I suspect we should regard actual company policy as just a fallback for dealing with this sort of thing. Mostly, people just need to exercise some social discretion as part of the corporate culture.