No Neutral Ground: Leadership in a Politicised Era
Why integrity, solidarity, and moral clarity must now sit at the heart of leadership
A Turning Point for Leadership
This week has been a sobering wake-up call for many. Whether one is just turning towards a new emerging reality or has feared it coming to fruition for some time, there’s been no shortage of evidence that we have arrived in a new moment.
This feels like a turning point for leadership, where a choice needs to be made. Do you move towards leadership better suited to the realities of a world where everything has become politicised and the blurring of small and big P politics needs careful navigation and strategic response? Or do you remain in a state of denial that feeds on outdated ideas that it is possible to keep personal and professional, politics and business, in separate spheres?
This article explores how today’s shifting and uncertain ground calls us to lean more firmly into our values and principles. It requires us to be intentional about the paths we choose as leaders and organisations, and to think critically about how we operate. We are being asked to choose if we are ready to move from compliance to courage, placing justice and solidarity at the centre of decisions, whether commercially driven or tied to charitable objectives. There’s an urgency to get there, but it needs to be considered and thought about too.
This feels like a more directive piece than I’d usually write - and that perhaps reflects my own need to see the growth of a movement that brings leadership fit for these times, and my concern that it feels very lacking. I’m very aware of the privilege I hold through my vantage point - British mixed race woman living in Barcelona, away from the UK. Living in a place that is doing a better job of fighting the rise of fascism, is very aware of its recent authoritarian past and is currently standing up against a genocide. I am responsible for using my position, energy and distance to support and guide others well.
New Times for Solidarity and Safety
It’s a distressing time for anyone with a marginalised identity, facing real far-right threats to safety and freedom. People in my community are in a state of hyper-vigilance, not knowing who to trust. At the same time, leaders are struck by a new kind of paralysis: the desire to hold together a broad mix of people narrows options for action, and the fear of alienating one group leaves them trapped in visible inaction, which is upsetting and isolating to those most in need of support.
Whether leaders choose silence or visible solidarity, the ideas being promoted by the far right are already part of everyday reality. Those views walk into offices, factories, schools, and shops, newly emboldened. Staff see them on their timelines, hear them in corridors, and feel them in the risks to their own safety. What once might have been dismissed as fringe rhetoric now has the potential to shape the everyday workplace climate that leaders must manage.
For many, we are talking about physical safety, not just psychological. The rise of violent racist attacks feels heavy in the air. Many people are living with a new kind of uncertainty, not knowing which colleagues might have been on the rally, what their real views are on immigration (and is it coded racism?), whether they care about diversity or multiculturalism, and what they really think about Islam. That’s alot to carry - a constant state of vigilance, scanning for clues of safety and concern for whether the person sitting next to them believes they “deserve” to belong.
Belonging cannot be reduced to simply “feeling included” in teams right now; it has to mean knowing you will be backed, protected, and defended if you are targeted. Solidarity is no longer symbolic; it’s something you do, not just say, by showing how safety and belonging are priorities at work. Leaders who fail to recognise this risk leaving staff exposed and isolated at precisely the moment they most need reassurance that they are not alone.
And there is a reckoning to be done to reconnect with the disenfranchised and disconnected, those who’ve lost trust in institutions and leaders, those who feel that stories of belonging do not include them. The work of the Othering Belonging Institute has always talked about belonging needing to ‘expand the circle of concern’ and I think that’s a good starting point for leaders reflecting on how they build belonging in organisations that gives everyone agency and a voice.
The Myth of Political Neutrality at Work
Politics has always been in the workplace, despite the leadership myth that they haven’t. We’ve heard this mantra for decades: Politics doesn’t belong at work. It sounded like wisdom - a way to preserve professionalism, reduce risk, avoid conflict and maintain focus on the job at hand. However, this faux separation only ever worked for people whose working lives were not impacted by politics. Anyone facing racism, misogyny, homophobia or ableism does not have that luxury - and the lived reality of these systems of oppression impacts performance, wellbeing, progress, psychological safety, visibility, job security, and pay - so both Politics and politics are felt in everyday tangible ways.
One reason leaders ask that politics stay outside of workplaces is that neutrality feels safer. It promises calm, cohesion, and protection from conflict. But what happens when staff see a stronger connection between their work and politics than you do, and being asked to strip that back feels like a challenge to their personal expression or identity?
Inside organisations, politics shows up in what staff are allowed, or not allowed, to say and do. I’ve heard of people who have been told not to wear T-shirts or jewellery with political messages, have been encouraged to leave because of their visible support for Palestine on LinkedIn, or have been dismissed for highlighting organisational practices or supplier relationships that are misaligned with claimed values of justice and equity. These restrictions are framed as “keeping politics out of work,” but the effect is the opposite: they reveal whose politics is seen as disruptive, and whose is allowed to pass as normal. For those silenced, the message is clear: your safety and identity are negotiable. And for leaders, the cost is growing distrust and a culture where solidarity fractures along the very lines they hoped to hold together.
But this raises the more difficult question that I’m sure has been on people’s minds: what about when the politics being expressed actively undermines the safety or dignity of others? What if someone comes to work in a Make Britain Great Again or Reform UK T-shirt? The answer cannot be to pretend this is the same as a badge of solidarity or a call for justice. One set of politics asserts belonging and survival; the other denies it. Leaders must be clear that workplaces are communities built on inclusion and respect. Free expression cannot extend to views that strip others of safety.
So where does that leave us?
The way through is not a blanket ban on politics, which only deepens distrust and disproportionately silences those already marginalised.
Instead, leaders need to draw a principled line: support for justice, equity, and belonging must be protected, while expression that denies the dignity of colleagues cannot be allowed to stand. This is not about “letting politics in” but about recognising that politics is already here, and choosing to anchor organisational life in values that safeguard everyone’s right to belong.
Clarity or Complicity?
The politicisation we see inside organisations is mirrored outside them. The mood of communities, citizens, and consumers has shifted: people are becoming more politicised, vocal, and willing to hold organisations accountable. Those who respond with clarity and integrity are building deeper trust and connection. Those who retreat into silence or denial are increasingly boycotted, criticised, or left behind.
Some organisations and artists are showing what it looks like to lead with clarity. At Ben & Jerry’s, activism has long been part of the brand’s DNA, with campaigns on racial justice, climate, and Palestine continuing even as co-founder Jerry Greenfield has stepped back, proof that values can outlast individuals when they are embedded deeply enough. Lush has taken a similarly principled approach by closing stores in solidarity with Gaza, framing the move not as marketing but as integrity in action. That same refusal to separate art, politics, and commerce drove Massive Attack to withdraw their music from Spotify, citing its founder's investment in militarised AI as an ethical issue. And beyond this, movements like BDS continue to mobilise collective consumer pressure, raising a collective conscientiousness about the link between commerce and politics and the ethical trade-offs placing profits over human rights.
But many organisations are not rising to this moment, and that includes charities. In the UK, while charities are legally barred from party politics, they are equally permitted, and often required, to campaign on issues that further their charitable purpose. Too often, leaders use charitable objects as a shield for silence, retreating from clarity even when their missions are rooted in justice. Yet communities expect more: they look to charities not only for services but for solidarity, voice, and moral leadership. There are many ways to act with integrity without breaching charity law - but a lack of prioritisation, creativity, and courage to explore them meaningfully is hurting the sector’s relevance. When organisations whose very purpose is to challenge injustice fall back into silence, the gap is all the more glaring.
A Choice for Leaders: Neutrality or Courage?
The big story is about what leaders choose when politics walks through the door:
Do they default to neutrality, control, and comfort?
Or do they bring moral clarity, solidarity, and courage?
Like I said at the start, this feels like a turning point for leaders and organisations to decide how they want to show up. Like any choice, it needs reflection, discussion, strategic thinking, and a set of values and principles to guide us toward action. If we choose to evolve our leadership to meet the moment, it will also mean growing the skills that help us get there.
I’ll leave you with some questions to reflect on as this week comes to a close:
Are we truly aligned on what matters most, or are we papering over differences?
Where are the conflict lines in our leadership team and are we naming them?
Are we talking about what these issues mean for our organisation?
How are our values helping us be ready to act with clarity on complex issues?
What strategies do we have for when far-right ideas impact our work?
What is our updated story of belonging and fairness at work?
What conversations are we avoiding because they feel messy or political?
Do we know what solidarity looks like, and can every leader answer this?
If we were judged only by our actions this week, what would staff say?
If these ideas and reflections speak to you, you might want to check out our upcoming Leading on the Line programme. Take care everyone x