Navigating tension and division at work
Navigating tension and division at work
Shannon Rivers, Director of Inclusion & Wellbeing Advisory, shares insights from Business in the Community’s response forum on workplace division.
Rising complexity, growing responsibility
Across our latest Business Response Forum on personal beliefs at work, a consistent theme emerged: organisations are navigating an increasingly complex and emotionally charged external context, and that reality is now showing up inside the workplace.
From geopolitical conflict to rising hate, from identity-based tensions to broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) backlash, many organisations described a shared experience: “what’s happening out there is now in here.”
While these dynamics are not entirely new, there is a clear sense that they have intensified in both frequency and impact.
What is emerging is not a single challenge, but a series of interconnected questions about how organisations show up with consistency, care, and integrity when the world outside becomes impossible to ignore.
When should organisations respond and how?
A central tension across the discussion was a lack of clarity on when organisations should respond and what form that response should take. Participants described navigating decisions about whether a given issue required a company-wide response, a more targeted internal communication, a wellbeing-led approach, a network or team-level conversation, or no formal response at all.
For many, silence is intended as a form of neutrality. However, it is not always experienced that way. Employees may interpret inaction as indifference, inconsistency, or lack of integrity.
Many organisations described the need for clearer frameworks to help leaders decide when and how to respond consistently and proportionately.
Internal response is not the same as external positioning
One of the clearest distinctions made was between external and internal responses. Participants reflected that while organisations may not always need, or feel able to take a public stance, there is often still an internal responsibility to acknowledge impact.
Internal responses were rarely framed as “taking a political position”. Instead, they were understood as protecting dignity, supporting wellbeing, and maintaining trust and a sense of belonging.
At its core, the question becomes less about public positioning and more about people: who within the organisation is affected, and what do they need to help them feel seen and supported?
Not all tensions are visible
Many organisations reported that these issues are not consistently surfacing through formal grievance channels or HR processes. However, there was a shared recognition that this does not mean tensions are absent.
More often, they are playing out in:
This creates a particular challenge: organisations may lack visibility until issues escalate. The work, therefore, becomes as much about early listening and pattern recognition as it is about formal response.
Employee networks and employee resource groups (ERGs) continue to play a vital role in helping organisations understand what colleagues are experiencing. They are often trusted spaces for expressing concern, sharing experiences, and providing support and insight.
At the same time, participants described a push-pull dynamic, with networks closest to employee experience, while leadership, HR, and communications teams are responsible for organisational risk. This can leave inclusion practitioners balancing competing expectations between colleagues’ needs, organisational caution, and the pressure to respond “well”.
There was also an important reminder: networks do not represent everyone. Not all employees affected by an issue will be part of, or feel comfortable engaging with, a network.
Manager capability is where response becomes real
Across every group, the role of managers emerged as a defining factor.
When organisations encourage employees to “speak to your manager”, there is an implicit expectation that managers are equipped to respond with confidence, sensitivity, and sound judgement.
Yet many participants highlighted this as a pressure point.
Managers are increasingly being asked to navigate emotionally charged conversations, respond to external events affecting their team, manage differing views, and maintain safety and cohesion.
The strongest insight here was simple but powerful: manager capability is not just about policy; it is about knowing your people.
Rethinking safety in a changing context
Safety came through as a broader concept than many organisations may traditionally consider. Participants described safety as extending beyond physical safety to include psychological, social, and emotional safety.
Importantly, the impact of external events does not begin at the workplace door.
It may be shaped by what individuals experience on their commute, in their local communities, or through media or social channels.
This reframes inclusion as closely connected to how organisations actively protect people from harm.
Moving beyond awareness to meaningful action
Many organisations described a strong foundation of activity: there are plenty of awareness campaigns, allyship initiatives, listening forums, and “moments that matter” calendars, which remain important. However, there was a clear sense that they are no longer sufficient on their own. The emerging question is: what happens after the learning?
Participants pointed toward the need for a more integrated approach, connecting:
Balancing consistency and authenticity
There was clear demand for frameworks, guidance, and more consistent approaches. At the same time, organisations are conscious of the risk of becoming overly process-driven. Responses that feel scripted, bureaucratic, or disconnected from lived experience can undermine trust rather than build it.
The challenge is to strike a balance: providing enough structure to support confident decision-making, while maintaining the humanity and authenticity that employees expect.
Rather than seeking a single “right” response, organisations are looking for clearer and more consistent ways to decide when to speak, listen, and act – and how to do so deliberately, humanely, credibly, and with integrity, when the world outside arrives at work.
What organisations can do next
While there is no single “right” response to every situation, there are clear steps organisations can take to build confidence and consistency:
At Business in the Community, we support organisations to put these foundations in place by combining practical tools with peer insight and evidence-led approaches.
To find out more about our Inclusion & Wellbeing Advisory support, or to join future conversations with other members, please get in touch.
