Should you talk about politics at work?

I just read this piece on the CNN.com website:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/06/04/politicking.at.work/index.html

Should you be talking politics at work? Yes? No? May be?

As one the persons quoted in the article says, free speech is an urban myth. The moment you walk in the door of that office you leave the free world behind. You are no longer in America. You enter some medieval kingdom or fiefdom where you can't talk freely, you can't speak up and you certainly can't hold your superiors accountable. I italicized superior. Superior automatically relates to inferior, subordinate, lower, etc. If all men were created equal why should some be superior? Yes, I know some of you will say it's just a word. But words are everything. We think in words; we communicate in words; we express our emotions in words; we arouse masses of people with words. What would we be if we didn't have words? And of course there are symbols. Equally important.

Coming back to the original point: the choice of words is not a random act. Words are deeply connected to thoughts, emotions and ultimately physical reactions. So why choose superior instead of a more class-less (no pun intended) word? There are no such words in the political sphere. The names there are flatter with no hint of inherent hierarchy. Congressman, Congresswoman, Representative, Senator: all powerful positions but without the inherent implication of one being higher than the other. But in the corporate office, words are chosen differently. There is a superior and there is a subordinate. There is no free speech. There is no choice. There are no elections. Your leader is not someone you chose. Well some would say they didn't really choose George W Bush either. But you at least had a choice. Not once, but twice. At work, you don't have a choice. You are given a "leader" by the people above.

In England, in 1215, the barons revolted against the king and forced him to be bound by the Magna Carta. Even in England. Even in 1215. Can you imagine some people in a modern corporation revolting against their boss and forcing upon him/her a set of rules?

So why can't you talk politics at work? Yeah you can't put work aside and talk politics, that's not productive. Apart from that why can't you talk politics otherwise? Why can't you campaign for an issue? Why can't you send political email? Why can't you make political statements? If you spend 8 to 10 hours a day at work you spend approximately one third of your active adult life in a place without free speech!

It probably doesn't sound so surprising when you think of the purpose of the existence of corporations. But that's for another day.

The distortion of leadership

How many times have you seen managers, directors, VPs and CEOs referred to as leaders? The business school I went to had a slightly different idea of a leader, but once I was out of b-school and inside the bowels of a big corporation, I saw the other meaning of the word.

Corporate leaders are more akin to feudal lords than they are to real leaders. They are no more worthy of the word than a baron or knight or fief is. Feudalism in the 17th century created an elaborate heirarchy. At the top was the king and the bottom was the peasants and serfs. Somewhere in between were the barons, the knights and so on. These decorated positions owed allegiance to the king and the king promised to give them land and protection. The poor people at the bottom worked for the profit of the nobility and did not own any land. The people above them were not chosen by them but thrust upon them by layers of "nobility" above. Of course this begs the question, how did they obtain this "nobility" in the first place? But I'll side step that question for now.
The whole point I am trying to make is, the poor serfs and peasants worked away their lives to make profits for their "lords". And these poor people had no say about who their lords were. It all depended on the king and how he chose his men and how that process trickled down.

I see a great parallel between this and the modern American coporations. The CEO and his entourage of VPs and Directors and Managers are like the "nobility". The individual contributor at the bottom is like the serf or peasant, who has no say whatsoever in the choice of their "lord". You can absolutely not speak up against your vassal, your fief. If you do, you run the risk to suffer the equivalent punishment of beheading: firing! Well not all companies are like that. But most are.

How are these people leaders? How can you be a leader if no one is willing to follow you? Sure people will follow if you threaten them with dismissal, after all most people have families to feed. But if you remove all incumbrances and allow people to make free choices would those people still claim that their bosses are leaders? Or would they rather call them oppressors? I have not seen one person in corporate America that can or will address this issue.

I do not mean to carry on. This is a relatively new idea but there are others that have done a great job explaining the whole issue. I highly recommend Dhruve. He has already done a fabulous job in explaining this line of thought. Read his manifesto when you have time. I have a copy, email me if you want it.