How to talk at work about the attempted Trump assassination

This past Saturday’s attempted assassination of former President Trump is the latest bloody reminder of how tense the 2024 election has become. As each candidate campaigns on distinctly partisan solutions to the myriad existential issues on the ballot in November, the tense discourse carries into our workday, too.

For communicators tasked with fostering unity and civility among employees, this raises renewed questions of how to best mediate healthy internal dialogue, and whether to address the assassination attempt at all.

Just days before the assassination attempt employee experience agency Integral and research partner Researchscape asked over 2,000 US adults working full-time at companies with 100 or more employees how they want to see election-related communications show up at work.  Their research, not yet published but shared with Ragan, found that nearly half felt people should have the ability to express their political views in the workplace (47%) and felt comfortable sharing their own personal political views at their organization (48%).

An even greater percentage (71%) said that they feel comfortable with their organization taking positions on political and social issues related to the organization’s core mission and stated values. Top employee concerns related to the election include voter suppression (68%) and voter fraud (66%).

These results indicate that employees are comfortable with their employer taking a stand on political and social issues that matter to the business’ mission and values, but they also are a reminder that employees expect to be able to talk about these issues at work.

This is where communicators are poised to make an impact.

The intentional language opportunity

Last month, Ragan and The Conference Board’s election issues survey of communications and marketing leaders found that companies’ top election-related challenge was maintaining an increased focus on creating a unified, tension-free workplace.

The role that intentional language, which addresses and seeks to drive specific behaviors, plays in setting this tone cannot be understated. While many describe last weekend’s incident as an act of “political violence,” social media is awash with memes equating “political violence” with controversial issues like the war in Gaza and the homelessness epidemic, too. It’s a reminder that intentionality is also specificity, that sometimes a phrase composed with the intent to be neutral can create a void for others to repurpose it to their own ends.

In a blog post advising communicators what to say about the weekend’s violence, Integral CEO & Founder Ethan McCarty and VP of Insights & Experience Charles Chesnut  shared examples of bridging messages that condemn the attack on Trump while promoting unity and tying back to “what this means for us”:

• “In addition to being colleagues, we’re all citizens and human beings. It’s natural that shocking public events affect us, and that we may want to talk about them.”
• “We believe – as many public commentators have said – that this is a time to take a deep breath. Please recognize that your colleagues are people of goodwill who may be feeling genuine stress right now. Show them compassion and understanding.”
• “This is a time to look for common ground and shared values.”
• “Remember that our culture depends on mutual respect, and on relationships that will last long after this event – and well beyond the election.”
• “Stay focused on the work we do together and our company’s mission, purpose and values, for the benefit of all of us.”

On Monday, health equity nonprofit CHC: Creating Healthier Communities President and CEO Dr. Jean Accius drafted and shared a message with staff that used bridging language to condemn the assassination attempt, reinforce the foundational elements of American democracy and call for unity:

As we navigate our path forward, I want to take a moment to reflect on the foundational elements of our democracy, who we are and what we want to become. One of the most crucial of these elements is trust. Trust is not just a word; it’s the bedrock upon which we build our relationships with each other, our neighbors, our friends, and families. Trust is the cornerstone of our interdependence. Each of us relies on one another to perform at our best, to support each other, and to reach our collective goals. This interdependence reflects core American values—values of collaboration, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to excellence. Interdependence matters and we must come together now more than ever.

This sentiment was fresh on the mind of CHC CCO Amanda Ponzar, who led a call with the organization’s corporate leadership council weeks earlier about driving unity and social impact during a contentious election year.

“This helped me update some of our key messaging to centrist, plain language that we all agree on such as ‘families’, Ponzar told Ragan.

“I reviewed this with my board committee and our Chief Equity and Impact Officer in early July. The goal is to advance our work and bring as many people along versus using language that could be seen as partisan or polarizing.”

This goal also drove CHC to update the language in its vision statement, specifying that they are working to foster “a world where every person in every community has an opportunity to live their healthiest life.”

Moderating internal conversation and social footprints

While the majority of employees want to be able to share their views at work, and agree that employers should engage with issues that align with shared mission and values, performing a language audit is only the beginning. As election season wears on and new soundbites advance the national conversation, it’s on communicators to remind employees what topics, language and modes of communicating are off-limits.

Guidelines for respectful discourse should be posted to your general intranet channels and pinned to any messaging tools like Teams or Slack. These living documents should be regularly updated. During Ragan’s webinar with The Conference Board last month unpacking our survey results, General Mills CCO Jano Cabrera added that when a public conversation strays too far from expectations, communicators can use it as a teaching moment to reinforce those guidelines.

“If we see something that’s inappropriate posted (on the intranet), we will ask the person to remove it and remind them of expectations,” Cabrera said. “We’ll then post about the expectations. My advice is to see it for what it is, as a chance to educate the employee and remind everyone about what’s expected of them.”

Ponzar also sees this as an opportunity to revisit with all staff what is appropriate to post on social media. “I’m sure you’ve seen some of the posts online that have resulted in people losing their jobs,” she said. “I assume most of us have social media policies, but it’s a great reminder to ensure employees know that what you say online can have repercussions.”

While these reminders are helpful, they are less necessary when leaders take an active role in listening and brokering what “Supercommunicators” author Charles Duhigg calls the “How do we feel?” conversation.

“Dr. Accius started our executive leadership team meeting [on Tuesday] by asking us all to share how we were feeling and to reflect on what happened over the weekend,” shared Ponzar.

“He went around to each person in the room to share their thoughts, giving everyone space. He reminded us, if we hadn’t already, to check with our staff. We also talked this afternoon in our 1-1 about the importance of community and how each of us — and our organization — plays an important role in that.”

“Engage in a conversation with the intention of understanding what the other person is saying and why they would feel that way, “added  Integral’s Chesnut, “as opposed to engaging with the intention of telling them what your viewpoint is and why they should agree with you. “

A matter of trust

As the Ragan/Conference Board and Integral survey results both emphasize the importance of fostering forums for respectful dialogue to happen, remember that fostering respectful dialogue is ultimately a matter of trust. Employers must trust their employees to share what’s on their minds from a place of civility and respect, while employees should trust their employer to give them that space to share their thoughts on issues that align with the mission and vision of the business.

Ponzar thinks back to the 2024’s Edelman Trust Barometer’s finding that 70% of government leaders are not trusted to tell the truth by respondents, up 4% from last year’s survey, as a reminder of her charge.

“Communicators should be aware of personal bias and ideology and go out of your way to be thoughtful and intentional when writing,” she said. “Focus on objective facts. De-politicize and de-escalate. Have a diverse team review important messages to look for bias, unintentional or not.”

When trust in the establishment hangs in the balance, communicators are positioned to lead with values and help their institution function as a model for the respectful discourse that can otherwise be hard to find.

Justin Joffe is the editorial director and editor-in-chief at Ragan Communications.  Follow him on LinkedIn.