“Do you know who I voted for?”: political conversations in the team

One joke during a break – and then no place on the project

During a break, Darek said to Ilona: “Do you know who I voted for? Don’t tell me you went for the same lot.” A few people laughed. Ilona replied: “I’d rather not talk about the election here.” Darek thought she was overreacting, and the subject kept coming back in jokes for several days.

A week later, Ilona was not on the list of people for a new project. Darek, who had put the team together, told their manager, Renata: “It’s hard to get on with her – we see the world differently.” Ilona found out about this conversation and concluded that she had been passed over because of the views attributed to her.

Renata did not know whether the decision had been driven by competence, earlier conflicts or political associations. She had to check the selection criteria rather than settle who had actually voted for whom. The team was waiting to see how she would respond.

What really happened

There are three separate facts in this story: an unwanted joke about voting, a deteriorating atmosphere and a decision about staffing the project. Without checking the records, there is no way of knowing whether leaving her out of the project had anything to do with the earlier jokes. Renata should therefore not conclude that Darek has discriminated against Ilona before she has established the criteria. Nor can she brush off the complaint with “it’s only politics”. Protection of dignity and equal treatment concerns behaviour and its effects; it does not require anyone to disclose their private choices. Ilona does not have to explain who she voted for in order to be entitled to a clear answer about why she was left out. Darek, for his part, can set out the professional grounds for his decision, if he genuinely applied them. The starting point is comparable competence, the scope of the project, earlier documented agreements and the opportunity to raise concerns without fear of retaliation.

What research says about political bias

Research on affective polarisation, described by Iyengar and colleagues among others, shows that attitudes towards political groups can influence how people are judged outside politics itself. This is mainly American literature, and the scale of its findings should not be transferred directly to a Polish team. Roth and colleagues used experiments to study how information about political similarity affects the assessment of job candidates. This is a warning about unconscious mental shortcuts, not proof of what was driving Darek. In Poland, political beliefs are among the grounds protected under the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy). Since 5 November 2026, an amendment has also explicitly covered discrimination by assumption and by association. This means that treating someone differently in a professional decision can be a problem even when someone has merely attributed a particular characteristic to a colleague. The legal classification, however, depends on the specific situation, not on a single comment.

Why assumed views can take the place of assessing someone’s work

The comment “we see the world differently” may simply be shorthand for difficulties in working together, but it can also be a cover for judging people on the basis of the political views attributed to them. Without specific examples, Renata cannot tell which meaning applies. Even if Ilona never disclosed her views, Darek may have filled them in for himself based on how she reacted to the joke. When an assumption like this seeps into a decision about a project, there is a particular risk of unfairness. That is why the manager checks who knew the criteria, who assessed competence, whether there were comparable cases and whether the justification was produced before the complaint or only afterwards. At the same time, she is careful not to quiz the team about their voting preferences under the guise of looking into the matter. You can set a boundary on behaviour without imposing views: “We don’t expect agreement on political matters, but we do expect everyone to treat all their colleagues professionally.”

How to approach it

Renata talks to Darek first: “What criteria did you use for the selection? What exactly do you mean when you say it’s hard to work with her? Was it about tasks and deadlines, or about your idea of Ilona’s views?” She then tells Ilona: “I’ll check the criteria for staffing the project and whether they were applied consistently. You don’t have to tell me about your beliefs.” If the findings reveal unequal treatment or harassment, she starts the appropriate process for investigating and protecting the employee. Whatever the outcome, she can set a simple team rule: you can hold different views and talk about the world, but you may not demand to know how people vote, insult anyone or use assumptions about someone’s views in professional decisions. When a discussion gets heated, a short line helps: “Let’s stop this conversation here. We’re not going to settle a political argument, and we need to work together without prejudice.” This is a boundary on behaviour, not a ban on thinking.

How to set boundaries without banning every difficult conversation

A team can agree a few practical rules. Conversations about public affairs are voluntary; if someone says “I don’t want to take part in this”, the subject does not come back to them in the form of jokes. We do not attribute views to people on the basis of their silence, their clothes or who they know. We justify project allocation, performance assessments and promotions with professional criteria that can be verified. This does not mean that the manager monitors every private discussion. They step in when behaviour disrupts cooperation, violates someone’s dignity or seeps into staffing decisions. In the case of a formal complaint, they document the facts, protect those involved from retaliation and use the organisation’s procedures. If someone is afraid of an open meeting with the other party, they should not be pressured into one for the sake of a quick “reconciliation”. The aim is to restore the conditions for working together fairly, not to force people to like each other.

There is no need to establish Ilona’s and Darek’s views in order to ensure equal treatment. It is necessary, however, to check whether their conflict affected the staffing of the project. Clear criteria, the right to opt out of unwanted conversations and a genuine route for raising concerns make it possible to protect cooperation despite differences in worldview.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Renata describes the situation to Em without naming parties, giving details of how anyone voted or going into people’s private lives. She asks for two conversation openings: one with Darek about professional criteria, and one with Ilona about the facts and her sense of safety. She practises the question “What exactly decided who was on the project?” and the message “We don’t attribute views to colleagues or make decisions based on guesswork.” Em also helps her prepare a calm response to a defence along the lines of “it was only a joke”. The manager can distinguish intention from impact and explain why certain behaviours are unacceptable. If she has access to well-founded information about team members’ communication preferences, she uses it to set the right tone, not to draw conclusions about politics. The final assessment of the selection criteria and of any breaches rests with the responsible people and procedures. What Em offers is help in preparing conversations that do not have to turn into an argument about who is right politically.