The Microsoft engineer, who had worked on the firm’s Azure cloud-computing platform, which is reportedly used by the Israeli military, said that the firm’s software was implicated in war crimes: “Satya [Nadella, Microsoft’s CEO], how about you show how Microsoft is killing Palestinians,” said engineer Joe Lopez before being escorted out.
Lopez then reportedly sent an all-staff email explaining his decision to stage a protest.
This latest protest follows prior demonstrations at Microsoft over the last couple of months.
Microsoft has denied that its software is used to harm civilians. Technology reporting site The Verge has reported that emails with the words “Palestine” or “Gaza” are being temporarily blocked from being sent to recipients at Microsoft.
David Liddle, CEO of culture and leadership consultancy the TCM Group, explained that the ongoing furore shows that “political tension doesn’t stop at the office door".
He told HR magazine that HR professionals shouldn’t expect politics not to enter the workplace, but rather not expect to have a stance on every issue. Instead, focus on consistently upholding organisational values, he argued.
Read more: How to manage political debate at work
Liddle said: “If a company claims to stand for equity, dignity and human rights, those commitments must be visible not only in glossy mission statements but also in the messier moments when they are tested.
“That means approaching discourse through a values-based lens, resisting the temptation to either wade in clumsily or retreat into silence.”
If an employee raises concerns with an organisational stance or business partnership, the business should listen, as this has ramifications for trust, integrity and alignment, added Liddle.
“To take protest seriously is to respond in a way that is proportionate, principled and compassionate,” Liddle added. “That might involve commissioning independent reviews, revisiting partnerships or creating feedback loops where employees feel heard.”
Felecia Wood, associate director of client experience and consultancy at HR services firm Croner, said that employers need to understand that in any organisation there will be a range of views. While discussions are useful, there has to be a line.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: “If someone is manifesting their political view in a way that is concerning to others, then employers should step in and take the necessary action to prevent or rectify it before it becomes a conduct in the workplace issue.”
Read more: Don't shut down conversation about divisive issues
She continued that if an employee has an issue on a business stance regarding a contentious political issue, they should take it up within the guidelines of policy, but the company should take it seriously.
Wood said: “It could be that the employee opinion is representative of the wider public, and the company could be putting themselves at risk of damaging their reputation.”
Simon Phillips, founder of leadership consultancy The Change Maker Group, added that listening to opinions does not distract the business away from so-called ‘real work’ but helps mitigate against bad feelings and eventual loss of talent.
He said: “When organisations ignore these tensions, they create invisible drags on productivity through disengagement, distraction and distrust. When people feel their concerns matter, the energy that might fuel protest often shifts into solving problems together.”
Political discussions, in the current climate, are inevitable, said Nicola Smyrl, partner at law firm Taylor Walton Solicitors, speaking to HR magazine. “More than ever before, employers are having to deal with conflicting views in the workplace,” she explained.
Read more: UK professionals divided on political conversations at work
She advocated minding the law: all employees have a right to freedom of expression and belief; there is no right not to be offended. Employers are also obliged to provide employees with a safe working environment and protect from harassment.
Smyrl said that any policy which restricts political discussions may not be the best answer, but firms may want to revisit social media policy, disciplinary policy and how views are expressed at work.
She added, if an employer does want to crack down on an employee expressing a view, or protesting, they should consider if that view is inflammatory, if it was expressed at work, if it impacts work or colleagues and if it potentially risks the reputation of the employer.
She said: “In the majority of cases, significant conflicts can be avoided by establishing clear guidelines for respectful communication and fostering a culture of open dialogue to help strike a balance that promotes both professionalism and employee engagement.”
