It’s now the workweek after what authorities are investigating as an attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president. As people process the news and images out of Butler, Pennsylvania, from Saturday, some of that processing will occur at work. And the workplace — like the rest of America — is a polarized place. 

SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, has been doing some thinking about ways managers might guide these conversations and has resources for facilitating civil dialogues in the workplace. Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., is president and CEO of the Society. He spoke with “Marketplace Morning Report” host David Brancaccio. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

David Brancaccio: The Society [for Human Resource Management], your organization, over the weekend released some guiding principles for workplaces in these times. When you’re thinking of these guiding principles, what do you lead with? Civility?

Johnny C. Taylor, Jr.: Yes. In fact, we saw this coming as early as 2019 — that the workplace was becoming very, very hot.

Brancaccio: So, civility. But what are some of the other guiding principles, then?

Taylor: Our research found that since the presidential debate, for example, 78% of surveyed U.S. workers reported experiencing or witnessing poor treatment because of their political opinions in their everyday lives. In the workplace, that number dropped, but it was still 64% of residents said they’re experiencing or witnessing mistreatment in the workplace due to differences in political opinions. Thus, what do you do? What are the guiding principles?

First of all, we have to recommit to the principle that guides us around respect — respect for all, especially when you don’t agree with someone. And then the notion of open communication — encouraging your employees. Yes, we should talk about it. It’s not a question of “Should you talk about it?” It’s how you talk about it. The one that we really push is the notion of listening to understand, not to respond; that’s a really important concept. And then finally: extreme listening. Those are the concepts that we have to recommit to these principles. And our data would suggest, if we don’t, we know that we’re gonna see more acts of this violence in the workplace.

Brancaccio: Mr. Taylor, this is not easy. Often under discussion are deeply, dearly held personal values that are being contradicted or undermined. It is not a trivial undertaking.

Taylor: We’ve encouraged people to be uncivil in so many other parts of their life and to believe that we compartmentalize our lives such that we can see and experience life outside of work this way, and then not bring those same behaviors and what we consider normal into the workplace is naive. So you’re right, it’s not easy. And it’s precisely why we’ve taken this on.

Brancaccio: You know, the assumption is that the manager does have a role in this. I once saw sign in a bar that said, “No Trump Biden talk.” And what about that rule for a workplace? Don’t discuss politics.

Taylor: So, it’s kind of hard to say and enforce a policy of “No policy, no discussions around politics in the workplace.” And thus, the point: We’ve got to teach people how to have those conversations and place guardrails in place. We’ve got to establish very clear policies about where having an opinion can turn into badgering, harassing someone in the workplace — and then it’s not something we’re going to tolerate.

Brancaccio: Help me with this though: An employee has very specific rights to not face retaliation at work if they report discrimination in good faith to a company. But, you know, discrimination in the U.S. has specific categories — race, religion and many more. But what about an employee who says I’m getting unhappy reactions if I share my views on presidential candidates? Could you get in trouble for not being a teamplayer at work if you complained about your political views not being heard?

Taylor: You’ve nailed the issue. Under federal law, there is no protection, right? And that’s why what we’re talking about here is a cultural commitment by business leaders to say, “This is what the law says, but here are our policies. So our policies say this sort of behavior, we won’t retaliate against people who complain about it. And in fact, we’re going to take action against people when we determine there’s merit to you harassing or discriminating against someone based upon their political affiliation and/or viewpoint.”