Don’t be afraid to take sides, staying neutral does not guarantee safety.

When an individual or a leader chooses to speak out on social or political issues, or to make a decision to remain neutral, the strategies and risks behind this choice become hot topics of discussion. It seems relatively safe to publicly express agreement with your customers, employees, or supporters; particularly if there’s intense personal emotion involved, as moral judgment may overshadow tactical considerations. However, many leaders are still hesitant to take a stand, worried that being too frank might alienate groups with differing views.
Whether it’s a CEO contemplating going public about their stance on abortion rights, a manager of a team divided on gun control, or simply an employee wanting to discuss the latest news with colleagues, the long-standing strategy has been to maintain neutrality for personal safety. But should this always be the case?
Despite the understandable desire to stay out of controversial topics, our latest research reveals that such a strategy often has the opposite effect. In extensive research involving over 4,000 participants, a series of experiments found that the public tends to have less suspicion and more trust in individuals who openly express their views—even if those views are contentious—compared to employees, managers, and celebrities who refuse to take a stand.
The research also points out that the foremost impression for those who insist on staying neutral is that outsiders often assume they are intentionally hiding something—that their actual opinions differ from that of their interlocutors (even if that’s not the case). This presumption, undoubtedly, diminishes trust in them, even among those who share the same views.
In a specific experiment, participants watched a video in which the owner of one of the NFL teams responded to a question about players kneeling during the national anthem—he chose to be noncommittal. The results showed that most participants thought the owner appeared more honest, sincere, and trustworthy if he had taken a position, even one contrary to their own.
Furthermore, when told that the owner was speaking in front of a liberal media outlet, participants tended to think he held conservative views; conversely, in front of conservative media, they thought his views leaned liberal. This suggests that regardless of the actual opinions, people generally suspect that the reason for avoiding a stance is because their private views differ from the other party, leaving an impression of insincerity and untrustworthiness.
In another experiment, participants were told they would be completing a task with a partner. They could choose to work with a partner who held an opposing view on gun reform, or with a partner who refused to share their personal views. The results showed that people preferred to collaborate with those who dared to openly express dissenting opinions, because they considered those who hid their own views to be lacking in trustworthiness.
It is noteworthy that this phenomenon is not confined to laboratory settings but widely exists in the real world as well. For instance, the famous singer Taylor Swift was once questioned for trying to remain neutral on political issues, which ultimately led her to adopt a more candid communication approach.

Disney CEO Bob Chapek also faced dilemmas in handling public and political controversies. He initially attempted to maintain neutrality on Florida’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay” bill, provoking anger from the liberal groups opposed to the bill. Later, he half-heartedly expressed opposition to the bill, arousing the ire of conservatives who supported it.

Within companies, managers and employees who refuse to engage in current political discussions—perhaps for valid reasons—may also face moral scrutiny. Whether in Zoom meetings conversing with a few colleagues or issuing public statements to millions of fans, trust is always central—the longer the hesitation to join the discussion, the deeper the doubt people will have about you.

Of course, a carefully considered neutral stance may be appropriate in some situations. Our research indicates that if a neutral message appears to reflect genuine uncertainty or a moderate position, rather than an evasive strategy, audiences tend to be more forgiving about such neutrality. Moreover, for neutral stances that go unnoticed, audiences do not impose a penalty.

However, behavior that seems to avoid taking sides, such as avoiding situations where political matters might arise, may dodge direct choices, but this kind of inconspicuous silence will not face the same scrutiny of trust as an open neutral stance would. Yet, as consumers and employees increasingly demand leaders to take clear stances on political issues they care about, attempting to skirt discussions or merely cautiously stating “I see value in both sides” or “I truly cannot make up my mind” could lead to distrust and hostility.

Whether leading an organization, chairing a meeting, or dining with friends, political topics are inevitable. Dodging these sensitive topics is natural, but our research shows that trying to stay neutral can backfire, leading to a loss of trust and doubts about your private views being different from others. In an increasingly polarized society and work environment, building trust depends on finding ways to discuss our beliefs and values, especially those that differ from ours.

Therefore, when someone asks for your view, remember to consider thoroughly, reflect carefully, and respond with humility—but at the same time, don’t be afraid to assert your position.

Prev Post

The essence of the art of workplace “small talk” lies in the fact that what you say doesn’t really matter.

Next Post

The thought of going to work exhausts your heart, what should you do?

Read next