Politics often makes for fraught office situations—workers get upset over election results, managers have to break up arguments, and overall productivity tanks. With the presidential primaries in progress and the November general election quickly approaching, employers have already started bracing for a divisive election that will almost certainly impact their workforce. 

Ultimately, how a company responds to workplace political tensions depends on several considerations including legal risks, a company’s relationship with its employees, and how management has responded to political issues in the past. 

But dozens of executives and workplace experts Fortune spoke with say there is some advice that applies to the vast majority of workplaces, and add that business leaders should devise a policy rooted in the company’s values sooner rather than later. Waiting until election season is in full swing to figure out what to say to workers is the wrong move. 

“If we’re having this conversation tomorrow, then we’re having the conversation too late. Because we’re already in the middle of the political season,” says Jeremy Thompson, a senior vice president at Edelman Global Advisory, a boutique firm focused on government, public affairs, and advisory services. “We should have already been prepared for what’s coming.”

Establish a consistent policy 

Companies that establish a uniform approach to addressing political issues will be much better equipped to handle workplace problems that come up, compared with those who don’t. Corporate leaders should look at their company’s existing principles as a guide to help decide what conversations are acceptable.

“If you’re able to articulate your values like your North Star, in a way that is credible, that knows your audience, like your employees, are one of your main stakeholders, then you’ll be more successful in the long run, regardless of what’s going to happen,” says Thompson.

Some companies, for example, including Workday and EY, allow employees to discuss politics at work and believe that helping moderate such conversations in the workplace can foster diversity and strengthen employees’ relationships with their companies. But others, including Meta and cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, have done the opposite, banning conversations related to political issues at work because of what they say is an effort to maintain an office free from distractions. While both approaches have garnered criticism and support, executives from each camp have reported successful outcomes from their decisions.

But deciding on a game plan is not a one-and-done event. CEOs should consult with HR, legal, and communications leadership at their organization, as well as other leaders in the C-suite, and meet regularly to gauge how their strategy is working. 

“It might be good to have those touch points and do regular temperature checks to see how things are going and whether anything is necessary,” says Sheryl Lewis, president at ROI Communications, an internal communications consulting firm.

Executives should think twice before weighing in

Company leaders should refrain from weighing in on political issues themselves, as employees may become uncomfortable or feel alienated if their managers have different opinions.

David Grossman, founder and CEO of Grossman Group, an internal communications and leadership consulting firm, recalled recently sitting in on a meeting where a senior leader made a negative comment about one of the people currently running for president. While the comment was flippant, it left all attendees sitting in an awkward silence.

“You could feel the uncomfortableness. No matter what side you were on, everyone in that room felt uncomfortable,” he says. “Is that what we want, to always feel uncomfortable? Or do we want them to feel comfortable at work and understand that politics is only discussed outside of working hours?”

In recent years many leaders have made comments, either publicly or to their employees, about several politically charged issues, including the murder of George Floyd, the end of Roe v. Wade, and the end of affirmative action in university admissions. For leaders who have previously spoken out about political issues, it will be much more difficult to backtrack and abstain from discussing the 2024 election.

“I would say to managers: Be aware that what you put out there in the world will come back. Which isn’t to say you can’t do anything, and you shouldn’t do what you believe in…[just] be aware of your actions,” says Lewis.

Prepare middle managers to handle tough conversations

While corporate leaders need to establish policies for employees to follow, middle managers should know how to uphold them.

“At the end of the day, policies are just a piece of paper. It’s the managers working with the employees on a day-to-day basis who are reviewing, understanding, and enforcing those policies,” says Michelle Strowhiro, an employment attorney and partner at McDermott Will & Emery, a law firm.

Executives should take the time to review all workplace policies with managers, like conduct, etiquette, and dress code, and ensure managers uphold these policies equitably. If only some workers get reprimanded for violating guidelines, those who get in trouble may believe it’s for their specific viewpoint. 

Workday, for example, publishes internal people leader newsletters and has forums for managers to get guidance on responding to hot-button issues, including political tensions between employees. Companies can also hire coaches to help guide managers, and conduct real-life or virtual simulations in which supervisors can practice addressing any situations that come up.  

Set expectations about social media

Social media has become a hotbed for controversial political issues, and what workers say on these platforms—even on their personal accounts or outside working hours—can hurt a company’s reputation. 

Employers do have some say over workers’ social posts. Companies can restrict workers from posting on social platforms during working hours or using work-issued technology like laptops or phones. They can also fire employees for what they post on social media, with some exceptions such as making statements about working conditions, expressing support for or interest in joining a union, or other conversations about workplace rights. But firing an employee over their social media posts might distract other workers and hurt morale.

Strowhiro says HR and legal business leaders should actively assess whether a social media post violates the company’s antidiscrimination or harassment policies, what risk may come from taking action against this employee, how the rest of the workforce will respond, and how consumers or shareholders will react to whatever action the company takes.

“There’s a complex web of what companies have to consider now in deciding what action is appropriate to take and whether to take it,” says Strowhiro.

As a safeguard, employers can request that workers include a disclaimer on their personal social media pages that any views expressed on those platforms are their own, not those of their employer. Similarly, companies can ask employees to not include any company logos or affiliations on their personal social media accounts. Having these policies can help employers further determine whether anything posted by an employee on their personal profiles impacts the company.

“If employees are going to share a political point of view, they need to be very clear that this is their point of view and that they are not representing their organization,” says Grossman.

You probably can’t ban political talk altogether

There are certainly unwritten social rules about how to behave at work when it comes to talking about hot-button issues. But employers could face actual legal action if they ban political conversation outright.  

“Historical best practices in the workplace have long circled around keeping certain topics off-limits, politics included,” says Strowhiro. “We are operating in a highly political and new climate where blanket policies prohibiting discussion of politics may not work from a legal perspective across the board.”

Last year, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled that Washington-based grocery store chains Fred Meyer and QFC unlawfully barred their employees from wearing Black Lives Matter pins and face masks from work in 2020, finding that displaying BLM messages was considered advocating for an affirmatively antiracist, pro-civil-rights, and pro-justice workplace. 

And some states, including California, have laws protecting workers’ rights to participate in political activities outside of working hours, including running for office.

“We want to make sure that managers and executives know not to try to pressure employees to have certain political views or vote one way or another, or to participate or not participate in any particular political activities, because there are state-level laws that might also impact a company’s ability to influence those types of activities,” says Strowhiro.

Above all, Strowhiro stresses, it’s important to have a policy in place around certain workplace conduct—such as antiharassment or discrimination rules, dress code, or social media policies—that is enforced with as much neutrality as possible.  

“It’s particularly important this year, in an election year, that employers are revisiting all of their policies on conduct, dress code, and social media,” says Strowhiro. “If they have to take action with a particular employee for violating those policies, they’re doing so not because of the fact that that particular employee advocated for a specific political position, but because it’s in violation of the policy in general.”