Politics and the Workplace: Aligning or Alienating?

By Nate Schlein, Sheila Melvin, Alison Goldworthy, Brian Lowery
2024 | Case No. L40 | Length 16 pgs.

Through the controversial decisions of Coinbase and Basecamp to ban political discussions in the workplace, this case explores the tension between maintaining focus on business objectives versus engaging with broader social issues, and whether political neutrality promotes organizational cohesion or silences marginalized voices.

Following George Floyd’s murder in 2020 and subsequent nationwide racial justice protests, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong prohibited political activism unrelated to the company’s crypto mission. This decision led approximately 5 percent of employees to leave, including John Russ, the highest-ranking Black executive. Similarly, Basecamp’s implementation of a comparable policy in 2021 resulted in over one-third of its staff resigning. Despite this significant turnover and initial public criticism, both leadership teams later claimed these decisions ultimately strengthened their organizations.

This case study examines the potential costs and benefits of removing politics from the workplace.

Learning Objective

This case helps students explore the complex dynamics of political discourse in the workplace. By analyzing how Coinbase and Basecamp handled controversial workplace speech policies, students learn to evaluate competing leadership priorities: maintaining focus on business objectives versus engaging with social issues, fostering organizational cohesion versus potentially silencing marginalized voices, and balancing company culture with employee autonomy.
This material is available for download by current Stanford GSB students, faculty, and staff only. For inquires, contact the Case Writing Office. Download

Related