Taking a Stand Without Screening Beliefs – Recruiting Between Polarization and Professionalism

Societal polarization is no longer an abstract media narrative. It has entered everyday life. In comment sections. In teams. And increasingly in hiring decisions. The real question is not whether political tensions affect organizations. The question is how professional companies deal with them.

A recent study from France provides robust empirical evidence on this issue. It shows that political identity influences hiring decisions – even when candidates’ professional qualifications are identical.

At the same time, another important question arises: Should companies remain politically neutral? Or is it more honest – and fair to candidates – to clearly communicate what they stand for?

I argue for the latter. But with sharp differentiation.

What the French Study Actually Shows

The study by Vesper et al., published in the Journal of Business and Psychology, used an experimental design. A total of 350 participants took on the role of recruiters. They evaluated a fictional LinkedIn profile of a project manager. Education, work experience, and competencies were identical across all versions. The only variation was political affiliation, as indicated by the volunteer activities listed on the profile.

Profiles were compared across four conditions:

• Left-wing extremist party affiliation

• Centrist party affiliation

• Right-wing extremist party affiliation

• A control condition without political information

The results were clear:

• Political value similarity significantly increased perceived overall similarity.

• Perceived similarity increased willingness to hire.

• Politically dissimilar candidates were more likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior (CWB).

• Over 20 percent of participants explicitly mentioned political factors as a reason for their decision.

Particularly striking was the significantly lower likelihood of hiring the candidate associated with the right-wing extremist party. However, the decisive factor is not the political direction. The decisive factor is the mechanism.

The so-called Political Affiliation Model (PAM) explains how political similarity serves as a signal of deeper value alignment. This perceived alignment generates sympathy, trust, and higher hireability ratings. Conversely, political dissimilarity activates in-group/out-group dynamics. Those with differing political views are more quickly perceived as “not fitting” or potentially conflict-prone.

The outcome is subtle but powerful: professional competence remains visible – yet weighs less than perceived worldview compatibility. For organizations, this is highly relevant. If political identity systematically influences professional judgments, the quality of selection is distorted.

Neutrality Is Not the Same as Having No Values

The intuitive reaction of many organizations is: “We stay completely out of politics.”

That sounds reasonable. But it is incomplete. Companies make normative decisions every day. They position themselves on diversity, equality, sustainability, leadership principles, and social responsibility. These are not party positions. But they are value-based decisions.

A company that clearly commits to the rule of law, respect, or inclusion takes a stand. And that is legitimate. In fact, transparency creates clarity of expectations. Candidates know what they are signing up for.

The problem begins only when taking a stand becomes a matter of screening beliefs.

The Necessary Distinction

There is a fundamental difference between value-based positioning and partisan selection.

Value-based fit is legitimate. If an organization clearly defines its expectations for commitment to democratic principles, equal treatment, and respectful discourse, it is entirely appropriate to reflect these standards in the selection process. That is not discrimination. It is cultural consistency.

It becomes problematic when party affiliation itself becomes an implicit filter. When recruiting starts to evaluate political engagement per se or interprets ideological proximity as “cultural fit,” professional standards erode. Homogenization follows.

In the long run, that leads to echo chambers. And echo chambers are innovation-averse.

The Swiss Exception

Switzerland operates politically differently from many Western democracies currently experiencing strong polarization. Direct democracy, referenda, the collegial system in government, and the militia principle normalize political engagement. Employees hold local council mandates. Entrepreneurs engage in associations. It sometimes feels as if nearly every Swiss adult appears on a referendum poster at some point – and that is a positive sign of civic participation. Political involvement is part of the system.

In addition, Switzerland has historically maintained a stronger culture of consensus. Compromise is culturally embedded. Party affiliation is less identity-dominant than in highly polarized two-party systems. Precisely for this reason, it would be particularly misguided in Switzerland to treat political engagement as a risk factor per se. At the same time, even here, when fundamental democratic values are openly rejected, a legitimate value assessment becomes necessary.

The difference lies in differentiation – not in ignoring reality.

Where Recruiting May Assess – and Where It Should Not

Recruiting can and should consider values. But at the correct level.

Legitimate areas of assessment include:

• Respect for diversity

• Ability to engage constructively in conflict

• Integrity when dealing with differing perspectives

• Commitment to democratic basic principles

Areas that should not be assessed include:

• Party preferences

• General ideological sympathies

• Political activities without direct relevance to organizational values

The line is clear: values with organizational relevance, yes. Partisan beliefs, no.

Integrating Values Professionally into Selection Processes

If values matter, they must be assessed structurally. Not through social media signals. Not through implicit sympathies. But through behavior-based questions and clearly defined evaluation criteria.

Examples of professional approaches include:

• Structured interviews with defined value dimensions

• Case scenarios addressing controversial viewpoints

• A four-eyes principle for culturally sensitive roles

• Documented evaluation matrices

A question such as, “How do you handle strongly opposing opinions within a team?” assesses stance, not party affiliation. That is professional. And legally more robust.

What Organizations Should Avoid

In polarized times, the temptation to seek ideological safety increases. Yet ideological safety is not a quality indicator.

Organizations should avoid:

• Implicit belief screening through cybervetting

• Covert political homogenization

• Moral attributions replacing factual evaluation

• Equating political engagement with cultural risk

The French study illustrates how quickly political dissonance can be linked to negative behavioral expectations. That is where distortion begins.

Polarization as a Leadership Task

Societal division will not disappear in the short term. Affective polarization is empirically well documented. Organizations must therefore learn to manage political diversity professionally.

This requires:

• Clear communication of values

• Clear recruiting process standards

• Active moderation of internal discourse

• Conscious promotion of cognitive diversity

Within the Swiss context, the tradition of consensus provides a solid foundation. But it is not self-sustaining. Tensions are increasing here as well.

Professional organizations do not respond with avoidance. They respond with structure.

Conclusion

Yes, companies should take a stand.

Yes, they may define what they stand for.

Yes, this can be reflected in selection processes.

But taking a stand is not the same as party preference.

Assessing values is not screening beliefs.

Cultural fit is not ideological selection.

The key lies in clear differentiation.

In polarized times, professionalism is measured by whether competence remains the central criterion – embedded within clearly defined, democratically legitimate values.

No more. And no less.

Sources

• Vesper, D. et al. (2025). Evaluating Potential Political Bias in Recruitment. Journal of Business and Psychology.

• Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. (2015). Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines. American Journal of Political Science.

• Harteveld, E. et al. (2022). Affective Polarization and the Populist Radical Right. Government and Opposition.

• Swiss Federal Chancellery (2023). The Swiss Political System and the Militia Principle.