Polarization, Trust & the Weaponization of Information

This summary pulls takeaways from Impact of Polarization on Business & What Can We Do About It (Chatham House), Truth, Trust & Tech: Defending the Brands We Love (Chatham House) and Polarities at Play: Leading Through Complexity.

The Main Stage
Polarization leads to incivility in the workplace, and is a costly issue for organizations. Research from SHRM suggests that the collective daily loss by U.S. organizations from reduced productivity and absenteeism due to incivility could total over two billion dollars. Chatham House Sessions at the 2025 Page Annual Conference underscored that these divisions and distrust are reshaping the workplace as much as the public sphere. For communicators, the challenge is not to “keep politics out of the workplace” (an impossible goal), but to build the conditions for constructive, civil dialogue.

Impactful Quote

From the Breakouts and Questions

Incivility has a cost – New research shows U.S. workplaces experience ~70M uncivil acts per day, draining billions in productivity. Political viewpoint differences are the leading driver.
Multiple truths – Global perspectives highlighted how U.S. organizations feel polarization more acutely than peers abroad. Participants debated whether leaders should move beyond insisting on “one narrative” and instead prepare for a world of competing realities.
Corporate leadership under pressure – Examples shared included global financial institutions, insurers, and consumer companies that are experimenting with dialogue circles, affinity groups, and facilitated “courageous conversations” to reduce tension while reaffirming values.
Disinformation as a weapon – Information is being intentionally distorted for political or competitive ends. Communicators must strike a balance between direct rebuttal and reinforcing transparency, values, and corporate character.

Why It Matters
Trust is the bedrock of reputation, yet both employees and external stakeholders increasingly default to vindication and validation rather than listening. For CCOs, this means doubling down on skills, guardrails, and rituals that turn polarization into productive dialogue rather than paralyzing conflict.

To Take Back with You

Acknowledge the reality. Political conversations are already happening; equip people to handle them constructively rather than suppress them.
Invest in civility infrastructure. Publish simple charters, train leaders in facilitation, and stand up small, facilitated groups as release valves.
Model from the top. Leaders who demonstrate curiosity, empathy, and values-based dialogue lower temperatures and create psychological safety.

What Members are Saying

From Q&A Discussions

Q: “I’m curious—what are the one or two things you would recommend that don’t require regulation to make a meaningful macro change against disinformation, outside of just what we can do when we go back to our jobs?”

A: “You don’t want the government deciding what’s true or false. The goal is to get trusted information out consistently and quickly. That requires collaboration and discipline across organizations, not waiting for regulation.”

Q: “Given how polarized everything has become, how can leaders encourage political dialogue at work without it turning toxic?”

A: “The data makes it clear: avoiding the topic is riskier than addressing it. When civility and psychological safety are high, more than half of political conversations are actually informative. When they’re low, only nine percent are productive.”

Q: “Where do we even start if employees are afraid to talk to each other about hard issues?”

A: “Start with small, structured spaces. We’ve found that modeling dialogue from the top—leaders showing empathy and curiosity—lowers the temperature and rebuilds trust.”