劳动力两极分化的隐藏驱动因素

Imagine a leadership team gathering to finalize a new diversity and inclusion policy. Tensions rise quickly. One executive insists that “meritocracy is non-negotiable; recruitment must always be colorblind.” Another counters that “equity sometimes requires setting aside pure meritocracy to achieve larger goals.” A third tries to mediate, but the room is quickly divided. At first glance, this looks like a familiar left-vs.-right clash. But politics may not be the real issue here. The deeper divide is between leaders with morally absolutist mindsets (those who view their values as universal, non-negotiable truths) and leaders with morally relativist mindsets (those who view their values as context- and culture-dependent). In this case, the first executive viewed compromise as betraying the company’s values, whereas the second viewed compromise as a wise choice balancing the demands of the business with long-held values. Our research shows that this hidden fault line between moral absolutism and moral relativism is often what truly drives polarization in modern society. Unless leaders learn to recognize and navigate it, they might keep trying to solve the wrong problem. The Hidden Driver of Polarization In recent years, organizations have become battlegrounds for debates on diversity, sustainability, health mandates, return-to-office policies, and corporate speech. Disney, for instance, came under fire for taking a public stance on state education policy, whereas Apple’s post-pandemic return-to-office mandates sparked employee petitions over flexibility and well-being. Leaders often assume these disputes map neatly onto political identities: liberals vs. conservatives, progressives vs. traditionalists. But our studies suggest otherwise. Across thousands of respondents, we found that moral philosophy was a more powerful predictor of policy positions than ideology. Moral absolutists, whether on the left or on the right, supported prohibiting practices that they deemed immoral. For example, conservative absolutists supported outlawing abortion, whereas liberal absolutists supported outlawing the death penalty. Relativists, on the other hand, were open to exceptions to practices they deemed immoral. For example, conservative relativists supported allowing abortion under certain circumstances, whereas liberal absolutists supported allowing the death penalty in extreme cases. Crucially, absolutism is not the same as extremism. Extremists may demand radical change or rigid preservation, but what distinguishes absolutists is something deeper: a conviction that certain moral principles should be applied consistently without exceptions. These findings align with prior work on moral convictions and sacred values, which shows that when people view their values as core to their identity, they resist compromise, perceive trade-offs as taboo, and often react with anger or disgust when asked to negotiate. Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism Driven by the belief that certain moral principles apply universally, without exception, moral absolutists speak in terms of “always,” “never,” and “non-negotiable.” To them, compromise is not prudence but betrayal. In business, absolutists draw hard lines—for example, that their store can never open on Sundays, no matter the revenue potential, or that their company categorically refuses to work with suppliers that harm the environment, regardless of cost. Because moral relativism, by contrast, treats values as context- and culture-dependent, relativists often talk about “trade-offs,” “adaptation,” and “balance.” To them, compromise is not weakness but wisdom, a way to acknowledge competing values in complex situations and across groups. For example, a relativist executive could implement strict carbon caps in one market but phase them in more gradually elsewhere, or tailor content policies to balance free expression with hate-speech regulation across regions. Although our research found that liberals tended to endorse moral relativism and conservatives moral absolutism, we also found that both mindsets are present across the political spectrum. There are liberal absolutists (e.g., uncompromising advocates of climate policies) and conservative relativists (e.g., pragmatists willing to balance small government with the need for an industrial policy). This is why ideology alone often cannot explain many organizational conflicts. Importantly, our framework distinguishes between identity and moral reasoning style. Identity refers to group memberships that are central to an individual’s sense of self, such as their religion, gender, ethnicity, nationality, political orientation, and so on. Moral absolutism vs. moral relativism, in contrast, describes how people make moral judgments—that is, whether they view moral rules as universally applicable or context-dependent. When an issue touches on an individual’s identity, they’re likely to moralize it. However, their rigidity on the issue would depend on their moral absolutism vs. relativism. For example, a person who identifies strongly with their national identity might assume that their home country’s ethical standards should apply even when doing business abroad. Someone with a more relativistic outlook, by contrast, might recognize that what is considered ethical vs. unethical varies across cultures to some extent. In sum, identity shapes which issues people care most deeply about, whereas moral reasoning style shapes how they respond once those issues are debated in the workplace. Why Leaders Misdiagnose the Problem Research to date reinforces the default view that resistance is ideological: employees are either “liberal” or “conservative.” It suggests that leaders can overcome resistance by offering more rational arguments or by tailoring their appeals to employees’ ideological values. Liberals, for instance, are thought to respond more to arguments about fairness across groups and protecting vulnerable individuals, whereas conservatives are assumed to respond more to arguments pertaining to loyalty, authority, or sanctity of the group. The implication is that if you frame an initiative in the right moral language, employees will get on board. Even when leaders appeal to the right value, however, if an employee treats that value as absolute, persuasion efforts will fall flat. Worse, presenting more evidence or facts against an absolutist’s position can backfire, hardening rather than softening their resistance. Relativists, by contrast, may be swayed precisely because they hold values as context-dependent. Cases of Hidden “Philosophical” Polarization at Work Without recognizing these differences, leaders pour energy into persuasion strategies that never reach their audience and mistake ideological polarization for what is, at root, a divide in how people approach morality itself. These moral divides aren’t just theoretical. They play out in everyday organizational debates on a range of polarized issues, such as: Sustainability. In some organizations, sustainability advocates demand uncompromising commitments to carbon neutrality, while others insist shareholder returns must never be sacrificed. Both sides are absolutists, just on different principles. Relativists, meanwhile, argue that both goals matter and should be applied contextually. Return-to-office policies. Absolutists may take a non-negotiable stance, either that physical presence is essential to culture or that remote flexibility is essential to equity. Relativists are more likely to support hybrid models, acknowledging the need to balance culture, productivity, and fairness. Corporate speech. In debates about whether companies should take stances on social issues, absolutists demand either silence (“business should never be political”) or activism (“companies must always speak up for justice”). Relativists instead suggest evaluating each case based on context, impact, and stakeholder needs. Health mandates. During the Covid-19 pandemic, some employees framed vaccine mandates as inviolable moral imperatives (i.e., protecting life), whereas others saw mandates as violating a sacred principle of bodily autonomy. Relativists were more willing to accept context-based compromises, such as partial mandates, regular testing, or phased rollouts. Three Rules for Navigating Moral Divides What can leaders do about this divide? Based on our research and the broader literature on conflict and negotiation, we have three practical suggestions: 1. Diagnose the divide early. The first step for leaders is to listen carefully to how employees frame issues. Language often reveals whether someone is reasoning in absolutist or relativist terms. Absolutists tend to invoke principles in uncompromising ways: “never sacrifice safety,” “always protect free speech,” “this is non-negotiable.” Relativists, by contrast, emphasize context and nuance: “it depends,” “we need to balance goals,” “this case is different.” These cues matter because they signal not just what employees value but how they value it. An absolutist framing tells you that negotiation will be seen as betrayal, while a relativist framing signals openness to trade-offs. Leaders who recognize these differences can anticipate where gridlock is likely to emerge and avoid wasting time on persuasion strategies that won’t work. Research on conflict detection supports this approach: Early recognition of whether a dispute is rooted in values or in negotiable interests helps leaders choose the right resolution strategy. Practical step: Pay attention to how employees communicate. Spotting absolutist vs. relativist language early provides a simple but powerful diagnostic that can prevent costly surprises down the line. 2. Shift from who’s right to how we decide. When conflicts stall, leaders often double down on debating the substance of the issue, who has the stronger argument, and who is “right.” But our findings suggest this rarely addresses the real fault line: whether compromise signals betrayal or wisdom. This shift in perspective changes the leader’s role. Instead of trying to resolve disputes by arguing evidence or values, leaders can focus on how decisions will be made. Process clarity reduces the sense that one side’s principles are being ignored or overridden. One effective strategy is to establish decision rules that respect absolutists’ red lines while also creating space for relativists’ flexibility. For example: In promotion debates, guarantee that promotions are always performance-based (satisfying absolutists) while also supporting mentorship or targeted recruitment programs (appealing to relativists). In sustainability debates, commit to never violating legal environmental standards (a non-negotiable baseline) while allowing flexibility on the timeline or scope of voluntary initiatives. Research on integrative negotiation shows that reframing disputes from zero-sum battles to process-based agreements increases the likelihood of resolution. Practical step: Use process agreements to separate non-negotiable values from negotiable ones. This reframing moves the conversation forward without forcing anyone to abandon their moral worldview. 3. Build dual-respect processes. Finally, leaders should design decision processes that give both absolutists and relativists a fair hearing. Absolutists need reassurance that their core principles will not be overridden. Relativists need space to weigh options and consider context. Practical tools can help managers meet these needs. Having a “red line list” clarifies non-negotiable principles that decisions must not violate, which moral absolutists would likely appreciate. For example, consider Patagonia, which has committed never to work with suppliers lacking verified labor standards, and Unilever, which is committed to reducing its carbon emissions across all areas of its value chain. To meet the needs of relativists, leaders should help teams visualize multiple pathways to a goal and clarify trade-offs, categorizing options across key dimensions like cost vs. impact or risk vs. values alignment to see how each choice advances or constrains their strategic priorities. Exercises like this make tensions visible and support decisions grounded in organizational values within the constraints imposed by the red line list. Embedding both a red line list and consideration of trade-offs into decision-making processes ensures that neither absolutists nor relativists feel sidelined. This aligns with research on procedural justice, which shows that people are more likely to accept outcomes (even unfavorable ones) when they believe the process respected their values. Practical step: When rolling out a new policy, set aside structured time both for clarifying non-negotiable red lines and for exploring potential trade-offs. This dual-respect approach increases buy-in and reduces the risk of post-decision sabotage. What Not to Do Many leaders fall into predictable traps when managing moral divides: Over-relying on facts and data. Absolutists rarely shift their stance when core values are at stake, and “data dumps” can backfire. Labeling employees politically. This short-circuits deeper understanding and can alienate both sides. Forcing premature compromise. Pushing for middle-ground solutions before acknowledging absolutists’ non-negotiable values often erodes trust. Avoiding these mistakes requires leaders to recognize that not all disagreements are created equal. Some are about preferences, others about principles. Treating them the same is a recipe for failure. Why This Divide Will Only Grow Sharper Polarization is not going away. In fact, it’s likely to intensify as organizations confront increasingly politicized issues, such as AI ethics, climate change, reproductive rights, global migration, and corporate activism. Each of these debates involves not just political preferences but values that some hold as inviolable. Research suggests that as societal polarization grows, so does the likelihood that absolutist stances will spill into the workplace. At the same time, globalized workforces bring together employees with diverse cultural norms, some of whom may lean more toward absolutism and others more toward relativism. Leaders will increasingly find themselves managing not just ideological diversity but moral diversity. This means the challenge of navigating absolutism vs. relativism will only become more urgent. The Leadership Payoff The good news is that recognizing this divide frees leaders from a false choice. Collaboration does not require changing people’s politics. It requires navigating the rigidity–flexibility spectrum in moral reasoning. Leaders who master this skill will reduce conflict, preserve trust, and unlock resilience in their organizations. They will be able to move initiatives forward where others remain stuck. And in a time when polarization dominates headlines, those leaders will stand out for their ability to unite teams across hidden moral divides.

劳动力两极分化的隐藏驱动因素

摘要.

合作伙伴中心