Walking into the minefield

When I referred to religion is the workplace as a "minefield" in last week's column, I used it in an offhanded way to describe a situation that was tense, difficult to maneuver, and potentially explosive. After reading through the 120 or so e-mails that I've received on the subject, I haven't changed my mind.

Free IT resource Hear how top CIOs turn change into a competitive advantage. Sponsored by HP Free IT resource TechNet: More ways to know it, share it, and keep it running. Sponsored by Microsoft

I was hoping for some sort of consensus to come through in readers' responses, but found nothing that could be summarized easily and fairly. Most of the comments -- except for a few at each opposite poll -- were so nuanced as to defy lumping them together in any coherent way.

Firmly in the "Everything Goes" camp were those who saw themselves as having a mission to bring their "good news" to others and saw work as a perfectly appropriate place to do it. At the other end of the scale were those who thought religion had no overt place on the job, and this group encompassed a surprising variety of people, including those who saw themselves as having some obligation to spread their religion. They just thought there were other ways to do it.

All of those in favor of overt proselytizing identified themselves as Christians and some referred to the so-called "Great Commission," by which Christians are scripturally charged with "making believers" out of all people. There are several theological difficulties with that, but the prime one is that it is more of a strategic objective and doesn't deal in tactical specifics. There are many more passages in the New Testament that stress a low-key approach and could be interpreted to mean that there is a greater emphasis on being subtle about how you bring about this conversion.

I found it interesting that some of the people who believed just as firmly in evangelizing others in general thought that overt proselytizing in the work environment wasn't appropriate. They felt that in some cases it could cause others to be uncomfortable, which they saw as being against other beliefs they held. Not so surprising was the view espoused by those with divergent or minority beliefs and those who considered themselves atheists. They felt that they were often marginalized and usually kept their views to themselves lest they be discriminated against. They were dead set against any effort to recruit them to a new religious position.

Where do I stand? Well, I actually fall into a middle ground on the whole question of religion in the workplace, although I'm against proselytizing. For reference, I grew up in a religiously homogeneous community, a city of about 50,000 people. There were those of us, the great majority, who were Catholic and those who were not. We didn't really distinguish among those who weren't. All we knew was that they weren't "us."

Those of us who were Catholic were further subdivided by which of the 10 parishes in the city that we belonged to -- and there was a definite pecking order. But the bottom line was that discussion of religion, or at least religious affairs, was not only common, it was accepted. I'm not saying it was right; just that it was accepted.

The country in general is now a much more secularized place -- for better or worse -- and populations are generally much more diverse. So, I don't think you can take my childhood experience as anything normative.

For starters, I don't think you can say religion should be totally excluded from the work environment, not as long as people talk about other aspects of their lives. Religion is usually very important to those deeply involved and it would be unkind not to listen to someone talk about something that was very important to them.

If a worker talks about some project in which he was involved or some church activity that was important to her, I don't really see a problem -- as long as that person is open to hearing about similar things from those with other beliefs without challenging or belittling them. If you talk about your Christian retreat and all the wonderful things that happen there, are you willing to listen with equal gusto to someone else talk about their Wiccan gathering or pagan festival? If not, then you need to re-examine your motive for engaging in this type of discussion.

At the same time, with something as deeply personal as religion, people need to remember that there is a razor-thin line between a casual discussion and potentially offensive proselytizing.

Realizing that some people feel a strong religious obligation to recruit new converts and that those who are newly converted themselves seem to be excessively zealous in this area, I personally am put off by attempts to "show me the light." My taking offense springs from several underlying assumptions on the part of the proselytizer, who may not even be aware that these assumptions are there. The first of these is that my own beliefs are somehow inadequate. I don't think they are, since they have been carefully crafted over a lifetime.

The second underlying assumption is that the proselytizer has "the truth," which overshadows what everyone else believes. It's perfectly reasonable for any adherent of any doctrine to feel that way, but to express it in a personal interaction smacks of arrogance. If your beliefs lead you to act in such a way that I am impressed, I will probably ask. Otherwise, I'd prefer it if you didn't tell.

I often find this situation analogous to the alcoholic who has just joined a recovery group for the first time. Some people, as soon as they kick the bottle, decide that anyone else who drinks is an alcoholic and proceed to turn every social event or interpersonal encounter into a temperance lecture. Most people get over this as they proceed through their recovery, but until they do it makes for some strained situations. Many converts go through the same process.

So, I think out-and-out proselytizing is something that shouldn't take place in a work encounter. It has the potential to create strained relationships and detract from the workplace productivity. As one reader noted, the idea of workers sharing stories and interests is something that should help create community and bring people together. If worker discussions have the opposite effect, then they are not beneficial to the company.

Religion in the workplace is even more of a minefield than I imagined when I offhandedly used the term last week. The dangers are hidden and potentially explosive. You can navigate between them, but it takes skill and daring. And often, you don't know you've made a false step until the explosion comes. Next week I'll tackle what I see as some commonsense rules of thumb for finding your way through the dangers.

Write to Carlton Vogt at ethics_matters@infoworld.com. To discuss any of these issues, you can go to the Ethics Matters forum at www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics