HBR Staff/artpartner-images/DNY59/Getty Images

Is sharing your personal political views in public worth the risk?If your stances are aligned with those of your customers, employees, or followers, taking a side is likely pretty harmless — and of course, if you feel strongly enough, moral considerations may outweigh strategic ones. But many leaders hesitate to take sides on controversial issues out of fear that speaking out might alienate people who disagree with them. Whether you’re a CEO considering releasing a public statement on abortion rights, a supervisor managing a team with divergent opinions on gun control, or just an individual chatting with coworkers about the news, conventional wisdom suggests that staying neutral is often the safe option. But is it?

While the desire to “stay out of it” is understandable, our recent research suggests that this approach can backfire. We conducted a series of experiments with more than 4,000 participants across a wide variety of workplace contexts, and we consistently found that people tend to be more suspicious and less trusting of coworkers, managers, and public figures who decline to take sides than of those who openly express an opinion — even if it’s an opinion with which they disagree. Furthermore, we also found that conspicuously staying neutral can cause people to assume you’re trying to hide the fact that your views oppose those of whomever you are addressing (even if they don’t), making you come across poorly even to people who actually share your views.

For example, in one experiment, we showed participants a video clip of a press conference in which the owner of an NFL team is asked whether he believes players should be permitted to kneel during the national anthem. He responds by saying he’d rather not take a side. Most participants reported that they would find the owner more honest, sincere, and trustworthy if he took a position, even if that position went against their own moral views. In addition, when participants were told that the owner was being interviewed by a liberal news station, they assumed he held conservative beliefs, but when they were told that he was being interviewed by a conservative news station, they assumed he held liberal beliefs. In other words, regardless of the owner’s actual opinions, they suspected that that he was refusing to take sides because he secretly disagreed with whoever he was talking to, making him seem insincere and untrustworthy.

In another experiment, we told participants that they would be working with a partner on a cooperative task, and we gave them the choice between a partner who disagreed with them about gun reform and one who declined to share their opinion. We found that people preferred to work with someone who openly disagreed with them than with someone who wasn’t willing to take a stand either way, in large part because the potential partners who refused to share their opinions were perceived as less trustworthy.

It’s also important to note that this phenomenon isn’t limited to controlled lab settings: Similar effects are evident in countless real-world environments. Taylor Swift, for example, was met with some suspicion when she tried to stay neutral on political issues, eventually causing her to shift to a more forthright communication style. Disney CEO Bob Chapek also ran into trouble after briefly attempting to remain neutral over Florida’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay” bill (angering liberals who opposed the effort) before half-heartedly committing to fight against it (angering conservatives who supported it).

Within organizations, managers and employees who refuse to participate in the political discussions of the day — even if their reasons for doing so are sound — risk provoking the same moral suspicion. Whether you’re talking with a handful of colleagues in a Zoom meeting or releasing a public statement to millions of fans, trust is key — and the longer you wait to weigh in, the more suspicious people are likely to become.

Of course, there is certainly a place for thoughtful neutrality. In our studies, participants were generally much more tolerant of neutral messaging if it seemed to reflect genuine uncertainty or middle-ground beliefs, rather than coming across like a strategic dodge. Moreover, people don’t punish neutrality that they don’t notice: If you can avoid taking sides entirely by steering clear of forums in which politics come up, inconspicuous silence will not incur the same trust penalty as conspicuous neutrality. But as customers and employees increasingly demand words and actions from leaders on the political causes they care most about, trying to avoid the conversation — or offering little more than a cagey “I see the merits of both sides” or “I really can’t say what I think” — is likely to provoke distrust and animosity.

Whether you are leading an organization, conducting a meeting, or having dinner with friends, political topics are bound to come up. The urge to avoid these hot-button issues is natural, but our research demonstrates that trying not to take sides can backfire, causing you to seem less trustworthy and pushing people to assume you secretly disagree with them. In an increasingly polarized workplace and world, building trust hinges on finding ways to discuss our beliefs and values, even (and especially) with people who disagree. So if someone asks for your opinion, be considerate, thoughtful, and respectful — but don’t be afraid to take a side.