This page explains how we think about politics and conversations about divisive topics at work, and the rationale behind it.

TL;DR:

These are the expectations we think are worth clarifying:

We expect everyone to contribute to making Octopus a safe environment where all employees feel they belong and are valued, where all voices can be heard, and we can work together to deliver amazing impact for our customers.
Individuals are treated like adults and are free to express their opinions at work and publicly. In doing so they should be thoughtful about the difference between their ‘intent’ and the ‘impact’ this can have on others, and they are not immune from the consequences of what they say. There is more clarity on this below.
The company itself is apolitical - it does not have opinions or endorse causes unrelated to its core mission of continuous delivery. This is not about avoiding difficult topics but about recognizing that a company, by nature of being a collection of people, cannot have a single, unified opinion on anything.

Expectation #1 in the list above should be of no surprise to anyone.

Expectation #2 makes it clear that people should feel free to be themselves and to express their thoughts and concerns responsibly and is probably similar to most companies. i.e., this is not a Coinbase-style “no politics at work” company.

Expectation #3 means you may be surprised when we say “no” to requests for “Octopus” to promote a particular stance on an issue that matters to you. You might have worked at companies that promoted causes that mattered to their employees or were somewhat activist, and Octopus is different in this regard. Expectation #3 is nuanced and needs further explanation.

The following essay is by Paul Stovell in his words outlining the rationale for expectation #3. There is an FAQ at the bottom that is also useful.

“What is the company’s position on X?”
“Will Octopus make a public statement on Y?”

I have been asked these questions numerous times over the years, and each time I have become more and more convinced that the right stance is for all companies - Octopus included - to be apolitical. In this essay, I want to expand on and clarify why I hold this belief and why it is company policy.

Our policy is that while individuals are free to express opinions, a company cannot, because a company does not have a single mind.

A company is a collective of individuals, each with their own unique perspectives and opinions. These opinions are not limited to extreme views but encompass a wide range of nuanced, complex positions, which also change over time. By nature, I don’t think a company can truly have political opinions—because it is not a single person, it’s made up of diverse individuals with diverse beliefs.

This distinction is important: when I refer to “Octopus’s opinion,” I am talking about what the collective company is endorsing or supporting. This is different to individuals at the company who are free to express their views on whatever they wish (but see FAQ below).

When people ask, “What does Octopus stand for?” or “What causes does Octopus support?” we’re confronted with a difficult question about what that actually means:

Does it mean all of us at Octopus share the same views? What if 5% don’t?
Does it reflect the beliefs of just a few in leadership?
Or is it simply virtue signaling?

And, if the company takes a strong stance on one issue, why should it not express an opinion on another? If it is capable of making up its mind and having opinions on simple, popular topics, why should it hesitate to share opinions on more complex, divisive topics?

In reality, when companies take public stances, those views often represent only the opinion of the CEO or the executive leadership team. At best, they might reflect the majority, but they can never speak for everyone.

I believe that when a company expresses a political opinion, it creates two significant problems:

Employee Disconnect: It assumes that all employees share the same opinion, which will never be true. This can alienate employees, making them feel distanced from the company and unable to voice their own opinions. They may even be pressured to conform, raising questions like, “How can you work here knowing what the company stands for?” This divides employees.
Customer Assumptions: It implies that all customers share the same viewpoint. This is equally unrealistic. “By continuing to buy this product, you must agree with the company’s stance.” This divides customers.

In both cases, the downsides generally outweigh the benefits. Those who agree with the company stated opinion feel vindicated, but since they feel their cause is right, you don’t get that much credit for voicing it. On the other hand, those who disagree often feel marginalized—like their voices have been co-opted, their labor channeled into support for a cause they don’t share. When “Microsoft” takes a stance on something, people listen because “Microsoft” speaks for 200,000 people (even if a majority of those silently disagree).

In recent years people have increasingly looked to their employers or vendors to be outwardly political, especially in the United States. I believe this has contributed to more division. If I disagree with a political party, I can vote them out. But if I disagree with my employers opinions, or my vendors, changing those is much more difficult, in some industries almost impossible.

I strongly believe that individuals have the right to express their views. I have posted publicly on different topics on my own social media. But always in my capacity as an individual, never ascribing it to be “the company’s” opinion or pretending I speak for all Octonauts - because I don’t. I’ve also received feedback from employees who disagree with me, and that’s completely fine. We respect each other’s opinions and continue to work together.

The only opinions “Octopus” can logically have are opinions on Continuous Delivery, our product/market, or those that directly relate to our business objectives, because a unified opinion on such things is required to achieve our mission which brings collective success to all employees. All topics unrelated to that cause belong to the realm of people, who are free to think and express what they wish, but not to ascribe them to the company. This goes for me too.

Paul Stovell

FAQ

Why not just have a “no politics at work” policy?

Companies like Coinbase have gone as far as to say that there should be no talk of politics at work. This seems hard to enforce as what is or isn’t political is subjective (it would be easy to accidentally talk about politics without realizing).

Our position is that individuals are free to express their opinions, and we treat Octonauts like adults. We simply say that the company is factually incapable of having political opinions (being a collection of people and not of one mind), so the company cannot express them as it cannot have them in the first place, nor should any person ascribe their political opinions to the company, nor use the company to promote their political causes (including me).

Isn’t this apolitical stance a sign of privilege?

If a person declares themselves to be apolitical, some argue that this is a privilege, especially for those whose rights and opportunities are not threatened by political decisions.

Given that a company is composed of many people, I think that the position that a company can have one single privilege is as illogical as the position that the company can have one single opinion. If I choose not to express my opinion on something, you may decide that this is a sign of my privilege as an individual (this is a matter for you). I don’t think this argument can be extended to the company for reasons already described.

Can the company take a stance on an issue even if it only communicates it internally?

The answer is no. I believe the company should not be in the business of pushing political opinions on its employees. There is a clear difference between an Employee Resource Group (ERG) hosting an open session on a topic they care about—advertised as an optional event—and a company-wide communication from leadership presenting a political view with the implicit expectation that everyone must engage.

(Just imagine if a group of people believed opposite to you - would you also want it forced on everyone at the all hands?)

How does the company decide what is political or not?

We don’t need to - we simply say a company is incapable of having any one opinion on any topic that is not related to its core mission (continuous delivery in our case). In fact, even if 100% of people on the planet agree on something, Octopus still has no business expressing an opinion on it unless it is directly related to the Octopus mission or furthering our business.

(Even within our core mission, Octonauts may disagree - but our marketing will never be successful if we say things like “some people at Octopus think automating deployments may perhaps be useful, though others think differently and we can’t speak on behalf of every Octonaut”)

What about expressing beliefs at the opening of events?

Some concrete examples:

Is it OK to begin an Octopus meeting with an acknowledgment of country?
Is it OK to begin an Octopus meeting with a religious prayer?
Is it OK to wear a pride badge when speaking on behalf of your team at All Hands?

We stick to the stance that Octopus is a company and therefore cannot have opinions, therefore individuals should not ascribe opinions or beliefs to Octopus. Individuals can express their own opinions, however.

Nothing prevents an Octonaut beginning a meeting with “I would like to acknowledge…” or “Dear heavenly father, I thank you…” but it is not correct to say “Octopus would like to acknowledge”. Do not use an unqualified “we” as it can be interpreted as speaking for the company.

And it goes without saying that you may not compel or pressure anyone else to affirm such things. For example you may decide to say something polite about the King, but you may not ask other Octonauts to stand and sing God Save the King.

You are welcome to wear items and be your authentic self at any time. Again you cannot compel or pressure others to.

What should individuals be conscious of when expressing their beliefs at work?

Your parents probably gave you the sagely advice to avoid talking about money, politics or god at dinner parties or work. There is much wisdom in this.

The company stance is that people are free to express their opinions but are not immune from the consequences that can stem from doing so. We expect that every employee will do their best at all times to do the right thing by the company and to help us win, and can never come second to personal ambitions or causes on work time.

Everyone here is paid to do a job. By being outwardly vocal about something that not all people agree on and that doesn’t relate to work, you must accept that others might decide to avoid working with you (either because they deeply disagree or they are simply scared of saying something that is misinterpreted, or because they simply want to come to work to get their work done).

If people go out of their way to avoid collaborating with you, then you may find yourself less effective in doing your job. They may also find themselves less effective if they don’t collaborate with you, so this cuts both ways. Being ineffective at your job for these reasons might have the same risks as being ineffective at your job for any other reason.

I find that people are happier and more productive when they assume positive intent of each other. I ask all Octonauts to try their best to do this at all times, if for no other reason than because you probably expect everyone else here to treat you with that same courtesy.

So I can say anything?

Octopus must be a welcoming and safe place for all, and nobody should feel subject to hate and conversations that make them feel marginalized or unwanted.

Just because the company does not prevent you talking about politics at work (because what is or isn’t political is subjective), doesn’t mean that what you say might not be considered to be in violation of the law or classed as hate speech or discrimination. Octonauts that have concerns can report them to the People team (people@octopus.com), to the legal team, or to their manager.

For example, is it in line with this policy for Octopus to provide financial sponsorship to groups that promote underrepresented groups in tech?

Our view is it’s OK for Octopus to provide financial support for events if the goal is talent acquisition and it promotes Octopus as a place to work. Such decisions should be made by the People team and tied specifically to goals around recruiting and creating a more representative pool of candidates. Our goal is to hire the best people, and we recognize that the best people may indeed be from underrepresented groups, and may be more easily reached by being visible in specific places.

However we would draw a distinction between Octopus sponsoring a cause in order to attract talent, and Octopus expressing support of the organization’s views. Again, individuals are free to express support for a cause, but Octopus cannot for the reasons outlined above.

What will happen if I make a mistake (e.g., mistakenly attribute my opinion to that of the company)

Like any mistake it will depend on the circumstances and impact. Our management culture is, we think, pretty trusting and usually always assumes positive intent.

If you accidentally open a meeting with “We would like to acknowledge” or “Octopus would like to celebrate…” all that should happen is someone (assuming positive intent) politely sends you a link to this page of the handbook so you understand the company position.

Page updated on Wednesday, March 19, 2025

FAQ