When the World Feels Unstable, Work Feels Different

5 mins

Published on March 12th, 2026By Gary Cattermole

For many employees, global conflict does not stay “out there”. It comes into work with them. Sometimes that is because they have direct personal, family, cultural or religious ties to the region or issue involved. Sometimes it is because the news cycle is relentless and emotionally draining. Sometimes it is because geopolitical tension spills into difficult conversations, identity, belonging and polarisation in the workplace. Mind’s guidance on distressing events in the news captures this well: people may feel anxious, overwhelmed, powerless, traumatised, unable to switch off, or suspicious and conflicted with others. That is not a fringe reaction; it is a very human one.

And when that emotional load shows up at work, engagement can suffer. CIPD’s 2025 work on health and wellbeing found that a significant minority of employees regularly feel exhausted or under excessive pressure, and it explicitly warns that feeling negative about work can increase the risk of people feeling less engaged in the work they are carrying out. The same dataset shows that around 8.5 million UK workers say work has a negative impact on their mental health, and where mental health is negatively affected, people are less satisfied, less likely to recommend their employer, less inclined to go above and beyond, and more likely to consider leaving.

So while a war or geopolitical crisis may not appear in an engagement survey as a tidy variable, its effects can still be felt through energy, concentration, trust, emotional resilience and relationships at work. Gallup’s 2025 global data points to a broader fragility here too: global engagement fell to 21% in 2024, wellbeing has been declining since 2022, and manager engagement has weakened materially. That matters because managers shape much of the day-to-day employee experience, I am sure you will have heard me say on more than one occasion – the relationship we have with our managers is probably the single biggest influencer on our engagement! When the wider world is tense, the pressure often lands in the middle of the organisation first.

The risk is not only stress. It is silence, division and inconsistency

There is another layer to this. Global conflicts and geopolitical issues do not just create worry; they can also create friction. They can sharpen differences of opinion, heighten sensitivities and make people less sure what is safe to say. CIPD’s recent work on inclusion argues that organisations need environments for respectful disagreement and appropriate speak-up cultures, because conflict, misunderstanding and competing perspectives are now part of the reality many workplaces are navigating.

This matters for engagement because employees are always watching how the organisation behaves when issues become difficult. They notice whether leaders stay human or become corporate. They notice whether some colleagues are quietly carrying grief, fear or anger while everyone else pretends it is business as usual. They notice whether respectful challenge is possible, or whether people retreat into silence. And they notice inconsistency very quickly. If an organisation talks about care, inclusion and values, but goes quiet when global events are affecting its people, that gap will be felt. That is when trust starts to ebb away.

UK evidence on conflict at work reinforces the point. CIPD found that employees who experience workplace conflict have much lower job satisfaction and are more likely to consider leaving, while Acas found that over half of people who reported conflict experienced stress, anxiety or depression as a result. In unsettled times, organisations do not need to create more debate for the sake of it, but they do need the maturity to hold difference, support people well and stop stress turning into avoidable internal conflict.

What should organisations do?

The first thing is not to overreact, but not to ignore it either.

Employees generally do not need their employer to issue a statement on every global event. Nor do they want empty gestures. What they do need is evidence that leaders understand that the outside world affects the inside one. A calm, human acknowledgement can go a long way, especially when teams include people who may be personally affected. For global organisations, McKinsey’s recent work is useful: in times of geopolitical strain, leaders need clear norms that help employees work effectively across geographies even when governments are at odds, alongside a “one company” approach that keeps internal culture from fracturing along external fault lines.

Second, line managers need help. Engagement lives in everyday conversations, managers are the ones spotting changes in energy, focus, mood and behaviour. They are also the ones most likely to mishandle the moment if they have not been equipped properly. Gallup’s data that 70% of team engagement is attributable to the manager is highly relevant here. In more volatile times, the manager’s role becomes even more important: not to be a counsellor or political commentator, but to be observant, compassionate, steady and fair.

Third, organisations should make practical support visible. That includes reminding people about employee assistance support, mental health resources, wellbeing conversations, flexibility where appropriate, and the simple permission to step back from the 24-hour news cycle. Mind’s advice is strikingly practical here: acknowledge feelings, set boundaries with news habits, focus on what can be controlled, and talk to someone trusted. Those are personal actions, but organisations can reinforce them culturally by not rewarding performative busyness and constant availability.

Fourth, protect respectful dialogue and psychological safety. Not every workplace should become a forum for geopolitical debate. But every workplace should be clear about standards of respect, behaviour and inclusion. People need to know the difference between disagreement and harm, between discussion and hostility, and between support and silence. CIPD’s guidance is clear that organisations need appropriate speak-up cultures and spaces for respectful disagreement. That is not a “nice to have” in tense times; it is part of protecting engagement.

Finally, keep the basics of engagement in view. During unsettled periods, there can be a temptation to focus only on wellbeing support. That matters enormously, but it is not the whole answer. People still need clarity, fairness, manageable workloads, decent communication, good line management and a sense that their work matters. CIPD’s Good Work research consistently shows that health, relationships, workload and manager support are closely tied to satisfaction and enthusiasm. Supporting staff through difficult times is not separate from engagement work; it is engagement work.

The leadership question

Perhaps the biggest question here is not whether global conflict affects employee engagement. It is whether organisations understand engagement well enough to recognise how and why it does.

Engagement is not a sealed system. Employees do not arrive at work untouched by the wider world. They arrive as whole people, carrying worry, identity, family ties, values, grief, anger, distraction and hope. In calmer times, organisations can get away with treating engagement as a survey score. In more volatile times, that becomes much harder. The organisations that hold engagement most effectively are usually the ones that understand something simple but important: when the world feels unstable, employees look for steadiness, humanity, fairness and meaning at work.

If your people find those things, work can become part of what helps the stay grounded rather than another source of strain.

References