More in Common’s new report takes a detailed look into the worldviews and attitudes of Progressive Activists, exploring what makes them different from the rest of the country, and why progressive campaigns in recent years increasingly seem to be backfiring.

Progressive Activists are just one of More in Common’s British Seven segments – you can find out more about the rest of the segments and take the quiz to find out which segment you fall into here:

Who are Progressive Activists?

Progressive Activists make up eight to ten per cent of the UK population. They are younger than average, more likely to be graduates and highly represented in charity and public sector organisations.

They are more likely to have spent time in higher education: 46 per cent have degrees and a fifth have postgraduate degrees. Their level of education means that many Progressive Activists have high incomes, but because very few of them own a home and many of them are in student debt, they are a lower wealth segment. 

Progressive Activists have a pessimistic outlook on their future. Forty one per cent of Progressive Activists say their parents will have a more comfortable life than they will live; Progressive Activists express lower satisfaction with their housing, finances and work lives than average. Fifty two per cent of Progressive Activists say they have suffered from mental health problems, and they are among the segments most likely  to say they are often stressed, lonely and sad.

Progressive Activists diverge from the rest of Britain in their attitudes to many cultural and social issues. They are more than twice as likely than the rest of the country to say they are ashamed to be British and are the only segment to say that Britain should be ashamed of the legacy of the British Empire. Progressive Activists are also the only segment in which a majority say we should increase or maintain levels of immigration to the UK.

Progressive Activists are less willing than other groups to make space for debate on divisive issues. Progressive Activists are the only segment to say we should prioritise protecting people from hate speech over protecting freedom of speech, and are more likely than other groups to believe that some issues should not be subject to debate at all.

Progressive Activists are much more supportive of disruptive forms of protest. For example, they are the only segment to see Just Stop Oil as a force for good. Sixty five per cent of the public believe that blocking roads is never an acceptable form of protest, compared to just 25 per cent of Progressive Activists.

Inclusive and effective campaigning

Progressive Activists – like all campaigners – can more effectively advocate for change if they take steps to understand others’ stances and motivations, rather than assuming that everyone shares their worldview or denigrating the motivations of those who hold different views to their own. The report explores how progressive campaigners can build more inclusive campaigns that better meet the public where they are and which avoid reinforcing the dynamics of division. Doing so will often involve:

Knowing your audience: Progressive Activists tend to overestimate the extent of support for progressive causes in Britain by a factor of two or three. This can mean campaigners are less likely to see the need to expand their coalition. Campaigners who overestimate their starting support are more likely to focus on messages and tactics designed to ‘activate the base’ and which command ‘in-group approval’ rather than persuading those who are more agnostic and sceptical. For many campaigns, the starting point should be persuasion and listening.

A contributory factor will be an understanding that the groups with which Progressive Activists disagree are not necessarily informed by misinformation or prejudice. It is important to understand properly why people with opposing views hold the beliefs that they do and to try to empathise with their starting points.

Using inclusive framing: Much of the language used by Progressive Activists is popular with other Progressive Activists and effective at mobilising their support, but falls flat with other segments. The persistence of racial discrimination is recognised across society, but the concept of white privilege is not. Using framings which reinforce ‘us versus them’ dynamics undermines support for progressive causes.  

Making space for debate: Progressive Activists are unique amongst the seven segments in their greater likelihood to believe that certain viewpoints are not a legitimate feature of democratic debate. They are the only segment in which a majority (51 per cent) believe some viewpoints are too harmful to be given space in democratic debate, compared to just 33 per cent across other groups.

While this stance often comes from a well-meaning desire to protect marginalised groups, it can be counterproductive to campaigning goals. For example, 75 per cent of Progressive Activists consider it offensive to say immigration is making the country worse, yet this is something 66 per cent of the population either fully or somewhat believe. By writing off or refusing to engage with such widely held views, Progressive Activists not only lose opportunities to persuade, but also risk backlash for being seen to hold the views of others in disdain. 

Build broad coalitions: Progressive Activists have a tendency to require comprehensive ideological alignment in their campaigns. In fact, public opinion rarely aligns perfectly along fixed ideological lines. For example, many support climate action while opposing immigration, or favour decriminalisation of drugs while supporting capital punishment. Yet nearly half of Progressive Activists would be unwilling to campaign for a cause they believe in alongside a Conservative. Perhaps more shocking still, 28 per cent would not campaign alongside somebody who believes in Israel’s right to exist. By demanding complete ideological alignment, progressive movements artificially limit their potential support base.

Not all publicity is good publicity: Progressive Activists and the general public view protest differently. Sixty five per cent of the public say road blocking is never an acceptable form of protest, compared to only a quarter of Progressive Activists. When protesters clash with police, Progressive Activists typically blame police while the public sides with law enforcement. What Progressive Activists see as heroic activism, the public often views as criminal behaviour.

As a result, maximising media coverage through disruptive tactics can actively harm rather than help progressive causes, even when the underlying issues have broad public support, such as the need for action to tackle climate change. This suggests that there is a need for more strategic consideration of when disruptive protest is truly effective.

Progressive Activists in the workforce

Progressive Activists have unique expectations of their workplaces. They are much more likely than average to prioritise having a job which makes a positive impact on the world, where there is ability to influence management decisions and where the employer speaks out publicly on important social issues.

Progressive Activists’ desire for businesses to speak out on political issues can hinder the progress of civil society organisations. Progressive Activists are the only segment to think that businesses should speak out on political issues not related to their core activity or function. Conversations with charity leaders highlight a growing number of fraught internal discussions about the boundaries of a charity’s mission. In some cases these discussions about what it is and is not appropriate for a charity to publicly comment on has led to internal conflict and distracted charities from delivery of their stated mission.

Progressive Activists are more comfortable with disruptive internal activism within organisations. Progressive Activists are almost twice as likely as other segments to say that it is often or always appropriate to organise employee protests or anonymous petitions, or refuse to implement decisions when staff disagree with management. They are also uniquely likely to raise their political views in the workplace.

Thirty eight per cent of Progressive Activists say that it is better to speak out against colleagues’ political views at work, compared to much lower rates among other segments. Greater levels of remote working seem to have exacerbated some of these dynamics, with activist staff more likely to behave more aggressively in online staff forums or message boards than they would in person.

After polling of over a thousand Progressive Activists and holding one-to-one conversations with a dozen charity leaders, we have identified a number of steps that may prove useful to organisations with a largely a progressive workforce:

• Make space for constructive conversations and feedback: Create regular, in-person forums for staff to raise concerns. Be clear that, once discussions have occurred, decisions by senior management are final, therefore minimising the need for informal channels for communicating concerns.
• Instill a culture of boundaries: Where staff think that it is important to speak out on political issues beyond an organisation’s core mission, it can be helpful to be able to rely on agreed guidelines for when this is and is not appropriate, minimising the need for a new discussion every time a topic of political or social controversy emerges.
• Build robust boards: Trustees and non-executive directors should ultimately approve guidelines on what organisations will and will not speak out on. When those policies have been approved, senior management should know that they have the backing of the board to enforce them.
• Use inductions effectively: Information on organisational focus and boundaries can form part of  employee inductions, setting clear expectations at recruitment stage of what is and is not acceptable within the workplace.
• Recruit a diverse workforce: Organisations should review their hiring practices to ensure that they are not inadvertently screening out candidates who share the organisation’s core mission but have different perspectives and worldviews. Interview panels should include diverse viewpoints, including charity beneficiaries where appropriate. Creating an environment where reasonable disagreement is acceptable and dominant viewpoints do not become so entrenched that alternative perspectives are dismissed without consideration.

If you think this research could be relevant to the organisation you work for, we are running workshops to help progressive workforces better understand how their values differ from the wider public. Please contact ed@moreincommon.com for more information.