Abstract
Affective polarization, which captures people's tendency to feel warmth toward their own political group and strong animus toward opposing ones, has become one of the defining features of political life, with growing consequences for the firms and workplaces it touches. Yet management scholars studying political behavior in firms typically assume that political preferences are stable, coherent, and belief-driven, an assumption affective polarization directly challenges. We argue that this mismatch leads the field to misdiagnose the political dynamics increasingly shaping organizational life, from hiring and workplace conflict to consumer relationships and corporate political strategy. We develop an affective-relational account of political behavior in and around firms, in which identity and affect—not belief—anchor judgment and decision-making. We trace affective polarization's consequences for firms across their institutional, task, and internal environments, identify the firm characteristics that shape exposure to these consequences, and propose a typology of strategic responses—suppression, balancing, and exploitation—that firms can use to manage the risks and exploit the opportunities affective polarization presents. In doing so, we offer management scholars a framework for understanding a highly consequential political phenomenon with which the field has yet to fully reckon.