Connect with us


How Women Can Get Comfortable “Playing Politics” at Work – Harvard Business Review



By now, it’s a tired refrain: Women, particularly women of color, are significantly outnumbered at the senior leadership level in organizations. Covid-19 made this fact worse: In 2021, the number of years it would take before women reached parity with men increased by a third. The pandemic essentially erased all the gains made by women of the last decade, and it may take several decades to recover to pre-Covid levels.

The causes of the leadership gender gap are numerous, as are its proposed solutions. One area of research points to differences concerning women’s response to “office politics.” Politics, broadly defined as being able to successfully navigate the unwritten rules of “how things get done and through whom,” includes understanding the motivations of others at work and using this knowledge to influence in ways that enhance one’s personal interest and organizational objectives.

In our experience as psychologists and coaches, we have found that many women have an adverse, almost allergic reaction, to office politics. Numerous studies confirm this; women tend to see it as something “dirty” or dishonest, and as a stressful aspect of work that reduces their job satisfaction.

And yet, by nature, humans are relational beings and political skill matters. It is a necessary part of organizational life. Studies affirm that being able to successfully use political skills is critical to career advancement.

We recognize that engaging in office politics can be stressful. It often forces people to stretch beyond their natural preferences and patterns. We aim to offer ways to participate in politics that reduces discomfort and maximizes career advancement.

This article identifies some commonly held beliefs underlying women’s aversion to being political at work. Next, it offers mindset shifts that have helped hundreds of women use political skills to their advantage.

5 Reasons Women Dislike Office Politics

1. My work should speak for itself.

Being political contradicts many people’s belief in meritocracy. The notion that one has to do more than excel at work itself is seen as anathema to men and women alike. However, for women and other marginalized groups who have to work twice as hard to counter the bias related to their gender and race, this can be experienced as an even greater insult and burden.

2. Building connections is an extracurricular activity.

Cultivating political relationships often feels extraneous and distracting from the work, like just another item on a to-do list. And for women, who spend, on average, 37% more time than men on housework and chores in addition to their full-time jobs, the idea that they have to find more space and time for these additional activities feels unreasonable.

3. It’s inauthentic.

Politics is often seen as posturing, making alliances with those who have clout or supporting initiatives that are popular simply for the sake of staying close to the power source. To many, this can feel inauthentic and, at times, duplicitous.

4. I don’t like playing hardball.

Office politics often plays out as a “zero-sum game,” involving gossip, backstabbing, sabotaging, and even intimidation. Women, and a fair number of men, have an aversion to these tactics, and prefer power that is based on influence, relationships, and win-win approaches.

5. The penalties are too great.

Women are penalized for displaying political skill. Studies show that women are judged more harshly for being assertive or competitive, two common characteristics of office politics. And, consequently, they are penalized for it.

Do you hold any of these beliefs? If so, it’s understandable. There’s validity to them. And yet, if you don’t challenge them, you may be limiting your potential. In our work, we have found that cultivating the following five mindsets is an effective way to help counter these beliefs and embrace and develop political skills.

5 Ways to Shift Your Mindset Around “Playing Politics”

1. From “My work should speak for itself” to “It’s my responsibility to show people how my work connects to theirs.”

No one is an island. When people, male or female, believe their work should speak for itself, they fail to recognize the interdependence of organizational life. Believing your work should speak for itself is a narrow, functional view of a job, one that assumes others can fully appreciate and comprehend the part you play in the larger organizational puzzle.

We typically see this belief in two groups. The first is from very technical leaders — those with a highly valued, specialized area of expertise. It’s easy for these individuals to see how the organization depends on what they provide, but it’s less obvious to them how their work depends on others.

We also have heard this response from those who are more comfortable with a hierarchical style of leadership and who have a more deferential relationship to management. They question the necessity of advocating for themselves, seeing it as the task of their manager to see and evaluate their performance.

When we work with leaders people on making a shift away from this mindset, we focus on transitioning from a functional or expert mindset to an enterprise one, one that enables people to connect their area of expertise to the larger business needs. In other words, to think in terms of what’s best for the whole organization, not just their small part of it.

One of us coached a senior executive who rose rapidly through the ranks from director to vice president in a very technical, male-dominated field. She navigated the politics in her rise to the top by learning how to connect her work to others’ work. Before every conversation, every meeting, and every presentation, she would take five minutes to anticipate the possible blow-back or resistance she could incur. She took a careful inventory of her audience, considering who they were, what their needs were, and the priorities they were facing. She would then consider ways to connect her contributions to their needs, positioning herself as a necessary and intrinsic part of everyone else’s success. By carefully tying her work to others and to the organization’s goals, she tied her success to the success of others, thereby ensuring that they saw the value in what she had to offer.

2. From “Building connections is an extracurricular activity” to “Building connections is a force multiplier.”

Work gets done with and through people. And the higher up you go, the more this is true. In the interdependent world of work, where you need others to help you accomplish your goals, continuously nurturing relationships and learning from others is key to your success.

For example, attending a women’s conference can double a woman’s likelihood of receiving a promotion within a year, triple the likelihood of a 10%+ pay increase within a year, and increase her sense of optimism by up to 78%, immediately. Something powerful happens when people engage with others. People are more inspired. They learn new strategies for career advancement. They are exposed to new ideas. They build confidence in asking for what they need and maybe even find a way to share their wisdom with others.

When we work with leaders on making a shift away from this mindset, we help them see the benefits, not just the burden, of making connections. We host six-month leadership development programs within organizations where participants have the opportunity to meet, repeatedly, as cohorts. Women who are seeking new opportunities, stuck in their career trajectory, or those struggling with leadership tensions find it productive to hear from others in similar positions, to learn new approaches for promoting themselves, and to see alternatives for managing their challenges.

In the final session, participants give a five-minute presentation on a topic that has big career implications after rehearsing and revising their presentations in small groups. These dress-rehearsals give people the opportunity to hone their stories, more clearly articulate their facts, and bolster their stage presence for maximum effectiveness. Countless participants credit the feedback from their new network with helping them adjust and sharpen their presentations to the point that they ultimately land funding, drive new strategy and galvanize followers. In several instances, the women also helped each other find new roles, transition into different departments, and gain access into new and influential networks. In other words, the relationships built in the program and the perspectives gathered from those relationships help our participants amplify their impact.

3. From “It’s inauthentic” to “I’m being paid to have a point of view and share it.”

The research on authenticity shows that it requires two things: conscious awareness (knowing who you are, your motives, and what you’re bringing to the current situation) and expression (consciously aligning your behavior with your awareness). It means acting in accordance with your true feelings, thoughts, and highest intentions in a way that serves the context. Authenticity requires discernment, courage, and self-determination. It’s not a reaction to what’s happening around you; it’s relating to the players and situation from a grounded sense of who you are.

You’re more negatively affected by office politics if you don’t know what you stand for or don’t have the courage to advocate for it. To be political — and authentic — you must know what your values and intentions are so that you can move projects and teams forward in a way that aligns with you and the organization’s goals. In some ways, it’s easier for people to be against politics than it is to get clear on what they stand for and champion it.

When we work with people on making a shift away from this mindset, we help them discern their purpose and values so they can make choices in alignment with them.

One of us coached a woman who was discouraged by the leadership behavior of the senior leaders in her business unit. As a result, rather than seeking promotion to the next level, she was considering quitting. Through coaching, she realized that her decision was a reaction to her colleagues’ behavior; yet, she hadn’t defined the leadership behavior she valued. By helping her clarify her own leadership point of view, she felt inspired to model new behaviors and open up conversations inside her business unit about the role leaders play in creating the culture. This changed her attitude towards her current job, and she felt more inspired and motivated to stay in the role, and even apply for a promotion. Rather than reacting to what she disliked, she made a conscious decision to be a role model for the leadership behavior she wanted to see present in her organization.

4. From “I’m not someone who plays hardball” to “My leadership tactic needs to match the situation.”

Political behavior can be a turn-off, especially when it involves hard power tactics: coercion, intimidation, and sabotage. For many people, men and women alike, this is what “being political” means, as opposed to using softer power tactics of persuasion, building alliances, and offering assistance.

Yet, power, hard or soft, is neither good nor bad. What makes the use of power good or bad is the motivation behind its use and the impact it has on others. While it’s easy to see the negative applications of hard power, soft power can also be misused, or used to villainous ends. Consider how Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Skilling, and Jim Jones employed persuasion, charisma, and relationship-building.

When we work with leaders on making a shift away from this mindset, we help them understand that their application of hard or soft power tactics should be situational, not a matter of preference or style. Some situations call for hard power and some for soft power. Specifically, hard power tactics may be needed to hold people accountable, make tough and unpopular decisions, set boundaries, or enact consequences to inappropriate workplace behavior.

One of us coached a leader who had a decided preference for soft power tactics. She worked in a creative industry in which her collaborative style worked well at first. But within a few months of her leading a new team, team members began to complain about burnout. Shortly thereafter, a few senior team members quit due to conflict. This led her to look at the dynamics on the team and how her leadership was a factor.

Through discussions with each team member, she realized that her collaborative approach had resulted in team meetings being dominated and derailed by a few vocal members. Agendas were often hijacked by tangential discussions and meetings often ended without clarity and direction, forcing people to spend hours in discussion to recap and rehash the outcomes.

Our client learned to incorporate hard power tactics to match the team dynamic. She began to intervene, set boundaries, create rules for conversation, and hold people accountable if they failed to follow the meeting guidelines. It was a revelation to her to realize that collaborative leadership had its limits, and that harder power tactics can also have a place.

5. From “The penalties are too great” to “I prioritize my growth.”

Women are penalized for being ambitious and displaying political skill. The research is clear: Negative stereotypes have negative consequences for one’s career. It’s true that women and minorities pay a steep price for displaying ambition.

And yet, for many, the alternative may be worse. While the blowback to displaying ambition is tough, so too is the personal and psychological toll of not striving to fulfill your potential and not stretching to reach your goals. For many women and minorities, waiting for the world to change before they can assert themselves is a steeper price to pay than the backlash of being ambitious.

The mindset here is one of prioritizing growth. But this shouldn’t be done naively. It’s important to be prepared and to consider the consequences you may face. You may need to gather resources and allies, and ensure you have the support in your personal and professional life before undertaking any action. And above all, it’s important to have a Plan B, or even a Plan C in place. Consider, realistically, the penalties you may face. Do you have alternatives in mind if things don’t work out as planned? Are you prepared to switch business units or even companies if necessary?

A growth mindset (the belief that talents can be developed through hard work, good strategies, and input from others) is protective against negative stereotypes. For example, one study found that when Black university students were taught to have a growth mindset, they were less likely to internalize the negative stereotype directed at them, and thus, had better outcomes in their studies. On the other hand, students with a fixed mindset, seeing themselves as unable to change, were more prone to suffer the effects of the negative stereotyping.

One of us coached a woman who described her manager as someone who stifled her ambition, denied her access to senior leaders, and routinely took credit for her work. She felt pushed out by her manager with no option but to leave the firm. Through coaching she realized that she had, in fact, mastered her role. There wasn’t room to learn new skills, create more impact or meet new stakeholders. Her lack of opportunity had as much to do with her role’s limited scope as it had to do with her disparaging manager.

By recognizing her need for growth, she decided to intentionally seek a new role with more scope and impact potential outside her firm. Rather than feeling “chased out,” she realized her old position was more limiting than her leader. This mindset shift made her the hero of the story instead of the victim.

The harsh reality is that women and racialized minorities face discrimination, negative stereotypes, and hostility. But there are choices to be made, choices which provide more flexibility and resilience, or less. Preparing yourself, gathering allies and resources, having a Plan B in place, and developing a growth mindset that frames the challenge as an opportunity to learn and grow, can be powerful protection for the backlash you may face.

. . .

Office politics impact your work experience and your projects, whether you participate in them or not. We advocate it’s better to be a player than a pawn. The women we coach want to be leading at the highest levels, and yet many have not examined their limiting beliefs about using political skills to advance their careers. The mindset you bring to any situation, especially one that can be experienced as negative and aversive, is critical to your success.

As a reader, did you notice yourself agreeing with any of the beliefs outlined above? If so, can you see a way to shift your mindset that gives you more power over your experience and possibilities in your career?

Office politics matters because as relational beings, getting ahead is as much about people and relationships as it is about skills and experience. Your ability to participate in politics, and to employ your political skills is not just critical to career advancement, but equally important for your well-being at work.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link


Your Promises Are empty and Similar



“Your promises give us such a thrill,
but they won’t pay our bills,
We want money, that’s what we want(&Need).

The Political Parties in Ontario are trying to bribe us all with our own money. Election Madness, with the NDP promising should they be elected to form the next government, they would set a weekly price cap on the price of gasoline. The Conservatives have promised to temporarily cut the gas tax starting in July. Liberal Steven Del Duca says price caps do not work, while the NDP claims tax cuts do not prevent Energy Corporations from raising their prices.

The Liberal’s platform plank regarding Transit points to a buck-a-dollar ride. The NDP is calling for free transit (possibly in certain regions).

The Doctor shortage is easily solved, so The NDP claim, by hiring 300+ more doctors and thousands of nurses. Their pay will have to be very high in order to attract professional medical talent to Ontario. Medical Professionals have moved to The USA, receiving salaries and enticements many of our current medical pros could only dream of.

So we have political leaders promising billions of dollars to attract our attention and hopefully our vote. Where this money is coming from is usually not discussed. Real numbers are never presented. We have experienced massive spending these past three years, and the international and domestic lenders are demanding to be repaid, yet these promises continue. Not one Political Leader has the courage to tell us the truth, believing we “cannot handle the truth”, but that we would rather sit in the glow of imaginary promises that one only hears during an election.

A powerHouse Premier with a broad array of accomplishments, a Liberal Leader trying to gain a few seats and save His leadership status, a NDP Leader whose very political life is under review(She does not win, She’s gone), a Green Party Leader also seeking a few more seats. That is their political state presently. We are waiting for certain tax increases to come. Someone has to pay for these political visions of future circumstances. The bills and invoices are in the mail, and will certainly arrive this July.

“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers”.(N.K)

Steven Kaszab
Bradford, Ontario

Continue Reading


Opinion: The paranoid style in Conservative politics has deep roots – The Globe and Mail



Here are some of the things certain candidates for Conservative leader think, or want Conservative voters to think, threaten Canada and Canadians.

Candidate Pierre Poilievre warns his followers that the government of Canada “has been spying on you everywhere. They’ve been following you to the pharmacy, to your family visits, even to your beer runs.”

The government hasn’t been doing anything of the kind, of course: A private company prepared a report to the Public Health Agency of Canada on population movements during the pandemic, using anonymous, aggregated cellphone data. The data allow researchers to count how many people visited a pharmacy or a beer store, not which people did; still less are individuals followed from place to place.

But Mr. Poilievre knows his followers don’t know this, and is quite content to mislead them. Just as he is when he claims he opposes allowing the Bank of Canada to issue a digital version of the dollar because the government would use the data generated thereby to “crack down” on its “political enemies.”

The point isn’t that such data couldn’t be misused in this way. The point is that Mr. Poilievre asserts, without evidence, that it is happening now, and assumes, without evidence, that worse will happen in the future – not as a possibility to be guarded against, but as an inevitability. This is the very definition of fear-mongering. Or, indeed, conspiracy theory. It encourages not prudent skepticism of government’s capacity, but baseless paranoia about government intentions.

But this is statesmanship itself next to the fears he and others have been spreading about the World Economic Forum, which sponsors an annual gathering of business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland, that is the grand obsession of conspiracy theorists everywhere.

Mr. Poilievre hasn’t come right out and said what he thinks the WEF is up to (unlike former Conservative leadership candidate Derek Sloan, now the leader of the Ontario Party, who earlier this month accused the organization’s leaders of plotting to put microchips in “our bodies and our heads”), but he has made a point of saying that he will ban any member of his cabinet from attending its meetings – though several members of Stephen Harper’s cabinet did, including Mr. Harper himself.

Trudeau’s advantage: His house united, the other divided

Australia’s ‘teal wave’ is a wakeup call for Canada’s Conservatives

Then there’s candidate Leslyn Lewis, whose particular fear is the World Health Organization, or more precisely a package of amendments to its International Health Regulations put forward earlier this year by the United States. The amendments seem chiefly aimed at preventing the sort of information vacuum that hampered efforts to contain the coronavirus in the early days of the outbreak, notably stemming from China’s refusal to level with the world about what it had on its hands – but also abetted by the WHO’s own credulousness.

Thus, a critical amendment would require the WHO, should it find there is a public-health emergency “of international concern,” and having first offered assistance to the affected country, to share information with other countries about it, even if the first country objects. (Until now it had been left to the WHO’s discretion.) In conspiracy circles this has been cooked up into an open-ended power for the WHO to force countries into lockdown, take over their health care systems, even, in Ms. Lewis’s formulation, suspend their constitutions.

Where does one begin? The WHO does not have the power to dictate policies to member states. No country would ever agree to give it that power, let alone all 194 member states at once. And of all those countries, the least likely to agree to any such transfer of national sovereignty, let alone propose it, is the United States: the country that, for example, refuses to this day to participate in the International Criminal Court. The only way it could be done even in theory would be by passing the necessary enabling legislation through each country’s legislature, not by simply ratifying an amendment to a regulation.

We’ve been this way before. Remember the Global Compact for Migration? That anodyne collection of best-efforts promises of international co-operation in dealing with the world’s refugees was the subject of an earlier Conservative panic attack. Supposedly we would be permanently surrendering control of our borders to United Nations bureaucrats. It hasn’t happened, because that’s not actually how the world works.

Neither did Motion 103, a non-binding resolution of the House directing that a committee hold hearings on Islamophobia, lead to a ban on criticism of Islam, as still another Conservative fear campaign had claimed. Probably some of its proponents understood this at the time, but lots of their supporters didn’t.

And so it continues. Vaccine mandates become “vaccine vendettas.” Carbon pricing is equated with Chinese-style “social credit” scores. The Bank of Canada’s purchases of government bonds in the middle of the sharpest economic contraction since the Great Depression are depicted as if they were directly bankrolling the Liberal Party.

This cynical act is sometimes dressed up as “sticking up for the little guy” or “taking on the elites.” It is not. It is exploitation, pure and simple, shaking down the gullible for money and votes. It’s a con as old as politics. Before Mr. Poilievre can promise his audience to “give you back control over your lives,” he has to first persuade them that control has been taken away from them – and that he alone has the power to give it back. Or rather, that they should give him that power.

Populism has deep roots in the Conservative Party, at least since John Diefenbaker gathered the disparate populist movements that had sprung up in the West under the Progressive Conservative banner. As the party of the “outs,” those who for one reason or another were excluded from the Liberal power consensus, it has always tended to attract its share of cranks – not just populists but crackpots.

What’s different today? Three things. One, the targets of populist wrath are increasingly external to Canada: bodies like the WEF or the WHO, whose remoteness from any actual role in controlling our lives only makes them seem more darkly potent, to those primed to believe it.

Two, the “outs” no longer simply reject a particular political narrative, but increasingly science, and reason, and knowledge: the anti-expertise, anti-authority rages of people who have been “doing their own research.”

And three, the crackpopulists used to be consigned to the party’s margins. Now they are contending to lead it.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Ontario Liberal Leader tries to make himself known, says his politics are personal – Cornwall Seaway News



TORONTO — Anyone who has heard Steven Del Duca speak during this election campaign likely knows he has two daughters in public school, two elderly parents who want to age at home, and that his Saturday mornings include grocery shopping for his family.

Weaving in personal touches to speeches is a tried and true political tactic, but the Ontario Liberal leader says his politics come from his personal life.

“Family is really the centre of everything…so it’s just a very natural, I guess, lens for me to view those issues,” he said in a recent interview. 

Del Duca’s focus on home care comes not only from his 83-year-old Italian-born father and his 80-year-old Scottish-born mother, but also his grandparents, all of whom lived past 80 — one to 97 — and stayed in their own homes. 

Education policy is important to Del Duca as the father to two daughters, Talia, 14, and Grace, 11, but he also mentions a teacher who kept him on track as he was drifting in his final year of high school.

By that time, he was already actively engaged in politics and didn’t have much interest in what the school curriculum had to offer in social sciences, and the teacher worried that his grades wouldn’t be able to get him into university.

So she developed two large research projects that he could do as independent studies and got the principal to sign off on it.

“I loved it because it gave me a chance to actually take what I was doing in reality, fuse it to with what I was reading and learning about and kind of taking a run with it,” Del Duca says.

“I don’t know how it would have worked out otherwise.”

Thirty years later, he’s taking a run at much bigger projects: the premiership and rebuilding the Ontario Liberals four years after their walloping that saw them lose official party status. 

One of Del Duca’s oldest friends, Anthony Martin, has known him since the two were in Grade 3, and is not surprised to see him running for the province’s top job. Martin says his friend was always well informed about current events for his age, but once he was bitten by the political bug, that was it.

“He said he wanted to be premier, because, he thought that was where you could do the most good and make the most change in people’s lives,” Martin said.

Del Duca’s interest in politics was first sparked at age 14, when his older sister gave him “The Rainmaker,” the autobiography of legendary Liberal organizer Keith Davey, for Christmas. 

He has since asked his sister why she settled on that present, a peculiar selection for a young teen, and “she can’t remember what possessed her to get that specific book.”

Regardless, Del Duca was hooked. He was then reeled in a few months later when a cousin invited him to a nomination meeting. It turned out to be a hotly contested race, with an incumbent being challenged for a federal Liberal nomination.

“I felt the electricity in the room,” he says.

Later that year was the 1988 election and Del Duca volunteered for the Liberals, knocking on the doors of voters who found a 15-year-old wanting to talk to them about free trade on the other side.

At age 48, Del Duca still likes talking, and he has developed a particular style. On the campaign trail he looks straight into the camera, delivering his words with a measured cadence that generally comes from reading prepared remarks. 

Except there is no teleprompter in sight.

Del Duca says it’s partly due to him being quite hands on with platform development, but the seed was planted at his own nomination meeting in 2012. 

He was being acclaimed to replace Greg Sorbara, who was retiring. Del Duca had actually written speeches for Sorbara, though he eschewed speaking notes.

“(It) used to drive me crazy,” Del Duca says. “He’d say, ‘Steven, this is such a beautifully written speech. I’m not using it.’”

Ahead of the nomination meeting, Sorbara told Del Duca not to use a written speech, but rather a single page of bullet points to “frame the mind.”

He was unsure about speaking off the cuff in front of so many people, and brought both his speech and his page of bullet points to the banquet hall. But after sitting in the parking lot and mulling it over, he left his speech in the car.

“It went fine,” Del Duca says. “That was really good advice Greg gave me…Even if you get back in the car afterwards, or you’re back at the office and think, ‘Oh shoot, I was gonna say those two things, but I didn’t,’ it’s OK. You connect with the audience far, far better.”

He would go on to spend nearly four years as transportation minister and a few months as economic development minister.

Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi, who served in cabinet with Del Duca, says he is someone who was always prepared, and can disagree with others cordially. The two have known each other since they were in the Liberals’ youth wing together, and Naqvi says personally Del Duca is a devoted family man.

Del Duca’s younger brother was killed in a car crash in 2018, and Naqvi says he was impressed by how Del Duca faced the tragedy.

“There were times of course he was fragile, but then he was also there for his parents, who lost their son,” Naqvi says. 

“He was there for his sister-in-law, who lost her husband. He was there for his niece and nephews, who lost their father and of course, provide support for his family as well. Really, I was incredibly impressed by his strength, his calmness and his resiliency.”

Del Duca was chosen as party leader just days before the first COVID-19 lockdown.

March 7, 2020 was, in hindsight, not the best time for a mass gathering, and the timing was especially poor for Del Duca, who needed to spend the next two years both rebuilding the party from its disastrous 2018 election showing and introducing himself to voters.

But the new Liberal leader was one of the last things on voters’ minds as they dealt with devastating effects of the pandemic, and it has left Del Duca still fairly unknown, said Chris Cochrane, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough.

“It’s made life difficult for (him),” he said.

During last week’s debate, Del Duca came across as someone who had a good grasp of policy, but when it comes to a unique and easily identifiable charisma, Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford has him beat, Cochrane said.

“Doug Ford has a presence, a way of speaking, mannerisms, everything about him, that sends a message automatically, no matter what he says to the people he wants to vote for (him) that he’s one of them,” he said.

“As soon as you see (Ford) and you hear him speak, it’s unique to him…Jean Chrétien, for example, also had that, in the past. Del Duca doesn’t have that.”

But those who know him say he has a good sense of humour, trading dad jokes and offering up self-deprecating remarks.

He has also tried to cultivate a relatable image, often appearing in public wearing a suit with sneakers and ditching his signature black-rimmed glasses after getting laser eye surgery just before the campaign.

“I figured it was easier than trying to grow my hair,” he quips.  

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 25, 2022.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading