adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

What to Do When Your Coworker Brings Up Politics – Harvard Business Review

Published

 on


Cactus Creative Studio/Stocksy

Political topics have always been challenging in the workplace, but never more than now. In the past, the goal was to avoid escalation. Today the conversation often starts heated. Furthermore, they can feel unavoidable, especially if they’re sprung on you with no warning.

For example, imagine you’re on a Zoom call discussing accelerating a project deadline when your colleague, “Ned,” says, “This is a product release, not a vaccine.” And that was the fourth time in just this meeting he has laced his comments with politics. You can tell others feel he’s not just making jokes but pushing his opinions. What should you do?

No one wants to get into a heated debate with their coworkers, especially over Zoom or the phone. Fortunately, there are ways to venture into these topics that both yield a much higher likelihood of healthy dialogue, and leave you an exit path if it appears that’s not possible. I’ve found it’s possible to talk openly about far more controversial issues than we usually think, as long as you bring three things to the conversation: curiosityboundaries, and humility.

300x250x1

Years ago in London, I hailed a taxi for the 45-minute trip from the Gatwick airport to my hotel. After I informed the driver of my destination, he turned to face me and said, “You have an American accent. Are you American?”

“Yes,” I responded.

His eyes grew wide, he craned his neck to look back at me, and with great vehemence yelled a curse on the U.S. President.

It was late at night. I was tired. I weighed my willingness to engage in an energetic conversation and as I considered ignoring the comment I thought, “I should be able to do this. I should be able to talk to someone with a strong opinion even if I don’t fully agree.”

“Not too worried about your tip, I take it?” I said and smiled at his eyes in the mirror.

He broke into a broad grin, but it quickly disappeared. He repeated his curse a second time. Then he quickly moved into a lengthy indictment of U.S. foreign policy. His voice got louder and his face redder the more he spoke. He paused only long enough to draw a breath and it was clear he had more than 45 minutes’ worth of material he intended to share.

Ironically, I was in London to lecture about a book I had recently co-authored about politically and emotionally risky conversation. Given my itinerary, I felt a special obligation to practice what I was about to preach. So, I committed to attempt turning the remaining 40 minutes into a meaningful dialogue.

Remarkably, it worked. Of course, I knew once I got to my hotel that I wouldn’t have to see the driver again, but I was still invested in having a civil, and even productive, conversation. Next time you find yourself drawn into a discussion with someone who has strong political views, whether it’s a stranger or your colleague from another department, here are the three things you want to bring with you.

Curiosity 

Our temptation when someone comes on strong is to either shut down or amp up. We might withdraw into silence, feigning attention while seething in quiet judgment; or we fight for space, matching or exceeding the others’ provocative certainty. Both approaches produce more heat than light.

The way to turn conflict into conversation begins with curiosity. Curiosity is a virtue that need only to be practiced to be passed. It’s remarkable to see how quickly a debate deescalates when one party begins sincerely inquiring into the views of the other. And there almost always comes a point when the one being authentically heard involuntarily reciprocates.

For example, once your call ends, you could invite Ned to hang on the connection for a moment. Then start with something like, “Hey Ned, four times in the meeting you made comments that sounded like you were expressing your political views. If at some point you want to discuss those, I’m all ears.”

You don’t have to renounce your views in order to practice curiosity. All you have to do is set them aside. Don’t worry, you can pick them back up as soon as the conversation is done. But if you’re simultaneously clutching yours while conversing about others’, you’ll do justice to neither task. You shouldn’t consider your curiosity satisfied until you see the integrity of their position: how the experiences, perspective, and information they bring leads sensibly to the conclusion they hold.

Boundaries 

The problem with Ned’s offhanded comments in your meeting is the fact that he was turning a business meeting into a political platform. As you invite Ned into a conversation, you should also ask him to honor meeting boundaries. Assuming Ned shows an interest in sharing his views with you, you should first add, “And Ned, can I ask that in the future you avoid those kinds of comments in our meetings? That’s not the time or place for it. Okay?”

Setting boundaries at the beginning of a conversation is also helpful if you’re worried it might go off the rails. Before jumping into opinions, first, set the table. Ask for agreement on some boundaries, or ground rules that will keep things civil and balanced. Even people who disagree wildly about specific policies can usually agree quickly on simple rules of civil discourse. And if you gain their agreement before emotions escalate, they’ll often self-monitor in a way that keeps things somewhat healthy. And if they don’t, be sure you set a boundary about how you’ll handle it when someone violates the other rules.

Here’s how I set the table for a conversation with my taxi driver. I didn’t wait for him to pause as I didn’t sense one was coming anytime soon. Instead, I patted the back of his seat to interrupt him, and made him a proposition.

“I’m very interested in hearing your views,” I said. “I may agree with some of them but disagree with others. But I want equal time. Tell you what, can we agree that you get the first 10 minutes, then I get the next 10 minutes? If either of us gets too angry at the other, we’ll stop and ride quietly to my hotel. If it goes well, we might both be a little smarter when we’re done. Deal?”

He laughed heartily, turned to face me full on and said, “That’s a deal.”

Humility 

If you come to the conversation curious, you will almost always leave smarter. But only if you bring the third ingredient: humility.

It’s rare that when you begin to genuinely inquire into others’ experiences that you don’t find things that surprise you, teach you, and improve you. The sobering truth is that we don’t arrive at many of our most cherished opinions starting with a blank page. Whether we are Christian or Muslim, conservative or liberal, prefer Coke or Pepsi, our ideas are shaped more by the groups we identify with than the facts we sift through.

When we listen sincerely to others, we’re often humbled as we recognize how fragile the foundation of our own convictions can be. When that happens, have the integrity to concede those points. The more you point out areas of agreement, especially ones that involve relinquishing of previously cherished “facts,” the more likely the other person is to feel safe doing the same.

Ten minutes into my taxi ride, I was loath to interrupt the driver for my turn. I was so struck with the insight I was gaining seeing my country’s foreign policy from a 12,000-kilometer distance that I didn’t want to stop. I don’t know that my taxi-driver friend ended up seeing the world any differently when we were done with that ride, but I did. Not that my opinions were profoundly altered, but they became nuanced in a way that I was grateful for.

The same will happen with Ned if you are truly humble. Don’t approach the conversation with a goal of passing judgment. Approach it with the goal of understanding how Ned’s world works. If you do this well, you’ll begin to see how, given the information and experiences he has, he would come to the conclusions he holds. Feelings of derision are evidence that my motive is to convert not to learn.

Next time you cringe with apprehension when a colleague seems intent on bringing politics into a workplace conversation, take a breath. Then replace your judgment with curiosity. Consider putting up boundaries that move the conversation to the proper time and place, increase the likelihood of balanced dialogue, and provide an off ramp if needed. Swap certainty for humility. Perhaps these practices won’t immediately bring about world peace, but they’ll certainly increase the likelihood of meaningful conversation at work.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Michael Taube: How a eulogy for a father made one political career — and perhaps another – National Post

Published

 on


The similarities between Caroline Mulroney’s eulogy for her father and Justin Trudeau’s homage to his ‘Papa’ were impossible to ignore

Article content

There were many heartfelt tributes to former prime minister Brian Mulroney during his state funeral at Montreal’s Notre-Dame Basilica on March 23. One that caught significant attention was the eulogy by his daughter, Caroline, a cabinet minister in Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government.

The legion of family, friends and political cohorts that day had a good laugh over a particular remark that Mulroney made. “Speeches were such a major part of his life,” she said, “that he told us that when it was his turn to go up to what he called that great political rally in the sky, he wanted us to bury him with his podium.”

Advertisement 2

Article content

Article content

Indeed, it’s a great line — and it rings true in every fibre of its being!

That’s not what struck me about Mulroney’s speech, however. Rather, it was the passionate words, raw emotion and cadence she employed when describing her late father. She had lived in his massive (and unavoidable) shadow. His formidable presence followed her in every step she took — but in a good way. What he specifically meant to her, the family and our country was mapped out on one of the biggest stages she’ll ever encounter in her life.

So much so, that one person sitting in the Basilica — who also gave a eulogy — may have felt, if but for a fleeting moment, that he was experiencing déjà vu: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. (We’ll get to him shortly.)

“There was a destiny attached to my father, that even in his youth, no one could deny,” Mulroney said in one poignant moment. “Even prime minister (John) Diefenbaker at the peak of his powers, wrote a letter to my grandfather, extolling his son’s potential after his first encounter with my dad.”

She continued, “My dad saw the world in a bigger way than most. His humanity defined him. Which is why he transcended politics and connected with people in a way that left an indelible mark on their hearts and souls. In our grief, our family is comforted and so grateful for the universal outpouring of affection and admiration for what my father meant to them and to Canada.”

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

Her concluding lines tugged at the heartstrings of one’s soul. “We are heartbroken by our loss. We adored him. I miss you daddy.”

It was a wonderful eulogy that her father — who I knew, admired and respected — would have been proud of. Words mattered to him. He loved language and prose, and mastered them to perfection. The art of writing, speaking and storytelling were gifts from God.

When I watched Mulroney speak at the state funeral of her beloved father, I was instantly reminded of Trudeau’s eulogy at the state funeral of his beloved father.

The man who would become Canada’s 23rd prime minister was a relatively unknown figure when he walked to the lectern on Oct. 4, 2000. There had been various images of him in the media, but he had largely avoided the spotlight. His father’s massive shadow and formidable presence, much like Caroline Mulroney’s father, was always there — but in a good way.

When Trudeau spoke that day, it was the biggest audience of his young life. He did extremely well. His speech was emotional, powerful and deeply personal.

“Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The very words convey so many things to so many people,” he said. “Statesman, intellectual, professor, adversary, outdoorsman, lawyer, journalist, author, prime minister. But more than anything, to me, he was dad. And what a dad. He loved us with the passion and the devotion that encompassed his life. He taught us to believe in ourselves, to stand up for ourselves, to know ourselves and to accept responsibility for ourselves. We knew we were the luckiest kids in the world. And we had done nothing to actually deserve it.”

Advertisement 4

Article content

Recommended from Editorial

  1. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney with his wife Mila and Mikhail Gorbachev, at 24 Sussex Drive on May 29, 1990.

    Michael Taube: From trade to personal liberties, Brian Mulroney stood for freedom

  2. Caroline Mulroney speaks during the state funeral of her father, late former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney at Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal on March 23, 2024.

    ‘There was a destiny attached to my father’: Read Caroline Mulroney’s eulogy for Brian Mulroney

There’s also this passage which perfectly encapsulates Trudeau’s love for his father and what he believed he did for the nation. “My father’s fundamental belief never came from a textbook. It stemmed from his deep love for and faith in all Canadians and over the past few days, with every card, every rose, every tear, every wave and every pirouette, you returned his love … He left politics in ’84, but he came back for Meech, he came back for Charlottetown, he came back to remind us of who we are and what we’re all capable of.”

And finally, this concluding sentiment. “But he won’t be coming back any more. It’s all up to us — all of us — now. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. He has kept his promises and earned his sleep. Je t’aime, Papa.”

Mulroney and Trudeau, much like their fathers, are different people with different strengths, weaknesses and political ideologies. The similarities are equally impossible to ignore. Scions of two impressive public figures. Children who walk in the giant footsteps their fathers left behind. Two impressive eulogies at different points in their lives and careers that will be remembered forever.

There’s one other similarity that could be on the horizon. Trudeau used his eulogy to springboard into the public eye, politics and leadership. Mulroney is already in the public eye and politics. She unsuccessfully ran for the Ontario PC leadership in 2019, but didn’t have the presence, confidence or speaking ability that she did during her eulogy. That moment has finally arrived, and it’s up to her to use it as wisely as Trudeau did.

National Post

Article content

Comments

Join the Conversation

This Week in Flyers

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Holder bows out of politics ahead of election – Telegraph-Journal

Published

 on


Former cabinet minister is the latest Tory rebel to exit politics

Article content

Progressive Conservative stalwart Trevor Holder, the province’s longest-serving MLA in the legislature, is bowing out of politics, becoming the latest Tory rebel to make that call ahead of the provincial election.

Advertisement 2

Article content

In the legislature Thursday, Holder, who has served the Saint John riding of Portland-Simonds for the last 25 years and was a cabinet minister under three premiers, made the announcement, thanking all his colleagues “regardless of political stripe” who later rose in the House to give him a round of applause.

Article content

“All I ever wanted – along with all of you – was a chance to help make (New Brunswick) better than it already is,” said Holder, who described himself as a “north-end kid” from Saint John.

Holder didn’t make himself available to the media after his announcement. He also didn’t formally resign on Thursday, sending a note out to reporters that he “won’t be back in May” but hasn’t “set the official date yet” for his resignation.

News of his exit comes less than a year after Holder resigned as the province’s minister of post-secondary education, training and labour, citing the impact of Premier Blaine Higgs’s top-down leadership style on caucus decision-making.

Holder was the second minister to resign from cabinet last June amid Tory caucus infighting over changes to the province’s gender identity policy for public school students.

Fellow Saint John MLA and Tory stalwart Dorothy Shephard was the first to resign from cabinet last summer, giving up her post as minister of social development before announcing last week she won’t reoffer in the upcoming election this fall.

Shephard also cited Higgs’s leadership style in her decision to leave cabinet.

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

During his speech Thursday, Holder made a point to thank Higgs “for the conversations over the last number of days leading up to my decision here.”

Higgs later told media he didn’t know Holder’s exact plans for the future but knew the Saint John MLA had “opportunities.”

“He’s a great statesman in the legislature and certainly his care for his community is genuine,” the premier said.

When asked if he had addressed Holder’s concerns about caucus decision-making, Higgs said he thought so but acknowledged he’s “always struggled with things not getting done at a certain level of pace.”

“It’s rare if you ever come out of caucus or cabinet with unanimous decisions,” he said.

“There’s always a degree of differences, and that’s not going to change, but leadership requires real decisions and you’re not everything to everybody, so you do what you believe is right and you do with it conviction and you hope it’s just the right thing to do.”

Holder ‘a truly progressive conservative’: Coon

Both opposition leaders spoke glowingly of Holder’s commitment to provincial politics.

“He was a real asset to the legislature, he was a real pleasure to work with, so it’s a loss to see him leaving the legislative assembly,” Liberal leader Susan Holt told media Thursday.

That was echoed by Green leader David Coon.

“(Holder’s) very committed to improving our system of government and he’s made real contributions to doing so,” Coon said. “I’m sad to see him go. He’s truly a progressive conservative in the truest meaning of that term.”

Advertisement 4

Article content

In his 16-minute speech, Holder spoke of the importance of bipartisanship, describing his relationship with former Liberal cabinet minister Victor Boudreau.

They used to “tear each other” up in the House, Holder recalled, but “when I was in opposition, (Boudreau) helped me with my constituents, and when I was in government, I did my best to do the same for him – and this is how this legislature needs to work.”

First elected at the age of 25 in June 1999, Holder has won a total of six elections over the course of his 25-year provincial political career. He’s a former minister of environment and local government, tourism and parks, wellness, culture and sport, and tourism, heritage and culture. He also served as deputy speaker.

Holder thanked his wife Brenda Thursday, along with their two daughters, Margaret and Katherine, for their support over the course of his political career.

Holder’s and Shephard’s departure announcements are the latest in a string of changes within the Tory caucus ahead of the election.

In February, fellow Saint John colleague Arlene Dunn abruptly resigned from her ministerial and MLA duties. Meanwhile, colleagues Daniel Allain, Jeff Carr and Ross Wetmore – who were part of the Tory rebels who supported a Liberal motion on Policy 713 changes – have announced they won’t reoffer in the next election.

Wetmore had announced his retirement intentions before the Policy 713 kerfuffle.

Fellow rebel Andrea Anderson-Mason, MLA for Fundy-The Isles-Saint John West, has yet to announce her plans.

Article content

Comments

Join the Conversation

This Week in Flyers

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Opinion: Canada's foreign policy and its domestic politics on Israel's war against Hamas are shifting – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


The vote in the House of Commons last week on Israel’s war against Hamas represents a shift in both Canada’s foreign policy and its domestic politics.

The Liberal government is now markedly more supportive of the rights of Palestinians and less supportive of the state of Israel than in the past. That shift mirrors changing demographics, and the increasing importance of Muslim voters within the Liberal coalition.

Both the Liberal and Conservative parties once voiced unqualified support for Israel’s right to defend itself from hostile neighbours. But the Muslim community is growing in Canada. Today it represents 5 per cent of the population, compared with 1 per cent who identify as Jewish.

300x250x1

Although data is sparse prior to 2015, it is believed that Muslim Canadians tended to prefer the Liberal Party over the Conservative Party. They were also less likely to vote than the general population.

But the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper deeply angered the community with talk about “barbaric cultural practices” and musing during the 2015 election campaign about banning public servants from wearing the niqab. Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was promising to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada if elected.

These factors galvanized community groups to encourage Muslims to vote. And they did. According to an Environics poll, 79 per cent of eligible Muslims cast a ballot in the 2015 election, compared with an overall turnout of 68 per cent. Sixty-five per cent of Muslim voters cast ballots for the Liberal Party, compared with 10 per cent who voted for the NDP and just 2 per cent for the Conservatives. (Telephone interviews of 600 adults across Canada who self-identified as Muslim, were conducted between Nov. 19, 2015 and Jan. 23, 2016, with an expected margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points 19 times out of 20.)

Muslim Canadians also strongly supported the Liberals in the elections of 2019 and 2021. The party is understandably anxious not to lose that support. I’m told that Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly often mentions the large Muslim community in her Montreal riding. (According to the 2021 census, 18 per cent of the people in Ahuntsic-Cartierville identify as Muslim.)

This is one reason why the Liberal leadership laboured so mightily to find a way to support last week’s NDP motion that would, among other measures, have recognized the state of Palestine. The Liberal caucus was deeply divided on the issue. My colleague Marieke Walsh reports that dozens of Liberal MPs were prepared to vote for the NDP motion.

In the end, almost all Liberal MPs ended up voting for a watered-down version of the motion – statehood recognition was taken off the table – while three Liberal MPs voted against it. One of them, Anthony Housefather, is considering whether to remain inside the Liberal caucus.

This is not simply a question of political calculation. Many Canadians are deeply concerned over the sufferings of the people in Gaza as the Israel Defence Forces seek to root out Hamas fighters.

The Conservatives enjoy the moral clarity of their unreserved support for the state of Israel in this conflict. The NDP place greater emphasis on supporting the rights of Palestinians.

The Liberals have tried to keep both Jewish and Muslim constituencies onside. But as last week’s vote suggests, they increasingly accord a high priority to the rights of Palestinians and to the Muslim community in Canada.

As with other religious communities, Muslims are hardly monolithic. Someone who comes to Canada from Senegal may have different values and priorities than a Canadian who comes from Syria or Pakistan or Indonesia.

And the plight of Palestinians in Gaza may not be the only issue influencing Muslims, who struggle with inflation, interest rates and housing affordability as much as other voters.

Many new Canadians come from societies that are socially conservative. Some Muslim voters may be uncomfortable with the Liberal Party’s strong support for the rights of LGBTQ Canadians.

Finally, Muslim voters for whom supporting the rights of Palestinians is the ballot question may be drawn more to the NDP than the Liberals.

Regardless, the days of Liberal/Conservative bipartisan consensus in support of Israel are over. This is the new lay of the land.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending