Friday 24 September 2010

Election Campaigns: Professionalism and Integrity or Pot-shots and Personal Attacks

It’s election time again and as usual we are being treated to an ongoing level of drama and theatrics that is on par with a good Broadway play. However, the ongoing acrimony between some of the mayoralty candidates in the race for Ottawa mayor is a distraction from the serious issues facing Ottawa citizens and the city. And it’s frustrating for citizens who are looking for solid and credible leadership and clarity on what is planned by each candidate.

But isn’t this just what citizens should expect when there is a volatile political race underway? After all – politics is all about making points where you can and minimizing the hits someone else can take against you… isn’t it?

It may be the historical tradition but is it an effective strategy during an election campaign? Is it an acceptable strategy for politicians in general? And what is the cost??

What is voter reaction to this as a strategy?


When politicians and candidates are busy taking pot-shots at each other, it sets a tone of unprofessionalism and nastiness that quite frankly does not endear them to voters and does little to build confidence and trust in our leaders. I assume that the idea is based on the misguided premise that voters are OK with it. Many years ago as a child l learned from my grandmother that “we don’t make ourselves look bigger by making someone else look smaller”. It would appear to be a lesson lost on many politicians and candidates.

In my experience, much of the cynicism and skepticism that pervades our society with respect to our political system is linked to a lack of credibility and trust in our politicians. It would seem to me that if politicians are serious about wanting to increase the number of people who take our democratic political system seriously enough to show up on Election Day and cast their vote, there is a need for this credibility issue to be tackled head on.

If we look at the great leaders of history, they are characterized by a level of personal integrity and professionalism that precludes succumbing to the temptation to slip into personal attacks, partial truths, unsubstantiated accusations and misinformation. It is hard to imagine Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Ed Broadbent, Winston Churchill or JF Kennedy stooping to personal attacks, unsubstantiated attacks and innuendo to make their point.

What are the long term implications?

There is an old African proverb that says “When 2 elephants fight it’s the grass that suffers the most”. The greatest casualty of a dirty political campaign is serious discussion of serious issues requiring serious solutions. There is a need for frank and candid discussions regarding the major decisions required to take the city and the country forward into the next decades. When those discussions get mired in nastiness and the focus of the discussions is lost, we all lose.

When we elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, we are entrusting them with the future of this country, its citizens and our contribution to the solution of global problems. We have no shortage of major problems requiring serious and credible solutions. Canadians have a right to expect leadership, integrity and credibility from their politicians – it is what we elect them to provide as they make critical decisions. Where is the professionalism in personal attacks and mud-slinging?

So as voters choose which candidate they will support in this or any election, that choice is dictated at least in part by how candidates conduct themselves during the election campaign but also between elections. After all, how you do anything is how you do everything. And s/he who slings dirt, loses ground – at least for many voters!

The Conflict Resolution Workout!!

Give some thought to times when you have been in a 'competition' with someone else with whom you disagreed.

1. What were you thinking at the time?

2. What did you you tell yourself about them?

3. How did you react? How did they react?

4. What could you have done that would have been more constructive?

Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organizational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com

Thursday 23 September 2010

What Is the Level of Toxicity In Your Organization or Workplace?

Where Are You On The Conflict Curve?

If you have a pond and on Day 1 in the pond there is 1 lily pad in the pond.
Every day the number of lily pads in the pond doubles.
On Day 30 the pond is completely full of lily pads.
When is the pond half full?

When it comes to conflict, workplaces, groups and organizations react much like ponds and lily pads. In the early stages it seems that everything is going well and things are fine. The impact of conflicts rarely shows up as a linear progression  - it more closely approximates an exponential Time Delay curve. The impact of this is that in the early stages it is difficult to see what is happening as the changes will be subtle and imperceptible. By the time things deteriorate to where the problems become visible, the organization is often on the brink of crisis and the working environment has become toxic. High turnover rates, complaints, grievances, disgruntled employees and reduced productivity are typical. At this point remediation of the situation is often difficult, costly (in both human and $$ terms) and time consuming. It can be tough to get employees engaged in making changes as fear of repercussions, cynicism and skepticism are normal. 

In answer to the question above -Because the number of lily pads in the pond doubles every day, the pond is half full on Day 29… Recognition and acknowledgment of the severity problems often happens between Day 25 and Day 29 as it gets harder to deny and avoid the problems at this stage. However, by this point the organization is in serious crisis. So it is important to know where your organization is at on the curve.The earlier the problems are recognized the easier (and cheaper) it is to deal with them.


















Timing is as important as strategy in addressing conflict situations. It is critical to choose the strategy that will best fit the situation at this point in time. A good strategy used at the wrong time can actually make the situation worse.




So ultimately, the ideal is to employ strategies that will help an organization get to and maintain a position on the Time Curve somewhere between Days 1-15 over the long term. But it is not enough to just get to that stage; the critical factor here is the willingness to recognize that conflict is not bad and should not be ignored – after all nothing ever changes without conflict in some form and the willingness to invest in resolutions that have the capacity to address things thoroughly. Ultimately an organization that is willing to invest in achieving this goal and is able to maintain that position will be in good shape to weather the storms of conflict when they hit and will have the flexibility and robustness to survive in the world of business


The Conflict Resolution Workout!!

Think of an organization or group to which you belong and objectively assess the situation (or at least as objectively as you can) by asking yourself:

1. Where ‘Day’ are we on the Time Delay Curve?
2. If I asked others in the organization what ‘Day’ they see us at – what would they say?
3. What factors are contributing to the discrepancy (if there is one) between where I believe we are at and where they believe we are at?
4. What strategies have we used to address the situation so far?
5. How did it work?
6. Do we need help?

Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organizational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com