The Ultimate Conflict in the Workplace
Conflict resolution is a necessary skill for anyone who manages a large number of people. Regardless of how well employees typically get along, if you have a large enough group of people working together for a long enough period of time, conflicts will erupt. Sources of conflict can occur due to anything from minor annoyances to personal grudge. There are also the three taboo subjects that can lead to infighting - politics, sex, and religion. Most companies have a policy (official or unofficial) that these issues should not be discussed in the workplace to avoid potential disagreements. However, what happens when politics is the job?
When a subject is considered such a hot-button issue that most people cannot discuss it at work, how can we expect our nation's leaders to tackle issues when they are, in fact, politicians? How can Republicans and Democrats in Washington be expected to work together for the common good when the very issues that they discuss are deemed too volatile for regular discussion amongst their voters? Will Washington ever be able to agree on anything other than rooting for the Washington Redskins on fall Sundays?
The honest answer to each of these questions is that they often cannot. Party line voting is more common now than ever before. Many representatives are more interested in getting pork for their constituents than doing what is best for the nation as a whole. Too many political Leaders are constantly blaming the other side for things not getting done, which further prevents anything real from getting accomplished. Political life is more about appeasing the motivated minority (angry extremes) than it is doing what is best for the majority. How many careers can you think of that have seen a man nearly beaten to death with a cane in the workplace (as Preston Brooks did to Charles Sumner in Congress 1856)?
It is not like the citizenry is innocent in this either. Talk radio and television news is constantly becoming more divisive. Why? Because ratings are based on who can be the loudest and furthest to a political extreme. "Balanced" reporting means combining two extreme viewpoints from opposite ends of the spectrum. Moderate viewpoints are rarely represented by any national media - primarily because they do not receive any attention from a populace that is more focused on volume and controversy than that which is practical and reasonable.
Washington needs a hard lesson on conflict resolution. Simply avoiding political issues does not work in a workplace where the goal is to resolve...political issues. This country needs to get back to the basics - which means working together to solve the major issues. Jamestown colony would not have been the first permanent (European) settlement in the New World if the founders had decided that quarrels over immigration and tax cuts for the wealthy were more important than making sure that each person had access to the basic necessities. Now, more than ever, the United States government needs real leaders to bring the country together and help the citizenry see the forest through the trees (even if we are dealing with big trees). Unfortunately, looking at the list of available candidates from either party, I see no one who fits this description...
When a subject is considered such a hot-button issue that most people cannot discuss it at work, how can we expect our nation's leaders to tackle issues when they are, in fact, politicians? How can Republicans and Democrats in Washington be expected to work together for the common good when the very issues that they discuss are deemed too volatile for regular discussion amongst their voters? Will Washington ever be able to agree on anything other than rooting for the Washington Redskins on fall Sundays?
The honest answer to each of these questions is that they often cannot. Party line voting is more common now than ever before. Many representatives are more interested in getting pork for their constituents than doing what is best for the nation as a whole. Too many political Leaders are constantly blaming the other side for things not getting done, which further prevents anything real from getting accomplished. Political life is more about appeasing the motivated minority (angry extremes) than it is doing what is best for the majority. How many careers can you think of that have seen a man nearly beaten to death with a cane in the workplace (as Preston Brooks did to Charles Sumner in Congress 1856)?
It is not like the citizenry is innocent in this either. Talk radio and television news is constantly becoming more divisive. Why? Because ratings are based on who can be the loudest and furthest to a political extreme. "Balanced" reporting means combining two extreme viewpoints from opposite ends of the spectrum. Moderate viewpoints are rarely represented by any national media - primarily because they do not receive any attention from a populace that is more focused on volume and controversy than that which is practical and reasonable.
Washington needs a hard lesson on conflict resolution. Simply avoiding political issues does not work in a workplace where the goal is to resolve...political issues. This country needs to get back to the basics - which means working together to solve the major issues. Jamestown colony would not have been the first permanent (European) settlement in the New World if the founders had decided that quarrels over immigration and tax cuts for the wealthy were more important than making sure that each person had access to the basic necessities. Now, more than ever, the United States government needs real leaders to bring the country together and help the citizenry see the forest through the trees (even if we are dealing with big trees). Unfortunately, looking at the list of available candidates from either party, I see no one who fits this description...
Source...