Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ask Joe: Overcoming workplace polarization

Ask Joe: Overcoming workplace polarization

Hi Joe,

I’m wondering if you can give some insights to a dilemma I have at work. I’m the supervisor of a team that is made up of people who have different views about politics and other issues. Over the last couple of years, things have gotten worse. We are all trying our best to work together but it’s getting harder. We are losing trust and it seems so tense. We used to laugh with each other and get along. I’ve tried so many things. I don’t know what to do any more. You have any ideas? Thanks,


Hopeless Leader

Hey, Leader.

Sorry to hear it’s been tough. This is a core reason I put my ideas and practices together in my upcoming book, “Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace.” I explore the possible cause of that internal journey we’ve all taken from once being friends, or at least collegial, to now viewing each other as threats.

This is certainly a societal issue but, for your struggles, I’d like to offer perspectives on leadership and management. When I train leaders, I emphasize the importance of creating a work dynamic of safety and trust. This sets up the conditions for a work culture that is both inclusive and also functions with a strong structure of holding each other accountable with respect and compassion. This leads to mutual empowerment, where we can honor our differences and also choose to see each person at their best.

You say that there is a lack of trust. That may not be your fault, but what can you do to shift that? How can you model an empowered vulnerability and transparency that is not weak, but that encourages others to show up in a more authentic way. How can you inspire others to take more responsibility for fostering this kind of work culture? It starts with one person.

If we are not feeling safe, we inadvertently perceive any change, things that are different or unknowns as a threat. We close our hearts and focus on our differences and imperfections. I find that some of the core causes of what makes someone angry, oppositional or closing their heart comes from a core feeling or belief that they are feeling powerless, or not heard, seen or understood. Could this be what is happening with your team?

I would like to offer you an exercise I use in my Resilient Power Leadership program – a human-centered approach to leadership and management that increases productivity and minimizes burn-out. You would need to make the time for everyone in their busy schedules to be present and not rushed for this:

  • Clarify each person’s core values: Instead of focusing on the more outward characteristics of a person (political affiliation, religion, whom they choose to love), focus on what resides in the heart of each person. Ask them to all write down their top 10 values – for instance, efficiency, compassion, family, truth, joy, accountability. (If you’d like to explore this concept of values, there are many examples online, or check out my book, “Mastering Respectful Confrontation.”)
  • From the 10, ask them to choose the top five; then three. This can bring up emotions and surprises. Give the space for this.
  • Next, have each person share their top three with the group, and then ask the rest of the group to reflect back on how they have seen this person operate from this value.
  • After everyone has had a turn, write down on a flip chart or white board all of the top three values of each member of the team. Acknowledge where there is overlap and also acknowledge the diversity of what each person brings to create this unique team.
  • You may then ask the group if they are willing to commit to treat one another from these highest values moving forward, and also find a respectful way to hold each other accountable when they slip and forget.

There are many tips I can offer, but I feel this one addresses your question. By recognizing and celebrating the highest core values of each person, you transcend the things that cause separation, and then reorient with each other from a place of commonality. You help each other remember who they are at their best. Since I believe our values reside in the core of our hearts, we reveal more of who we are, setting up the conditions for more empowered vulnerability, safety and trust, cutting through the confusion and suspicion.

This may inspire you, Leader, to approach the situation from a place of hope and possibility. Instead of focusing exclusively on what separates and creates mistrust, use your creativity to get everyone back to what unites you and inspires you.

Trust your courageous heart,

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Make sure to c heck out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

To Ask Joe, please submit questions to: AskJoe@Fulcrum.us.

Read More

elementary school classroom
Urgent action is needed for our beloved public schools to renew civic life, writes Goodwin.
skynesher/Getty Images

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.

People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less