In recent weeks news reporters and political commentators have been heard to question the values of politicians and political parties. Concerns too are expressed about a politician attacking the person, rather than addressing the issue when a critical view is expressed.

Where is such behaviour going to take us?

Leadership requires a clear vision and motivation of the team to implement that vision. Where significant changes need to be introduced, how best can this be done? Some leaders impose force of personality to implement change. Others think repetition will achieve agreement. Some obfuscate and avoid answering the question.

The art of persuasion, by expressing and debating one’s most firmly held belief is the most appropriate and enduring. Achieving an objective is an art, based on the psychology of negotiation. To be a successful negotiator a clear objective to achieve the desired outcome is required, as too is an understanding of the other party’s position with a judgement of the best, the worst and the most realistic outcome. All social dialogue comes into play, not just the spoken word, the way in which it is delivered, but the emotion and the body language to get the message across for the receiving party to understand, how firmly the resistance to the opposite argument is
held.

I do not express any views as to the appropriateness, or otherwise of Brexit, but to remove ‘no deal’ from the table leaves the negotiator with no room to move and effectively neuters their position. In removing the ‘no deal’ option is this a way of avoiding the democratic choice of the people? Obfuscating ethical critiscm about racial or religious actions brings into question the values held, how will that person be perceived if those value are not maintained?

As in business leadership, I expect our politicians to be responsible and ethical. It is disappointing when these values are not upheld.

Kevan Carrick – Chair of NIBE