As Demonstrated In Brexit: How Do You Include A Former Opponent?
The Brexit Referendum has come and gone, and through it the people of the United Kingdom–England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland–decided to leave the European Union with the decision to leave winning by a relatively slim margin. There are various reasons both sides of the argument supported their side and opposed the other when it came to the vote of whether or not to stay with the bloc of 28 member states in Europe that served, overall, as a “single market.” The status of the UK in the EU has many implications from a financial, economic, trade, and ethnographic, among other considerations.
Related Post: Everyone’s A Customer
Soon after the vote, Prime Minister David Cameron, who campaigned for and supported the UK to remain in the EU, announced his resignation, stating that another person would be better suited to carry Britain through the transition process of the exit.
Theresa May, another member of Cameron’s Conservative Party and a fellow supporter of the former campaign to “remain,” has now become Britain’s new Prime Minister.
This week she started putting together her cabinet and courted scrutiny right away when she appointed controversial figure Boris Johnson, who vehemently supported the Brexit, as her Foreign Secretary. The world demonstrated a full spectrum of reactions to Minister May’s decision.
Related Post: Success: Is It Mine, Yours, or Ours?
In general, is it a wise step to work with your former opponent to make sure that all concerns of an issue are covered? Or is it a poor strategic step to include someone who fought hard against what it is you wanted? If you share one homeland or country, mission or environment, it’s in your best interest to work with all sides of the issues, right?
In the Middle: Specific personalities, politics or beliefs aside, should someone work to bring in their previous opponent into the fold?
So…What About You?
- How do you view the need to include your former opponents in the work going forward?
- Have you seen cases where this worked and benefited the mission? Where it was a detriment and derailed efforts?
- In what way would you make sure that all the views are acknowledged as best as possible, and not just your own?