However, there has been a recent turn of events. Relationships between friends have been strained and suspicion and distrust arose within the committee. It all started when Bob* decided to re-run for the next committee after the current members have stepped down.
Bob had always been everybody's friend. He was always the entertainer, the food expert and "the nice guy". Hence, you can imagine the shock the judging panel suffered, when he spoke ill of his fellow committee members during an interview, specifically of those who he had encouraged to re-run for the next election with him. He picked on their flaws and shortcomings, informed the panel of his ideal "elite committee members" and criticized the people who he wanted out.
His ideals for the club's future directions were also entirely different from what the club had been for the past two decades; it was as if he wanted a major revolution and transform the club into something corporate, something that will yield a high profit turnover.
After the interview, the panel came together and had many discussions about Bob. On one hand, Bob, with his experience,leadership skills and popularity with the candidates, he definitely stand a high chance of winning the election. On the other hand, the judging panel is reluctant to handover the reins to Bob and many have expressed concern and unhappiness towards his two-faced personality.
As I was not there during his interview and all that I know of are hear-say, I have no right to make any comments or to take anybody's side. Maybe Bob had the club interests in mind and he felt that he had to be honest during the interview but unfortunately, put his ideas across wrongly and was misunderstood? But fact is that his speech had outraged all 14 of the members of the judging panel. The panel wants him to withdraw from the election, but has no idea how to put it across to him without use of underhand methods, but nobody is brave enough to step forward to confront Bob in fear of causing bad blood between the club and him.
What do you think the panel should do? Do you think its fair to judge based on hear-say and be swayed towards the majority, since the majority cannot be "too wrong", right? Or not?
*Name has been changed.
Hello Yuan Ru,
ReplyDeleteI guess Bob's approach might have been too direct and informal, coming off as harsh. I suppose he should've been more professional with regards to how he appraised his fellow candidates during the interview.
I suppose its hard to take sides but my suggestion would be to talk to Bob personally to find out his stance and direction he has in mind for the club. If he is sincere in bringing the club forward, then maybe you could mediate between the panel and Bob.
Yup, thats my view on the situation.
cheers,
aldrich
Dear Yuan Ru,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting "real life" scenario. You describe Bob quite well, and you make the nature of the conflict fairly clear. I also find the cartoon amazingly appropriate. Great job finding and using that! There are a few areas in your telling, however, that I find could have been further explained. For example, who conducted the interview? How did the information Bob gave in that get back to the committee members?
Since so much of the basis for the conflict rests on what Bob said about others, that needs to be made more obvious. You also mention the club's direction in the previous 20 years, but you shouldn't assume that we readers understand that.
Finally, there are a few spots where you can improve the language use. (For example: Maybe Bob had the club interests in mind and he felt that he had to be honest during the interview but unfortunately, put his ideas across wrongly and was misunderstood?)
You can actually edit this text to make it clearer. (Maybe even ask your blogging buddy to help.) Thank you for all your effort!
Hi Yuan Ru,
ReplyDeleteYour post is engaging as it describes the seemingly two-faced character type that we all have probably encountered at one time or another.
I think it is not right to judge Bob based on hearsay as we should give others the benefit of doubt and be empathetic to their situation. What if the interview panel misinterpreted his speech? He may well have said things in a joking manner by using contradictory/incongruent body language which was missed by the members on the panel.
I am plunging into the realm of cynicism here, but it may even be possible that the members of the panel are out to sabotage Bob's chances of winning the election. This is especially true if they are not able to be impartial. Perhaps the panel members have friends who are vying for the same post as Bob?
In summary, I think it is best to rely on one's intuition rather than mere hearsay. Never go along with the crowd if you feel something is amiss. On the other hand, don't be too cynical and imaginative like me, as that brings about its own set of problems.
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late reply. Actually, I kind of regretted posting this entry up on the worldwide web because it created quite a commotion within the club.
I deeply apologise to Wen Jun, Brad and Aldrich for neglecting your comments.
In my opinion, I guess this can be treated as a valuable lesson. It is definitely a mistake on my part to post this to the public when it was supposed to be kept within the club. I did not consider the consequences of this blog entry being leaked out/chanced upon by the people in concern.
Guess its right when the saying goes, " Do not air your dirty linen in public "
):