Beyond the Corbyn-Sultana drama there are hidden workplace lessons from a public meltdown

Two political figures tearing strips off each other in public whilst the media circles like vultures. It's already cooling down, with both now saying they're working towards the national conference in November…but the damage caused was swift and extremely public.

I don't work in politics. I work with organisations where I've seen exactly this kind of breakdown happen behind closed doors. The same patterns, the same frustrations, the same spectacular communication failures. Just without the cameras or the quick public reconciliation.

It always starts small.

In my experience, these meltdowns rarely begin with the big public row. They start with a misunderstood email. Someone feels their project isn't getting the support it deserves. A leader feels unseen, unheard, watching their funding get cut whilst less important initiatives sail through.

Last week, during a coaching conversation with a client, we talked about how they're leading a part of the business that simply isn't a priority right now. They're frustrated by the lack of material support and the feeling that they're constantly fighting for resources.

It's feels familiar; executives reaching breaking point, and add to that, working in silo (which so many of us do, particularly since Covid), it can feel like a pressure cooker waiting to explode.

To offer a different perspective, I asked my client, "What else is happening in your organisation? Are there other departments, projects, or ways to contribute that could reignite your sense of purpose?"

What struck me about the Corbyn-Sultana situation wasn't the politics. It was how familiar the pattern felt. Two people who probably started with good intentions, watching their relationship deteriorate because nobody had a framework for managing the inevitable tensions that come with leadership.

Where the real issue lies.

The failure wasn't in having different views. Organisations need that. The failure was in having no way to work through those differences constructively. When you favour individual success over collective outcomes, everyone's protecting their own patch…This is when communication can turn into weapons rather than a tools.

I've seen this play out in boardrooms where executives stop talking to each other, preferring to communicate through intermediaries or, worse, through public positioning. The moment you start managing your reputation instead of managing the relationship, you're in trouble.

When someone's core values get challenged or undermined, that's when things get really messy. I've watched talented people leave organisations not because of workload or money, but because they couldn't reconcile what they believed in with what they were being asked to do.

When trust gets eroded at that level, moving on is probably the best thing unless you have a lot of time to rebuild. Most of us don't.

When I'm working with leaders caught in these situations, I use what I call the LACE framework. It's not complicated, but it works:

Listening means actually hearing what's underneath the frustration. When someone's kicking off about budget cuts, they're usually not really angry about money. They're angry about feeling undervalued. When you listen properly, you hear the real issue.

Accountability is about owning your bit without making excuses. Maybe you didn't communicate your concerns early enough. Maybe you let assumptions build up instead of having the difficult conversation.

Collaboration shifts the question from "who's winning this argument?" to "what actually needs to happen here?" I've facilitated sessions where people who weren't speaking to each other suddenly realise they're trying to solve the same problem from different angles.

Empathy recognises that everyone's under pressure. That executive who seems unreasonable might be dealing with impossible targets, a team that's stretched too thin, or senior leadership that keeps changing direction.

What really worries me about the current climate is how combative communication gets rewarded. Look at Trump's Twitter approach, Musk's provocative posts, Farage's confrontational style. They've all gained influence through conflict, not collaboration.

This creates a dangerous template. Leaders start thinking that being aggressive shows strength, that compromise shows weakness. When even progressive political figures resort to public feuding, it reinforces the idea that leadership is about winning arguments rather than solving problems.

If you're dealing with a communications breakdown, whether it's public like Corbyn and Sultana, or private like most of the ones I see, here's what helps:

Talk privately first. Before you copy in half the organisation on that strongly-worded email, pick up the phone. Most conflicts escalate because people stop having direct conversations.

Remember what you're actually trying to achieve. In the heat of the moment, it's easy to forget that you're supposed to be on the same side. What are the outcomes you both want? Start there.

Think about tomorrow. Before you send that email or make that statement, ask yourself: "Will this make it easier or harder to work together next week?"

Sometimes, though, the relationship is beyond repair. I've worked with executives who've tried everything. The private conversations, the mediated discussions, the attempts to find common ground. Sometimes the culture is so toxic, the silo mentality so entrenched, that the best option really is to look elsewhere.

There's no shame in that. If you've genuinely tried to make it work and the other party isn't interested in collaboration, protecting your own wellbeing and career might mean moving on.

The Corbyn-Sultana situation seems to be settling down already. Both are now focused on November's national conference. That's actually encouraging. It suggests that when there's a bigger shared goal, people can step back from the immediate conflict and remember what they're supposed to be working towards.

Whether you're dealing with political figures or corporate executives, the principles are the same: mature, respectful disagreement is possible, but it requires intention and skill.

For those of us watching from the sidelines, our job isn't to pick sides. It's to model the kind of communication we want to see more of.

Collaborative leadership is still possible. It just takes more work than shouting at each other on social media.

___________________

Simon Phillips is a leadership expert, keynote speaker and founder of The Change Maker Group

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.