Periodically, I meet a few fellow consultants for a day's walking and talking. We call it cpd to feel good about it: and in truth, I often learn a lot by comparing experiences, sharing dilemmas, and stealing ideas...
Alan Sides suggested a while back that we should try a night walk, so we did that. Everyone was very keen on the idea, but as the February night approached, one by one they dropped out.
So it was only four of us, Alan, Mike Cockburn, Stephen Merckx and myself who undertook the walk. We left my house at about 10.45pm and drove to the bottom of Haweswater. Thence we climbed up an extremely icy path to Small Water.
The moon was a few days short of full, and very bright, the stars clear and twinkling, and the air crisp and very cold (-5 when we started).
From Small Water - beautiful and atmospheric in the moonlight - we climbed up to Nan Bield Pass, where we got the full force of the wind. Thence onwards and upwards, right onto High Street Summit at Racecourse Hill. The ice was slippery, and the snow was deep: it was all much harder work than we had foreseen. Fortunately we were all pretty fit, and had all kitted ourselves out appropriately.
From Racecourse Hill we walked over successively lower hills, one after the other, until Loadpot, the last summit of the walk. In my memory (and it was a bit dark for maps, as the moon had set at about 5.00 and it was now nearly 5.30) it was a fairly short walk down form Racecourse Hill onto Askham Fell and so home.
Not so, but far otherwise: it was another 2 hours before we got back to Helton (via a small detour, due to the paths being completely hidden by the snow).
Breakfast has rarely tasted so good.
I enjoyed the experience greatly, as I think the others did too.
We did talk a fair bit, but much of the walk was in silence: so in terms of cpd it didn't quite live up to expectations. But if the others are still talking to me after I led them on such a tough expedition, I'm sure I'll learn plenty more form them next time.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Organisational Integrity (ii)
Here's what lay behind my post before Christmas.
A client had approached me and asked me to design and run an awayday for them. We had met and discussed the needs, and agreed a draft design for the day, a date and so on.
Then they said that we would have to go through a tendering process. (I was slightly surprised at this, as the value of the event was not high, and I was already on an approved suppliers' register, following a previous 'framework' tender).
But what concerned me was that:
A) Either I was the only person being asked to tender, in which case it seemed entirely meaningless (particularly as one of their organisational priorities is reducing meaningless work...);
B) Or they were inviting others to tender, in which case:
A client had approached me and asked me to design and run an awayday for them. We had met and discussed the needs, and agreed a draft design for the day, a date and so on.
Then they said that we would have to go through a tendering process. (I was slightly surprised at this, as the value of the event was not high, and I was already on an approved suppliers' register, following a previous 'framework' tender).
But what concerned me was that:
A) Either I was the only person being asked to tender, in which case it seemed entirely meaningless (particularly as one of their organisational priorities is reducing meaningless work...);
B) Or they were inviting others to tender, in which case:
- Either they had really decided to use me, but were going through the motions (wasting their own and others' time, and compromising their integrity) or
- It was a real competition, in which case I had been misled earlier, when we had agreed that I would do the work, on a specific date etc (on the basis of which I did the (admittedly small amount of) consultation and design at no cost).
Further, I was expected to sign declarations of non-collusion, non-canvassing etc, including a statement that I had not talked with anyone at the organisation about this bit of work.
That was clearly a nonsense, and I could not sign it.
The good news is that I have talked all this through with the appropriate senior managers, they agree with my analysis that the system has thrown up something which, inadvertently, goes against a number of their own principles of operation, and they are sorting it out.
But as a supplier, it can be hard to raise such issues ('I can't sign that!') if one fears one may lose a contract, or even a client. There must be a better way...
Monday, 12 December 2011
Organisational Integrity
I am increasingly interested in the ways in which processes intended to increase transparency, fairness etc can sometimes drive people within organisations to act in ways that are lacking in honesty and integrity.
I am not attributing any ill-will here, or intention to deceive, but rather noticing that the cumulative effect of some processes and their collision with other organisational needs (both strategic and pragmatic) can have some unintended consequences that make the organisation look dishonest.
I will blog more on this shortly, when I have more time and when I have discussed the specific issue that has brought this into sharp focus with the appropriate senior managers...
I am not attributing any ill-will here, or intention to deceive, but rather noticing that the cumulative effect of some processes and their collision with other organisational needs (both strategic and pragmatic) can have some unintended consequences that make the organisation look dishonest.
I will blog more on this shortly, when I have more time and when I have discussed the specific issue that has brought this into sharp focus with the appropriate senior managers...
Monday, 28 November 2011
Startling creativity
All of which could be said of his new product, just launched - a wii for wee, or pretty nearly... You play games by directing your... well, that's enough detail I think. Suffice to say that it's a men only game, for very practical reasons.
Initially I wondered if it was a joke, but a quick glance at the company wwwsite persuaded me that it has real commercial possibilities.
Astonishingly creative idea - and yet...
Please remember to wash your hands.
Friday, 18 November 2011
Resilience
I have been reflecting a lot on resilience recently (which I am considering as the ability to work under increasing pressures without a stress response). As preparation for some Stress Management workshops, I have been reviewing some of the most recent research (see for example Margaret Chesney’s lecture, available via iTunes University: “New Scientific Strategies for Managing Stress, Building Resilience and Bringing Balance to Life [Show ID: 20631]”)
I have also been coaching a number of people experiencing both chronic and acute pressures, and reflecting on what has helped them - and in some cases their remarkable and humbling resilience.
What has proved interesting is the degree to which the most recent research gives ever-more solid underpinnings for the four-fold framework which I have been working with. (Chesney talks explicitly about three strands, the physical (both physiological and behavioural) the mental, and the relational or social/emotional. To these I add the existential/spiritual - dealing with issues of meaning and value. That relates to my interest in Viktor Frankl, and also echoes Covey's framework in 7 Habits and First Things First. And Chesney refers to it tacitly on several occasions: the importance of purpose, meaning and value.
Of course, this is all linked to my interest in narratives: the interpretations that people place upon their experiences, which can have a huge impact on positive affect - which is what all four strands are designed to support (and again, Chesney has the research to demonstrate the links between positive affect and resilience.)
And as someone who attended a recent workshop pointed out, there is nothing new under the sun. The classic Christian virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are a good bedrock for meaning, values, positive relationships, and positive affect generally - and similar underpinnings may be found in many other ancient and traditional wisdoms, with which I am less familiar.
The other area I am keen to explore, and possibly integrate more fully into my work on resilience, is humour. I have been intrigued by Metcalf's Humor Risk and Change programme and am sure he is onto something (though his presentation doesn't always play well with a British audience). So I am on the look-out for any research on humour and resilience - any clues?
I have also been coaching a number of people experiencing both chronic and acute pressures, and reflecting on what has helped them - and in some cases their remarkable and humbling resilience.
What has proved interesting is the degree to which the most recent research gives ever-more solid underpinnings for the four-fold framework which I have been working with. (Chesney talks explicitly about three strands, the physical (both physiological and behavioural) the mental, and the relational or social/emotional. To these I add the existential/spiritual - dealing with issues of meaning and value. That relates to my interest in Viktor Frankl, and also echoes Covey's framework in 7 Habits and First Things First. And Chesney refers to it tacitly on several occasions: the importance of purpose, meaning and value.
Of course, this is all linked to my interest in narratives: the interpretations that people place upon their experiences, which can have a huge impact on positive affect - which is what all four strands are designed to support (and again, Chesney has the research to demonstrate the links between positive affect and resilience.)
And as someone who attended a recent workshop pointed out, there is nothing new under the sun. The classic Christian virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are a good bedrock for meaning, values, positive relationships, and positive affect generally - and similar underpinnings may be found in many other ancient and traditional wisdoms, with which I am less familiar.
The other area I am keen to explore, and possibly integrate more fully into my work on resilience, is humour. I have been intrigued by Metcalf's Humor Risk and Change programme and am sure he is onto something (though his presentation doesn't always play well with a British audience). So I am on the look-out for any research on humour and resilience - any clues?
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Brain Myths
Fascinating programme on the brain on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon - Mind Myths, still available on iplayer - busting popular myths about the brain. Perhaps the most notable is the canard that we only use 10% of our brains, leaving the rest dormant (and of course full of potential for scammers selling techniques to activate or access it). Dale Carnegie was, apparently, the first to put the 10% myth into print in his hugely influential How to win friends and influence people. However, brain scanning demonstrates the fallacy of this myth; and is somewhat humbling in revealing that motor action tends to require more of our brain than high level thinking...
The style is somewhat irritating, with regular jingles put in, presumably on the assumption that our attention span is only 20 seconds (another myth, in my view...) but when the experts are allowed to speak, it is really interesting; not least in exploring the origins of some of these myths, and the degree to which they have some basis in reality.
The bit I found least convincing was the debunking of the left brain/right brain issue. It seems to me, listening to the evidence, that there are significant differences between the different hemispheres (left brain is sensitive to language, right brain to melody, for example). I thought that to some extent they set up a straw man by taking the most simplistic and exaggerated left brain/right brain ideas to attack. Certainly the work on creative thinking that I have studied and which I work with all stresses the fact that it is the whole brain working effectively that is likely to be most creative; and further that talk of left brain as processing logic and right brain as dealing with relationship is a metaphor - but one based on the neuroscience.
Well worth a listen, though...
The style is somewhat irritating, with regular jingles put in, presumably on the assumption that our attention span is only 20 seconds (another myth, in my view...) but when the experts are allowed to speak, it is really interesting; not least in exploring the origins of some of these myths, and the degree to which they have some basis in reality.
The bit I found least convincing was the debunking of the left brain/right brain issue. It seems to me, listening to the evidence, that there are significant differences between the different hemispheres (left brain is sensitive to language, right brain to melody, for example). I thought that to some extent they set up a straw man by taking the most simplistic and exaggerated left brain/right brain ideas to attack. Certainly the work on creative thinking that I have studied and which I work with all stresses the fact that it is the whole brain working effectively that is likely to be most creative; and further that talk of left brain as processing logic and right brain as dealing with relationship is a metaphor - but one based on the neuroscience.
Well worth a listen, though...
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Foxy Knoxy or Inspector Clouseau?
The power of narrative in public opinion has been made very clear by the Knox trial, appeal and acquittal.
On the one hand, the prosecutors invited us to believe in Knox as a sexual predator whose over the top games ended in the death of her flat mate.
On the other hand, the defence put before us a story of police ineptitude, with evidence collected late and without sufficient care, calling into question the DNA samples that provided the link between Knox and the knife.
Which story we find more credible is likely to have a strong influence on how we interpret the evidence: was Knox callous or inconsolable when seen in her lover's arms soon after the body of her flatmate was found? And so on.
What we tend to find is that once a preferred story is settled on by an individual (you or me) or a group (police, media...) all the evidence in the world can be interpreted to fit that story.
It is no coincidence that Knox's family hired a PR consultant to help them to present a different narrative to the world, particularly the press. And it's interesting (though sad) to note that a neutral narrative (such as 'she didn't do it, we don't know much else') is much less appealing to the press either than the Foxy Knoxy narrative, which is sufficiently salacious, or the police ineptitude narrative (particularly foreign police ineptitude!) which eventually won the day.
On the one hand, the prosecutors invited us to believe in Knox as a sexual predator whose over the top games ended in the death of her flat mate.
On the other hand, the defence put before us a story of police ineptitude, with evidence collected late and without sufficient care, calling into question the DNA samples that provided the link between Knox and the knife.
Which story we find more credible is likely to have a strong influence on how we interpret the evidence: was Knox callous or inconsolable when seen in her lover's arms soon after the body of her flatmate was found? And so on.
What we tend to find is that once a preferred story is settled on by an individual (you or me) or a group (police, media...) all the evidence in the world can be interpreted to fit that story.
It is no coincidence that Knox's family hired a PR consultant to help them to present a different narrative to the world, particularly the press. And it's interesting (though sad) to note that a neutral narrative (such as 'she didn't do it, we don't know much else') is much less appealing to the press either than the Foxy Knoxy narrative, which is sufficiently salacious, or the police ineptitude narrative (particularly foreign police ineptitude!) which eventually won the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
