The Pursuit of Happiness

At Cardiff Futures this week, we had a session with the inspirational Aileen Richards. She had a long corporate career with Mars, and is the first woman on the Board of the Welsh Rugby Union.

She raised many interesting aspects of leadership, illustrated by anecdotes from her 30 years of corporate experience, and led a highly-engaged discussion with participants. 

One point she made that has been causing me to reflect was based on an article about parenting that she had read many years ago. It started by reflecting that most parents say; 'I just want my children to be happy.' That sounds a bit motherhood-and-apple-pie. But, the article continued, what they should say is; 'I just want my children to be kind.' 

The point was that is people are kind, happiness will follow, as will other good things. And I think that there is much truth in that.  But I have also been reflecting on the other part of the proposition: the pursuit of happiness (which is famously written into the US Declaration of Independence. 

For I think implicit in the idea Aileen was proposing, and made more explicit in other contexts, is the notion that happiness is actually a by-product of other things. The direct pursuit of happiness is likely to be counter-productive - for it provokes a focus on the self, and on one's own state of mind and emotion that is likely to lead to a selfish outlook: and it is a matter of common observation that selfish people don't tend to be happy.  Conversely, if one considers the truly happy people one knows, it is pretty clear that they don't focus on pursuing happiness: they have more meaningful things to do with their lives. 

Of course, Aristotle was on the case, back in the day: he maintained that true happiness is to be found by pursuing the virtues.  And I think he may have been onto something.

Media Training

This week we had the media training at Cardiff, as part of the Futures programme. I always enjoy this module. The first sessions were about the context and some experiences with the media, with Claire Sanders, who is Communications Director for the University, kicking off, with a very interesting overview of her team's strategy and work.  Then we had Richard Sambrook, who was with the BBC for thirty years, ending as Director of the World Service and Global News. He is now a professor at Cardiff, and gave a great insight into the world of news stories.  He was followed by Chris Chambers, another Cardiff professor, who has his own fascinating story to tell about being misrepresented by the media, getting caught up in a media frenzy, and now working with colleagues to improve the reporting of science in the media, including conducting fascinating research into University press releases.

For the rest of the event, we worked with Karen Ainley and Kevin Bentley, of Mosaic. they are both ex-BBC journalists, and they trained us in the art of radio and television interviews; first by getting us to understand the nature of the medium and the importance of key messages, and then by mock interviews on radio and TV. They were both excellent.

As we were working in BBC Wales, we had the benefits of a proper studio, with some of the Cardiff media team operating the cameras, sound and mixing desks. We also had a tour of the studios, which was both educational and extremely interesting.

I, too, did a couple of interviews, both to show solidarity with the participants, and to keep my hand in - and in fact the TV one may well appear on this blog in due course, as it was a shameless plug for my book, which I have finally finished, and is currently being proof-read.

Everyone was buzzing by the end of the programme, and many said how much they had learned and how much they had enjoyed the programme.

 

 

 
 

Singing to Break the Ice

I was intrigued to read the research from Oxford about singing as the most effective way to break the ice with groups.

I read this just as I was starting running a Leadership Programme with the VC at Winchester University, for 20 or so academics and professional services staff. 

So it seemed a good idea to apply the research. The question was, what to get them to sing.  I decided on monophonic (rather than say, barbershop!) music, as I wanted to work within my own limitations, and did not want to spend too long on the exercise.

But I also wanted something that would be challenging, new to them, and relevant. As it was just before Remembrance Sunday, and also because it is music I know well, I decided on the Introit from the Gregorian Chant Requiem. 

It felt a little risky, but I explained to them why we were doing it (ie I'd just read some research) and then taught them the first phrase, word by word. I displayed the music on a screen (and much help that was, I am sure). They entered into it with a will, and one of them made a point of telling me later that she and others with whom she had talked had really liked the exercise.

Encouraged by that feedback, I did the same thing with a similar group in Cardiff, again with the VC obliged to sing along, on Remembrance Day itself. This time, the exercise was greeted by applause. 

To be honest, I wondered if the applause was at least in part an emotional discharge, as I know some people find the requirement to sing in public embarrassing. So I will read the written (and anonymous if desired) feedback from both groups with particular interest. And if it does mention the icebreaker, I will report back here.

In the meantime, this is how it should sound: from a concert I organised a decade or more back with the Schola Cantorum (School of Chant) with which I used to sing in Newcastle.

For the record, it was a wonderful concert. Eric Cross's choir joined us, and sang the Duruflé Requiem, which is clearly based on the Gregorian Chant melodies, with modern French harmonisation. And the way we programmed it, was to put the movements side by side: so we sang the chant Introit, then the choir sand the Duruflé Introit, and so on.

So here is the Duruflé Introit (and the rest of his Requiem, come to that), for old times' sake.

Engaging with the Media

The other week, at Cardiff Futures,  Chris Chambers shared a story about how the media had mis-represented some of his research. Chris and his colleagues challenged that, and had a bit of a set-to with journalists, who thought academics should not try to censor what the media reports (which wasn't quite Chris' point).

With typical tenacity, Chris and his colleagues pursued this, including preparing a submission to the Leveson enquiry.

However, the story had a positive ending, as eventually Chris forged productive relationships with a number of good journalists; indeed he now has a blog, Head Quarters, on the Guardian site, and the media are supporting his current project: to get accurate research considered by politicians considering policy issues.

I was reminded of all this today when I heard another academic, Moran Cerf whose research was mis-represented. I am sure that, as in Chris' case, the mis-representation was largely unintentional. Journalists operate in a very different way to academics, and the need for good stories, combined with working against deadlines, can sometimes lead to genuine errors. 

This time, the story that went viral was about academics (and eventually the CIA and FBI) recording peoples' dreams.

You can listen to the Moran Cerf's account of it here.

So what's the moral of all this?  It's hard to say. Clearly the media are valuable in getting research understood and debated by a far wider audience than academic journals can hope to reach. But equally clearly, there are real risks that stories get misunderstood and mis-reported: and putting that genie back in the bottle is nigh-on impossible.  So perhaps the moral is that even from such trials and tribulations, a persistent and principled approach can create a good outcome over the longer term.

Cardiff Futures Final Day

On Thursday, it was the last day of the first Cardiff Futures programme. The day was designed for reflection, planning and celebration, so there were no guest speakers, nor formal sessions.

Instead the VC opened the day by setting out the themes and purpose of the day, and we watched a video diary of the last 8 months compressed into 6 minutes.

Then it was over to the participants. They worked initially in small groups, then in plenary, and then in their project teams; reflecting, sharing, discussing and looking ahead. I don't want to say too much about the process, as we want future cohorts to approach it fresh...

From the feedback on the day, it seems people have found the whole programme a powerful and valuable process - and largely enjoyable, too.

We will, of course, be undertaking a longer term evaluation; but it is heartening to see that next year's programme is attracting a very high level of interest, from which I conclude that participants are saying good things about the programme behind the VC's back, as well as to his face!

From our point of view it has been good to see that the programme works even when extended beyond the Humanities, to include scientists and other such strange people... We always thought it would, but it is good to have that proved.

In the evening we were joined for a celebratory dinner by many of our guest speakers over the year, as well as by sponsoring managers, and had a very convivial evening, particularly giving them an insight into the projects.

A Different Approach

Yesterday, we had the final day of this year's Unpacking Your Chair programme at Newcastle University.  I have blogged before about this award-winning programme (click on the tag UYC) and also on the Futures programme which has been so successful at Newcastle, Essex and Cardiff Universities (cf various 'Futures' tags).

At the end of yesterday's event, one of the participants was saying that the programme had raised more questions for him than it had provided answers - and he and I both thought that was a good thing.

Which set me thinking about how these programmes differ from some of the more corporate leadership programmes I see increasingly in Higher Education.

The corporate programmes seem to me more prescriptive.  Work has been done to identify Leadership Attributes and articulate the University's strategy, and what is needed now is to get people to act accordingly.  So programmes are put together with clear learning objectives and a somewhat didactive philosophy.  Sometimes, it seems to me, corporate programmes are put in place as a solution to relatively isolated instances of under-performance or misapplied effort: rather than leaders dealing directly with the few people who are not contributing appropriately.

The approach we have developed is rather different, and I think rests on different assumptions.  We do not shy away from the didactic, in terms of sessions that teach about the University's finances, for example, or the University's or Faculty's expectations of the professoriate (on Futures and UYC programmes, respectively).  However, we provide such teaching by way of context: the underlying assumption is that participants will use that context to make their own decisions about how best they may contribute.

Thus a large part of our process is discursive: discussions of different perspectives and perceptions, different aspirations and strengths, and the different ways in which people may valuably pursue their own interests and strengths in ways which are congruent with the context and contribute to the institutional purpose.

There are several implicit assumptions underlying this approach. One is that, by and large, people wish to make a positive contribution to the organisation. A second is that academics will, and indeed should, pursue their particular areas of interest and play to (and build on) their strengths.  A third is that commitment and motivation are generated more by people freely subscribing to the institutional agenda than feeling that they are being expected to submit to it.  A fourth is that the mutual understanding, and indeed friendships, generated by this approach encourage a broader engagement with the institution, as well as being stimulating in a number of other ways.

It is harder, of course, to predict what precisely people will learn, following this approach; but the longer term follow-up we have done at both Essex and Newcastle has highlighted both that it is valued by participants over the longer term, (and credited by them with supporting or stimulating many and various achievements) and also that senior managers recognise the longer term positive impact of these programmes in terms of the increased energy, agency, and contribution of most participants.

This is very much a 'thinking out loud' post: I would be interested to hear from anyone who sees it differently, or has more to add: particularly if they have been involved in any of the programmes I have mentioned.

Open Space

Yesterday we had the day on Learning and Teaching at Cardiff Futures.

We ran the day as an Open Space Event.

So the agenda at the start of the day looked like this:

Tricia Price, the PVC for Student Experience and Academic Standards set the context by telling us some of the issues that 'keep her awake at night.'

Participants then said what they felt it would be most valuable to discuss and crafted an agenda for the day, based on which of them wanted to discuss which issues.

 So a little later, the agenda look like this:

So that's what we did!

The beauty of this process is that people get to talk about the issues that they believe to be most important and interesting: it should ensure that nobody leaves feeling 'the one thing we really needed to talk about was...' and it acknowledges, honours, and draws upon the high levels of expertise that reside within the group.

Towards the end of the day, we came back together in plenary, and some highlights of the discussions were shared with Colin Riordan, the Vice Chancellor and the Tricia Price, the relevant PVC, as well as between participants.

We ended the day, as we usually do, with 'brief Action Learning' in the small sets that have been running throughout the programme.

This is the penultimate day of the programme: we have a final day of reflection and celebration in June; and then kick off a new programme with a new cohort in the autumn (book early to avoid disappointment!)

Interview Practice

As part of the Media Skills Training I mentioned the other day, I always put myself through the same thing as the participants: being interviewed on camera.  I do it partly to show that I wouldn't expect them to do anything I wouldn't do myself (some people are really quite apprehensive about it, and I hope that this helps reassure them a little) and partly because it is good practice for me.

So here is my most recent practice session: spot the deliberate mistakes...

Handling the Media

Another excellent module of Cardiff Futures.  After an introductory talk by the internal Comms team, we had an oustanding presentation by Richard Sambrook. We were treated to a humorous stack of anecdotes featuring Princess Diana, Mila Kunis, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Howard, Angelina Jolie, Rupert Murdoch, and an audio clip of himself defending the BBC (following Alistair Campbell's attack) on the Today programme - but this was not mere entertainment (and still less name dropping) but rather a well crafted sequence of stories each designed to exemplify a crucial message for any academic contemplating engaging with the media.

The rest of the day was led by Karen Ainley of Mosaic, with whom we have worked before.  She started by taking advantage of Richard's presence and interviewing him, to demonstrate how to make a podcast.

After that, Karen took us through the five Ps of a Perfect Podcast, and the participants spent the rest of the afternoon making a podcast in four groups.  These were all very good, ranging from the serious and useable to the irreverent and amusing!

For the second day of the course, we were also joined by Kevin Bentley, also of Mosaic; he and Karen then helped us prepare for and practice both TV and Radio interviews. We were working at NEP Cymru, which has a TV studio, so the whole process was a very close simulation of reality.

Despite some nervousness, not only did everyone survive, but all acquitted themselves admirably; most enjoyed it (at least surviving!) and some really took to it, and can be expected to pop up on the media on a regular basis.

Heart Warming

It is always good to receive emails that say that an event left someone feeling 'both enthused and energised.'

It followed last week's Cardiff Futures workshop, which left me, too, feeling enthused and energised.  This module was on building and academic career and focused a lot on research.

As usual we had a series of invigorating conversations with a mix of high-level internal guests and an external speaker, Guy Orpen, the PVC for research at Bristol, as well as an opportunity to reflect on time management and the practicalities of applying for promotion.

We also heard from the participants how their projects are going, and how they plan to develop them further: this was done in a Dragons' Den format; so they presented and were then quizzed by a panel of senior colleagues, who decided which team to award further funding to.  I was impressed both by how much they have already achieved and by the scale of their ambition.

We are now just over half-way through Cardiff Futures, and it is apparent that the group has really gelled. I look forward to the remaining modules being equally enthusing and energising.

A fascinating day...

Yesterday we had the third day of the Cardiff Futures programme: how the University really works.

It proved to be a fascinating day, including conversations with the Deputy Vice Chancellor and the Chief Operating Officer, the Chair of Council, and the Treasurer, as well as an outside perspective from the VC of neighbouring Aberystwyth University.  Participants also took on the roles of members of Senate, Council, the Executive Board and so on to consider a hypothetical issue from multiple perspectives, and looked at a real paper that had been considered by the University Executive Board - reaching similar conclusions (in some cases!) to the ones the Board had actually reached.

In response to participants' requests, we also  squeezed lunch and shortened one of the exercises in order to create time for them to work on their projects, which they are developing throughout the programme.

The day closed with the Action Learning Sets that are an integral part of the whole process: and it was encouraging to hear the insights and progress many had made on the issues each has personally chosen to address.

It was a packed day, and the time flew by: energy levels were high, and I certainly learned a lot: I will be interested in participants' feedback, as always.

Cardiff Futures

Following its success at Newcastle and Essex Universities, it was not surprising that Colin Riordan, the new VC at Cardiff, should launch the Futures Programme there more or less on arrival.

It was, after all, his brainchild at Faculty level in Newcastle (where it was shortlisted for Times Higher Award in 2008, and where a programme for professors using a similar philosophy and approach has just won a THE Award this year); and it was he who ran it at a University Level at Essex.

Despite this history of success, both he and I were aware that Cardiff would be different. For a start, it is a much larger institution than Essex (or Newcastle's HASS Faculty), and also much more diverse.  Previously we had had delegates almost entirely from a humanities background: this time we are including medics and scientists.

So we were delighted to see the consolidated feedback from participants for the first module, which was as positive (or indeed more positive) than any we have previously seen.

We have just run the second module, focussing on Finance: that always has the risk of being a bit dry, but thanks to great presentations from our guest speaker Gill Ball, FD of Birmingham University, and participative sessions run by Cardiff's own FD and the Deputy VC, all participants seemed to engage and find the topic both relevant and interesting.

We also launched the Action Learning Sets, which form an integral part of the programme, and they seemed to go well, too.  Due to time constraints, we use what I would term Brief Action Learning, but the methodology stands up very well even in very short sessions.

Needless to say, I await the feedback summary from this second module with interest.