Archive for the ‘Topic – Current Affairs’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A flawed model of diversity?

Monday, September 5th, 2011

I went to the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans a couple of days ago to witness an NFL match. I have to say that I really don’t understand the pull of the NFL. There can surely be fewer slower sports – but I do accept that the Americans love it.

The Superdome itself is altogether more impressive. It is the largest fixed domed structure in the world and can seat 80,000 people. For those of you interested in detail, its steel frame covers 13 acres, and the dome itself is 273 feet high and has a diameter of 680 feet. In the past 6 years, $336m dollars has been spent on it – partly in post-Katrina repairs and partly in upgrading it.

The Superdrome came to prominence for many people back in August 2005 when it was designated as – and became – “a shelter of last resort” for local people when Hurricane Katrina ripped into New Orleans. 30,000 evacuees sought shelter there.

It turned out to be hardly a place of shelter. Part of the roof blew off exposing it to the elements. Furthermore, the plumbing system broke down and so people relieved themselves anywhere in the building, as a result of which the stench was revolting and the potential for disease immense. There were also reports of serious gang related crimes taking place within this supposed place of safety. It became the focal point for the very public and systemic failure of America’s response to the catastrophe.

At the time of the disaster, I was in in Orlando, Florida, around 500 miles from where all this was happening. I can recall watching the scenes unfold on a TV in a hotel lounge. I can also recall being shocked at the time at the complete lack of interest that the majority of Americans present had in it. They continued to tuck into their snacks and meals as if it was of no concern to them. Perhaps it wasn’t of any concern – and perhaps this was partly due to the fact that the people I was with were predominantly white people, and those affected were predominantly black people. As one of the TV commentators asked, “Is this really happening in  America?” I wondered what some of the other hotel guests were asking themselves.

When President Bush went to New Orleans a couple of weeks after Katrina, he made a speech addressing a number of issues. One issue was that of the racial divide. He said, “As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.”

As I sat there in the Superdome, I tried to picture, feel, hear, smell, what it would have been like exactly 6 years ago that day.  It was futile as an exercise, although it did allow me to focus on how recent it was – and wonder whether it would ever happen again, knowing that Hurricane Lee was brewing in the Gulf of Mexico as we sat there.

My attention returned to the game, and all the associated activities. I had seen in the Programme that at half time there was going to be a performance by the ‘610 Stompers’. They were billed as a local group of men from professional backgrounds who excelled at innovative ‘moves’. When they duly arrived my son and I were not sure whether they were a serious or a comedy act – their ability to co-ordinate themselves made it difficult to tell.

I was more interested in the ethnic make-up of the group. Of the approximately 50 men performing on the pitch, every one of them appeared to be white. I could not see one black person in the group. I was surprised and somewhat taken aback. Why would the main New Orleans sports team – with so many black players and supporters – be associated with and sponsor a group made up of all white men?

Chatting to a local about other matters, I brought up the situation I had witnessed together with my surprise. I was interested in his thoughts. He didn’t see an issue with it. He described to me a model of diversity that wasn’t around integration, but was more around living within a racial group and living side by side with other racial groups – working with people from other groups but not necessarily socialising or living with people from those other groups. I asked if he thought that this was workable and whether it would remove the racial discrimination that Bush had recognised. He thought so. I am not convinced.

Is this a viable model? Can it work? Is it perhaps a model that can be argued as workable but one that will actually maintain the status quo?

I wonder if anyone else there had similar thoughts to mine? The New Orleans Saints were terrible and lost 32 – 7. Perhaps they were thinking about it and that’s what put them off – but I think not. But perhaps someone needs to think about it.

Paul

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Resources – Students, Topic – Current Affairs, Topic – Diversity  | No Comments »

Commons assault

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

Every now and then something happens which makes me think about changing one of my tried and tested learning methodologies or examples. There has been such an occurrence this week.

When delivering sessions on Transactional Analysis and how to use it to develop rapport, instigate effective communication and manage conflict meaningfully, I often use Fawlty Towers. From the reactions of the groups I work with, it seems to be reasonably timeless and the majority of people enjoy its humour. In short, Basil plays a great Adapted Child to Sybil’s Controlling Parent, Basil enjoys the power of his Controlling Parent when dealing with the Adapted Child Manuel, Manuel then plays a lovely Nurturing Parent to his Siberian hamster, and Polly remains in Adult throughout most of the crisis happening around her.

From now on, however, I will have to include the Commons Select Committee which occurred earlier this week. It starred Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch and a number of MPs from various parties. It also featured a walk on part (or stand up part) by Wendi Deng, Rupert Murdoch’s wife.

To set the scene …. Two of the most powerful media people in the world, who have had a huge influence within the British media for at least 20 years, have messed up big style. MPs, whose political parties have felt the need to seek their favour and work with them in order to gain their support in order to get into or remain in government, have suddenly been released from their self-imposed shackles and are free to express their opinions without a Murdoch backlash. They have an hour to ask the Murdochs questions about their big mess up.

The Murdochs don’t want to be there – they had been unavailable for the meeting up until a few days ago – but have agreed to come. Imagine what they feel like having to be under the cosh having  been able to dictate the rules for so long.  The MPs are wanting to exorcise their demons.   

So, off we go. The MPs want to ask the 80-year old Rupert a number of questions first. He starts to struggle with them. He is starting to expose his lack of leadership at the helm of his company. His son, who is sitting next to him, is feeling very uncomfortable for his father. Every now and then, James’ discomfort becomes too great for him, and he interrupts to ask if he can perhaps answer the questions on behalf of his father as he will be able to give far more detail. James is told that this will not happen, and that they will get to him in due course.  It is one of the best examples of the Drama Triangle (Karpman), one of TA ‘Games’, that I have witnessed. The MPs are the Persecutor and Rupert is the Victim. Every time James attempts to be the Rescuer, he also becomes a Victim. Time after time.

The MPs are queuing up with their questions and supplementary questions. The scheduled hour passes and it is apparent that this will go on much longer. But what did you expect? If you have been at the hands of the school bully for 20 years and then the school bully comes and says sorry and a person in authority says that you can take your retribution if you want to, you might take it. And if you can give him one metaphorical kick, and he can’t fight back, why not give him a few more?

And these MPs were, I think, trying to stay within their Adult ego states. But they didn’t do it very well. There was too much history.  They tried to dress their values and feelings up in Adult terms, but it didn’t work (“Mr Blair visited you hallway round the world before the 1997 election. Anyway, that does not matter”, and “Can you tell us how much all those characters have been paid off?”).  As a result Their Controlling Parent ego states were shining through like early morning sunlight through the slats of a blind. There they were, being Basil whacking his broken down car with a large branch – oblivious to who was watching.

Consequently, the majority of the questioning was disappointingly poor, even though they took 3 hours rather than the planned 1 hour. The Murdochs, on the other hand, remained in the Adult ego state remarkably well.

And then we had Wendi’s walk on part. Enter stage left a person with a foam pie, intent on presenting it unceremoniously into Rupert’s face. Wendi sees this. At this point we are about two and a half hours into the session and she is probably angry and upset on behalf of her husband. What an opportunity to off-load all that anger on to the pie man. And she does so with a right hook. In TA terms, he got stamped. The bell goes – end of the round. All parties retreat to their corners for time out (and to clean up the pie).

A parent who has just verbally laid into their child, and then extricates themselves from the situation, sometimes realises that they should have controlled themselves a little more. They go and be nice to the child to try and make up. Is that what happened to our MPs during the recess? Did the penny drop – either through self-reflection or because someone had the opportunity to tell them? Becasue when they came back, they tried to make up. How impressed they were with Wendi … what a hook … well done Wendy! How Nurturing they were – or were they Adapted, fearing that they might be next? Too late though, they had already shown their true colours.

And then it ended. And in comparison, the time the MPs had with Rebekah Brooks was very tame. But the main event on the billing had been a wonderful illustration of TA in action. Just a little disappointing that it turned out like a sitcom when it should have been so revealing.

Well, I think that’s ensured I will never have any opportunity of supplying services to the Murdoch empire.  And perhaps I should change my phone pin number while I remember …

Paul

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Resources – Practitioners, Resources – Trainers, Topic – Current Affairs, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Foundations of team success – whatever the scale

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

I saw last week that Croatia is now going to be able to join the EU, probably in July 2013. Assuming it goes ahead, they will be the twenty-eighth state to join. It is of particular interest to me as I spent eight years working with their Interior Ministry and Ministry of Justice assisting with their preparations for this eventuality. Croatia is an incredibly beautiful country which I have visited many times. When I visited during the late 1990’s, however, I saw a more serious side.

I visited Vukovar – a Croat city on the border with Serbia – where there were mass murders based on ethnicity, together with a huge amount of physical damage. At the same time I also visited Bosnia. Sarajevo and Srebrenica, both of which I found terribly depressing, were awful places which appeared to have no hope at that time.

Balkan history is complicated, however, what happened in Yugoslavia in the last quarter of the last century is reasonably straightforward. The Yugoslav President, Josip Broz Tito died in 1980. He had ruled post-WW2 Yugoslavia in a hard line manner. In doing so, he managed to retain a bond between the very different parts that made up Yugoslavia. Once he was gone, no one could carry on his style of leadership. As the economic decline took a stronger hold during the 1980’s, the disparate states within Yugoslavia increasingly focused on their differences. The areas that are now Slovenia and Croatia knew that they generated the majority of the country’s income, much of which subsidised the other areas – and so they decided that they wanted out. Slovenia decided it had had enough in 1991 and declared itself an independent country – and got away with it. Croatia, which is closer to Serbia, decided to follow suit, but by this time Belgrade – the current capitol of Serbia and the former capitol of Yugoslavia – was wise to it and decided to halt it. Their devastating war began.

Fast forward to Europe in June 2011, and we find a similar situation – substitute the EU for Yugoslavia. There is a harsh economic climate, a number of states are close to financial melt-down and there are mutterings that the richer states don’t want to support them any longer. There is no prospect of war, but there is the prospect of the downfall of the Euro. The question is being asked as to whether it is possible for a currency to function effectively across a number of countries without one ‘corporate’ shared financial strategy.

These moments in history are played out every day all over the world. What happens on these world stages occurs in far smaller teams in organisations. What they illustrate so well are the foundations that must be in place for any team, country or continent to function effectively:

  • Effective senior leadership – a leader who is prepared to listen, and who has true followers.
  • Strong and valued relationships – ones that have been built over time where there is strong rapport, not ones that will splinter when under pressure.
  • A shared vision and strategy – which is bought into by all parties through open dialogue.
  • An ability to handle conflict – a willingness to talk, negotiate and accept responsibility.
  • People or states have problems – they are not problem people or problem states, and they need to be viewed in that way.
  • Valuing diversity – an acceptance that we all bring different abilities to the table which will be recognised in different situations.

Effective leadership means thinking forward to these difficult times during the relatively easy times – and everyone needs to demonstrate this as we all have that responsibility.

As a team member, team manager or team leader, what are you contributing to ensure your team is truly effective in challenging times?

Paul

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Resources – Practitioners, Resources – Students, Topic – Current Affairs, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Caution – Risks around the corner?

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

I was travelling along one of the country lanes near where we live today and came across a couple of young hikers – perhaps in their late teens or early twenties. I came upon them fairly abruptly as I was negotiating a blind left hand bend and they were walking towards me at the side of the road (a right hand bend to them). The sort of reasonably gentle bend that I slow down a little for. Not only is it ‘blind’, but when walking on the side of the road that they were on, there is no verge for pedestrians to walk on. Yet there is a good wide verge on the opposite side of the road.

With a good knowledge of the Highway Code they might have used the opposite side of the road. It states, “If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and

  • be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
  • keep close to the side of the road

It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.”

However, most people only have a ‘headline’ knowledge of the Highway Code, which in this case would probably be, ‘Walk on the right-hand side of the road’- which is what they were doing.

But whatever the Highway Code says, or indeed whether they knew about what it says, why did they choose to walk this obviously dangerous line with no escape route?

I wonder whether it is linked to the way younger people have been and are being brought up in a very health and safety conscious age. These two young people, if they have been brought up in Britain, will have played on roundabouts in playgrounds with padding underneath for when they fall off. They will have played on computer games where every time a car crashes the driver walks away unharmed, or mysteriously comes back to life again.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have issues with any of these developments – they are all helpful. But when taken as a whole, are these developments stopping younger people from really understanding what hazards and risks are? Are we creating a society made up of a small number of safety specialists who put so many control measures in place we have effectively stopped thinking about risks and a majority who don’t think about potential hazards and risks because of the safety specialists?

One of the benefits of taking our children on holiday to Eastern European locations in the early part of this century was that the Eastern European safety culture was not as well developed as ours. I can remember several times seeing attractions or walks that didn’t look safe, so we discussed why they were potentially unsafe and whether it was a risk worth taking. At the extreme end, perhaps, my wife still talks about the national park we walked through where there were allegedly still landmines – but by sticking to the concrete paths there was no risk.  

Sadly, and all too often, there are now stories on news programmes within our locality of young people drowning in rivers – some after having intentionally jumped in, others who have probably fallen in after having had some drinks. Does it happen more often than it did 10 or 20 years ago? – anecdotally I suspect so, but I don’t know for sure.  And has this been, or will this be, a trend on our roads and in other environments? I hope not, but I suspect it may be.

I have walked the country lane I referred to many times in the past, and I would never walk the path chosen by the two people above. And if they had thought about it objectively, they wouldn’t have either.   

Is this the way society is heading, and will it be a problem? If so, what can we do to turn the tide?

Paul

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Trainers, Topic – Current Affairs | No Comments »

The Language of Life

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

I’m seeing a man. I met him quite by accident, but am so pleased that our paths crossed. He excites me, he makes me laugh, he is wonderful company. He has made me realise I am missing that little something in life. This is all due to his exquisite use of the English language.

Having enjoyable conversations with someone who has such a wide vocabulary has made me realise just how much we have dumbed down our language. Texts, emails and Twitters have led to us short-handing so much. There may be benefits in this, in that people get straight to the point, but are we losing the depth to our conversations?

I remember a trainer colleague from many years ago. We both trained trainers. When a delegate said something that he thought needed challenging or exploring and they seemed a little reticent to do so, he would say, “Of all the thousands of words in the English language that you could have used, you chose at that moment in time to use the word …… (whatever the word was). Why was that?”.

I always felt a little uncomfortable with this approach so didn’t use it myself. Whilst it certainly put the person on the spot and sought to encourage the person to think about the origin of the particular word, I don’t think it generally did that. The individuals appeared to become self-conscious and a little defensive, and so were not of an appropriate mental approach to objectively assess their previous contribution.

Having said that, the premise of the intervention was sound enough. We do all choose every word we say – no-one makes us say them – but sometimes we regret saying what we said so try and take it back by saying it’s not exactly what we meant to say. Well, actually, we did. We said it.

This was brought home to me when I was on a course many years ago, long before I knew the above trainer. It may have been a Training Evaluator’s Course, I’m not sure. We had the opportunity for some half hour discussions with various people – and I can’t remember why. I think the person was from Lancaster University, and he was some sort of expert in language. Whilst I cannot remember much about the ‘why we were there’, I can remember the way the discussion went.

The discussion was an opportunity for me to better understand how and why we choose the words we do. He set off answering my opening question and he just lost me – I had no idea what he was talking about. I probably looked fairly bemused, and I felt sceptical about the rest of the time we had together. I then gamefully asked him a further question. And another. After about 15 minutes, I started to pick up some threads and was able to ask some linked or follow up questions. I found the last part of the discussion very interesting.

We also had to time the half an hour – so that others could then have the same opportunity. As we got to the end of our session, I said, “Well that’s it, we’d better call it a draw”. “Why did you say, ‘call it a draw’”, he asked. Just a turn of phrase I retorted. He disagreed and explained that if I thought about why I had chosen that phrase, I would have a practical understanding of what our half hour had been about.

Later I thought about it – and I realised that for the first 15 minutes he had been ‘ahead’ as I was trying to catch up to understand what he was saying. And in the final 15 minutes I had caught up and was then able to lead the conversation effectively. Hence my choice of phrase.

This example always comes to mind when I explore with someone why they used a word or phrase, or when I am searching for a reason why I said something.

As we increase our use of texting and reduce the number of words we actively use, I wonder if we will miss the joy of listening to fine language? Or, if it continues to exist, perhaps appreciate it more? My new relationship with the man of words has made me realise how wonderful our language is when used well.

Paul

Posted in Topic – Current Affairs, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Work like an Egyptian

Sunday, February 13th, 2011

She looked surprised at the question, slightly confused. “It’s our Square, so it’s our responsibility to clean it”. She paused, and looked quizzically at the reporter. She continued, holding her sweeping brush, “We made it untidy so we have to clean it.” The young woman was standing in Cairo’s Tahrir Square late on Saturday evening. The celebrations of having forced Mubarak to resign had developed into the sense of responsibility for ownership of the Square that had been the focus of the world’s attention over the past couple of weeks. There were families there each equipped with cleaning equipment and rubbish bags. Other people were replacing the cobbles that Egyptians had recently been hurling at each other.  I found it very powerful television.

Less powerful – and rather concerning – was the report in yesterday’s Times newspaper (12 February 2011) regarding the EU and how it spends its money.  According to research by the Open Europe think-tank, last year Eurocrats and MEPs spent €274m on travel costs and allowances to visit overseas nations.  That’s more than €1m per working day – on purely travel and associated allowances. That’s a huge amount for one year. It would be interesting to hear some of them explain the return we as EU citizens have gained from their investment. This total included, for example, €55,000 for seven MEPs to undertake a two-day trip to the Seychelles. The think-tank’s research pointed out that this total was more than the EU spent on food aid over the same period – this humanitarian budget only contained €237m.

Perhaps the EU has lost focus on what it should be seeking to achieve with its financial muscle – a little like British society apparently has. ‘Call me Dave’ continues to talk up his ‘Big Society’ in an attempt to address this issue.  In simplistic terms, my understanding of the ‘Big Society’ is helping people to help each other to take responsibility for themselves and their communities rather than relying on the state. Whilst many people support this idea (and long before it was labelled ‘Big Society’), the culture of our nation has become very financially and materialistically based – thus making such a concept very difficult to achieve. But it would be a wonderful place to get to.

I was at the Manchester United v Manchester City ‘local derby’ football match yesterday, and experienced the euphoria of Rooney’s spectacular goal and United winning the match. The place was rocking and no-one had any troubles, everyone was smiling. That was only a football match. I considered how many times greater the euphoria must be for the Egyptians in central Cairo? The euphoria of the derby win has almost passed. That experienced by the Egyptians will last a while longer, but there will undoubtedly be more difficult and challenging times ahead – there always are when a country attempts to make such a seismic cultural change from dictatorship to democracy.  Achieving the ‘Big Society’ may register slightly less on the Richter Magnitude Scale than the proposed Egyptian cultural shift, but they will both be very challenging.

I really hope that the Egyptian people’s hope and belief lasts, and that MEPs and Eurocrats spend a little more time on the ground here in the EU proposing how they can use some of their travel money to support the Egyptians. The woman with the sweeping brush in Tahrir Square demonstrated a really clear understanding of a ‘big Society’ and – perhaps tellingly for us here in Britain – seemed a little confused that such responsibility wasn’t obvious to all.

Her words, and how she said them, will stay with me for a long time.

Paul

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Topic – Current Affairs | No Comments »

How do you respond in difficult situations?

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

I mentioned the ‘Responses to Dominance’ model in my last post about the Sky Sports sexism furore. I have always found this an interesting and helpful model for enabling us to understand how people may respond differently to ourselves in the same or similar situations.

The model (also sometimes referred to as the ‘Conflict Continuum’) has three named positions on a horizontal line (the continuum). At one end of the line there is the Withdrawal (Avoidance) position, and at the opposite end is the Resistance (Confrontation) position. And in the middle of the line the point labelled Acquiescence (Diffusion).

The model is labelled as a continuum because a person can take any of these positions – but can also change their position on the continuum at any point. People will often adopt different positions in different situations, however, usually a person will have a ‘preferred’ or default position when finding themselves in a position of conflict.

It is possible to develop the Sky Sports scenario further in order to illustrate the model. Let’s say, in our hypothetical situation, that there is a camerawoman who works for Sky Sports who has witnessed the now public sexist incidents (and possibly other similar situations) that have occurred within the Sky Sports studios and elsewhere where Sky Sports have been reporting from. ‘Camerawoman’ is a bit of a mouthful to keep repeating, so let’s call her Jill.

When Jill has witnessed one of these incidents and recognised the sexism, it may well be that she is a little concerned, wondering if whether it the sort of workplace she wants work in. It may be that it takes a few such incidents for her to be concerned. Whenever it occurs, she will probably think about her options. Jill could start looking for another job, or hand in her notice immediately. This latter course of action can sometimes be followed when the situation has a severe impact on the person and possibly brings about a deterioration in their health. Both of these responses would be examples of Withdrawal – as Jill is taking herself away from the situation.

Alternatively, it may well be that she decides that whilst she doesn’t like it, she’s going to tolerate it as she has a lot of friends at the company – and whilst she will tolerate it, she also doesn’t want to rock the boat. So Jill may witness such an incident and one of her male (or female) colleagues might say something like, “You’re okay with this banter, aren’t you – you know we’re not sexist?”. Whilst Jill is uncomfortable with this sort of workplace behaviour, she could replied, “Sexist? Don’t be daft, of course you’re not – it’s a good laugh”. Here Jill would be diffusing the situation, and therefore providing us with a good example of how someone Acquiesces.

Jill’s final possible position on our continuum is that of Resistance. People can resist, or confront, in two ways – through the use of either Negotiation or Power. If Jill chose to give feedback to those involved by explaining what they were doing and how it was impacting on her, she would be confronting the issue through Negotiation. To do this successfully she would be having an Adult (TA) conversation with the other individual(s). It has the potential to be a win-win situation – as the behaviour will cease, Jill will be happier, her colleagues will learn and they will probably be stronger as a team. If you want to build a mature team or organisation, this is the approach that needs to be used – hence why there is such a push for mediation to be used in the workplace.

Jill could also address the matter through the use of Power – either immediately, or perhaps if a Negotiated approach has been unsuccessful. Examples of the use of Power can be taking a person to an Employment Tribunal, or, perhaps specific to this type of workplace, releasing audio or audio visual recordings of the incidents to the wider media, knowing or believing that they would be picked up and broadcast more widely (Perhaps this is what happened in the actual scenario that led to Andy Gray and Richard Keys leaving Sky Sports?). How does this differ from the Negotiated approach? Well, Jill would probably be addressing this from her Parent ego state (TA) – particularly if she went straight for this course of action before trying to address it in any other way – and there is likely to be a win-lose result.

We have to remember – and this is very important – that all positions on the continuum can be appropriate. People need to use the method that is most useful for them at a particular time. If Jill had financial constraints, giving up her job might cause more stress than carrying on in an uncomfortable environment, so Acquiescence would be right for her at that time. And what might be right for the development of the organisation is not necessarily right for the individual.

In my next post, I’ll describe a model that really helps people address conflict successfully – in other words, a model to support the approach of Negotiation.

Paul

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Resources – Managers, Resources – Trainers, Topic – Current Affairs, Topic – Customer Service, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Sky Sports caught Offside?

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

What a furore – and all because someone of a different gender was carrying a flag and being an assistant referee at a Premiership football match at the weekend. And, it should be noted, doing it very effectively.

For anyone who lives outside the UK, perhaps a little background would be helpful. It doesn’t happen very often that a woman acts as an assistant referee in England’s top flight football League – but it did last Saturday.  During Sky Sports’ coverage, two presenters – Andy Gray and Richard Keys – were recorded making comments about the capability of the assistant referee to understand the Offside rule based purely on her gender. Further recordings then came to light with Andy Gray and another reporter discussing her physical appearance, and then a historical (December 2010) video recording of Andy Gray apparently asking a female co-presented to help position his microphone near the front of the top of his trousers. There have been various suspensions, and then yesterday Andy Gray had his contract terminated by Sky Sports, “in response to new evidence of unacceptable and offensive behaviour”.

The suspension was announced late yesterday afternoon. I was interested to see how the Sky channels would report it. At 5 o’clock on Sky News it was one of the lead stories together with the UK’s quarterly economic growth (or lack of), Lord Taylor being found guilty of false accounting and the truly tragic death of 4 children in a house fire in Derbyshire. At 5 o’clock on Sky Sports the lead stories were Blackpool playing Manchester United and Arsenal playing Ipswich Town later in the evening. There was a note in the written updates at the bottom of the screen (amongst many others) mentioning Mr Gray’s contract termination. Markedly different prioritisations.

Andy Gray will be missed as a football summariser as he really is one of – if not the – best on TV. But I don’t have any great sympathy for him – other than not supporting the idea of a ‘warning’ and then sacking him for something that had happened a month before the warning, because he had already had the warning. What he said and did was stupid, wrong, unacceptable and sexist.  But I do think he looks like a bit of a scapegoat.

The internet, news programmes and papers are now awash with people talking about whether this indicates that football is (still) sexist, and producing statistics such as to the number of women attending football matches. But I think this misses the point.

The real point is whether Sky Sports is institutionally sexist.  Ok, Andy Gray has been dismissed and two other presenters have been suspended and warned. But what about the camera people, the sound recordists, the editors, the producers? Many of them must have seen and heard these exchanges. What did they do about them? If it is nothing, then surely they are as responsible as the reporters – perhaps moreso if in positions of authority.  Have any of them been disciplined?

None of these incidents took place ‘on air’ so someone has made them public. I presume, therefore, that someone found them unacceptable yet perhaps felt that they could not address the matter internally? A very good indication of institutional sexism.  

And then Sky Sports didn’t see Andy Gray’s dismissal as a very important story – less important than two football matches that had been planned for several weeks. Yet Sky News viewed it on a par with a member of the House of Lords being found guilty of a crime and evidence that the UK’s quarterly economic growth was lower than expected. More evidence of institutional sexism?

Managers have a responsibility to address such behaviour when it happens – it’s sometimes referred to as ‘nipping it in the bud’. On the face of it, it appears that managers at Sky Sports may not have been exercising that responsibility effectively.

If this doesn’t happen, people of affected groups can start to feel marginalised (see my post on Allport’s Scale) and not part of the team. And if it is at a place where recording takes place most of the time, it can be relatively easy to make the evidence available in the public domain. And then the sky’s the limit ….

Paul

Tags:
Posted in Resources – Managers, Topic – Current Affairs | No Comments »

Deliver Outcomes, not Outputs

Friday, November 12th, 2010

Where at all possible, I try and steer clear of discussing governmental politics. This is because I don’t really want to be perceived to have particular party allegiances. But rules, as with policies and directions from Sat-navs, are there to be broken where there is good reason – they exist to provide effective guidance for the majority of situations as opposed to the answer for all situations.

I am very interested by the Business Plans that the ruling coalition has published this week (I feel like a very sad person as I write that, but please bear with me …).  It’s the approach behind some of the Plans that I find particularly interesting.

When the coalition first came to power, they talked about financially rewarding private contractors for ‘housing’ prisoners and stopping them reoffending – whereas currently they are paid for merely ‘housing’ them for the duration of their sentences.  As someone who is very keen on the use of outcomes rather than outputs, I found this very refreshing.

More detail on this approach has now been published – it is within the Ministry of Justice Business Plan which was published last Monday. The first two objectives within that particular Business Plan are:

1.1 Develop an overall strategy for the ‘rehabilitation revolution’ for adults and youths, including paying local private and voluntary organisations by results.

1.2 Introduce payment by results schemes, working with local, voluntary and private sector organisations that specialise in the rehabilitation of offenders.

I am interested in this approach as I believe that society as a whole should move more towards an outcome focussed approach to business. This is particularly true of learning and development providers – and clients.

If a client seeks and purchases a course, event or programme to address a particular area or aspect of business, it is likely that it will be delivered and there may well be a short end of event questionnaire. It is rare, in my experience, that there is much further evaluation of the benefits of the event.

So, how about the client publicises the issues or skills they require addressing on the event and these are then quantified into measurable outcomes (not outputs).  The provider who then gains the contract only gets paid once these targets have been achieved – perhaps 6 months after the event. The probable consequences would include:

  • A greater focus on outcomes as opposed to outputs.
  • Only providers who have confidence in their abilities bidding for the contract.
  • Clients ensuring and demonstrating value for their money.
  • Far greater interest by clients, providers and delegates’ line managers as to how the learning is put into practice in the workplace.

Who wouldn’t want these consequences?

So why does this approach generally not happen at the moment?

Paul

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Topic – Current Affairs | No Comments »

Ofsted – head in the sandpit?

Sunday, November 7th, 2010

As we focus on where we could save money and where we waste money in the UK in order to balance the books, I am becoming increasingly unsure of why Ofsted continues to exist – at least in its current form.

Earlier this year (15 August 2010) I blogged about my thoughts on what Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) had been saying about schooling. In The Times (25 July 2010), whilst talking about English Literature classes, he wrote, “The aim should not be to develop ‘critical thinking skills’”, and added that children, “should not be encouraged to express their opinions on the texts. Who cares what they think or feel?” I find that harder to believe every time I read it. And, incidentally, I care what they think and feel.

His more current collegues were also involved in the tragic Baby Peter case. You may recall that Ms Shoesmith’s was the Director of Children’s Services in Haringey at the time, and she appealed against unfair dismissal by the Council. During the appeal Ofsted suddenly discovered thousands of pages of undisclosed evidence which they had previously said could not be located. These contained snippets such as notes relating to Ofsted inspectors being told to delete all emails on the case, and evidence that an additional finding was popped in stating, “There is insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight …”  Ofsted had also given Haringey’s Children’s Services a glowing 3-star rating only a few weeks after Baby Peter had died. The subsequent revelations didn’t make things appear that 3-star to others.

And last week Ofsted again hit the headlines for their part in the awful Little Ted Nursery case. The Plymouth Safeguarding Children Board completed the Serious Case Review into the Nursery in March 2010, and sent it to Ofsted as is required. Apparently, Ofsted didn’t respond until October 2010, thus delaying the publishing of the Report until last week.

The purpose of a Serious Case Review is to ensure that lessons are learned and practices are changed so that incidents such as this should not recur – so that society safeguards and promotes the welfare of children. How is taking 7 months to respond to a report an effective way of protecting children? I thought that there must be a good reason for this delay, so I went to its website and had a look at the ‘News’ section. Not a mention – even though they’ve had 7 months to think about it.  

Paragraph 5.44 of the Serious Case Review states, “It has become clear from this review that whilst the Early Years Service had many concerns about the nursery there was no formal mechanism for informing Ofsted, since they did not reach the threshold of a breach of regulations. Similarly Ofsted had no means of discussing with Early Years the support need of the nursery. It is notable that whilst Early Years had the nursery identified as red or amber on its own rating system, Ofsted inspections were good or satisfactory”. Again, Ofsted making a judgement that is far removed from reality.

So why is this happening? There is a theme, and that is the ‘tick-box’ culture that Ofsted appears to support. This was noted by Deborah Orr when she wrote in the Guardian last year (26 November 2009). “Does Ofsted’s  tick-box culture deserve the criticism that has been heaped on it this week? I do believe so. I have before me an inspection report on a London primary school, rated outstanding. It scores the highest grade (out of four) in every one of 33 categories, except two. What are the two categories that this school fails to achieve perfection in? Oh, just ‘standards achieved by learners’ and ‘how well learners develop . . . skills that will contribute to their economic well-being’. Little things, of no great consequence in a school.”

What’s the common denominator in these last three examples? Ofsted have awarded ratings that are far higher than the services or institutions warrant – when looking at it from the perspective of society rather than ticked boxes.

Exactly. Because what generally happens when you create a tick-box culture? You measure things that are easy to measure – because that’s what ticking boxes is about. And that in turn makes unimportant things suddenly important – because they are generally easier to measure when using boxes to be ticked. And so people stop concentrating on the important things – because what gets measured generally happens.  And so the truly important matters are not important any longer – well, not to the inspectors and those who are being inspected and want to achieve a good rating.

These examples are three occasions where Ofsted have given ratings far higher than they deserve.

Earlier this year Zenna Atkins announced she would be standing down as Chair of Ofsted on 31 August 2010.  When she spoke of her decision to stand down, she said, “The work of Ofsted not only costs the taxpayer a third less than when undertaken by four separate inspectorates but we are also supporting improvement in a more efficient and effective way. Front-line observation and engagement with children, parents and leadership teams are now at the heart of all new inspection arrangements, sweeping away any inherited tick box culture”.

I’m not convinced, Zenna.

In my view, Ofsted is not providing value for money – even if it is costing a third less – and it needs a complete overhaul. More important than it not providing value, it is not measuring the right things, and most importantly it is not effectively protecting children or supporting their development. And it appears to be institutionalised in its processes and so I wonder whether it will be able to change. I’d scrap it.

It is great as a case study of what can go wrong when tick-box processes are created. But, sadly, in my opinion, that’s all it’s currently good for.

Paul

Tags:
Posted in Resources – Managers, Topic – Current Affairs, Topic – Customer Service | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »