Long, long ago in some distant galaxy.....I won a place to study at Oxford. This surprised many people, not least myself, but not my mother. I had long ceased wondering how it happened. Instead I thoroughly enjoyed my time there and retain fond memories and some good friends.
That is until a thread started on Linkedin - the professionals' facebook. This was in the Oxford Alumini Group which I joined sometime ago and was from a general contemporary of mine, but not someone I knew, asking for advice about how to maximise his daughter's entrance chances, in particular her choice of A-Levels.
I and a number of others responded, giving further evidence of the value of Linkedin and the strength of the Oxford community. There were many similar, but different pieces of advice however a single theme resonated deeply with me, in ways that surprised me.
That theme was that no matter what the subject sought, the interviewers would place a heavy value on passion for the subject, intelligent inquiry and interesting thinking. Now I know I have always been curious and happy to think outside the box, as they say, but passion has been an interesting subject between my wife and I - she did not know me until I had left Oxford.
Frequently I have been chastised for not being passionate or showing passion, well not for anything except rugby when sitting beside me during an England match is something of a personal physical risk. I have always resented the accusation of a lack of passion as I know it is in me, it just takes a level of engagement with the subject for it to manifest.
Looking back I was passionate about my subject which was Physics and maybe that is what shone through and earned me an Exhibition, a minor academic award for an undergraduate.
This may seem trivial to many and strange to others but it feels like a piece of knowledge has "come home" and I will remember it as I face the challenges that life, work and home, throws at me. I guess I am richer for compeleting that particular circle.
In the spirit of completing pictures or squaring circles, I was also recently able to close an open element of my past in a way and at a time I least expected. To cut a long story short and not give too much away, while I have been very happy with almost all of my work experiences there was one that ended too abruptly to give me any satisfactory closure.
This was a period when I led a particularly difficult team in an organisation that was not used to facing up to constraints. Leaving was the right thing to do, we both agreed to that, but I was left with little subsequent contact and thus was unable to monitor a) if what I put in place was effective and b) if my predictions (and related recommendations) had been correct.
Well the other day in the lft at work my name was called out by a vaguely familiar face. We agreed to have lunch as soon as it could be ararnged, but it took a few hours for me to recall that this was a contractor I had interviewed just before I left that particular role. He remembered me better that I did him.
Well we had lunch and it turned out that had stuck it out (his term) for another 2 1/2 years before he was released. He is still not sure how or indeed why he stayed that length of time, but by doing so he was able to fill in the jigsaw for me.
I won't divulge the details, but suffice it to say that his recounting of events has given me closure (and a little personal satisfaction) on that particular chapter of my life. I am not sure I realised I needed that closure, but in retrospect I can see that is indeed what I have looked for on and off for the last few years.
It reminded me that no matter how much you think you take change in your stride there are common and simple themes that flow through for us all such that, unless you are a sociopath, we all need appropriate closure at certain points.
Passion and closure are now two things I will endeavour to keep close to top of mind. Both have taken years to be so apparent, at least to me, but it just goes to show the value of giving things "time".
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Monday, 11 October 2010
My Kingdom for a Mattock
I was reminded this weekend about the value of having the right tool for the right job. The trigger was another day of physical exercise trying to remove a 17 metre rose hedge. My wife has decided that after 13 years it is time for a change so the "twigs" we planted so long ago that have long become a two metre high barrier have had to be excised.
Cutting off the parts above ground was fraught with its own dangers, but was child's play compared with trying to lift the roots. If you have never attempted this then please be aware that they are the twisted iceberg of the plant world. A small shoot above ground is no indication of what you will find below ground. The roots are often surprising bulbous; they twist and turn entangling with adjacent plants; and they seem uncommonly strong.
Did I say they go deep as well?
I have ruined a good garden fork trying to prise them from the ground, The steel shaft is now bent like a crescent moon.
So the answer is........
......a mattock. Five pounds of steel head with cutting edges both ends. Put this on a pickaxe handle and you have my new weapon of choice.
It was still hard work, but so much easier and all for the princely sum of £10 (US$16).
Thinking while I worked, my mind returned to the iPad. Another tool that works, at least for me in my nomadic existence. In the weeks I have had it I have largely become paper-free, at least while travelling. The light weight, instant on and long battery life, just work! That and the plethora of apps.
I use a micro sim from 3 costing £15 pm for 10 gig of data - more than enough. It does all my emails and browsing. With one of the file handling apps ( I use the free ones for now ) I can take virtual papers into meetings. The size and orientation allow for the sensible reading and review of documents on screen.
I have said at times that it was not great at creating content, but rather at consuming it. This is changing and I am sure will get better. As well as apps to access Twitter, Blogger etc, I have just bought Pages as a word processor and it seems very capable as a drafting tool.
I think I will still prefer a desk top for heavy duty content production, but see little place now for a laptop. Where would I go that I could not a) use the iPad and/or b) get access to a desktop?
Marmite Update
I did promise an update on Marmite Gold, the premium version I found a few weeks back. Well, in my opinion it is not worth it. Marmite is not a subtle product, so I feel that trying to sell some premium feel is at best hopeful. For me I could not taste the difference and certainly not enough to justify paying more.
I will stick with the original in this case.
Cutting off the parts above ground was fraught with its own dangers, but was child's play compared with trying to lift the roots. If you have never attempted this then please be aware that they are the twisted iceberg of the plant world. A small shoot above ground is no indication of what you will find below ground. The roots are often surprising bulbous; they twist and turn entangling with adjacent plants; and they seem uncommonly strong.
Did I say they go deep as well?
I have ruined a good garden fork trying to prise them from the ground, The steel shaft is now bent like a crescent moon.
So the answer is........
......a mattock. Five pounds of steel head with cutting edges both ends. Put this on a pickaxe handle and you have my new weapon of choice.
It was still hard work, but so much easier and all for the princely sum of £10 (US$16).
Thinking while I worked, my mind returned to the iPad. Another tool that works, at least for me in my nomadic existence. In the weeks I have had it I have largely become paper-free, at least while travelling. The light weight, instant on and long battery life, just work! That and the plethora of apps.
I use a micro sim from 3 costing £15 pm for 10 gig of data - more than enough. It does all my emails and browsing. With one of the file handling apps ( I use the free ones for now ) I can take virtual papers into meetings. The size and orientation allow for the sensible reading and review of documents on screen.
I have said at times that it was not great at creating content, but rather at consuming it. This is changing and I am sure will get better. As well as apps to access Twitter, Blogger etc, I have just bought Pages as a word processor and it seems very capable as a drafting tool.
I think I will still prefer a desk top for heavy duty content production, but see little place now for a laptop. Where would I go that I could not a) use the iPad and/or b) get access to a desktop?
Marmite Update
I did promise an update on Marmite Gold, the premium version I found a few weeks back. Well, in my opinion it is not worth it. Marmite is not a subtle product, so I feel that trying to sell some premium feel is at best hopeful. For me I could not taste the difference and certainly not enough to justify paying more.
I will stick with the original in this case.
Monday, 4 October 2010
Recognising a good (or great?) team
So much is spoken about team building and high performance teams, yet they seem to be increasingly difficult to build, at least in business. A few recent comments and observations have resonated strongly with me and deserve capture.
The most recent was watching the Ryder Cup. For those unfamiliar with the competition it is played every two years between teams from the USA and Europe. The story goes back almost 80 years and what sets it apart is that the players, some of the most highly paid sports personalities in the world who almost always play for their own success and no one else’s, play for nothing, but pride and being there. This is very refreshing in the modern super professional world. (see http://www.rydercup.com/2010/europe/history/index.cfm ).
Most team places come through qualification on their own tours during the playing season, but three or four on each side are picked by the respective captain. Competition is fierce throughout and the disappointment of not getting on a team is palpable. However, this is nothing compared with the passion and “pumped up behaviour” seen on the course. Occasionally, but rarely, this behaviour has over-stepped enthusiastic into aggressive. The celebrations from Jeff Overton, a rookie, when he pitched in was something to be seen and Graham McDowell’s almost gladiatorial stance having sunk a key putt on the 16th on the last day, stick in my mind, but these were two of many. All this is without the motivation of money! They played for each other and for pride.
If you look around your organisations check and see how many teams have “waiting lists”? No matter how you might try and assess a team more scientifically I would have thought a healthy waiting list is a pretty good indicator that you have a well performing team.
When Colin Powell addressed a leadership conference in London a few years ago he said that no-one recognises bad performance as well as a peer, and when the spot it they wait to see what the leader does about it. The action taken tells you a lot about what that leader values and will be taken on board by that wider community.
In a similar vein I think that high performance, individual or team, is also spotted best by peers. While they may wait and see how it is rewarded they are much more likely just to act and get associated with or involved in what they see as good.
There is much debate about money as a motivator. If it is a motivator it is a selfish one. One may aspire to the salary of another person, but rarely will the reward given to a peer or fellow team member do a lot to inspire one’s own performance. Instead it is the more intangible rewards of inclusion, recognition, sharing, etc. that make the difference.
If you want to find high performing teams I suggest you look for the waiting lists, formal or informal. See if you cannot use them as a role model or indeed scale them up to include and inspire greater numbers.
Roll on the next Ryder Cup!
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Timing is everything........
I have written before about how much change practitioners can learn from other life activities. Recently, this has been crystallised around timing, how important it is in change and how I Have never seen any aspect of change skills refer to timing of a project manager of change agent be recognised because of their timing. Instead you see people rewarded and valued for “slogging on regardless”, or, occasionally, being lucky. So why not?
Recently, on TV programme about the science of sport the presenter demonstrated that for a professional sportsman (in this case, a golfer and a baseball player) if their timing was even minutely off, their performance (distance and accuracy) dropped by over 10%. Interestingly, their widely accepted warm up routines actually had a negative impact on their timing!
I have also recognised in business that to have an idea adopted, let alone implemented, decision makers are heavily influenced by timing. By this I mean when in the planning cycle is it presented, what else is distracting your decision makers, what competition for resource is it facing, etc. The speed of decision making is frequently independent of the amount of preparatory work, the size/impact of the decision or the urgency of what is being decided. This is why so often it take a crisis, real, perceived or manufactured, to extract any form of decision making.
Comedy is also well recognised as being a profession where success is heavily dependent on timing. That said it is not one size (or one timing) that fits all. On one of his tours Billy Connelly, the Scottish comedian, admitted that it was much easier playing large venues. Why? Well, because it took longer for the laughter to pass around it, thus giving him more time to prepare his next line/joke.
The aspect that brought this all to mind is the old, eternal cry for more communication, especially from the passive, critical portions of the population. By “passive, critical” I mean those who prefer to be spoon-fed just what they want to know and not have to exert any energy either trying to learn about or assess the benefits and impact of a coming change; those who prefer to read selectively and recall information in order that they can find solace in complaining that they know nothing because no one has told them – often despite hard contrary evidence.
It struck me that effectively connecting with this portion of the community along with the rest is heavily dependent upon timing. This timing is in terms of relevance to the individual, receptivity in the broader audience and context in terms of wider happenings. If one’s timing is right the communication is absorbed and sticks, but if the timing is wrong it is hardly worth doing other than to build documentary evidence that you did, in fact, communicate and do “the right things”.
Indeed if one looks dispassionately at the work of many project managers, you can pick out those with a feel for timing, who understand the heartbeat of the organisation they are working in, and those who do not. I have not quantitative evidence to support this, but I would suggest that those with “timing” lead the projects that are perceived to be better managed (not always struggling against the current) and deliver more benefits.
As a closing thought for now, I would suggest that when one recruits or assesses a change professional one should look at their sense of timing and go for those with the best instinctive management of this – they are probably “luckier” than the rest.
On my part I am seriously considering taking a class in stand-up comedy, something that amuses my family just in its notion. To me there is nothing to lose, and if it helps me play to an audience even an iota better then it is probably worth it.
Recently, on TV programme about the science of sport the presenter demonstrated that for a professional sportsman (in this case, a golfer and a baseball player) if their timing was even minutely off, their performance (distance and accuracy) dropped by over 10%. Interestingly, their widely accepted warm up routines actually had a negative impact on their timing!
I have also recognised in business that to have an idea adopted, let alone implemented, decision makers are heavily influenced by timing. By this I mean when in the planning cycle is it presented, what else is distracting your decision makers, what competition for resource is it facing, etc. The speed of decision making is frequently independent of the amount of preparatory work, the size/impact of the decision or the urgency of what is being decided. This is why so often it take a crisis, real, perceived or manufactured, to extract any form of decision making.
Comedy is also well recognised as being a profession where success is heavily dependent on timing. That said it is not one size (or one timing) that fits all. On one of his tours Billy Connelly, the Scottish comedian, admitted that it was much easier playing large venues. Why? Well, because it took longer for the laughter to pass around it, thus giving him more time to prepare his next line/joke.
The aspect that brought this all to mind is the old, eternal cry for more communication, especially from the passive, critical portions of the population. By “passive, critical” I mean those who prefer to be spoon-fed just what they want to know and not have to exert any energy either trying to learn about or assess the benefits and impact of a coming change; those who prefer to read selectively and recall information in order that they can find solace in complaining that they know nothing because no one has told them – often despite hard contrary evidence.
It struck me that effectively connecting with this portion of the community along with the rest is heavily dependent upon timing. This timing is in terms of relevance to the individual, receptivity in the broader audience and context in terms of wider happenings. If one’s timing is right the communication is absorbed and sticks, but if the timing is wrong it is hardly worth doing other than to build documentary evidence that you did, in fact, communicate and do “the right things”.
Indeed if one looks dispassionately at the work of many project managers, you can pick out those with a feel for timing, who understand the heartbeat of the organisation they are working in, and those who do not. I have not quantitative evidence to support this, but I would suggest that those with “timing” lead the projects that are perceived to be better managed (not always struggling against the current) and deliver more benefits.
As a closing thought for now, I would suggest that when one recruits or assesses a change professional one should look at their sense of timing and go for those with the best instinctive management of this – they are probably “luckier” than the rest.
On my part I am seriously considering taking a class in stand-up comedy, something that amuses my family just in its notion. To me there is nothing to lose, and if it helps me play to an audience even an iota better then it is probably worth it.
Maybe we should add it into the standard set of project management training?
Friday, 24 September 2010
An Epiphany of the Obvious - Cowboys and old dogs
Let's cut to the chase - building on strengths is a better way to raise performance than just eliminating weaknesses. Is that not obvious? Yet look at corporate life and see how much time is spent plugging weaknesses, individual and corporate, and how little spent on building on strengths.
While cost cutting can have a positive short term impact on profitability we know it is limited and not the way to build long term success. Why then do we treat our human capital as if we are continually cost cutting?
This train of thought was triggered the other day when I was asked to look a "StrengthsFinder 2.0". On the face of it this is a small book one can buy from Amazon for less than £10. in it is a code that gives access to an online assessment tool. The tool looks to identify your five top themes or strengths and then refers you back to the book and other online resources to help understand your strengths, develop them and use them. It claims to be based on many years of research and is apparently wow'ing corporate America.
I took the test and was struck that after 30 years of receiving corporate training around management and change, this was the first to really major on strengths. Previously, the tools ( Meyers-Briggs, Discovery, LIFO, Belbin, etc etc ) would be used to feedback to individuals and teams with the focus heavily loaded on shortcomings, weaknesses and differences.
I am sure this is not what the creators of these tools intended, but I contend it is how they are more often used. The tools are being used to solve a problem and that problem must be about weaknesses, or so it is easy to think. Similarly how many performance management systems really focus on strengths and developing them. More often than not one is told what one needs to do to fit in, how not to be different, how to adapt to everyone around you (NLP?) and be a good team player. Where do they value the individual over fitting into some stereotype?
Not only does this make a mockery of claims about diversity, it also misses huge engagement and performance opportunities. When was the last time the chair of a meeting asked for dissenting views instead of grasping perceived agreement and rushing to the next item? Daring to differ or show an alternative perspective can be seen as being difficult, off message and not part of the team.
It reminds me of horses whisperers ( see Robert Redford in the film, but the book is better! ). If you have not read the book or seen the film, then let briefly explain. In order for a horse to be ridden, the common wisdom is that it has to be "broken". This is where a cowboy breaks the will and spirit of a horse physically by forcible riding it and showing supremacy. This is a very macho activity and one that relies on strength and courage. In short they break before they build, forcing common behaviours upon an individual horse.
An alternative is a horse whisperer. These people have a quieter, gentler approach. They look to understand a horse, to develop an empathy and forge a bond. Moving to the stage that the horse agrees to / accepts being ridden. The horse has not been broken in any way, instead it has been enticed into behaving, albeit subtley and I would suggest is better for it.
While there are relatively few whisperers, you can mass produce cowboys ( even if you do lose a few along the way with some horses ) and process many more horses by breaking them. This may appear efficient in the short term, but primarily it is expedient.
How many cowboys do we have in management? How much are they limiting performance? I guess the test is to see how many teams amount to something greater than the sum of the parts; I would suggest relatively few.
Of course building on strengths and embracing diversity is harder on a manager. He/she would need to build a portfolio team rather than build clones; they would need heightened tolerance and understanding when they too are being chased for short term delivery. The problem is that many rounds of short term performance soon look like sub standard long term performance, but hey, by then the manager will long gone, having ridden off to another sunrise somewhere.
I am not sure if I am an old dog or indeed if these are new tricks for me. I have long built teams and developed their members, creating opportunities and supporting ambition. The difference now is that I have a tool to help and a clearer vocabulary.
I would issue this challenge:
> Take a look at yourself and identify your own strengths ( maybe use StrengthsFinder? ) - look at yourself differently.
> Next look at your team and do the same for each.
> Consider if you are allowing each to play to their strengths, if not can you change things so theta are?
> Look at your team as a collection of talented individuals and not as a set of imperfect clones.
Lastly consider if your team is greater than the sum of it's parts? If not then now is the time to do something about it.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
While cost cutting can have a positive short term impact on profitability we know it is limited and not the way to build long term success. Why then do we treat our human capital as if we are continually cost cutting?
This train of thought was triggered the other day when I was asked to look a "StrengthsFinder 2.0". On the face of it this is a small book one can buy from Amazon for less than £10. in it is a code that gives access to an online assessment tool. The tool looks to identify your five top themes or strengths and then refers you back to the book and other online resources to help understand your strengths, develop them and use them. It claims to be based on many years of research and is apparently wow'ing corporate America.
I took the test and was struck that after 30 years of receiving corporate training around management and change, this was the first to really major on strengths. Previously, the tools ( Meyers-Briggs, Discovery, LIFO, Belbin, etc etc ) would be used to feedback to individuals and teams with the focus heavily loaded on shortcomings, weaknesses and differences.
I am sure this is not what the creators of these tools intended, but I contend it is how they are more often used. The tools are being used to solve a problem and that problem must be about weaknesses, or so it is easy to think. Similarly how many performance management systems really focus on strengths and developing them. More often than not one is told what one needs to do to fit in, how not to be different, how to adapt to everyone around you (NLP?) and be a good team player. Where do they value the individual over fitting into some stereotype?
Not only does this make a mockery of claims about diversity, it also misses huge engagement and performance opportunities. When was the last time the chair of a meeting asked for dissenting views instead of grasping perceived agreement and rushing to the next item? Daring to differ or show an alternative perspective can be seen as being difficult, off message and not part of the team.
It reminds me of horses whisperers ( see Robert Redford in the film, but the book is better! ). If you have not read the book or seen the film, then let briefly explain. In order for a horse to be ridden, the common wisdom is that it has to be "broken". This is where a cowboy breaks the will and spirit of a horse physically by forcible riding it and showing supremacy. This is a very macho activity and one that relies on strength and courage. In short they break before they build, forcing common behaviours upon an individual horse.
An alternative is a horse whisperer. These people have a quieter, gentler approach. They look to understand a horse, to develop an empathy and forge a bond. Moving to the stage that the horse agrees to / accepts being ridden. The horse has not been broken in any way, instead it has been enticed into behaving, albeit subtley and I would suggest is better for it.
While there are relatively few whisperers, you can mass produce cowboys ( even if you do lose a few along the way with some horses ) and process many more horses by breaking them. This may appear efficient in the short term, but primarily it is expedient.
How many cowboys do we have in management? How much are they limiting performance? I guess the test is to see how many teams amount to something greater than the sum of the parts; I would suggest relatively few.
Of course building on strengths and embracing diversity is harder on a manager. He/she would need to build a portfolio team rather than build clones; they would need heightened tolerance and understanding when they too are being chased for short term delivery. The problem is that many rounds of short term performance soon look like sub standard long term performance, but hey, by then the manager will long gone, having ridden off to another sunrise somewhere.
I am not sure if I am an old dog or indeed if these are new tricks for me. I have long built teams and developed their members, creating opportunities and supporting ambition. The difference now is that I have a tool to help and a clearer vocabulary.
I would issue this challenge:
> Take a look at yourself and identify your own strengths ( maybe use StrengthsFinder? ) - look at yourself differently.
> Next look at your team and do the same for each.
> Consider if you are allowing each to play to their strengths, if not can you change things so theta are?
> Look at your team as a collection of talented individuals and not as a set of imperfect clones.
Lastly consider if your team is greater than the sum of it's parts? If not then now is the time to do something about it.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, 17 September 2010
Small pleasures and unwritten rules
For pretty much the first time in my life I have recently had my shoes cleaned by a professional show shine man. In fact I have had three pairs cleaned on three separate occasions.
I noticed a guy had set up his pitch just outside our building. I am guessing he is Turkish or similar given the tiered array of brass Aladdin style pots that bracket the foot rest. That and the black leather waistcoat, the mediterranean skin tone and his accent.
The first time I used him was last week when I looked at my shoes and admitted to myself that a) I had neglected them and b) they looked dirty. I decided to invest in a proper clean (priced at little more than a large Starbucks coffee!).
A short while later I was the proud owner of a pair of gleaming leather toe caps (plus the rest of the shoe), but by then I realized I had a new set of rules to learn, yet no instruction booklet. There had been various subtle taps indicating a change of foot. I had been politely told off for not putting my foot flat (apparently it creates lines in the folds). I had watched the ritual of e various layers polish, three to my recollection, being applied; been buffed twice by brush and velvet cloth and protected by carefully selected plastic sock guards.
This is something few ladies will have experienced and set my mind thinking to the rules if the road regarding getting your haircut and (forgive me ladies) the occupancy pattern of urinals in a male toilet. I don't recall my father ever taking me aside and saying, "Son, this is the way it works!", but I was younger, impressionable and had an opportunity to observe. I learned to move my head at the subtlest of touches, often acting ahead of the need (the hairdresser's) and of the rule of "maximum distance" (urinals). In the shoe cleaner's chair I was alone.
I have been back twice since. The second time with a new pair of shoes that I thought would benefit for an early professional waxing. Today I took a pair of brown shoes and watched as the right shade of brown was mixed from two pots before application. You don't find that in Sainsbury's.
Apart from the obvious that I know have three pairs of well polished shoes, I have also discovered the moments of quiet contemplation one can find as another person rubs your feet. Even today I was told off for creasing my shoes during a shift of foot positions; something that broke my revery, but I hope that as the rules become second nature, the level of pleasure, albeit small, will grow.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I noticed a guy had set up his pitch just outside our building. I am guessing he is Turkish or similar given the tiered array of brass Aladdin style pots that bracket the foot rest. That and the black leather waistcoat, the mediterranean skin tone and his accent.
The first time I used him was last week when I looked at my shoes and admitted to myself that a) I had neglected them and b) they looked dirty. I decided to invest in a proper clean (priced at little more than a large Starbucks coffee!).
A short while later I was the proud owner of a pair of gleaming leather toe caps (plus the rest of the shoe), but by then I realized I had a new set of rules to learn, yet no instruction booklet. There had been various subtle taps indicating a change of foot. I had been politely told off for not putting my foot flat (apparently it creates lines in the folds). I had watched the ritual of e various layers polish, three to my recollection, being applied; been buffed twice by brush and velvet cloth and protected by carefully selected plastic sock guards.
This is something few ladies will have experienced and set my mind thinking to the rules if the road regarding getting your haircut and (forgive me ladies) the occupancy pattern of urinals in a male toilet. I don't recall my father ever taking me aside and saying, "Son, this is the way it works!", but I was younger, impressionable and had an opportunity to observe. I learned to move my head at the subtlest of touches, often acting ahead of the need (the hairdresser's) and of the rule of "maximum distance" (urinals). In the shoe cleaner's chair I was alone.
I have been back twice since. The second time with a new pair of shoes that I thought would benefit for an early professional waxing. Today I took a pair of brown shoes and watched as the right shade of brown was mixed from two pots before application. You don't find that in Sainsbury's.
Apart from the obvious that I know have three pairs of well polished shoes, I have also discovered the moments of quiet contemplation one can find as another person rubs your feet. Even today I was told off for creasing my shoes during a shift of foot positions; something that broke my revery, but I hope that as the rules become second nature, the level of pleasure, albeit small, will grow.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
The Jabberwock of the 21st century?
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!"
Lewis Carroll
Long before the Internet existed my old Headmaster drummed a few truths into his students. One was that if you write anything down you have to assume that the world will read it. Of course that was not true literally, but with the Internet it is far more possible now. What he really meant was that once you wrote something you lost control of it's distribution, its readership and how it might be used, not matter how boldly you marked in "PRIVATE" or "CONFIDENTIAL" and caveated it.
He also spoke of "the perversity of inanimate objects", meaning it is strange how often apparently lifeless things (and I include the written word here) will negatively affect you.
These were lessons I forgot to my peril more than once in my early career. I now find myself chuckling when advice from HR professionals is not to write this down (including emails) if you are in any form of disciplinary or difficult negotiation with staff. Emails can and have been used in the prosecution (in all senses of the word) of these matters.
I had been intending to blog on this subject following a recent conversation with my god-daughter. She is just heading to university to study, amongst other things, politics. I raised the question of Facebook, Twitter, etc. and gently reminded her to be be careful what she posted as it will persist on some database, accessible by some search engine, possibly forever. As a result, it is likely to surface at the most inopportune or embarrassing moment in her future career, whatever that may be.
The trigger today was an article in The Times about a teenager who wrote an abusive email to President Obama. Now, with FBI and Police involvement, he is banned from (ever?) entering the USA. While I and others think this is a gross over-reaction - what happened to free speech and a sense of proportion? - it is also a great example of the unforeseen consequences of "writing something down".
I have certainly found myself self-censuring in my posts here. A good number of things I might post about I have decided against. The dangers were illustrated to me a good few years ago when my boss observed an employee I had recently hired was blogging in work time. This was before blogging was common place. My boss brought it to my attention because when he reviewed the blog my employee had made comments about me. I think the post has been erased now, but as I recall it opined that I did not know as much as I thought I did and made some comment about being pompous.
A few of my colleagues thought I should call him out on it, but I didn't and never have. I decided that he was entitled to his opinion and that now i knew watt he thought I was better informed. What was calling him on it expected to achieve? We subsequently worked closely together for over three years and indeed are still colleagues and I believe we are friends with some mutual respect. Then again who knows? I certainly have not wasted effort or sleep trying to locate any more current posts.
As a parent one does one's best to prepare your children to live in the real world. Along with skills, one tries to impart some wisdom and this evening I shall show the article to my daughter and hope some of the implications register. I know her generation use these mediums differently to mine and indeed the older generations are frequently shocked. It may be that future recruiters or assessors will work to different standards and be more understanding and tolerant of the more "unusual" postings, but that cannot be banked upon.
All I can do is hope I have warned my daughter about this particular Jabberwock.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!"
Lewis Carroll
Long before the Internet existed my old Headmaster drummed a few truths into his students. One was that if you write anything down you have to assume that the world will read it. Of course that was not true literally, but with the Internet it is far more possible now. What he really meant was that once you wrote something you lost control of it's distribution, its readership and how it might be used, not matter how boldly you marked in "PRIVATE" or "CONFIDENTIAL" and caveated it.
He also spoke of "the perversity of inanimate objects", meaning it is strange how often apparently lifeless things (and I include the written word here) will negatively affect you.
These were lessons I forgot to my peril more than once in my early career. I now find myself chuckling when advice from HR professionals is not to write this down (including emails) if you are in any form of disciplinary or difficult negotiation with staff. Emails can and have been used in the prosecution (in all senses of the word) of these matters.
I had been intending to blog on this subject following a recent conversation with my god-daughter. She is just heading to university to study, amongst other things, politics. I raised the question of Facebook, Twitter, etc. and gently reminded her to be be careful what she posted as it will persist on some database, accessible by some search engine, possibly forever. As a result, it is likely to surface at the most inopportune or embarrassing moment in her future career, whatever that may be.
The trigger today was an article in The Times about a teenager who wrote an abusive email to President Obama. Now, with FBI and Police involvement, he is banned from (ever?) entering the USA. While I and others think this is a gross over-reaction - what happened to free speech and a sense of proportion? - it is also a great example of the unforeseen consequences of "writing something down".
I have certainly found myself self-censuring in my posts here. A good number of things I might post about I have decided against. The dangers were illustrated to me a good few years ago when my boss observed an employee I had recently hired was blogging in work time. This was before blogging was common place. My boss brought it to my attention because when he reviewed the blog my employee had made comments about me. I think the post has been erased now, but as I recall it opined that I did not know as much as I thought I did and made some comment about being pompous.
A few of my colleagues thought I should call him out on it, but I didn't and never have. I decided that he was entitled to his opinion and that now i knew watt he thought I was better informed. What was calling him on it expected to achieve? We subsequently worked closely together for over three years and indeed are still colleagues and I believe we are friends with some mutual respect. Then again who knows? I certainly have not wasted effort or sleep trying to locate any more current posts.
As a parent one does one's best to prepare your children to live in the real world. Along with skills, one tries to impart some wisdom and this evening I shall show the article to my daughter and hope some of the implications register. I know her generation use these mediums differently to mine and indeed the older generations are frequently shocked. It may be that future recruiters or assessors will work to different standards and be more understanding and tolerant of the more "unusual" postings, but that cannot be banked upon.
All I can do is hope I have warned my daughter about this particular Jabberwock.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)