Every now and then I have come across what I consider to be really nice films. These are films that gently entertain, offend no one, don't over tax the brain or strain the heart, but at the end you feel uplifted and glad you watched. There is also something about the pace of the film. It needs to be even and the story not overtly contrived.
Of course there were many old, black and white ones that we used to watch on Sunday afternoons, but I am not counting them.
I would like to put up three nominations and also explain why a couple did not make my list. I would then be interested if any readers of this post wanted to add their own thoughts.
My first is "Gregory's Girl". A low budget, Scottish film that just warms the soul. I watched it when it was first released in 1981 and am still happy to watch it now. Of course it could have something to do with the fact I fancied Claire Grogan (ex- Altered Images), but I honestly think it is much more than that.
My second is "The Motorcycle Diaries" from 2004 that is based on a journal from Ernesto "Che" Guevara.OK it is subtitled so takes a little more watching, but still it was a "nice" film. I received this as a free CD with a Sunday paper and had no expectations of it, but was quietly uplifted by the time it was finished.
My last is "The Legend of Bagger Vance", a lesser known film with Will Smith and Matt Damon from 2000. It may help that I play golf, but I got a good feeling from the moment I saw it was to be on TV. I have watched it now and not been disappointed.
A couple that did not make it into my three are "Home Alone", a great favourite with my family, but in my mind too contrived and too pacey, and "Miracle on 34th Street", again too contrived.
Now I would be interested to see if anyone cares to either argue with my three or add their own. Please feel free to do either.
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Laziness breeds success? The rule of three!
I used to have a rule of three at a previous company. If my director mentioned something new I noted it, but unless instructed otherwise, did little more. If it was mentioned a second time I started thinking about what I would say about it. The third time it appeared I would mark it as important and make sure I responded quickly to it.
That way I avoided much wasted effort chasing fleeting ideas that never caught hold.
Recently the concept of laziness as a skill (?) that contributes to success has crossed my path three times. In this concept laziness is not about idleness or a negative approach, but more about how to realize the desired outcome at minimum personal effort.
One time.....
The first time was a colleague I respect referring a book to me - The Lazy Project Manager. It is subtitled "How to achieve twice as much and still leave the office early." My colleague was saying how much sense it spoke, but then like me has been around change for a while and has a lot of experience to gauge it against. In general it is about achieving through others rather than running around frantically trying to do it all oneself. It also has an element of being focussed on the right things.
An old friend used to ask students why projects fail? After all the usual suggestions of poor sponsorship, scope creep, poor delivery by others, etc.. his answer was "risks happen!" His argument was that estimating, planning, managing, etc were skills that could be learned and were essentially mechanical, but the killer was the unknowns, the uncertainties and it was here that project manager should be focussing. I can see the link to the "lazy" concept here.
It does not seem to be available as an ebook yet, but will soon be on my reading pile.
Two times......
Readers may be aware that a little while ago I asked around for examples of inspirational leaders of cultural change. The most interesting aspect of that was the dearth of suggestions (instead people offered themselves and their services or suggested tools, but did not identify an individual). When I raised that again recently someone immediately said they could think if at least two who they would cite. As he then mused he commented that he could describe them both easily in that they were lazy!
My ears pricked up at this second mention of lazy being a good characteristic. Indeed it then that the quality was coined as aiming to achieve the most with the least personal effort.
Three times.......
Soon after that I found myself in a natur e vs nurture debate about leadership skills, in particular the ability to evoke loyalty. We didn't agree, but we are still friends and that is the important bit. In this debate it turned out that my friend had worked for Richard Branson and he described him as "actively lazy". The context was that as a serial entrepreneur Richard Branson learnt how to win the support of others that allowed him to take his time learning about an opportunity, but then when he judged it worthwhile was able to focus, both his and his supporters efforts on it.
So....that was three times and here we are;
Well, it is when it manifests in working and achieving through others (could that be delegation?) AND focussing on the important things and not getting caught up in the morass of everyday life. When expressed that way it is not surprising it can be linked with inspirational leaders too!
Sounds easy, eh? But in much of work life it seems managers feel safer and indeed get rewarded for being busy, not lazy. They never want to appear lazy. Instead they control so much themselves, limiting the ability of their staff to develop under them. They get so caught up in the daily machinery of meetings and paperwork that they barely have time to think, often catching up with work and emails at 2am Sunday morning.
On balance, and with the caveat that it is the active laziness described here, I have decided that I can happily aspire to being "lazy".
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
That way I avoided much wasted effort chasing fleeting ideas that never caught hold.
Recently the concept of laziness as a skill (?) that contributes to success has crossed my path three times. In this concept laziness is not about idleness or a negative approach, but more about how to realize the desired outcome at minimum personal effort.
One time.....
The first time was a colleague I respect referring a book to me - The Lazy Project Manager. It is subtitled "How to achieve twice as much and still leave the office early." My colleague was saying how much sense it spoke, but then like me has been around change for a while and has a lot of experience to gauge it against. In general it is about achieving through others rather than running around frantically trying to do it all oneself. It also has an element of being focussed on the right things.
An old friend used to ask students why projects fail? After all the usual suggestions of poor sponsorship, scope creep, poor delivery by others, etc.. his answer was "risks happen!" His argument was that estimating, planning, managing, etc were skills that could be learned and were essentially mechanical, but the killer was the unknowns, the uncertainties and it was here that project manager should be focussing. I can see the link to the "lazy" concept here.
It does not seem to be available as an ebook yet, but will soon be on my reading pile.
Two times......
Readers may be aware that a little while ago I asked around for examples of inspirational leaders of cultural change. The most interesting aspect of that was the dearth of suggestions (instead people offered themselves and their services or suggested tools, but did not identify an individual). When I raised that again recently someone immediately said they could think if at least two who they would cite. As he then mused he commented that he could describe them both easily in that they were lazy!
My ears pricked up at this second mention of lazy being a good characteristic. Indeed it then that the quality was coined as aiming to achieve the most with the least personal effort.
Three times.......
Soon after that I found myself in a natur e vs nurture debate about leadership skills, in particular the ability to evoke loyalty. We didn't agree, but we are still friends and that is the important bit. In this debate it turned out that my friend had worked for Richard Branson and he described him as "actively lazy". The context was that as a serial entrepreneur Richard Branson learnt how to win the support of others that allowed him to take his time learning about an opportunity, but then when he judged it worthwhile was able to focus, both his and his supporters efforts on it.
So....that was three times and here we are;
Laziness is good!
Well, it is when it manifests in working and achieving through others (could that be delegation?) AND focussing on the important things and not getting caught up in the morass of everyday life. When expressed that way it is not surprising it can be linked with inspirational leaders too!
Sounds easy, eh? But in much of work life it seems managers feel safer and indeed get rewarded for being busy, not lazy. They never want to appear lazy. Instead they control so much themselves, limiting the ability of their staff to develop under them. They get so caught up in the daily machinery of meetings and paperwork that they barely have time to think, often catching up with work and emails at 2am Sunday morning.
On balance, and with the caveat that it is the active laziness described here, I have decided that I can happily aspire to being "lazy".
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, 30 October 2010
A Personal View on Culture Change
You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium's
Liable to walk upon the scene
Johnny Mercer 1944
Recently I have frequently found myself discussing cultural change. While this is not totally surprising given a couple of callouts I have made for help with the subject, I think it also reflects a growing interest in people I interact with.
I will not claim to be "qualified" in any way other than experience and a continuing appetite for enquiry, but having talked this out a number of times I thought it useful to try and capture the essence of my current understanding.
As a quick summary here are my views. Successful culture change:-
- Can be inspired, not demanded or mandated.
- Is an emergent journey, not a transition between two fixed conditions
- Is fragile, at least at the start, and needs effective protection AND reinforcement
- The first steps need not be hard, but often require courage
- Is NOT mechanistic!
- Needs time to gestate and embed
- Lead from the top and front
- Tell the story and share the vision, again and again
- Identify your ambassadors and support them
- Be brave and don't be complacent
- Exaggerate for effect
- Take your timing from people you are leading
Let me expand on some of these points. Looking at the first two about inspiring change and leading from the front, these reflect the fact that it is very hard to drive cultural change let alone try and do it from the middle levels. Talking to many who have tried the message has been to put your best change leaders on culture and not to leave it to last when yoou are setting your team. It is also clear and natural that when faced with change your teams will look to you to see how you are embracing it and they will take their lead from you. Because of this point alone it is imperative that you not only talk the change, but you live it and show the way.
Moving on, when I started looking at cultural change I found that there seem to be two schools of thought. The first, which I see as more traditional, is that you can analyse, document and detail both the culture you have now and the one you wish to create. Armed with this the thinking is that you can identify and plan a set of tasks that move you from one plateau or steady state to another plateau or steady state. The other view is that there are no steady states, but instead the change is a journey that sets of aiming at a recognisable vision and requires continual review and adpatation; indeed it may never reach a steady state. This latter thinking seems to look at by changeing discrete behaviours one can create an outcome that is a new culture.
One of the arguments I found in favour of the latter approach is the work that sets up just three rules that if adopted, will make a group of flying beings act like a flock of geese. More importantly to me is that the steady state to steady state approach seems to be way off the world I live in at work these days. It may be that 50 years ago culture persisted unchanged, but that is not the case now with the increased pace of change all around.
My last comment on this point comes both from advice and real personal experience and that is t he importance of story telling as opposed and creating real dialogue from top to bottom of the organisation. Boring staid emails, Powerpoints, deskdrops, town halls and general corporate communications just don't help the cultural agenda. I have created posters, heard of books being written, tea parties arranged and other ideas. Be creative in your attempts to portray and convey your vision.
Another recommendation is to spread the load and embrace help wherever it is found. The most obvious is to look for "ambassadors", people who while not officially part of the change team can and will take the message and support it throughtout the community you are trying to affect. They do so not because they are told to, but because they understand, believe and can communicate.
In a similar vein one needs to be prepared to exaggerate the reponse to both positive and negative signs of change if one is to accelerate and establish developments. Spotlighting and rewarding positives are essential, but ten time more important is picking up on negative behaviours and addressing them. Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State said the following when speaking on London on leadership. He said that no one spots poor performance (or behaviour) better than a person's peers, and when they do spot it they watch to see how the leader deals with it. From this response they assess the acceptability of the that performance (or behaviour) and adpat their own standards accordingly.
Cultural change is fragile and need special nurturing and extra effort. It is not a science, despite what some may wish. You will make mistakes and it takes a certain bravery at times, but one thing I can be sure and that is if you do nothing then any change will be by chance and unlikely to be in the direction you wish.
The last aspect I will address here is timing. In this I make not apologies for emphasising that cultural change is about people and their reactions are not precisely predictable. Also they do not change instantaneously, but take time to digest and adjust; indeed we each do handle it differently and at a different pace. The significance of this is that you cannot drive change to a military timetable. Instead it is more important to work with the rhythm and pace of the groups you are changing, pushing when then are ready, slowing when they are not ready, adapting when you need to adapt. This is more about instinct that courage than process and ticking boxes.
I hope some of this resonates and if you wish to contribute please feel free to comment. I added the song lyrics at the start as they seemed to capture the spirit and intent of this, though they were written over 50 years ago. Interesting eh?
Friday, 29 October 2010
It says it all!
Over the years my friends will know that I have often made reference to chivalry and how I feel my values align to it - this was without ever really defining what "it" is. Well the other day I was half watching TV when the script of an advert grabbed my attention and set up a strong resonance.
The product in question is Chivas Regal. This is quite apt given my enjoyment of whisky. The full advert can be watched here ( http://www.chivas.com/en/INT/Campaigns/?item=0&length=L ) where you will get the full experience. However I have transcribed the vocal element below:-
Everyone out for themselves
Can this really be the only way?
No, here is to honour, and to gallantry, long may it live.
Here's to doing the right thing, to giving a damn
Here's to the straight talkers who give their word and keep it
Here's to freedom, wherever you find it
And to know the true meaning of wealth
Here's to the brave among us
Here's to a code of behaviour that sets certain men apart from all others
Here's to us
Live with Chivalry
I am not sure I could say it any better. Now I have this I will keep it close!
The product in question is Chivas Regal. This is quite apt given my enjoyment of whisky. The full advert can be watched here ( http://www.chivas.com/en/INT/Campaigns/?item=0&length=L ) where you will get the full experience. However I have transcribed the vocal element below:-
Everyone out for themselves
Can this really be the only way?
No, here is to honour, and to gallantry, long may it live.
Here's to doing the right thing, to giving a damn
Here's to the straight talkers who give their word and keep it
Here's to freedom, wherever you find it
And to know the true meaning of wealth
Here's to the brave among us
Here's to a code of behaviour that sets certain men apart from all others
Here's to us
Live with Chivalry
I am not sure I could say it any better. Now I have this I will keep it close!
Friday, 22 October 2010
Unifying People Assessment Tools
I posted before about my desire for something that managed to bring (and hold) together the variety of assessment tools used by HR and trainers when looking at personal and team skills, strengths, weaknesses, types, etc.
Well, since then I have formulated an idea that I want to capture and share. In looking for a unifying framework to join up all these tools, my epiphany was when I was introduced to the StrengthsFinder tool and realised could be the missing piece to help join the likes of Myers-Briggs, DISC and indeed Kiersey, and the Judgement Index. See the end of this blog for and an expansion on these tools, if required.
I have attempted to illustrate my idea it as a three dimensional model, but this is purely symbolic given that each "axis" is itself multi-dimensional. The three dimensions reflect a link and relationship rather than competition.
The axes are Type, Strengths and Judgement/Values. I think there is a natural order to these.
Type is the sort of psychometric tool that identifies the DNA of personality. Based on Jungian idea, Myers-Briggs, DISC, etc .tend to come up with a categorisation of each of us. Of course there is no right or wrong, but the sense is that our DNA is set during our early formative years and is unlikely to change much after that. Some movement where we place close to a boundary can happen, but in general it is fixed. For example, in Myers-Briggs I have almost always tested as ENTJ across a number of years and a number of different assessors and tools. I did come out as ENTP once, but that was on inspect probably driven by some immediate circumstances and the preference was only marginal.
So in essence that is the first assessment to do as it sets a more constrained field for the next consideration which is strengths.
In respect of strengths, the tool I have come across is Strengthsfinder which looks to identify the individuals top five themes or strengths from a set of 34. These are the areas in which they perform best or could deliver well if they there was a development focus. Not only can the strengths be developed, but the tool acknowledges the set can change as we move through life. That said it is most likely they will be smaller movements eg a strength that was already high on the list now appearing as a top five.
Something like Belbin's work on team roles seems to me to work across the DNA and strengths dimensions.
The strengths add texture to the type. If an ENTJ is a "field marshall" as it is often described, there will be a similarity in strengths, but we only need to look at history to see that there are major differences in the strengths and behaviours of people who would fall into that group.
The last piece is that of values/judgements. The only tool I find here is the Judgement Index. This looks to see how an indvidual views themself, the world around them and how they fit in. This is far more contextual. The likely view will differ by circumstance. For example you may well have different views if you have recently witnessed the birth of your child from when you have just nursed a sick parent for a long time. Similarly if you feel your job is at threat you will have a altered perception of yourself from someone who has just been hired.
To me if stengths add texture to the initial type assessment then this value aspect adds flavour.
I think that is the natural order to consider these aspects and use the tools. Only by looking at the three can one have a full (?) picture of the individual. They do not compete, but complement each other.
Of course I may have this all wrong, so I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has considered this question. For now this will be my working model.
If you are interested in looking at these tools I will provide a few links:-
Myers-Briggs
Wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
Free online test - http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
DISC
Wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC_assessment
Kiersey
Own site with test - http://www.keirsey.com/
Belbin
Own site - http://www.belbin.com/
Strengthsfinder
Own site - http://www.strengthsfinder.com/113647/Homepage.aspx
Judgement Index
Own site - http://www.judgementindex.co.uk/
Well, since then I have formulated an idea that I want to capture and share. In looking for a unifying framework to join up all these tools, my epiphany was when I was introduced to the StrengthsFinder tool and realised could be the missing piece to help join the likes of Myers-Briggs, DISC and indeed Kiersey, and the Judgement Index. See the end of this blog for and an expansion on these tools, if required.
I have attempted to illustrate my idea it as a three dimensional model, but this is purely symbolic given that each "axis" is itself multi-dimensional. The three dimensions reflect a link and relationship rather than competition.
The axes are Type, Strengths and Judgement/Values. I think there is a natural order to these.
Type is the sort of psychometric tool that identifies the DNA of personality. Based on Jungian idea, Myers-Briggs, DISC, etc .tend to come up with a categorisation of each of us. Of course there is no right or wrong, but the sense is that our DNA is set during our early formative years and is unlikely to change much after that. Some movement where we place close to a boundary can happen, but in general it is fixed. For example, in Myers-Briggs I have almost always tested as ENTJ across a number of years and a number of different assessors and tools. I did come out as ENTP once, but that was on inspect probably driven by some immediate circumstances and the preference was only marginal.
So in essence that is the first assessment to do as it sets a more constrained field for the next consideration which is strengths.
In respect of strengths, the tool I have come across is Strengthsfinder which looks to identify the individuals top five themes or strengths from a set of 34. These are the areas in which they perform best or could deliver well if they there was a development focus. Not only can the strengths be developed, but the tool acknowledges the set can change as we move through life. That said it is most likely they will be smaller movements eg a strength that was already high on the list now appearing as a top five.
Something like Belbin's work on team roles seems to me to work across the DNA and strengths dimensions.
The strengths add texture to the type. If an ENTJ is a "field marshall" as it is often described, there will be a similarity in strengths, but we only need to look at history to see that there are major differences in the strengths and behaviours of people who would fall into that group.
The last piece is that of values/judgements. The only tool I find here is the Judgement Index. This looks to see how an indvidual views themself, the world around them and how they fit in. This is far more contextual. The likely view will differ by circumstance. For example you may well have different views if you have recently witnessed the birth of your child from when you have just nursed a sick parent for a long time. Similarly if you feel your job is at threat you will have a altered perception of yourself from someone who has just been hired.
To me if stengths add texture to the initial type assessment then this value aspect adds flavour.
I think that is the natural order to consider these aspects and use the tools. Only by looking at the three can one have a full (?) picture of the individual. They do not compete, but complement each other.
Of course I may have this all wrong, so I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has considered this question. For now this will be my working model.
If you are interested in looking at these tools I will provide a few links:-
Myers-Briggs
Wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
Free online test - http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
DISC
Wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC_assessment
Kiersey
Own site with test - http://www.keirsey.com/
Belbin
Own site - http://www.belbin.com/
Strengthsfinder
Own site - http://www.strengthsfinder.com/113647/Homepage.aspx
Judgement Index
Own site - http://www.judgementindex.co.uk/
Monday, 18 October 2010
Intelligent Passion - the new IP?
Since a post last week about Oxford Dons looking for passion and intelligent enquiry in prospective undergraduates my mind has been thinking around the subject. I have come to the conclusion that passion, or rather "intelligent passion" is the missing ingredient from many business interactions I either partake in or observe.
The initials "IP" more commonly refer to intellectual property or even Internet protocol, but I suggest that intelligent passion should be top of mind for the 201x decade. On reflection it is the element whose presence (and absence) is most easily spotted. Passion shows in heightened energy, focus, pace and excitement. It is evident in the dynamics of life, in the bounce in a step.
All of these qualities are infectious creating a multiplier effect when you consider the impact on teams.
If one googles the phrase "intelligent passion" one finds less that 8,000 hits. In the modern, search-engined world that means it is almost unmentioned/unspoken. This is further confirmed when inspecting the links that are returned. There is little or no mention of intelligent passion in relation to business so I will endeavour to expand on my vision of it.
Passion is a well recognized term meaning a strong feeling or emotion. As mentioned above it often manifests in heightened energy, focus, pace and excitement. I believe the problem in business is the emotional aspect. For years management training has been to remove emotion, making assessments and reports impartial and avoiding conflict that cannot be rationally addressed. Displaying emotion has been labelled and treated as a negative trait to the extent that when we do witness a display of emotion, most people pull back and suck their teeth. Many managers have only two ways to respond to passion, to back away and try and ignore it or to confront it. Unfortunately few feel able to or are interested in harnessing it.
Of course there is a danger in excessive passion. An individual can become obsessive, unmanageable ( read this as uncontrollable ) and isolated. This is where the "intelligent" part comes in. One needs to the intelligence to know how and indeed when to express the inner passion. This includes knowing when to back off and tone it down, but not to lose the passion; not to lose one's self.
There is some talk online about a "passion quotient", but it seems that are no credible objective measure, so for now we will have to live with subjective assessments, but our instincts are probably pretty good.
The erosion of passion can be insidious. It creeps up gradually and invades all aspects of life. Once lost, recovering passion can be difficult, but not impossible. As with many thing recognising the need to change is the essential start. The next step is reflecting and remembering times when you felt passionate about something, about anything. It could be watching or participating in a sport, or maybe wine tasting, in fact anything as long as you can do it again (and again).
So do it it and rediscover the feeling. Make sure you take note of how you feel and then practice recalling it. Do so before a business activity and see how that goes better. Then reflect on how you feel and remember that.
At the same time keep doing whatever it was you used as your prompt. If your work environment is one of low passion, then it can be hard to buck the trend, so look to reinforce your recovery as much as possible.
Soon you fill find your levels of passion and ability to feel passionate improve no end. Lastly find a way to share this new energy, this drive with someone else and spread the benefit.
Nurture your passion and Just watch life get better!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
The initials "IP" more commonly refer to intellectual property or even Internet protocol, but I suggest that intelligent passion should be top of mind for the 201x decade. On reflection it is the element whose presence (and absence) is most easily spotted. Passion shows in heightened energy, focus, pace and excitement. It is evident in the dynamics of life, in the bounce in a step.
All of these qualities are infectious creating a multiplier effect when you consider the impact on teams.
If one googles the phrase "intelligent passion" one finds less that 8,000 hits. In the modern, search-engined world that means it is almost unmentioned/unspoken. This is further confirmed when inspecting the links that are returned. There is little or no mention of intelligent passion in relation to business so I will endeavour to expand on my vision of it.
Passion is a well recognized term meaning a strong feeling or emotion. As mentioned above it often manifests in heightened energy, focus, pace and excitement. I believe the problem in business is the emotional aspect. For years management training has been to remove emotion, making assessments and reports impartial and avoiding conflict that cannot be rationally addressed. Displaying emotion has been labelled and treated as a negative trait to the extent that when we do witness a display of emotion, most people pull back and suck their teeth. Many managers have only two ways to respond to passion, to back away and try and ignore it or to confront it. Unfortunately few feel able to or are interested in harnessing it.
Of course there is a danger in excessive passion. An individual can become obsessive, unmanageable ( read this as uncontrollable ) and isolated. This is where the "intelligent" part comes in. One needs to the intelligence to know how and indeed when to express the inner passion. This includes knowing when to back off and tone it down, but not to lose the passion; not to lose one's self.
There is some talk online about a "passion quotient", but it seems that are no credible objective measure, so for now we will have to live with subjective assessments, but our instincts are probably pretty good.
The erosion of passion can be insidious. It creeps up gradually and invades all aspects of life. Once lost, recovering passion can be difficult, but not impossible. As with many thing recognising the need to change is the essential start. The next step is reflecting and remembering times when you felt passionate about something, about anything. It could be watching or participating in a sport, or maybe wine tasting, in fact anything as long as you can do it again (and again).
So do it it and rediscover the feeling. Make sure you take note of how you feel and then practice recalling it. Do so before a business activity and see how that goes better. Then reflect on how you feel and remember that.
At the same time keep doing whatever it was you used as your prompt. If your work environment is one of low passion, then it can be hard to buck the trend, so look to reinforce your recovery as much as possible.
Soon you fill find your levels of passion and ability to feel passionate improve no end. Lastly find a way to share this new energy, this drive with someone else and spread the benefit.
Nurture your passion and Just watch life get better!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
What a world we live in! Well done Chile.
I find myself in awe, watching the live rescue of the trapped Chilean miners; but my impression are both good and a touch of not so good. Let me explain.
I have been lucky to witness some momentous things in my life, some in person and some through the wonders of technology. Watching the live coverage of the World Trade Centre disaster has to be up amongst the biggest. Then again a surprise encounter with the Pope while on holiday in St Lucia is another. And in it's own way this wondrous rescue will count amongst them.
OK I am just one of millions of witnesses in this case, but the intimacy that this man by man extraction with minute by minute coverage over what will be something around 24 hours is quite unique and moving. The bit that feels special is the TV coverage from over 2,000 feet below the surface showing the appearance of the rescue pod and the start of each man's journey home.
I cannot think of another comparable instance. It is suitably enhanced by the expectation that it will be 100% successful, even though I just hear that one miner has pneumonia - I wish him well.
While technology has enabled the drilling of a rescue shaft and the TV coverage, it has also given a moment to me that left a funny taste. This was when wife of a miner found that her first priority as her husband appeared was to use her personal digital camera to take pictures. While I couldn't hear it I strongly suspect that she told him to smile so she could take a picture before they opened the mesh door. This seemed so wrong to me. Would I be happy if my wife did this as we were reunited after I had been trapped underground for over 60 days? I don't think so!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I have been lucky to witness some momentous things in my life, some in person and some through the wonders of technology. Watching the live coverage of the World Trade Centre disaster has to be up amongst the biggest. Then again a surprise encounter with the Pope while on holiday in St Lucia is another. And in it's own way this wondrous rescue will count amongst them.
OK I am just one of millions of witnesses in this case, but the intimacy that this man by man extraction with minute by minute coverage over what will be something around 24 hours is quite unique and moving. The bit that feels special is the TV coverage from over 2,000 feet below the surface showing the appearance of the rescue pod and the start of each man's journey home.
I cannot think of another comparable instance. It is suitably enhanced by the expectation that it will be 100% successful, even though I just hear that one miner has pneumonia - I wish him well.
While technology has enabled the drilling of a rescue shaft and the TV coverage, it has also given a moment to me that left a funny taste. This was when wife of a miner found that her first priority as her husband appeared was to use her personal digital camera to take pictures. While I couldn't hear it I strongly suspect that she told him to smile so she could take a picture before they opened the mesh door. This seemed so wrong to me. Would I be happy if my wife did this as we were reunited after I had been trapped underground for over 60 days? I don't think so!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)