You can now follow ConsultingTools on Twitter.
You can find us here: www.twitter.com/consultingtools
Look forward to seeing you there.
Archive for May, 2009
Let’s talk about belief. Not who you believe. Not what you believe. But why you believe. Bob sends me emails. Not because I want them but because Bob thinks I want them. In fact he’s certain I want them. Bob works for the government. He can’t say too much about what he does but he is able to say just enough to seem mysterious. And he knows lots of things. That he can’t tell me. I know that because he told me so. He knows about a secret program to create anti-gravity. But he can’t tell me that.
Now when I write this it is blindingly obvious that Bob is mad. Barking mad. But when I’m with him he’s totally convincing. But why? Am I so easily lead? When I think about it there’s two things that Bob has working for him. Bob is simple. And Bob is certain. He lives in a world that is black and white and this makes things easy for him. People are either good (like him) or idiots (like quite a lot of others). He is not blinded by complexity. He doesn’t “think” something. He “knows” something. So when Bob tells you black is white you tend to believe him. If he says Obama is a known terrorist sympathizer and Moslem (which he has been known to say) then he says it with such clarity and certainty that I can imagine a lot of people would wonder if maybe Bob knows something they don’t. Maybe he’s right. Luckily I keep reminding myself that Bob is mad and this helps.
Now Bob probably isn’t much of a threat. He writes blogs and sends emails but other than that is pretty harmless. But what if he wasn’t? What if he was influential? Let’s take one example.
Imagine Bob as a witness. Witness credibility is a much-researched area and one key factor influencing it has been defined as “dynamism” which included assertiveness, forcefulness and strength. Another factor is “reliability” which includes being consistent and dependable. Bob is all of these. His clarity (“It was him!”), his certainty (“Yep – definitely him!”) and simplicity (“Nope – couldn’t have been anyone else – I’d know him anywhere”) is very convincing. Case closed! But remember, Bob is a mad. And his confidence that he’s right doesn’t change this.
In Facet5 terms we have at least three factors at work here. Bob has Will you can’t jump over. He’s pigheaded and argumentative. He’s arrogant and definite. Bob has very low Affection. He sees the world very simply. There’s two types of people and the accused is the wrong type so what else can you expect? And Bob has low Emotionality. He is utterly solid in his convictions. Completely lacking doubt. He knows what he saw. But as Dr Helen Paterson at the University of NSW recently said in an article: “… very, very confident witnesses can have very, very inaccurate memories”. (1)
So you can see the danger. This Facet5 combination is capable of enormous achievement. He speaks his mind, is certain and clear and is utterly convinced he’s right. But what if he’s wrong? Could his certainty blind him? How many people are behind bars because of the Bob’s of the world? The actual number of wrongful convictions is not known. But if Bob (and his mates) only influenced 10% of these that would mean 100,000 people in the US alone each year who should not have been convicted. Judges and lawyers are taught (not always successfully – the police are still very keen on eyewitness statements) to watch for Bob. But do juries get the same advice? I doubt it. And of course Bob is much more convincing to some jurors than others. And the personality of jurors and the dynamics of juries is a whole different discussion.
(1) http://www.smh.com.au/national/total-recall–its-all-in-the-mind-20090211-84ro.html
I read an article in People Management the other day written by a CIPD Advisor who was giving top tips about how to run effective management away days. The author was saying that in today’s economic client, and with organisations having to justify spend on people development, management away days need to be well planned in order to be truly viable. And I thought, what a refreshing change…. this man has really got a handle on how training budgets should be spent so that organisations can actually see tangible improvements in management performance. But then I became quickly disappointed when I read further down the article and realised that he was actually only giving top tips about venue, agenda and facilitation of management away days. Whilst that’s all quite interesting, I think he missed the critical point! In my opinion, it is only ever worth investing in management development (or in fact any type of development) if there is tangible and measurable evidence of learning. It’s simply not enough to send a group of managers off to an outward bound jolly or pack them into a training room and expect them to have a sudden moment of realisation about how they can improve their management skills and develop as a collective team.
Rather than concentrating on the fine details of how management away days should be planned, there is a bigger issue here for HR to think about … do we know what we want the managers to learn, what behaviours do we want them to demonstrate and how do we want them to perform as a team?
The best way to develop managers and build effective management teams is to first be absolutely clear about the required learning outcomes. HR needs to recognise that learning has limited success when delivered as a short course in a classroom or when teams are sent on jollies. In order for managers to truly develop and for management teams to ‘gel’ there needs to be a ‘blended learning’ approach which recognises that sustainable changes in behaviours can take a long time and may take a few different approaches.
If HR are going to spend money on effective management development they need to identify what management skills and competencies will have a long term and sustainable impact on leadership in their organisations. Coaching and mentoring are of course excellent ways of supporting long term change in management behaviours over a period of time.
It’s a challenge for HR to justify the cost of management development with the current squeeze of budgets – so it’s more important than ever before to ensure that money is appropriately used and which results in tangible and observable improvements in management behaviours.
As I was sat up in bed this morning with a cup of tea, watching the news, and generally thinking about my day ahead, an article on BBC breakfast caught my attention about job satisfaction. According to recent results from a survey conducted by the CIPD, “Job satisfaction among UK employees has risen since 2006 despite the recession”
I personally find this statement quite hard to get my head round, especially given that morale for many employees is at an all time low. As was suggested on BBC breakfast this morning by the CIPD, these results could be more of an indicator of gratitude than job satisfaction – that is, those who do have jobs are grateful for this and are therefore reporting to be satisfied.
Again, this is a concept that does not sit easily with me. Is it not possible to be grateful and dissatisfied? Although people may be more reluctant to voice any dissatisfactions, surely these dissatisfactions still exist, probably more so than ever before.
My husband gets up every morning and goes to work in a job that is becoming less appealing to him on a daily basis due to a number of contributing factors. Is he dissatisfied? Yes. Is he grateful to be in employment? Yes. If he was asked how satisfied he was with his job I would take an educated guess that his answer would be “not at all satisfied”. If he was asked how grateful he is to be in employment, I would guess his answer would be “extremely grateful”.
I would have thought that there are more people who are dissatisfied and grateful than satisfied and grateful with their jobs, which is why I consider myself extremely lucky as I am both grateful AND satisfied with my current employment. So, as you continue with your day, I would really appreciate your views on this. In general, do you think people are grateful, satisfied, ungrateful, dissatisfied, or, any combination of these? Maybe, I am not so lucky and in fact the majority of people going off to work this morning are grateful and satisfied (just not my poor husband!), hence these recent survey results.
We are pleased to announce that the winner of the HRD 2009 free prize draw is Alex Freedman from Skills4Success Ltd.
Congratulations Alex!
Alex wins a free place on the accreditation training programmes for two leading psychometrics. Alex will be trained in the use of both Facet5 and Thinking Styles; both excellent instruments for individual, team and organisational development.
We had an excellent response to our free prize draw at HRD 2009 and hope you are not too disappointed you did not win this time. To find out more about our accreditation programmes, go to: http://www.consultingtools.co.uk/event.php
Or if you would like to have a chat about any of instruments, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Playing it safe does not an Apprentice make
May 28th, 2009 Posted by: Julie MrowickiI have always been a big fan of The Apprentice. To me, it has a little more substance than most reality television shows (although I have been known to watch the occasional Big Brother!).
What grabbed my attention in last night’s episode was Sir Alan’s comments in the boardroom when he was making his “your fired” decision. Poor Howard ended up getting the boot because he was seen as not enough of a risk taker and was too structured and organised for the current economic climate. The suggestion made in the programme was that in order for businesses to survive these tough times, risk takers may be more appropriately placed to help company’s climb out of the recession than those who tend to adopt a safe and structured approach.
Whilst this is only one person’s view of what it takes to ride out these tough times, Sir Alan’s ramblings in the board room last night have raised in my mind an interesting point about the sort of people who can keep organisations thriving in these tough times. Is it a play it safe person like Howard, who was fired for his play it safe approach, or, is it someone who is more entrepreneurial and risk taking?
My personal views are that Sir Alan probably has a point. What I mean by that is that some calculated risk taking and willingness to go out on a limb to secure and maintain business is essential in any economic climate. Chances are that in a recession, more of this needs to be happening to keep business coming in. What can be problematic in a recession is, there is more at stake and more to lose so the risks may become higher. When the risks do become too high this is when the Howard’s of this world are needed to keep things in line. It is just a shame that Sir Alan only has the one vacancy!
Posted in Comment, Everything Else!, News No Comments