Thursday, 14 April 2011

Mind your language!

Does swearing make us more credible? According to some recent research in Holland, this may be true. The researchers asked students to read a fictional account of a statement made by a suspect burglar during a police interview. Students who read the version in which the suspect swore rated his statement as more believable than those who read a version that was identical in every respect but with the swearwords removed.
However, the research seems flawed to me. To remove the swearwords, but otherwise leave it intact would inevitably change the way it is perceived. I wonder whether it might have been a fairer comparison had the swear words been replaced by other adjectives, especially emotive ones.
Surely it depends on the context and your audience. The use of expletives can, of course add to a statement’s impact, but would that make it acceptable or effective in a business presentation. I doubt it.
Swearing certainly has a negative impact on some people, especially when used excessively – I have observed people who missed much of the message because they were so offended by the unnecessary use of profanities. This is partly a cultural phenomenon, with older people more likely to be upset by coarse language. Swearing is more common in younger people, but also may depend on where you are from.
I know in my military career, swearing was quite commonplace, but also selective. It was used extensively when at work, largely irrespective of rank, but significantly reduced when in social situations, especially when women were present. With women more widely integrated in the forces, I wonder how this has changed and fear that they have come to accept and adopt the swearing, as seems to be the case in factory environments.
I once heard a quote that said something like: “Swearing is a means by which the inarticulate gain a feeling of eloquence.” I do swear, but try to limit it, especially in business situations. To me it seems unprofessional and unnecessary. As in my quote, if I want to emphasise something, I should be able to find more appropriate and expressive words, which will not cause offence or detract from the message. Did Martin Luther King, Kennedy, Churchill or any other great orator resort to swearing. Certainly not. We might not expect eloquence and may understand emotional outbursts from sports men and women in the heat of competition, but nor should we have to accept foul language. In business, we may want to encourage and express passion and commitment, but should be able to do so without offending our audience.

Incidentally, personality research suggests that people who swear more, not surprisingly, score higher on traits such as extraversion, dominance, and hostility.

And finally... According to a disturbing news report today, a British tourist on holiday in Dubai was arrested for swearing. He was later ´badly beaten up´ to the point of being unconscious, slammed against a concrete wall, refused food, water, and a lawyer, and then his body was stuffed into a body bag while being removed from the facility.

Monday, 9 August 2010

All Change - From Snowdon to the Amazon

I am again talking about change and how it affects us. I remember being horrified that Jaguar had produced a diesel variant, and then an estate version – that is not a Jaguar, I screamed! This week I read that they have laid a tarmac path to the summit of Mount Snowdon in Wales, to make it more accessible, why, why, why? Then again, there is already a railway up there and you can still do it the hard way if you want to (I know I do!)

Much is written about change and our reactions to it. I have been working recently with Royal Mail, who are undergoing a huge amount of change, some would say not before time. Much of the focus on the workshops was on debating and preparing for how people would react to change with considerable emphasis on those who would resist and even attempt to forestall the new ways of working. Of course not everyone is against change, indeed, many of the managers we were working with were positive and even excited about the opportunities that the changes promise. They also reported that many of their people, including union representatives were supportive of the changes.

This does not, of course mean that these champions and advocates are immune to the emotional upheavals common to resistors. They need at least the same consideration, support and encouragement as they will have doubts, concerns and even reversals. They will feel any setbacks or lack of progress acutely. If not suitably nurtured and recognised they may even defect to the nay-sayers.

My younger daughter has just completed her degree and is somewhat relieved that the academic ordeal is over and looking forward eagerly to starting her career. However, even change coming from success presents some challenges. She is now finding that it is not easy to secure a job, which frustrates her ambition and dampens her enthusiasm. Moving back into the family home means she has had to readjust to different norms and standards than those she has become accustomed to; her close circle of friends is dispersed to the four winds and all but lost, despite or maybe exacerbated by the apparent ease of maintaining contact provided by Facebook and email. So lots of changes all brought about by something she wanted deeply and worked hard to achieve. The euphoria and relief of graduation have been tempered with self-doubt and frustration.

Remember that denial and a range of emotion will precede the rationalisation needed for acceptance and commitment to the change, sometimes captured as the mnemonic DERAC. To help people through these stages we need to show that we understand and are willing to offer the support they need. (I remember these stages by reversing the letters and trying to show I CARED.)

A common piece of advice is to beware of spending too much time with the relatively small number of vocal resistors and instead to work with the undecided waverers, who usually form a quieter majority and if converted can provide the critical mass needed for success. Although this thinking is logical, I sound a note of caution. If your focus is too closely on those people, you may neglect your erstwhile allies and fail to recognise important signals of discontent. If you lose your champions, the struggle will be considerably greater to convert the rest.

Spare a thought for Ed Stafford, the intrepid former soldier who has just completed a marathon 4,000 mile trek to walk the length of the Amazon in 859 days. I am sure he is exultant at his record breaking achievement and relieved to have completed it. However, he will now face huge new challenges in adjusting to “normal” life again and without his goal to focus on.

So it is for my daughter and for those managers in Royal Mail, change is an inevitable part of life and careers, but it does exact a toll. Understanding and support from friends, colleagues and managers will help them all to cope.

A change, though can be as good as a rest. So for something different, have a look at http://www.recyclethis.co.uk/ for tips on recycling everything from old wall planners to empty walnut shells!

Monday, 5 April 2010

Changing Times Call for New Perspectives and Challenging the Rules

Change, we are often told, is inevitable, unavoidable and should be embraced by leaders. Change, though is not just organisational, it is also social and as leaders we need to recognise and appreciate all its manifestations.

A great friend of mine, in his seventies and a military man is exasperated when he sees young men enter a building or room while wearing a hat. In his day this was completely taboo and considered rude. The offenders are more likely to be ignorant of this tradition rather than rebellious or intentionally disrespectful.
Another friend berates the younger members of the rugby team he coaches for not phoning him with their availability, preferring instead to communicate through Facebook.

I read recently of people “tweeting” each other during a presentation. Normally I would consider anyone using their mobile phones during a presentation as rude and inconsiderate, but are these just new norms and am I in danger of becoming as curmudgeonly as my aforementioned friends? Looking at this in another way, it offers a new way to interact with your audience
The etiquette of social media is evolving rapidly as is this new way of interacting with people. Organisations are trying to come to terms with it, writing rules to avoid the worst potential consequences, but this is not easy. I read last week of a police force that had issued a 7,000 word document outlining acceptable email practice, the size of which may reflect the complexity of the subject, but also inhibits the likelihood of anybody reading it, let alone complying with it. Sites like Facebook are a potential minefield as they are very public, but the traps are avoidable if you use common sense and sensitivity, providing a powerful new communication tool.

Etiquette is peculiar to generations and to cultures. Globalisation, multi-culturalism and foreign travel all expose us to different practices and standards, occasionally causing confusion and offence, but also delight, wonder and appreciation. I remember being fascinated in Hong Kong by the local tradition of burning money and laying out food on graves to honour deceased ancestors. This was all the more intriguing when the money was revealed as “hell money” – akin to Monopoly money and the food was retrieved and enjoyed by the family once the ancestors had chosen not to partake!
When abroad it is tempting and generally a good idea to adopt the local customs – when in Rome – but you can still stay true to your self. You don’t have to use the mixed sauna if you find it embarrassing, no matter how much pressure from your host.
On a recent course with students on an international Masters programme at Nottingham Business School, we were treated, on top of Mam Tor in snowy Derbyshire to songs in several different languages – three of them were to the tune of “Frère Jaques” but were about tigers and butterflies. A wonderful demonstration that in many ways we are as alike as we are different.

When is it correct to bow, when to shake hands, when to hug and when to kiss cheeks? Should emails contain greetings, and polite sign offs? I believe that leaders help to set standards, but not by being stubborn, change resistant or aloof. Leaders should look to set an example, but also to be sensitive to others’ preferences, upbringing and habits, and maybe even embracing the new way. Challenge different behaviour and standards if it bothers you, but more to appreciate why they do things as they do. Remember Stephen Covey’s 5th Habit of Highly Effective People – “Seek first to understand and then to be understood.”

Saturday, 9 January 2010

Nature or Nurture – Barbie and Action Man







I was amused and a little exasperated to hear that a couple of Mums have formed a pressure group, called “Pinkstinks,” objecting to what they see as the stereotyping of young girls by toy manufacturers who colour their toys in shades of pink. I believe that many girls like pink of their own accord and it does not adversely affect them in any way.

My eldest daughter liked and still likes pink, has many pink accessories and will almost certainly dress her daughters accordingly. I accept that we bought her pink things, Barbie dolls and My Little Pony, but we also bought her matchbox cars and took her to watch rugby matches. She is now a primary school teacher, which might be taken as proof of the stereotype, but would be blatantly unfair to that profession. Moreover, she spends most of her free time rock climbing and leads international expeditions to remote mountain regions - hardly a helpless girl!

Stade Francais, five time winners of the French Rugby Union Championship are anything but effeminate, almost as well known for their racy calendars and they wear a very shocking pink!

My son did not have Barbie dolls, but did play with Action Man, as I did (still dolls, really) and he has always liked black much more than pink. He is sometimes reluctant to get out of bed, especially to go to school, and I have questioned his resolve, which has prompted him to say it is easy for me because I was a marine. I know I should not read too much into this, it is just Dad-Son banter. However, I have reflected on the fact that his protest is back to front. I was a Royal Marine, am proud of the fact and gained a huge amount of experience and self respect, but did the marines make me what I am or did being who I am help me through the Commando course? The truth is surely a little of both. The unfairness of the jibes at my son is regularly proven when he happily gets up very early to go beating for the local shoot or for a rugby match!

Being dressed in pink or being bored by stories of how hard life was for somebody else may influence our view of life, but it will only be as powerful as we allow it to be. Yes, parents need to be balanced in how they bring up their children; boys can benefit from knowing how to cook, iron and sew as much as girls. It is also useful if girls can wire a plug or change a tyre, but the colour of their toys will not decide which of these skills they most enjoy using.

This is a lesson not just for parents, but applies as much to teachers, coaches and especially managers. For the child, pupil or employee, don’t blame others for how you are or how you live your life, recognise that we are the sum of all our god given gifts and the experiences we have enjoyed or endured, it is then up to us how we interpret and use them – we all have choices every day. Making your own choice and accepting the consequences is the key to personal growth and success.

Friday, 9 October 2009

Stalin and the Stranglers


Two radio news items captured my attention today and the Stranglers sang “No More Heroes” as I started to type this, which seemed fitting.

The first news item was an interview with the UK managing director of Lego, who told us that the company name Lego was coined by Christiansen from the Danish phrase “leg godt”, which means "play well". The name could also be interpreted as Latin for "I put together", though this may be a somewhat forced application of the general sense "I collect; I gather; I learn"; the word is most used in the derived sense "I read". Close enough for me, deserves to be true! Lego is certainly a great toy for helping children to learn.


The second was an interview with Stalin’s grandson, who was stoutly defending his reputation and honour. This put me in mind of a theme I have explored in a number of training sessions, where I have asked people to identify major influences in their lives – both positive and negative, or “Heroes and Villains.” This can be useful when we analyse how much influence we take or allow from these people, and how valuable or limiting this can be to our personal development.


One personal example could be Dean Richards, who I admired hugely as a rugby player in the 1980’s, but who has recently been pilloried for his involvement in rugby’s “bloodgate” episode. I do not approve of what he has done, indeed I find it indefensible, but this does not mean that I have to rewrite my memories or re-evaluate my admiration for his leadership and skill on the rugby field. Other sporting heroes have been caught stretching the rules, including Neil Back, Michael Atherton and Maradonna.

How many people refused to believe scandals involving Michael Jackson, because they loved his music, performances and public persona?
This works equally well for those we dislike as well as those we admire. I always thought of David Beckham as a prima donna of the worst kind, but was genuinely impressed by his maturity and inspiration as England captain.

Sometimes we can take these influences even further. During my military career I met Paddy Ashdown, himself an ex-Royal Marine and then a Member of Parliament, but I felt snubbed by him, and developed a strong dislike of him. I then found myself dismissing all statements from the party he went on to lead, just because I identified them with him – not a very rational or useful attitude.

I also resent the way some people revisit the life stories of historical figures and unfairly re-assess their character against the morals, values and experience of our own times. That is not to condone or justify evil or selfish acts, but I feel we should recognise that things were different then. I am still awed by the bravery of the likes of Scott, Nelson and Lawrence – all possibly flawed in some way, but still deserving of their hero status. Similarly, Mao and Stalin surely deserve their reputations as despots, but had some good personal qualities.


I think it can be very inspiring to have heroes or role models, but it doesn’t have to mean we admire and try to emulate all their traits. We need to be selective and recognise that they may be admirable, but are not always perfect. We can then make intelligent choices about what behaviours to learn and which to avoid. These role models may not be celebrities or even well known, they may just be exemplars from our own life or work. Most people can identify their best boss and their worst. Are there traits from the best to avoid and even some from the worst, which could help make us better bosses?

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Don't Knock It Until You've tried It

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

An article in the Guardian caught my eye and furrowed my brow this week, as it denigrated the benefits of positive thinking. In particular, it took to task “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill, the self-help book from the 1930s, and a bestseller ever since. This reminded me of so many instances where people, in print or in person denounce ideas and philosophies without fully understanding or testing them. It seems that too many people are looking for the easy way, the quick fix or the shortcut to health, wealth and happiness.
I have heard people ridicule and demonise all sorts of things, claiming that they don’t work or are a matter of luck. More often than not, the people who make the most noise about them have never read the book, never tried the technique or given the method chance to work. I am thinking of those who condemned the Atkins diet, when only following a small selection of the recommendations; or those who pour scorn on the Law of Attraction without following all of the steps in the formula. I even read a piece in a magazine declaring that brainstorming doesn’t work, but deep in the summary it admitted that it only didn’t work if the process was not followed correctly.

Both Hill and Stephen Covey invoke natural law, calling it the law of gender or the law of the farm – some things, most things happen when they are ready. Seeds take time to germinate and grow, bread dough needs time to rise, successful farmers only harvest when the crop is ready, and many of these ideas will work, but only if we use them correctly and give them enough time to work.
Of course I am, on occasion as guilty as others. I scoff at fad diets, believing it better to change your diet rather than “go on a diet”. However, I know people who have found diets that have worked for them, so good luck to them. Six months of nothing but Guinness and bananas will not be to everyone’s taste, but it helped a rugby friend to lose a lot of weight! We all have different experiences, and all learn differently from them, but do avoid condemning new – or old – ideas until you have tried them, or at least read the book! I have read these books and have doubts about some of their claims, and am sure nobody can become thin, rich or famous just by wishing for it, but thinking positively about your goals and ambitions is an important step to success in any field.

Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Mixed Messages and Training in Hard Times

I recently volunteered to help someone deliver a short presentation to some colleagues from a trainers’ network I participate in. It seemed an easy way to fulfill the commitment to contribute that I, and everyone else made when we first met. It then transpired that I had misread the email and had inadvertently put my hand up to running the second session of the evening. Serves me right really, I was avoiding my agreed share of responsibility for keeping the group dynamic and participative.

This happened the day before I ran a workshop on effective communication, so was a useful reminder that I am far from perfect, even if I know a lot of the theory! Then in the last week or so I have read a bewildering amount of conflicting views about the current economic transition, the government’s plans and woes and about the current state of the learning and development market. A few headlines that caught my eye include:
  • According to an Institute of Directors survey, in a bid to fight recession 80% of directors say their organisations have maintained or increased their training budgets over the past six months.
  • Another survey announced that training is a casualty of the cutbacks and employee skills levels are suffering with almost a third of European workers in jobs they are not properly trained for because of recession cutbacks.
  • Yet another claims that employers are delivering less training with almost all posting a year-on-year decline despite employee enthusiasm for professional development.
  • Only 15% of employees totally trust their manager meaning 85% are in doubt about some information they receive from higher up the organisation.
  • Employees are being kept in the dark about their employers' business performance, with 28% being told nothing about business health and one in 20 discouraged from asking questions.
  • Oh and the ban in Glasgow on showing the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian” is ended after 30 years.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the stories, rather like my faux pas with volunteering, it serves as a useful reminder that communication is incredibly important and incredibly easy to mess up. It also illustrates that there are two sides to every story.

One of the best pieces of advice in communication I have ever found comes from Abe Wagner, who urges us to “Say It Straight Or You’ll Show It Crooked.”* How often do we try to dress something up or disguise our true intentions and yet people see through it. Honesty really is the best policy and the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so tell it how it is. Good advice for politicians, managers, trainers, parents and everybody else! I only hope that the IOD are right – but I would say that, wouldn’t I!

*Abe’s book of the same name explores the behaviours and concepts behind this simple rule and is highly recommended.