Category Archives: Engaging people

Engaging people, Snippets

Decency and Manners

Leave a comment

Moving to a new country and starting the process of integration is always fraught with excitement and disappointment. And while I am fortunate to have some knowledge and contacts in this continent, I have to remind myself to lower my expectations of what would be considered to be common decency and manners in my own culture.

Where I’m from and brought up if I were to say, “I’ll call you next week”, I would call you next week. Were we to arrange to meet and I had to cancel because I was ill and therefore had to reappoint, I would make darned sure, I was in contact to confirm and I would show. If we made an appointment, I wouldn’t call 30 minutes beforehand and cancel. If I said I would look you up next time I was in town, I would look you up and we’d meet for coffee or a glass of wine.

In short, where I’m from, you do what you say. You stand by and show up to your commitments because that is being a respectful human. Respectful of others time and their attention, respectful of what it takes to reach out.

Of course events happen, plans change, other priorities pop up. But communication costs nothing and for the sake of a 30 second text, a quick email or a short phone call, mutual respect is maintained.

So now I’m adjusting my expectations while making sure that I don’t let my own standards slip. It’s important to observe, note and manage oneself accordingly. While behaviour might be driven by cultural, hierarchical, psychological patterns, it should never be mirrored particularly when it contradicts values, or decency.

 

 

Engaging people, General Musings, Life change, Snippets

Legacy

Leave a comment

Between Christmas festivities and New Year celebrations we fly to the USA for a reminder of first world life.  3 nights and 4 days are plenty enough to gorge on Floridian excesses including Miami South Beach posing, head-turning car porn and excess bling; to Key West tourist-tat, determined displays of alternativeness (if you have to try this hard, then you’re not living authentically) and wish-washy sunsets; we are happy to get back on the plane laden with a fresh supply of magazines and bargain basement clothing.

Many of these magazines have articles focused on looking back; on a year in review, person of the year, etc. They provide interesting reading; some names and stories I was unaware of, others have been shared in mainstream media.

These articles bring to mind a charming animated Disney Pixar movie which I watched on a plane last year.

Coco, tells the story of the dead souls who annually reunite with their living relatives as long as they are remembered. When the last living soul who remembers them dies, they turn to dust.

I’m also reminded of a recent radio programme talking of when Bing Crosby met David Bowie and the recording of their duet “Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy” for Crosby’s popular TV special. By all accounts Crosby was not much enamoured of this young upstart, he being the much bigger star at the time. So it’s interesting to move forward 40 years to find Roscoe’s generation being inspired by Bowie and wondering who the old geezer wearing the Granddad jumper is in the video.

I ask Craig during our drive down to Key West, who he thinks will be remembered in 150 years time. When our generation and the next two generations have gone, and many of us will be dust. He responds almost immediately with a cynical reply,  “despots and tyrants are always remembered”.  We start to go back in history and I reluctantly see his point. We also talk about explorers and scientists and have a lively debate on if Stephen Hawking will be remembered years from now. Is his legacy strong enough or do his pronouncements on relativity (the nature of space and time), and quantum theory (how the smallest particles in the Universe behave) to explain the creation of the Universe and how it is governed, merely lay the foundation for others to make more startling discoveries? On British Royalty, we agree that Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana are likely to be remembered for their actions and enacting change. Our jury is out on Prince Charles. Driving past the still half-mast American flag (we presume due to the recent death of 41, President Bush) we talk about those American Presidents still living and dead and mull on those who are memorable or not. We deduce that those who were firsts or created long-lasting change are remembered, those who served and chartered a steady course, less so. This is equally true of British Prime Ministers; Blair, Cameron, May will disappear into a historical timeline, Churchill, Pitt, George, possibly Thatcher, Atlee and even Chamberlain stand out. Of business leaders, I think Gates will be remembered for his philanthropy and determination to rid the world of polio, malaria and other curable diseases, much more than him co-founding Microsoft. Will future generations remember Buffett, Zuckerberg, Branson, Dyson or Jobs? Or the GE titan, Jack Welsh?

When I coach senior leaders and CEOs I ask the legacy question as a way to get them to think beyond the quarterly or half-yearly results; to look beyond their tenure and out into the horizon. Focusing on this helps them align with the broader purpose of the organisation and these two elements tend to be much more engaging for employees than the traditional mission, strategy and vision. An organisation led by a leader who knows where they fit in the bigger picture, who they are, why they are there and why they want to achieve their goals is much more likely to succeed in the longer term than those solely looking for enhanced Total Shareholder Earnings and quarterly profit growth. The sustainable long-term health and viability of an organisation and the success of its Leader should never be measured on financial performance and metrics alone.

While using this question is instructive for those in positions of power and authority, I’m not sure how helpful it is to others. For focusing on legacy feeds the human ego, leads to craven angst on meaning and satisfies our craving to be noticed.

It’s true that considering our legacy is a way of making sense of why we are here. But why are we focused on creating meaning and measuring success on a time-bound, out of our control construct?

Surely it is enough that our contribution to life and living is honored and celebrated by those who we love and who love us in return? Being our version of a legend in our own lifetime helps focus our energy. It doesn’t matter how big or small our achievements are, it matters than we care and we count. That our lives are meaningful to one person or many. It matters that we absorb, learn from and accept life change while remaining true and constant to who we are.  It matters that we stay open to, and flexible about, our ever-changing knowledge and beliefs. That we take positive action when we can.

At this time of year, we can get caught in big hopes and aspirations, in setting goals and maybe making changes. In making ourselves better, living our lives differently, being more. Many start to think of legacy as the years quickly move on. This time of year, encouraging change is good business for those of us in the business of change. You will find your inbox and social media accounts littered by offers of helping you shift your mindset, your waistline and some of your bank balance.

Before you swipe up for more information or click the reply button, or get lost in Pinterest or Twitter while worrying about what’s missing, your negative voice chattering about inadequacies and comparisons, just stop.

Take a moment for reflection.

Shift focus, acknowledge you are human, fallible, contradictory and unique. That you are enough as you are. That you matter, irrespective and sometimes because of, all the choices and decisions you make and the people you love and care about; who love you, as you are now, in return.

By all means keep improving, growing, learning, developing, thriving. But start from the premise that you already count. That you are already a legend, for someone, somewhere.

Now what’s possible?

Engaging people, General Musings, Life change

Mind your language

Leave a comment

Roscoe is one of those children who works hard at staying just on the right side of the rules.  So when he was a slip of a boy I became concerned about the amount of his school mates who apparently were using the  ‘F word”.  Upon some gentle probing, it turned out that in the world of Roscoe this word was “idiot”.

Years later and still trying to inspire him to read books and so improve his command of the  English language, as well as laugh through my speech therapy, we devise a game to only be played with all the windows up in the car; to go through the alphabet and shout at the top of our voices all the profanities we know that begin with that particular letter.  What a stress relief, and so much fun, as all the naughty words that would never normally be spoken are expressed joyfully and with impunity.

IMG_0782He knows these words are not to be used in everyday conversation but it seems to be a right of passage of teenagedom to ‘talk dirty’ in front of your friends.  I stand on the cliff top this evening watching him learn to surf with a bunch of school friends and the winds carry a clear bell tone of colour which causes an inward wince. Occasionally, he will use a colloquialism for a body part or sexual act and always I try to ignore it, so the word loses its power.

For words are powerful, and used often enough they gradually become part of the lexicon.  So I am not surprised to see the chants of ‘Fake News’ against some of our media outlets in the UK.  The concept has taken hold.  But I’m shocked that Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC political editor, has to bring a close protection bodyguard so she can do her job and report from the British Labour Party conference.  Since when can reporting and often repeating the words being used at party political conferences create such hatred as to incite serious death threats?  What is happening to our democracy?

I’m guessing the same factions are responsible for hateful banners spewing slogans such as ‘Hang the Tories’ and for the need for police cordons and tear gas due to the violent demonstrations at the Conservative Party conference last week.

I am no fan of either political persuasion and have no affinity for any political party, preferring to vote at the time for those who I think will be best for our country and democracy in the following 5 years.  I’ve never slavishly followed a pop band, artist or team to the extent that I lose common sense or a broader belief in the good of humanity.  But the words and rhetoric being used by people, often those in positions of power and authority,  and then regurgitated across the slew of social media channels is starting to shift many peoples’ perceptions of common decency.  What is interesting is this language – its pattern, tone and style – belongs in the playground where children call each other idiots.

IMG_0780All good communicators know it’s harder to write headlines for the Redtops than the Broadsheets, to appeal to the working man as well as his middle manager. But it’s a lazy communicator who chooses to appeal just to the masses, as the herd mentality will never create a long-term sustainable solution; they become too preoccupied with belonging.  Great ideas and solutions come from thinking differently and speaking out; even if people disagree with a decision or view, if it’s explained well and understood, there is a better chance of bringing people together and of their working for the greater good.  Understanding your audience and communicating thoughts and ideas to those who may not be of your political persuasion, education or social class is a real skill.  Done well, it can shift thinking and perception.

But the audience itself has to be prepared to listen; communication is a two-way dialogue.  Currently there seems to be a shift away from informed arguments using a wide array of language and proper terminology towards  a style of populist simplified language and discourse.  Trump is a fabulous example of this.  The educated classes snigger about “bigly”, “believe me”, “sad”  and the corresponding staccato short sentences and rambling colloquial speeches.  But love him or loathe him, he connects.  The American heartland have someone they believe represents them.  Contrast this with the oratory power of Tony Blair who before Iraq was considered to be one of our more persuasive statesmen.  He puts forward a very reasoned argument for remaining in the European Union but his way of communicating his thoughts and ideas – correct terminology,  longer sentence length, and elegant phrasing of concepts and ideas,  the very patterns of his speech demonstrate his knowledge and experience yet makes him sound out of touch with populist sentiment.

The world has become smaller with the use of the smartphone.  Twitter often shares breaking news faster than the news wires, 240 characters of information or 2 minutes of video hits screens around the world as events happen.  The audience begins to accept this is how they consume their news.  They begin to believe that they don’t t have time to sit and read a long explanation of facts, detail and informed opinion.  And when the 24 hour news channels churn out yet another panel of never heard of before ‘experts’, how many of the audience switch off their listening capacity?

But this can be dangerous when you are trying to educate and connect with big concepts – Brexit; foreign policy relations with North Korea; Middle East politics; GDP deficits; economic drift; gun control; the need to change prime ministers and presidents; big business versus the European Union…

These are concepts and issues which require reasoned thinking, strong debate and informed intellect,  They require a balanced tone of voice and language accessible enough for all to understand.  They require credible voices not populist rhetoric and sound bites.

The combination of social media, smart phone usage, Trump and an increasing proliferation of 3 minute sound bite reporting, is beginning to change our language and our tolerance for listening to and considering alternative arguments.  News reports, satirical TV shows, social media updates are becoming simplified, more partisan, more divisive.  And every news report which contains obvious bias weakens our democracy and the opportunities to raise our children to think beyond narrow confines.  Rich, informed and expressive discourse does much more than convey a story – it sets a tone, provides a social structure and enables a sense of belonging while allowing healthy division and debate.

Guarding our democracy and the right to informed free thinking and speech is what our grandparents and great grandparents fought for.  It is woven into the very fabric of our modern-day life.  So let’s stay away from indifference, divisive language and belittlement.   The language we choose to speak, the language we choose to listen to, the language we chose to emulate and pass on is  our responsibility,  Let’s not leave it to others to shape our society and the world view,

IMG_0786

Let’s not be idiots.

 

 

 

Engaging people, General Musings, Life change

Magic moments

3 Comments

Imagine, just for a moment, you are Brian Cullinan, chairman of PwC’s US Board and Managing Partner of PwC’s Southern California, Arizona and Nevada Market.  You’ve played a part in a really successful evening; a slight blip when the production team included a picture of a still-living producer in its ‘in-memoriam’ segment but, aside from this, everything has flowed and gone to plan, just as in rehearsals.  You are beginning to relax.  Fourth year in, you recognise the climactic moments of the show are beginning to unfold.  Its 21.03 PT and Warren Beatty strolls to the podium, opens the envelope you’ve just given him, looks confused, shows his consort and gives a half laugh.  Faye Dunaway’s response is to blurt out a complete fabrication, information which is not written on the card that Beatty is holding.

Credit: Phil McCarten/AMPAS

Beatty looks dumbfounded.   Neither of them have asked for clarification, they are both in full acting mode  This is not what the card says.  He knows it, you know it, Faye Dunaway knows it and your colleague, Martha Ruiz knows it.  For 30 seconds you are the only people in a  live, world-wide, televised show who know the information just shared is wrong.  Time stands still.   Your blood pressure is rising, your heart rate has increased, the palms of your hands are suddenly sweaty, you’re feeling sick, your mouth is dry, your back and shoulder muscles are tense,  you’re beginning to tremble, you want to run to the bathroom.  Your fight, flight or freeze responses have all gone into hyper-drive.  This is stress.  This is anxiety.  The wrong people are showing up on stage, yes you did hear it right.  Years of  studying, training, hard graft, years of audit, M&A and leadership experience are thrown up in the air.  You look at the envelope in your hand and the envelope in Beatty’s hand and slowly your pre-frontal cortex starts to kick in; you’ve passed on the wrong information. You’ve given Beatty the wrong envelope.  And the western world is watching the resulting chaos in real-time.

10 hours later, you haven’t really slept.  You’ve helped craft the company statement, taken full responsibility, talked it over and over and over again.  In fact, you’ve re-lived and continue to re-live the process.  You are keenly aware that protocols were not followed fast enough, corrections not made quickly enough.  Beatty is talking to the press a-plenty; Dunaway has run-away  and does not seem to be taking any responsibility.   Your personal credibility and the company reputation is on the line.  Pictures of you tweeting back stage are all over the web.  You know, more than anyone, just how serious this is from a brand and reputation perspective.   The company is still standing by you and then,  the client, the AMPAS president, Cheryl Boone Issacs, tells the Associated Press  that you and  Ruiz have been fired and will not participate in future shows. You are shattered.

Just how does this statement and action affect the perception of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences?   I look up the Glass door reviews for AMPAS for some insight and based on the employee ratings and comments, this action is consistent with the current leadership culture.  Reading these unedited employee comments, it comes as no surprise that the President is now reviewing the entire relationship with PwC.   A much more powerful leadership stance could have been created by a statement along the lines of:

We accept PwCs apology for the grave error that was made during Sunday’s show and are working with them to learn from this and ensure this will not be repeated.  We respect our 83-year long relationship and look forward to working together to continuously improve the processes and procedures which make the OSCARS the annual best award celebration in our industry.

Just imagine what potential employees would think if they saw such a statement; how great talent would be attracted to a career in AMPAS, people who could see they could contribute and enhance the organisation.  Imagine how existing employees would feel to read this, how many more ideas and innovations and contributions would be put forward.   Instead, the opportunity is missed, the opinions of the existing employees are reinforced and the current culture is laid bare for the world to see.    Because, when you boil it down, no one died or was hurt in the process, perhaps with the exception of pride and ego.  And perhaps the person who is most diminished by this situation is AMPAS President, Cheryl Boone-Isaacs.

By shooting those who make the mistakes, the learnings are lost and the opportunity to build loyalty and respect are gone.   Trust is built in such moments.  Moments like these are where magic happens, where people move forward and perform at their best because they know they have support  and encouragement to learn and grow.

Satya  Nadella, Microsoft CEO, knows about building these moments,  of leading and engaging teams who are trying their very best.

A year ago Microsoft developed an AI Twitter bot by the name of Tay (officially, Tay.ai).  to communicate and learn from the millennial generation.  Very quickly this turned into a disastrous attempt to advance how artificial intelligence communicates with humans in real-time.  Hackers and others were able to transform Tay into a racist, profane-spewing cyber-bot and the results took Twitter by storm.  This had great potential to damage the Microsoft brand reputation.  But they acted quickly and in less than a day the programme was removed and an official apology was issued by Peter Lee – Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Research .  This was a great apology.  Perhaps a little over long but it clearly explained this was cutting edge, innovative work and they were going to take their experiences and build on their lessons learned.

So now imagine you are one of the Tay team, you’ve worked years on this, giving up evenings and weekends with loved ones because this is a genuinely exciting, cutting edge project.  You really believed in the opportunity, you know that a similar programme in China,  the XiaoIce chatbot is being  enjoyed by some 40 million people so you are devastated when Tay is hacked and her potential is destroyed. And you’re really upset that she has not worked the way you hoped and may have caused some people great distress.   Then you get an email from your CEO and it says ,

“Keep pushing, and know that I am with you … (The) key is to keep learning and improving.”

Wow!  How amazing!  So what are you going to do next?  How can you take what you’ve learned from working on Tay, and what subsequently happened to her  and create something better, even more exciting and more life changing?

Perhaps if we purposefully choose to not operate in a culture of fear, blame and litigation, and chose instead to work with companies   where we  acknowledge and learn from mistakes, or potential mistakes, without fear, blame or recrimination;  organisations where it’s regarded as the norm to co-create concepts and ideas with others without being undermined or threatened;  places where we really listen to and give learning feedback to others so we all develop and grow,  perhaps then we create lasting extraordinary opportunities and a better place for all.

Image: Flickr user Ed Schipul
 
Engaging people, General Musings, Metaphors and Stories

News troll.

Leave a comment

So here we are.  Donald Trump being inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States and Prime Minister, Teresa May, and a number of her cabinet colleagues, noising up the Europeans ahead of triggering article 50 and the start of the procedure to exit England out of the European Union.  (I think the Scots will rebel and will pitch to leave the United Kingdom.  Derek Batemans recent blog on this is worth a read).

In the space of eight months a shift has happened.  There appears to  be a move away from the status quo, a desire for change, a harking back to the past not the future. image courtesy of we-heart.com

Image courtesy of we-heart.com 

Few saw this coming;  the experts and the pollsters predicted incorrectly.  When the results of June 24 and November 9 poured in, many sat in disbelief and shock.  Discrediting experts started in the Brexit campaign and Trump has extended this to calling all media who criticise or challenge his thoughts or position as being ‘Fake News’.

It would seem in today’s world that being an independent voice, an expert, is not a positive attribute.  When most of the Western world has access to the vastness of the internet, many are not afraid to share their thoughts, views and opinions using social media.     Who needs experts when it’s possible to do a Google search on almost every topic imaginable?  And there is little repercussion if we communicate inaccurate information or portray opinion as fact. And adding to this dangerous powder keg  of division and bile are those who seem to think they are wearing an invisibility cloak as they post their views – much of which they would never say in person.  With today’s need for 24/7 news, we have created a golden gift for the uninformed, or unscrupulous politicians and leaders.

Not for a while has Europe and  America been this divided, so riven with fear and confusion. The rise of the far right again in countries such as France, Austria, The Netherlands, Belgium and Italy is deeply concerning.  And in the USA, not since its inception has a completely unproven and more divisive candidate ever risen to the office of President of the United States.    And tried to use 140 characters to bend the truth, openly lay bare his character and demonstrate that his focus is not on leading the free world but on narcissistic and trivial issues such as just how many people turn up to watch his inauguration.

With experts disavowed and a temperamental impetuous President able to reach for his phone to communicate directly his uninformed opinions and thoughts, the world becomes a more dangerous place.  The apparent triumph of opinion over fact, of popularism over expertise, of lies over truth, of doubt over certainty, has grave potential to misinform and even worse encourage misogynistic, xenophobic and racist behaviour and action. Combined with the high profile of the new President of the United States, bawling “Fake News!” every time news reports prove and discredit his rhetoric  (which is likely to turn into a daily farce) it begins to generate a climate of fear and distrust, of questioning and mis-belief and confuses the real fake news which Putin has been playing with over the past decade.

Of course, there has been much scepticism about the Russian’s use of Kompromat, particularly when much has been lauded about a new era of Russian/American relations and their supposed support for Trump.  Make no mistake – they are masters of this new cold cyber war, planting fake information to encourage free world voters to vote in a particular way and to feed the myriad of ever hungry news media.  I’m not the only one who looked at the Facebook post which stated that Donald Trump had previously said;

“if I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”

I didn’t re-post it; but I didn’t challenge it either.  Everything I’ve seen or heard about Trump made me think, he could have said this.  And this is one of the more tame examples.  An Ipsos poll recently conducted in the US found that 75% of American adults who were familiar with a fake news headline viewed the story as accurate.

The recent Buzzfeed leaked story about Russian “ladies” and Mr Trump was an interesting case in point.  Look at how the axis of the story turned, more column inches trying to discredit an ex MI6 officer known for his Russian intelligence expertise, rather than what this was saying about character and judgement of the then President elect; a very clever and effective piece of PR.  And for all of the denials coming out of the Kremlin, you only need to study Putin’s body language at the press conference held to deny the Kompromat allegations, to see a Master at play.

For valid and proven examples of just how much the Russians are investing in misinformation and propaganda, follow StopFake.org on Twitter and perhaps even donate.  Paying for well researched, corroborated and factual news reports may be one of the ways we can ensure we have a better version of truth in the years ahead. Let’s not be lulled into cosy comradeship ‘BS’ – the Russians are well schooled in this cyber-war.  And don’t get confused between this and Trump’s versions of ‘Fake News!’.  I believe they both want the same outcomes – to destabilise and discredit news reporting which challenges their actions and ideology.  To create fear and mistrust in established  organisations, in experts, so that when Putin or Trump are called to account over actions in places like Syria or the Middle East, they can manipulate or shout Fake News!  And the electorate, with doubt in their hearts, turn on each other.  But there the similarities end.  Trump is the amalgam of Billy Graham and Ian Paisley when they were spitting and spewing hell, fire and damnation from the pulpit.  Putin is the New Seekers crooning Kumbaya, lulling us into singing and swaying along.

But even valid news sources can be undermined by opinions of individual members of the general public.  Only last week the BBC trust upheld a complaint against Laura Kuenssberg, BBC’s  Political Editor,  for an interview she did with Jeremy Corben in which she had been accused  of inaccuracy.  And if you watch and read the reporting, this is a very tenuous complaint. I happen to really like her, she appears to operate from a place of great insight and integrity and is not afraid to call a spade a spade when necessary.  She’s been reporting on politics for many years and is widely regarded by her bosses as being “tough, influential, exceptional and hugely knowledgeable about Westminster politics”.  James Harding, BBC head of news,  made clear they support her completely and while respecting the Trust, they disagreed with this finding. However, it was disappointing that they did not report on this story more widely.  Democracy is not a linear process but it flourishes in climates of openness and trust.

It is easy to discredit experts and the media when we hear stories or reports that we don’t agree with, or dislike.  And while a cornerstone of democracy is that we each have the right to have our own beliefs,   to say and write what we think , and have the right to seek different sources of information and ideas,  we also all have a responsibility to share our expertise, knowledge and information appropriately, depending on our audience and their current knowledge and expectations.  And to use social media tools wisely.  Any fool can spout their thoughts, but a well-known, visible, powerful fool has a different level of accountability for the words they use.  Crafting a compelling but accurate narrative, appropriate to our audience, is the responsibility of any communicator.  For if we deliberately set out to mislead our audience, to create an environment where only our voice speaks the truth with no room for dissent or dialogue,  we are no better than the men of old; creating stories, and fear, by the casting of  stones.