Tuesday

The rules of the game: writing work based projects for assessed courses

Over the years I have marked many "work based projects", and the main difficulties I have had in finding ways to pass candicdates have been because candidates just haven't followed the "rules of the game". Here they are.

Separate your "job" from the "project" . Your job, it is to be hoped, will go on long after the project you are reporting on. The challenge is to avoid distorting your job to produce your report, or to attempt to produce a project report that is simply "What I do at work". The project must be an identifiable and complete piece of work in itself.

So you need to select something as a project that can be defined as "finished" at the right time to report on it for your programme. In probability, given the time restraints, this will be a phase or sub-set of something you are working on, rather than the totality. You may have got as far as identifying the forces preventing change, or the problems that arise in the current situation. You may also have done some work on possible solutions. But it is unlikely you will have "finished". So define the project clearly for your marker as an identifiable part of the work you are doing that will be "finished" in the time scale. It never does any harm to specify your intended outcomes tightly, which also reduces the opportunities for people to say it's "unfinished".

The project also needs, absolutely needs, to demonstrate your application of the learning of the programme you have been on. It follows therefore that you really mustn't:

  • Submit a project that contains large amounts of work which was done before the course commenced. Ideally, the project will be something you started towards the end of the programme.
  • Submit a project that doesn't demonstrate what you took the initiative for and did yourself. It cannot be about what the team did, although it can be about how you managed the team.
The project is not just "what is going on inside your head", (fascinating though that may be). Do show the use of information sources other than yourself, including other stakeholders in the problem, the solution, and its implementation. And although you should feel free to float any theories you form, you need to be able to show evidence of consultation, data collection, and "triangulation" of your ideas [the cross checking of each important fact where possible against two other indicators]. These are essential if your work is not later to be shot down by your own organisation, let alone by your marker!
Do basic research. Really. You ought to know the major widely accepted and well known models, purely so that it isn't obvious you don't know them! You will find the internet is a fantastic source of useful information. And remember, it's only theft if you quote big chunks, quote without references, or claim as your own work that was actually done by a team at Wisconsin Hamburger College.
(Also useful can be to do an advanced Google search putting "files of type .ppt" in the box. This will return to you PowerPoint presentations from a wide range of organisations and managers who have worked on and presented to others in the area you are searching for. They are therefore effectively peer reviewed. You might not find the "Iowa State Library" relevant, but there will be in the presentation some basic, underpinning knowledge slides. And maybe some useful models and diagrams too. Another source is Wikpedia, but do be careful. The articles are not moderated, and can contain inaccuracies. Always triangulate Wiki articles with other sources. A final thought; enter "Training Course my search term" in the Google box. You will find in the online training catalogues programmes that give you a very good picture of the main issues a topic needs to cover. )
Remember you are on a Management or Leadership programme and your project has to reflect management and leadership work. You have to be really careful of the "technical expert problem". It is not a management project to describe the installation process for a citric acid plant in Selby. It is a management report if you are describing the people-management issues affecting your allocation of work, the contracting procedures you devised, the cost-benefit analysis you performed of locating the plant in Selby. (OK, the last is a bit far-fetched. York then.)
Do plan. A flipchart is helpful. When you set out your word count is like the first twenty minutes on the drive from London to Aberdeen, a long and daunting road. If you plan it, you will find it is actually made up of manageable sections, some quite short. It isn't really that horrible . But markers get as fed up with overlong reports as with underlength ones.
Get hold of the marking scheme. When the marker is trying to make sure they are neither favouring you nor being unfair, they will turn repeatedly to the scheme to validate the mark decisions they make. If the marking scheme says there are 5 marks for "Demonstrates understanding and application of motivational theories", then write a paragraph that clearly does this. Don't just write, "In establishing the process I used Maslow's Hierarchy of needs". Do write instead, "As many of the staff were feeling insecure, I addressed their concerns (at the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy) by stressing that the new processes would help to secure their jobs, and so protect their incomes". If the scheme says you should give targets and standards, give them, however feeble they may seem. Otherwise it will seem to the marker that you didn't bother. IF it says "Describes the candidate's role", describe it. "I am track hygiene officer at New Street staion" does not describe the role.

Ask. Ask. Ask. You have been given the luxury of tutor support for this piece of work, and say what you like about the tutor's strange taste in ties and the historical and distant past in which these poor creatures were students themselves, they do KNOW, you know? And on the whole, they like to help. Not to write the report for you, you understand, but to give you a nudge in the right direction, help out with a suggestion or two, point you to an idea. Ask them!

The leaders have arrived

Many of the leaders we need for a secure and prosperous future are already in the workplace.
Technically and occupationally competent, some of them have already been 'spotted' because of the respect they command through their technical abilities and their 'people skills'. They have perhaps already been promoted to the fast-growing category of 'team leaders'. Others will continue to arrive as the popularity of vocational options for a career grows, fostered by an explosive growth in the numbers of students being directed towards further and higher education. Every year City & Guilds alone accredits almost one million such individuals for their vocational skill and knowledge. More and more of these students are learning the basics of management along with their occupations. Alas, the basics of management, which may be all the management development that these vital new workers ever receive, do not go very far towards developing leadership competencies.
The combination of self-organising teams, the devolution of decision-making to the individual, and the widespread demand for lean and organic change, create a new demand for the development of pervasive, organisational leadership. Managers will, as ever, be responsible for the effectiveness of enabling frameworks for work, and these must be constantly reviewed to ensure the emergence of best practice and innovation. We must cease to regard leadership as what emerges when already-senior managers are sent off for a fashionable career break at a business school.
Effective leadership permeates the organisation. Not only do charismatic leaders inspire everyone in their organisations, but they also develop the qualities of leadership among others. Leadership is also firmly linked to innovation. A truly innovative organisation is not simply the product of effective management, but of leadership, vision and an ability to involve all the people in the excitement of new challenges.

The challenge of leadership - Jobsworth and his successors

In the British employment environment there often seems to be a strange tension between two apparently opposite beliefs. On one hand there is a move among many of the country's more 'progressive' organisations towards group and team-working, with a great emphasis on interpersonal skills, group dynamics, and, in many, that largely devalued term 'empowerment'. On the other hand there are the - too frequent - high profile disasters and corporate embarrassments that feature in the news pages rather than the business pages. Whenever these sad stories appear, blame falls like monsoon rain on the leaders of the organisations. Often the competence of these 'leaders' is called into question quite forcefully and publicly.
So is there a fundamental misunderstanding of the working of the organisation?
Some say that strong leadership, directed effort and respect for the authority of experience is the way to avoid corporate chaos. Certainly we seem at times to have a catastrophic lack of leadership in some very important and prominent organisations. But there are others who loudly proclaim that the best, indeed only hope for the future lies in more teams, and more interactive teams, better collective decision making, greater workforce 'democracy' and in meaningful 'empowerment'. This cunning suggestion of such stark alternatives implies that the question is legitimate. But it is really a failure to address the important issue, which is that problems are seldom due to a lack of leaders - or at least would be leaders - they are due to a lack of leadership.

A precise definition of leadership is often seen as problematical, but if one seeks a consensus, agreement of around 75% of the required competencies emerges. Leadership involves, in rather dry terms, visioning, establishing direction, developing strategies, communicating, inspiring, motivating and empowering. Or in more basic terms, leadership is seeing what the future should be, ensuring that others 'buy in' to the vision and enabling everyone to contribute to the achievement of the vision. Clearly then, leadership is not 'management re-badged'. True, there are aspects of leadership in effective management in terms of the need to motivate others. There must be elements of management in leadership, or nothing would ever get done. But leadership has a particular set of competencies to which we as a nation need to pay more attention.
Leadership is not like one of those exotic plants that suddenly appear in the midst of wasteland; it doesn't thrive on neglect. Unless some steps are taken to cultivate it, leadership will not grow. At the least, leadership needs the environment to be turned into something approaching a growing environment. Like any hardy plant, it doesn't ask for a rich loam, just a decent chance to grow.

Over the years we seem to have turned many of our workplaces into environments that have stifled the seeds of leadership. Looking back, some of these stifling factors can be readily identified. In the middle of the last century we had a generation of managers who came from 'National Service'. With them came 'never volunteer!' - old soldiers never volunteered, because they had learned that in a hostile world volunteering exposed them to danger. In the workplace of the latter half of the twentieth century, security was widely seen as more important than change. Undoubtedly this keen concentration on static 'security' by many managers in ponderous organisations contributed to the decline of the UK's manufacturing base in the late twentieth century.

It is one of the challenges of the twenty-first century that we will have to learn to manage in the fastest changing, highest pressure work environment ever known without the experience of many of these same managers, managers who, whatever their 'negative tendencies', nevertheless steered so many of our country's businesses through the exceptionally turbulent waters of corporate and industrial restructuring of the late twentieth century. The desire to keep a steady course is the positive and desirable face of a characteristic that can otherwise be called ponderous and adverse to change. Many of the new managers of today have only known the good times; they will need help to deal with some challenges we can't even imagine at present, but which will surely emerge during their tenure.
Back in the 1970s, another characteristic of industry brought with it, amongst a number of equally amusing epithets, 'mushroom management', or 'the management keep us in the dark and periodically shovel horse manure on us'. Too many workforces arrived at too many factory gates only to discover they had been sold, closed or abandoned through no fault of their own.
This created huge cynicism, and meant that many workforces never knew what the decisions being taken were, or why, or how. In most cases, not even the information on which these decisions were based was available to the people that mattered, the workforces. The fashionable position that 'our major asset is our people' partly addresses this, but some of its characteristic 'solutions', such as misdirected empowerment by unreconstructed employers have not helped to develop the right environment for leadership to emerge.
Another anti-leadership factor running through the past forty years, like a much loved but fatally flawed TV personality, is our old friend 'Jobsworth'. Jobsworth made absolutely sure that they could not be blamed if anything went wrong, even if by doing so they ensured that nothing ever changed for the better. It is interesting today to see HR departments desperately endeavouring to create a climate in their organisations where people are not singled out as scapegoats when inevitably some mistakes are made in the faster changing climate of today's workplace. The weasel words 'no blame culture' are trotted out too often by managers who will still unhesitatingly point the finger of blame at someone else when things go, to borrow a term from the twentieth century, 'pear-shaped'.
At the start of this new century we need leadership more than ever. It is effective leadership which will enable workers to make the best use of their skills and knowledge that is growing faster than at any time in the past. The new skills and knowledge enables us to do things we never dreamed possible, many of which are desirable, some of which we should, with good leadership, decide never to use.

The project as Jigsaw Puzzle

The other day, working with an Action Learning Set who had a project to sort out, I was struck by a metaphor. Not literally struck, you understand, but metaphorically struck. And it seemed to me it was a very useful metaphor for the way groups work on joint projects. See if you agree.
Choosing the puzzle. Everyone has their preferences. Some like big scenes, some like small pictures. There are preferences for people and places, for movement and still life. Some like the historic puzzle, and some the futuristic image. Some people, not really fans of the jigsaw, or perhaps new to the game,
go for puzzles with big, easy to handle pieces. Others, perhaps with more experience, or simply for reasons of masochism, prefer the huge "thousand piece" puzzles, with their small, intricate pieces.
In determining the group puzzle therefore, all the players will put their cases, and a great deal of time will be spent determining which is done. Sometimes this will be by a process of consensus, sometimes a dominant player will take the lead, and others will acquiesce, later only giving "assent of convenience" to the activity. After all, they wanted "the one with the dogs", and the special shaped pieces! The danger is that during the activity, this disagreement will re-surface, and possible attempts will be made to put the selected puzzle back in the box - even if partly completed - and select another one.
Strategies for doing the puzzle. These include such basic issues as whether all members work together, all the time, or whether each "takes a section". Do the group divide the task into activities like sorting and placing, or do they all contribute as and when they can? are some people better at sorting, some at placing? If the later, does that mean it's OK for them to go off to the pub in the quiet moments?
Coherence. How do the team make sure one of the group is not quietly working away on the same pieces that another of person needs? Are the group going to assign some members to do the edges, the sky, the sea, and other features, or is the plan to group together pieces by colour and texture first, then see where they fit in ? What is the protocol for connecting pre-assembled sections and pieces ? Is it OK to force them into place, or may sections have to be taken apart in order to get them into the space they are needed in? How do people feel about their work being broken up and re-assembled?
Distribution of work. Is there enough work to go round? After all, the table is only so big. Many hands may not necessarily make it go faster, there will be times when one player sees that another has the pieces he wants. What is the protocol for combining these pre-assembled groups of pieces ?
The big picture. Who is going to direct, to oversee the progress, who, if you like, is going to keep looking at the box and making sure the individuals all have contributions that fit logically into the big picture on the lid? And who is responsible for making sure it all stays steady, and in place? Most of all, who is watching the clock?

Of course, with a project, unlike a jigsaw, the final assembled work will be capable of distribution. It does not need to be taken apart again ! But equally important, it needs people to look at it, and admire it. And that won't happen if there are big, obvious pieces missing that you only noticed at the end.....

Eat your greens!

"I have found the best way to give advice to your children is to find out what they want and then advise them to do it"
Harry S Truman

Some time ago a posting appeared on a daily email list I subscribe to, something like:

"Help! Can anyone suggest how I can get the line managers in my company to release their staff for more than a half-day training session on assertiveness?"

I promptly sent in a three word response, but don't know to this day whether it was a spoof or a genuine request. Alas, it seemed all too probably genuine, as the list has a large proportion of contributors who make similar requests:
"Can anyone give me for free the advantage of all their years of accumulated knowledge and experience on how to set up and run a small training business, and some free materials would be nice too, as I have no idea how to deliver this contract I have, however improbably, just managed to win and incidentally, could you share your mailing lists with me?"

Anyway, my current growl of dissatisfaction was awoken by one of those contributors recently, who was complaining that their clients didn't seem very interested in the evaluation of their training and asking the list how could these awful customers could be persuaded that evaluation is good for them.

We trainers really are a damn odd lot, aren't we? In the real world one researches and pilots a product or service, then when there is some idea of the likely market for it, a decision on whether to go ahead with the development and the launch is made. In the real world businesses do not try and flog products and services that they have been told time and again the customers don't want. They don't say, "Here is my product, I know you keep saying you don't want it, but I really think you should buy it, (and if you don't I'll whine to all my mates about how stupid you are)"

Many trainers (I must be mellowing in my oldish age, that originally just read "Trainers") fail to see the other side of the coin. Heaven knows, I've been in a few trainers' gripe sessions myself. You know the ones, sitting round the lounge, coffee in hand, old copy of some glossy but usually unopened magazine from a professional institute in Wimbledon, open to display the page with their letter, when someone says, apropos of a recent telephone conversation, "... and do you know, they ONLY wanted me to cut it down to a TWO AND A HALF DAY programme!" (Gasps all round. "They DIDN?T!" "I hope you TOLD them!", "Oh, HONestly!" etc. from the audience).
As a younger independent training freelancer, I was once similarly naïve. Settling down with my partner to plan our business offering, we decided that a Training Needs Analysis was essential. So we added to the first printing of the leaflet "Pachyderm Training will always carry out a Training Needs Analysis before quoting a full programme price". Guess what? Not a single customer. Later we amended that to something along the lines of "Ideally, we would like to carry out a training needs analysis .. " We never did carry out a paid-for training needs analysis. And we certainly never got asked to evaluate. But we stayed in business.

Oh no ....... please don't do this to me again!

Oh Lordy Lordy. I've had to put on the cloak of hypocrisy again. I've had to do the whimpering, pathetic commitment-dodging escape. I've been obliged to do the "Gosh! Isn't this an interesting item in the conference folder !" eye-avoidance tactic. I've had to try and steer myself to the safe waters of anonymity from the stormy seas of hideous public embarrassment. And I'd thought those days were over.
The occasion was a conference in, shall we say the not-too-distant past. The venue, a large one, amid the exhibitors. The audience, aware and interested. The subject, topical. The expectations, high. The presenter .......... a colleague.
Yes, I was at the back of the room for another of those occasions when a colleague displayed their feet of presentational clay. I'm maybe - I admit the "maybe" reluctantly, and without a great deal of conviction - not the best of presenters myself, but even I know the elementary PowerPoint traps. They're the same as the overhead projector traps used to be, but with a few more technological bells and whistles, and even more opportunities to turn a potentially interesting presentation into and exercise in involuntary euthanasia. Oh, dear, I shouldn't still be embarrassed by colleagues who don't know this. It's not kind, at my age.
Look, first of all, PowerPoint is not an autocue device. It cannot be mistaken for a notebook. It is totally unlike a pack of postcards. Consequently, presenters (I feel I'd better move into the third person plural, in order to avoid the ever present risk of identifying the 50% of the population within which my colleague is demographically located) should not READ from the damn slides. They should not plod through every word projected on the screen, dully, forgetting that the entire tone of one's voice when reading is completely different to the tone of voice of an enthusiastic, engaging, presenter. The famous Mehrabian study suggested ( and is widely misrepreented) that a rotten tone of voice wastes 38% of the potential impact of the message.
To read aloud from the slide also necessitates either looking at the laptop in front of the presenter, creating an eye line that does not engage with the audience, thus giving the distinct impression of shiftiness (for it is not for nothing that we have that expression "he couldn't even look me in the eye" for someone who is generally shifty, dubious, and not to be trusted) or, and I realise this is a long sentence, treating the audience to a view of the back, or at best side of the head, possibly replete with ear whiskers, if indeed one is of the gender with which ear whiskeration is generally associated. And to return to the Mehrabian figures, "Kapow! Shazam! There goes another 55% of the potential impact of the presentation!" No, PowerPoint slides are NOT for reading aloud.
Of course, reading aloud is not the only crime of the appalling presenter, and alas, not the only sin I witnessed that morning. Take that old nonsense, "A picture is worth a thousand words", the excuse for clip-art since the term was coined. Oh yeah? If one does an internet image search for the term "man in office" one will find 26,100 images in 0.21 seconds. So why in the name of Monty Python and all their office sketches do we have to be subjugated, (for it is subjugation), to those wretched morph-stick men on the slides? You know the ones. Nasty little dark, partially inflated, slightly sinister characters that seem to have a lifetime lease on the bottom right hand corner of PowerPoint slides. Particularly insidious is the one that is standing there, hand on hip perhaps, other hand gesturing to the text, as if to say, "Yea, take unto yourself these words of wisdom!". A most unpleasant little creature.
Need I go on? We have all suffered the manifold horrors of PowerPoison. There is the "fader game" - in which the presenter plays with the animation function, and the audience desperately tries to hang on to a semblance of sanity as the screen constantly dissolves into squares, stripes, and chequerboards. A subset is the rotten "typewriter" effect, with or without sound, or any other similar animation trick that annoys the audience.
By no means finally, for the artistic presenter, putting aside the question of whether an "artistic presenter" would use PowerPoint at all, there is the "all-comers international font challenge", the self-anointed winner being the presenter who has managed to use the largest number of unsuitable fonts on a single slide, or to change the fonts most frequently between slides, allowing the audience to wonder how many different presentations had been cobbled together to produce the particular event they are witnessing, and if cobbled together from such scraps, what does that say about the importance of the event to the presenter, and the respect the presenter has for the audience? All of which detract the audience from the M*E*S*S*A*G*E.
So it was, after being subjected to what counted as an exemplar of truly awful misuse of PowerPoint, I found myself concealing my "speaker" badge with its give-away organisational information, and sneaking away from the audience into the exhibition proper. PowerPoint has been around the best part of a twenty years, and one's colleagues really should not embarrass one with their still rotten presentation skills.

“T” is for “Training”

There’s many an advert that has become a catchphrase, and most of us have an affection for a couple. Some, like “Tango”, have had social consequences well beyond the expectations of the advertising agency. Some have outlasted the company or product they promoted. And few could have been as successful in recent years as the Ronseal advert, with "It does exactly what it says on the tin" now a fixture in the journalists’ big book of handy clichés. The slogan has resonance because we are indeed all absolutely sick of products that don’t do what they promise. It’s bad enough getting home to find the giant box of detergent is only two-thirds full, but even more irritating when you discover that “No More Nails” ( “other adhesives are available”) is really just another glue, and buying it doesn’t mean you can finally chuck out your hammer.

The Ronseal trick is of course, not much about what they print on the tin. It isn’t that they set out a few of years ago to make an entirely different and amazing new product that totally revolutionised external wood treatment. It does not mean that they then wrote the words on the tin anew to explain the fantastic new properties of this wonder product. Instead, they just made sure that what was printed on the tin matched the properties of the contents. It was a really simple trick – tell the customers what they are getting. As Homer Simpson might put it, “Duh!”.

I was standing around over one of those conference buffet lunches – you know, the ones where you have a choice between saturated fats or refined carbohydrates, all gingerly balanced on a plate held in one hand so you can neither unwrap nor use the knife and fork in a napkin because there are no chairs or surfaces to use - with a training provider, the other day. This chap (or chappess) was extolling the virtues of their fledgling training consultancy. Full of it, the new proprietor told me that he (or she) was offering something really revolutionary. The key, it seemed, was the “inclusive macro-participative philosophy” or some such. As far as I could tell this was a belief that………

………at which point I rather lost the thread for a few minutes, but when I relocated it the point was that directories usually don’t have a category for “Participatory Learning Facilitation services” or some-such, which is what he (or she) felt was the proper description for the revolutionary development opportunity on offer. Well, you could have knocked me down with a deep fried miniature spring roll, so amazed was I at this revelation.

This is called the “Yellow Pages Paradox”. Suppose you have a piece of ground and you want to discourage customers for the local “Blockbuster” from clogging up your own parking spaces. The answer is perhaps a threat of wheel clamping, clearly a job for yellow pages. So you go and look up “Wheel Clamps” in Yellow Pages.

Oh dear. It isn’t there, is it?

That’s why yellow Pages have a directory to guide you around the directory. They KNOW you are likely to want to look up “wheel clamps”, but for some extraordinary reason they don’t want to list them. Instead, you have to go to the back, to the “directory of directories”, and look up “wheel clamps”, where they will tell you that you should really be looking under “Traffic Control Equipment”. How silly does that make you feel? You must feel almost as stupid as that poor gormless idiot featured on the Oasis “Chug it” posters in 2006.

So I was itching to tell this eager young Turk that if she (of he) started by calling their business a “Participatory Learning Facilitation” service or similar, no one was ever going to find it in a directory anyway. And if anyone did stumble across the listing, they wouldn’t have the faintest idea what was on offer. Even if they did then call, would they really want to sit through an explanation of the unique philosophy behind the (soon-to-be-an-ex) consultancy? No.

The world buys “training”. For heavens sake, if you are starting a “people development” business, get used to it! They don’t buy “participatory people development interventions”. They are not looking for “Embedded Organisational Excellence consultants”. They wouldn’t know a “Macro Learning facilitation service” if it bit them on the gluteus maximus. Just get listed under “Training services”, and put the higher philosophy at the back of the brochure. Right at the very back.

But if you must be so pretentious, you’d better remember that “Bankruptcy” is listed in Yellow Pages under “Insolvency Practitioners”.

“How to write simple instructions” - (165,000 words, plus appendices)

There’s a basic rule of information technology with which we are all probably far too familiar. Simply put, it is we should never trust any piece of I.T. equipment when the manuals weigh more than the product itself. If they do, the chances are that they will be full of explanations of why the product doesn’t do what you thought it would. A variation on this is that the manuals will contain lengthy explanations to facilitate working around the inconvenient fact that the product the I.T. people have sold you only works in ways that I.T. people, rather than mere mortals, actually understand.

The training world is horribly full of this sort of dead-tree self-perpetuating posterior-protecting nonsense. Back in the early 90’s readers may remember the birth of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs). I was particularly familiar with the early Management Standards, the bastard offspring of the Management Charter Initiative, and made quite a good living for some considerable time by translating these into language the tutors and trainers, let alone the poor benighted bloody managers, could understand.
That work was built on helping them to find their way around the original four key roles, split into 9 units of competence, these divided into 26 elements, and finally a smattering of 163 performance criteria, and seasoned with assorted range indicators. The language was often so difficult and rampantly value-laden that it had little meaning to either students or tutors. Candidates frequently needed a course in understanding the bloody standards before they could get on with the actual “learning” they had signed up for.

So full of woolly language were these wretched “occupational standards” that the (then) regulator employed teams of “experts” working on banks of word-processors, fed by countless consultations, leading to the printing of numerous booklets of guidance notes made from entire Scandinavian forests, to describe not only what the damn things meant, but also how they were to be assessed.
This created such confusion among the providers and customers that it led to further “guidance notes”, apparently produced by entirely different teams of experts, to tell the training industry what the original guidance notes were actually supposed to mean, and how to interpret them in such a way that it was possible for the training providers to make any money from delivering their programmes, let alone for the poor bloody learners to get any real development value out of them.

(I’ll tell you what reader. If, after almost 20 years of promotion, a normal, commercially-driven manufacturer or service provider was still having to explain to its potential customers what the product was supposed to do, and then give them financial incentives to actually buy it, they would pull the whole damn range and sack the people who devised it.)

You may have gathered that I have a teeny- weenie degree of cynicism about “competence statements” “learning specifications”, “assessment outcomes”, “delivery and design parameters”, “Guidance to assessors”, and such like. The poor entrepreneur, the guy or guy-ess who has put their own money into setting up as a training consultant, growing their business into a tidy operation serving customers in commerce and industry who need to train their staff, must be staggered at the ability of the qualifications providers to continually produce reams of instructions about what they will accredit, and how it should be done, in amazing detail and at enormous length, often including such essentials as how to obtain a Gaelic version of the instructions and what to do if a learner needs to go to the toilet.

I would suspect that more than anything else the independent training provider would value this information more in a short document that does not require a month in a monk’s cell to study, a course in semantics to understand, and a degree in law to interpret for their own customers, the learners and their employers.

But this nonsense of over-specification, this illuminating of the dots on the “I”s and gilding of the crossbars of the “t”s, is not the fault of qualification awarding bodies. They are trapped by the system that in turn regulates them. They have been around quite a while; they have vast intellectual reserves, huge experience resides in their staff. They know very well there is a simple test of the quality and reliability of their training providers. That is that they provide their training to employers, the employers know it’s good, and will pay for it.
But instead the qualification awarding bodies have to work within the most regulated, constricting, politically correct, risk averse, self-perpetuating, interfering, state managed, unresponsive, innovation destructive, self-satisfied, overprotected, monopolistic, empire building, intrusive, national qualification framework that can be imagined.

Another brick in the wall.

Sitting at the back of one of those events that professional institutes put on to encourage their members to undertake “CeePeeDee” I noticed that my notebook was covered in irritated words, decorated and surrounded by forceful boxes and circles. I had inadvertently been scribbling my irritation at this person in front of us delivering another blatant sales pitch to us under the guise of our damnable “Continuing Professional Development” obligation.

After the event, still seething slightly in the weekend traffic, my thoughts - as so often before - turned to the whole nonsense of Continuing Professional Development. CPD (a despicable, devalued abbreviation) was foisted on the majority of us in the 1990s. It was seen as a “professional” response to the climate of suspicion beginning to surround other professions, a climate of suspicion fed by some well publicised disasters.

Time and again the finding of enquiries had been that many professionals were sadly out of date in their knowledge and practices. They were still clinging to the idea that, having once qualified in 1952, they never needed to learn anything ever again. Yes, they were horribly wrong, and they had to learn to change. The solution was thought to be to impose on them a requirement to “keep learning”. That, it was felt, would keep them up-to-date and improve practices. Formalised CPD was born.

Except that from the outset it didn’t impose this requirement for learning. It imposed a requirement to attend events, keep a record, meet a target. So it is that ever since, as the canker of “CPD” has infested more and more sectors, the mind boggling pointless absurdity of mandatory recording has been the driving force. CPD for many is now built on the stupidest set of stupid premises ever devised, primarily that if an institute asks to see a member’s “CPD” record, it won’t show “compliance”. Of course it will!

But far more stupid is the basic failure to understand the nature of our profession. If a surgeon fails to “do CPD”, they can be prevented from working. If a company accountant doesn’t “do CPD” the company may be wise to sack them in case they may break one of the ever-evolving regulations. But if a trainer doesn’t “do CPD”? What’s the external sanction?

There isn’t one. CPD “regulation” for most of us is a chimera, a paper tiger, a nonsense. The institutes rely on their members knuckling under. But if they all stopped doing it, the CPD recording requirements would be diluted, reduced or removed. Would they shut down their profitable membership income? Would they ‘eckerslike. So there are no real sanctions, except against a few individuals annually ( “pour encourager les autres”) who may have no real objection to leaving and saving their subscription. The capable and experienced practitioner outside the institute is as free to practice as the member, and always will be. That’s why there are hundreds of thousands of practicing trainers and managers in the UK, but all institutes’ membership, in total, is a mere fraction of that number.

The key is that “soft” skills like training and much of management are largely self-sharpening tools. They get better by being used. People in these professions tend to be Creatives, and every thing a Creative does is also their learning. It isn’t necessary to externally structure their learning, to demand it, to confine it to a format. These processes can actually undermine the learning itself, take the excitement away, reduce innovation and improvement. They are the bricks in the wall.

The Creatives’ professional development is not unrecorded. It is there, in the sketchbook of their life. They are constantly recording ideas, revisiting earlier experiments, trying something different, adapting their practice, producing sketches and maquettes, showing these to customers, evaluating their potential.
So they get better, more skilled, more confident, with every task they do, and people pay for what they do. The market is never stupid. They don’t get better by scrabbling maniacally once a year through their diaries and recording the subject, medium, duration and purpose of each competed task. Their learning is continuous, their professional development intrinsic to the career they have chosen. Real learning, the stuff that matters, isn’t something that an institute can specify, classify, stipulate or regulate. Their members don’t need to be threatened with institutional blackballing to go on learning.

Nor do they gain a thing from a sales pitch in an hotel room on a Saturday morning, when they would usually be walking the dog, and doing something really useful, like thinking. Or even dreaming.

The plumber and the hammer

By about 3.00 their eyelids were getting very heavy indeed. It wasn’t that I’d bored them to tears. I looked around the group. Julie was wilting, and I suspected behind that hand-on-forehead was at least one closed eye. Martin had said nothing for a good twenty minutes. Sam had twice done that head jerk when you just snatch yourself back from the edge of sleep. The double espresso shot in my coffee had just about held its own, and I knew I would pay for the caffeine later. There was a pause, and I decided.

“Right”, I said firmly, “That’s enough. We’re all losing it. Time to pack in. I’ll see you at the same time next week”. And we all wearily but gladly packed up, about two hours short of the “full day”. I felt no guilt, but as I drove home I had to have that discussion in my head. You know the one. The one about explaining why you didn’t “do a full day”.

Time without number I have had THAT telephone conversation before a programme with a company training buyer. It goes like this.

Me: “ So, a six hour day with breaks then, finishing about ……………..”
Buyer: “Oh, no! OUR people are used to hard work.” [Meaning – “I’m paying you a DAY rate!”]
Me: “Yes, six is about as much ……………”
Buyer: “No, no. The works start at 8.30, half an hour for lunch, and the normal end of the day is five. They aren’t afraid of hard work !” [Meaning “That’s a lower cost per hour – you don’t get me like that!”]
Me: “But ……………..”
Buyer: “Right. See you on Tuesday!” [Meaning “That showed HIM!”]

The problem, and the one so many training buyers are clearly too money obsessed to understand, is that they cannot expect people, most of whom probably haven’t been in a training room for years, to endure or benefit from a sudden eight hours of intensive training. The system – and the brain - just can’t take it. Even if they can physically endure it, they won’t retain much. It’s like pouring water into a jug – when it’s full, it’s full. The rest goes down the drain. Human beings have a capacity too.

Over the years “the market” has forced we trainers to make many compromises, but at some stage we have to point out the consequences. You cannot condense a five day open programme into a four day in-company programme, which due to work pressures becomes reduced to three days, without actually losing anything. Learning isn’t like filling the petrol tank – you can’t employ a sort of grand prix pit-stop high pressure fuel pump. It takes Time. Time. It’s a relational thing. The brain has to process knowledge. Attitudes have to form. Mental connections have to be made. Existing knowledge has to be analogised into the new stuff. It just does take time.

The preposterous nonsense of “two year degrees” shows stupidity of an Olympic-winning quality . First the government destroyed a perfectly good employer-backed polytechnic regime where diplomas and sandwich courses provided the right learning in the right way over an appropriate period. Then school leavers (who would have done well under polytechnic education) were obliged to go to universities for “academic” (excuse me while I deal with this furball in my throat) “degrees” which on the whole employers didn’t ask for or even want. Then government saddled young graduates with huge debts on a promise of earning £400,000 more over their career. Then, discovering that the earnings benefit had suddenly (oh REALLY? ) dropped to only £150,000, the government proposed “two year degrees”. That response is absolutely sweet Fanny Adams to do with education. It’s all about money, political fallout, and gross ignorance of how learning works.

As is this too common obsession with a “normal training day” . For heavens sake, why can’t training buyers work out that they are not paying for how long people sit in a room, but for what training achieves ? Look, buyers, if you really want to achieve less for your money, then fine, we can deliver. Just stick us in overheated mezzanine training rooms under artificial light for three intensive days with ten trainees who haven’t had to do brain work since school. Do it because for some cretinous cost-obsessed reason you think that people being trained have to “work a normal day”.

And look up the story about the plumber and the hammer.

It’s time to abolish the Magic Weekend

The Team Leader is here to stay. “Supervisor”, except in some special sectors of the economy, is pretty well a defunct species. “First Line Manager” has never really had the cachet, never really caught on as an answer to “What do you do?” Team leadership has become an established, even transferable skill set, albeit differently levelled in different organisations.

Magic Weekend” refers to the practice some organisations still have of informing an employee on a Friday that from Monday they will be Team Leader, (or Trainer, or Supervisor). The expectation seems to be that over the weekend they will magically be transformed into a fully competent Team Leader, reporting to work fully equipped with new skills, and ready to perform.

With almost continuous re-structuring and a host of other pressures, it is increasingly common for organisations to need to recruit new Team Leaders quickly. Organisations tend to recruit Team Leaders from their existing teams. There are good reasons for this; the likelihood of recruiting someone who knows the job is very much higher. The elevated team member knows the organisation, or at least knows the part of it they are working at, so induction is attenuated. And they know the people, so should have a head-start in personal relationships and communications.

But this recruitment practice – indeed, if “recruitment” is the right term – produces some new challenges. An external appointee will nearly always be a previously in-post Team Leader, with skills and experience. For promoted internal staff, these are not in place, and the confidence that goes with them can be absent. For the internal promotee, becoming a team leader is a more difficult and significant step than many companies realise.

It is, to be sure, a real career step onto the ladder that may lead one day into management. More significantly, it is a significant step away from the security of the work group, its protection, its collective views of management, and its habits. It is often the fear of this parting, and the uncertainty of the meaning of the new role, that employees cite when asked about their views of “becoming a manager”.

There is a tension between the needs of the organisation quickly to fill a Team Leader position, seen by the organisation as a small step, and the need of the promotee to understand the meaning, and rules of, the new role. Training for the job may well be provided, but at initial appointment this is often quite a distant prospect, to follow “in good time”. What about the immediate support internal promotees need?

For the new Team Leader to make a confident start on the role, they need to be given this crucial support before they start. Basic guidance about the job, as well as what it is not. They can’t be expected to have deduced all this from their experience as Team Members – they probably weren’t plotting and planning to get the job!

Just as over the years the consensus on the key roles of management have emerged, so there is general agreement about the qualities and initial skills organisations want to see in new team leaders. They need to be told the “Six Rules”.

Rule one: “Don’t try and do it for them”. You are not expected to be a “super employee”, doing everything. Your responsibility is to ensure it is done, and done properly, by the team you lead.

Rule two: “Let go of the old job”. Your old job will change, and you just can’t keep up with it. You are actually starting a different job, and you will be using new and different skills.

Rule three: “Stop being the expert”. Technical expertise now resides in your Team. You know that they will not appreciate you trying to be a “know-all”. It is a matter of respect to acknowledge that the team are the experts.

Rule four: “Just be yourself”. There is no magic cloak called “Leadership” you can put on when you come to work. The organisation appointed you, not an impressionist. Remember, no one likes a phoney.

Rule five: “Establish the right boundaries”. You needn’t abandon your between proper confidentiality with friends. It is fair and reasonable to work out what these are with your colleagues.

Rule six: “Don’t expect to be brilliant on Monday”. All new Team Leaders will make mistakes. It’s called “learning the ropes”. The important thing is to acknowledge them, learn quickly from them, and move on.

Organisations spent a long time believing that “sitting by Nellie” was ”training”, until it finally dawned on them that Nellie was passing on as many bad habits as good ones. Nellie has now largely been “re-educated”. Surely now it is time to address that other bad habit, belief in “The Magic Weekend”, and give our internally appointed new Team Leaders a fighting chance of success!




The “Six rules” are from “The Magic Weekend Handbook – Practical Advice for your first day as a new Team Leader” ISBN 978-0-9555097 -0-4 , published by George Edwards – Knowledge Management, at £3.25 post free, £25 for 10, from http://www.thegeorgeedwards.com/, or 01423 883557.

“Hits nail on head, builds crate”

“They say”, read my client’s email at the end of a long day, “That their materials will map against Management NVQ level seven”. I dropped my pitta bread, and spent the next minute cleaning hummus and olive oil off the laptop keyboard. I hit the reply button, and typed, “Oh they do, do they?”. But it wasn’t enough. I scratched my head with a non-hummusey finger, and then added, “As you well know, I could map………” I paused, “The House at Pooh Corner against any management NVQ you name”

Ok, the expression you are seeking is “hostage to fortune” *. But really! I mean, really! Who were these people intruding with their daft claims at the end of a tiring day?

On a recent piece of work, I was contemplating the wonders of a certificate in management programme specification and came across the provided appendices with the “mapping” to National Occupational Standards. Looking at one of the units of the programme I found that the mapping matrix purported to show that someone had inspected the relationships between the 8 segments of the programme syllabus and no fewer than 16 National Occupational Standards, and from this massive task obtained just 13 “matches”, indicated by ticks in the relevant boxes. I was apparently supposed to seriously believe that all 128 possible matches had been fully considered, and of these only five had been found. Piffle.

“Piffle”? A quick check revealed that to carry out this “mapping” for one National Occupational Standard alone it would have been necessary to inspect 4,838,400 links between, wait for it, “outcomes”, “behaviours”, “General knowledge and understanding”, “Industry specific understanding”, and “content specific knowledge and understanding” statements, and 14 other skills areas which that Standard alone apparently related to, a task that my calculator informed me would have taken around 106 years.

I put it to you that their claim to have diligently and completely performed this mapping was piffle.

There is no point in these mapping exercises between taught programmes and NVQs, except to satisfy the whims of an entirely out of control regulatory system. Who actually cares if a training programme maps onto any standards at all? Certainly not most end-users. Except within the “training industry” itself, the knowledge has almost no value. It doesn’t prove anything useful, where “useful” is a term that implies “of value in achieving a desired end”. The employers’ only concern with a training programme is the desired end that after the course his people perform better, and do so at an acceptable cost. They have little interest or understanding of the standards, and will at best glance at the matrices, and return to consider the more meaningful statements in the programme aims and objectives.

How have we got to this absurd state? Years ago, when National Occupational Standards were a young upstart concept in the field of training, for political reasons employers had to be persuaded they were useful. The first versions were therefore drafted to achieve this acceptance, and were shown to representative employers. Early standards said, essentially, “Hits nail on head” and “Builds a wooden crate”. The employers liked them because this was exactly what they required their people to do.

Then the training industry, never able to let a good thing alone, got hold of these eminently sensible performance statements, and egged-on by regulators and awarding bodies, started to mess about with them. Before too long “Hits nail on head” had become “Uses appropriate equipment safely in an approved manner”, and “Builds a wooden crate” had become “Constructs a range of transportation containers using natural and manmade materials”. These in turn morphed into “Selects appropriate product protection options” and “Approves and directs the use of resources to ensure safe transit of finished products within a protective environment”. To understand what the hell these standards now meant a swathe of explanations was needed, and before long employers found themselves in the lunatic situation where their employee in a blue overall with a hammer was being assessed against a two page list of statements ranging from understanding of endangered hardwoods of the world to what to do in the case of a splinter in the thumb.

Look, "I only told you to build a bloody wooden crate!"

It may well be a hugely profitable activity for some consultants, but it brings us into disrepute. It is selling snake oil. It is a con trick. Mapping training programmes onto these National Occupational Standards is horrifyingly expensive, produces almost meaningless reports, uses forests of paper, and is of no value either to employers or the people undergoing training. It’s time for the bonfire of the inanities.



*NOS in Management, C 6.1, outcome 1: “Put into practice the strategies and plans for change in line with the available resources” – “House at Pooh Corner”, Chapter One.

Sunday

Fingernails and butterflies

We hear a lot about stress these days. It sometimes seems to be an all-purpose explanation for things that go wrong between people. Employers are blamed for causing stress in their employees, and celebrities blame it for their occasional bouts of high profile foolishness.

But stress isn't something that "just happens", like the weather, or taxes. It doesn't happen to you; in a way, you really do it to yourself.

Stress is caused by the way you respond to the pressure an event places on you. OK, you may feel other people are responsible for that pressure, or that it’s just your life that is piling more and more pressure on, but your reaction and the stress it causes, is all yours!

So you are free to get rid of it.

Not all of it - there is some "good stress"


What, there’s “Good Stress”?

Yes indeed. People do tend to give stress a bad press, but in fact it’s not all bad. Not always.

Everyone needs some stress in life. Remember, stress is only the response you have to events. Sometimes that response to the pressure of events is useful. For example, when you have an important presentation to make, you are under some pressure. But the stress you feel at that particular pressure should actually help you perform better when you come to give your presentation. There are lots of events where if you didn’t feel a degree of stress, you’d just become a cabbage. The right amount of stress can help you to produce your very best work.

Bad stress, the stuff we usually hear about, occurs when you let the pressure build up to a point where you feel overwhelmed. It can make you feel sick, do unwise things, and mess up your relationships.

You don’t have to let it happen like that. Stress-related illness usually happens because the effects of one initial cause of stress, even a small one, can mess up your responses to the next pressure you come under, and gradually you cope with every new pressure less and less well. Perhaps, for some people, one really big, sudden pressure that they can’t cope with is all that is needed to tip them intro a stress crisis. It’s a very personal thing.

Because stress can build up quite gradually, often it’s other people who see the signs in you before you notice.

Perhaps you:

Get generally irritable and snappy at work and home
Make a big fuss over small events.
Are regarded as a little cloud of misery
Are getting less done than you used to, putting things off until it’s too late.
Seem to be engaging in diversions instead of doing the job.
Keep whingeing about the things you have to do.
Can't make your mind up, and spend ages on simple decisions.
Complain of indigestion and headaches too often.
Are seeking more solace in alcohol than usual.
Lack get-up-and-go at work or home
Or are prone to sweatiness!

These things usually build up over time, so you tend to take them as “normal for me at the moment”. Accepting them like that can actually make the stress grow.

So if people point them out, maybe instead of just thinking them rude and insensitive (which they also may be!) consider whether they are actually doing you a favour. After all, if you don’t know about it and do something, sooner or later you’ll be in danger of the three really nasty illnesses of stress:

Anxiety attacks, with symptoms like feeling helpless, panicking, and being unable to relax or even sleep without help;
Aggression, with its over-reaction to trivial events, even picking arguments or bullying people;
Depression, with a general loss of purpose, extreme lethargy, exhaustion, feeling worthless and unvalued, and tending to tears.
These are real illnesses. You’ll need medical help. So before any of these happen, maybe this is the time to decide to do something about any early personal stress signs. Like that indigestion.

To do that you really need to know what stress does to your body.

In the great scheme of life, the universe, and everything, it’s useful to remember that humans have been around for only about 2 million years. That’s really only a moment in evolutionary time. So we “modern humans” still share quite a lot of the characteristics of our cave-dwelling forebears. These signs tend to come out when we are subject to unexpected or unwelcome pressure.

In those long distant days (OK, we are going back to the cavemen here), the pressure was likely to come in the shape of a bear or similar fierce mammal appearing at the edge of the settlement, posing an immediate threat. There were essentially two possible caveman responses to that threat. Our common ancestors could run for it, or they could decide that they had had just about enough of these pesky wandering bears, and the time had arrived to deal with them. Or as we tend to put it today, their choice was between “flight” and "fight”.

Fortunately the human system had been designed to cope with such emergencies. Indeed, so well hard-wired is the coping mechanism that even today it has not yet managed to differentiate very clearly between the threat of a rampant bear or the – possibly lesser – threat of a rampant boss. In either case, whether the decision is to fight, or to run for it, there are certain changes that are needed to bring the human system from a lounging-around-the-fire-eating-roots state to a fighting-or-fleeing-from-bears state. The body's defence system therefore automatically swings into “action”

To prepare for the coming action, the human system releases a great swoosh of adrenaline into the bloodstream. Adrenaline is the chemical that makes the heart beat faster, shoving the blood around quicker, carrying oxygen and energy to where it's needed. That’s why we use it to treat heart attacks and anaphylactic attacks after stings or allergies.

All that work pumping blood around faster makes the system get hotter, hence the sweating we have – that’s to cool us down. While trying to keep oxygen supplies up (causing faster breathing) the speeding up of the system can also cause the brain to run short of oxygen, which sometimes causes messages to the rest of the body to get stuck or distorted – usually known as “freezing in panic” or “not thinking straight”.

This big belt of adrenaline will also affect the digestive system, giving rise to “butterflies” and other socially unfortunate symptoms.

At the same time a hormone is released that increases the glucose in the blood system, providing lots of extra energy needed to run or fight. This leads to extra strength, and is evidenced by the common puzzlement about “I don’t know how I found the strength!” when superhuman effort was needed in emergency.

So, all this stuff going on inside us is really helpful in the case of the single bear event that day. But if the threats are constant, if they are daily pressures, the body just keeps on responding in the same way. So the system never gets the chance to recover from the “fight or flight” preparations, or rebalance to “normal”.

Such a prolonged state of readiness for action, the same old stuff our ancestors could cope with on an occasional bear-at-the-door basis, when it becomes continuous, can bring on a whole range of longer-term effects on us modern humans. These include ulcers, headaches, and the shakes.

So you see, the defence system that served our ancestors so well is still serving us today. It’s just that like anything else, if we rely on it all the time, sooner or later it’s actually going to cause us problems.


Hang on a moment, is this fun ? You’ll remember that we established early on that stress is really just how you respond to pressure – no one can “give you stress”, and it’s up to you whether you accept the stress when you get the pressure. And that there is good stress as well as bad stress.

It follows that whether you get stressed rather depends on how you perceive a situation. So for example, if all of your life so far (we’ll pop back to the stone age here for a moment) you have been hanging out with bears, playing tree climbing games with them, and you know the local bears intimately, it is possible (no higher than that) that when a bear appears on the corner of your encampment you might say instead,


“Hey! Whee! There’s Old Scrawny, the bear from down by the big water! I must go and give him a hug!”

In other words, if you perceive a situation to be fun, or pleasurable, whatever others may think, you can regard it as not stressful at all. Or only a little stressful. Or as outright good fun.

Which is why it is possible for people to throw themselves off high bridges with nothing but a rubber band between them and the bottom of the canyon, or go for terrifying fairground rides. Yes, it’s “dangerous”, but hey! It’s fun! “Good stress!”

On the other hand, going for a drive in the countryside might seem a really fun way to pass the afternoon to your mate Big Bob the Boy Racer, but maybe you have been in his passenger seat before, and to you it is going to be a trial by terror. So you get stress effects all through the week before the trip.

It’s all about how you look at it.


OK, but there aren't too many bears about these days....
We’ve already established that stress is actually your response to events that happen to you. In this wild modern world, there are very few bears, but there are two really big sources of “virtual bears” that we all have to deal with. These are:
Workplace Pressures, the pressure that we say, “Goes with the job”, and Life Events. See how many of these you recognise in yourself. (And try not to panic)
Workplace pressures:

Constant change, making you insecure
Unclear targets and standards of performance
Impossible demands or unrealistic timeframes and capabilities
Responsibility without authority
Job insecurity
Impossible bosses
Impossible staff
Long hours and heavy workloads
Bad work environment, clutter and poor equipment

Life Events:

Death of a friend or relative
Divorce
Relocation
Illness
Children
Financial worries
Repeated daily irritations like commuting
Getting older

There’s a name for all these; “stressors”.

We tend to see all these stressors as “beyond our control”, but in fact they aren’t. It’s just that we avoid taking any steps to deal with them or reduce their impact on us, usually because we are afraid of the consequences. But there is another source of stressors that affects us all.

Our own expectations of ourselves. Can you recognise any of these in yourself ?

Perfectionism. As well as making us take impossible care with things, and set absurdly high standards for everything we do ourselves, this is the habit of thinking “if you want a job done properly, do it yourself!”. So we drive ourselves to take on more and more tasks, until one day we break under the strain.

Approvalism. The need to always be seen to have pleased people, which again makes us try not only to do things to perfection, but even to anticipate what people might like us to do, and do it before they ask, gathering for ourselves yet more demands that we “have to meet”.

Urgency. Always feeling we haven’t done enough in the time, or expecting everything to take less time than it is going to. This places unfair pressures on ourselves, and when we fail to meet our own deadlines, we get exasperated.

Our inner strength. We don’t want to show that we can’t handle situations, or to ask for help, as that might make people think less well of us.

It is hard to deal with these, because they are what make you what you are. But if you can recognise them in yourself you can at least try and tone them down, using a few basic strategies like:

Asking if it really needs to be done that well,
Allowing a bit more time
Telling people what you really think about situations
Not trying to do what you haven’t been asked to do

If you now look over the last section, you will see that you are subject to quite a number of stressors all the time, and it isn’t all that surprising if occasionally a few more pressures, a few unwanted demands, can push you into a stressed situation instead of trying to deal rationally with the causes of the pressures.

Try to remember, the more of these three types of stressor you are carrying around, the less margin you have to cope with that virtual bear when it appears. Even in Leeds.


“I usually just count to 10”

There are of course occasions when that old virtual bear appears, and you know that at the time you can only cope with a very limited amount of extra pressure. So the best response is to tackle the things that “fight or flight” is doing to you right then, tricking your system into thinking you have taken the necessary action, and getting it to calm down so you can feel better fast. The immediate things you can do to achieve this are:

Adjust your posture. Sit up straight, and give your shoulders some exercise, raise them and lower them, relax them. This means that you are taking your body “down” from a state of readiness to a state of relaxation, and when this happens the brain assumes the threat is over, and the “fight or flight” processes slow down.

Control the oxygen deficit. As the fight or flight syndrome takes over, you burn up a lot of oxygen. Replace it by breathing deeply, and the oxygen deficit that has threatened your thinking – as oxygen has been diverted from your brain to other places – is stabilised. So the system can slow down again.

Move about. The body is expecting action, so give it some. Once it knows that you are taking action, it assumes you are getting away from the threat, or dealing with it. All the adrenaline and hormones can stop, and your system can settle down to normal.

Once you have regained control of the system, you can think rationally about what to do with that ol’ virtual bear. Here are some ideas for the next stage of your fight to keep stress at bay:

Decide if you can do anything about it now. If not, put it put of your mind until you can do something about it, or decide who can do something about it, and get them to take the load off you.

Decide how big the issue is. Compare it with other things, and decide if it is so important you need to move it to the top of your list now, or if it is just not big enough to matter to you – now or later.

Isolate it. Don’t let a little snowball turn into a big one. Work out what exactly needs to be done to sort out this issue, not to deal with all the consequences, real or imagined, into the distant future. They’ll may not happen at all if you just tackle this properly now.

Clear your mind. Concentrate on the one thing. Maybe do a displacement exercise, like visualising something calming and peaceful. Then with that clear mind you can deal with the single issue.

Adopt someone else’s’ s view. Is this really as big to other people as it is to you right now? Do not make a mountain for yourself out of someone else’s molehill.


Stress, if you let it, is going to keep coming back. The world isn’t going to stop, you still have a life which will create stressors. You still – we hope – have a job that you need to do. So you really need to build into your life some habits that can reduce the effects of future stress.

Learn to relax. For some people this is desperately hard. They just “don’t know how to relax”. Well, they need to learn! The problem is often that they haven’t found the thing that will give them relaxation. It may be gardening, or painting, reading, or walking the dog, cooking or swimming. There will always be something that can be a form of relaxation, something that gives the body time to recover. Pursue this. Don’t let yourself off with “nothing appeals to me”. Make a list, try stuff.

Get regular sleep. It is a vicious cycle – stress makes it hard to sleep, lack of sleep causes fatigue, fatigue reduces the capacity to cope with pressures. To recover from a stressed situation it is necessary to have break with old sleeping habits. Your doctor can often help, but so can a long vacation or a change of habits. Actually scheduling the right amount of sleep for yourself, and then making sure you get it, is one of the best long term ways to ensure you cope with pressures without suffering stress.

Pay attention to your diet. Constant snacking and drinking coffee, or always eating the sort of “junk food” that makes your metabolism work too hard, or food that only provides short term bursts of energy, only messes up your system. No wonder your system can’t cope with all the adrenaline and hormones. Oh, and do remember, alcohol is a depressant, not a stimulant. Too much of it will not only mess up your system, but also your thinking.


Socialising. One of the big problems, especially for men, is that they often have very limited circles of social acquaintance, and this tends to make them focus far too much on work. But socially different things take you to different mental places, give your brain a real break, and help you to balance that working life by comparing your life with people who are not going to “talk shop”.

Exercise. As any teenager will testify, the more you stay in bed, the more you want to stay in bed. The problem with this and other forms of lethargy is that you never get the system really moving, so it doesn’t perform its self-service functions. You need a degree of activity to burn up calories, to flush the blood around the body, to put the heart under a bit of pressure. It doesn’t have to be a lot of effort, just regular walk to the station instead of driving to work, or getting an allotment to go and dig. You don’t have to sign up for the local over thirties Saturday Rugby league, or buy a mountain bike. Just find something to make sure you have regular exercise.


OK, but, well, me, I'm just .........

It’s all very well considering the things you can do to reduce the impact of stress on your life, and surely you will need to do these things from time to time. But avoidance is better than a cure, and you can make a huge difference to your life and your health by certain evasive actions. These are simple to learn, and really very rational.

Don’t expect too much of yourself. You know your limits, really you do! Don’t deliberately get into situations that will over-stretch you, or undertake things that will inevitably place you in an impossible position.

Change when you need to change. Stop hanging on to things, habits, established practices, when they have passed their useful life. Use the “garage strategy”. If you don’t know whether you can get rid of something, put it in the real or imaginary garage. If after a couple of months you haven’t really the loss, you don’t need it any more, so just id of it.

Avoid people and situations that are going to stress you out. If going to visit your partners family every Sunday is causing you grief, arguments, anger, inadequacy, just stop doing it. As we said before, there is always something you can do to lessen stress – it’s just that it can be frightening to think of the consequences. So think about what could be worse than tackling the stressors – like heart attacks, ulcers, depression, death. Got it?

Learn to say “no”

Finally – feel better about yourself. It helps to understand stress, what causes it, what effects it has. But ultimately you decide how stressed you get. If you feel good about yourself, you are less likely to fall victim. So make sure that once in while you evaluate yourself honestly, and decide what you can feel good about, and where you want to be. Think about your achievements, and be happy for what you have done, and done well. Be proud of your strengths and your experience.


Is that it?

Yes.

There you are.

You know what causes stress, how it happens, how to reduce it, how to avoid it.

If you can’t kick stress out of your life entirely, you can certainly do something from now on to reduce it. And maybe live longer. Certainly better.

Remember – stress is an optional extra.