Kommunic8 consulting

Confessions of a shopaholic - capitalism, consumerism or just humanism unhinged?

As I sit at my desk – poised in full view of a huge and beautiful chic white Victorian room…complete with white ‘wedding cake’ cornice and stripped pine floor – yet stacked to the rafters with ‘stuff’ I am ‘clearing out’ as part of a bedroom restoration project (long story), I can’t help but ruminate on the process that resulted in this excess. As a self proclaimed ‘expert’ on the issue, I’m rather fascinated by the notion (and practice) of greed and selfishness as a human condition (as you might have gathered from my previous posts and love of all things ‘Richard Dawkins’) – predominantly in pursuit of proof of its necessary omnipresence amongst ours and other species, and of it being largely attributable to environmental influence in tandem with our genetic composition en-masse. Hell…..wouldn’t want to take any sort of responsibility for it. Nope, no siree. That would inevitably lead to abstinence from rifling through foisty bras at car boot sales, winning Ebay auctions through means of devious sniping software and eating three bags of French Fries on the trot. Death would be an infinitely more attractive proposition than the mere thought of the separation anxiety likely to envelop me were I to take my favourite leather boots that I never wore to the charity shop….Yet if I fail to justify this ‘weakness’…I may actually have to part with my beloved 'designer' chattels rather than pursue the ritual task of stroking them, reminding myself of the fond memories they evoke (mainly the sport of stalking an inferior greed merchant in the sale) and putting them back on the hanger. And yet a part of me needs to be wrong – or the bedroom will be a shambles. But can greed be controlled in this age of abundance?

Being a lady of repute for ‘excess’ in every capacity, I’m always open to over-stocking on books to alleviate my conscience about…well…everything from too many shoes, coats, handbags, lamps, fountain pens yada yada yada…So imagine my delight in finding a book named simply ‘greed’ (Richard Girling). I have long argued (in a traditionally unsubstantiated tabloidesque kind of way) that when it comes down to it, our intellect is largely evolution’s attempt to superimpose pseudo sophistication onto otherwise savage minds. And as a fully paid-up bona fide narcissist, I stumbled upon yet another book to satisfy the validity of that view. Yes ‘greed’ appealed so much to my love of ‘greed’ in concept and innate greediness, that I swallowed it whole – adding another few pounds to my already overweight ego in the process.

But hang on…..all is not what it seemed. As I polish off the last few tasty morsels of the intro I find myself contending with a bitter aftertaste. Evidently, according to my new-found doctor’s book (do you get up early to read from yours in Zen-like tranquility too?) I am suffering from a spot of what ‘comparative psychologists’ term ‘Anthropomorphism’. It doesn’t really hurt much, but it does give rise to sudden bouts of cavalier extrapolation – making sweeping comparisons between other species and our own. Dammit. I’m already going off it – by page 6 it has rattled a good number of my ‘unshakeable’ and highly believable theories (that Daily Mail columnists would kill for) until they are but dust settled upon a yet unused Pettinati Italian top grain handbag. I better look into it in case it’s fatal.

It turns out that I am not the first, most dedicated or most intelligent to ask the nature-nurture question (as if). In fact, intellectual mud-slinging is a well practiced art on the subject – ethologists arguing that certain animal behaviours are default and eradicable, such as squirrels insisting they can bury nuts on a concrete car park, whereas comparative psychologists showed that many ‘hard wired’ behavioural patterns could be modified. The inevitable and obvious upshot is that hey…..maybe it’s both. There are two kinds of behaviour apparently – appetitive (searching behaviour – seeking a goal) and consummatory behaviour (what animals do when they reach the goal). And we, seemingly, like every other species, are natural pursuers of goals – whether that is food, status, sex or material gain. Like every other species, we are determined and adaptable. Given half a chance, after a successful pursuit most of us will gorge on anything we can rather than select on a ‘need’ basis, suggesting those uber-controlled lettuce-poking size 4’s who get to wear Primark’s Pippa doll outfits are not actually the norm (in case you didn’t realise). It’s paradoxical admittedly, since the current fashion diktat would have it that a pre-pubescent body is in fact a sign of female prowess – in this day and age being thin is an expensive effort, and a fashionable body shape the ultimate display of female status. Conversely, in Darwinian terms (and more empirically in pub research conducted casually amongst average males) – thin is the hallmark of the pack runt which stands no chance of proliferating the species.

Coincidentally I was partaking in my ritual free-loader reading of all the newspapers on the stand in M&S (well they’d never say anything in M&S would they?) before work the other day and noticed a headline on the front of one of them. To paraphrase, “all the evidence that obesity leads to serious health conditions is a nonsense”. After heaving a sigh of relief and buying a celebratory gingerbread man I spared a couple of minutes to think about it a little more deeply (since I could afford to having just had my life expectancy extended considerably). Have we set out to demonise greed scientifically, loading up our current disdain for ‘ugliness’ with scientific bias? Still, ultimately, sex and food win out as genetic goals go, so here’s hoping for a safe and speedy return to a mass penchant for the wholly Rubenesque….. without the fear that it causes cancer if the newspapers are to be believed!

Yes, of the enumerable pursuits we engage in, food and sex take precedence. In fact, feeding and sex are inextricably linked across all species. Ever wondered why eating goes hand in hand with romance? According to Girling food goes hand in hand with all that is associated with power and status too – the most aggressive almost always pushing through to the food first and thus becoming the ‘meatiest’ (which makes me blush having shoved more than one person out of the buffet queue on a training course….which I was running). It follows that in the animal kingdom then, the heaviest beasts are associated with higher levels of assertiveness and territorialism. Thus, they are apt to land the most food, the biggest territories and the fittest mates. Greed, it seems, is embedded – and wholly transposable from food to consumption of anything our genes consider an advancement of our genetic interests – even if ill-founded. Genetically, more really is more. Greed is the seeker of pleasure, reward, of prowess – and by its very nature is insatiable. Self improvement, creativity, aspiration, ambition, material gain. You name it – it is motivated by greed – another evolutionary necessity colliding with an age in which temptation and abundance along with a lack of capacity for satiety renders us at risk. We consume because we can. It’s that simple. We are programmed – only the availability circumstances change. Our prehistoric brain doesn’t trust that there will be food tomorrow any more than that of my dog (let alone lamps, lipsticks or 2-for-1 toilet rolls for that matter). Interestingly, Paul McKenna’s entire eating program is centred on changing our instinctive responses to that issue – convincing our minds through NLP and hypnosis techniques that we do not need to gorge when food is no longer scarce. We don’t, but does that intellectual knowledge change much for most of us in the face of a home made banoffee pie? He said he would ‘make me thin’. He didn’t. I’m greedy to the core just like you – because survival is my priority, just like yours. There’s nothing wrong with Paul’s theory – it is the simplest diet on earth – let me summarise the content: “Stop putting so much food down your gizzard you greedy lard-ass”. There. Have that for free on me. Let me know if it works…..It should…it makes perfect sense.

We think of greed as a terrible thing consciously – morally. And the culture in which we live is one of a dynamic media- fuelled hypocrisy between commercially driven temptation and the social consequences of acquiescence. But think about it…..outside of a current distaste for body fat, where else do the results of greed turn us off? Material acquisition, power, artistic prowess? Perhaps those with Presbyterian leanings would disagree, but to the rest of us, these are all the generic hallmarks of genetic strength whether they are a moral turn off or not. When I look at my stuff, I see it is purely the result of indulging instinctive behaviour - minus the usual prohibitive space issues most people have, combined with the resources to acquire and availability of time and things to buy. In other words, there is nothing to inhibit instinctive pleasure-seeking other than a (clearly non existent) desire to do so for many in this day and age. We don’t merely eat for nutrition or engage in sexual activity just to procreate any more than we shop only for necessities. We pander to our instincts – and to deny it by redirecting those urges towards ‘false spheres’, as Girling puts it, is merely ‘greed at prayer’. Thank goodness. Foisty bras it is then…….

Why public sector managers should get on the ‘brand wagon’..

Maximising existing skill and talent in Local Authorities has never been more necessary than it is right now. If it was ever a cliché, it isn‘t any more.The task of improving Performance Management practices in Local Authority is an ongoing headache for service leaders across the UK, made ever more poignant as service providers stretch to achieve more and better care for communities with less and less means of doing so. How ever far-fetched talk of a public sector ‘bloodbath’ turns out to be(or not), budget cuts look set to be a critical component of economic policy for the next couple of years – whichever party wins the election. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) claims that spending cuts pledged by the three main parties range from £47bn to £64bn. With that comes increasing pressure to find innovative means of coaxing employees to go ‘the extra mile’ as staff cuts, recruitment embargoes and reorganisation begin to take effect. Striking a balance that preserves a sense of well-being amongst employees, ameliorating the inevitable impact on sickness and absence, is a challenge that has many Local Authority leaders looking at the drawing board once more. David MacLeod’s recent report makes a timely and compelling case for the introduction of Employee Engagement strategies across the Public Sector, highlighting that current economic constraints place even greater emphasis on the need to garner employee enthusiasm and discretionary effort as a means of achieving improved community services whilst contending with ever increasing pressures on resources. The words are becoming a bit passé – governments and cuts are historically synonymous, and the general populace quickly tire of listening to public sector workers ‘crying wolf’ about their relatively secure lot. But there is a growing sense amongst public sector employees that this time it really “could be them”. Given that palpable sense of uncertainty, public sector employees might just be in the right frame of mind given a little direction…. Starting a process of employee re-engagement for those new to the concept poses a bit of a conundrum – one that is made more or less difficult depending upon the existing cultural climate and contexts in which individual local government departments operate. Nice as it would be, with few notable exceptions, most cannot put a claim to being the public sector equivalent of the much celebrated ‘John Lewis’ any more than the historic evolution of our respective cultures can be re-written. Nor can we offer shares, bonuses or other ‘incentives’, so what can we do? More….http://kommunic8.co.uk/Blog.html

The One-Stop Sheep-Dip Training Delusion

I belong to an area of commerce I like to call the ‘Business Pontification Industry’ (or ‘BPI’) I’m not sure of the grammatical correctness of the term, (well, I am actually) but I personally and officially twin it with the diet industry, which is where I’ll start this particularly scathing opine). As we all rationally know, ‘diets’ don’t work. In fact, they are widely thought to fuel the obesity epidemic – and yet a global industry expected to be worth $586.3bn by 2014 thrives on our human weakness for pain and commitment free solutions to problems which a) could be genetic (systemic) in origin b) could be environmental (economic) in origin, or c) horror of horrors, might stem from a lack commitment and motivation within our own psyche to do what needs to be done in this age of freely available nourishment: That is eat less and move more. (Note I made no business comparator in the last one. They are one and the same). Why on earth can this be possible? It makes no rational sense….until you consider the irrationality of our species at large.

Magically transposing us in all our psychological glory from failed dieters into a business context, why would we expect to behave any differently at the office? After all, we are ostensibly who we are wherever we are – no? Let’s say you suspect you have a people - centred business headache or conundrum to solve, or you just read the latest big idea in HBR. Next you find yourself in discussions with the board about the dire need to find a ‘specialist’ to whom you can hand inordinate amounts of cash to cogitate on the problem and train a solution into your people – preferably in one day because you can’t afford to let staff loose for two in case the business should collapse. Then, as the old adage goes, the consultant duly shows up in a shiny suit, asks to borrow your watch to tell you the time, then keeps the watch (or worse still, brings his own cheap watch and gives you the wrong time) and moves on. Meanwhile your issue remains unresolved. Sound familiar? Well it should. Amazingly, the American Society for Training and Development surveyed American organisations over a three year period, only to discover that only 2% actually assess executive training programs for (financial) impact. Why is that? Well we don’t have a definitive answer – but here’s my starter for ten. Could it be that, as in the case of our dieting efforts there was never really an expectation that it would work? Have we commoditized business solutions too? In too many cases, are we consumers of them, rather than their creators? It would follow then, that in typical consumerist fashion – if it doesn’t work, no sweat, we just buy another that does. And in doing so, we get to deny ownership of failure and gain the added pleasure of another shot of shopper’s serotonin. And it is precisely this drug-induced trap that leaves room for ‘feeders’. Individuals and organisations making the same mistakes over and over keep consultants in work – lucrative work. Seems everyone’s a winner…..oh, save your business of course.

Perhaps the problem, or one in a range of complex contenders at least, sits within the very core of capitalist values. Paradoxically, like individuals, even businesses consume gratuitously during economic stability – because in the end, the physical (human) component of business itself is a manifestation of the collective psyche. If organisations are the sum of their people, surely those people are driven by the values of the current economic model? Taking the argument a step further, one might reasonably argue that the higher you climb up the greasy pole, the more you have benefited from and successfully embraced the capitalist model. It would make sense then that the people most likely to fall prey to the traps of capitalism are those who have prospered most as a result of it - aka business execs.

Admit the truth - many of us believe in consultants just because we pay so much for them. Not unlike expensive chattels or commodities of any type, the comfort comes from spending the money – lots of it. The more we spend, the better the quality right? Oddly, we all know intellectually that this is rubbish, but such is the power of brand, most of us still fall into that trap. Not even at the highest levels can you guarantee discriminating tastes.

Oh the selfishness of it all.....

We’re constantly reminded that we live in an era of instant gratification – and perhaps these days business strategy is no exception. In this age of McMorals as Paul Pearsall described them (2006) and with an average global CEO tenure of 7.8 years according to Booz Allen Hamilton (not much more than the average product lifecycle) it would make sense that only strategies and solutions that are executable well within that timescale (or less) are being addressed. This is OK for the individual executive with career ambitions, or those of us set to retire with a hefty pension before then, but what of the long term prospects for organisations and those employed by them? Isn’t that how we got into this global mess in the first place? Who will own up to inventing that interminable phrase ‘quick wins’? If we believe this problem only exists in the banking sector we are fooling ourselves. It is systemic. But rationally speaking, why would we cultivate such an awesome tolerance for being conned by the ‘Emperors New Clothes’ when so often we have the answer within – just as we can lose weight with a little effort and persistence? There has to be a benefit of turning a ‘blind eye’ - there's always a 'what's in it for me' lurking around every strategic corner. And quel surprise! We can show ‘commitment’ to the problem by throwing money at it, hope for a quick win or get out or start something else before we get nobbled. An old friend of mine used to laugh about it all the time. As principle of a college, his mantra was ‘always leave just before you get found out’.

So…..what’s the point I’m trying to communicate I hear you ask. It is this: Meaningful change requires behavioural change, and behavioural change requires a special kind of learning. Learning that cannot begin and end in a day, and that cannot be brushed over a crowd like egg-white on cheap sausage rolls. They still come out of the oven raw looking and taste distinctly gritty. Occasionally, immediate changes in thinking patterns can happen when the brain experiences something momentous - burning a revolutionary change of attitude into our synapses. In a broad cultural context 9/11 would fit the bill, but maybe something more personal to the majority of us as individuals - loss of loved one, accidents - shock of any sort can accelerate the learning process. However, on a regular daily basis that just isn’t the way the human mind works, and anyone who tries to tell you differently is thinking only about their bank balance. Most learning that requires behavioural output must incorporate a process of what is known as 'cognitive restructuring' - and as the name suggests, it's a rather longer process than most training sessions afford.

Throw one crutch away!!

There's been so much evangelising in business, and never more than since the start of the recession. Oh how we laughed at the changing tone of what should have been a very red-faced business clergy and their evidently elastic 'Chronicles of Good Business Practice'. Historic examples of what I like to term the ‘travelling preacher syndrome’ that is freelance consultants and trainers can be seen in abundance in the raft of emails you and I receive daily from respected pundits working for HBR or the like. Did anyone notice that the nano second we were declared in a recession, EVERY email in your in box was about 'Surviving the Downturn’? But surely, like a diet industry that made us fat, then sells us a false tincture to make us ‘slim’ again, isn’t it a manifestation of the same problem? Didn’t those pundits give us all the ‘sound advice’ in the first instance?

Whilst it would be a bland overstatement to place blame on them for the banking collapse, few of them were criticising ‘current thinking’ whilst we were riding the waves of prosperity….even though in retrospect collapse was coming at us like a steam train. Everyone's a Nostradamus.....after the event that is. Even Tom Peters sat himself under a tree to contemplate his role in the problem. The words mass ‘groupthink’ come to mind. At the very least it reminds us of a stark truth - business is as much a victim of fashion as Victoria Beckham, except in the case of business, people are getting very weary of trying to keep up with the Joneses (or Beckhams). Last week's employee engagement, this week's Action Learning Set, next week's Blue Ocean Thinking away day.....People can't change their psychological make-up like it's backstage at London Fashion week.....little wonder 'engagement' is an issue. In much the way 'advanced parenting' has raised a generation of monsters, the same could be said of the humble employee. We're 'managed' and 'leadershipped' to death. In a natural hierarchy, few are leaders. Why is it that suddenly everybody has a latent leader inside? As pack animals go, it makes for a rather confusing existence where 'monkeys are increasingly encouraged to be organ grinders' as my colleague put it. And moreover, what's with the obsession with management as the only viable trajectory if you want to make money? Do doctors aspire to control other doctors as a lifelong ambition? Hell no....they are well compensated for being the best in their field. What happened to that? I have worked alongside many a brilliant mind only to watch them wither under the strain of having to 'manage' people as a way of getting a promotion, meanwhile their specialism or 'talent' goes to the wall.

When we think of the banking collapse we tend to think institutionally - the phrase itself suggests that it was a physical collapse of bricks and mortar - but is wasn't. It stemmed from individual and systemic human failures - the fixes for which- if there are any fixes to the innate characteristics of humanity - are not silver bullets or sticking plasters. At a micro level, they require an understanding of the human mind, how it works, learns, changes and how it is motivated to act. Now extrapolate the issue and increase it exponentially as individuals become groups, groups become cultures, then sprinkle with it politics and social engineering, until we arrive at the global phenomenon we call 'life as we know it'. And life as we know it is changing - and fast, thanks to express social evolution.

Rally the troops

The plain, awkward truth about changing people and their work ethos, is that in spite of what most of our 'sound byte' cultural indicators suggest, as yet, not everything can be achieved in a 'oner'. Social evolution is proceeding at a pace that biological evolution cannot (until social evolution spawns a toy to speed it up). Instant gratification does not yet have a foothold in human learning. We are certainly not evolutionarily close to it, and I'm betting the technology has some way to go before it can 'autofill' our brains with manufactured age, intelligence and experience like an iPod Nano.

One of the more potent, long term methods of transferring learning into the workplace (Thalheimer) - and thus bringing about change, is through behaviour modelling (Bandura). A great many organisations still exist in hierarchical form. One of the biggest mistakes I see over and over is senior executive inability to fully appreciate their paternalistic impact on the troops - and to model the behaviours they try to 'chastise' into employees. Those of us who have kids know the deal - nobody (especially kids) ever changed by being shouted at or through the 'do as I say, not as I do' model. That generates resigned compliance if you're lucky - resistance if you're not. It certainly can't put any claim to engendering ownership or responsibility. Yet so many of us both parent and manage in anger - or at least in an emotional state.

A case in point from my own experience was a senior team that desperately wanted to push decision making to the lowest level and couldn't seem to achieve that objective. In their view too much 'rubbish' was reaching the board room. A little further exploration showed that often when lower level executives reported decisions they had made, they were challenged and overturned rather than endorsed - it's management (and parenting) 101. You have to allow people the autonomy to fail if necessary - it's one of the most potent ways of learning - especially if the outcome is reflected upon (Kolb). If not, stop pretending you want staff to decide - cut the trendy 'empowerment' speeches and stick to the reality of what you are enacting - you're just making matters worse by creating more distrust and sprinkling a dose of cynicism on top.

In this case and probably many others, the senior executive team did not trust lower level executives to make decisions in the first place, and the net effect was to get even more of what they were trying to eliminate as employees became more and more insecure about their choices. Perhaps work on a trusting cultural climate was the real order of the day - or maybe there were real incompetencies. Either way, the answer existed in the woolly space everyone avoids...and the one thought to soak up too much effort for too little short term gain. And if short term gain is what you're about, fine - but 'stick to the knitting' as Peters once said. At least if you resist the temptation to speak strategic 'fork tongue' you can save the company further damage from the cultural consequences of leading employees on a wild goose chase.

However gruelling and complex, self development at every level is crucial. There's a tendency to dissociate 'executive strategy' from its human origins - as though it is somehow impervious to human error. I'm no brain surgeon, but in my experience the same human frailties exist at all 'levels'. It just happens that the higher up the organisation you climb, the less you are assumed to fall prey - a halo effect. Executives need to stay connected with the inner workings of their organisations - and for the long haul, or at least to start meaningful change initiatives in the knowledge that the torch may have to be passed to the next in line to bear fruit. It is a longer term view of leading, and one that takes into account the future of the organisation after our departure. This is a 'stewardship' approach - like safeguarding and caring for the family heirlooms. Of course for many that demands an attitude contrary to current social, cultural and economic drivers.

"The bird that walks into into its cage of its own accord it will sing that much more prettily"

Anon

Sticking feathers on a dog don't make it a bird....

We all want to make Oprah proud, and she has made a billion touting the virtues of 'niceness' whilst pricking at our collective consciences to 'do the right thing', and be virtuous and egalitarian under all circumstances. But in her intriguing new book Fascinate, marketing and PR expert Sally Hogshead uses her wealth of experience working with global brands to argue persuasively that we are only too happy to be seduced into doing the 'wrong thing'. In fact, we just can't help ourselves as irrational creatures moved to act through primal triggers such as lust, vice and alarm to mention a few. Her argument, backed up by a raft of practical research on consumer behaviour, suggests that the fundamental realities of the human condition have remained unchanged for millennia. Similarly, in his hilarious book 'irrationality', Professor Stuart Sutherland cites study after study, giving countless examples of irrationality in decision making at every level and in every 'decent' profession known to man. We are far more instictive than we would have ourselves believe.

Surely to gain any real headway in performance it is necessary to adopt a maxim that acknowledges some of the less palatable aspects of human behaviour rather than the espoused ideals of the celebrity self-help brigade. Ideals, by the way, which we pay billions to hear/read about because they appeal to our consciences and create a desperate desire to be better than we are (but not quite desperate enough for many...) - yet another quasi-virtuous media manipulation. But that doesn't make it real any more than wishing there was a god impacts the objective truth of whether there is one or not. Let's take Tiger woods as a good example of this dichotomy between fantasy and reality. The free world gasped at Tiger for his transgressions - major brands pulled his contracts in fear of public reprisal, and yet with 50-60% of men engaging in extra marital affairs at any one time, potentially half were gasping at Tiger from their lover's bed! Tiger was caught behaving in accordance with his biological programming, in itself an act which was objectively neutral. Vilification begins when our dearly held values and beliefs are attached to these emotive issues (Albert Ellis wrote extensively about this in REBT) though if we were to remove our moral and religious spectacles and think philosophically about it for a moment, we would all logically conclude that fidelity is a social construct - yet another fantasy that continues to disappoint. The problem with moral spectacles (and most of us, including myself wear them) is that they come in a very wide variety of prescriptions. But as with eyesight, perhaps those with the strongest prescription have the worst cases of myopia. It reminds me of the current research on depression - it is now thought that depression is the homeland of those who have temporarily lost the requisite brain chemicals for self-delusion. In other words, denial is the main ingredient of 'sanity' as we understand it. Perhaps it is also the main ingredient of 'civility' as we know it.

When any instinctive behaviour is 'demonised', it goes underground. If the so called 'darker side' of human activity could really be eradicated, prisons would be empty rather than overflowing (interestingly 25% of the global prison population is locked up in the US) and our beloved Oprah would be out of a job (although she retired evidently). Socialisation and 'therapy' can only go so far with so many without biological evolution to back it up. Testosterone has historically been the making and breaking of many men, and will continue be so irrespective of Dr Phil's commendable efforts, since without out it there is no future (as yet). The interminable truth is that the higher the level of testosterone encountered in the womb, the more aggressive, competitive and predatorial the individual. The 'alpha' male is as likely to reach the top in sport or commerce as he is to attempt to mate with the female populace at large - which is why the greatest leaders and politicians are apt to succumb to temptation and waste an entire career for the sake of a transgression. Both symptoms have the same underlying cause. And it's not all one-sided. For every alpha male there are a dozen females only too happy to be charmed. No matter how heinous their behaviour, an alpha male will always be a better biological propostion than a home loving 'lady-boy' (to those girls with enough biological prowess to snare one), how ever much the media flirts with the 'new man' idiom. It is instinct. It is how we ensure survival of the species.

So maybe I've strayed with the polemic and used a sledge hammer to crack a nut in making my point, but for the majority of us without Oprah's billions, life is often a challenge to make ends meet through whatever means are at our disposal. Survival is and always will be the name of the game. When push comes to shove, evolved personas are as elusive now as they were to the ancient greeks, who bestowed their highest yearnings on to Gods, knowing that man was inherently fallible. The only way forward (as I see it) is for social evolution to prevent push ever coming to shove for the majority, but in an unfair society where some have and others don't, I'm not holding my breath. It strikes me that the ability to be 'self actualised' is a rather elitist concept. Thinking in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's much easier to be magnanimous when you reach millionaire status, let alone billionaire. However, most peoples reality is a working life aimed at paying the rent and sending the kids to school - to make money, the most possible, in the quickest and most painless way (admit it – do you do the lottery? And how many lottery winners did you hear of continuing in their much loved role as burger flipper the following Monday and thereafter?).

Could nice be nasty over the long haul?

A preoccupation with cultivated 'nicety' at all costs is leading us down a dead end. It may well grease the wheels of the daily grind, but in common with our socially engineered culture of indiscriminate esteem building at the cost of quality, it is dishonest, patronising, and on its own an unreliable way to move people to act or work towards excellence in any sphere - if you are charged with the task of doing so in some capacity. Trading solely on 'likeability' is a naive distortion. I'm not suggesting we regress into barbarism, or adopt a reverse agenda of any sort - it's more about removing the hypocritical distortion from the social mirror and seeing what is rather than what we want to be true. Only then can we start to unpick what is unhelpful and deal with it. For instance, when did low self esteem become the devil? And more importantly, why? What's wrong with low self esteem? Why should we be deprived of the time to reflect on how we might improve, dust ourselves off and move forward? Who decided that being offended was a terminal illness like late stage cancer? Do you know someone who died of someone else disagreeing with their taste in music? What was the basis upon which these things became stigmatised that isn't formed from some political prejudice or another? Should we start all our conversations by saying 'without prejudice'? To variable degrees, paranoia is considered a mental health issue for the individual, and yet it is actively cultivated in the wider social arena.

Happy as Larry

Returning momentarily to this issue of social engineering, one of the outputs it has generated in efforts to abolish low self esteem, is a contribution to a widespread first-world perception that 'happiness' is an entitlement. Actually, research shows that 'happiness' per se isn't a viable proposition over the long haul for anybody. All but the terminally vacant ride a roller coaster of emotions which vary from one day to the next, if not minute to minute. According to Psychiatrist Raj Persaud, 'Happiness' is a transient state, slipping in and amongst many other emotional states in your 'average Jo'. Sadly, pursuit of it as an ideal and permanent state is creating more and more 'unhappiness' and sense of failure, not less. Research shows that our neighbours in the third world are on balance 'happier' than we - or are more content at least. That tells us a lot - not least that we have become serotonin-seeking addicts - and given that happiness is not a sustainable human state, we are stuck in a cycle of carrot and stick. If any of us are lucky enough to catch the carrot, the guy next door has invariably got a bigger one, so we start lamenting our lacks again. In developed countries more and more is expected for less and less personal investment. The standard of anything would reduce under that ethos. In common with third world inhabitants, those of us who grew up with nothing and knew nobody who had anything have lower expectations, and thus greater capacity for contentment. Greater expectations breed feelings of failure, disappointment, anger and bitterness - made a whole lot worse in the West by those who 'have' wielding it in front of those who do not - a big influence on crime statistics.

If we can try to understand and acknowledge human drivers as the primal and social givens they represent, rather than to 'performance manage' within the constraints of 'daytime morality' as I like to call it, we can leave the bandwagon of mass business delusion behind and start to make real honest progress - at a time when clearly, it turns out, we’ve been heading in the wrong direction en masse. Controlling, coaxing and cajoling is all becoming a bit 'passe'. Well more than a bit passe - it just doesn't work in this age of individual empowerment. As more and more employees become CEO of 'Empire Me', perhaps it is time to stop controlling employees and start doing business with them instead.

If you want results, appeal to instincts rather than conscience. The conscience is what in legislative terms would be known as 'fall back'. Conscience is 'fair weather' - elastic and second to instinct when the going gets tough. Morals are negotiable and subject to the cultural catwalk, survival, however, is not.

If I were to bet money on the medium term future of the organisation, I would back employees 'managing' their portfolio of clients - you know, the ones they currently call 'boss'. With that comes a great benefit. The beauty of not owning employees mind, body and soul? Mutual commoditization - an equitable arrangement, where the entire employment transaction will rest on an agreeable value proposition for both parties. Until then.....let Cowell reign supreme....

Julie@kommunic8.co.uk

http://kommunic8.wordpress.com/

Ding dong the truth is gone!

Philosophically speaking, the truth is an elastic concept at the best of times. Set against a backdrop of varying values, cultures, religions and perceptions, there are as many truths are there are people to believe them. One man's truth is the next man's falsehood. That said, in the not so distant past when we operated on a more collective basis, we lived by a universal set of 'truths' - with fewer challenges to them. We knew what time the news was on, we knew who the international enemies were, we largely 'knew' there was a God, and we knew what a grade A represented. Not that challenging truths is all bad - an iconoclastic ethos has paved the way to challenge and criminalise the actions of many who have abused their respected societal positions. However, though I'm far from the first person to say it, maybe there is some strength in mass belief. Maybe it is sometimes better to have a few straight forward choices than to feel lost amongst a sea of options. How ever manufactured, naive, religious or elitist our old 'givens', they represented a notional benchmark from which we could gauge better or worse than. In other words, it was a start. The scales may have been wrong, but we 'knew' for sure whether we had lost or gained.

Benchmarking quality is an ongoing and vociferous debate that spans all social contexts from education to the arts, public service to commerce as separating wheat from chaff becomes increasingly counter to social and political policy. According to Frank Furedi, these days, previously accepted 'truths' concerning educational standards are frequently lambasted in favour of a relativist model where all things are equal - one where waiting patiently at the school gates is deemed as valuable as passing your exams, and where no individual must suffer the abhorrent indignity that inevitably follows the discovery that they are average - God forbid incompetent. Except all things are not equal are they?

Considering the matter in a business context, some employees yield more value than others and always will. Some people are fun to have around the office - some are not and never will be. Some people are more intelligent than others. So it is interesting that in an age where individualism prevails, legislation glosses over the bits that don't work for the social engineering agenda and leaves us high and dry when it comes to having our say about what is best for our organisation. This is why, perhaps paradoxically, Simon Cowell is a key figure in our times - his boldness in discriminating between real talent and the inane offerings dignified by the terminally gracious is not so much refreshing as a wake up call to humanity. I never thought I'd say the words, and needless to say I begrudge them, but it may just take his celebrity clout to wake us up to the realities of this pernicious disease of constructed mediocrity that stifles the primal pursuit of excellence.

Some years ago when I was teaching Music Technology in Newcastle I had Simon Cowell's very headache (though not his money sadly). Young bands would 'peer grade' their classmates' songs and production techniques using the same relativist criteria I'm talking about. Kids who couldn't sing or play would compare themselves to accomplished musicians on the basis of 'who are you to set the standard I am to be judged against?'. It drove me nuts. Thankfully in most cases the (lack of) paying audiences did the job for me in the end. But that was before we made a Mardi Gras out of utter ordinariness - before the terminally mundane became exciting and pathological voyeurism became a compelling reason to watch TV into the early hours of the morning.

The signs were starting to emerge during the early 90's. (Thankfully) those would-be stars of tomorrow have largely turned into today's mums, dads and employees - so thinking along business lines, what are the consequences of transitioning that 'everybody deserves to be famous' ethos into the work arena? Much has been written about the Generation Y syndrome and its collective sense of entitlement. Clearly too much generalisation about an entire generation is not useful, but to undertand social maneuvering on a macro level, some generalisation is inevitable. Of course every persona differs, but we are still products of our social paradigm - shaped and influenced by our environment, which changes according to the social and political ideals of the time. In case you were wondering, that was my preamble to some generalisations of my own.....

It has to be said unequivocally that there is no evidence to suggest there is a reduced capacity for excellence amongst the next generation - but there is research that suggests many think they are excellent at point of entry, primarily as a result of endless and indiscriminate positive reinforcement in tandem with a lowering of academic expectation. Personally speaking, I read a book by Dan Schawbel called 'Me 2.0' recently - a personal branding book giving advice to fellow 'gen y'ers' on how to be master of their own universe. Sound advice aside, the book reeks of entitlement. If you thought it was a media myth, the first few pages will give you a feel for the underlying presupposition that everybody is fame-worthy (and I'm not just saying that out of bitterness for being referred to as the 'older and wiser gen X'!)

Undeniably much talent exists out there as it always has. But there is no escaping that the product of a failed social experiment aimed at dignifying effort over achievement is costing industry billions, placating governments around the globe whilst leaving industry to foot the bill for maintaining the outputs of a social agenda aimed at 'including even the poor people'. Not by getting them up to speed socially and economically, but by lowering standards to envelop them in a perception of success that holds no basis in reality. Like many of my students, they don't, and shouldn't get the gig. And those who are lucky enough are increasingly difficult to manage. Hardly a recipe for social order.

On the subject of reality, recently I saw a TV documentary charting the experiences of MPs living on poor council estates as an exercise in demonstrating their ability to 'get down with the people'. It failed miserably, serving only as proof that the upper eschelons of the class structure are clueless as to 'the way it is'. One MP smuggled cash in her underwear as a safeguard from the danger of actually being poor for a few days, and others were visibly shocked at the sight of syringes lying around as though they were an urban legend. And as political leaders get creative with statistics, ensuring they continue to play slave to a dying hypothesis, we wrestle with the outputs of a generation rewarded for getting their name on the exam paper. And the social and commercial ramifications are huge, as legislation turns its back on the right to profile the skilled, naming it 'discrimination' - a political faux pas that needs re-legitimising in a number of important contexts.

Going back to Cowell momentarily, the interesting thing is that he has achieved unrivalled success whilst staging a single handed backlash against the current fashion for championing mediocrity. That people are gaining some form of voyeuristic relief from watching him lambaste cringe-worthy performances suggests to me that there is an unarticulated thirst for 'standards'. Or, maybe the thirst for throwing tomatoes at the village idiot never went away - like one of those kitsch teak back scratchers your grandma hung on the wall, he scratches an unconscious yet irritating itch.

The death of mass 'anything'

Could you go back to the days when the BBC / NBC decided what time you sat down to see the news? Thought not. These are interesting times - the generation Y preoccupation with virtual networking hasn't so much superseded individualism as much as it has collided and morphed with it. Underground, Gen Y are consummate socialisers, whereas overground they are devout free-agents - particularly in the corporate arena. Collaboration? Certainly. Control? Forget it. Choices are the nouvelle workplace cuisine. And the average Gen Y'er doesn't like being labelled...well.....average. Don't like it? Well I blame the parents - we raised them that way...

Tomorrow's organisation can forget drones. The last vestiges of Baby Boomer and Gen 'X' are either 'getting with the program' or 'getting out', replaced by corporate 'entrepreneurs'. Still, some of us are hanging on to post war or 60's work ethics for dear life - the handful currently running the commercial show to be exact - but time is running out for 'rules and regulations' that represent a bygone era, and for those who still abide by them. The next generation won't tolerate them - and why would they? They are, after all the future.

Each of us throughout history has embodied a different set of beliefs and values. We are as infinitely individual as our DNA permits. As such, the individual concept is not new – it's only the audaciousness to preserve that individuality without deference to authority that is. That is not to imply a qualitative value. The rights and wrongs are of less value than the acceptance of reality. But an imbalance now exists in the individual's demand for a bespoke service from employers and the employer's lack of resource to meet or legal recourse to challenge those demands. And guess what? Tag! The problem is now yours as company executive - and leading people who don't agree with you, don't like you or plain don't respect or trust you is hard without the clout of unfair employment practices to fall back on. So...if those individual values do not naturally align with corporate interests, the best we can hope for is usually a short lived, thinly veiled compromise – a smiling through gritted teeth which eventually shatter under the pressure of a work life lived too far from their individual 'truths'. If you're lucky they leave. If you're unlucky, they stay and destroy your culture and reputation, which is everything you have.

Truth? You can't handle the truth!

Never before have people been afforded the right to be their 'whole selves' at work. Until now beliefs, values and 'uncorporate' personality traits have been suppressed through fear of command and control hierarchies. That's all changed. 'Corporate Man' is dead, and thus organisational development has to change to reflect this massive upheaval of the existing social paradigm. These days we are who we are at work, and give or take, our behaviours are reasonably consistent with our fundamental beliefs and personality traits.

Ideally, companies would combat the issue at the last point of exit - the recruitment and selection stage, hiring only those who are furnished with the requisite skills and attitudes from the off. For most organisations though, that isn't a realistic proposition - especially when you inherit staff en masse. Sometimes you just have to manage the 'cow's ear' you've been dealt (to quote a client of mine). In a high level consultation recently I was surprised to hear a CEO cry: ‘I just don’t understand why they won’t do what I want them to do!’ Welcome to the future of commerce.....where coerce is a thing of the past.

So thinking back to my opening gambit on 'truth', perhaps the best approach is to try and embrace the concept of 'dispersed' truth - but in doing so, an audit and overhaul of recruitment criterion might prove necessary. Accepting the idea is one thing - but organisations need to have a clearer idea of what it is they are looking for, ensuring that the calibre of employee is such that corporate alignment can be attained whilst enabling people to be their own best self. Letting go of the wheel would enable people to uncover their own brand based on their own values. Certainly google and other organisations that thrive on creativity adopt a loose and accepting strategy - but try jumping through the hoops to get into those organisations in the first place!

With the right people it is possible to give up ownership of employees and accept their right to be free agents - and given that a return to command and control is unlikely and unpalatable anyway, it is easy to see why too many organisations are stuck 'mamby pambying' the 'wrong' people. In spite of an entire industry evolving out of the 'engagement' idiom, games don't really cut it over the long haul unless you are engaging the right people. Consequences are becoming an increasingly political no-go. So, if a significant number of employees' 'truths' don't match organisational policy, it's time to look at recruitment practices (and maybe organisational policy) and ask some meaningful questions - considering in more depth not just the skills needed for the organisation, but for best cultural fit. In this litigious age, the only real way to performance manage is not to have to, which means a honed recruitment strategy is fundamental, and certainly a priority over engagement strategies. If you have a critical mass of disengaged employees, a deeper enquiry is in order.

If there is one commercial maxim to live by, my choice would be that of business guru John Adair - 'you can't teach a crab to walk straight' (but you can seriously irritate it by trying).