Will descending from Welsh Sheep Farmers prevent you collaborating?

Back in the mid 1800’s a group of Welsh emigrants were being rescued from an island where they been shipwrecked.  Before they left, they modestly showed their rescuers what they had achieved during their years of isolation. “These are our houses, this is the school, this is the reading room, this is the rugby field, and these are the two chapels”. “Why two chapels?” asks a rescuer.  The reply, “Oh, that’s the one we don’t go to…….”.

We have a long history of not getting along with our neighbours in Wales, but maybe we aren’t that different to lots of peoples who have descended from animal herders (sheep farmers). That’s the theory offered by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers in the chapter on Harlan County, Kentucky.

The theory is that cultures that have developed around animal farming on marginal land (eg upland sheep farmers) are inherently more confrontational than those where there has been a strong requirement to collaborate (lowland arable farmers). If you are a shepherd looking after a flock of sheep you constantly need to be on your guard against predators, of the animal or most commonly the human variety. Preventing people stealing your sheep requires some demonstration of your physical prowess and a evidence you will take action to prevent your flock being pilfered. This has led to a ‘culture of honor’ (prevalent in the Southern United States) as Gladwell describes it, or ‘getting a bit chesty’ as we like to say in South Wales.

Gladwell illustrates how this has been carried forward into the modern age and across continents by using the example of the violent family feuds that took place in Harlan County in the early 19th century. He argues that the roots of this ‘honor code’ behaviour can be traced back many generations to the culture of the herdsmen who farmed the marginal uplands.  Many of these people emigrated to America and ended up in the rural areas of the Appalachians and places like Harlan County. He identifies the North of England and Scotland as the areas where these people originally came from, but there’s probably just as much as a case to be made for Welsh immigrants.

It’s an interesting theory that has been backed up by some research done at the University of Michigan, where certain groups of people (young men from the Southern States) were far more likely to ‘get a bit chesty’ if you insulted their honor. Have a look at the work of psychologists Cohen and Nisbett for more detail (Nisbett, R.E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South).

With the current emphasis upon collaboration between public services in Wales I wonder if we need to think about where our ancestors came from before we start? If they were (or still are) sheep farmers from the uplands are we starting at a disadvantage, particularly if we insult someone’s honor? This will be an interesting one to observe at the next committee meeting on collaboration………, ‘who gets a bit chesty’ and why?

The other great joy of reading Malcolm Gladwells book was that he does describe Harlan County in detail. Harlan interests me a lot as it seems very familiar. Not only is it the setting for Justified (a brilliant bit of TV based on books by a favourite author Elmore Leonard), they also have a strong coal mining tradition. As if it couldn’t get better, Steve Earle (another favourite) has even sung about the place, Harlan Man. Harlan might be in Kentucky but for me there are many similarities with bits of South Wales; feuding, coal mining, the general struggle to prosper and ‘getting chesty’. Maybe it is all to do with some common ancestry and descending from the same bunch of sheep farmers and miners?

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Our ancestors might have more of an influence upon our behaviours than we realise (have a read of Outliers).
  2. Collaboration may not be the default position for some people; it depends upon where they come from.
  3. At your next collaboration committee meeting, avoid insulting someone’s honor if you don’t want them getting all ‘chesty’ with you.

Bikeshedding – prospering in your committees! Parkinson’s Law of Triviality.

This is a fantastic find. Thanks to my father in law, who always manages to top trump my blog topics (in a nice way), proving two things:

There is not much new that’s really new in the world; and

Age and experience always out do (relative) youth.

Linked to the post on Spotting Field Sabotage in committees and the follow up on additional sabotage techniques, this is an incredibly effective act of sabotage. It falls into the realm of subconscious behavior and people not even realising they are doing it.

Cyril Northcote Parkinson proposed bikeshedding, the ‘Law of Triviality’ in 1957, which states that, “organisations give disproportionate weight to trivial issues” (You so know this is true).

Another way of expressing the law would be that the amount of time a committee will
spend discussing an item is inversely proportional to the importance of that issue (how much it costs, people affected, impact etc). If that’s not a bit of subconscious sabotage I don’t know what is.

Back in 1957 Parkinson used the example of a committee spending hardly any time
approving the construction of a nuclear power station, then going on to spend hours debating the construction of a bike shed. Some of the reasons that he attributed to this behavior, were to do with the nuclear power plant being very complicated and the average committee member being unable to understand the issues. As a result the item receives very little discussion, and the committee ‘trusts’ the experts. There are very few questions as nobody wants to appear stupid by asking something that is blindingly obvious or makes them look ignorant. Building a bike shed on the other hand is something we can all understand, and committee members are more than happy to contribute anecdote, opinion and sometimes ideas, usually at great length.

Hence the evolution of the phrase ‘bikeshedding’ to describe the practice.

I’ve mentioned bikeshedding to a few people this week and they all say, “YES”as
they recognise it instantly. I’ve then been knocked flat with their examples of “that’s exactly what our committee does”. Here are a few of them:

  • 5 mins on “shall we build a massive new shopping centre” and 2 hours on “what shall we call it”;
  • 10 mins on decision to commission a new multi million £ production line and 90 mins on where to put the company flag pole; and
  • 5 mins on restructuring a half a billion pound business and 40 mins on a £30k income generation scheme.

Maybe I should start collecting some of these modern-day bikeshedding examples for an anthology?

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. There is nothing new in the world when it comes to human behavior.
    Bikeshedding was originally described in 1957, was probably around for ages
    before that and is still worryingly present today.
  2. Bikeshedding is just as much an act of meetings sabotage as the other things I’ve mentioned here. We just might not realise we are doing it.
  3. Be vigilant. Watch out, you might have become part of the bikeshedding sabotage.

Cyril Northcote Parkinson also wrote the better known Parkinson’s Law which roughly
translates as ‘work expands to fit the time available for its completion’.  This is based on lots of evidence from the Civil Service and is a fascinating read. I’ll put out post about this next week.

Picture source: http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/images/ROD_Toucan%20Park_complete_bike%20shed_advert.jpg

Links to earlier posts:

Meetings Sabotage, Additional Field Examples

Lately I’ve been spending time in committee meetings. We love our committee meetings here in Wales, although if you’d like an alternative view, here’s Seth’s Blog on “If committees told the truth”. The one thing committees are great for is spotting sabotage and the meeting saboteurs at work. I thought it would be helpful to update the spotting
field sabotage guide
so here goes with five of my recent favourites.

What’s going on? This is an effective tactic for creating a general air of confusion and disorganisation. Just preface your contribution with any one of the following statements. You can see the despair in people’s eyes, especially the Clerk.

  • “I haven’t got a clue where we are on the agenda, but………”
  • “I’m not sure this is relevant here, but………
  • “This might have said by someone else before, but……”

The Black Swan.  These are incredibly rare or improbable things. The Black Swan is a book that will explain all of this if you are interested (currently unread on my bookshelf). In the context of a committee meeting it is the astonishingly ‘off the topic’ question that just leaves people slack-jawed thinking “where on earth did that one come from?” It’s a massively effective sabotage technique for just messing things up and disrupting a discussion thread or line of questioning. For example have a look at this Tickling Slow Loris video, you’ll completely forget about this post.

Repeat what just happened. This is a difficult one to pull off. Just calmly repeating what has been said or asked previously. It takes some nerves to remain stony faced and not give the game away. The end result is brilliant and well worth that same slack-jawed astonishment. Sometimes you’ll even get a different response to the same question, always interesting. This happened once to my Sister in a job interview (by committee). I think she was quite happy not to get the job with that organisation.

Doing your Sudoku (or crossword). I’m all for multi-tasking, reading the papers for the next item is fine, but doing Sudoku is ridiculous. What’s even worse is when the Sudoku enthusiast is sitting in clear sight of someone giving a presentation.  A bit of a motivation killer really.

Sleeping. Brilliant! The absolute best,especially when it’s combined with any of the above. It’s amazing how often this sabotage technique is used to maximum effect, even before midday. People are generally very reluctant to wake up the sleeper, or even mention it. The impact is huge though, saying everything you need to know about the meeting,“this meeting is really boring, look I’m asleep!”

Obviously this has all been happening at a low-level, limited significance committee I’ve
been attending; the ‘Village Hall, Repainting of the Bike Shed, Sub Committee’. You’d never see this sort of thing at any hugely important committee that oversees millions of pounds of expenditure and the activity of 100’s of people.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. The saboteurs are everywhere, highly skilled and you need to be vigilant.
  2. Some of the sabotage is so subtle that the saboteurs might not even know they are doing it.
  3. Challenge is hard to do (what are you trying to prove?). The people best placed to do this are probably peers.

Links to previous posts:

Picture source: http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/208914/la-palabra-del-da-la-comisin