Tag Archives: Wales

Wales

Agile Project Management and a Naval Bombardment in Newport, South Wales

Posted on by
2

20121202-193420.jpgThis is actually about the game Battleships and not some sinister plot (probably by Cardiffians) to obliterate Newport in a naval bombardment.

Last week I went to Newport to learn about agile project management from James Scrimshire of hurricanefour.com and got involved in a game of Battleships. It was at a Port80 event organised by all round good guy (and web strategy gun-slinger) Joel Hughes. The methodology for what we did can be found here on James’ site, and here is a link to James’ slides. This is what I took from a very illuminating exercise, thanks James and Joel.

The idea behind the exercise is to demonstrate that when you are delivering a large complex project, small cycles where you repeatedly; plan act and review are far more effective than a single ‘big bang’ approach. I found the phrase ‘waterfall’ used to describe the project management approach of designing and specifying everything at the beginning of the project and then delivering it all together a useful analogy. This was a big contrast to the agile approach where there are repeated cycles of planning, taking action, reviewing and moving into the next phase of action based upon the feedback you have gathered. It’s similar to the Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle used in continuous improvement methods.

If you’ve never played the original game of battleships read the instructions here. This is how the battleships exercise with James worked:

  • Both players placed their ships in secret as required.
  • Player A then launched all of their bombs in one go. There is no feedback between bombs.
  • Player B then launches their bombs. Following each bomb they are given feedback, “was it a hit or a miss?”
  • The game ends when Player B has sunk all of Player A’s ships or run out of bombs.
  • The result? Player B scores more than Player A, because they have more effectively targeted their bombs based on the multiple feedback cycles. It was certainly the case when the results were taken across the approximately 20 pairs of players in the room.

Playing the battleships game it became obvious that the process of pausing, getting feedback and planning the next bomb position in response to the information was far more effective than the single ‘50 bombs in one go’ approach. Playing battleships this way is a very useful practical exercise to demonstrate the difference between the agile and waterfall approaches to project management.

The big question that remains is do we actually recognise this in real life? I don’t think I would have to look very far to find a few complicated projects that are sticking to the ‘waterfall’ approach, tightly specifying everything up front and rigidly sticking to the plan. I have written about something similar previously where I mentioned safe to fail pilots and Trojan Mice. Recognising that the world is a complex and unpredictable was at the heart of what James spoke about, and the title of the presentation, ‘Welcome to Uncertainty’. Unfortunately in lots of cases simplistic and highly rigid project management approaches are applied inappropriately.

James and I did speak about complexity and project management and the Cynefin Framework came up. By sheer coincidence I’d listened to Dave Snowden speak about Cynefin the day before at this seminar in Cardiff.. Dave mentioned that Cynefin has been highlighted by Gartners who said that “By 2016, the Cynefin framework will be used in 10% of IT operations organizations as a sensemaking methodology.” Good news and something to chat more about over a game of battleships.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • No battle plan survives the first engagement with the enemy. The same is true of project plans so why stick with a rigid out of date plan?
  • Utilising rapid feedback loops to plan, act, sense and respond is an effective way of getting a better result.
  • This version of battleships was very useful at illustrating the advantages of taking an agile approach to project management.

 

20121205-201743.jpgNot what I was expecting from a search of ‘cats playing battleships’. Helen Reynolds, Cat Picture Consultant tells me its OK though. Picture source:

http://coverslike.com/cat_vs_battleship-facebook-cover-photos.html

Experts are great……. you just have to keep them in their box.

Posted on by
6

This is something a former boss of mine used to say. I realise it has the potential to upset a few people (particularly experts); please don’t get offended just yet.

This post Is Best Practice the Enemy of Innovation generated a bit of discussion that got me digging deeper into the role of experts in innovation. Here are a few of the things I learned.

It takes hard graft to become an expert. You study, develop your understanding, you practice a lot (an average of 34 months for London Cabbies to get The Knowledge), you learn from failure and keep on working to become more experienced and knowledgeable about what you do. Becoming an expert takes a lot of effort.

Part of the development involves learning about how to identify a situation and then how to respond to it. It is a process of pattern entrainment in the brain which is described in this video by Dave Snowden. In the case of the London Cabbie, they will recognise the patterns of street signs and buildings that will allow them to identify where they are, and where they need to go (amongst 25,000 streets). The same could be said for the experts scanning the contents of suitcases at the airport check in. They know the patterns of what is ‘normal’ amongst the thousands of things people carry onto aeroplanes and can quickly pick up what’s abnormal or different.

From sport I heard Matthew Syed (three times Commonwealth Table Tennis Champion) speak about the same pattern entrainment process in tennis. Expert players will recognise the body patterns of people serving to them. As a result they make predictions and position themselves to receive the ball as it arrives. Someone unable to recognise the ‘patterns’ of the server would take much longer to react, and loose the point.

On an entirely parochial note, I do wonder if this happened in Welsh Rugby? The attacking patterns of our strike runners have been recognised and learnt. Opposing teams now know exactly how to react in defence (maybe it is time for another Shane Williams?)

What happens to experts when things change? If an expert is out of their known problem solving environment, things could get challenging. There is a risk they might apply what they know and force a solution which could have negative consequences. Interestingly, I bet if you took a London Cabbie to Cardiff and asked them to navigate across the city they wouldn’t do it based upon what they know about London; they would seek some local information. I’m not sure that’s the case with all experts who find themselves tackling problems outside of their experience. They quite naturally apply what they know.

So how do experts approach innovation? Given that innovation is about things that are new and different, beyond what you already know, things could be tough for experts. In this video about the discovery of longitude, Dave Snowden says “when the basic structure around you changes expertise can be an inhibiting factor”.

Business Psychologist, Phillipa Davies commented on the previous post that, “‘experts’ defending their status against loss of face can cripple the new and the risky”.

I’d imagine that if the power base you have developed through years of hard graft (your expertise) is under threat, it’s probably a natural response to fight against the new and unknown.

The approach for experts (to avoid being kept in the box) probably needs to be around understanding and willingness. Understanding that being an expert (who are absolutely necessary), may be a barrier to innovation and the willingness to do something about it. Returning to my former boss where this started, he was an expert in several areas (some of them quite obscure). What he did have though was awareness of his limitations in areas outside of his expertise. Shortly after being put in charge of a sensitive, people focused department (definitely not his forte) he said “it’s like putting King Herod in charge of Mothercare, I need some help!”

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Experts are absolutely necessary. The hard graft they put in to achieve their expert position should be recognised and rewarded.
  2. Innovation is about new things that may be unknown to experts. It’s not about doing the old things better.
  3. Experts need to be aware of the potential risks and not force solutions based upon what they know already.

Picture Source: http://4realleaders.com/2012/07/expert-syndrome/

This is from an interesting post by Doug Blackie who talks about Expert Syndrome. Worth a read for anyone involved in participation, engagement and collaboration projects.

Graphic Facilitation….so much better than my notes.

Posted on by
8

Building on my enthusiasm for graphic facilitation (as mentioned in previous posts) I was fortunate to see Paul Richardson of apagraphicfacilitation.com in action at Welsh Public Services Summer School.

In the spirit of a picture really does speak a thousand words and the drawings are so much better than my notes, here are a few examples of the fantastic work Paul did during the week (as well as running daily workshops, impressive stuff!).

This one is about a reference to the Boston Philharmonic Conductor Benjamin Zander. The speaker, Avril Carson spoke about how Benjamin Zander uses a phrase about ‘playing on one buttock’ to describe when musicians are really energised and engaged. I asked Paul if he could draw it…… I never thought he would, brilliant result.

‘Have I made them stronger and more capable’ is one from Emmanuel Gobillot. Advice on what leaders should do. Nothing more to add. Fantastic advice and a great image.

The next one, a triangle is a bit more technical. It refers to research that indicates in change programmes only 10% of the successful ideas originate with the senior managers. The most useful ideas come from the people closest to the work (no surprises here…….). This was spoken about by Nick Obolensky. I need to dig up the research on this. Unfortunately I failed to write down the source properly, proving the point about my notes being less useful than Paul’s graphic facilitation.

Overall, the images Paul produced have helped me build upon my learning at Summer School, and share it with others. The impact of showing people the pictures I took on my phone has been remarkable. If I had to sum up my experience of graphic facilitation in three words they would be; immediate, effective and long-lasting. Thanks Paul.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. They are a quick way of capturing key learning points (so much better than my notes).
  2. Pictures really do speak a thousand words. People can effectively understand complicated messages through images.
  3. The impact is long-lasting. I’m more likely to re-visit a picture or print it out and pin it on a wall than re-read my scribbled notes.

If you want to see all of what Paul drew during the week here is a link to the Academi Wales Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81188091@N04/7643756830/in/photostream/

Berlin Love Padlocks…. not as viral as I’d imagined

Posted on by
7

That’s a title that could conjure up something interesting particularly if you frequent the more exotic Berlin attractions (I’d imagine).

Well actually it’s quite sweet and innocent.

Love padlocks are a tradition that involves placing a padlock on a piece of municipal iron work, usually a bridge railing, and throwing the key into the river below. It’s a symbol of your never-ending love for your partner and should be inscribed with your names and an important date to add significance to the event. I wrote about the practice in Florence, Italy in 2011.

Apparently it started in Florence when soldiers who were being transferred from the local army barracks would put the padlocks from their kit lockers onto the Florence bridges and throws the keys into the River Arno below. A romantic gesture, symbolising love and commitment.

The practice has gone viral, spreading to 30 countries across the world. There is plenty of material about love padlocks on the Internet including details of the battles between sweethearts placing the padlocks and officials who want to remove them. If you are interested there are even businesses that will provide an inscribed padlock of your choice.

Here is the example I saw recently in Berlin. That’s Berlin Cathedral in the background and the River Spree below.  This surprised me a bit. The extent of the love padlocks was a bit restrained in comparison with those I’d seen in Florence. Given the scale of other forms of self expression I’d seen in Berlin, particularly graffiti (which is everywhere) and things like the Love Parade, I’d have thought love padlocks would have taken off and gone viral. Perhaps love padlocks are a bit too tame and mainstream for the Berliners?

I suppose it goes to show, you can’t predict human behavior and what will go viral.

By the way, as far as I’m aware there is no evidence yet of love padlocks taking off in Cardiff, or anywhere else in Wales (excellent locations in Cardiff Bay, probably). You could however argue that the Welsh love spoon is a sophisticated demonstration of love. Love spoons are unfortunately quite expensive and not that practical for attaching to bridges as public expressions of love.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Public expressions of emotion do seem to vary hugely between countries and cultures.
  2. Human emotions are complex and it’s incredibly difficult to predict what people might do, and what might go viral.
  3. Perhaps the Italians really are the most romantic people in Europe. I’ve just come back from Italy. There are plenty of love padlocks dotted around Florence, Venice and even popping up in places like Volterra.

Three Very Different Organisations, Five Common Words. IdeasUK Employee Engagement Network Meeting.

Posted on by
2

Last week I had the great joy of attending an IdeasUK Employee Engagement network meeting in Cardiff, hosted by the Wales Audit Office. The three organisations presenting workshops were incredibly different yet, I picked up on five common themes: Longevity, Trust, Evidence, Belief and Passion.

Question: Are these the key elements of success for any employee engagement approach?

To set the scene, the organisations involved couldn’t be more different in relation to what they do, the numbers and type of people they employ and where they operate:

  • HSBC, financial services and banking (global);
  • Ministry of Defence (GEMS Scheme), defence (domestic and global); and
  • Ricoh Manufacturing UK (Telford), photocopier manufacturing (European wide).

The success of each of these organisations and what they have achieved in employee engagement through their staff ideas schemes was obvious to see through the day. What struck me were common phrases/words/ideas/approaches/beliefs and values that kept popping up, despite them being very different organisations. Here is my take on what I think linked these three very different organisations, and what seems to support successful employee engagement.

Longevity: Each one of these organisations has been pursuing a path of employee engagement for a long time. The MoD started Gems in the mid 1990s and it’s even longer for Ricoh (1986). I think this long-term view is critical in developing a culture where employee engagement is taken seriously and people live the values through their everyday behaviours. Things like the ‘Thank You’ culture in HSBC don’t happen overnight.

Trust: This is mentioned so often that it’s almost a cliché; however the difference between saying it and actually trusting people is huge. It was impressive to see how HSBC trust their staff to interact with an internal social media type platform to share ideas. In the highly regulated world of financial services it would be so easy just to say no, ‘manage the risk’ and shut everything down. I heard the phrase ‘why wouldn’t you trust your staff, they know the job they do better than anyone’ several times during the day.

Evidence: Every single organisation had rock solid evidence of the benefits their suggestion schemes had delivered. These ranged from a 14:1 return on investment through to hundreds of millions of pounds saved. My key learning point was the necessity of having solid evidence when someone questions the effectiveness of employee engagement and suggestion schemes. It’s surprising how many people ‘just don’t get it ‘(see the David MacLeod & Nita Clarke report) so you will need solid evidence.

Belief: You’ve got to believe, because if you don’t, how will you convince anyone else? Everyone I met totally believed in the power of employee engagement; nothing else to say.

Passion: This absolutely stands out for me as the defining characteristic of what makes great employee engagement. Passion is what I saw in all three organisations across the day but if you want one example of what passion inspires here goes…….

Walking out of one of the workshops with Ricoh an individual who works in the NHS turned around and said out loud, to everyone…… “I found that inspiring, I would like to come and work for Ricoh”. Not a bad impact after sitting there for an hour.

It was an incredibly useful session and I would like to say thanks very much to:

  • Stuart Laws – Ministry of Defence
  • Rob Bland & Chris Nicholls – Ricoh UK Products
  • Zufi Yousaf & Michael Davies – HSBC
  • Anthony Denatale – IdeasUK

I know that IdeasUK are planning to keep the momentum going by publishing a series of blogs about the day. This is part of the pledge I made during the day to help keep things alive through my own blog posts.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Longevity is a key feature of successful employee engagement which other organisations would benefit from thinking about.
  2. Evidence of success (and cash savings) is highly necessary if you want to convince the ‘just don’t get it’ crowd.
  3. Passion above all will inspire people to do great things.

Links:

http://blog.ideasuk.com/2012/07/06/i-pledge/

http://whatsthepont.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/employee-engagement-kaizen-passion-in-the-west-midlands-ricoh-telford-to-be-exact/

http://whatsthepont.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/ricoh-gemba-mat-the-best-of-ohno-circles-gemba-walks-and-employee-engagement/

http://whatsthepont.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/gemba-walks-kaizen-the-elvis-way-walk-a-mile-in-my-shoes/

http://whatsthepont.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/social-media-staff-ideas-better-engagement-a-bank-that-says-yes/

http://www.goodpracticewales.com/Resources/Employee-Engagement

Just to emphasise the point about longevity……

Why us Welsh make the best guides at German Museums

Posted on by
6

Recently I visited 3 Berlin museums in a single day, impressive I know, 6 hours of intensive learning and culture. These were all good learning experiences; however the best one was delivered by someone Welsh, Shaun from Aberystwyth!  I’m not being biased here, there are good reasons I’ll explain. I’m not going to give you a ‘Trip Advisor’ review, these are my personal criteria for deciding what makes a good experience at a museum, here goes:

1. Attendant Interaction. Did the museum attendants engage with me? Did they make me think or did they intimidate and make me want to leave?

2. Go backwards factor. Did I find myself going back to things I‘d already seen, for a second look? Zig-zagging my way around museums is an annoying personality trait, but the more I retrace my steps the better my experience.

3. Boring my family later. The more facts I can remember, to regurgitate to the family after the visit, the better the museum. Poor Geof, my cycling companion suffered this time.

Here are the scores for each of the establishments I visited:

Deutsches Historisches Museum The DHM is a traditional state run museum with free entry. It felt like most of the museums I’ve ever visited; lots of interesting things in glass cases with explanation cards for you to read. I visited the section covering 1918 to the present day and to be honest, by the time I’d made it to the Berlin Wall display I’d had enough.

Attendants: Impeccably dressed in smart uniforms. However there was no interaction. They just stood by with that intimidating “touch anything and you get thrown out” expression.

The tour: Very linear. Start at the beginning and dutifully “read” your way to the end, wasn’t tempted to retrace my steps once.

Remembering facts: One key fact about the Trümmerfrau, the ‘rubble women’ who helped reconstruct German cities after the war.

Overall score, a solid 6 out of 10. Most memorable thing, the intimidating attendants.

DDR Museum This was about the years of Soviet occupation in East Germany from 1945 until 1989. It is privately funded and claims to be one of the most interactive museums in the world. I won’t argue with that, it was fantastic, well worth the 6€ entry fee.

Attendants: If there were any I didn’t notice them. I was too busy opening doors, listening to covert recordings and sitting in the Trabant honking the horn. The place was packed, and everyone was so involved, I’d argue that you didn’t need Attendants.

The tour: This was ‘zig-zag’ heaven for me. There was no obvious linear path and I retraced my steps on several occasions. At the final door I headed back in for another view of a typical East German sitting room. I must admit it looked pretty similar a South Wales Valleys sitting room circa 1970’s……..

Remembering Facts:  Plenty to ponder on here. Strange things keep coming back to me like how long it took for your Trabant to arrive (16 years) and the impact of lignite (brown coal) opencast mining.

Overall score, an 8.5 out of 10. The museum shop at the end was a bit too earnest.

Flak Tower Walking Tour  This was a tour of one of the partly demolished Flak Towers built to deter bombers in 1941. You know it’s going to be serious stuff when they insist upon checking you have sensible shoes before they will sell you a ticket and recommend a warm coat because it will be cold. This cost 10€, was run by a ‘not for profit’ organisation and couldn’t have been more professional.

Remembering facts:  Unfortunately poor Geof now knows more about the Flak Towers than he ever wanted to. I soaked it up like a sponge (3m thick walls, 100,000 cubic meters of concrete etc etc) and regurgitated it all to him, and my wife, kids, colleagues and complete strangers since I’ve got back home.

The tour: I did stay in line for this one. The environment was quite scary and it was very reassuring to have a Health and Safety Attendant at the back making sure nobody got lost.

Attendants: Absolutely brilliant and I’m not just saying that because he was Welsh. This was someone who loved the job. He was passionate about the subject, knew it in incredible detail and was happy telling you all about it. This was knowledge exchange and learning at its best.

Overall score, 11 out of 10. It was that good. All German museums should have a Welsh attendant.

So what’s the PONT?

1. The contrast between what I learnt from listening to and interacting with Shaun at the Flak Tower and reading cards in glass cases at the DHM was huge.

2. The acts of looking and reading feels much harder to do than listening to someone explaining and asking questions. 90 minutes at the Flak Tower flew past, even in the cold and dark.

3. People make a massive difference. An engaged and passionate guide at the Flak Tower turned a good experience into a fantastic one I’ll not forget for a long time, thanks Shaun.

Sherry and Twiglets vrs Fence Building. How shared action builds relationships, and why I want a walking coach.

Posted on by
6

This might seem like an odd admission but…… I have always dreamed of having a boss that would take me out walking in the Brecon Beacons once a month.

There, I’ve said it. Now let me explain why……

I’ve got a new neighbour, who’s doing lots of renovation work on the property including fence building. Whilst I was busy constructing my shed (subject of a previous post on malicious compliance), I popped over to help with fixing the rails between the fence posts. It wasn’t a particularly difficult or strenuous job, but it was just a bit easier with two people. What it did allow was a bit of conversation between us. In the space of 45 minutes we covered a huge range of things, many of which I can’t remember now, other than walking away thinking, “he’s a decent bloke, we are going to get on well as neighbours”.

What also struck me was the difference between this interaction and the ‘sherry and twiglets’ experience we had when the previous neighbour had organised a meet and greet session before she left. There was nothing wrong with the event (the twiglets were excellent), I just didn’t have the same level of conversation or make the same sort of connection as I had whilst fence building. Doing things together seemed to enable a different type of conversation and the development of a deeper relationship.

This got me thinking, and then a few things happened to reinforce what I’d experienced;

  • I watched my Mother, Son and Niece bake cakes together.  A shared (very messy) activity if ever there was one,
  • The re-commencing of lunchtime walks in the park with a colleague who has been away for a while (welcome back btw), and
  • I heard someone talk about ‘walking and coaching’ in a meeting to establish a South Wales network for the EMCC (European Mentoring and Coaching Council).

Walking and coaching intrigued me and following a quick search, much to my joy, I’ve found out that there are people doing it and it is a legitimate business pastime. Have a look at this site by The Walking Coach and Mike from Mentoring for Change who gives a good explanation of why walk and coach. I’ve been extremely happy at learning this. My desire to go walking with my boss isn’t just another peculiar fantasy of mine. It’s a legitimate business activity about coaching, mentoring; and for me building a better relationship and understanding of other people while sharing an activity.

When you think about it, why wouldn’t coaching in the context of walking be an eminently sensible thing to do? I know plenty of people who will happily spend a few hours in coaching sessions sat in hotel lobbies, meeting rooms and other peculiar sedentary locations. Why not get out there in the fresh air and have a walk when you are doing it. It seems like a win, win to me (just remember to wear some decent shoes though).

I’m sure there is theory and technique around how to get the most out of walking and coaching, finding that out is my next challenge. I’m the meanwhile; I’m off cycling for a week in Germany with my friend Geof. Not sure how this is going to work, it’s definitely a shared activity, but I can barely breathe most of the time, let alone talk.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Sharing a physical activity with someone does help generate a different level of conversation and help increase understanding and develop relationships.
  2. Walking and talking informally can achieve this (have a walk in the park with a colleague at lunchtime),
  3. Walking and coaching (much to my joy) is a legitimate business activity. Have a think about it as an alternative to hotel lobbies or stuffy meeting rooms. Best of all though, try some joint fence building (or cake baking).

Will descending from Welsh Sheep Farmers prevent you collaborating?

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Field notes to Report……..what we write down is different to what happens

Posted on by
8

If you are Welsh and have even the faintest interest in rugby you’ll know exactly what this picture is all about (just in case you don’t have read about why Allain Rolland was right).

This isn’t a post complaining about referees, they are just like the rest of us, struggling to cope with the reality of ‘what we write down is different to what happens’.

What has prompted this post was reading a referees report about an incident that generated three red cards in a single game. I was watching my son play in the game; thankfully he wasn’t involved in the incidents. I’m not questioning the referee’s decision, it’s absolutely right that they clamp down on dangerous behaviour. It does however prove the point that what gets written down in formal reports is frequently different to what happened.

I also understand the need to produce a report, but people do use some strange language in formal incident reports, a sort of slow motion speak:

“I proceeded briskly to the disturbance and attempted to restore order with a few sharp blasts of my whistle”.

Really? To me looked like you ran over to the fight, flapping your arms around and shouted “Oi!….. Boys leave it out”.

The next bit was quite unintentionally hilarious, “The player I know now to be Rambo Llewellyn landed five punches on the head of his opposite number”. Really? Everyone knows this cannot be the case:

  1. Rambo ‘Psycho’ Llewellyn is a lovely boy. Ask his Mam (also watching);
  2. Rambo is incapable of firing off that many punches in a short space of time; and
  3. Had he done so, he would have punched himself in the face, at least twice.

In a more serious vein, a while back I heard Professor Harry Daniels from Bath University speak about learning as a socio-cultural process . He used an example from multi-agency working in health and social care about what happens in the field is different to what is written down in files back at the office.

The gist of what he said was that when the front line practitioners were faced with rapid fire situations they frequently did things to achieve a positive result or solve the problem, not unusual. On occasions this positive action was novel or innovative, and outside of the organisations rules framework policies and procedures, again not unusual. However, when the practitioner got back to the office, and they wrote their notes, they did it in a way that reflected the rules framework and not what actually happened. Not whole scale altering the facts, but forcing information into the organisations framework and systems. This was something that was recognised through the organisation. The practitioners knew this was happening, so did their managers and just about everyone up the chain of command. It’s just the way things worked.

This example struck a chord with me. It’s exactly what I’ve done myself and seen plenty of other people do. You encounter a problem in the field, fix it, then you write-up notes to reflect what the organisational system requires, rather than what actually happens. There are some significant issues here like the loss of learning and transfer of knowledge from developing innovative and novel solutions in the field. If these solutions don’t find their way into the notes, how on earth do they get shared? Perhaps through people informally meeting and talking to each other, social learning, but that’s the subject of another post.

So what’s the PONT?

  1. Report writing is selective and can also be influenced by the requirement to fit in with the organisation’s processes and systems.
  2. The loss of learning and knowledge can be significant if alternative methods of transfer are lacking.
  3. The gap between ‘field and report’ can be significant in formal reporting. If Rambo Llewellyn was that good, he wouldn’t be playing rugby for us, he’d be in the Olympic boxing team.

Fun at work is allowed……….employee engagement at Admiral

Posted on by
1

A quick post on my day out at the Engage4Success  event hosted by Admiral Insurance in Cardiff.

One of the most significant things I heard about was the Admiral approach to employee engagement. They are a hugely successful company, based largely on having engaged employees. Have a look at the impressive history of the  best workplace awards Admiral have won, including 6th place in  The Sunday Times 2012 awards (officially the best place to work in Wales).  Interestingly the Sunday Times article talks about W L Gore who I’ve mentioned previously.

Back to Admiral.  I don’t think I could adequately do justice to them in a post, (I’m sure there are plenty of people who will have written far more eloquent papers) but here is what I picked up in short digestible bites. Their approach can be summarised in 4 words: Communication; Equality; Recognition and Fun.

Communication.  Everyone talks about ‘communication’ with employees, and lots of organisations do it badly, tokenistic and lacking authenticity. What I got from Admiral was the sense that they are completely committed to effective two way communication. I picked up on a phrase “no matter how much communication you think you are doing, do even more, and use as many channels as you can”.

Equality. This really impressed me.  There was a strong sense of everyone contributing together, no differentiation or a ‘them and us’ culture.  There was mention of only two people in the whole organisation having personal offices, no separate dining areas for executives and no privileged company car scheme.

Recognition.  People get recognised and rewarded for the good work they do. Simple! (obviously not “simples”, that would be very wrong).

Fun. Woah! This really is radical. The idea is that people can and should enjoy themselves at work and have some fun.  You may be aware of the Admiral Ministry of Fun.  This should be something people in other organisations sign up to.

Nothing more to say really, just a quote from the Admiral Website about their culture

“People who like what they do, do it better”

We firmly and wholeheartedly believe people who like what they do, do it better and as such we go out of our way to ensure coming to work in Admiral Group is enjoyable. We think happy staff will create happy customers, happy customers increase profits, and increased profits will make happy shareholders.

So what’s the PONT?

  1. Communication and recognition, things lots of organisations seek to enhance as part of employee recognition.  Good stuff part of the staple diet.
  2. Equality, something a bit trickier as it does affect those who think, “they deserve more, or better”. But special company cars are very divisive.
  3. Fun. Absolutely brilliant. We definitely need to make the job more enjoyable, “People who like what they do, do it better”