Keeping them awake!

I am preparing for a full day’s training, and I mentioned that fact casually to a neighbour over the weekend. “Goodness” she said, “how on earth do you keep them awake for that long?”

A valid question. If, of course, the training was delivered in one solid continuous block, it would be indeed almost impossible to keep them awake! But we have been doing this for a long time, and we have a few tricks!

First, we understand that it is absolutely impossible to keep people awake if you bore them to death! A lesson I learned very early on in my army career. One cannot say that the “Angle of Declination’ is an earth shattering topic’; and trying to interest a group of hot and tired soldiers after an couple of hours spend marching hither and thither across a hard standing parade ground in tropical Far North Queensland, would indeed be an exercise in futility. Indeed, to manage to ‘keep them awake’ I had to devise a number of artful ways of concealing the fact that they were being lectured at.

Secondly, we also understand that our audience’s attention span lasts only as long as their comfort zone. When they become uncomfortable for any reason, they loose their interest in anything other than their personal ease.

Indeed, a full day’s training can be overwhelming if it is not approached the right way.

It is necessary to understand that you simply cannot spend the whole day ‘training’. You really need to divide the whole day into manageable portions. Luckily, our day’s training consists of a number of skills that can be easily handled individually. Each skill is taught as a separate and complete topic in itself.

Then we take great care to ensure that each portion is handling in a very interactive way. Can you remember from your school days, when you were forced to sit and listen to a recitation of facts and figures which, while essential, were dull and uninspiring? You may remember the dull factor, but I wonder if you remember the facts themselves?

Interactive training is a byword in Trischel, we are known for our innovative training methods. We take seriously the fact that most people learn differently, but the best method of delivering information is to use all three of the VAK principles. We like to get our students involved personally and actively in the subject matter.

Some topics adapt quite naturally to this approach, but others may need some very lateral thinking on ways in which we can incorporate activities designed to teach – and yes, to keep them awake.

Games, role play, group activities, buzz groups, case studies etc, are all ways in which we can incorporate our students physically in our training. But there is one much simpler fact which is often overlooked when planning for a full-on day of presentations.

It is this – never, never, ever keep your students sitting still for more than 15 minutes. Unless you are very lucky, the chairs supplied in most training rooms are designed to create personal discomfort within twenty minutes, and the good presenter knows that and stops before it starts!

Even individual topic session need to be further broken down into 15 minute lots. After 15 minutes of the teaching phase, we need to change the focus entirely. Movement, relaxation or change of activity must be included to ensure that our student’s are maintaining their focus on the topic in hand.

Too many new trainers [or indeed anyone having to give presentations that last for over an hour] focus entirely on what they need to say, on how they are going to say it, and lose sight of the length of time they intend to say it in.

If you have to give a presentation for over one hour, you too will face the same problem that we faced – how are you going to keep them awake? Even you will have to consider how to break your topic up into more manageable portions, making sure that each one is no more than 15 minutes long as a maximum.

Even you will have to consider what methods, other than just standing there and talking them to death, will you incorporate into your presentation. Remember that learning takes place on three levels, hearing, seeing and doing. How can you incorporate that knowledge into your presentation?

A quick and very easy solution – use question and answer mini sessions, include simple and quick learning games which you can find on google; and if all else fails stop and give them a two minute comfort break to allow them to move and stretch and get the blood flowing through those numb limbs again.

If you consider these simple techniques as well as your well researched, prepared and rehearsed presentation, you should have no difficulty in “Keeping them Awake”

Michele @ Trischel

What’s in a name?

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." – Romeo and Juliet; William Shakespeare.

Juliet is telling Romeo that a name is merely an artificial convention, and changing it would not alter the basic integrity of the person.

In fact altering a name should not alter the basic integrity of any thing; if we decide in a fit of pique to change the name of the colour of grass from green to beige, would it make one bit of difference to the real colour which our eye recognises and our brain reacts to? Of course not!

So why does the job which was referred to as ‘dustmen’ in my youth, now become “refuse collectors”?

Well I believe it is all down to attitude and the way that names make us feel about things. If I have been taught to believe that being a “dustman” is degrading, then I may feel more comfortable about being a “refuse collector”. If I have come to believe that “failure” is the end, then “not achieving my goal” may make me more willing to give it another try.

Names, by their association with memories, education and culture have a profound effect upon our emotions. So a rose has become associated in our memories with a sweet smelling beautiful flower, and I don’t think that now calling it a ‘cauliflower’ would generate the same emotional response!

Why, you may ask, does any of this matter? Well my philosophising arose after I was a bemused spectator of a heated discussion about the differences between a Personnel Manager and a Human Resource Manager.

“There isn’t any difference” shouted one; “Yes there is!” yelled another. The discussion was now becoming quite heated. “HR is just a politically correct way of describing the old patriarchal role of the Personnel Manager” was another comment which aroused a fair amount of derision.

Gradually they came to some sort of consensus, and it was decided that today the role of the HR Manager included those duties which were previously associated with the Organisation’s Personnel Manager, even if it was in a pseudo ‘de facto’ status.

Now I want to make this quite clear, I do not have any qualifications to talk about the role of Human Resource managers or even Personnel managers; but as a part-owner of a training company I have worked quite closely with a number of HR managers, and this morning I did a bit of a ring around with the question “What are the differences between Human Resource Managers and Personnel Managers?”

The results were a little confusing – most of them agreed that in practice they did assume the responsibilities of a Personnel Manager, but many of them were quite vocal about the fact that they defined each role differently. Personnel Managers, it appeared, had a more administrative role, while HR was concerned with the practical development of skills that were required to enhance productivity.

“I spend too much time in the admin side of my job; it impacts on my ability to deliver the results that should be expected” said one.

But the response that really caught my attention was made by a HR manager that had previously worked in a company as a Personnel Manager. He said “Unfortunately many organisations have joined the disciplines, and I have found, personally, that we have become too focused on the resource and ignore the personnel.”

And this is what brought me back to the question “What’s in a name?” and our perceptions about things.

Names and Titles come with historical meanings that impact on our expectations. And if we look at these two titles we find the core focus has moved from “personnel” to “resources”. What do we understand these two words to actually mean?

“Personnel” is defined as “a body of people engaged in some public service or a factory” (OED). As an ex- soldier, army personnel to me were the ‘people’ involved in the military activity. Personnel Departments of organisations and companies had responsibility for the ‘people’ working in them. But:-

“Resources”are defined as the “means of supplying a want or a need; stock that can be drawn on” (OED). When we think about our ‘resources’ we usually bring things like coal, uranium, bauxite etc to mind. Things which we utilise and exploit.

When we transfer the name ‘resources’ into a role that deals with ‘people’ how do we now interpret the new meaning? The first response that I quoted sees the core purpose of their role as being the ‘resource’ the ‘means by which the organisation achieves their goals’. The second one sees the ‘personnel’ - the ‘people who are engaged in achieving the organisation’s goals’. Perhaps that is the difference between Human Resources and Personnel managers; the aims may be the same but the focus has changed.

And how about the workforce; do they, like the dustman, feel uncomfortable with their title? Do they have the same sense of identification with an organisation that refers to them as a ‘resource’ as they might with one that calls them the ‘personnel’?

Tell me, do you feel good about being a resource, or would you prefer to be a person?

Or is it just the age old question “What’s in a name?”

Michele @ Trischel

Teamwork Agendas … published or hidden?

If there is one thing we can depend on in business, it is the effectiveness of team work. We have all bought into the idea that we can get so much more done as a team than we can alone. To doubt or question this is considered heresy! Since De Bono, we have all been trained, assessed, gamed and indoctrinated into the efficacy of the business team.

To be a member of a ‘team’ is a sign of belonging. People boast over dinner about the number of ‘teams’ they belong to; and to actually lead a team is the sign that you have arrived. There is nothing better than teamwork to achieve great things.

A Team, it is said, is like our extended family, and we see it as an ideal entity, harmonious, well adjusted and serenely successful; just like the family Christmas gathering, only without the overeating!

Indeed, in the military much of the effectiveness of the soldier lies in the nature of teams. Small independent teams operate successfully, and that success is based on a tightly knitted sense of unity; a deeply forged trust in each other and a strong command structure.

Teams, then appear to be the ideal unit for liberal thought, creative ideas and a chance of independent action. They empower people, they allow small groups to have a very large input into their company’s business - But do they?

I know that I tread in heretical waters, but I would like to question some of our beliefs about the heavenly aspects of teams. Because at the base of all dreams is some reality and an awful lot of fairy stories. We need to understand that teamwork does not come with an automatic fairy godmother, but in fact often comes with its inbuilt wicked witch or evil magician.

I am not alone in questioning the freedom apparently granted by working within a team, way back in 1993 Boje and Winsor claimed that the apparent empowerment was actually a deceptive cover for management’s application of control systems, insidious uniformity and workplace oppression. (“The resurrection of Taylorism: Total Quality Management’s Hidden Agenda” Journal of Organisational Change Management, 6)

That’s a long way from De Bono’s sympathetic view of teams; rather they are inclined to the view that the predominance of teams within companies is a subtle way of re-inforcing the four underlying principles of scientific management which deal with control, conformity, time management and indoctrination.

They were merely echoing the doubts expressed earlier by Amanda Sinclair, when she claims that the telling off into teams merely camouflages coercion by pretending it is cohesion; delays action – sometimes until action is impossible – by claiming consultation; that they legitimise lack of good leadership and insidiously disguise personal agendas by expedient arguments and faction forming. (“The Tyranny of Team Ideology" -Organisation Studies, 1992)

There have been many other voices raised about problems associated with teams, dwelling on the perception of empowerment granted by team work against the reality.

There is no denying that organising people into groups makes it easier for them to be controlled and contained. By raising unrealistic expectations about cohesion, by dwelling on unity and consensus, critical and opposing views can be neutered. We all know about ‘Group Think”`

Remember my comment about the use of small groups within the military – I believe that they work so well because of the strong command structure. Within business organisations there is not the culture to create such a structure and the questions I ask are: can the concept of a strong autonomous team co-exist with the concept of strong directional leadership? Is the inherited concept of ‘inclusive leadership’ really a subtle way of controlling the workforce? Does the creation of a climate of teamwork really lead to actually implementation of team decisions?

And finally, by what means can group cohesion be maintained without creating unprofitable conflict? And should conflict be avoided anyway?

Perhaps that is a topic for another day.

Michele @ Trischel

Organisational Resources - Infrastructure, Equipment or People?

At a recent meeting of an engineering consultancy it was passionately said “We do not own oil fields, we do not manufacture, we derive our income from our people. Without Good people we cannot succeed”

I am not sure who said that, but whoever it was has a real understanding of what is important in any business, not just consultancies. All business is based on people. It is people that operate the equipment; it is people that build the infrastructure and it is people that create our income. And if we ignore that fact then we are heading for the short slide into oblivion.

In good times it is easy to focus on the needs of the workforce; it is simple to spend time and money on improving working condition and those ‘touchy; feely” things that make people want to work for us.

But what happens in tough times? When budgets are gone over to find areas for cost cutting where does the axe usually fall? Is it on the infrastructure? – Er... No. Well is it on the equipment then? - Well, we possibly will not go ahead with that costly purchase, but we certainly won’t start selling off our equipment without real good cause! But our people? Well – have a guess!

It will be the workforce that is the first casualty of any recession, real or imagined. They will be the first to be ‘downsized’. And the next thing to be slashed because of cash-flow difficulties will be the ongoing training of the remainder. Training becomes an expensive option which many companies feel they cannot justify in tough times.

And with the realisation that training can be costly the very need for ongoing training often gets questioned. One of the best discussions I have read about the value of training is the White Paper produced by IBM The Value of Training - The sub title of this white paper tells it like it is - ‘The High Cost of Doing Nothing”!

“Skills development and training programs, often a target of budget cuts, may help organizations achieve ... corporate objectives and enhance their overall corporate culture.”

Perhaps instead of slashing existing programmes we need to consider what the training is meant to achieve. With the Training Guarantee Scheme (In Australia) there came an attitude that training must be carried out or face getting taxed; so any training would do.

In many companies there was little thought given to what training was best suited to achieve their goals, or to improve the retention of the workforce. And even when some considered thought was given to the problem the emphasis was on “Hard Skills” rather than “Soft Skills”. As hard skills have a direct and measurable impact on people’s ability to perform routine or required tasks, this was at least one aspect of increased productivity which was obvious.

What is not so obvious is the subtle necessity for some very specific soft skills. ‘Soft Skills’ are often more directed to relationships and inter-personal behaviours. Some companies often shove these off into what they determine as 'personal development’ courses, which employees love to attend, but have very little value to the company as a whole.

But this is narrow thinking, and even more so in difficult times. It is the soft skills that develop our people as a whole; that gives them the creativity, for instance, to find better ways of doing things with less. That improves performance without increasing costs by better communications. That inspires them to go that one step further for us without counting the costs.

Soft Skill training exposes our staff to new ideas and behaviours which can also be utilised in their personal lives, and it is this extra dimension that makes for stronger employees.

So while times are indeed getting tough, and the forecast is predicting possible stormier times ahead; I don’t believe that this is the right time to be cutting our investment in the future. We need to ensure that we have the right people in place for us grasp the first faint opportunities when the change comes.

If I can use a farming analogy – cattle breeders know that in times of drought it is sometimes necessary to cut back on the herd size; but they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their breeding stock – because without these, when the drought breaks (as it always eventually does) they will have no means of taking advantage of the improved conditions.

Training is an investment, and it is a sign of confidence for your employees. It means that you believe that there is a future ahead, and by investing in the development of your employees it means that you will have right people in the right place at the right time, - for when the drought breaks.

Michele @ Trischel

Wrapped in Brown Paper

At a recent Toastmasters meeting, the raffle master produced a non-descript article, wrapped in brown paper. There was no indication of what it contained, and most people would have passed it by, or left it lying on the table.

But this young lady had other ideas. She picked up the brown paper parcel and held it high, “Can you imagine what is in this parcel?” she asked. “Perhaps it’s a book that will transport you to foreign lands; or maybe there are soft scented candles that will soothe the stresses of the day. It could be a brand new garden fork, which will entice you out into the winter garden with the promise of spring to come”.

With each word our eyes lit up and we mentally began to wonder what secret the nondescript wrapping concealed. As a result the raffle that night took the largest amount of money we had achieved for some time. People were intrigued with the possibilities and looked beyond the unprepossessing outer layer. We had been sold the potential of the inside and not the unappealing outside.

Unfortunately, we live in a world that is dazzled by the outer layers, and often we fail to take the opportunity to examine what lies beneath them. We meet someone for the first time and they are nervous and difficult to talk with. Do we persevere, and try to discover the hidden depths below, or do we give up the struggle and move onto to easier conversationalists? In other words do we take the outer layer as being all that is available?

If we do, we can miss out on getting to know some very interesting people. One thing I have learned throughout my life is that the packaging is not all it is about. But one of the easiest ways to sell a product, regardless of its quality, is to concentrate on the packaging and down play what’s inside. Which is fine, if you really understand that the wrapping is not the thing itself, but merely fancy window dressing.

Children are the object of some cynical exercises in making the packaging more important than the product. They do not have the discrimination to differentiate between what a thing looks like and what a thing truly is. Consequently they can make inappropriate choices. But even we, as adults, can be beguiled into believing that a fancy package will ensure a superior product.

But it isn’t always the case. Often the product in a not-so-fancy package can be just as effective, just as practical and will probably be better value for money as you are not being charged for window dressing that will only have to be thrown away!

Our fascination for the outside wrapping can blind us to what is inside; if we take things on face value we loose the opportunity to be surprised or delighted. But it seems that it is becoming more and more our opinion that if it doesn’t look good it is obviously not valuable. What does that say about society’s attitudes?

Some of the very best things in my life were discovered “wrapped in brown paper!” I met my husband after a day spent out on a field exercise in the military – he was dressed in camouflage, hot and dusty, face paint smeared and sweaty (and, it must be said, definitely not exuding the ‘perfume of Arabia’!) I really couldn’t say that the outer package was attractively and enticingly arrayed. But I saw the bright smile, I noticed the sparkle in the eye and after I had got to know the real person I began to understand the worth of the product.

And, in fairness, I have to mention that I was not much better– and I have always been very grateful that he also took the time to discover the person lurking behind the uniform. Life could have been very different if we had made a judgement based merely on the “brown paper” wrapping!

But how often do we quickly judge things merely by their cover? How often do we make instant decisions about a thing’s worth merely on the packaging? How often are we fooled into making a purchase because we have been sold what’s on the outside, rather than what is on the inside?

I believe that we often miss out on great opportunities because they may appear to us as if wrapped in brown paper. If we pass judgement on what is hidden merely on the way it is packaged and pass on by; we can miss out on some wonderful, exciting and unique opportunities. Surely the lesson we need to learn is that what is inside is not to be judged by what is outside. If we take time to investigate even the most modest of exteriors we can be amazed by the realities carefully concealed.

So challenge yourself to take a second look at that brown paper parcel –and why not make this week’s mantra “Never judge a book by its cover.” You never know, you might be absolutely delighted with what’s inside.

Michele @ Trischel

Lies; damned lies … and then there is statistics

Mark Twain attributed the “Lies, damned lies and statistics” to Benjamin Disraeli – and it still has a modicum of truth in it.

I was accosted over the weekend by a petition wielding lady with statistics at her finger tips. She wanted something banned (It doesn’t matter what, it is the process I am discussing) – and she had all the facts and figures to hand. But the problem I found with it was that she ultimately wanted this restriction of freedom because 10% of the population agreed that it should be so.

When I pointed out, that this meant 90% of the population disagreed with it, she bristled and accused me of ignoring the minority opinion. I then again pointed out to her, that she was ignoring the majority opinion; which she dismissed as being ‘unimportant’.

Subsequently I didn’t sign her petition. I cannot recall what the perceived injustice was, but I was staggered at the naivety of the reasoning. Statistics are being used more and more to justify any amount of decisions; and more and more I find that positive actions are being urged on the basis of negative statistics.

According to Twain, Disraeli didn’t trust statistic either; and I am becoming disenchanted. But many speakers will use statistic to prove their ideas or opinions are right. If 75% of school children can’t locate Papua New Guinea on a map, it might indeed indicate that they are not being taught regional geography. But if that figure is only 25%, can we draw the same conclusion?

I am not going into sets and subsets, it’s been a long time since I waded in that murky water! But if we understand that statistics are largely concerned with discovering possible connections between disparate facts, then we can have a very general idea of what is being presented to us.

Statistics use samples to obtain results, and the Neilson rating on TV audiences is a perfect example of how it works. When we read that 1.5 million people actually watched a certain programme we don’t believe that someone went out and did a head count, now do we? Of course not, a sample is taken from certain families which are used, demographically, to represent the whole. That these families are selected carefully goes without saying, but the end result is that one family can be used to represent the viewing habits of thousands of others.

But advertising rates are decided on the basis of these samples, and the same principle is used to generate figures that are said to reflect the views of the population at large. But do they? If so, how can one political party be 5 points ahead of their opposition in Poll A, but trailing them in Poll B? Both outcomes were a result of an opinion poll which created the statistics.

If we are to have some chance of determining the validity of statistics we must first determine some guidelines:

• Who conducted the study and how reputable are they?
• Did those conducting the study have a vested interest in the outcome?
• What exactly was the study measuring?
• Who was interviewed?
• What questions were asked?
• What were the comparisons?

Who conducted this study

People using statistics to prove their point often tell us that numbers don’t lie – but we can find statistics to prove that dairy food is bad for our health and others that show we need them to stay healthy. We can find studies that show some soft drinks cause cancer, and others that say that the only thing that they do is make you thirstier. All these statistics are available, but numbers don’t lie? Well it all depends on who is publishing the figures and what they are trying to prove.

The argument about smoking is a case in point – are the statistics provided by a Cancer Society or a Tobacco company? If we look at the soft drink discussion in America, we can find results of studies provided by the American Cancer Society and the USA FDA – both are highly reputable organisations, yet both hold different opinions on the subject based on the statistics they have gathered. It’s a mine field out there!

What was the study designed to measure?

Another sound bite we hear a lot when discussion statistics, is “You can’t compare apples and oranges” – but of course you can, if you ask the right questions.

If the study is designed to determine colour then of course you can’t compare them, but if we wanted to find out about the sugar content of fruit, then comparing apples and oranges would be important. Again, asking about vitamin content? – then compare them – but ask about habitat then don’t. You see, it all depends on what you are measuring.

So ask yourself, is the comparison on these statistics a valid one.

Who was interviewed and what was asked?

Is the group representative and how unambiguous were the questions? Were they designed to measure opinions, emotions or feelings? Or are they conducted to measure facts? Again, opinions will differ according to who you ask. Is crime rising? Depends on whether you ask victims or law enforcement agencies. Not all crime is reported so figures will vary.

When asking people for their opinion it is even more difficult to get really reliable figures. Many people will say what they think you want to hear, others will simply lie.

Some opinions, ideas and thoughts are determined by outside circumstances, such as demographics, cultural background, and education. The human factor is difficult to eradicate from surveys which are designed to tap into public opinion.

And the way in which the questions are asked can also affect the outcome – leading questions are not allowed in a court room, but if you have taken one of those telephone surveys you will have been asked one or two!

Questions can be framed to obtain the required response – lawyers who engage in cross examinations are well aware of that! So are companies with a vested interest in the outcome of a survey. Loaded questions are a killer “Have you stopped cheating on your tax” appears to ask for a simple yes or no answer – but think about it!

TV Interviewers who claim to be investigative reporters are good at this; when the victim tries to claim that they have never cheated, they get shouted down with “Just answer the question! Yes or No!” Of course, they can’t answer the question as asked, it doesn’t give them a possible truthful alternative.

Now it might seem that the above means that statistics are worthless, but it is not meant to. I merely want to point out that there must be some thought given to the statistics you quote to support your argument. So if you have other supporting evidence for your decision, it is wise to use it to back up the statistics. It is up to the user to show that the statistics in this case are relevant and reliable.

Statistics are often the easiest and most concise way to express our evidence, but we need to be sure that they are valid and reliable for our audience to accept them as proof positive.

Let’s leave the last word with Mrs Robert Taft –

“I always find that statistics are hard to swallow and impossible to digest. The only one I can ever remember is that if all the people who go to sleep in church were laid end to end they would be a lot more comfortable”

Michele @ Trischel

Going that One Step Further

“Ah! Freedom” I said to myself when I finally left my institute of learning “No more being told what to do … no more rules and regulations … Life! The way I want it to be!”

Ah! The innocence of youth!

Because the first thing I had to do was get a job. Funny thing about being free is that ‘stuff’ isn’t … free that is. And Life without ‘stuff’ is not to be contemplated, especially when you are part of a ‘teenage rebellion’.

So I got myself a job; and guess what? There was someone who told me what hours I had to work; another who told me how much I was to be paid; and someone else who was detailed to be my day-to-day advisor. I was free … free to do as I was told … and boy was I bored.

And then walking past a lighted window on a cold and rainy winter’s day in England, I was caught by the large poster of a servicewoman enjoying life in sunnier climes. I was hooked, went straight in and joined. And guess what? I was being paid less but now I had a lot more people telling me what to do!!

Life in the military really gives you an idea about what leadership is all about from both sides of the equation. I have been the ‘one being told’ and I have been the ‘one doing the telling’ and believe me the latter is the better.

However, an organisation which has all chiefs and no Indians get absolutely nowhere … fast! So let me tell you about leadership from the other side's point of view.

Instead of considering “what leaders do” or even “what leaders want’- let’s take a few moments out of our busy day to consider ‘what those that are being led expect”. Because this is the real test of getting things done.

Have you noticed that every group, social or otherwise, ends up with a chief, a leader? It doesn’t matter whether it is a group of school friends, or a volunteer group of guide leaders, one person is going to assume the mantle of the group leader. It can be informal, in that it is loosely understood by everyone in the group, that so-and-so will have the last say and we will all end up doing what they propose; or it can be formal, so that regardless of what the quality of the others are, it will be the one with the position or rank that will be the decider.

Now, there are some people who have a natural understanding of how to work with others, some who instinctively know precisely how to get willing agreement and enthusiastic support for their ideas. And then there are the others ….!

I have met both in my military career, and I noticed that from my point of view the former had some distinctive traits that made it very easy for me to co-operate with them.

First, they actually knew who I was. That is not so common, especially in larger groups; and I mean more than just knowing my name. They knew what I liked and where my strengths lay; as well as understanding those aspects of the job I had trouble with. They offered me opportunity to expand my knowledge and encouraged me to reach out and grasp that opportunity. They were great mentors.

Secondly, they gave real recognition for work done; even if it was just a simple “well done.” But I recall, even now after all this time, one officer who on being congratulated on an idea that had proved successful admitted that it was my idea. I would have followed him through hell and high water as the saying goes. Those I followed willingly were appreciative of our efforts, and gave us due recognition. They were great motivators.

Thirdly, we were listened to. They sought our opinion and listened to it. “It’s those on the ground who have to do the job who know how it should be done” was one officer’s mantra; and consequently his team had the opportunity to suggest changes that really worked as they came from those who were actually doing the job. These leaders were inclusive participators.

Then there were the others…. When we were kept like mushrooms, in the dark. When we were left in ignorance if our work was satisfactory until the PR66 came out and we found it wasn’t! When we were silenced and treated like fools, until we became the fools we were treated like. These times were dreadful, the atmosphere was poisonous and very little of worth got done.

The frightening fact was though, that both types of officers had done the same training, attended the same lectures, and participated in the same exercises.

What was the difference? Well I think it is blindingly obvious! Despite all the theory of leadership there is still a large element of personality that impacts on performance.

I am not saying that it cannot be learned, but too often I have found that it is the practicalities of leadership that are studied and not the personality of leadership. There is more weight given to ‘what to do’ and not enough on ‘how to do it‘ – this takes leadership one step further.

Are you a leader? What is your aim - To be a figure head or to get things done? Because If you want to get things done you need to be the leader that goes that one step further. And you can take that fact from one who spent a long time being led!


Michele @ Trischel