Charity working and volunteers - a Good News story!

It's taken me a few days to get round to posting this, but I felt it was well worth bringing to people's attention. Each year, in mid-October, the specialist charity sector recruitment company, Charity People, run an event in London, called Forum 3. It is a combined exhibition and seminar event held on a Friday and Saturday.

For the last five years, I've been contributing seminars. This year I did a couple each day - one on Emotional Literacy and the other on Portfolio Working. These form part of a programme of about 40 different sessions each day. It's a pretty good cause and I'm glad to be able to do something to help.

Now, a lot of people will tell you that it is increasingly hard to get people to give to charity and that it is equally hard to get people to volunteer their time. They will also talk of the difficulty getting good calibre people to work in the charity sector, because they can attract far higher salaries elsewhere.

Well, I'd just like to put forward the counter argument. At each of my seminars I had between 60 and 100 participants. These are individuals who have stomped up their own hard-earned cash to attend.

The exhibition itself was packed with a couple of hundred different charities telling their story, and seeking volunteers and paid-employees. They came from just about every area of charity work and
were all buzzing with interest and activity.

In total over the two days, more than 13000 - yes, that's thirteen thousand! - people attended the exhibition.

Now that's an awful lot of people seeking a place in the charity sector - whether paid or voluntary. What's more, I spoke to a lot of them and I have to say that the calibre of folks was definitely at the top end of the scale.

So, I'm enthused. I figure that's a pretty good reflection on the society that we live in and a bit of a rebuke to the kill-joys and moaners who reckon this world is becoming totally self-focused and highly materialistic.

Best wishes

---

GRAHAM WILSON
London + Oxford - 07785 222380
Helping Organisations & People Achieve Things They Never Dreamt Were Possible
grahamwilson.org; inter-faith.net

---

Is something 'wrong' with Britain?

Neurosis, also known as psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder, is a "catch all" term that refers to any mental imbalance that causes distress, but, unlike a psychosis or some personality disorders, does not prevent rational thought or an individual's ability to function in daily life. (From: Wikipedia)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric disorder, more specifically, an anxiety disorder. OCD is manifested in a variety of forms, but is most commonly characterized by a subject's obsessive (repetitive, distressing, intrusive) thoughts and related compulsions (tasks or rituals) which attempt to neutralize the obsessions. (From: Wikipedia)

For some time, I've been wondering why Britain seems to do some things, insisting that they are the ONLY RIGHT way or the BEST way to be. A classic example was our pursuit of quality management. Back in 1979, the British Standards Institute (BSI) published BS5750 - a standard for the management of quality based on the generic military standards. The Government of the day promoted these heavily and tens of thousands of companies were assessed and awarded the standard and its international equivalent, ISO9000.

Myths began to emerge that if you wanted to do business in Britain you HAD to have BS5750 accreditation. Of course, this couldn't have been further from the truth. Had it REALLY been the ONLY PROPER way to do things, then you'd expect many businesses around the world to have adopted it. Strangely, this isn't the case and yet those businesses often thrive. Today, while some UK industries still demand ISO9000 accreditation, few new businesses seem to bother and yet they succeed commercially.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in the Financial Services area, where we make a song and dance about 'compliance' and every firm you ring seems to have a taped disclaimer to play you about the nature of their advice. At one point, even radio commercials would be followed by a 'statutory' notice. Have you EVER heard similar messages in other countries? When you pick up an inflight magazine, notice that the British companies all have them and the foreign ones don't.

At the moment, all British Ambulances are being painted bright yellow to conform to an EC ruling. Strangely other European countries don't seem to be doing so!?

You've only got to look at French, German, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian electrical wiring to see that it is made to far less exacting standards and installed with far fewer safeguards than the British equivalent. Yet, do these countries have higher rates of electrocution or electrically-induced house fires? No.

British motorcyclists are exorted to wear leathers - for their own protection - and police motorcylists are perfect role models. Next time you go abroad notice what their bikers and motorcycle police are wearing. In most cases it's a textile jacket in the cold weather but shirts and cotton breeches when it's warm.

A popular moan when Brits go abroad is that the standard of driving elsewhere is so poor compared to our own. We even have TWO organisations offering 'advanced driving' qualifications (the Institute of Advanced Motorists and the RoSPA Advanced Drivers and Riders Association). To the best of my knowledge the only places similar organisations exist are former colonies where these bodies undertook some kind of outreach work. We seem to ignore the fact that, with the exception of a few notably poor roads (ironically often ones that are particularly popular with Brits) these countries don't appear to have higher accident rates. In fact, kids in the US can drive younger, and the test is far less onerous, while in this country our insurance costs are far higher to the point of being prohibitive for many youngsters.

Next time you have a chance to chat to a foreign business-person, ask them what kinds of insurance they have. A typical British firm (even a small one) has public liability, professional liability, employers' liability, and directors' liability. You'll find that few foreign firms would even consider such things. Yet they do perfectly well commercially and there aren't loads of pending lawsuits against them.

Health and Safety is another example. It staggers me the complexity of the H&S legislation that must exist given the number of times I hear it cited as the reason for a particularly obscure rule. Someone tried to tell me the other day that teachers were forbidden from helping little children to blow their noses because of the H&S legislation. Who are they kidding? Show me the Act of Parliament that says that!

In Britain now, just about anyone who works with children has to have a Criminial Records Bureau check. This is a retrospective check to determine whether they have any convictions (not specifically for crimes of violence or related to children, but generally). Organisations such as the Girl Guides, the Amateur Swimming Association and so on have formal policies and protocols telling clubs and employers what they must do with these records and many insist on a fresh check regardless of how recently an individual has had one done for another body. This got to such a state at one point that teachers were being told that they couldn't start work one September because the CRB was so inundated that they had weeks of backlog. Does anyone know of ANY other country that allows public access to the criminal records of almost everyone? The only one I can find is the US, where the local police MAY let local residents know if a released paedophile is living in their vicinity. And do we have a much lower rate of crimes against children as a result? I don't think you'll find we do.

So... lot's of examples of what I will term an 'obsessional neurosis'. It doesn't stop us functioning, it can even be justified as 'best practice', yet it doesn't actually lead to any great benefit. Instead, like the sufferers of an OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) we end up wasting vast amounts of energy and resources and demonstrate all the symptoms of anxiety;

OCD is different from behaviors such as gambling addiction and overeating. People with these disorders typically experience at least some pleasure from their activity; OCD sufferers do not actively want to perform their compulsive tasks, and experience no pleasure from doing so.

OCD is placed in the anxiety class of mental illness, but like many chronic stress disorders it can lead to clinical depression over time. The constant stress of the condition can cause sufferers to develop a deadening of spirit, a numbing frustration, or sense of hopelessness. OCD's effects on day-to-day life — particularly its substantial consumption of time — can produce difficulties with work, finances and relationships.

The illness ranges widely in severity. OCD is not curable, but it can be treated with anti-depressants. This illness affects millions of people worldwide, and the number keeps growing. (From: Wikipedia)

[The application of psychoanalytic concepts to the study of organisations and society as a whole, is a growing field of academic inquiry. If you are interested in learning more about it, visit the website of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organisations (www.ispso.org).]

Best wishes
Graham.

Why are we so obsessed with the bad news?

I don't often read newspapers. These days I find that the BBC news and the Guardian newspaper websites give me as much as I need. They also have the advantage that I can explore a topic in a little more depth if I want to.

One reason I don't read papers is that they always seem to feel they have to take a negative slant on every story. If the story isn't shocking, they'll find a way of making it so.

Of course, there's the Positive News paper but that's the rare exception.

So why are we so obsessed with the 'bad news'?

There's a conspiracy theory that says that the reason for this is that journalists' paymasters have a vested interest in spreading fear. Whether that's the case or not, surely the opportunity to shift the balance lies with us?

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take an interest in all that's going on around us, but let's get a little more balance in the media.

Best wishes
Graham.

The delicate issue of EGO

wikipedia: "The id, ego, and super-ego are the divisions of the psyche according to psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud's "structural theory". The id contains "primitive desires" (hunger, rage, and sex), the super-ego contains internalized norms, morality and taboos, and the ego mediates between the two and may include or give rise to the sense of self."

As someone who is self-employed, and whose livelihood depends on selling aspects of his personality, I frequently find myself in a dilemma around 'ego'. It's hard to portray what it is that I do or that I offer, and for people to decide whether to call on me, without putting a bit of myself 'out there'. But in doing so, there are a whole group of people who will believe I am an egotistical, selfish, and self-focused maniac.

My coaching and consulting work is informed by my psychotherapeutic training, and so I take it to supervision. Hopefully, there any tendency for my own needs and desires (reflected in 'ego') will be spotted and alternative ways of looking at a situation will emerge. But it remains an issue.

Of course, there are many (I'd guess the vast majority) of coaches and consultants, who are blissfully unaware or unconcerned about these things, but they DO matter to me.

Writing this blog has got to raise the question "Why?" in a few minds too. Is it ego or is it a valid form of raising my head above the parapet in the marketing sense?

I guess I will return to the question of what it is that I 'sell', but for the time being, I just wanted to raise the issue so no-one could say I wasn't, at least, aware of it.

Best wishes
Graham.

Day-to-day ethics

The problem with the guide book led me into wondering about how day-to-day ethical questions arise. It seems to me that most of us don't really engage with 'ethics', we just get on with life.

Wherever I can, I like to buy fairtrade products because it seems right to demonstrate a commitment to this way of doing business. But, in France, last week, I had the choice of buying regular coffee or fairtrade coffee. The difference in price was so extreme (the FT product was more than double the cost) that I'm afraid I decided to buy the cheaper one. I'm not going to rack myself with guilt - it seems to me that someone, somewhere, in that little food chain is exploiting the consumers as much as they used to exploit the producers!

So then I began to wonder what to do with this "Rough Guide to the Hotels of France" that I can no longer trust? (By the way, that might seem a bit extreme, but I only have ten or so days holiday a year and I don't see why I should let someone else's naff recommendation potentially ruin one day of them.)

Usually, if I have a book that I don't particularly want to keep, then I'll give it to a charity shop. But ethically, as I know there's at least one bad description in it, should I inflict that on someone else? Of course, I could just throw it away... Or perhaps I should annotate the page and THEN give it to the charity shop?

So many decisions! Time for another coffee!

All the best,
Graham.

You only need to be let down once by a guide book

How many times do you need to be let down by a guide book to make it useless to you?

We were using the "Rough Guide" to French hotels, which is actually a translation of the Routard guide. Generally, we've found the Rough Guides excellent - and admit to being a little biased as the owners of the firm graduated from Bristol. But the Routards recommendation of the hotel we stayed in for our first night (Hotel De La Croix D'Or - Avrenches) really put us off.

The hotel itself consisted of an old part at the front, and a newer part at the rear. Even the front had only one room (the reception) that was actually authentic. The restaurant was the kind of place where anyone under 65 feels young. The service was ridiculously laboured, with that kind of inappropriate pretention that leaves Fawlty Towers looking tame. The menu was so standard and completely unimaginative that a junior from a cheffing course could have easily churned the meals out. The bedroom though was the thing that took the biscuit. Described as characterful and overlooking a beautiful garden the reality was that it was the kind of sterile mass-market room that you'd find in a worn-out Travellodge just before they were refurbished - with a few enhancements that beggared belief (the wall mounted TV that prevented the toilet door from opening properly). The garden was an overgrown staff smoking spot, with a few chairs scattered in it and in desperate need of a little horticultural TLC. The main access for the carpark went straight through it.

So, will we be using another Routard recommendation? No way. Will we be using another Rough Guide? Well, we shall certainly look twice to make sure it isn't simply a translation of someone else's guide.

I guess it doesn't matter what kind of business you are in, at some stage you depend on third party products and services to deliver your own to your customers. How DO you manage the quality of those without the cost exceeding the advantage of subcontractors? (This is the hub of an issue I often stumble across.)

All the best, Graham.

The "Great Places to Avoid" Guide Book

We've just been on holiday, and had booked into a hotel for the first night. It was one of those classic experiences where the pictures and description on the website applied to the main part of the hotel (well actually the Reception area) and had little or no bearing on the guest accomodation. The room had little to recommend it at all - more on that later perhaps, but my immediate thought was that I'd never come across a quality guide book or website specifically for individuals to comment on their experiences of hotels and for the hotels to publish their responses. All moderated, of course, to keep it 'clean'.