Direction of Travel

When thinking of the typical constitution of an organisation, the health of its members and that of the organisation itself, the move to a ‘healthier way of life’ will sound ominous to everyone in one way or another. Those with personal weight control challenges may feel threatened by the slim, muscular, fighting-weight metaphor. Others may fear that the image of a lean and focused organisation means losing personnel from their departments and more intense demands on those remaining.  The fear of change is universal, in particular when staff members feel that such changes are imposed without consultation, beyond their control or against their wishes.  The difference with the ‘Healthier Way of Life’ programme is that it is intended to help the whole corporate body and to reflect the desires of the collective consciousness for a competitive, profitable, ethical and sustainable business. The whole organisation is engaged in deciding what is to be done and how.

It is said that how a society looks after its less fortunate citizens is a measure of its decency. We want to provide good quality care for the sick and elderly recognising that the ravages of time affect us all and that we must follow them. We also recognise the contribution our predecessors made to our community and to the generational benefits of family cohesion. However medical advances have greatly extended longevity so that populations have become imbalanced. This has placed great strain on our social services and a huge tax burden upon those of working age – or those in work.

So what parallels can usefully be drawn between societal and business change?  ‘Healthier Way of Life’ initiatives will result in scorn if they add 20 years of incontinence to octocgenarians. Neither will they be welcomed in organisations so heavily regulated as to prevent a healthy addition of young talent so that the organisations stagnate. A primary purpose must be to ‘Add life to the years rather than adding years to life’.

A news report on the threat of obesity in the UK (August 2011) suggests that as many as 40% of the UK population could be obese by 2030 raising the question as to whether a ‘Fat Tax’ should be introduced on fast-foods and sugared drinks. Radio programmes discussed the situation and the underlying problems. For me there were two key themes. Firstly the addictive nature of the foods – high in sugar and salt and secondly the often low self-esteem of overweight people for whom food becomes a comforting indulgence. Rather than imposing taxes or legal restrictions, I believe the cure will come through nutrition education and by helping people to address their underlying issues.

In the organisational environment the equivalent protection against unhealthy practice will emerge naturally as the workforce collectively create a sense of identity, purpose and pride. A demoralised workforce will seldom volunteer its energies enthusiastically. Indeed a lethargic workforce becomes an organisational ‘couch potato’ and almost certainly invites premature corporate failure and death. Here too the organisation’s self esteem needs to be raised through participative programmes that nurture pride in best practice and success through innovation.

What do you know about the long term effects of the food you eat? What is your personal mission and sense of self? In what ways does your organisation ‘sweep poor practice under the carpet’ as tomorrow’s problem? How does your organisation build a genuine sense of community and contribution? What is your direction of travel?

© Paul Curran September 2011 

It's a Fair Cop - Sometimes!

Society responds harshly to miscreants who disturb the social order. We expect the Police to arrest and prosecute those who break the rules. Neither do we tolerate misbehaviour in the corporate sector where we may summarily dismiss those involved in wrong-doing. (Except perhaps in the boardrooms of our major banks and corporations) In both cases the law allows for a defence and requires proof of guilt. There is perceived to be fairness about the procedure which we can acknowledge and comply with. Elsewhere however, incidents occur over which we have no control - other than how we choose to respond to them. Ultimately such choices define us. Viktor Frankl’s account of his experience as a Jew facing extermination in Auschwitz is one of the most extreme examples of this use of free will.

There are many situations in life where bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. At such times stoic resilience grows only slowly and painfully. Today, 11^th September 2011, marks the 10^th anniversary of the greatest terrorist atrocity in history.  The attack on New York changed the lives of countless thousands of individuals and families around the world. Terrorist activities and war leave in their wake millions injured and maimed. Years later, in their wheelchairs or wearing their prosthetic limbs, these heroic individuals live out wholesome lives and are beacons of courage to the rest of us.  Bereaved families similarly must cope with shattered expectations and learn to live without their loved ones. The courage and fortitude of these survivors is exemplary and very humbling.

Every day countless millions more bemoan their self-inflicted illness in a much less edifying manner.  Our culture promotes the consumption of manufactured and denatured food products, which over time weaken our immune systems and lead to chronic disease. When the doctor presents us with his diagnosis we submit to medication or the knife, often accompanied by a ‘woe is me’ abandonment of responsibility. If we’re big enough to accept our role in this decline then we may be able to adopt a more healthy lifestyle with its promise of a better future. If not, then we may face the coronary bypass, the diabetic amputation, the kidney failure or the stroke – 15 years earlier than might have been expected.

Denial catches up with us and sooner or later we must choose how to respond to the new reality. It was once asked of me “Are you going to become a better person or a bitter person?”. This was a tough question, posed at a time when I was hurting and self-medicating my psyche with self-pity. Many years later I’m still building a stoic resilience and continuing to roll back the shutters of my self-awareness. Fortunately I can still walk and no one close to me died.

Today I choose to live with gratitude for the gift of life with all its joys and tears. I accept my responsibility for my circumstances and choose to make amends as best I can. I extend support and respect to those suffering the shock of change however experienced. To the best of my ability I will inquire, explore and contribute to our understanding of health to help avert disaster. Today we remember the victims and their survivors, both of 9/11 and of its repercussions. We acknowledge the suffering of the sick whether timely or self inflicted through ignorance. In my case at least, it was a fair cop.

Elephant in the Room

We’ve all heard the joke “How do you get 4 elephants into a mini?” – “Two in the front and two in the back”. The absurdity makes it funny and the joke has been around long enough to have won a special place in our popular culture. Similarly we have culturally adapted to accept the ‘Elephant in the Room’, the unmentionable subject that, if raised, may lead to altercation or unpleasantness. Such subjects typically go ignored until the issue reaches crisis point. Alternatively they may fester for years causing a chronic malaise with attendant stresses affecting everyone in the vicinity be it home, workplace or community.

In her recent book, Developmental Coaching, psychologist Tatiana Bachkirova examines Haidt’s metaphor of the elephant as the unconscious mind. When the relationship is strong, it may choose to follow the instruction of its rider. When change appears difficult it may be that the client finds their conscious and unconscious minds in conflict. In coaching we often find situations where we encourage our clients to acknowledge their feelings, then examine and accept them. Having done so clients are often able to move forward through issues on with which they previously felt stuck. It’s a personal democratic process that allows the several opinions to be heard so that the individual can buy-in to the chosen direction.

Through our personal relationships we invite others to enrich our perspective with their views. Healthy relationships allow for give and take, both in good times and in conflicted situations. Couples earn and develop trust which sustains their relationship through the tensions that inevitably arise.

Similarly in the boardroom it is important to have trust in one’s colleagues so that full-on debate occurs and decisions made on which the group collectively take action. Through this constructive conflict colleagues invest ‘their skin in the game’. This increases their commitment to the outcome and they will hold one another mutually accountable for the results. Collectively their decision making capability is strengthened. However, they are wise to consider the compatibility of their decision on the culture of their organisation – as the elephant driver requests suitable behaviour from his animal.

The recent riots in England’s major cities are readily condemned as the work of mindless hooligans. The sickness unleashed resulted in at least four murders as well as dozens of families left homeless and livelihoods lost. Unfortunately the perpetrators have not identified with the fact that in lashing out at their society they are effectively self-harming.  Hopefully we can find a constructive way to include their opinions and use their energies to address the greater challenges facing humanity.

What is the elephant in your room? How readily do you listen to opinions that differ from your own with an open mind? When and where do you express your own opinions? What ‘collective’ do you contribute to through your unique gifts? How are you earning and developing trust in your home, your workplace and your community?

How do you know when there’s been an elephant in the fridge?