27 July 2009
Communicating to the electorate is like selling
The goal is always to make the sale. In 1942 America’s top doctors and politicians found themselves powerless to remove confusions about alcoholism after the repeal of prohibition. Chronic drunkenness was no longer a police problem but it wasn’t seen as a medical issue either. It was PR man Dwight Anderson who put the ‘alcoholism is a disease’ spin on the problem and so convinced the electorate to trust the medical profession to deal with it. 70 years later with still no evidence to suggest that alcoholism is caused by a pathogen like diabetes or asthma it’s still widely (and erroneously) accepted that becoming addicted to alcohol is an illness. The selling of uncontrollable drinking as being a medical illness was so successful that many people still ‘buy’ the idea today. It’s not true. Getting drunk is a choice. Getting drunk regularly may become a habit that’s hard to break but it is still essentially a personal choice; and a very selfish one at that.
Being drunk is no excuse - is it?
This weekend it was reported that a man was arrested and charged with attempted murder after rescuing his son from a beating. If he was indeed an innocent middle aged man simply doing his best in trying circumstances then there will be more than a few people feeling sympathetic toward his plight. The young people who attempted to vandalise his property and set about his son are portrayed, as being on the one hand hard-done-to victims of an ‘assault’ and on the other, the blameless victims of a surfeit of alcohol; and hence not in control of their actions at the time. They do not argue however with the fact that they were drunk.
Colin Philpott, the 58 year old cleaning company director, allegedly stabbed one of the teenagers five times with a letter opener while attempting to rescue his 25 year old son from being set upon by the drunken mob. It’s easy to imagine how his emotions (panic, frustration, anger, fear, outrage etc) could have led him to pick up a ‘weapon’ and for it to have been employed in the heat of the moment if he was attacked. Indeed it is easy to feel somewhat forgiving toward Mr Philpott. It is less easy to feel that way about the youths who appear to think it OK to drink copious amounts of alcohol and rampage through the suburbs abusing people and property at will. How did little Johnny or Jake (or whatever their names are) who just a few short years before were probably cute young kids, turn into a dangerous nuisance whose behaviour predicated an outcome like this?
Personal choice
Perhaps the answer can be found by looking at personal choice: Specifically the choice between experiencing conscience and guilt versus immediate pleasure and instant gratification. On a recent episode of the popular TV reality show ‘Big Brother’ we saw evidence of this balance going awry. Kenneth, the super-rich boyfriend of glamour girl (and Glaswegian human chimney) Karly, found himself inside the Big Brother House without her. In front of millions of viewers he demonstrated behaviours that could only be described as sociopathic. Indeed the shows own psychologist labelled them as such. He insinuated that his vast wealth could buy him anything, including the virtue of his girlfriend’s former best friend in the ‘House’. He was completely unaware of the negative non-verbal cues and clues his fellow ‘Housemates’ were giving him, and was concerned only with his own self gratification in the moment. Crucially, he showed no sign of guilt, remorse or conscience regarding any of his appalling behaviour, even after the event. In fact his claims of a ‘road to Damascus’ style epiphany were laughable as such protestations served only to confirm his desire to do or say whatever it took to regain control (and so feel good) at that moment.
Such behaviours are not by any means exclusive to those cosseted by enormous wealth. I was returning home to Coventry on a train from London when a young woman and her two children joined the carriage at Milton Keynes. The children were around six years of age. She was in her early twenties, overweight, scruffy and clearly not the sharpest pencil in the box. She was heard long before she came into sight. She wasn’t shouting at the children, she was just shouting. Her children were as loud and as unaware as their mother of the nuisance they were causing. They screamed and bellowed the whole way home. The mother took no account of anyone else on the train. Indeed, she acted as if no one else existed, and therefore so did her children. Without realising it they were being programmed to unquestioningly accept that the feelings and experiences of other people do not matter. They were being programmed to become just the kind of drunken and ill disciplined youths that caused the ill fated Mr Philpott to end up being accused of attempted murder.
Freud famously blamed the problems of the child on the parents (particularly mothers) but it has been shown that it’s not only the influence of parents but also the child’s peers that help shape the kind of person they become. Comedy TV shows like ‘Little Britain’ poke fun at the kind of society we have become but their jesting is based on real events. In fact it’s only by recognising the ‘truth’ in their absurd sketches that we find them amusing. If we remove personal responsibility from individuals to such an extent that people grow up with sociopathic tendencies then we should anticipate a rise in those whom the label will fit. This is not a problem of our time it is a problem of our own making. There is nothing to prevent people growing up in an environment that supports the taking of personal responsibility. There are many other cultures around the world that do not suffer with these problems. There are groups within our own culture that do not have them either. The one thing they all have in common is the fact that they insist on the acceptance of personal responsibility.
Politicians draw a line
They arbitrarily decide what reflects the desires of the electorate. Their positions will change depending on the ‘political lie of the land’. Psychologists don’t draw any lines. We seek to offer the best advice supported by the best evidence we can find that reflects what is really going on. The electorate can be ‘convinced’; they can be sold a package of goods to suit the occasion. I’d be amazed if Mr Anderson could have predicted his spinning of alcoholism would have contributed so much to the lack of personal accountability and growing sociopathic tendencies of parts of our society today; just like it probably isn’t the intention of today’s policy makers and advisors to create a society where immediate self gratification at the expense of anything else is an acceptable form of behaviour. It may win elections to appear to be giving people what they want, but it is unsustainable. Developing a sociopathic electorate might not have been the intention but experience suggests it is becoming an all too real possibility.
Never forget that you draw the lines in your business and you set the rules regarding acceptable behaviour. Far from being a victim of society, we all have the right (within the confines of the law) to establish our own cultural values and patters within the home, our family and our business. To forget that is to invite in the standards and expectations that don't match your own.
If you are a business owner who wants to thrive rather than survive, I recommend joining the ‘Business Success Strategies’ monthly audio coaching programme from BusinessCoaching.co.uk . They are offering £800 of FREE material just to take a RISK FREE trial. Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/yhh6zjb
21 July 2009
Good reasons to slim down
It was announced this week that studies on mice suggest that being fat reduces our capacity to fight off viruses like flu by disrupting our immune response. A disruption in the response of the immune system makes a lethal runaway reaction more likely. As about 46% of men in England are over weight and an additional 17% are obese, and 32% of women are over weight and 21% more are obese, it means significantly more than half the people in this country are more at risk than they need to be. It is not news to those that fall into this category that (for the vast majority) their wilful lack of attention to addressing this personal problem is putting them at risk of having a problem.
We live in the paradigm of limited personal responsibility
The balance between requiring action from an individual to manage their journey through life versus a passive approach to self direction is heavily weighted toward the latter. I sense however that we are in the process of a paradigm shift.
A paradigm is just a way of looking at the world. The way the world is looked at can change, and regularly does. However paradigms are only replaced when a number of stages have been passed through. Firstly the existing paradigm must be shown not to work in all cases. Secondly new solutions must be put forward. Thirdly, these new solutions must be vehemently attacked and the old paradigm defended (even in the face of evidence that contracts it). Fourthly, the new ‘solution’ must become so obvious that it can no longer be ignored. Finally, the nay-sayers must accept the new paradigm as if it were always so!
Look out for signs that the culture of acceptance is diminishing
Notice the health professionals approach to patients that smoke. Not long ago the withdrawal of treatment for any reason would be unconscionable, yet now it has become accepted in these circumstances. Is it unreasonable to see the same approach applied elsewhere? Perhaps to binge drinking and certainly to obesity (when self inflicted). Can you imagine a situation where a person known to be a risk to themselves and society was allowed to roam free without sanction or intervention? There may actually be cases of this but they are notable by their rarity. In most cases action is taken to protect the person from themselves. Is it such a stretch then to imagine the same approach being taken with regard to basic levels of fitness and weight management?
I could be wrong but I don’t think so. My guess is that it will start in school. Jamie Oliver’s attempts to brighten school meals by convincing students to eat fresher and better may be replaced by a more draconian approach. Parents may be punished for child cruelty if they refuse to feed their children nutritiously. I’m guessing that eventually as much emphasis will be placed on schools achieving pupil health and fitness levels as there is on the academic league tables.
I’m also predicting that it will spread into the workplace; employment law may even be adapted to accommodate a ‘non-obese’ selection criteria. Appraisals may come to include the maintenance of personal health issues. Bonuses and rewards may become geared as much to our performance as fit human beings and be weighted (forgive the pun) against those who persist in carrying more than is good for them. The great thing about predictions of course is that they may not come true, or they make take so long to be realised that the predictor is long gone and forgotten. Be that as it may, the issue of personal responsibility is one that will not fade away.
If you are a business owner who wants to thrive rather than survive, I recommend joining the ‘Business Success Strategies’ monthly audio coaching programme from BusinessCoaching.co.uk . They are offering £800 of FREE material just to take a RISK FREE trial. Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/yhh6zjb
17 July 2009
Kiddie Power
It is being reported today that schoolchildren are threatening to accuse teachers of abusing them in order to avoid being punished for their behaviour. This has led to calls from members of Parliament for teachers to be protected against false claims of pupil abuse. A report from the children's schools and families select committee says new guidelines should be published in helping teachers deal with false allegations against their staff. They suggest that teachers are often treated as if they were already guilty before in fact been proved innocent of any wrong doing. They are asking questions as to why unsubstantiated allegations are passed on to employers and why head teachers appear to be so hasty in suspending teachers when allegations are made. It is now common for schoolchildren to challenge their teachers asserting their legal rights and threatening to make allegations against a teacher if they are in any way reprimanded for their misbehaviour. Accusations that children are threatening teachers with the prospect of false allegations are becoming more and more common.
Something is rotten in the state of Great Britain
Like Shakespeare's original quote from Hamlet, it means 'the fish is rotting from the head down'. In other words, all is not well at the top of our political hierarchy. Children didn't just start acting this way for no reason. It's not the fault of lawyers offering no-win no fee support on daytime television. It's not the fault of inadequate parenting. It's not even the fault of overzealous do-gooders. The real cause of the problem is a lack of clarity. Clarity with regard to the role of students, clarity with regard to the role of parents, clarity with regard to the role of teachers and clarity with regard to the role of those in ultimate power.
Everyone needs clarity
Be we powerful or peasant we have the same need to be clear with regard to our role in society. We need to know specifically what we are responsible for. Our responsibility must be properly balanced with a clear level of accountability. We also need to be certain that we have the correct level of authority to fulfil our responsibility and be happily held accountable. This three way balance applies to all roles in all situations, there are no exceptions.
If the political leaders provide true clarity regarding their responsibility for education, with the authority to deliver and are held properly accountable, then things will begin to change. Instead we have the system that pays lip service to responsibility, accountability and authority. Education policy can too often become a political football. Accountability becomes blurred as politicians are moved from post to post, and the authority to deliver results becomes vague and budget dependent. things become over complicated and the real objective somehow either becomes lost (or at least diluted) as a result.
If the exit interviews of students leaving full-time education were a measure of accountability and responsibility clarified as being to deliver an education that the students themselves rated highly; and if the politicians, teachers and school governors were granted the authority to do whatever it takes, then inevitably we would experience a different result. If personal accountability meant that the said politicians, teachers and governors stood to lose something substantial and significant in their own life should they fail the change in the results may be even more marked.
The goal is not to produce a set of league tables to look good. The goal is for every student to get the best education possible. This may seem unreasonable; for EVERY student to get the best education possible. Unreasonable or not, it still must be the goal.
Everyone counts
The story goes that an old man could be seen in the distance, walking along the beach and every few seconds bending down, picking somthing up and tossing it into the ocean. Getting closer it became clear that the beach was littered with starfish, and that with each step along the beach the old man would stoop down, raise one up and send it back into the water. Believing the old man to be engaged in a fruitless task, the viewer called to him saying 'Old man, stop wasting your time, you can't save them all, what possible difference can you make?' The old man stopped, turned to him and said, as he threw another starfish into the blue sea 'Made a difference to that one!'
The old man was clear in his responsibility, in what he would hold himself accountable for and what he believed was his right or authority to do.
Possible or not, realistic or not, the goal has to be to make education work for all. It is self evident that we have more people calling out that it's a waste of time, than we have metaphorically picking starfish from the beach. If it was made clear to parents that their responsibility is to deliver their children in a state fit for learning; that they were supported in doing whatever it takes to achieve that; and that they were held personally accountable, then there would be a change. Draconian or not, from a psychological point of view the clearer a person recognises and acknowledges balanced responsibility, accountability and authority; the more likely they are to be successful.
So what's gone wrong? From the point of view of the student there is obviously some confusion. If it was clear that the student had a responsibility to learn, to listen and to pay attention then they would be less likely to behave as barrackroom lawyers or gangland extortionists. They are obviously not held accountable for that responsibility; it is almost as if the responsibility for learning has been placed on the shoulders of the teachers rather than the students; which is like suggesting musicians be responsible for how people listen as well as how they perform. It is nonsensical.
The starting point to change has to be gaining clarity with regard to this responsibility. Once that's been established then students can be empowered with authority to support them in this endeavour; it opens up the possibility for self-governing learning groups and inventive approaches to enhance learning. With clarified levels of responsibility and balanced authority it is then possible to make each individual properly accountable for their behaviour; something that at the moment is impossible. Without being clear exactly what the student is responsible for, how can you hold them accountable when they don't perform? Is it any wonder then that they develop their own levels of authority to match what they believe is their responsibility, and that this spirals out of control due to any real attempt at accountability: if the student believes his or her only responsibility is to take care of him or herself then we should expect exactly what we are getting now.
Young people have always been head strong and difficult to control, and they probably always will be. It's just part of the young human condition. 'They' are not the problem. The real problem is the woeful lack of clear expectations - at every level. Just as society falls apart without them, so will a business. It is imperative that clear expectations and rules are established that provide a framework for everyone to work effectively within.
If you are a business owner who wants to thrive rather than survive, I recommend joining the ‘Business Success Strategies’ monthly audio coaching programme from BusinessCoaching.co.uk . They are offering £800 of FREE material just to take a RISK FREE trial. Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/yhh6zjb
First 1 2 Last