My husband would make an incredible teacher. He didn't enjoy school much himself - having been written off and told to go and work in a bank by his own teachers. So he passionately believes that the impact you have on a child at school stays with them forever. He's worked with children for almost 20 years - they love him, and they listen to him. Recently a teacher approached him and convinced him of what I've always known: he'd make a great teacher. He met with the head of our local (Ofsted rated 'excellent') primary school who said that he would employ him in a heart-beat.
So he got in touch with the local teacher-training university. And they rejected him point blank. For two reasons:
1) They already had an overwhelming 10 applications per placement
2) He doesn't have a C at GCSE science.
Let's set aside the distressing vision of aforementioned teacher-training-selection-officer drowning under the unmanageable weight of applications and focus on the second point: qualifications. Because, you see, my husband already works daily with two of that same university's current trainee teachers.
One turned up for work recently looking like he'd rolled out of bed and announced to the Head of Department "I'm knackered mate". The other burst into tears after receiving feedback on her first lesson and hasn't been seen since. Presumably both have a C in GCSE Science and so are prime examples of world-class teaching talent.
And this makes my blood boil.
Teachers have an unbelievable responsibility. So doesn't it follow that those who select the next generation of teachers have an even greater responsibility? To rule out an additional candidate because you already have 10 applications per place is lazy. To rule someone out because they have a Bachelor of Science degree but not GSCE Science is lunacy. To select instead people without the basic social skills and professionalism to gain respect from either adults or kids is, in my opinion, tantamount to dereliction of your professional responsibility.
My brother's fiancee has been in and out of hospital roughly 8 or 9 times this year. She's had a nurse refuse to bring her anything she can eat, a nurse refuse her pain relief (on the grounds that its too expensive) and overheard a group of nurses gossiping about her. All have roughly the same qualifications and experience as the nurses who took excellent care of my best friend's mum when she had her hernia op. The difference? Attitude. One group of nurses think like nurses and treat their patients as human beings. The other think of patients as inconvenient generic bundles of symptoms. One group were destined to enter a caring profession. The other would probably be better off working in the warehouse at Argos.
Last time you received bad service in a shop was it because the shop assistant didn't know how to use the till? Or was it because they would rather chat to their mate about their night out than tell you where the duvet section was?
All of these people - the terrible trainee teachers, the uncaring nurses, the dismissive shop assistants - passed a selection process to get their job. They all ticked the right boxes for qualifications and experience. They are right on paper. And they are all the wrong people for the job they do.
I'm not saying that we should start employing Nurses who don't know how to administer an i.v., or Teachers who don't know how to add up. I'm saying that there are some things you can train people to do: insert a catheter, long division, use a till. And there are some things that are inherent, that better be there from the beginning because they can't be taught: empathy, patience, thoughtfulness, resilience, professionalism.
Wouldn't we be better off selecting people with the inherent qualities needed to do a job the right way, and then teaching them the technical stuff? After all, medical science moves on. Shops bring in new product, subjects evolve. No amount of customer-awareness training will make those nurses treat patients like human beings. I'm not even sure a training course exists that will teach a wet-behind-the-ears student teacher not to call his boss 'mate'.
I think its a crying shame that the powers that be haven't cottoned on to this fact: Nurses and Teachers have to be people who are inherently right for the job. They must have the right attitude. Its one thing when Next employ a 'customer service advisor' with no concept of either customers or service. Its quite another when a Nurse or Teacher just aren't the right fit. The consequences can actually ruin lives.
Of course it takes skill to select for attitude, and it takes time and effort to then train for the right skills. Which is why so many organisations rely on box-ticking instead. But we deserve better from those who select our public service employees. We deserve people who recognise the qualities that are actually important in a job and do everything in their power to seek out those that have that quality in abundance, and root out the imposters who may be right on paper but are oh-so-wrong in practice.
Sunday 27 March 2011
Sunday 20 March 2011
What Would Hertzberg Do?
So, this is my first ever blog post. Some ninety-million years since the first blogger put finger to qwertyuiop here I am. Never let it be said that I'm an early adopter. (Apparently this is because I don't live in London; according to the tube posters 67% of thought leaders live in London. I always found my brain addled by the unnerving proximity of other people, the black snot and the endless commutes when I lived there. I guess that makes me a thought-follower and probably means if you're looking for a blog that will keep your finger on the zeitgeist this ain't it)
I am supposed to be revising Employee Reward. However, I have other things on my mind. Last night I was lucky enough to attend the flagship Theatre Uncut event at Southwark Playhouse - an international performance of short plays commentating on the Comprehensive Spending Review by some brilliant playwrights, performed rights-free by some brilliant actors and the brain child of the brilliant Hannah Price.
Hannah explains the birth of Theatre Uncut far better in her own blog for the Guardian so I won't go into detail here. Suffice to say that Hannah and her team of actors, producers, writers and stage managers looked exhausted yet energised last night. Which got me thinking about the concept of reward and motivation.
Hannah, like many of us, was outraged by the extent, severity and speed of the budget cuts. As she herself describes it, she set about a frenzy of emails, IMs and facebook posts venting her fury and rallying others. The result, less than six months later, is over 800 people from London to New York, Edinburgh to Berlin performing over a number of weeks in theatres, student unions, cafes, living rooms and public spaces. Pretty awe-inspiring stuff. Thousands of hours spent writing, rehearsing, promoting, editing, stage managing, debating and creating. Hundreds of people doing some work of incredible quality and commitment, in their spare time and without being paid a penny.
A concept that would make those that design the reward packages for most financial workers in the square mile spit out their starbucks in disbelief. Funny that. We're very often told by those who know far more about these things that we have to pay Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers all that money, or they won't work as hard or will go to Hong Kong instead, and the economy will grind to a halt without them. The same thing applies to footballers apparently.
Yes. Cash, in large enough sums, drives behaviour. Pat Zingheim, Jay Schuster and Roman Abramovich will tell you its the only way to drive performance.
So how does that explain Hannah and her army of volunteer actor-vists?
Well, according to a chap called Frederick Hertzberg, Hannah and co are the rule, not the exception. He would tell you that we aren't motivated by cash. We're motivated by achievement, by feeling we are doing something worthwhile, by working with like-minded people, by doing great things, by pushing boundaries. He's echoed by Prof. John Purcell who demonstrated this through research at Bath Business School, and by Dan Pink who has written numerous books and columns about the subject, and whose lecture on motivation has been turned into a brilliant piece of animation that sums this viewpoint up for me quite well.
Imagine we could bottle the creativity, productivity, collaboration, commitment and drive that the Theatre Uncut people have demonstrated. Its the holy grail for most big corporations. Its exactly what Messrs Cameron & Osborne are attempting to create in plebs like us so that they can get out of the pesky business of paying for geriatric wards, day care centres and swimming lessons and get back to flogging arms to Middle Eastern dictators.
Of course, Mr Hertzberg would also tell you that you need enough cash to fulfill your basic needs - that its a hygiene factor. That without it, you don't have the launch pad to drive the brilliant, awe-inspiring stuff for very long. Its the reason that Hannah will produce corporate films in her 9-5 rather than do Theatre Uncut full time, and why my husband won't be doing the job he loves for free after Mr Osborne and Mr Gove make him redundant later this year. Its the reason Caroline, in David Grieg's amazing "Fragile" had no answers for Jack when he asked why she wouldn't be his mental health worker in the future. Its the reason Big Society won't work.
And what about those Bankers I hear you ask... Cash motivates them doesn't it? It sure does. In a very crude and simple way: you get exactly what you pay for. No more, no less. The bonuses the banks paid their people encouraged them to do whatever it took to make more money. They weren't incentivising foresight, ethical investing, or long-term decisions. Just big bucks ASAP. So that's what we got. A chap I went to uni with, recently posted angrily on his facebook page that we should really be very grateful to those who work in the city - the taxes on their whopping big bonuses are keeping us in daycare centres, geriatric wards and playing fields apparently. Not entirely untrue. But what's also true is that the size of the financial rewards dangled in front of these financial workers also encouraged the risk taking and recklessness that has created this world-wide shit-fest. So I'll not be writing any Thank You cards any time soon.
Well, here's a mighty-fine mess: Footballers who'd rather play for their club than their country (and don't seem to do a particularly beautiful job of either) because the pay is better. Bankers who will gamble our future to rake in short-term, large-scale dividends. Thousands of passionate, dedicated, talented care-workers, sports development specialists, librarians, teachers and artists hamstrung and unable to do what they are passionate about, dedicated to and talented in, because "we can't afford it".
What's the answer? Its no coincidence for me that the play that least engaged my best friend's city-worker, right-leaning husband (he's a brave man and a good friend) last night was Anders Lustgarten's one-man rant against capitalism, "Fat Man". He found it combative and simplistic. I don't necessarily disagree. However, I know he was more moved by seeing his wife in floods of tears at the personal resonance of Clara Brennan's "Hi Vis", and by my emotional response to the brilliantly-captured dismissive arrogance of the Accountant in "Housekeeping" by Lucy Kirkwood. These plays highlighted the personal impact of political decisions. They amplified the absurdity of the sound-bite rationalisations spewed out by Coalition and media alike. They made people think and feel in equal measure.
In the loo after the performance I overheard a girl say to her friend "That's all very well, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do now". To her and to anyone else wondering the same thing I'd first say, "Oh don't be such a bloody bimbo". Then, I'd say, "Enter the debate. But do it with the aim of engaging and provoking thought. Do it in the way that Hannah and co did it last night - with passion, energy and positivity. Write to your MP, tweet about it, blog about it, facebook about it. March, if that's your thing. Or just discuss it down the pub". I'd also say, "What Would Hertzberg Do?". He'd say, "Make it interesting. Make it inspiring. Make it personal. Talk to people in their language, find a common passion."
We will win this debate by using the same weapons that have been used against us: emotion and personalisation. In the same way that Cameron & co worked so hard to demonise Gordon Brown, or to perpetuate the myth of "national economy = maxed out credit card", those who oppose their actions need to channel a little Clara Brennan or Lucy Kirkwood. Make it personal, make it emotive. Make it resonate with people and they will listen. Its the reason I fell in love with theatre and the reason I'm one week away from an exam on Employee Reward and am blogging about spending cuts instead.
I am supposed to be revising Employee Reward. However, I have other things on my mind. Last night I was lucky enough to attend the flagship Theatre Uncut event at Southwark Playhouse - an international performance of short plays commentating on the Comprehensive Spending Review by some brilliant playwrights, performed rights-free by some brilliant actors and the brain child of the brilliant Hannah Price.
Hannah explains the birth of Theatre Uncut far better in her own blog for the Guardian so I won't go into detail here. Suffice to say that Hannah and her team of actors, producers, writers and stage managers looked exhausted yet energised last night. Which got me thinking about the concept of reward and motivation.
Hannah, like many of us, was outraged by the extent, severity and speed of the budget cuts. As she herself describes it, she set about a frenzy of emails, IMs and facebook posts venting her fury and rallying others. The result, less than six months later, is over 800 people from London to New York, Edinburgh to Berlin performing over a number of weeks in theatres, student unions, cafes, living rooms and public spaces. Pretty awe-inspiring stuff. Thousands of hours spent writing, rehearsing, promoting, editing, stage managing, debating and creating. Hundreds of people doing some work of incredible quality and commitment, in their spare time and without being paid a penny.
A concept that would make those that design the reward packages for most financial workers in the square mile spit out their starbucks in disbelief. Funny that. We're very often told by those who know far more about these things that we have to pay Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers all that money, or they won't work as hard or will go to Hong Kong instead, and the economy will grind to a halt without them. The same thing applies to footballers apparently.
Yes. Cash, in large enough sums, drives behaviour. Pat Zingheim, Jay Schuster and Roman Abramovich will tell you its the only way to drive performance.
So how does that explain Hannah and her army of volunteer actor-vists?
Well, according to a chap called Frederick Hertzberg, Hannah and co are the rule, not the exception. He would tell you that we aren't motivated by cash. We're motivated by achievement, by feeling we are doing something worthwhile, by working with like-minded people, by doing great things, by pushing boundaries. He's echoed by Prof. John Purcell who demonstrated this through research at Bath Business School, and by Dan Pink who has written numerous books and columns about the subject, and whose lecture on motivation has been turned into a brilliant piece of animation that sums this viewpoint up for me quite well.
Imagine we could bottle the creativity, productivity, collaboration, commitment and drive that the Theatre Uncut people have demonstrated. Its the holy grail for most big corporations. Its exactly what Messrs Cameron & Osborne are attempting to create in plebs like us so that they can get out of the pesky business of paying for geriatric wards, day care centres and swimming lessons and get back to flogging arms to Middle Eastern dictators.
Of course, Mr Hertzberg would also tell you that you need enough cash to fulfill your basic needs - that its a hygiene factor. That without it, you don't have the launch pad to drive the brilliant, awe-inspiring stuff for very long. Its the reason that Hannah will produce corporate films in her 9-5 rather than do Theatre Uncut full time, and why my husband won't be doing the job he loves for free after Mr Osborne and Mr Gove make him redundant later this year. Its the reason Caroline, in David Grieg's amazing "Fragile" had no answers for Jack when he asked why she wouldn't be his mental health worker in the future. Its the reason Big Society won't work.
And what about those Bankers I hear you ask... Cash motivates them doesn't it? It sure does. In a very crude and simple way: you get exactly what you pay for. No more, no less. The bonuses the banks paid their people encouraged them to do whatever it took to make more money. They weren't incentivising foresight, ethical investing, or long-term decisions. Just big bucks ASAP. So that's what we got. A chap I went to uni with, recently posted angrily on his facebook page that we should really be very grateful to those who work in the city - the taxes on their whopping big bonuses are keeping us in daycare centres, geriatric wards and playing fields apparently. Not entirely untrue. But what's also true is that the size of the financial rewards dangled in front of these financial workers also encouraged the risk taking and recklessness that has created this world-wide shit-fest. So I'll not be writing any Thank You cards any time soon.
Well, here's a mighty-fine mess: Footballers who'd rather play for their club than their country (and don't seem to do a particularly beautiful job of either) because the pay is better. Bankers who will gamble our future to rake in short-term, large-scale dividends. Thousands of passionate, dedicated, talented care-workers, sports development specialists, librarians, teachers and artists hamstrung and unable to do what they are passionate about, dedicated to and talented in, because "we can't afford it".
What's the answer? Its no coincidence for me that the play that least engaged my best friend's city-worker, right-leaning husband (he's a brave man and a good friend) last night was Anders Lustgarten's one-man rant against capitalism, "Fat Man". He found it combative and simplistic. I don't necessarily disagree. However, I know he was more moved by seeing his wife in floods of tears at the personal resonance of Clara Brennan's "Hi Vis", and by my emotional response to the brilliantly-captured dismissive arrogance of the Accountant in "Housekeeping" by Lucy Kirkwood. These plays highlighted the personal impact of political decisions. They amplified the absurdity of the sound-bite rationalisations spewed out by Coalition and media alike. They made people think and feel in equal measure.
In the loo after the performance I overheard a girl say to her friend "That's all very well, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do now". To her and to anyone else wondering the same thing I'd first say, "Oh don't be such a bloody bimbo". Then, I'd say, "Enter the debate. But do it with the aim of engaging and provoking thought. Do it in the way that Hannah and co did it last night - with passion, energy and positivity. Write to your MP, tweet about it, blog about it, facebook about it. March, if that's your thing. Or just discuss it down the pub". I'd also say, "What Would Hertzberg Do?". He'd say, "Make it interesting. Make it inspiring. Make it personal. Talk to people in their language, find a common passion."
We will win this debate by using the same weapons that have been used against us: emotion and personalisation. In the same way that Cameron & co worked so hard to demonise Gordon Brown, or to perpetuate the myth of "national economy = maxed out credit card", those who oppose their actions need to channel a little Clara Brennan or Lucy Kirkwood. Make it personal, make it emotive. Make it resonate with people and they will listen. Its the reason I fell in love with theatre and the reason I'm one week away from an exam on Employee Reward and am blogging about spending cuts instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)