Turn Down the Light

Day 26 (Boxing Day - Saturday 26th December 2015)

26 bones in a typical adult human foot and ankle. We seldom appreciate the mechanical
complexity and strength of our feet. The ankle acts as a shock absorber -
a foot can sustain enormous pressure (several tonnes over the course of a 1-mile run).
One quarter of the bones in the human body are in our feet along with 33 joints
and over 100 muscles, tendons and ligaments.

Due to the quality and number of posts submitted this year, not all of which could appear prior to the 25th December, the series will continue until mid-January 2016 as a Post-Advent selection. 

I hope you are enjoying the festive break. Today is a good day for gentle relaxation and contemplation and I am sure that reading today's blog will hit the spot... It is a candid post by Gary Cookson. Gary is an experienced HR and Organisational Development (OD) specialist based in Cheshire to the north of England. He has touched many people's lives for the better. He has held various corporate roles in HR and OD and has managed to fit in some independent work alongside these over the past few years. He is changing his full-time role shortly (more of that below). Gary is a keen sportsman (including participating in triathlons, dancing and amateur wrestling) and a devoted dad. Gary is a natural networker and active on social media - his Twitter handle is @Gary_Cookson. He is also a prolific blogger - you can read his posts on his blog, HR Triathlete or catch many of them on LinkedIn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've thought long and hard about what to write in response to the advent theme of comet tails and coal dust. I wanted to make this post personal, but also relevant to those reading it. I've been inspired by reading some of the earlier posts and these have given me the idea to talk about my own experiences in job interviews this year.

Prior to this year I hadn't had one job interview for about five or six years. This year I've had five or six in the one year. And I've learnt as I've gone along, as one should, and the story has a happy ending because I've been offered and accepted another role in a really good organisation which I will start in February.

Lots has happened to me this year and the role which I started the year in disappeared, but I was given the chance to apply for other roles in the organisation. At the same time I became aware of a number of other similar roles coming available at other organisations.  And I applied for them all.

My approach was to try my hardest, and to prepare thoroughly for the processes. I figured there were one or two roles, and one or two companies, I really wanted to work for.

I rehearsed answers to likely interview questions.  I read dozens of books.  I practiced my presentations tens of times.  I looked up my interviewers on LinkedIn and Twitter, and imagined what kind of person they wanted me to be. I even tried adopting some behaviours I wouldn't normally in order to totally blow away the interviewers.

And in all applications this was enough to get me comfortably through the first stage, and sometimes the second stage, of the process. In the majority of the processes I got down to the final two.

Down to the last 2

I imagined at these points that my interviewers were so dazzled by my stardust (comet tail) that I'd be bound to be offered the job. I really did try ultra hard to impress people and brought what I thought was my A-game to each interview.

It didn't work. And in hindsight, I don't think I was being myself, the real me, in each of the interviews.  Ultimately, the interviewers saw something, saw someone, that wasn't 100% real. And they didn't give me the job.

And then last month I saw a job advertised that looked good, at an organisation that looked good. But I'd done some thinking of my own and had decided that I might not go for it, that I might tread a different path and look at self employment. I'd blaze my comet tail solo.

But something made me apply, but only half heartedly. I didn't put even half the effort in to this application that I did for the jobs earlier in the year. I wasn't bothered if I didn't get an interview.

I got an interview.

I didn't prepare much for it. I thought I'll just play it by ear and see what happens, and if I don't get through to the second stage then I'm not too bothered.

I got through to the second stage.

I had a task to prepare for, and decided not to prepare for it, but to simply turn up and be myself, and think on my feet and see what happened. I didn't think I'd blow them away with this strategy, and I hadn't stalked my interviewers on social media beforehand. I was me in that interview, relaxed, argumentative, sarcastic at times and not at all trying to get through to the third stage, just trying to approach it how I would in a real work situation. Showing my coal dust.

And I got through to the third stage. And did exactly the same, not expecting the job to be offered and feeling OK about that. I wasn't desperate and wasn't out to impress anyone or make them think I was someone I'm not.

And the job was offered to me.

I was blown away, but both pleased and flattered. And after working my notice, I'll be starting with the new organisation in February. I'm excited and I'll talk more about it on my own blog I'm sure.

But this advent series has made me reflect on who I've been this year.

I've tried to shine. I've tried to blaze. I've tried to outperform everyone, including myself.  And that hasn't worked. I've tried too hard, and got nowhere better than second place.

My comet tail wasn't as brilliant or as illuminatingly attractive as I thought it was. In the early half of the year I experienced more failure because of this approach than I ever thought possible.

And maybe failure is what shapes people. Maybe rolling oneself in coal dust and taking the shine off oneself is what is needed. Maybe one can shine brighter by turning down the light.

Here's to 2016 and being more natural.

It's in your hands

In For a Penny, In For a Pound

Day 5 (Saturday 5th December 2015)

5 ingredients are required for a traditional Punch:
spirits, water, sugar, lemon juice, and spice
The word Punch comes from the Hindi word for 5

Today's piece has been contributed by Alice Frame a Learning and Business Development Consultant at TMS Development. It is a brave post that has dark coal dust and the slight gleam of a comet's tail as she shows us all the way to be open, honest and self-aware. Prior to moving into Learning and Development, Alice was a senior manager within the clinical trials arena, running teams in Europe and Asia. She commenced working in the area as a technician whilst studying part-time for her Masters in English. Alice is interested in positive psychology and nurturing happiness in the workplace. You can follow her in Twitter at @AliceLsAndDs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would You Hire Someone With Depression?

Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.

— Albert Camus

I found this blog post incredibly hard to write and that was partly due to being unsure as to whether or not I should write it at all. I’ve been debating writing a blog about depression and the workplace for a while now but when I’ve shared these thoughts with friends, some have felt it could be a potentially career limiting move – hence the title.

Full disclosure: I returned to work recently after 6 weeks off with depression. One of my biggest concerns about coming back to work was what excuse I was going to give my colleagues for being off work sick. Ultimately I was debating as to whether or not I should pretend I’m not depressed. In the end I decided to come clean and in the spirit of “in for a penny, in for a pound” I also decided to write this blog.

So, would you hire someone with depression? Would you be put off or concerned? It is true that we’re now better informed about mental illness in the workplace than ever before but for many people, they still choose to keep it hidden and instead explain their absences with fictional physical maladies. I also can’t help but think that some industries and professions are much more supportive of mental illness than others; has your experience been the same?

Lenny Henry has said this about how his depression has affected his life: “[t]hat’s where depression hits you most – your home life. It doesn’t affect your work.” Until about 7 weeks ago I would have agreed with Lenny, as it was seemingly easy enough to play a part 9am to 5pm everyday, but it wears, those 8 hours at work make 5pm feel like 2am and there’s nothing to do but go to bed. How depression affects your relationships and home life is for a different blog.

I’ve been suffering from depression for about a year or so now, induced by chronic pain from a back injury from playing netball (I’ve had 3 prolapsed discs for around 4 years now), and so I’ve never had the dilemma of asking myself – should I disclose my mental illness to a prospective employer, or not? What do you all think? Would you disclose it in an interview or application form? As Sarah Lancashire has said, “It’s a cruel illness, because you can’t see it and you can hide it so well.”

I’ve always been proud of never having had long-term sick leave despite my chronic pain but I can’t say that anymore, 6 weeks is a long time. Would I judge myself so harshly if I had been off for 6 weeks with broken legs? Probably not.

In hindsight, had I been more proactive in verbalising my situation to my boss and my colleagues, and explaining how difficult I was starting to find summoning the “energy to merely be normal” I could’ve perhaps prevented some of what followed over the next couple of months. I think when you’re ambitious, motivated and high performing, it is really hard to talk to people about your limitations.

Despite this period of darkness, now that I’m back at work I’m still determined to be high performing, to deliver a quality service to my clients and to try and contribute positively to the workplace. I’m not saying I’m fine now, but for those of you out there, reading this blog and worrying about dealing with your depression and maintaining your career, I do wholeheartedly believe that we can achieve our goals and be successful.You’re not alone; according to the charity Mind, 1 in 4 people in the UK will experience a mental health problem each year. Take comfort in the knowledge that some of the greatest minds and stars have suffered as we do and yet achieved greatness (this is also where I got the inspiration for the somewhat tongue-in-cheek Hemingway quote) – to name but a few: Stephen Fry, Buzz Aldrin, Abraham Lincoln, and many more. Take heart, keep going.

I found this comment by JK Rowling in an interview with USA Today back in 2008 to be particularly comforting:

"I have never been remotely ashamed of having been depressed. Never. What’s to be ashamed of? I went through a really rough time and I am quite proud that I got out of that."

I hope that in the future, learning that a potential candidate suffers from depression would not put you off hiring them.

As always, I would love to hear your thoughts and your experiences.

Reflected Brilliance and Volatility

Day 4 (Friday 4th December 2015)

4 is the smallest number of colours sufficient to shade the countries on a planar map.
In 1852 Francis Guthrie guessed that the answer is 4 for any map, no matter what shape the countries take.
This concept was only claimed to be proved in 1976 by Wolfgang Haken and Kenneth Appel, but their proof is so 
complicated, involving significant computing calculations, so it has been almost impossible to check.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mark Husband, the Managing Director of specialist Legal headhunters, Cogence Search. You can follow Cogence on Twitter or indeed Mark himself via @MarkHusband. I first met Mark when I was HR Director for an eminent international law firm - he and his team worked with us to achieve some significant lateral hires. Mark is a former litigator and has a genuine passion for the legal sector, as well as his business. Mark's Advent post is candid and, unlike many senior executives working in recruitment, he is prepared to own up to and learn from his mistakes. I am delighted to welcome him as a contributor and hope that he will become a regular blogger.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recruitment at every level is a gamble; as in all games of chance the odds are immutable - there is only so much that one can do to mitigate the chance of a loss. People are generally what they seem to be so, as employers and recruiters, we win far more often than we lose.

Cogence Search have been responsible for a host of successful client hires and we have hired lots of great people ourselves, but, in our market, as much as in any other, success has several fathers and failure is an orphan. 

We all love to talk about our successes but our silence in relation to failures serves no one – least of all ourselves, so I would like to talk about a client hire we supported which did not work out and a hire of our own which was a spectacular failure.

Client Hire – Comet Tail

This person’s CV could not have been better – they had led large corporate practices as a partner in some of the largest firms in the world, their client base was well established, they were genial, a team player and an absolute fit for our client. Six rounds of interviews – innumerable internal discussions and an extremely detailed analysis of the person’s business case were conducted over many months. Our client is a very cautious firm and pre-offer invested in an external non-competing agency to undertake an exhaustive referencing process.

The references were all glowing; nobody had a negative thing to say and where client comfort was sought it was given: the hire proceeded.

Their apparent brilliance was an illusion created by the radiance of the firms they had been part of, absent that they were nothing.

This person was a Comet Tail, a dazzling cloud of ice crystals – ultimately nothing but frozen water made temporarily spectacular by the glow of a nearby star.

Comet Lovejoy near the Pleiades star cluster

Their employment lasted 18 months.

Appearances can be deceptive

Our Hire – Coal Dust

Some time ago we were approached through a recruiter to the recruitment sector with a request that we consider a lateral with a fabulous track record – extraordinary personal billings and exceptional sector experience. Like our clients we went through an exhaustive interview process – we looked at past transactions and gained references. We liked the person, believed in them and invested heavily in them and their future.

As we got to know them through their work we found disturbing inconsistencies: they were by no means as capable as their history would suggest; they were commercially naïve when acumen was advertised and had the emotional maturity of a toddler despite their chronological age.

We found our new colleague could spend inordinate amounts of time doing little followed by absurd bouts of sulking, temper tantrums and attention-seeking behaviour of extraordinary proportions.

This person was Coal Dust: an inert mass capable of doing nothing indefinitely, followed by spontaneous combustion or sudden explosion.

Their employment lasted 18 months.

Coal dust explosion

The temptation when these things happen is to cast about for blame – to look at hiring procedures, to apply 20/20 hindsight or search frantically for people to blame. The truth is that it is very unlikely anything could have been done to prevent an errant hire – unfortunately people do not come with warning labels and once in a while we all suffer the consequences: all that glisters is not gold but not all that is rotten comes with wavy “stink lines” warning of its nature.

Knowing when things have gone wrong and acting quickly to fix them is the only way to beat the bookies. Perhaps the fear of blame, in these circumstances, causes us to delay admitting to ourselves that we have made a bad hire.

May the odds be forever in your favour.

My favourite tattoo

Watching for Eagles

“Instead of this absurd division into sexes they ought to class people as static and dynamic.” Evelyn Waugh, Decline and Fall (1928)

Although written for comic effect, there is more than a grain of truth in Evelyn Waugh’s proposed classification of the sexes. 

A study, triggered by the UK’s financial services industry’s regulatory body’s requirement to assess risk tolerance in investors, has demonstrated that there is a profound difference in male and female approaches and attitudes to risk. Geoff Trickey and So Yi Yeung, of the Psychological Consultancy Limited, published the research in 2012. They had assessed a group of 2,000 men and women in 20 different fields of work worldwide and found that the gap between men and women when it comes to taking risks, was “unexpected in its magnitude’. They concluded that this difference is genetic in origin and would have been a crucial contributor to the success and survival of our species. Women were found to be more than twice as likely to be cautious and prudent, whilst men are prone to being adventurous and carefree.

I was discussing this very factor with three members of my team earlier this week and both Pav and Alice told me I should blog about it. We were considering the annual performance appraisal process and looking at the variations in ratings. Throughout my career, I have often found that women tend to rate themselves lower than men in their self-appraisals. I admit that this is a sweeping generalisation, but it has seemed to be a common occurrence wherever I have been employed - and I have been a senior HR leader, with access to the data, in Financial Services, Professional Services and Technology organisations. I commented to my colleagues that I suspected this difference comes down to genetics and is deep rooted in hindbrain responses. The hindbrain or rhombencephalon evolved more than 500 million years ago. It resembles the brain of a modern reptile and is responsible for many of our automatic reflexes such as the control of breathing, heart rate, digestion, movement and sense perception. In prehistoric times women were most probably responsible for looking after the children and were based in land close to the home-base, perhaps tending crops and preparing food and necessities for the tribe’s survival – they would have spent much of their time on the look out for danger (“watching for eagles”).

 NB above video is a fake 

In contrast, men in early times were responsible for hunting and feeding the tribe – we know this from numerous cave illustrations from around the world. By necessity men needed a greater appetite for risk and adventure than the women, to help them cope with the dangers and stress of hunting wild animals armed with only sticks and stones. If you are off to get a mammoth or rhino for supper you need a degree of chutzpah.

Mammoth from Rouffignac, France. Painted circa 13,000 years ago

Women remain more cautious than men, or so it appears from a study undertaken by the Pew Research Centre in 2012 that found that, when using social media, women are careful about setting privacy settings (restricting access to their profiles to close circles and deleting people from their networks) whereas over ¼ of the men in the study chose the most public settings for their profiles and also expressed a higher rate of regrets for posts they had made or shared. Similar findings have also been espoused in relation to job applications – most notably the Hewlett Packard report that appeared to indicate that men apply for a job when they meet 60% of the required qualifications and criteria, but women apply only if they meet 100% (as quoted in Lean In, The Confidence Code). Subsequent research has shown that these statistics are misleading, as they are not based on women’s lack of confidence but rather on a desire not to waste anyone’s time and hence perhaps a misconception of the hiring process – most job descriptions are an ideal for the role and allowances are often made for people who need to “grow into the role”. Clearly more women need to become aware of this.

Part of women’s outlook may be historical, based on their experience once large numbers started entering the workforce. Economic necessity, especially during the downturn of the 1970s, often resulted in both husbands and wives taking on employment to cover household expenses. However the work available to women was usually administrative or clerical as few had professional qualifications. I remember in the early 80’s being advised that I should aspire to becoming a secretary, nurse, teacher or shepherdess – all admirable roles but perhaps not ones that would fully utilise my law degree. My paternal grandmother (one of the brightest women I have known) told me that she was “banned from taking a degree” by her family, who saw further education for women as no more than an unnecessary extravagance. It was not until late in the 20^th century that women started breaking into the professional workspace and their jobs were attained through the qualifications that had attained. It is possible that bias still remains in some workplaces and hence women need to meet the criteria for a role more closely than their male counterparts – this was demonstrated in a McKinsey report that concluded that men are often hired or promoted for their potential, whereas women were selected due to their experience and track record.

According to social-cognitive theory, most performance raters have difficulty overcoming their ingrained stereotypes in relation to how they perceive men and women; it is probable that preconceptions encourage many of us to apply certain behaviours and characteristics to others we work with. For example Del Boca and Ashmore’s research in the1980s demonstrated that (in Western cultures) stereotypical male characteristics include competence, rationality and assertion; whereas female characteristics include warmth and expressiveness – this results in the risk of women being seen as

“Nice but incompetent, the typical man as competent but maybe not so nice.” (Susan Fiske, 1998) 

St George and the Dragon by Paolo Uccello
Here is one of my favourite poems inspired by this picture

In their 2002 paper, Cara Bauer and Boris Baltes make some proposals on how best to go about reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on performance evaluations - they propose that although “women who are evaluated by raters with traditional stereotypes may receive less positive outcomes than their true performance dictates” this can be overcome by a “structured free recall” (meaning that “raters are instructed to recall behaviours that they have observed and to rely on these observations when completing the rating”). I must confess to being a bit un-nerved by this. Most employees and managers complain about the annual performance management process – in particular the length and time required to complete an appraisal. A structured approach usually requires formal questions being answered and then the responses being used to support a decision – this can mean adding an extra step to the process. Rather than doing this I would hope that sufficiently informed and trained raters would know to rely on specific evidence and incidents that had occurred during the past year rather than just writing how they feel about a person.

Using evidence based decisions to hit the target

Regrettably, this is not the case in all organisations. According to an article in Fortune published in August 2014 the approach and words used towards men and women in appraisals differs. The research into the words used in the documentation of 248 appraisal reviews (from 180 people, 105 men and 75 women), within a number of technology businesses certainly provides food for thought – women tend to be given critical, personal feedback more often than men (negative personal observations were made in 2 out of 83 critical reviews received by men in the sample, but adverse personal comments were included in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women). The use of particular words seems to be common when criticising women – namely “Abrasive”, “Bossy”, “Strident” and “Aggressive” in relation to their leadership style and “Emotional” and “Irrational” for the manner in which they raise objections. Of these words, only “Aggressive” was applied to men and of the three instances recorded two were seeking to encourage the individual to be more aggressive. This also seems to hark back to stereotypical responses grounded in our hindbrain reaction. 

To create the world of the future, we need to rise above being reptilian. Perhaps that is the most important reminder we need, to help each of us avoid being biased when assessing others.

Right…I’m now off to prepare mammoth steaks for the family’s lunch – can you keep an eye out for the eagles?