I was rubbish at languages when I was at school. When I had the opportunity for a year abroad, I chose somewhere where I could become competent in their language within a year - which is how I ended up living in Bogota, Colombia. I think I achieved my aim, as by the time I left I would be dreaming in Spanish. I love the language, its turn of phrase and its fluidity.
Having this second language is useful. On this last holiday I used it when we arrived: I spoke to our taxi driver in Spanish to make sure he didn't fleece us. As we got to the hotel he told me it was closed! He then explained it was part of a chain. He drove us to the next hotel and I asked him to wait with hubbie and kids in the car. I spoke "extremely fluent" spanish to the receptionist who was able to explain our booking had moved to another hotel. I was also able to translate what has happening to a pair of Russian girls in the same circumstances. Being able to do this made a stressful situation less stressful.
In previous years my spanish was particularly useful when we got stranded at a local tourist site in the middle of Cuba. I was able to hitch a lift off some local lads. In Seville, I managed to negotiate a cot for our hotel room which somehow had been "lost" from our hotel booking. In Malaga, I got away with a major "scratch" on my hire car when I returned it to the rental place at the airport.
However, what I love most of all about speaking spanish is that I'm a role model for my daughter. Whilst trying to reclaim one of my son's baby spoons which had been cleared away accidentally by the waiters in our hotel (una cucharada blanca por un bebe con una pollito amarillo), my daughter kept saying to me "Mummy - you're speaking Dora". It wasn't particularly helpful at the time, but she made me realise how important it was that I could "speak Dora".
I then noticed that my daughter had started to seek out situations with the hotel maids to say "Hola!" She was frequently disappointed when they didn't hear her, or they were already engaged in conversation with someone else. And now, back home, she keeps singing a spanish song that they played every night at the Mini-Disco.
Following on from the holiday, I'm feel ecouraged to maintain my daughter's motivation. I have overcome my challenges as a teenager and I feel confident speaking another language. I want to support and develop both my children so that they are able to speak a second language with ease. Not only is is practical, but it's empowering.
Friday 30 October 2009
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Managing Relationships at Work
There's been some debate recently in the Guardian newspaper about "How to be a Good Leader and Develop Relationships at Work". I thought I'd use this week's blog to outline my thoughts on this.
For me, it's about developing a connection with the other person, and doing this before an issue arises - whether it be an issue relating to performance, or as a result of organisational change.
For example, I managed one member of staff with whom I had nothing in common, with the exception that we both loved "Big Brother". So every summer, we would catch up every day to talk about the activities and highlights in the house the day before. For 8 - 12 weeks (depending on the length of the series) each year we connected for five minutes each day. For the rest of the year, we didn't have anything to talk about. Occaisionally we discussed the lastest news we'd heard, and once she asked if she could take a career break if she was successful in becoming a house-mate. But in essence, this connection meant that we had a relationship.
Having an avid interest in "Big Brother" meant that:
a) we both had something to say on the topic - so it wasn't a one sided conversation;
b) that we wanted to hear to each other's point of view: we showed respect and "actively listened";
c) we were able to enter into friendly debates - as the subject matter was neutral. The debates were animated, but in a healthy and mature way.
In essence, by choosing a neutral topic that we were both passionate about meant that we were able to develop our relationship. We didn't have a superficial relationship, we had a relationship that was able to withstand vivicious and lively interactions.
A few years later, this member of staff's health started to suffer. It was easier for me to manage this situation due to the relationship we had developed. She knew that I would listen to her, that I was being sincere, or that I was telling her a key piece of information that she needed to consider. She knew this as she had seen me communicate with her in this way before and could trust her gut reactions to my messages.
Trying to develop a relationship once there are already signs that it has broken down is so much harder. The individual will not be able to effectively decode your body language or facial expressions as they have no past history with which to compare this data. They feel in their gut mistrust, anxiety or doubt and they have no reference point by which to know whether or not these are the appropriate feelings to have. I would still urge leaders / managers in these situations to continue to build or restore the relationship, but be aware that it will take much longer to reach a place where there is mutual trust and respect.
Every day at work try and "touch base" with every member of your team. Start off with a simple "hello"; asking how they are and what they've been up to. Before long, you will both discover something that you have in common. Use this to develop a special connection between you and your member of staff. Developing a relationship with your staff should be this easy.
For me, it's about developing a connection with the other person, and doing this before an issue arises - whether it be an issue relating to performance, or as a result of organisational change.
For example, I managed one member of staff with whom I had nothing in common, with the exception that we both loved "Big Brother". So every summer, we would catch up every day to talk about the activities and highlights in the house the day before. For 8 - 12 weeks (depending on the length of the series) each year we connected for five minutes each day. For the rest of the year, we didn't have anything to talk about. Occaisionally we discussed the lastest news we'd heard, and once she asked if she could take a career break if she was successful in becoming a house-mate. But in essence, this connection meant that we had a relationship.
Having an avid interest in "Big Brother" meant that:
a) we both had something to say on the topic - so it wasn't a one sided conversation;
b) that we wanted to hear to each other's point of view: we showed respect and "actively listened";
c) we were able to enter into friendly debates - as the subject matter was neutral. The debates were animated, but in a healthy and mature way.
In essence, by choosing a neutral topic that we were both passionate about meant that we were able to develop our relationship. We didn't have a superficial relationship, we had a relationship that was able to withstand vivicious and lively interactions.
A few years later, this member of staff's health started to suffer. It was easier for me to manage this situation due to the relationship we had developed. She knew that I would listen to her, that I was being sincere, or that I was telling her a key piece of information that she needed to consider. She knew this as she had seen me communicate with her in this way before and could trust her gut reactions to my messages.
Trying to develop a relationship once there are already signs that it has broken down is so much harder. The individual will not be able to effectively decode your body language or facial expressions as they have no past history with which to compare this data. They feel in their gut mistrust, anxiety or doubt and they have no reference point by which to know whether or not these are the appropriate feelings to have. I would still urge leaders / managers in these situations to continue to build or restore the relationship, but be aware that it will take much longer to reach a place where there is mutual trust and respect.
Every day at work try and "touch base" with every member of your team. Start off with a simple "hello"; asking how they are and what they've been up to. Before long, you will both discover something that you have in common. Use this to develop a special connection between you and your member of staff. Developing a relationship with your staff should be this easy.
Friday 23 October 2009
Does your job role affect the way you think?
I have recently completed the delivery of a two-day management development programme across two NHS Trusts. The key theme ran through-out the course that I had not previously encountered despite having worked in or with the NHS for the last 10 years: the participants responded differently to the different exercises depending on the type of role they undertook.
The programme was jointly commissioned by two Trusts, but attendance was not mixed. Therefore, one programme had participants who held commissioning, public health or finance roles; the other programme was attended by staff who undertook clinical duties but also were expected to undertake a managerial / leadership role within their designated clinical area.
Commissioners are expected to analyse data, consider the details, ensure that they have the full range of facts in the context of the bigger picture before making any decisions. Clinicians generally see issues at face value. In other words, they call a spade "a spade", whilst commissioners will call it "a rectangle flat metal sheet attached to wooden pole whilst enables a worker to dig."
When we came to do some case studies, the reactions from the two types of participants differed. For example: one of the first questions to a case study was "Where does this behaviour take place?". The clinicians easily responded "The ward". The comissioners usually asked "There's not enough information in this case study" or "What does this question mean? Can you explain it more fully?" We adapted how we introduced each exercise to ensure that the participants understood each activity and the questions.
But this has led me to reflect on the issue of does a job role affect the way that an individual thinks? I think that there are three possible conclusions that I can draw:
1) Research has shown that a manager is mostly likely to recruit a member of staff who is similar to them;
2) Certain role roles attract candidates who enjoy using a particular set of skills and abilities
3) MBTI research has shown that certain jobs and organisational cultures make individuals think or behave in a particular way;
These different conclusions can be explained using MBTI types:
A commissioner is more likely to be an INTJ: they look for the bigger picture, are objective and organised. They rely on their thought-processes to analyse issues before determinig what the preferable outcome should be. A Director of Commissioning usually displays these traits and is most likely to recruit similar minded individuals to their team; A junior commissioner is drawn to this role as they enjoy a job where there is analytical data, they can challenge in an objective manner and use their decision-making skills. This junior commissioner who is recruited is an ISTJ: they focus on the detail. As they grow as a commissioner they are encouraged through their 1:1s, appraisals and personal development plan to develop an ability to see the bigger picture and it is highly likely that their MBTI type will change to INTJ.
I have already shared some of my observations from this management development programme with some fellow trainers also working with the NHS: Not only does a job role affect the way that a manager thinks, it also impacts on the successful delivery of any development intervention. So, when next preparing for workshop, bear in mind not only the content of the course to ensure it's applicable to the audience, but how their role role affects the way the participants think and adapt the exercises accordingly.
The programme was jointly commissioned by two Trusts, but attendance was not mixed. Therefore, one programme had participants who held commissioning, public health or finance roles; the other programme was attended by staff who undertook clinical duties but also were expected to undertake a managerial / leadership role within their designated clinical area.
Commissioners are expected to analyse data, consider the details, ensure that they have the full range of facts in the context of the bigger picture before making any decisions. Clinicians generally see issues at face value. In other words, they call a spade "a spade", whilst commissioners will call it "a rectangle flat metal sheet attached to wooden pole whilst enables a worker to dig."
When we came to do some case studies, the reactions from the two types of participants differed. For example: one of the first questions to a case study was "Where does this behaviour take place?". The clinicians easily responded "The ward". The comissioners usually asked "There's not enough information in this case study" or "What does this question mean? Can you explain it more fully?" We adapted how we introduced each exercise to ensure that the participants understood each activity and the questions.
But this has led me to reflect on the issue of does a job role affect the way that an individual thinks? I think that there are three possible conclusions that I can draw:
1) Research has shown that a manager is mostly likely to recruit a member of staff who is similar to them;
2) Certain role roles attract candidates who enjoy using a particular set of skills and abilities
3) MBTI research has shown that certain jobs and organisational cultures make individuals think or behave in a particular way;
These different conclusions can be explained using MBTI types:
A commissioner is more likely to be an INTJ: they look for the bigger picture, are objective and organised. They rely on their thought-processes to analyse issues before determinig what the preferable outcome should be. A Director of Commissioning usually displays these traits and is most likely to recruit similar minded individuals to their team; A junior commissioner is drawn to this role as they enjoy a job where there is analytical data, they can challenge in an objective manner and use their decision-making skills. This junior commissioner who is recruited is an ISTJ: they focus on the detail. As they grow as a commissioner they are encouraged through their 1:1s, appraisals and personal development plan to develop an ability to see the bigger picture and it is highly likely that their MBTI type will change to INTJ.
I have already shared some of my observations from this management development programme with some fellow trainers also working with the NHS: Not only does a job role affect the way that a manager thinks, it also impacts on the successful delivery of any development intervention. So, when next preparing for workshop, bear in mind not only the content of the course to ensure it's applicable to the audience, but how their role role affects the way the participants think and adapt the exercises accordingly.
Tuesday 20 October 2009
When the Feedback Sandwich becomes Cheese-on-Toast
The Feedback Sandwich is one of the most recognised models for giving feedback. For those who aren't familiar with this model, it's a way to highlight an area of performance or behaviour where an individual needs to improve. The "developmental" feedback is presented in the following way:
1) Commence with giving feedback that is positive, complimentary and affirmative about the individual
2) Present a piece of developmental feedback (otherwise known as constructive criticism)
3) Finish with another piece of positive feedback.
I often present this model to junior managers as part of a "Giving Feedback 101" module. But I have often felt that this model is outdated and isn't particularly successful in leading to behavioural change in the person concerned. I have used this model myself when I have been faced with a particularly challenging situation where there's little positive feedback that I can spontaneously and naturally give to an employee. The feedback sandwich forces me to stop and think about the positive elements that this member of staff has brought to the team and their work. It has enabled me to ensure that the member of staff knows that I do value them and their contribution and that I want them to improve.
More recently, I have been exploring the subject of feedback in more depth. I have found it interesting to learn that Nancy Kline in her book "Time to Think" supports the feedback sandwich. But only in the right context.
Fundamental to giving feedback (positive or negative) are three key elements:
1) Good interpersonal skills and a rapport / relationship with the individual
2) Crediblity - both as a giver of feedback and the actual content of the feedback itself.
3) Objectivity.
There are also two other factors that impact on the success of giving feedback: The time that the feedback is received and how the recipient reacts. Feedback is always received subjectively. An individual's reaction will depend on their level of self-esteem and belief in their own capabilities.
Most of us “want” feedback, whether we act on it is a different matter. People like receiving feedback, but there's no link between positive feedback equating to better performance. Equally, there's no link between criticism and worsening performance.
For feedback to have an impact, it needs to be linked to a goal. The reason for this is that feedback is viewed by the recipient as data, whereas a goal is something that can motivate and inspire the individual. Givers of feedback cannot rely on feedback alone to motivate behavioural change. Giving the feedback in the context of a SMART goal will empower the individual to make the necessary behaviour change and ultimately lead to greater performance.
So, my thinking has changed on this subject. In my "Giving Feedback 101" module, I will no longer be teaching the Feedback Sandwich, I will be teaching the Cheese on Toast model: Give feedback using the key elements of good interpersonal skills, credibility, objectivity and in the context of a defined goal.
1) Commence with giving feedback that is positive, complimentary and affirmative about the individual
2) Present a piece of developmental feedback (otherwise known as constructive criticism)
3) Finish with another piece of positive feedback.
I often present this model to junior managers as part of a "Giving Feedback 101" module. But I have often felt that this model is outdated and isn't particularly successful in leading to behavioural change in the person concerned. I have used this model myself when I have been faced with a particularly challenging situation where there's little positive feedback that I can spontaneously and naturally give to an employee. The feedback sandwich forces me to stop and think about the positive elements that this member of staff has brought to the team and their work. It has enabled me to ensure that the member of staff knows that I do value them and their contribution and that I want them to improve.
More recently, I have been exploring the subject of feedback in more depth. I have found it interesting to learn that Nancy Kline in her book "Time to Think" supports the feedback sandwich. But only in the right context.
Fundamental to giving feedback (positive or negative) are three key elements:
1) Good interpersonal skills and a rapport / relationship with the individual
2) Crediblity - both as a giver of feedback and the actual content of the feedback itself.
3) Objectivity.
There are also two other factors that impact on the success of giving feedback: The time that the feedback is received and how the recipient reacts. Feedback is always received subjectively. An individual's reaction will depend on their level of self-esteem and belief in their own capabilities.
Most of us “want” feedback, whether we act on it is a different matter. People like receiving feedback, but there's no link between positive feedback equating to better performance. Equally, there's no link between criticism and worsening performance.
For feedback to have an impact, it needs to be linked to a goal. The reason for this is that feedback is viewed by the recipient as data, whereas a goal is something that can motivate and inspire the individual. Givers of feedback cannot rely on feedback alone to motivate behavioural change. Giving the feedback in the context of a SMART goal will empower the individual to make the necessary behaviour change and ultimately lead to greater performance.
So, my thinking has changed on this subject. In my "Giving Feedback 101" module, I will no longer be teaching the Feedback Sandwich, I will be teaching the Cheese on Toast model: Give feedback using the key elements of good interpersonal skills, credibility, objectivity and in the context of a defined goal.
Friday 16 October 2009
Shall we get rid of the TV?
I have just come back from a week of late “Summer Sun”. We had a lovely time, lots of r & r and the kids enjoyed playing on the beach and in the pool at the hotel.
Towards the end of the holiday, my husband and I reflected on the fact that we seemed to be going to bed quite early each night and having at least 8 hours sleep. As a result we were feeling that the break had truly recharged our batteries.
So what’s stopping us from adopting these habits when returned home? Our first reaction to this question was that most nights we stayed up watching TV. My hubbie posed the question “Are we addicted to the TV?”. I then boldly suggested “Should we get rid of the TV?”
But before we leapt to any further drastic (!) conclusions, we spent some time analysing what we did most evenings. There are two key things that my husband and I have in common: 1) Food; 2) A love for Great American Drama (Fringe, Surface, Without a Trace, Lost, TrueBlood, Lie to Me, Brothers and Sisters, CSI and CSI NY, Bones......etc) which are religiously recorded on our Sky+ Boxes.
At home each night we usually have about two hours together. In that time, I cook a meal from scratch, we discuss the news from the working day, any gossip from our friends and family and then indulge in one of our favourite past-times: the GAD.
We realised that when we were on holiday all our food was prepared for us; we weren’t in constant contact with friends and family so had little news to share, and we didn’t have the frustrations & challenges of the working day to debate. Instead we had 14 hours every day for a whole week to enjoy each other’s presence – not two precious hours. On holiday, we didn’t have to stay up late just to grab some time together. And that's why I love holidays - spending time with the ones I love the most and the opportunity to reflect on life in general.
So now we’re back home and soon the holiday will fade away into a fond memory with some lovely pictures of the kids on the beach. Meanwhile, tonight we’re back to home cooked food & two Sky+ boxes full of GAD to watch. Which one will it be? .......think it’ll have to be In Treatment.
Towards the end of the holiday, my husband and I reflected on the fact that we seemed to be going to bed quite early each night and having at least 8 hours sleep. As a result we were feeling that the break had truly recharged our batteries.
So what’s stopping us from adopting these habits when returned home? Our first reaction to this question was that most nights we stayed up watching TV. My hubbie posed the question “Are we addicted to the TV?”. I then boldly suggested “Should we get rid of the TV?”
But before we leapt to any further drastic (!) conclusions, we spent some time analysing what we did most evenings. There are two key things that my husband and I have in common: 1) Food; 2) A love for Great American Drama (Fringe, Surface, Without a Trace, Lost, TrueBlood, Lie to Me, Brothers and Sisters, CSI and CSI NY, Bones......etc) which are religiously recorded on our Sky+ Boxes.
At home each night we usually have about two hours together. In that time, I cook a meal from scratch, we discuss the news from the working day, any gossip from our friends and family and then indulge in one of our favourite past-times: the GAD.
We realised that when we were on holiday all our food was prepared for us; we weren’t in constant contact with friends and family so had little news to share, and we didn’t have the frustrations & challenges of the working day to debate. Instead we had 14 hours every day for a whole week to enjoy each other’s presence – not two precious hours. On holiday, we didn’t have to stay up late just to grab some time together. And that's why I love holidays - spending time with the ones I love the most and the opportunity to reflect on life in general.
So now we’re back home and soon the holiday will fade away into a fond memory with some lovely pictures of the kids on the beach. Meanwhile, tonight we’re back to home cooked food & two Sky+ boxes full of GAD to watch. Which one will it be? .......think it’ll have to be In Treatment.
Tuesday 13 October 2009
The compelling reasons for working in the NHS
Today, I celebrate a 10 year relationship with the NHS. I have either worked in or with the NHS over the last 10 years. It's been an incredible decade - I've learnt a lot, grown personally and professionally and I am passionate about the NHS.
As I reflect back, what I find particularly interesting is the fact that so many of my friends have also been drawn to the NHS over time. For example, at University, I lived in a house of 6 girls. Today, four of us work in the NHS. Two of us in HR / OD roles (and our degrees at university were totally unrelated to this field). One is a Clinical Psychologist and the other has just returned to a Director post in an Arms Length Body after a few years in a consultancy role.
So what compells us to have this working relationship with the NHS?
1) The NHS is complex. It can take a while to get your head around the entire system and how the NHS actually works. As a result, working in the NHS is intellectually stimulating. It doesn't matter where you work in the NHS, for each sector it's the same agenda - just each has a different perspective.
2) When you work within the NHS, you learn to work with limited resources. The NHS might be coming out of the "years of plenty" as a result of the credit crunch, but the NHS has never been cash-rich compared to the private sector. As a result, practitioners have to be more creative, thinking beyond the usual "fixing" mechanisms, to find a result or outcome that will be cost effective but still with the same level of impact.
3) There's an incredible sense of altuism. Everyone who works in the NHS feels it. Each Trust has it's own culture, but the sense of altruism is the thread that ties everyone together. This altruism is often displayed as a passion for improving services for patients. Irrespective of what job you do - you want to "make a difference". When I've had a bad day, I remind myself of the end goal, which is always to improve x, or y so that (ultimately) patients benefit. Even in an HR/OD role, you can still make the link back to the patient.
4) The NHS attracts a wide range of different people into its employment. I have worked for a number of Trusts in Inner London, where local recruitment is integral to the resourcing strategy. The employment profile is therefore very diverse. In the last Trust where I held a substantive post, there were more BME staff than there were white staff. And this reflected the ethnic profile of the local population. I have learnt an incredible amount from the rich diversity of staff that I have been lukcy enough to work with.
5) And finally, the ethics of the NHS. (I had a conversation just this last week with an employment solicitor on this topic) Due to the high union presence, there is a requirement (and rightly so) for processes are to be fair and transparent for staff. I feel as an HR Practitioner that through-out any "employee relations" case due regard for an employee's rights and their dignity should remain central. I believe in fairness and equity for all staff and this key principle is fundamental to me as an HR practitioner. I feel that "at home" in the NHS.
These are my top 5 reasons for why I love working with the NHS. Yes, there are also downsides, but at the end of the day I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. What are your reasons for working in the NHS?
As I reflect back, what I find particularly interesting is the fact that so many of my friends have also been drawn to the NHS over time. For example, at University, I lived in a house of 6 girls. Today, four of us work in the NHS. Two of us in HR / OD roles (and our degrees at university were totally unrelated to this field). One is a Clinical Psychologist and the other has just returned to a Director post in an Arms Length Body after a few years in a consultancy role.
So what compells us to have this working relationship with the NHS?
1) The NHS is complex. It can take a while to get your head around the entire system and how the NHS actually works. As a result, working in the NHS is intellectually stimulating. It doesn't matter where you work in the NHS, for each sector it's the same agenda - just each has a different perspective.
2) When you work within the NHS, you learn to work with limited resources. The NHS might be coming out of the "years of plenty" as a result of the credit crunch, but the NHS has never been cash-rich compared to the private sector. As a result, practitioners have to be more creative, thinking beyond the usual "fixing" mechanisms, to find a result or outcome that will be cost effective but still with the same level of impact.
3) There's an incredible sense of altuism. Everyone who works in the NHS feels it. Each Trust has it's own culture, but the sense of altruism is the thread that ties everyone together. This altruism is often displayed as a passion for improving services for patients. Irrespective of what job you do - you want to "make a difference". When I've had a bad day, I remind myself of the end goal, which is always to improve x, or y so that (ultimately) patients benefit. Even in an HR/OD role, you can still make the link back to the patient.
4) The NHS attracts a wide range of different people into its employment. I have worked for a number of Trusts in Inner London, where local recruitment is integral to the resourcing strategy. The employment profile is therefore very diverse. In the last Trust where I held a substantive post, there were more BME staff than there were white staff. And this reflected the ethnic profile of the local population. I have learnt an incredible amount from the rich diversity of staff that I have been lukcy enough to work with.
5) And finally, the ethics of the NHS. (I had a conversation just this last week with an employment solicitor on this topic) Due to the high union presence, there is a requirement (and rightly so) for processes are to be fair and transparent for staff. I feel as an HR Practitioner that through-out any "employee relations" case due regard for an employee's rights and their dignity should remain central. I believe in fairness and equity for all staff and this key principle is fundamental to me as an HR practitioner. I feel that "at home" in the NHS.
These are my top 5 reasons for why I love working with the NHS. Yes, there are also downsides, but at the end of the day I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. What are your reasons for working in the NHS?
Tuesday 6 October 2009
What kind of learner are you?
I was recently discussing "sheep-dip" training with a friend. I believe it is a necessary form of training, but it also has it's pitfalls. My friend told me his theory on participants who attend "sheep-dip" training. He said participants fall into one of three categories:
1) Learner: this participant is there to genuinely learn as much as they can from the session. This type of learner is attentive during the session, gets actively involved in group work and brings high levels of energy into the room.
2) Prisoner: this participant is there because they have been "told" to attend. They don't want to be there and don't see why they need to be there. They don't want to contribute and they will lower the energy levels in the room.
3) Vacationer: the person who's attending because it's an excuse for a "day off " from their normal job. They will get involved, but are not really interested in learning anything - more about having fun and avoiding the work they left behind on their desk.
Understanding which category your learners fall into is crucial when you're delivering "sheep-dip" training. Sometimes the whole room appears to be full of "prisoners": the session will appear to drag, and contributions from participants will be minimal.
Other times you might find your session full of "learners" who are actively engaged in the subject matter; spontaneous and stimulating debates will emerge generating high impact learning around the subject matter.
Next time you're delivering "sheep-dip" training, ask participants
"What kind of learner are you? Prisoner, vacationer or learner?"
This is a quick and easy way to ease the tension in the room - particularly if it is full of prisoners. Not only will this help you - but it will help the participants recognise themselves. And the end result? You'll have more learners in the room than when you started.
1) Learner: this participant is there to genuinely learn as much as they can from the session. This type of learner is attentive during the session, gets actively involved in group work and brings high levels of energy into the room.
2) Prisoner: this participant is there because they have been "told" to attend. They don't want to be there and don't see why they need to be there. They don't want to contribute and they will lower the energy levels in the room.
3) Vacationer: the person who's attending because it's an excuse for a "day off " from their normal job. They will get involved, but are not really interested in learning anything - more about having fun and avoiding the work they left behind on their desk.
Understanding which category your learners fall into is crucial when you're delivering "sheep-dip" training. Sometimes the whole room appears to be full of "prisoners": the session will appear to drag, and contributions from participants will be minimal.
Other times you might find your session full of "learners" who are actively engaged in the subject matter; spontaneous and stimulating debates will emerge generating high impact learning around the subject matter.
Next time you're delivering "sheep-dip" training, ask participants
"What kind of learner are you? Prisoner, vacationer or learner?"
This is a quick and easy way to ease the tension in the room - particularly if it is full of prisoners. Not only will this help you - but it will help the participants recognise themselves. And the end result? You'll have more learners in the room than when you started.
Friday 2 October 2009
A Journey into Private Healthcare
In a couple of weeks I celebrate my 10 year working relationship with the NHS (either working for or with the NHS). I a strong advocate of the NHS, and I have worked with some fantastic clinicians, managers and staff. I don't really believe in private healthcare.
Some of you will be aware that last Christmas I had pneumonia. It was so severe that I spent two days as an inpatient, and was discharged on Christmas Day. The care I received in the hospital was fantastic, although the environment was grim. Also, I was on a mixed ward. The first night I felt uncomfortable, because there were 4 men and 2 women on my ward. The next night the ratios had changed: 5 women and 1 man. I felt a lot more comfortable, but I could tell that the man in the bed opposite certainly didn't.
Anyway, although to a large extent I have recovered from my illness. I still have some pain in my left lung when I cough, sneeze or yawn. It's not acute enough to need to take pain killers, but it's obvious that my lung isn't functioning as well as it should do. So 2 months ago I went back to my GP to discuss this. I had a series of tests in my local primary care centre (all in accordance with best practice and national guidelines) and the outcome was that I'm clear of the infection, but it is suspected that the severity of my pneumonia has caused significant damage that will take some time to heal. I was then given two options:
1) Come back in 2 months time if I don't feel better;
2) Be referred to the consultant at the local hospital for further routine tests. But as this was a minor illness, it is highly likely that I'll be seen by a junior doctor who probably won't know that much about my lungs, and probably won't know any more than my mature, experienced GP.
So I presented a third option. My husband has private healthcare. Could I go down that route? My GP immediately seized on this idea as I would have further tests but be seen by a consultant. And I was lucky enough to be referred to the same consultant that admitted me to an NHS hospital in December. However, I felt like I was betraying my beloved NHS by going down this route.
I presented at my local private hospital two weeks ago and was immediately struck by the differences:
- I was able to park my car easily in the car park
- I didn't have to pay any parking fees
- The reception staff looked very smart in their matching uniforms
- There were lots of reception staff who managed the chaos in the waiting room efficiently
- I was seen on time by my Consultant
- He spent 40 minutes with me
I left with an action plan (ie more diagnostic tests) and a feeling of being impressed by my first experience in private healthcare: I even told my consultant this and gave spontaneous positive feedback to the phlebotomist!
A week later I was back for my CT scan. Again, it was easy to park and I was seen on time. I was impressed by the fact that I could put my belongings in a locked cabinet, and I was given a dressing gown to wear over my radiography gown (unlike in the NHS, where you sit in a corridor with the gown gaping at the back. Some strategic sitting and walking is required in local radiography department).
But this is where the illusion was shattered. (If you're a bit squeamish - then please jump to the next paragraph) Firstly, they had to do the scan twice, as the iodine that they pumped through my body didn't flow quickly enough during the first scan. And secondly, when they took the iodine tube out, blood started to “leak” out of my canula. And when I say “leak” - that's an understatement. The senior radiographer started to panic as she failed to stop the blood flow. There was blood all over the CT bench, the floor, on my hands (I had joined in with the attempt to stop the flow), and additional staff were called in to help. One clinician asked - does this usually happen with you? Of course my answer was "No". We got through quite a few gauzes before the flow was stopped.
I felt a bit rubbish for the rest of the day - but at least I had an excuse to put sugar in my tea and eat lots of chocolate. But it left me pondering why did I feel so let down?
For me the quality of clinical care I receive is my priority, and I felt that I had been let down by receiving poor healthcare during my CT scan. I then realised, that I had irrationally believed that the level of clinical care I would receive during my private healthcare experience would be of a higher quality than the NHS's equivalent. I say irrational - because I work in / with the NHS, and I know that the staff who work in the private sector all trained in the NHS. Consultants in the private sector have to hold an NHS Consultant level post simultaneously.
So what's so great about private healthcare? I now realise that the key difference is customer service. All the things that impressed me are related to customer service. Does this make me superficial or is it that I’ve bought into a world of consumerism? To be honest, I think it’s a bit of both.
The outcome: I’ve stopped feeling guilty about turning my back on the NHS by seeking private healthcare: the nice insurance company are paying for me to have the same quality of treatment as I would have received in the NHS. It’s just in a nicer building, with staff in matching uniforms and I don’t have to pay parking fees. And they're nice when you bleed all over the floor & the equipment.
So I'm back to see the consultant next week. I'll appraoch this next visit with my new insight and I'm hoping for a little less blood loss too.
Some of you will be aware that last Christmas I had pneumonia. It was so severe that I spent two days as an inpatient, and was discharged on Christmas Day. The care I received in the hospital was fantastic, although the environment was grim. Also, I was on a mixed ward. The first night I felt uncomfortable, because there were 4 men and 2 women on my ward. The next night the ratios had changed: 5 women and 1 man. I felt a lot more comfortable, but I could tell that the man in the bed opposite certainly didn't.
Anyway, although to a large extent I have recovered from my illness. I still have some pain in my left lung when I cough, sneeze or yawn. It's not acute enough to need to take pain killers, but it's obvious that my lung isn't functioning as well as it should do. So 2 months ago I went back to my GP to discuss this. I had a series of tests in my local primary care centre (all in accordance with best practice and national guidelines) and the outcome was that I'm clear of the infection, but it is suspected that the severity of my pneumonia has caused significant damage that will take some time to heal. I was then given two options:
1) Come back in 2 months time if I don't feel better;
2) Be referred to the consultant at the local hospital for further routine tests. But as this was a minor illness, it is highly likely that I'll be seen by a junior doctor who probably won't know that much about my lungs, and probably won't know any more than my mature, experienced GP.
So I presented a third option. My husband has private healthcare. Could I go down that route? My GP immediately seized on this idea as I would have further tests but be seen by a consultant. And I was lucky enough to be referred to the same consultant that admitted me to an NHS hospital in December. However, I felt like I was betraying my beloved NHS by going down this route.
I presented at my local private hospital two weeks ago and was immediately struck by the differences:
- I was able to park my car easily in the car park
- I didn't have to pay any parking fees
- The reception staff looked very smart in their matching uniforms
- There were lots of reception staff who managed the chaos in the waiting room efficiently
- I was seen on time by my Consultant
- He spent 40 minutes with me
I left with an action plan (ie more diagnostic tests) and a feeling of being impressed by my first experience in private healthcare: I even told my consultant this and gave spontaneous positive feedback to the phlebotomist!
A week later I was back for my CT scan. Again, it was easy to park and I was seen on time. I was impressed by the fact that I could put my belongings in a locked cabinet, and I was given a dressing gown to wear over my radiography gown (unlike in the NHS, where you sit in a corridor with the gown gaping at the back. Some strategic sitting and walking is required in local radiography department).
But this is where the illusion was shattered. (If you're a bit squeamish - then please jump to the next paragraph) Firstly, they had to do the scan twice, as the iodine that they pumped through my body didn't flow quickly enough during the first scan. And secondly, when they took the iodine tube out, blood started to “leak” out of my canula. And when I say “leak” - that's an understatement. The senior radiographer started to panic as she failed to stop the blood flow. There was blood all over the CT bench, the floor, on my hands (I had joined in with the attempt to stop the flow), and additional staff were called in to help. One clinician asked - does this usually happen with you? Of course my answer was "No". We got through quite a few gauzes before the flow was stopped.
I felt a bit rubbish for the rest of the day - but at least I had an excuse to put sugar in my tea and eat lots of chocolate. But it left me pondering why did I feel so let down?
For me the quality of clinical care I receive is my priority, and I felt that I had been let down by receiving poor healthcare during my CT scan. I then realised, that I had irrationally believed that the level of clinical care I would receive during my private healthcare experience would be of a higher quality than the NHS's equivalent. I say irrational - because I work in / with the NHS, and I know that the staff who work in the private sector all trained in the NHS. Consultants in the private sector have to hold an NHS Consultant level post simultaneously.
So what's so great about private healthcare? I now realise that the key difference is customer service. All the things that impressed me are related to customer service. Does this make me superficial or is it that I’ve bought into a world of consumerism? To be honest, I think it’s a bit of both.
The outcome: I’ve stopped feeling guilty about turning my back on the NHS by seeking private healthcare: the nice insurance company are paying for me to have the same quality of treatment as I would have received in the NHS. It’s just in a nicer building, with staff in matching uniforms and I don’t have to pay parking fees. And they're nice when you bleed all over the floor & the equipment.
So I'm back to see the consultant next week. I'll appraoch this next visit with my new insight and I'm hoping for a little less blood loss too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)