Can empathy be taught? The ability to empathise is an essential life skill from childhood to adult life and through to the workplace. Being able to see the other person's point of view and feel their emotions is necessary in coaching, customer service, counselling and negotiation. It can be particularly important when giving bad news such as redundancy notice.
An HR Manager once described a situation to me where her company had made a corporate decision to close part of a country operation. Through the use of rehearsal, scripting and practice, she coached managers on giving the bad news. At first, many waffled and dragged out their explanation keeping the 'employee,' (the role playing HR Manager) in painful suspense. When prompted to be more concise, they switched to the other extreme of being too short and direct. Well, maybe it takes a little practice to find the right tone and range but my initial thought was that this was not so much a skills issue as one relating to empathy. The Managers were focussing on sending a message without thinking about the receiver.
Scripting provides useful prompts and process skills but to deliver a message empathetically, people need to develop sensing and feeling skills also. Possibly, a role play where the Manager receives the bad news first would have been helpful - although it's easy for me to be wise after the event.
I believe empathy can be taught by focussing firstly on understanding and then on practising. That requires patience, consideration and the imagination to think how would I feel in this situation?
I hope you understand how I feel about it! The next post will include some suggestions for empathy coaching.Here's a short video involving some empathy training - let me know what you think. Thanks for reading. If you enjoy the blog, pass it on.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Lark Ascending
What role can music play in a training course? Just about any you want would be my answer. It certainly adds another dimension and can be used to influence mood and energy levels.
I find it quite hard to imagine running a course without some music and, taking into account the subject and client group, music selection forms part of my pre-course planning.
I always look for something lively as background music for when people arrive as I believe this literally ‘sets the tone’ for the day. I like to use Shotgun by Junior Walker but in general, Ska and Motown are very effective and appeal to most tastes. During early morning sessions where people may be a bit shy, I play music at a very low level which is just sufficient to take the edge of the silence. Heart of Glass by Blondie works well.
During the mid to late afternoon, where energy levels may be low, rather than try to fight this, I turn the lights off and have a five minute chill-out session with something relaxing. The early part of Meddle by Pink Floyd is very effective for this, particularly on a course related to stress management.
However, musical choices are very subjective and it’s possible that your selection may backfire. I went through a stage of playing the Brit Pop group, Kula Shaker; I loved it but it annoyed other people. One dark winter’s afternoon in Manchester where I was running a speed reading course, I thought tired minds and eyes would benefit from a time-out; I lowered the lights put on the music and sat tranquilly for the next ten minutes. When the music ended, one guy asked what the name of the piece of music was.
Flattered by his enquiry, I replied enthusiastically, ‘The Lark Ascending by Vaughan-Williams.’
‘Oh,’ he said, in a flat, dry Mancunian tone, ‘that’s just to remind me never to buy it.’
It got a good laugh from the group and the spell was broken. Playing music on a course adds a great deal but it’s a risk of sorts and you might not always get the effect you’d hoped for!
Well, decide for yourself with this live performance of The Lark Ascending.
I find it quite hard to imagine running a course without some music and, taking into account the subject and client group, music selection forms part of my pre-course planning.
I always look for something lively as background music for when people arrive as I believe this literally ‘sets the tone’ for the day. I like to use Shotgun by Junior Walker but in general, Ska and Motown are very effective and appeal to most tastes. During early morning sessions where people may be a bit shy, I play music at a very low level which is just sufficient to take the edge of the silence. Heart of Glass by Blondie works well.
During the mid to late afternoon, where energy levels may be low, rather than try to fight this, I turn the lights off and have a five minute chill-out session with something relaxing. The early part of Meddle by Pink Floyd is very effective for this, particularly on a course related to stress management.
However, musical choices are very subjective and it’s possible that your selection may backfire. I went through a stage of playing the Brit Pop group, Kula Shaker; I loved it but it annoyed other people. One dark winter’s afternoon in Manchester where I was running a speed reading course, I thought tired minds and eyes would benefit from a time-out; I lowered the lights put on the music and sat tranquilly for the next ten minutes. When the music ended, one guy asked what the name of the piece of music was.
Flattered by his enquiry, I replied enthusiastically, ‘The Lark Ascending by Vaughan-Williams.’
‘Oh,’ he said, in a flat, dry Mancunian tone, ‘that’s just to remind me never to buy it.’
It got a good laugh from the group and the spell was broken. Playing music on a course adds a great deal but it’s a risk of sorts and you might not always get the effect you’d hoped for!
Well, decide for yourself with this live performance of The Lark Ascending.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Can anybody be a coach?
Can anybody be a coach or do you need special skills or a particular personality?
If it’s just about developing a skill set then surely through quality training, or coaching, these can be developed. On the other hand, if coaches replicate coaching behaviours and perform them automatically without internalising or contextualising their actions isn’t it like being able to produce Chinese characters without knowing what they mean?
The question might be does it matter? You could argue that if a manager acting in a coaching role can learn a coaching skill to improve a performance aspect of an employee and that objective is achieved, it doesn’t matter how deeply s/he feels the experience; the job is done. However, by focussing on set routines and phrases that can be learnt verbatim there is a risk of turning ourselves into automata and not doing the things that humans do much better than machines; namely think contextually, integratively, laterally - even illogically, in order to arrive at some new synergic destination that wasn’t on the planned route.
Coaching should be viewed as being much more than a just set of behaviours but as a philosophical approach and way of being. For coaching to focus on growth rather than rectification, this is the only option.
Now comes the problem; changing attitudes and beliefs is more of a challenge than changing behaviours; it takes longer and is harder to measure. Furthermore, it requires much more of a corporate approach which creates a culture of ‘the way we do things here.’ For a coaching culture to prevail it needs strong support at the highest level which not always be forthcoming.
In any organisation there will be those managers with a natural disposition towards and talent for coaching, those who can learn the skills but won’t really understand what they are doing or why and those who just don’t get it.
What do you do next Coach?
Here's one guy with an idea. Now I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree at this stage - you decide what you think.
If it’s just about developing a skill set then surely through quality training, or coaching, these can be developed. On the other hand, if coaches replicate coaching behaviours and perform them automatically without internalising or contextualising their actions isn’t it like being able to produce Chinese characters without knowing what they mean?
The question might be does it matter? You could argue that if a manager acting in a coaching role can learn a coaching skill to improve a performance aspect of an employee and that objective is achieved, it doesn’t matter how deeply s/he feels the experience; the job is done. However, by focussing on set routines and phrases that can be learnt verbatim there is a risk of turning ourselves into automata and not doing the things that humans do much better than machines; namely think contextually, integratively, laterally - even illogically, in order to arrive at some new synergic destination that wasn’t on the planned route.
Coaching should be viewed as being much more than a just set of behaviours but as a philosophical approach and way of being. For coaching to focus on growth rather than rectification, this is the only option.
Now comes the problem; changing attitudes and beliefs is more of a challenge than changing behaviours; it takes longer and is harder to measure. Furthermore, it requires much more of a corporate approach which creates a culture of ‘the way we do things here.’ For a coaching culture to prevail it needs strong support at the highest level which not always be forthcoming.
In any organisation there will be those managers with a natural disposition towards and talent for coaching, those who can learn the skills but won’t really understand what they are doing or why and those who just don’t get it.
What do you do next Coach?
Here's one guy with an idea. Now I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree at this stage - you decide what you think.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Self-service HR
Increasingly, it's DIY (do it yourself) world. Automated email responses, menu phone systems are accompanied by self-service everything from a gas station, supermarket, online booking and airport check-in.
Why not HR too? There are many administrative processes ripe for the picking. This could include updating records relating to training, holidays, sickness etc.
In the workplace, the self-server becomes the employee who can perform many tasks traditionally managed by HR. Clearly there needs to be controls and a way of checking the data but this can be managed by authorisation processes.
I feel that I should be excited and enthusiastic about this development but somehow, I'm not. As a customer, I'd sooner interact with a person than a machine and not be fobbed off with the claim that self-service is for my own comfort and convenience.
Give me a break! Oh, I see; I have to give myself a break!
Why not HR too? There are many administrative processes ripe for the picking. This could include updating records relating to training, holidays, sickness etc.
In the workplace, the self-server becomes the employee who can perform many tasks traditionally managed by HR. Clearly there needs to be controls and a way of checking the data but this can be managed by authorisation processes.
I feel that I should be excited and enthusiastic about this development but somehow, I'm not. As a customer, I'd sooner interact with a person than a machine and not be fobbed off with the claim that self-service is for my own comfort and convenience.
Give me a break! Oh, I see; I have to give myself a break!
Monday, September 6, 2010
Rebranding HR
HR branding may be considered a relatively new idea but the reality is HR is already branded. Ask anybody in any organisation and they will have an opinion about HR and not one that is always flattering.
Common complaints from HR people are that they are undervalued and not taken seriously; looked at as a cost centre rather than one that adds value. If these are the complaints then these are the perceptions of the workforce and that’s the brand image they see. Your job is to change that perception through brand management.
Like any branding process, you firstly need to clarify your brand characteristics; what do you represent; what is your brand promise?
You then need to consider interfaces and communication channels. What are the points of contact between HR and other parts of the business? All activities, systems and F2F encounters are the contact points and these need to be managed so that they are consistent with the brand image. It’s useless claiming a brand identity of a workforce enabler if your performance review system is so complicated that everybody loathes it. Similarly, it’s no good claiming you care about people if you don’t know anybody’s name and it’s futile to consider yourself a strategic partner if you don’t understand the needs of sales and production.
Therefore, the message is that it’s not enough to create a branding platform based on rhetoric which is not backed up by clear productive outcomes that reinforce the brand message.
Having got those factors aligned, you can explore your communication channels to ensure that you are including all means at your disposal including SMS’s but always remember the importance of real, personal contact. Be proactive and build relations, offer constructive suggestions beyond the core boundaries of HR and then you will not be perceived as a peddler of internal HR products created for the glorification and justification of a bloated HR department. If you have a bad internal press, you have only yourself to blame. The good news is, with the right approach, you really can rebrand HR. Get cracking!
There's a lot of stuff on branding on Youtube and I decided against a 'how to' video in favour of this more thought provoking piece - one you've thought, you can do the 'how to!'
Common complaints from HR people are that they are undervalued and not taken seriously; looked at as a cost centre rather than one that adds value. If these are the complaints then these are the perceptions of the workforce and that’s the brand image they see. Your job is to change that perception through brand management.
Like any branding process, you firstly need to clarify your brand characteristics; what do you represent; what is your brand promise?
You then need to consider interfaces and communication channels. What are the points of contact between HR and other parts of the business? All activities, systems and F2F encounters are the contact points and these need to be managed so that they are consistent with the brand image. It’s useless claiming a brand identity of a workforce enabler if your performance review system is so complicated that everybody loathes it. Similarly, it’s no good claiming you care about people if you don’t know anybody’s name and it’s futile to consider yourself a strategic partner if you don’t understand the needs of sales and production.
Therefore, the message is that it’s not enough to create a branding platform based on rhetoric which is not backed up by clear productive outcomes that reinforce the brand message.
Having got those factors aligned, you can explore your communication channels to ensure that you are including all means at your disposal including SMS’s but always remember the importance of real, personal contact. Be proactive and build relations, offer constructive suggestions beyond the core boundaries of HR and then you will not be perceived as a peddler of internal HR products created for the glorification and justification of a bloated HR department. If you have a bad internal press, you have only yourself to blame. The good news is, with the right approach, you really can rebrand HR. Get cracking!
There's a lot of stuff on branding on Youtube and I decided against a 'how to' video in favour of this more thought provoking piece - one you've thought, you can do the 'how to!'
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Is using a recruitment agency a cost or a saving?
I was interested to see recently on a Linkedin discussion, strong criticism relating to the cost of using head hunters and recruitment agencies in the R&S process. The contention of the contributor was that if these activities were provided in-house, this would save the company up to 25% of total recruitment costs. It made me wonder. Hm - maybe he’s got a point.
However, on reflection, I think without specific cost examples, it’s not easy to make such a case. The key point here seems to be the assumption that by delivering in-house, the service becomes free. Who will do it; the existing HR people? Will they have the time? If not, we will have to recruit more and pay for their employment costs and house them somewhere. Conversely, perhaps the recruitment needs are not so great as to justify people dedicating their time exclusively to this task.
What about the database of potential candidates. Without a doubt, a dedicated agency will have a better one and access to a much broader candidate pool. This will particularly be the case in high level, international appointments. Then we may need screening interviews and possibly, assessment centres. If a company decides it wants to use such methods and not use external providers, they would need to develop the expertise in house which may require more training and higher wages.
The view of the contributor was that agencies were parasites living of the backs of candidates.
This seems a strange interpretation of the delivery of part of a process. This happens in all other activities from construction to accountancy and law so for me, it’s a very clear and unanimous verdict that outsourcing aspects of recruitment makes financial and practical sense in many cases.
What do you think?
While you're thinking about it, have a look at this at entertaining video about young career aspirations.
However, on reflection, I think without specific cost examples, it’s not easy to make such a case. The key point here seems to be the assumption that by delivering in-house, the service becomes free. Who will do it; the existing HR people? Will they have the time? If not, we will have to recruit more and pay for their employment costs and house them somewhere. Conversely, perhaps the recruitment needs are not so great as to justify people dedicating their time exclusively to this task.
What about the database of potential candidates. Without a doubt, a dedicated agency will have a better one and access to a much broader candidate pool. This will particularly be the case in high level, international appointments. Then we may need screening interviews and possibly, assessment centres. If a company decides it wants to use such methods and not use external providers, they would need to develop the expertise in house which may require more training and higher wages.
The view of the contributor was that agencies were parasites living of the backs of candidates.
This seems a strange interpretation of the delivery of part of a process. This happens in all other activities from construction to accountancy and law so for me, it’s a very clear and unanimous verdict that outsourcing aspects of recruitment makes financial and practical sense in many cases.
What do you think?
While you're thinking about it, have a look at this at entertaining video about young career aspirations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)