The Workplace and Mental Health – is it part of the problem or part of the solution?

The Workplace and Mental Health – is it part of the problem or part of the solution?

There are many issues of concern for society currently. In the workplace, none is more important than mental health.

When medical illness is directly attributable to the workplace, it is usually quickly addressed. Physical injury is now better controlled in most work environments, and relatively easy to identify and rectify. Mental health on the other hand is complex for many reasons. It’s arguably harder to recognise, concerningly easier to hide, and far more difficult in identifying a cause.

There are clear challenges in managing the mental health of people in the workplace. Unlike physical injury, not everyone reacts the same to circumstance. A trip hazard can be eliminated or appropriately managed. This method of rectification doesn’t exist with mental health. Our approach shouldn’t be to eliminate the occurrence of mental health issues in the workplace, but rather create the best environment possible to assist those in need. Zero tolerance is the benchmark for workplace injuries. For mental health it should be 100% tolerance.

Most people who suffer severely from mental health issues require professional help. Medication is not uncommon, but not the only factor in management. Once help is sought, and treatment is referred, people have the best chance of leading a better life.

The complexity with mental health revolves around an individual firstly recognising the issue, reaching a point of acceptance, seeking help and then embracing and acting on the advice. All these things are for the individual to address. The objective of the workplace should be to create an environment that allows, and even more so, encourages all of this to occur.

So how does the workplace achieve this? What process and procedures should be implemented? What actions should be taken? What training is required? All important and valid questions.

My experience has led me to an understanding that there is no specific set of procedures, actions or training that improves the workplace to a point where we can be satisfied mental health is well managed. But there are some principles we can instil in our people that provide the best opportunity for those with mental health issues to recognise, accept, seek help, and act.

Firstly, we must do everything possible to remove the stigma. This is most effectively achieved through leadership. Open dialogue and sharing personal experiences are the cornerstone to raising awareness and creating a sense of acceptance from all.

Secondly, the workplace should be perceived as a safe haven, even though there may be elements of work adversely contributing to someone’s state of mind. The key ingredient in addressing this is based on strong and meaningful relationships. Feeling supported, confident that you won’t be judged, and comfortable in sharing thoughts and feelings, all become critical in creating that environment.

Education for all, is the third critical principle. This involves looking out for each other, knowing what signs to look for when you suspect someone may be experiencing difficulties, having the right approach to engage with that person, or simply, knowing who to go to if you see a colleague in need.

Lastly, flexibility to create the right work arrangements. To assist in management of issues, people need flexibility within the workplace. That might be time commitments at work, workload or managing the demands of work in a controlled manner. The workplace needs, as best as it can, to accommodate each individual based on their specific requirements.

These four principles are the cornerstone of creating a work environment where people have the best chance of improving their mental health.

Rather than identifying causes within the workplace and then trying to eliminate them, let’s change our emotional mindset. We must encourage friendships, show support and understanding without judgement, and simply care for one another.

If we create these fundamental values and relationships, we will all be in a healthier state of mind.

The True Art of Leadership

The True Art of Leadership

Questions are continually asked in relation to what constitutes effective leadership. In many ways, there appears to be more answers than questions.

As with most things, the simpler the answer the more effective and truer it will often be. Without wanting to unnecessarily contribute to the multitude of opinions on this topic, some of the recent events that have happened domestically and around the world, have in many ways crystallised my thoughts and highlighted the relevance.

I believe the true art of leadership entails influencing people to accept decisions based on what’s best for everyone rather than what’s best for the individual.

Leaders should always make decisions that benefit the broader group. The phrase often used is “for the greater good”. Effective Leaders, however, have the ability to influence thought away from the potential negative impact on the individual and instead, help them accept the decision by recognising the overall benefit.

This approach is always more challenging to implement during difficult times. Weak, ineffective leaders turn to popular decision making, in which individual support can be simply garnered by personalising the impact, while cowardly or naively ignoring the longer-term effect on the broader group. Effective Leaders can implement sound decisions, however difficult it may be.

In fact, one could sensibly argue that highly popular decisions can’t be “for the greater good”.

If the decision is popular based on the benefit to individuals, then leaders should question its soundness.

So let’s not confuse popular decisions with great leadership. Let’s understand that effective leadership is difficult to undertake and can often lead to decisions that are difficult for individuals to accept. Let’s identify and commend those among us that show the true art of leadership.

Virtual Intelligence – will it render professions irrelevant?

Virtual Intelligence – will it render professions irrelevant?

Rather than talk about Artificial Intelligence (AI), I prefer to reference Virtual Intelligence (VI). Artificial implies fake or unnatural, whereas Virtual implies computer generated or simulated. Virtual suggests a replication of the real world. I believe the term VI better represents the transformation we are currently witnessing in the digitalisation of society.

What will VI mean to the professions and what impact will it have on those professionals and their careers? I believe the impact will be profound.

Many professionals believe their roles within society will forever be safe based on the presumption that judgement, creativity, instinct and experience will always prevail and never be digitally replicated. This misconception may be the undoing of many.

To understand this better, we need to clarify why these human attributes exist in the first place. Primarily, humans use these terms to explain their lack of processing power. People who perform at the highest level, use judgement or instinct to make decisions. Similarly, a person who generates something that hasn’t been seen or done before is defined as creative. So how can computers replicate these attributes?

The reality is that computers don’t need these attributes. Their processing power is infinitely higher than a human and continues to grow exponentially. Rather than be creative, a computer can generate infinite options to an open problem. By applying defined parameters, infinite options quickly converge on the best solution. Without the ability to generate every possible option the human relies on creativity alone.

So, will VI render the role of professionals irrelevant? In my mind this will ultimately be determined by how the client uses the technology. If the client perceives any level of risk or uncertainty in using the technology, then the client will expect the uncertainty and risk to be carried by the professional and hence their relevance will be maintained. If, however, the client is willing to accept that there is no risk associated with using VI, the professional will ultimately be rendered irrelevant.

Responsibility will transfer over to the client, virtual will become real and the only thing artificial will be the professional.

Newton’s 1st Law of Business

Newton’s 1st Law of Business

One of the key elements to a successful business lies within the laws of physics. Between Galileo and Newton, the Law of Inertia (Newton’s First Law) was developed to explain how bodies behave. Interestingly, while inertia is not directly measurable, it can be calculated, and it is critical in describing outcomes and fundamental in determining behaviour. The principles of this theory are overwhelmingly relevant in business.

We should not confuse inertia with momentum. Momentum is a measure of how quick you’re moving relative to mass. Inertia is how much force is needed to impart change, or similarly, how resistant it is to change. It’s inertia that needs to be monitored to ensure it’s not detrimental to your business.

While most businesses see momentum as desirable, consideration is needed towards the resulting impact on inertia. The momentum a business can experience may often hide the dangers of building inertia.

Using Newton’s 1st and 2nd Law as the analogy, business inertia can be explained. Bodies with large inertia require a great deal of force to move. Without the application of enormous force, bodies of large mass take a long time to slow down, speed up and more importantly, change direction. Large inertia can make organisations slow to react. With the same level of inertia, adding mass slows them down.

Hence, business inertia is an important characteristic in predicting outcomes and assessing behaviour.

Managing inertia, while maintaining momentum, is one of the keys to success.

So did Newton have a deep understanding of business? I’m not sure. Does his theory relate to business as much as it does to physics? Absolutely.

Accountability vs Responsibility

Accountability vs Responsibility

Managing a business and the people within it can be challenging to say the least.

Understanding your business and then communicating and implementing strategy effectively is critical to success.

One approach that can be effective in understanding, communicating and implementing, lies within the interpretation of, and understanding the differences between, accountability and responsibility.

Empowering people, establishing trust within a relationship, while allowing autonomy within roles are key attributes of a thriving workplace. Identifying and articulating the meaning of these two terms can create clarity for one role while defining and appreciating the roles of others around them.

In simple terms, responsibility should lie with the person doing the work. Accountability should sit with the person responsible for those doing the work.

When articulated in this way, the messaging becomes very powerful.

For those taking responsibility for their own work, there is a clear recognition that autonomy exists. Understanding that accountability rests with someone else establishes trust and authentic empowerment results.

For those responsible for people, recognising that accountability lies with them, but without responsibility for doing the work, provides powerful guidance on how they should act and behave. Handing over responsibility for the work in a genuine manner, while remaining accountable for the outcomes, is extremely effective in defining the role of those accountable for others. Importantly, this acknowledgement helps those responsible for work, to appreciate the trust bestowed on them by others.

While titles and management structures will vary significantly between organisations, the fundamentals outlined above provide clarity for most within the business. From those who take full responsibility for only their own work, through to those that remain fully accountable for the entire operation.

Defining these two simple terms succinctly and using them to provide guidance on people’s roles within a group goes a long way to establishing respect, trust and teamwork within the workplace. Characteristics that all organisations strive for.

Don’t underachieve for fear of failure

Don’t underachieve for fear of failure

Has society become too risk-averse?

Do people have expectations on safety, compliance and equalisation to the extent that trailblazing is frowned upon, while risk-takers and outliers are ostracised?

Conservatism is the antithesis of aspiration. Australians are ashamed of failure. Other cultures wear failure as a badge of honour, a sign of resilience, resourcefulness and strength.

Generationally, children are brought up in an ever-increasing protected and sheltered environment, where adversity, hardship and disappointment are avoided. Exposure to these experiences builds resilience. History has shown that through these experiences, true innovation and progress flourish. Are some of the essential qualities, that remain critical to people’s wellbeing, being filtered out?

When I speak to people, be it young people, business people or others, decisions and expectations are often set on the basis that they shouldn’t fail or carry any risk. Aspiration is often replaced with certainty. But with certainty comes conservatism, which can often lead to underachievement.

So as leaders, I believe it is critical that we encourage aspiration and risk-taking in others. Leaders should provide the experienced support, foresight and reassurance to allow others to manage and accept potential failure, and in the process build resilience.

Our advice should be “Don’t underachieve for fear of failure”.

Accepting potential failure is the prerequisite to overachievement. Resilience is the essential ingredient in realising it.

Don’t request the sacrifice, accept the offering

Don’t request the sacrifice, accept the offering

How do you get the best out of people? It has long been a question in business, with many varied opinions and points of view.

Is it through motivation, reward, incentive? Does it result from creating the right working environment? Is it all or none of these things? My feeling is we are asking the wrong question. We shouldn’t be seeking to draw the most out of people, but rather have them be willing to offer as much as possible.

Everyone has different expectations on what is normal acceptable effort. If we set our own measures on what we want out of our people, then neither party is content. There is either more to be offered, or there is a feeling that expectations are too high.

Alternatively, we can build relationships with people and make them feel committed and willing to contribute. We can show them how their efforts positively impact on others and the business overall. We can create a sense of belonging and have them recognise that what is good for the business is good for them.

This is what brings the best out of people. Achieve these things and the best outcome will be delivered. There will be no reluctant, unsustainable sacrifice, just a willing, ongoing offering.

Promoting the Value for Money Proposition

Promoting the Value for Money Proposition

Professionals, and more particularly consultants, are in a privileged position of providing services to clients that can have a significant influence on the client’s success, both commercially and reputationally.

However, in engineering as with other professions, the true value of a professional’s service is being misunderstood or more concerningly, ignored.

For reasons that are unclear to most in the profession, decisions involving the choice of consultants and the role they play in an outcome seem to be mutually exclusive in the eyes of many decision makers.

Choices seem to be made on the basis that irrespective of who is engaged, the same outcome will eventuate. For some informed and sophisticated clients this is clearly fantasy, but alarmingly many clients do not understand or recognise the true impact of their naivety.

So, the first step to promoting value for money is ensuring the client acknowledges that decisions produce different outcomes.

Secondly, making a decision with respect to professional appointments carries accountability, without any guarantees or surety of a particular result. Those deciding who to entrust as their consultants are often fulfilling this role on behalf of others. Here lies a further challenge in authentic decision making. The problem is not in the ability to decide, it is in the avoidance of making a decision that carries both accountability and uncertainty.

With more regularity we see decisions being made that are easy to justify, but fundamentally flawed.

When a decision is made by an individual for the pure benefit of the individual, there is comfort in accepting responsibility for that decision. You generally choose a Doctor, Accountant, Lawyer or Dentist for specific reasons; sometimes based on referral, but rarely based on price.

When choosing certain products such as a house, car, boat or even clothes, price range matters but value for money usually governs.

So, the final key step to promoting value for money is to engage directly with clients and individualise the decision-making process. Allow the client to carry the responsibility and only be accountable to themselves, with full self-acceptance that by making the decision, they are realising true value for money.

Where should the priority lie? Product or Service?

Where should the priority lie? Product or Service?

Most professionals know exactly how to execute their skills and deliver a high quality product. But what about providing a service to their clients? How much formal training do professionals receive in understanding and executing the highest level of service? Do they really understand its value and importance?

I’ve always been a strong believer in prioritising service for 3 simple reasons, and they all relate to the client.

Firstly, in many instances, clients don’t have an intimate understanding of our skills or how we go about our craft, therefore have limited ability to assess what we do. When it comes to service however, they have all the knowledge required to assess and evaluate our performance. Everyone knows what they want when it comes to service.

Secondly, in professional services, comparisons of product are very hard to determine. Rarely are two situations the same. Comparing service is much easier. An unreturned phone call or broken commitment can be easily related and assessed against others.

Lastly, poor service can’t be rectified. Returning a phone call too late or not delivering on an undertaking is irreversible. Rectifying an incomplete or sub-standard product can be fixed and made good later.

So as professionals, once we understand the importance of service, we can then afford it the attention and priority needed. Well, almost.

There is one key ingredient in implementing the highest level of service, and that centres around the client’s expectations. Without effective management on what is expected as good service, meeting those expectations is extremely difficult. As we all know, unrealistic expectations can never be met. The key to good service is not delivering quicker or working harder, it’s managing the client’s perception of what is realistic and achievable.

So next time you have a time commitment that can’t be met because the product isn’t ready, what will you do? Will you let the client down on service and deliver the finished product late, or will you deliver the unfinished product on time?

The real answer is; you should have agreed earlier with the client that the product would take longer to deliver.

Should “Blood, Sweat and Tears” be replaced with “Fun, Tech and Fears”?

Should “Blood, Sweat and Tears” be replaced with “Fun, Tech and Fears”?

As society changes and workplaces adjust, things that were considered acceptable not that long ago can quickly fall out of favour, or be considered inappropriate. Similarly, terminology and words that were part of our everyday vocabulary now have little meaning or relevance.

“Taping” a TV show is now an incorrect term. We “record” or simply catch-up via the internet. When was the last time you bought a postcard? Do young people of today even understand the concept of buying a picture while on holidays and posting it by snail mail? Is the term “postcard view” obsolete?

In previous generations, there was value attached to hard work, uncompromising commitment and the school of hard knocks. People accepted that to get somewhere in life, “blood, sweat and tears” were non-negotiable consequences. But this is no longer the case.

Let’s look at the term “blood”. The uncompromising commitment to work is no longer accepted in the workplace as appropriate. Due to a greater (and better) balance of responsibilities between life partners in the household and in the parenting of children, the value attached to a differing work life balance has dramatically changed.

The staid and structured work environment has also changed significantly, along with formality. Now we expect flexibility within a casual environment. We want to enjoy work, not bleed.
“Blood” has been replaced by “Fun”.

Hard work used to be directly related to success. It was respected, admired and rewarded in the workplace. In some ways, it is now frowned upon. There is often pity bestowed on the hardworking individual for not having a life outside of work.

Technology has taken over. It’s not about working harder. It’s about working smarter. “Sweat” has been replaced by “Tech”.

And the final change that has occurred lies within the expectation of tears at some point along the journey. Where previously motivation was sourced through the desire to avoid humiliation, or to avoid a berating from a work colleague, we now live in the uncertainty of factors outside the workplace.

The workplace has become a protected zone and in its place, external factors are at play. We now face constant concern that things are moving too fast. Disruption is at the forefront of our minds; information overload provides us with too much irrelevance and distracts us from what should be our focus.

We don’t shed “tears”in the workplace anymore, we live in the “fear” that our jobs may be extinct in the near future.

So, is society and the workplace better for these changes? Of course, it is. The challenge lies in how we adjust to these changes. In some instances, changes need no thought. It’s easy to stop buying postcards. Other changes need conscious consideration and adaption.