Peer Pleasure

Last week I read an article in the Guardian weekly about a successful experiment at a home for people with mental problems. They had brought in other people with mental problems, those at different recovery stages, to help with caring. I couldn’t help but laugh. After all these years, the lunatics really had taken over the asylum.

Then I read more and thought more deeply. Of course, I concluded, this made so much sense. The root causes of people with disturbed minds are often psychological, things starting out with lack of self-esteem or other requirements for empathy. Despite all their training, it is very hard for care professionals to fully relate to such patients and to get through to them. Other people emerging from similar issues might have more ability to see into the heads of the sick, and explain coping strategies that might help, things that may have worked for them, things that could give hope. Hope may be all that is missing, hope given by someone credible yet not superior, someone who cannot be a threat or any sort of humiliation.

Isn’t that lovely? I wish them every success with the experiment, and hope that more spring from it. Of course care professionals do not lose their role, but it modifies. They have to work in the background, finding the right peer partners, gently suggesting approaches to those partners, being ready with follow up treatment such as a change in medication, and overseeing to ensure no harm comes from the process.

But the care professionals may not be comfortable with this. These different skills may not come easily to them. They may even feel a bit threatened by their subtle change in power and role.

I believe this is a microcosm of a very common opportunity. Sorry to keep bleating on about it, but in my part of Shell we tried something similar (though I’m not sure Shell leaders would be all that pleased about being compared with mental patients). In the Applied Leadership programme, we replaced training courses about leadership with discussion groups of leaders. Under the eye of a moderator, participants shared their issues and their solutions, building confidence and a menu of tried and trusted strategies. For many it worked well. For some it opened their brains for the first time to improving their leadership, something ego and fear and prevented before. Hearing that peers had similar problems was the catalyst to being able to share their own problems. Barriers were broken down, not for everyone, but for a larger group than would have secured value from classical training.

In essence, I believe this to be identical to the mental patient story. And it started me wondering what other examples might be out there, and what other fields might be improved with this approach.

Training teachers has changed a lot in the last fifty years. Classroom type sessions have been partly replaced by experienced based training, spending time in front of real live kids and finding ways to cope then to connect then to thrive. I remember when I was at school, there were some teachers who were no doubt very clever and technically well-trained, but who had no ability whatsoever to connect with their pupils. Some did not master control, others couldn’t find the right atmosphere or language, others simply could not see the problems from the point of view of the kids. I know this has improved, but I suspect that it go further. I am gratified to see that teachers are offered two or three days per term for training, but I wonder how much of that time is spent receiving technical training. My guess is that more often a dimple discussion with other teachers at the school would yield more dividends, if properly moderated. And the simplest and most cost effective way for any teacher to improve might be to invite a peer into his or her classroom a few times to observe, and to give the same favour back later. Does this happen? I have my doubts. What stops it? Well, ego and fear are two things – who would not initially be a little bit frightened letting a colleague into their empire? And I also suspect professional trainers by block this, subconsciously or not. The trade unions might not help much either.

Generally, any field where human communication is an important part of the skillset could benefit from a peer-based approach. One good bi-product of the much-maligned health service reforms might be the increased possibility for GP’s to give peer coaching to each other, though the same blockers are likely to persist as in teaching.

Another example is conducting and choir directing. True, technical skills are important, but, once again, my guess is that the best way to develop above a certain level is to observe and be observed by peers and to start an improvement dialogue as a result. Ego is especially big in this field, so don’t be surprised that in my experience few actually do this.

Gaining the benefits of peer coaching is one of the things enabled by the internet. Blogs and open query sites are perfect for peer coaching. People can share what works for them, or post issues holding them back, without much stigma. Virtual connections are fast, plentiful and relatively unchallenging. Many of us have got into the habit of surfing the web when we have a new problem to solve. We could probably do it more than we could, and apply the approach to things we think we have already mastered as well.

Two more example areas might be parenting or caring for the elderly. In both these cases, these are less often professions than skills people need to acquire as they go without training. A bit like line management really. I love to observe other parents and try to be open to their criticism of my own approach – within a couple is the easiest place to start of course. And I would love more clues for how to care for my ailing mother. So, I should start with the internet on that one.

I notice my daughter is a lot better and many of these life skills than I am. Building relationships is another one, my generation had no clue how to do that at all yet many kids these days avoid the pitfalls with grace. I expect peer coaching has a lot to do with it. Facebook and MSN may be derided by some of my generation, but my belief is that they are enabling a positive revolution in many empathy-based skills. Which only bodes well for a bright future. Perhaps in the future there will be many fewer people needing help mentally – and the treatment for those that still do will be more effective do to peer coaching.