Do you know many evil people?
I don’t. I know some people with a different value system to my own. I meet people who lack social skills and do things we consider inappropriate. I come across people who break laws, but most of those are not really evil, they simply are managing their life with a different balance between need and risk. Anyone who has seen a divorce close up will verify that there are always two sides to those stories; people are not at their best, but a description of evil is not usually apposite.
Am I evil? I do some very stupid things, mainly by making thoughtless remarks. I don’t do a lot of law breaking, but I am as prone as the next man when in a partisan crowd – in my London days I used to go to watch West Ham’s home games and shudder to think about the abuse I shouted or encouraged. But evil seems a pretty extreme description of those transgressions. Maybe the same applies to you.
So we don’t come across evil people very often. Yet we are conditioned into thinking of it as common. The traditional Church simplistically divides acts and people into good and evil, and suggests we have some tendency to sin. In childhood, we are often taught how to behave via compartmentalisation into good and evil. Our media and our politicians encourage us to think of criminals as evil, and often whole states as well. I remember being expected to believe that every single Russian was evil. In History, Germans used to be too, though later this was modified to their being misguided by one person, an Austrian even, who was so evil that he poisoned the whole nation. Brits, of course, were always good, especially royal ones. There are exceptions of course, perhaps related to their colour, or religion, or criminal tendency.
Hence there seems to be a mismatch between what we witness in our daily lives, especially when we think hard about it and offer people the benefit of the doubt, and what we are attuned to believe of the world in general.
So what? Well, maybe it matters a lot. I read an article last week in The Guardian Weekly which argued that in reality evil is generally a lack of empathy, a view promulgated by a Cambridge professor called Simon Baron-Cohen. Empathy, how we understand and relate to the people around us, is something most of us can develop. We mess it up frequently, most often under pressure, when confronted with an unfamiliar situation or when focused so much on ourselves that we miss signals from others – remember all the first dates you have endured?
Baron-Cohen studies people with the least empathetic ability, such as people with borderline personality disorder or psychopaths. Unlike in earlier times, when such people were generally locked away and forgotten about, most disorders can be at least partially controlled by focusing on developing empathy. And the same is true of all of us – the more empathy we can develop, the less likely we are to do stupid things, evil things if you like. Empathy may be the most valuable resource in our world, yet only recently have we started to understand and cultivate it.
The article claimed empathy as a sot of universal solvent. And it comes virtually unlike, unlike the arms industry or the legal and penal system.
I found this a powerful and optimistic thought. When I thought further, I twinned a focus on empathy with one on the balance between need and risk I mentioned above. Even people with regular empathetic potential can slide into crime. Usually it is because they see little hope of meeting their basic needs without harming others, while the risk of illegal acquisition is not enough to deter them. Hence we see the cost of a human life appears much lower in parts of Africa than in Western Europe. Even in Western Europe, once someone is deep in debt, or in a cycle of crime and prison, or simply without hope, it is hard to see a way out. It does not help that alcohol and drugs are so available and misunderstood, not to mention ruinous credit.
Put this together, and you potentially have a recipe of a world virtually freed from evil. First take an educational focus on empathy, especially for the young and those sliding into trouble. Use general affluence, technology and social policies to provide an opportunity for basic needs for all, and a way out for those lacking hope, putting rehabilitation above punishment. Improve institutions, again using technology, so that those such as Gbagbo or Madoff face more risk to counter balance their greed. Finally, tackle the menace of drugs and especially alcohol head on.
Will this happen? You know, it might. Sadly, we might need a few more wars along the journey. I don’t see the current generations of politicians helping much, with their focus on national power projection, pandering to fear, and punishment.
But, honestly, I think we are closer than it might appear. Imagine if everyone had 10% more empathy. Imagine if parenting skills improved to place empathy ahead of good and evil as a means of teaching. Imagine technology and openness, Wikileaks blazing the trail, to hold the greedy to account. Imagine if we had more women in charge. Imagine if we all used language with less emphasis on evil – that in itself could be a big step forward. In the last two generations, we have started to succeed in promoting women, outlawing tobacco, creating openness, tackling poverty, and scientifically enhancing our understanding of ourselves.
I never really subscribed to the rather lazy theory that man was essentially an evil being requiring control rather than a good one. In this respect, as in others, religion has perhaps done the world a disservice. I am pleased to see the enlightened branches of many religions focusing far less on sin and judgement these days and far more on service and community. On this day when Christians remember the death of Jesus, perhaps we can finally look forward, even within one or two generations, to a world truly delivered from evil.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
More Interview Tips
Last week I passed on five tips to succeed in interviews. Here are five more.
Tip 6 – Remember this is a two way process
We get so tied up in the pressure of the situation that we sometimes forget that the people across the table are human beings as well, not some sort of robot. They are on our side (tip 1), but they also like to feel good about themselves and their company. Without overdoing it, look for opportunities to empathise with the interviewers. It is a good idea to ask them about their own careers, as that helps them to feel valued. Even more importantly, remember that you are making a selection here as well, in that you don’t have to accept any offer they make. Bear this in mind – keep asking yourself whether this is a placed you would be happy, and find out all you can about the environment there. If the interview process does not acknowledge this, for example by an absence of information or of seeking what you are looking for, that in itself is a negative message – about the arrogance of company, and how you might be treated once you got there. A well run interview process should feel partly like an exercise in selling their company to you.
Tip 7 – Prepare smartly
Before an interview, re-read your own application and CV carefully, as well as the job description you are applying for. Dip into the company website and try to use their language, for example in quoting their mission statement or key values. Look at the headlines in a serious newspaper in the days leading up to an interview, as it will not look good to appear ignorant of current affairs. Also Google the company name in case they have recently made an announcement you can quote or been in the news. One important thing is to think through examples you might use if asked about common situations (tip 4). You can try to mug up more than this, but be careful not to crowd your mind with more technical stuff than you can handle without losing your spontaneity or composure. Much better for most people is to find someone to give you an interview as a dry run for the real thing, especially if it is a long time since your last interview experience.
Tip 8 – Focus on now
Really listen to the questions. This is not a political interview, where the job of the politician seems to be to say what they prepared whatever question is asked. That approach does not work in job interviews. Listen to what they ask, and do your best to answer it. Of course, you want to demonstrate your strengths, but you will score nothing for showing off when you are being asked something completely different. Also, don’t worry too much about the questions that have already passed, as that will stop you listening well to the next question. At the very end, you might be able to bring up something to improve your answer to one question, but generally it is more important to maintain focus in the present. Also, avoid the temptation to keep score as you are going. If you feel it is going well, you could become complacent, and if you feel it is going badly, you will overcompensate or tend to give up. Your own judgement is unlikely to be very sound anyway – leave the judging to them, as that is their job not yours.
Tip 9 – Have a question ready
It is traditional at the end of interviews that you will be asked if you have any questions. You can use this time to have a second go at one of their questions (see tip 8). What is most important though is that you ask something, as silence or a mumbled “no, nothing now” comes across as being unprepared or even uninterested. One good question is to ask the interviewers about their own careers (tip 6). You can also ask something about the job itself, for example what a typical week might consist of. You can ask what happens next, for example when you can expect feedback, but they should tell you that anyway. Don’t ask about terms and conditions here. Often the interviewer won’t know, and you may leave an impression that money is all you are motivated by (of course, money is important, but it is a sort of unwritten code not to raise the subject at an interview). In any case, have a couple of questions ready to ask.
Tip 10 – Remember how random this process is
This last tip is to stop you getting depressed when you get multiple rejections after interviews. There are many reasons for rejections, and most of them lie outside your immediate control. A frightening proportion of advertised jobs are not genuinely open, but rather have an earmarked candidate already pencilled in (many companies have a procedure forcing them to advertise). Sometimes the rules change mid process, for example budget cuts might mean no one is appointed in the end. Even in an open contest, there will often be some criterion which takes high importance which is unknown to you (often, even to them, at least until they complete interview rounds). Interviewers are human, and they may just be in a bad mood when it is your turn. They are also biased, whether they know it or not. Finally, you might just be up against fantastic competition. The least likely reason for a rejection is that you screwed up the interview. So don’t lose heart, put it down to experience – valuable experience indeed – and keep applying. Your day will come.
By the way, the reverse is true as well. Just because you succeed in an interview does not make you that wonderful. You might just have got lucky.
Hopefully, these tips can improve your attitude to interviews, and might just make your day of success come around a little sooner. Good luck. Next week, I’ll look at this from the other side of the table, and offer some tips for interviewers.
Tip 6 – Remember this is a two way process
We get so tied up in the pressure of the situation that we sometimes forget that the people across the table are human beings as well, not some sort of robot. They are on our side (tip 1), but they also like to feel good about themselves and their company. Without overdoing it, look for opportunities to empathise with the interviewers. It is a good idea to ask them about their own careers, as that helps them to feel valued. Even more importantly, remember that you are making a selection here as well, in that you don’t have to accept any offer they make. Bear this in mind – keep asking yourself whether this is a placed you would be happy, and find out all you can about the environment there. If the interview process does not acknowledge this, for example by an absence of information or of seeking what you are looking for, that in itself is a negative message – about the arrogance of company, and how you might be treated once you got there. A well run interview process should feel partly like an exercise in selling their company to you.
Tip 7 – Prepare smartly
Before an interview, re-read your own application and CV carefully, as well as the job description you are applying for. Dip into the company website and try to use their language, for example in quoting their mission statement or key values. Look at the headlines in a serious newspaper in the days leading up to an interview, as it will not look good to appear ignorant of current affairs. Also Google the company name in case they have recently made an announcement you can quote or been in the news. One important thing is to think through examples you might use if asked about common situations (tip 4). You can try to mug up more than this, but be careful not to crowd your mind with more technical stuff than you can handle without losing your spontaneity or composure. Much better for most people is to find someone to give you an interview as a dry run for the real thing, especially if it is a long time since your last interview experience.
Tip 8 – Focus on now
Really listen to the questions. This is not a political interview, where the job of the politician seems to be to say what they prepared whatever question is asked. That approach does not work in job interviews. Listen to what they ask, and do your best to answer it. Of course, you want to demonstrate your strengths, but you will score nothing for showing off when you are being asked something completely different. Also, don’t worry too much about the questions that have already passed, as that will stop you listening well to the next question. At the very end, you might be able to bring up something to improve your answer to one question, but generally it is more important to maintain focus in the present. Also, avoid the temptation to keep score as you are going. If you feel it is going well, you could become complacent, and if you feel it is going badly, you will overcompensate or tend to give up. Your own judgement is unlikely to be very sound anyway – leave the judging to them, as that is their job not yours.
Tip 9 – Have a question ready
It is traditional at the end of interviews that you will be asked if you have any questions. You can use this time to have a second go at one of their questions (see tip 8). What is most important though is that you ask something, as silence or a mumbled “no, nothing now” comes across as being unprepared or even uninterested. One good question is to ask the interviewers about their own careers (tip 6). You can also ask something about the job itself, for example what a typical week might consist of. You can ask what happens next, for example when you can expect feedback, but they should tell you that anyway. Don’t ask about terms and conditions here. Often the interviewer won’t know, and you may leave an impression that money is all you are motivated by (of course, money is important, but it is a sort of unwritten code not to raise the subject at an interview). In any case, have a couple of questions ready to ask.
Tip 10 – Remember how random this process is
This last tip is to stop you getting depressed when you get multiple rejections after interviews. There are many reasons for rejections, and most of them lie outside your immediate control. A frightening proportion of advertised jobs are not genuinely open, but rather have an earmarked candidate already pencilled in (many companies have a procedure forcing them to advertise). Sometimes the rules change mid process, for example budget cuts might mean no one is appointed in the end. Even in an open contest, there will often be some criterion which takes high importance which is unknown to you (often, even to them, at least until they complete interview rounds). Interviewers are human, and they may just be in a bad mood when it is your turn. They are also biased, whether they know it or not. Finally, you might just be up against fantastic competition. The least likely reason for a rejection is that you screwed up the interview. So don’t lose heart, put it down to experience – valuable experience indeed – and keep applying. Your day will come.
By the way, the reverse is true as well. Just because you succeed in an interview does not make you that wonderful. You might just have got lucky.
Hopefully, these tips can improve your attitude to interviews, and might just make your day of success come around a little sooner. Good luck. Next week, I’ll look at this from the other side of the table, and offer some tips for interviewers.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Ten Tips for Interviews
Interviews – Ten Tips
Interviews are high-intensity occasions. I can remember many of them vividly – on both sides of the table. There are high stakes involved, concentrated into a short discussion which can go in wild directions. Drama indeed.
I once read that a 1-1 unstructured interview is a terrible selection tool. If you have a job to offer, six seemingly qualified candidates and no interview training, you are more likely to make a successful choice by rolling a die than by going to the trouble of interviewing them.
Having witnessed many terrible interviews, I can believe this. There are many reasons for failure. We are swung by an unreliable first impression (offered when someone is at their most nervous and unnatural). We ask knowledge based questions of marginal relevance to the post. We relate to people who share our biases rather than people who might perform well in a designated role. Our own mood swings get in our way, even when our prejudices do not.
Interviewing techniques have developed over the years, and many managers receive some training now, so if you are applying for a job in a large or well-run company, your chances of a fair hearing have also improved. Nonetheless, there is probably more luck involved in getting through an interview than in most things you undertake. So some tips which could increase your chances a little might be welcome. Here are mine.
Tip 1- They are on your side.
Not because of your humour or personality, but because it is their job to dig out evidence of your qualities, and so they want to give you every opportunity. They are also human, and most humans prefer witnessing relaxed successes than humiliating failures. Finally, they want someone for their job, and the more good choices they discover the happier they will be.
Tip 2 – I not We.
Their job is to find out about you, so tell them. It may seem immodest to be specific about your successes and your role in projects, but that it what the interview is about. The most common way we miss this opportunity is to continually refer to a nebulous We. In many projects, many people have a role and some things are decided collectively, but usually you will be able to define your own contribution. And it is you they are looking to employ, not the rest of the team!
Tip 3 – Take your time.
In pressure situations, time always seems to speed up. If you pause for five seconds, it will seem to you like twenty seconds. Many of us make the mistake at interview of talking too quickly and frantically filling up every moment of time. Consciously slow down. It will help you listen, and to compose your thoughts before speaking. A pause also shows reflective quality. Keep reminding yourself of this point as the interview progresses.
Tip 4 – Find good examples.
Modern interview techniques focus on competence based methods, and these use examples extensively. They may start with “Can you think of an example when…”, perhaps when you had to rescue and failing project or talk around a sceptical customer. Once you have your example, there will be several minutes of follow up questions going into detail. Those details reveal the evidence (or otherwise) of the competences they seek. There is no point embellishes or making things up, but you help yourself enormously by choosing good examples. Good examples are rich experiences where you had a key role. Prepare by having several experiences in your mind. Then really listen to the question, and take your time to choose the best one, pausing if need be.
Tip 5 - Don’t let yourself down on basics.
Be on time. Which means being ridiculously early to deal with the missed bus or unscheduled toilet or wardrobe malfunction break – these always occur when you are stressed. You don’t have to dress out of character, but it is needlessly risky to wear something which might bring out a prejudice. Share your opinions, but be ready to accept that others might not agree with them (just in case your interviewer may be one). Really listen to the names of the interviewers when they tell you, and use those names back to them. Read your own application and the job description before going in, so you don’t make dumb errors. You would be amazed at how many interviewees of mine misstated the company name. It may seem trivial but it says something about you and it loses you points.
Five more tips next week.
Interviews are high-intensity occasions. I can remember many of them vividly – on both sides of the table. There are high stakes involved, concentrated into a short discussion which can go in wild directions. Drama indeed.
I once read that a 1-1 unstructured interview is a terrible selection tool. If you have a job to offer, six seemingly qualified candidates and no interview training, you are more likely to make a successful choice by rolling a die than by going to the trouble of interviewing them.
Having witnessed many terrible interviews, I can believe this. There are many reasons for failure. We are swung by an unreliable first impression (offered when someone is at their most nervous and unnatural). We ask knowledge based questions of marginal relevance to the post. We relate to people who share our biases rather than people who might perform well in a designated role. Our own mood swings get in our way, even when our prejudices do not.
Interviewing techniques have developed over the years, and many managers receive some training now, so if you are applying for a job in a large or well-run company, your chances of a fair hearing have also improved. Nonetheless, there is probably more luck involved in getting through an interview than in most things you undertake. So some tips which could increase your chances a little might be welcome. Here are mine.
Tip 1- They are on your side.
Not because of your humour or personality, but because it is their job to dig out evidence of your qualities, and so they want to give you every opportunity. They are also human, and most humans prefer witnessing relaxed successes than humiliating failures. Finally, they want someone for their job, and the more good choices they discover the happier they will be.
Tip 2 – I not We.
Their job is to find out about you, so tell them. It may seem immodest to be specific about your successes and your role in projects, but that it what the interview is about. The most common way we miss this opportunity is to continually refer to a nebulous We. In many projects, many people have a role and some things are decided collectively, but usually you will be able to define your own contribution. And it is you they are looking to employ, not the rest of the team!
Tip 3 – Take your time.
In pressure situations, time always seems to speed up. If you pause for five seconds, it will seem to you like twenty seconds. Many of us make the mistake at interview of talking too quickly and frantically filling up every moment of time. Consciously slow down. It will help you listen, and to compose your thoughts before speaking. A pause also shows reflective quality. Keep reminding yourself of this point as the interview progresses.
Tip 4 – Find good examples.
Modern interview techniques focus on competence based methods, and these use examples extensively. They may start with “Can you think of an example when…”, perhaps when you had to rescue and failing project or talk around a sceptical customer. Once you have your example, there will be several minutes of follow up questions going into detail. Those details reveal the evidence (or otherwise) of the competences they seek. There is no point embellishes or making things up, but you help yourself enormously by choosing good examples. Good examples are rich experiences where you had a key role. Prepare by having several experiences in your mind. Then really listen to the question, and take your time to choose the best one, pausing if need be.
Tip 5 - Don’t let yourself down on basics.
Be on time. Which means being ridiculously early to deal with the missed bus or unscheduled toilet or wardrobe malfunction break – these always occur when you are stressed. You don’t have to dress out of character, but it is needlessly risky to wear something which might bring out a prejudice. Share your opinions, but be ready to accept that others might not agree with them (just in case your interviewer may be one). Really listen to the names of the interviewers when they tell you, and use those names back to them. Read your own application and the job description before going in, so you don’t make dumb errors. You would be amazed at how many interviewees of mine misstated the company name. It may seem trivial but it says something about you and it loses you points.
Five more tips next week.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Helping Africa Grow
Some articles about Africa have been refreshingly positive lately. After a lifetime of reading stories of misery and false dawn, it feels like the next few years could finally see Africa break free of its past.
What we are seeing in North Africa can be seen as a part of this trend, as a possible outcome of the revolutions could well be a flowering of nations held back by repressive regimes. With a semblance of democracy, better education (especially of girls) and a freer business climate should not be far behind. Of course, the road could be a rocky one. The current Western propaganda in Libya cannot obscure the short-term likelihood of death, depravity and other unfair outcomes, partly at our bidding.
But economic news across the continent has generally become good, with prospects for even better developments. Ten years ago there were three democracies in Africa, now there are 23. Infant mortality has plummeted, despite the impact of Aids. Think tanks predict Chinese rates of growth over the next twenty years, buoyed by the usual golden combination of demography, education, resources and investment.
For many countries in Africa, a turning point was the debt elimination programme from around the millennium. After that, resources could be diverted away from servicing debt into more constructive uses. We should not forget the key role played by both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in championing that initiative. Their legacies have since become somewhat tarnished by later errors, but that was a truly heroic achievement, probably with more global impact than most politicians can claim over their careers.
With the continuing need for investment in Africa, I believe the time has come to challenge the prevailing opinion of Oil Companies in Africa, that of evil empires stripping natural resources and plundering the profits.
As a long-time Shell employee, I always observed the negative press from Nigeria with mixed feelings. More than anything, I was glad I never had to work there, despite the financial rewards, since the place had a reputation as a marriage breaker, somewhere where ones humanity would be tested, and a posting with very delicate decisions to make.
Although I never saw it myself, no doubt over the years there have been times when Shell employees, and others, have compromised fair business values and displayed colonial prejudice. Yet I can only imagine the pressures these people have been working under, and sense that most have been honest humans trying to plot a course through ambiguity. I have seen as fact the efforts Shell has made over many years to develop Nigerian staff, often a very frustrating effort for a variety of reasons, and certainly working in the opposite direction to plundering and stripping.
But the wider point is about the future. A key thing Africa requires to develop its people is business investment. Yet in the West we are taking a nuanced view about the current wave of Chinese investment there, while holding our nose when it comes to our own primary investors, oil companies and miners.
It is fair to be cautious about such investors. The disgraceful Transocean debacle showed that some companies will take advantage of lax institutional setups. But the result can be a set of restrictions and a public relations climate which stifle investors.
This in turn leaves some potential resources underutilised, and a monopolist feel to those investors who remain. What I mean by that is a climate of regulation rather than competition, with scope for local politicians to exploit rules and also for companies to become part of the establishment, with political risks but reduced competitive ones.
What would be better for Africa would be a well defined, stable regulatory regime, but then encouragement of new entrants and healthy competition. Over time, competition improves standards, not just in areas such as prices and costs but also in their legacy, development of staff, and so on. That is how capitalism works. That is why a profit motive helps, in order to offer potential reward for investors.
We usually understand this in the west, even if politics sometimes gets in the way. By the way, you can argue the same recipe for banking, since that sector globally suffers the same problems. Do you see much competition on savers interest rates just now? Now it is time to apply good capitalist principles in Africa. In many ways that is exactly what the Chinese are doing, and good luck to them. It is a shame if outdated notions and the legacy of past mistakes inhibit others from playing the same game.
What we are seeing in North Africa can be seen as a part of this trend, as a possible outcome of the revolutions could well be a flowering of nations held back by repressive regimes. With a semblance of democracy, better education (especially of girls) and a freer business climate should not be far behind. Of course, the road could be a rocky one. The current Western propaganda in Libya cannot obscure the short-term likelihood of death, depravity and other unfair outcomes, partly at our bidding.
But economic news across the continent has generally become good, with prospects for even better developments. Ten years ago there were three democracies in Africa, now there are 23. Infant mortality has plummeted, despite the impact of Aids. Think tanks predict Chinese rates of growth over the next twenty years, buoyed by the usual golden combination of demography, education, resources and investment.
For many countries in Africa, a turning point was the debt elimination programme from around the millennium. After that, resources could be diverted away from servicing debt into more constructive uses. We should not forget the key role played by both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in championing that initiative. Their legacies have since become somewhat tarnished by later errors, but that was a truly heroic achievement, probably with more global impact than most politicians can claim over their careers.
With the continuing need for investment in Africa, I believe the time has come to challenge the prevailing opinion of Oil Companies in Africa, that of evil empires stripping natural resources and plundering the profits.
As a long-time Shell employee, I always observed the negative press from Nigeria with mixed feelings. More than anything, I was glad I never had to work there, despite the financial rewards, since the place had a reputation as a marriage breaker, somewhere where ones humanity would be tested, and a posting with very delicate decisions to make.
Although I never saw it myself, no doubt over the years there have been times when Shell employees, and others, have compromised fair business values and displayed colonial prejudice. Yet I can only imagine the pressures these people have been working under, and sense that most have been honest humans trying to plot a course through ambiguity. I have seen as fact the efforts Shell has made over many years to develop Nigerian staff, often a very frustrating effort for a variety of reasons, and certainly working in the opposite direction to plundering and stripping.
But the wider point is about the future. A key thing Africa requires to develop its people is business investment. Yet in the West we are taking a nuanced view about the current wave of Chinese investment there, while holding our nose when it comes to our own primary investors, oil companies and miners.
It is fair to be cautious about such investors. The disgraceful Transocean debacle showed that some companies will take advantage of lax institutional setups. But the result can be a set of restrictions and a public relations climate which stifle investors.
This in turn leaves some potential resources underutilised, and a monopolist feel to those investors who remain. What I mean by that is a climate of regulation rather than competition, with scope for local politicians to exploit rules and also for companies to become part of the establishment, with political risks but reduced competitive ones.
What would be better for Africa would be a well defined, stable regulatory regime, but then encouragement of new entrants and healthy competition. Over time, competition improves standards, not just in areas such as prices and costs but also in their legacy, development of staff, and so on. That is how capitalism works. That is why a profit motive helps, in order to offer potential reward for investors.
We usually understand this in the west, even if politics sometimes gets in the way. By the way, you can argue the same recipe for banking, since that sector globally suffers the same problems. Do you see much competition on savers interest rates just now? Now it is time to apply good capitalist principles in Africa. In many ways that is exactly what the Chinese are doing, and good luck to them. It is a shame if outdated notions and the legacy of past mistakes inhibit others from playing the same game.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tipping Points
There have been some excellent articles in the Guardian Weekly recently about the Arab uprisings, many of them drawn from the Observer.
A couple of articles have discussed what it takes for an uprising to build enough momentum to become unstoppable. This is a very topical point, as the current action in Libya carries so much risk.
An uprising often starts with a single incident. The man who set fire to himself in the Tunis market is a classic example. That incident becomes a topic of conversation across the country, with sympathies often starting at a very micro level and then building into more widespread discontent with the ruling group, especially if they mishandle the incident.
Then you get some youth, some students, some active political people and some general troublemakers starting a series of demonstrations. That in itself is easily quelled. The problems for rulers start when the scale of these protests ratchets up to include the middle class.
When does that happen? Well for a start, the middle class have to have some latent discontent, deeper than the normal moaning we all have about any government. If all we can complain about are some thuggish tactics and rulers lining their pockets, the middle class won’t join in. If the thuggish tactics are so widespread that middle class people know victims personally that is more serious. And if middle class people see economic suffering of their own kind – maybe their children or less well off relatives – then they may act. In the current Arab cases, the role of steeply rising food prices should not be underestimated.
Then, there is the role of police, army and secret police. Once they cut the rug from under the regime, the game is up. Facebook and the like have had an impact as a catalyst – it has become easier to communicate informally, widely and safely.
If the latent discontent is there, the response of the state to the early protests becomes crucial, and it is a hard balance to strike. Bribes might work, but only if the latent discontent is mild enough. Brutality might work too, if it is focused enough. But too passive a response takes away the risk of joining in, while unfocused brutality may simply create a rage which brings people out in solidarity despite the risk.
In Libya we now reach an extra stage. The middle class, at least in Tripoli, has yet to declare rebellion, and the army and secret police are largely intact too. And Gaddafi has been handed a joker, in the form of foreign interference. The middle class can be relied upon to be patriotic, and foreign airplanes are generally an affront to patriotism. Many things amazed me during the time of the Iraq invasion, but the thing that astounded me most was the belief among the US troops that they would be welcomed in the streets.
So, Libya is now very delicate indeed. Gaddafi will be irrational but ruthless cunning. The international forces will be cautious and limited by fickle public support. This could get nasty.
It is tempting to think of people under repressive regimes as being rather cowardly. Perhaps we think we would take action ourselves, joining the rebellions at an early stage?
I think this misunderstands the way our minds work. Most of the time, we are driven more by avoiding disaster rather than seeking tough potential opportunities. In many situations, we weigh the risk of action more heavily than the possible benefit. I think if we look hard and honestly we can find examples from our own past. Perhaps a neighbourhood gang was acting anti-socially or with racism, and we chose to ignore rather than intervene? Perhaps people at our work were breaking laws or treating fellow employees badly?
In these situations, acting also tends to become harder rather than easier over time. We scoff at the Germans for embracing Hitler but I’m not sure other so-called educated nations would not have done the same.
Even if someone joining a rebellion doesn’t fall prey to the secret police, it is far from obvious that life after Gaddafi will be a major improvement on life now. I saw this myself in the early 1990’s in Eastern Europe. True, the people had some freedom, and indeed the long-term result of the revolutions has been of net benefit, at least to younger generations. But freedom doesn’t count for much when the electricity only works for two hours per day and basic healthcare is suddenly unaffordable. Which is better, a shop with only five items but all affordable, or one with a hundred, all out of reach? These were the initial outcomes in Eastern Europe.
At least we are mature enough not to fall for the patriotism card. Or are we? I’m convinced that the fuss in the UK about prisoners having the vote is entirely because the directive came from a foreign body. More trivially, think back to England losing out on the 2018 World Cup – even seasoned commentators left their brains somewhere then.
And, despite Facebook, we can still be manipulated by our establishments. The craven coverage of the Libya operation on British television rings like propaganda to me, with MOD statements accepted without challenge, and the prescribed language (allies, coalition, international community) used all the time. Why has no commentator asked a military expert whether Libya could strike us, or at least Sicily? My suspicion is because the question is uncomfortable and the establishment has decreed it off limits. And of course media manipulation in Libya will be many times more pervasive and long-lasting than what we see here.
So, tipping points come a little easier nowadays, but are still hard to reach. And, putting myself in the shoes of a middle class worker in Tripoli, listening in fear to foreign airplanes over the head of my kids each night, I think I can see why.
A couple of articles have discussed what it takes for an uprising to build enough momentum to become unstoppable. This is a very topical point, as the current action in Libya carries so much risk.
An uprising often starts with a single incident. The man who set fire to himself in the Tunis market is a classic example. That incident becomes a topic of conversation across the country, with sympathies often starting at a very micro level and then building into more widespread discontent with the ruling group, especially if they mishandle the incident.
Then you get some youth, some students, some active political people and some general troublemakers starting a series of demonstrations. That in itself is easily quelled. The problems for rulers start when the scale of these protests ratchets up to include the middle class.
When does that happen? Well for a start, the middle class have to have some latent discontent, deeper than the normal moaning we all have about any government. If all we can complain about are some thuggish tactics and rulers lining their pockets, the middle class won’t join in. If the thuggish tactics are so widespread that middle class people know victims personally that is more serious. And if middle class people see economic suffering of their own kind – maybe their children or less well off relatives – then they may act. In the current Arab cases, the role of steeply rising food prices should not be underestimated.
Then, there is the role of police, army and secret police. Once they cut the rug from under the regime, the game is up. Facebook and the like have had an impact as a catalyst – it has become easier to communicate informally, widely and safely.
If the latent discontent is there, the response of the state to the early protests becomes crucial, and it is a hard balance to strike. Bribes might work, but only if the latent discontent is mild enough. Brutality might work too, if it is focused enough. But too passive a response takes away the risk of joining in, while unfocused brutality may simply create a rage which brings people out in solidarity despite the risk.
In Libya we now reach an extra stage. The middle class, at least in Tripoli, has yet to declare rebellion, and the army and secret police are largely intact too. And Gaddafi has been handed a joker, in the form of foreign interference. The middle class can be relied upon to be patriotic, and foreign airplanes are generally an affront to patriotism. Many things amazed me during the time of the Iraq invasion, but the thing that astounded me most was the belief among the US troops that they would be welcomed in the streets.
So, Libya is now very delicate indeed. Gaddafi will be irrational but ruthless cunning. The international forces will be cautious and limited by fickle public support. This could get nasty.
It is tempting to think of people under repressive regimes as being rather cowardly. Perhaps we think we would take action ourselves, joining the rebellions at an early stage?
I think this misunderstands the way our minds work. Most of the time, we are driven more by avoiding disaster rather than seeking tough potential opportunities. In many situations, we weigh the risk of action more heavily than the possible benefit. I think if we look hard and honestly we can find examples from our own past. Perhaps a neighbourhood gang was acting anti-socially or with racism, and we chose to ignore rather than intervene? Perhaps people at our work were breaking laws or treating fellow employees badly?
In these situations, acting also tends to become harder rather than easier over time. We scoff at the Germans for embracing Hitler but I’m not sure other so-called educated nations would not have done the same.
Even if someone joining a rebellion doesn’t fall prey to the secret police, it is far from obvious that life after Gaddafi will be a major improvement on life now. I saw this myself in the early 1990’s in Eastern Europe. True, the people had some freedom, and indeed the long-term result of the revolutions has been of net benefit, at least to younger generations. But freedom doesn’t count for much when the electricity only works for two hours per day and basic healthcare is suddenly unaffordable. Which is better, a shop with only five items but all affordable, or one with a hundred, all out of reach? These were the initial outcomes in Eastern Europe.
At least we are mature enough not to fall for the patriotism card. Or are we? I’m convinced that the fuss in the UK about prisoners having the vote is entirely because the directive came from a foreign body. More trivially, think back to England losing out on the 2018 World Cup – even seasoned commentators left their brains somewhere then.
And, despite Facebook, we can still be manipulated by our establishments. The craven coverage of the Libya operation on British television rings like propaganda to me, with MOD statements accepted without challenge, and the prescribed language (allies, coalition, international community) used all the time. Why has no commentator asked a military expert whether Libya could strike us, or at least Sicily? My suspicion is because the question is uncomfortable and the establishment has decreed it off limits. And of course media manipulation in Libya will be many times more pervasive and long-lasting than what we see here.
So, tipping points come a little easier nowadays, but are still hard to reach. And, putting myself in the shoes of a middle class worker in Tripoli, listening in fear to foreign airplanes over the head of my kids each night, I think I can see why.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Simpler Living
Post separation and then post retirement, one of the things I promised myself was to live more simply. That is a statement easy to make but hard to explain. This morning I was asked what I actually meant. So I spent some time thinking about it.
The context was having just returned from a fabulous two week holiday in Mexico, partly spent at a singing workshop. Is that very simple? Then I thought about having affairs in multiple countries, with all the tax and other ramifications. Simple?
Some parts of life are simpler than others. Yet my life does feel simpler overall, and not just because I no longer spend half my waking week in an office. Why is this? What are essential components of a simpler life? Here are some ideas.
Consciously partaking of the free or easy things on offer and really savouring them is a big part of it. Birdsong, spring flowers, seasons, sunshine, seaside. Sleeping, bathing. The smiles, looks, sentiments of people, sharing a joke or a compliment. Reading, writing, listening to words or music, singing. Tasting the first food of the day. Deep companionship of loved ones. Seeking company of older and younger people. Reflection. None of these things cost very much and many are readily available to most of us. Yet we sometimes take them all for granted, and in the end they become so much background music, unless we consciously stop that from happening. Rediscovery of those simple pleasures is an important component of finding a simple life.
Then there is what is excluded from a simple life. Losing sight of contentment in a rush of ambition. Coveting what we miss rather than appreciating what we have. Joining a competition or a queue or a perceived game of status just because it is there and others choose to play. Taking on so many things than none of them ever has any quality or pleasure. Spending so much effort on planning that little is left for actually doing or enjoying. Judging others and complaining rather than accepting with tolerance. Rushing to fill every moment, rather than being flexible and open to spontaneous adventures.
Mostly simpler life as I see it is an attitude. Taking life as it comes, living for the here and now, being aware of our human and other natural surroundings, respectful of them and feeling blessed from them.
I looked up others’ ideas on the web. While there are many good ideas residing under the umbrella of a simple life, many of these are not part of my idea of simplicity.
Simplicity does not have to be puritan or laced with self denial. Nor does it have to be saintly, still less chaste. Yes, monks live simple lives. But simple lives do not have to be like those of monks.
Simple also does not have to mean sedentary or dull. We can be active and simple. Just not so active that we lose all perspective. Running is great. Compulsive running is fine too if it gives pleasure and helps reflection. But a painful pursuit of ever more fitness? I am not so sure.
Simple can also mean fewer possessions, but I am not sure if that is essential. Renting rather than buying in pursuit of simplicity can make sense. Doing without modern technology feels more like self denial to me, and I don’t really see the point. Hoarding items rather than buying something relatively cheap when it is needed even seems contrary to simple principles, as the items need to be stored and indexed. A healthy and practical view on chucking things out feels simpler to me, even if that entails some waste and might not always help the planet as much.
Some seem to equate simplicity with self sufficiency, like Tom and Barbara in The Good Life all those years ago. Even though that was fiction, I fear that the complexity of the lives they ended up with might indeed be where this quest would often end. By all means take on an allotment, but self sufficiency? In today’s developed world, that hardly feels like a recipe for simplicity.
Simple doesn’t mean frugal or poor either, though it is hard to reconcile simplicity with taking on lots of debt, or virulent acquisition of money or assets for its own sake.
What about service? Should a simple life always include giving? Giving is good, and service is fulfilling for its own sake, so many simpler lives will entail an element of service, though I don’t see it as essential.
So I think I’ll keep my own notion of simplicity limited to the few concepts I listed above. I have to be careful that simplicity does not come to mean much the same as privilege, a result of relative wealth in money and time. It will be much harder to pursue simplicity in Libya, or North-East Japan or even in Liverpool. It will also be tricky for new parents or people setting out on careers. How we define and act out simplicity will differ through our life phases, yet I believe most of us have the opportunity to make our lives simpler than they are today. By doing so we will get more out of our lives as a result, and I don’t think we would do any harm to GDP or competitiveness either, since our productivity would rise.
How does my current life measure up? Rather well I think. A holiday in Mexico with some singing included is a pleasure, and not contrary to simple principles if not repeated too often. As for the three tax jurisdictions, that is not so ideal, so there is something I need to work on.
So, thanks for the question, and the chance to think about this. I wonder how my feelings about this will change over time. I recommend everyone to define a simple life for themselves, and to audit it against reality. If there is a gap – and for most of us there is likely to be a big gap – then take some decisive action to redress the balance.
The context was having just returned from a fabulous two week holiday in Mexico, partly spent at a singing workshop. Is that very simple? Then I thought about having affairs in multiple countries, with all the tax and other ramifications. Simple?
Some parts of life are simpler than others. Yet my life does feel simpler overall, and not just because I no longer spend half my waking week in an office. Why is this? What are essential components of a simpler life? Here are some ideas.
Consciously partaking of the free or easy things on offer and really savouring them is a big part of it. Birdsong, spring flowers, seasons, sunshine, seaside. Sleeping, bathing. The smiles, looks, sentiments of people, sharing a joke or a compliment. Reading, writing, listening to words or music, singing. Tasting the first food of the day. Deep companionship of loved ones. Seeking company of older and younger people. Reflection. None of these things cost very much and many are readily available to most of us. Yet we sometimes take them all for granted, and in the end they become so much background music, unless we consciously stop that from happening. Rediscovery of those simple pleasures is an important component of finding a simple life.
Then there is what is excluded from a simple life. Losing sight of contentment in a rush of ambition. Coveting what we miss rather than appreciating what we have. Joining a competition or a queue or a perceived game of status just because it is there and others choose to play. Taking on so many things than none of them ever has any quality or pleasure. Spending so much effort on planning that little is left for actually doing or enjoying. Judging others and complaining rather than accepting with tolerance. Rushing to fill every moment, rather than being flexible and open to spontaneous adventures.
Mostly simpler life as I see it is an attitude. Taking life as it comes, living for the here and now, being aware of our human and other natural surroundings, respectful of them and feeling blessed from them.
I looked up others’ ideas on the web. While there are many good ideas residing under the umbrella of a simple life, many of these are not part of my idea of simplicity.
Simplicity does not have to be puritan or laced with self denial. Nor does it have to be saintly, still less chaste. Yes, monks live simple lives. But simple lives do not have to be like those of monks.
Simple also does not have to mean sedentary or dull. We can be active and simple. Just not so active that we lose all perspective. Running is great. Compulsive running is fine too if it gives pleasure and helps reflection. But a painful pursuit of ever more fitness? I am not so sure.
Simple can also mean fewer possessions, but I am not sure if that is essential. Renting rather than buying in pursuit of simplicity can make sense. Doing without modern technology feels more like self denial to me, and I don’t really see the point. Hoarding items rather than buying something relatively cheap when it is needed even seems contrary to simple principles, as the items need to be stored and indexed. A healthy and practical view on chucking things out feels simpler to me, even if that entails some waste and might not always help the planet as much.
Some seem to equate simplicity with self sufficiency, like Tom and Barbara in The Good Life all those years ago. Even though that was fiction, I fear that the complexity of the lives they ended up with might indeed be where this quest would often end. By all means take on an allotment, but self sufficiency? In today’s developed world, that hardly feels like a recipe for simplicity.
Simple doesn’t mean frugal or poor either, though it is hard to reconcile simplicity with taking on lots of debt, or virulent acquisition of money or assets for its own sake.
What about service? Should a simple life always include giving? Giving is good, and service is fulfilling for its own sake, so many simpler lives will entail an element of service, though I don’t see it as essential.
So I think I’ll keep my own notion of simplicity limited to the few concepts I listed above. I have to be careful that simplicity does not come to mean much the same as privilege, a result of relative wealth in money and time. It will be much harder to pursue simplicity in Libya, or North-East Japan or even in Liverpool. It will also be tricky for new parents or people setting out on careers. How we define and act out simplicity will differ through our life phases, yet I believe most of us have the opportunity to make our lives simpler than they are today. By doing so we will get more out of our lives as a result, and I don’t think we would do any harm to GDP or competitiveness either, since our productivity would rise.
How does my current life measure up? Rather well I think. A holiday in Mexico with some singing included is a pleasure, and not contrary to simple principles if not repeated too often. As for the three tax jurisdictions, that is not so ideal, so there is something I need to work on.
So, thanks for the question, and the chance to think about this. I wonder how my feelings about this will change over time. I recommend everyone to define a simple life for themselves, and to audit it against reality. If there is a gap – and for most of us there is likely to be a big gap – then take some decisive action to redress the balance.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Receiving Feedback
We have to improve to grow. We all have great scope to improve. Receiving, interpreting and acting on feedback is one of the most effective ways to improve. Yet, sadly, most of us are not very good at it.
Firstly, we tend to associate feedback with verbal or written comments of others, often through an appraisal type situation. That is an important and very structured way to receive feedback, but not the only one. Far more common and accessible is feedback from our own senses. Keeping those senses open is the first key to success.
My favourite example of this is leading a musical rehearsal or performance, something I am trying to develop (from a very low base). I have never been on a faster learning curve in my life, which is one reason I derive so much pleasure from the activity. Leading a rehearsal involves so many overlapping skills, and the feedback available is plentiful and instant, in the form of the sound produced and the faces producing it. There is also ample scope to experiment.
When conducting, I am amazed how tiny changes can lead to massive differences in result. As a small example, holding your hands a little lower tends to lead to a choir singing with more support from their body (but, unfortunately, also to complaints from the accompanist that they can’t see the beat). As a beginner, it is truly daunting to see how many dimensions are in play and how far there is to travel on the improvement journey.
Conducting and singing help me to use my senses better in other fields (once again, from a very low base). We receive feedback from almost everything we say or do, if only we are looking out for it. You don’t have to be a politician or business person to be able to benefit from smarter presentation of your ideas. At school we learn to write, but less to speak well, yet the latter has far more impact on our effectiveness through life. Becoming aware of the impact of what we are saying, and in experimenting with subtle differences, is a massive learning opportunity for all of us. As I have been told countless times, your body language while listening matters too.
Nowadays, we can use technology to obtain more feedback. If we are singers, we can record ourselves, no matter how painful the experience. If premier league footballers, we can find out an amazing variety of things, including our pass accuracy, our footprint through a game and how far we’ve run. While on football, did you notice that Jose Mourinho has passed nine seasons without losing a single home league game? To put this milestone in context, consider that in the last nine completed seasons, Manchester United lost 18 home league games.
So there is plenty of feedback out there without having to ask. But we can usually do better in how and when we ask as well, and also how we learn from formal appraisals.
Just as it is good advice to offer feedback in the moment, so it is a good idea to request feedback often and quickly. You don’t have to ask the boss, you can ask any witness. Indeed a neutral observer may have had a chance to notice more, especially if you pre-warned them. It is a great idea to buddy up with a colleague in your work team, and to make a habit of offering each other feedback whenever possible. I’m amazed how rarely this happens, for it is a winning strategy for all sides and so easy to do. I think one reason is the old hierarchical notion that only the boss (or customer) can give feedback.
The most common problem with feedback is its lack of candid detail. A first response to a request is usually very basic, something like “very good”. We tend to open with this because we are not sure the other party really wants the full truth, and is rather merely seeking reassurance. So make plain you want more. Ask detailed questions not just for an overall summary. Remember also to explore your strengths as well as your improvement opportunities. Maximising strengths gives better payback than working on faults, and is much more fun as well.
Most important is the technique of multiple probing. The initial feedback will almost always just be reassurance. The first probe may well be the same. The second one starts to allow the other party to conclude that you really want candour, but will still be superficial. Only by the fourth or fifth probe does the useful stuff start to emerge. Go to this level, time after time. The effort will repay itself.
A final tip is to stop the excuses. Starting as children, we develop the habit of making excuses. During an appraisal, it is common for someone to spend far more effort trying to rationalise why they said or did something than they do absorbing the lessons. We all do it, as an inbuilt defence mechanism. Especially when we have a tough relationship with the boss, we look for mitigation, for context, and even for reasons to disregard the feedback, for example that they don’t like or understand us. Tough relationships offer the most opportunities to learn, if we remain open.
To stop the excuses, just force yourself to shut up for thirty seconds, except for probes or requests for details or ideas to correct. Never say but. Always say thank you. Then reflect, learn, and probe further. Rebuttal or explanation can come later.
I’ll finish with conductors. Just because there is so much feedback available without asking doesn’t make it wrong to ask. I’ve had the chance to interview many conductors over the last year. My favourite question was to ask how they continued to improve, since it showed how few took the trouble. They gave answers about trying different repertoire or going on workshops, but few ever took the trouble to buddy up with a peer, leave alone to ask their choir. Professional snobbery at work here I fear, and the same will apply to most professions.
Firstly, we tend to associate feedback with verbal or written comments of others, often through an appraisal type situation. That is an important and very structured way to receive feedback, but not the only one. Far more common and accessible is feedback from our own senses. Keeping those senses open is the first key to success.
My favourite example of this is leading a musical rehearsal or performance, something I am trying to develop (from a very low base). I have never been on a faster learning curve in my life, which is one reason I derive so much pleasure from the activity. Leading a rehearsal involves so many overlapping skills, and the feedback available is plentiful and instant, in the form of the sound produced and the faces producing it. There is also ample scope to experiment.
When conducting, I am amazed how tiny changes can lead to massive differences in result. As a small example, holding your hands a little lower tends to lead to a choir singing with more support from their body (but, unfortunately, also to complaints from the accompanist that they can’t see the beat). As a beginner, it is truly daunting to see how many dimensions are in play and how far there is to travel on the improvement journey.
Conducting and singing help me to use my senses better in other fields (once again, from a very low base). We receive feedback from almost everything we say or do, if only we are looking out for it. You don’t have to be a politician or business person to be able to benefit from smarter presentation of your ideas. At school we learn to write, but less to speak well, yet the latter has far more impact on our effectiveness through life. Becoming aware of the impact of what we are saying, and in experimenting with subtle differences, is a massive learning opportunity for all of us. As I have been told countless times, your body language while listening matters too.
Nowadays, we can use technology to obtain more feedback. If we are singers, we can record ourselves, no matter how painful the experience. If premier league footballers, we can find out an amazing variety of things, including our pass accuracy, our footprint through a game and how far we’ve run. While on football, did you notice that Jose Mourinho has passed nine seasons without losing a single home league game? To put this milestone in context, consider that in the last nine completed seasons, Manchester United lost 18 home league games.
So there is plenty of feedback out there without having to ask. But we can usually do better in how and when we ask as well, and also how we learn from formal appraisals.
Just as it is good advice to offer feedback in the moment, so it is a good idea to request feedback often and quickly. You don’t have to ask the boss, you can ask any witness. Indeed a neutral observer may have had a chance to notice more, especially if you pre-warned them. It is a great idea to buddy up with a colleague in your work team, and to make a habit of offering each other feedback whenever possible. I’m amazed how rarely this happens, for it is a winning strategy for all sides and so easy to do. I think one reason is the old hierarchical notion that only the boss (or customer) can give feedback.
The most common problem with feedback is its lack of candid detail. A first response to a request is usually very basic, something like “very good”. We tend to open with this because we are not sure the other party really wants the full truth, and is rather merely seeking reassurance. So make plain you want more. Ask detailed questions not just for an overall summary. Remember also to explore your strengths as well as your improvement opportunities. Maximising strengths gives better payback than working on faults, and is much more fun as well.
Most important is the technique of multiple probing. The initial feedback will almost always just be reassurance. The first probe may well be the same. The second one starts to allow the other party to conclude that you really want candour, but will still be superficial. Only by the fourth or fifth probe does the useful stuff start to emerge. Go to this level, time after time. The effort will repay itself.
A final tip is to stop the excuses. Starting as children, we develop the habit of making excuses. During an appraisal, it is common for someone to spend far more effort trying to rationalise why they said or did something than they do absorbing the lessons. We all do it, as an inbuilt defence mechanism. Especially when we have a tough relationship with the boss, we look for mitigation, for context, and even for reasons to disregard the feedback, for example that they don’t like or understand us. Tough relationships offer the most opportunities to learn, if we remain open.
To stop the excuses, just force yourself to shut up for thirty seconds, except for probes or requests for details or ideas to correct. Never say but. Always say thank you. Then reflect, learn, and probe further. Rebuttal or explanation can come later.
I’ll finish with conductors. Just because there is so much feedback available without asking doesn’t make it wrong to ask. I’ve had the chance to interview many conductors over the last year. My favourite question was to ask how they continued to improve, since it showed how few took the trouble. They gave answers about trying different repertoire or going on workshops, but few ever took the trouble to buddy up with a peer, leave alone to ask their choir. Professional snobbery at work here I fear, and the same will apply to most professions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)