Assertiveness is not trainable

Yesterday I was doing some training in Assertiveness. It's a topic I personally find really hard to connect with and deliver training on. The main reason for this is there is no way of knowing if the training has been effective or not. I have little doubt about the content I am covering, I have done all the expectation gathering at the beginning of the session, I've facilitated complete discussions, but I'm always left feeling flat because there's no way of testing it.

And I don't like doing role plays. Role plays have their place in training. I will use them when I think there is no other alternative. But you can't role play being assertive. It just doesn't work. You can display the behaviours you think you want your delegates to display, and you can get them to mirror you, but it's just not the same.

With many other behavioural training, you can readily identify how far someone has come on their learning and understanding of the topic. But with assertiveness it's really hard to tell. Why?

Because each person's set of values determines when they think they have been 'violated', I can't peer into your soul and identify 'yes, you should have been assertive in said situation'. I can raise your awareness on the topic. I can help you identify your 'bill of rights'. I can help you learn techniques about responding to challenging and difficult people. But I can't know if you'll do it.

Attending training on the topic will only ever serve as an awareness raiser. You will never know, without certain follow up activities, if the person has taken their learnings and used them effectively. Those certain follow up activities are dedicated and committed follow up training sessions, one to one coaching (either from line manager or from A N Other), reminder messages about the learnings and follow up discussions. That's a lot of activity which the best willed L&Der in the world will want to do, but in reality won't.

Also, being assertive is often part of other things a person wants to achieve. They have too high a workload. Unreasonable requests are put on them. They are a go to person for problems. They are seen to be highly effective at what they do. Yes, being assertive in part in these situations will help, but the skills needs to be used in conjunction with other activities - open discussions, time management, presentation skills, facilitation skills, delegation skills. As such, when talking with delegates about why they want to be assertive it's because of something else they're trying to achieve. This is just one piece of the puzzle.

I have tried time and again to come up with activities that can truly 'test' whether or not someone has learned the requisite skills and can then be assertive. I've not found an answer yet, and I'm still on the hunt.

I'm a dreamer

In the world I live in, we are all capable of doing great things, birds are singing, children play happily and safely, work is meaningful and everything is rose tinted. So that's an insight into my value set. Ok I'm being facetious, but you can see what I'm saying. But that's how I think about the world. Which is also why I'm such a believer in positive psychology as I've mentioned so many times before.

In this rosy world I live in, I also believe in complete openness and transparency. Even down to revealing personal foibles. I'm not a negative person, and I don't (well I try not to) judge others for any reason. And I'm not talking about diversity here, I'm talking just day to day stuff. A street beggar, the newspaper you read, the clothes you wear. I may take the piss, but I won't judge you for it.

Anyway, back to this world of openness and transparency. There's been many a time when I've thought to myself - am I too open? Do you need to know half of the things I talk about? And come on, I do talk a lot of shit. I know that, but is it ok? Actually the fundamental question is this:

Am I putting the sense of professionalism you may hold about me into question when I tweet completely non-work / non-industry related things?

A while back (June me thinks?) I posted a tweet asking should I have 2 separate accounts. One for personal ramblings, and one for the professional / industry / work related stuff?

You may think this is navel gazing stuff, and here's why it is. I have no problem in being open with the world. Especially now that I engage in social media type stuff so much. And I've talked on blogs before about how your career is now open to the world to see, and most people will accept that to be the case. So I'm interested in your opinion on this:

Should I have a 'professional' me, a 'personal' me, or stick to what I have (or something else)?

Why I took on a Dragon

Yesterday I had one the most surreal conversations I've ever been involved in so far. There needs to be some context behind this post though. On Friday 1st October 2010, the Equality Act was introduced in the UK. There's been a lot of expectation about what this new Act will mean for employment legislation. Essentially it brings together all previous employment legislation into one Act, and with it all relating terminologies and nuances. If you want to know more please visit the Acas website.

In truth what this means is in the main, HR folk, employment law specialists and anyone involved in recruitment have one point of reference in regards to equal practices across all groups that may want to enter the workforce.

On the same Friday, Dragon's Den star Duncan Bannatyne wrote an article in the Daily Mail expressing his thoughts on the new Act and what he thinks it holds for UK businesses. You can read that here. On Monday, a lively exchange ensued between Duncan Bannatyne and someone from the HR community (Darren Newman).

Darren wrote a post for XpertHR. One of the Editor's of this site is Michael Carty (who is quite possibly the kindest man I know). He posted a request to Duncan Bannatyne through Twitter asking him if he'd like to respond. Duncan's response was "I would need to read it first and I can't be bothered". Here's that exchange.

This is where I come bounding in. I like Michael, he's a nice guy. I don't like when good people get trounced on for no reason. I am also very conscious about the sensitivities that sit around Equality, Diversity and all topics that fall under this. I've written past posts on

Diversity and about banter. And there are a myriad of experts in the field who will defend the importance of this legislation, and rightly so.

So I called out Duncan and here's my exchange with him. I've been watching the conversation unfold over the last few days and have really had to hold back in commenting on anything to do with this topic. Well that didn't happen! In the grand scheme of things, my little exchange with Duncan means nothing and there will be far more important people discussing the ins and outs of the Equality Act than either Duncan or me.

But - BUT - here's the thing. Employment legislation causes a lot of anguish for a lot of people in businesses because they don't take the requisite time to understand what the Act offers. So here's common misconceptions people hold - and I have heard first hand:

1) I'm a white heterosexual male and I'm now in the minority

2) Laws like this only allow other cultures to take advantage of our society

3) But there are people who will use laws like this to make false claims

4) Laws like this make political correctness go mad

5) If someone overhears my conversation they can claim a grievance?

6) Why can't people just mind their own business

And there are many many more. What's annoying about the comments above is that the people who make those comments have zero clue what they're talking about. They've read something in a newspaper, taken it as gospel, and formulate an opinion based on misinformation.

What Duncan Bannatyne has served to do is only feed into the insecurities of a lot of people who think that minority groups in the UK have far too much protection already. What his article does not help is inclusion, a multi-cultural society, the Big Society, or any other high and lofty ideals we might hold for being British.

As a high profile successful businessman in the UK, Duncan Bannatyne will never admit he's been misinformed about what the Equality Act aims to achieve. He's been told what the Act could mean for those in society who are malicious enough to act in disgusting ways. He's taken that and decided he's going to speak out against the Act.

That's fine. Free speech and all that. The sad thing is that he thinks he's done a good thing for readers of the Daily Mail. He thinks that he's helped people see the folly of the old Labour government and that he's unravelled the Equality Act to be a simple piece of nothing. He thinks that he's educating people and helping them to understand the true motivations of the Equality Act.

What he hasn't done is help people to see how disadvantaged groups of people have had to fight hard battles to secure a positive future for themselves. He's made reference to the 'Made in Dagenham' film and subsequent laws which have been introduced to help minority groups, and then says we've gone too far to help them. To this day, minority groups face hardships Duncan Bannatyne can only conceptually perceive. Even I am sheltered from a lot of hardships faced by people from within my own community.

My plea is this. Before you get on a high horse and defend how 'British' you are, or how minorty groups are now favoured above you, think about who is the recipient of your message. Before you actively stand up against a Law which is in place to ensure we have a fair open society, think about which 'good' you're trying to serve. The topic of equality and diversity will never go away. It will always be there. And there will be staunch advocates as well as staunch rebellions. Ultimately though, it's about a society where we can live and work together with open and fair practices for all. No one should have to be subject to harassment, discrimination or bullying for any reason.

Make Your Leaver Think

I've been doing a lot of exit interviews lately. They're interesting and are all fine, but I'm left thinking from more than one of them - yeah well how about I give you some feedback too.

And that's when it struck me. Why don't we do that? I may be missing an 'innovation' in HR, but this is what I'm thinking. The exit interview should be a 2 part process. Part 1 is about the leaver giving us feedback and insight about why they're leaving. Part 2 should be about giving the leaver feedback about their time with us, their performance, things they did well, badly, key highlights from their time with us and key lows. Think of it as a 360 exit interview.

Imagine the power behind that. Now it's not just leavers giving the business reasons why they need to improve, but (genuinely) the business helping the leaver to go with vital information for their own career and future development.

This is one of those scary things that HR types would go - are you crazy?! Imagine the time, effort, and what's the payback for us? And here's why it should be done. We care about investing in an individual when they are with us. From the moment they join, we give them an onboarding programme, make training available to them, set objectives, entrust them with projects, expect amazing things.

And all that is geared up to them shouting about us to their networks so they come and work for us. So why wouldn't we do this for when they leave? Their leaving should be equally a fulfilled experience outside of the form filling side of the process. They should have a final piece of interaction with the business that says - we still want you to have amazing things to say about us as an agency and this is something we believe will help you grow as an individual in your career.

Cynicism and negativity aside, I'd be interested in your comments on this.