The Woolwich murder: a relational dashboard

Quote

“Anger ventilated often hurries toward forgiveness; and concealed often hardens into revenge.”  Edward Bulwer-Lytton (British politician and novelist, 1803-73)

News

Wednesday’s brutal murder on an off-duty soldier in London has thrown up a wide range of reactions and responses which serve as indicators of several key relationships in Britain.

Positive scores:

• The courage of members of the public who stopped to help, one woman from Cornwall even engaging an attacker in conversation to try and calm the situation; this suggests a good degree of solidarity across communities in Britain
• Several Muslim community leaders were quick to voice condemnation of the attack, as the perpetrators had delivered an Islamist tirade at the scene.  This points to a strong desire by the Muslim community to distance itself from extremists and affirm its shared values with the rest of the country
• The police who arrived on the scene showed restraint as they didn’t shoot to kill, but instead to disarm, the attackers; this measured response helped to limit the relational damage which might have escalated if they had adopted a heavy handed approach (such as sparked of the London riots in 2011)

Negative scores:

• The time, place and brutality of the attack and the choice of victim suggests that the relationship between Islamist extremists and the British armed services is dire to the point where individual humanity is lost in the hatred generated by ideology
• Sensational media coverage has not served the British public well; it gave a public platform to the jihadists which has led to violent reactions by far right groups such as the English Defence League, and may yet inspire copycat attacks on other members of the armed forces
• By waiting on the scene after the attacks and letting themselves be filmed, the extremists successfully manipulated the media and used them to magnify their message

Read on…

An analysis in the Guardian by a former Cobra staff officer today suggests the government over-reacted by convening the highest national security committee, Cobra, to the detriment of a number of relationships; read the article here.

Walk the talk

The pathway to murder starts with resentment, leading to bitterness, hatred and violence; are you aware of any growing resentment in the heart of someone you know well, which you could help defuse?

The last word

From the Bible, Proverbs chapter 29 verse 8, “Scornful people inflame a city, but those who are wise turn away wrath.”

Sexual exploitation and the limits of freedom

Quote
“The only freedom I care about is the freedom to do right; the freedom to do wrong I am ready to part with on the cheapest terms to anyone who will take it of me.”  Thomas Huxley (atheist and defender of Darwin’s theory of evolution), 1870.
 
News
Seven members of a paedophile gang based in Oxford were sentenced this week, having been guilty of grooming and then sexually exploiting a number of vulnerable girls as young as 11 over several years.  This is the latest in a string of similar cases around British cities.

‘How can this be happening?’ is a phrase cropping up in the media.  Accusations of blame fly in all directions: staff of care homes where most of the girls were living; police and social services who didn’t respond sooner; religious or cultural differences; apathetic members of the public who didn’t speak up; or the girls themselves, for their risky behaviour.

The underlying problem in society is the dilemma between maximising freedom and choice (especially in the area of sex) and the responsibility to protect the more vulnerable members of society.  The reality in our culture is that individual freedom holds the trump card.

Now freedom is all very well, provided there is a way of restraining ‘free’ people from exploiting and abusing others.  There can be three mutually reinforcing sources of such restraint: moral discipline, the cultural consensus, and the law of the land.  What has happened over the last 50 years?  Morality has become highly individualised, and the cultural consensus is no longer influenced by those religious values emphasising the importance of doing right and avoiding sin, on the basis of being accountable to God.

So that increasingly leaves the law and various government agencies, such as police and social services, with the job of stopping people from sexually exploiting vulnerable children.  Is that realistic?

There is something deeply flawed with our culture of individual liberty, as the freedom of some will always be at the expense of the vulnerable or poor or small or disabled.  We cannot delegate their protection to the state.  Instead we need a decisive shift – culturally and personally – towards valuing our relationships and responsibilities one to another, even if that involves some loss of individual freedom.

Read on...
For more details on the actual extent and nature of child sexual exploitation by gangs and groups in Britain, read the Executive Summary of this recent report by the UK Children’s Commissioner.

Walk the talk
What steps could you take in your home, workplace or community to encourage people to develop a greater sense of responsibility towards members of more vulnerable groups?

The last word
From the Bible, Luke 10, verses 30-32: ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers… A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.  So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.’

The shirt on your back

Quote

“Fashion is made to become unfashionable.”  Coco Chanel

News

So far 275 bodies have been pulled of the garment factory in Bangladesh which collapsed on Wednesday, but hundreds of other people in the building are still unaccounted for.  The tragedy has revealed a chain of connections from the grieving community in the outskirts of Dhaka all the way to high streets in Europe and North America.  

At one level this terrible event can be viewed through a culpability lens.  Are the factory directors to blame for ignoring the warning cracks in the structure, or the building owner who failed to meet construction standards?  To what extent is the government liable for its failure to implement health and safety policies, or is it the fault of western clothing brands who are constantly seeking to reduce costs in the supply chain?

It is likely that the pressure to drive down costs and increase profits by companies at the local, national and international levels ultimately influenced the main decisions and short cuts that led to the building collapse on Wednesday with thousands of people inside. 

The average American buys 68 garments and 8 pairs of shoes a year.  The West’s demand for cheap, ‘throw away’ fashion means factories in places like Bangladesh have to minimise their financial costs to stay in business – but at what relational cost?  The supply chain is not just an economic concept – it is a relational one too.

If this tragedy were to spur more consumers in the West to pressure big brands to take more responsibility for the working conditions at the other end of the supply chain, even if it means paying a little more for their clothes, then the loss of hundreds of grieving families outside Dhaka may not be entirely in vain.

Read on…

A seven minute video produced by the Fair Wear foundation, based in Amsterdam, explains the complexities of clothing supply chains, the ways people can be exploited and what can be done to improve the conditions for factory workers. Watch it here.

Walk the talk

Do you know where the shirt you are wearing was made?  Why not go to the website of the retailer you buy from or brand you wear to find out how ethical their supply chain is – and then send them an email with your thoughts?

The last word

From the Bible, Deuteronomy 22 verse 8: “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.”

The Thatcher legacy: a relational audit

- a personal view by Michael Schluter

 
We depart from our usual Friday Five format to bring a commentary by Michael Schluter on Margaret Thatcher’s legacy.  Michael headed up the ‘Keep Sunday Special Campaign’ in 1985-86, which led to the only defeat of a whole government bill while Mrs Thatcher was prime minister.

Margaret Thatcher is remembered with respect and affection by many, and rightly so, for breaking the power of the unions and re-establishing non-aggressive industrial relations in Britain. From a relational perspective there are few things more damaging to relationships than the breakdown of law and order.  ‘Parity’ in the relationship between unions and management in the coal mining industry, and between unions and government generally, was at a low level when Mrs Thatcher came to power. Some may feel that power swung too far back towards the employers, but I believe everyone should acknowledge there are some important relational benefits in Mrs Thatcher’s legacy.

However, it has to be recognised also that there are significant relational downsides to her legacy. She was so focused on the individual, and rolling back the power of the state, that she famously said ‘there’s no such thing as society’ (see below). Arguably, she went over the top in pursuit of market solutions and ended up closing mines and factories in the Midlands and North of England without making adequate preparation for alternative sources of employment and incomes. This left many communities and households devastated for a generation. The bitterness and resentment of these people has flared up again this week following Mrs Thatcher’s death.

In Europe her fierce defence of British interests gave the UK short-term financial benefits but probably at the expense of long-term goodwill and friendship with our European neighbours.  On the other hand, her contribution to ending the Cold War helped re-establish the relationship between the peoples of East and West Europe.

In terms of family and religious life, she attacked the institution of Sundays, which led on to the substantial commercialisation of Sundays under John Major in 1994. This undermined the opportunity for many to enjoy a shared weekly day off with friends and family.

Above all, through her belief in the magic of the market, Mrs Thatcher’s financial reforms cut off the few remaining relational threads between providers and users of funds for investment, and led to increased relational distance between management and employees as company size and pay differentials burgeoned.

So hers is a complex and controversial legacy from a relationships standpoint. Let’s hope for great leaders in the future with the same dedication and determination, but with a relational vision rather than an individualistic and materialistic agenda.

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."  Margaret Thatcher in an interview in 1987

Relationships and reorganisation in the NHS

Quote

“When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.” Billy Graham

News

Far reaching reforms to the English National Health Service (NHS) were implemented this week, as responsibility for health care spending was passed down to over 200 local commissioning groups.   At the same time, deep problems in the NHS were brought to light in a damning report into poor care in North Staffs, which led to 1200 unnecessary deaths and a culture of neglect.

NHS reorganisations are hugely expensive.  A senior NHS executive admitted that during the last restructuring, the service lost its focus on patients and was preoccupied with managing the changes and merging organisations. 

The effectiveness of any reforms depends on accurate diagnosis and appropriate prescription.  The fundamental issue is an absence of values around care and respect; managers pursue financial targets rather than patient care.  But the prescription proposed is more of the same: setting new targets around values, holding people accountable for care and punishing staff who fail to deliver.

Such remedies view the healthcare service as a giant machine, which can be micro-managed to improve performance.  But what if the NHS is essentially a vast network of relationships?  Changing organisational values and culture then becomes an organic, relational challenge, involving leadership by example, cultivation of trust and responsibility, and a focus on patients’ experiences as much as clinical outcomes.

These softer goals are less amenable to target setting from a centralised bureaucracy; but they are more human, more caring, and more likely to deliver positive outcomes – not only to patients, but to anxious, overworked staff too.  

Read on…

A much more thorough analysis of relationships in the NHS was made by John Ashcroft and Geoff Meads in 1999.  Although the context of the NHS has changed, much of the underlying thinking and analysis is still pertinent.  Read the book online here.

Walk the talk

Is there an organisational problem you are trying to solve by tightening up the rules?   Might a focus on cultivating more healthy relationships of trust and respect produce a better result in the long run?

The last word

From the Bible, Proverbs 11, verse 17: “Those who are kind benefit themselves, but the cruel bring ruin on themselves.”

A tale of two leaders

Quote

“Humility, that low, sweet root, from which all heavenly virtues shoot” Thomas More (1477-1535)

News

Last week Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis, head of 1.2 billion Roman Catholics; the following day, Xi Jinping assumed the presidency of China, a nation of 1.3 billion people.  Two new leaders have stepped onto the world stage, one spiritual, one political. 

Xi is a ‘princeling’, born into a political elite and groomed for leadership; his authority is based on being head of the Communist party and commander-in-chief of China’s armed forces.  Francis came from a working class, immigrant family and rose through the ranks of the church; his authority is expressed mainly through his example and teaching. 

Both men want to show they are in touch with ordinary people.  President Xi recently visited a poor village, chatting to peasant farmers and tasting their food.  The new Pope has a long track record of solidarity with the poor; consistent with this, he will celebrate mass on Maundy Thursday in a juvenile prison in Rome, where he will wash the feet of 12 young offenders.

Xi Jinping seeks to reform China’s economy, making growth more green and more equitable, and clamping down on corruption.  Pope Francis likewise needs to reform the Catholic Church, which is still weakened by its handling of sex abuse charges and revelations of corruption inside the Vatican. 

The Chinese president has a transactional leadership style in an authoritarian political system, so change will be imposed from the top down, and compliance achieved through rewards and punishments.  In contrast, the new Pope leads relationally, and his radical humility quietly challenges attitudes, and inspires people to relate differently towards others.    

Who has more power, the President or the Pope?  And whose reforms will bring the deeper, more lasting change?  Might it all hinge on their approach to leadership and relational skills?

Read on…

Read Jim Collins’ classic article in Harvard Business Review about ‘Level 5 leaders’ – those rare people who combine deep humility and fierce resolve in order to lead an organisation from good to great  – here.   

Walk the talk

Humility and a firm resolve are valuable for every kind of leader; which of these two do you need to cultivate more?

The last word

From the Bible, 1 Peter chapter 5, verse 3: “Don't lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example.”

Abusing abuse?

Quote

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.”  Abraham Lincoln

News

The flood of sex abuse allegations in the news media since the Jimmy Savile case broke last year shows little sign of abating.  Does it suggest society is getting more depraved, or are more victims finding the courage to speak up about it?  Or is it the press which is giving it more emphasis?

It would not be surprising if inappropriate sexual behaviour is increasing, on the same trajectory as the sexualisation of society.  We cannot expect men (especially) to be bombarded with erotic images in a culture preoccupied with sex, and then not struggle at times with finding a legitimate expression for what that produces.

At the same time, for the last 50 years our society has been empowering women (especially) not to accept sexual harassment.  It is quite right to insist that women and girls (as well as men and boys) are treated with respect as persons and never exploited as objects of someone else’s desires.   So it would not be surprising if victims of sexual abuse are also finding a stronger voice.

But a third current is compounding the issue: accusations of sexual abuse are becoming weapons in the media against whole institutions.  The BBC, the Roman Catholic church, and the Liberal Democratic party have all received such treatment recently.  All too quickly the wrongdoing of an individual subtly shifts to an implication that there may be a whole culture of abuse, which can taint an entire institution – and indirectly all the other people who work there.

Sexual abuse is always wrong, and managing it is also sensitive and difficult.  Just because we are overcoming our reluctance to talk about it openly, let’s be sure not to damage even more relationships through careless accusations and extrapolated guilt.

Read on

Journalist Brendan O’Neill argues that accusations of sexual impropriety have become the key currency of political and moral infighting; read his article here.   

Walk the talk

Most cases of abuse (of any kind) take place because there is a misuse of power in the relationship.  Are you vulnerable to someone taking advantage of you because they have power over you – or vice versa?  If so what might you do to bring more parity to the relationship? 

The last word

From the Bible, Mark chapter 10, verses 42-43: “Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant…”