Being Real

Last week proved a hard test for the words ‘aspiration’ and ‘inspiration’, and what it means to be ‘authentic’.

Let’s start with the latter.  A charity recently told me that, just because they had committed to do something, it didn’t actually mean they would do it. This is an organisation whose central working methodology is based on the importance of people making authentic commitments in their life.  Though the method, I now realise, was not meant to be applied to the organisation itself.  It is true that life requires a pragmatic approach, but pragmatism only works if it is grounded on something – if it comes from somewhere.   Similarly, the vision and purpose of charities ‘should’ be grounded in a set of values that are more real and authentic to what they do than the whims of opportunity find people working in.   But that is a rare thing.

 It is almost as though the very landscape charities work through – the uncertainty of survival, the dream of the pot of gold if only people could find out about their work, the need to be competitive with one’s own partners – ends up turning charities into a person who  is rather egocentric with an unstable set of behaviour patterns.  A celebrity, perhaps?  Indeed, the celebrity of charity - if that is what we can call it - is all around us, jangling buckets and clipboards on the streets, promoting disadvantage in adverts, being the self-serving expert in media interviews, and keeping whatever brand in our minds through the latest happening.  It’s as though the UK has been turned into a Big Brother show for charities to outdo each other, all in the desperate game of increased ratings and approval linked to a worthwhile cause that undermines itself.  They all think they have the right answer; they often think they have a better answer to someone else; they sometimes think they don’t know what the real answer is because they are too busy trying to deliver what they thought was the answer but is only part of the solution and sometimes  the problem.  What rarely happens is that anyone stands back from the absurdity of organisations competing against each other, with no effective systems to work together, and with little understanding of the big picture, to say: what is it that we are meant to be doing, how should we go about doing it, and is the fact that we are too busy and too lost in our own brands and commitments a sign of how far charity is lost from the social purpose to make this a better world in the future - not just for the pragmatists of now? 

Then there is aspiration. The Conservatives have come out of the closet at last, as the party of ‘the aspiration nation’. It’s like an episode of Stars in their Eyes, where suddenly Cameron transforms himself into whoever was the last Prime Mistaker to promise the same thing (see ‘the politics of aspiration for all’ Blair, 2005; or ‘the party of aspiration’ Brown, 2010). It is of course the choco-ration nation he is referring to. The choco-ration principle is found in George Orwell’s 1984, and refers to the media manipulation that can make a nation of people celebrate that choco rations are going up when they are actually going down.  So it is with aspiration. The ‘aspiration nation’ removes investment from young people struggling to access further education, and kicks them off the ladder (the withdrawal of EMA), but celebrates all this as part of a fairer approach at a time of economic stress whilst companies such as Facebook  maximise earnings (175m) by not paying proper taxes (238k).   The dots don’t join up, but then the ‘aspiration nation’ is like a dot-to-dot puzzle that keeps you occupied in the hope it might turn into a shape until the next election wipes the page clean of promises. That’s not a nation many would wish to aspire to.

Finally, we have inspiration.  This week, we have been told that an English football player who used racially abusive language is still an ‘ inspiration’, and that an American cyclist who led the most manipulative drug taking regime probably of any sport in history and continues to deny his guilt is still ‘inspirational’ because of his charity work and worthy of his Nike sponsorship.  There are some interesting lessons to be had here about how we value things. The first story was actually a back page headline based on an interview with a fellow player – regardless of the personal opinion, how on earth was this deemed an appropriate headline? Are we meant to sleep better knowing that someone who racially abused another person – and was meant to be a role model as England captain – is also a guy of inspiration to his teammates?  Apparently so. That’s all it takes to decontaminate a brand in the world of football, where money is the only value in town.  The second story is even more absurd, given the scale of deceit. How on earth can someone who has cheated success with such disdain have any claim as an authentic icon for beating cancer?  Nike claims its brand is about ‘inspiration and innovation for every athlete in the world’. Is the innovation they promote about cheating?  Is the ‘inspiration’ they promote about how to win at any cost?

Like a distorting nightmare, Armstrong is the mirror image of the charity that does not live the way it tries to work; the mirror image of the Government that does not do what they say; the mirror image of a world that does not know how to be authentic; the mirror image of the consequence that always catches up with us in the end. The icon of Orwell's 'doublethink'. 

Nike’s strapline is ‘Just do it’.  But our survival as human beings is about doing it properly, doing it truthfully, thinking more than just 'I'.  Isn’t it time we looked in the mirror and did ourselves some justice? Or, to quote another strapline, ‘Can’t Beat the Real Thing’... 

Advantaged Thinking TV

The world of online video means it is easy to contribute to other people’s conferences without necessarily being there in person. Sure, nothing beats human contact, but a recorded or live message is better than not being part of the conversation.  There is a wealth of opportunity to create video messages that help stimulate debate and learning between services across the UK as much as the rest of the world. We need to start thinking through more than one channel of communication and see beyond the written word.  You only have to look at what people can produce on youtube to realise that the only thing stopping us is intent. Step away from the keyboard now.

Which begs the question, why am I writing this as another word blog? I’m actually just waiting to talk to someone on skype, but excuses of time aside, I have been experimenting with a few request for video pieces that will mean more content in future. Let me illustrate…

The first ATTV example is a 20 minute overview  in response to a set of questions about advantaged thinking from an organisation called HYPA in southern Australia.

The second ATTV example is a 2 minute contribution to a Q&A session at the Foyer Foundation conference in Melbourne, Australia this week, to help stimulate some Open Talent thinking.

Neither of which are particularly wonderful as static talking heads, though both have been useful to spread the word. And that is the Advantaged Thinking opportunity. Most of the people reading this have a computer or phone with video capability. Why don’t we take advantage of our natural creative powers by using simple everyday videos to capture different perspectives of what advantaged thinking and opening young people’s talent means to us?  Can we create a dialogue that includes every Foyer and Open Talent partner across the UK offering their insights into the campaign? Can we hear what our Talent Champions have got to say?

In the meantime, looking ahead on ATTV, I hope to post some video updates from a trip to Aberdeen with the Foyer Federation’s TalentS framework, and I’ll be taking some leave at the end of the month to spread some very special Open Talent magic for the LGBT community at the Foyer for Philadelphia in the USA.   Of the 3,000 and more young people experiencing homelessness in Philly, around 1,300 are part of an LGBT community for whom there are no organisations with the specialist understanding to work with their talents. In the gaps of life, if we believe to try, roses will bloom.

Inspiring a generation? It's not just about more sport.

It was my pleasure to be invited along to an excellent fundraising event by SHYPP (Supported Housing for Young People Project) on friday, to offer a few words of encouragement to set the context for their charity auction. It's slightly odd, but I get more invites to speak abroad and to work with other organisations than I ever do to speak for the Foyer Federation or for Foyers, so I was really pleased to be able to lend a hand for the fantastic SHYPP Foyer services in Hereford, Leominster and Ross.  It was all the more a privilege to follow some inspiring opening words from a former Foyer resident, who spoke movingly about the positive transition they had made in their life. My theme for the night was about investing in talent. The text below is not a copy of my speech, for which I had no script, but contains  some of the ideas and thoughts I drew from  during my 10-15 minutes, minus the jokes about my confused 1.5hour walk from the railway station to be there...

Talent is not an elitist concept. It’s not just for the XFactor and Eaton. We are the talent – we all have a talent – and life is about finding and expressing our talent for the good of ourselves and others.

The Greeks were the first to use the word talent as a unit of measure. A talent meant an amount of silver equivalent to about 9 years-worth of skilled labour. What is the price of a young person’s talent so they can have 9 years and more of skilled labour in today’s challenging environment?  How do we invest in the talent young people have, so they can thrive, and by doing so, enable our society to flourish?

It is a testament to everything that is wrong in our society that we don’t ask that question enough, that we write endless blank cheques to pay for the support required to keep someone, who has not expressed their talent, in a lifelong dependency.  Look beyond the stereotypes and you see it is the failure of the adults to care for and manage talent in young people that defines our society.  We have not put the systems in place to ensure that everyone can find and harness their talent. It’s our social system that isn’t working, not just the young people within it.

How do we create something better? The Greeks were also, of course, the inventor of the Olympics, and we could do well to turn to the forerunner for today’s international Olympic committee down in Shropshire where, in 1850, Brooks established what he called The Olympian Class - "for the promotion of moral, physical and intellectual improvement".  On similar terms, we could create our Olympian talent class, to promote the talent of young people and encourage the community to be part of its development. It's what the Foyer Federation is trying to build through our Open Talent work.

The end of the Olympics has seen a stream of articles highlighting the contrast between our investment in the successful medal winning team, and the lack of investment in basic sporting facilities and opportunities for large groups of young people. This is an Olympic legacy issue. But inspiring a generation is not just about playing more sport. It’s also about what we can achieve in life, as individuals, as teams together, and as a community for each other.  There is a bigger legacy issue at stake here in the Olympics: how we can be inspired to think differently about how we invest in our next generation to ensure that more people can perform to their potential in life to the benefit of all – whether through sport, the arts, digital technology, business, and the thousand different talents we express our working lives.

In our medal success at the Olympics, we can see a simple equation: high quality coaching to develop skills, coupled with targeted investment in resources and opportunities, together with a supportive community of practice with high aspirations, generates the advantages required to succeed. It is a winning formula. It is the formula that drives successful talent development strategies in business as much as it is used in sport. So why is this formula not used in the sphere it is most needed – the social sphere, where talented young people battle inside a system and a way of thinking which is geared around limiting their problems instead of nurturing their potential?

The Olympics is hugely expensive – but an Olympian advantaged thinking approach need not be.  We spend billions of pounds on supporting people to cope with disadvantages, when we could spend less to enable them to thrive through their talent.  It is a question of values, of putting a value – both moral and economic – on the lives of our young people.  Putting a value on what a positive future costs, against the cost of dependency and low aspiration. The Olympics shows us what a systematic approach to nurturing talent can create.  What would be truly inspirational is to use that approach where it is needed most, where it can have a generational impact. If we value life, if we have values in our life, then we must ensure each and every young person has access to the right investments to create a better future for us all.  Clare Balding claims the Olympics changed us as people. If it has, then as changed people we need to change the disadvantaged thinking paradigm that is preventing people from realising their talents. 

You only need to turn two letters around in the word latent to produce the word talent. That’s the shift that Open Talent services are trying to make in young people; that’s the shift we are trying to make in the thinking of funders, charities, and society: to believe we can turn latent into talent. The average ticket price to watch a London Olympics event was £40. What is the cost of the ticket to open a young person’s ability, to invest in their life?  What is the cost of us not contributing to that?  One thing for sure –  a positive future for all our young people is worth so much to our sustainability as a planet, we simply can't afford not to achieve it.

An Olympic movement of the mind

'‘As we approach the London Olympics in 2012, an observer might notice the stark social contrast between Britain’s investment in the science of coaching medal winners in the sporting arena, and its approach to the needs of young adults struggling to achieve adult independence. By 2012, Britain’s medal tally is likely to remain in the top 3 to 5 countries; but the well being of its young people will remain one of the worst in the western world ( see Unicef 07/08)....' (From Open Talent, 2009)

These words - and the rest of the first page below  - were written by me in August 2009, looking ahead to London 2012. They are from a (rather large) document which outlined, for the first time, the key principles of Open Talent and the early ideas that shaped the concept of Advantaged Thinking. In the context of the 2012 Olympics, they are worth revisiting. Not so much for the optimism of Britain’s likely medal tally in the first paragraph, but for the general drift of the disparity in thinking and investment between how we approach performance and inspiration in sport and how we work with and think about young people labelled as ‘disadvantaged’ .

Open Talent has come alone way from that outline document written over a frenetic week in August. But the point of the journey is as clear as ever. As we hear commentators talk about talent and inspiration on TV, and recognise some of the amazing achievements such as the 15 year-old gold medal swimmer from Pymouth,  let’s not forget about the talent and inspiration that lies in the young people we  care about who are not performing at the Olympic games.  There’s enough to have taken (if they could have afforded them) atleast 40% of all the Olympic tickets. Sport, as well as growing up into a thriving adulthood, is an elite sport (see Peter Wilby in The Guardian online).  Clearly, it's going to take far more than another charity fun run to change the way we think about and invest in those young  people – it needs an Olympic movement of the mind, with host cities every day around the world.  We are beginning to light a fire with Open Talent: a  flame for the future generation we really can't afford not to believe in. ....

'The theme of mismanaging talent and potential has proved topical in the under-achieving world of British tennis and English football; but it is even more poignant when we consider how the positive science of coaching winners with the right skills and resources could have a transformational impact on the lives of 2.8 million young adults if it was applied to a wider social and political arena.  At a time of economic pressure, our most valuable commodity, young people, is too often being allowed to go to waste.  It is not for lack of investment by Government, but a lack of vision for what we are investing in, and a lack of collective understanding of how we can best make that investment work. 

Those young people involved in crime, who are not in education, training or employment, and those who are stuck in dependent lifestyles, all have the potential to achieve.  But how many of those young people have ever been treated as future high achievers? How many have we actually negatively invested in – diminishing their aspirations through short term and poor quality provision, fixed barriers to educational and vocational progression, and resettlement outcomes that limit future life transitions? Too many, is the answer.  Perversely, it is more expensive to make a negative investment, to send someone to prison and criminalise them for the rest of their life, than it is to make a positive investment by giving someone a gold medal educational package on a par with Eton or the best Universities.  Why do we favour more expensive controlling measures, over making an investment in nurturing talent potential?

The answer lies in our social aspirations. In one case, we want a young person to build a sustainable livelihood in which they will continue to thrive for their rest of their life. In the other, we hope that the young person will at best manage to cope with their weaknesses and dependencies for as long as they can. Britain, politically at least, seems to have become a country of low aspirations for young people.  If every child matters, and if every young adult matters too, then why does social policy and practice continue to block the advancement of certain groups of children and young adults?  We talk of raising the bar, but we never dare to remove the bars to welfare, housing, health, advice and guidance and education services, that continue to hold back many young people from making progress in their lives once they have reached the transitional years of 16-25.

Coaching for talent and potential should be a universal approach, especially for those most in need of support; instead, policy and practice dictates that the support we offer is shaped around preventing negative behaviour and controlling risks instead of securing more aspirational outcomes.  The appalling achievement rates of those within the care system – the children of the parental state - speak volumes of our society’s approach. We have turned the transition into adulthood into an elite sport, where only those lucky enough to have the best social and family supports to draw on are likely to succeed. It is no wonder that social mobility, at best, is at a stand still  - that ‘Britain is moving back towards levels of inequality in wealth and poverty last seen more than 40 years ago’ (Joseph Rowntree, ‘Poverty and wealth across Britain 1968 to 2005’, 2007). Like the corporate business world, we have created a system that acts as though the management of talent is about prioritising the few, not investing in the many – a philosophy that runs counter to the principles of social justice and equity that underpin the values of a modern democracy...'

(From Open Talent, 2009)

Completely normal Olympic deviants

The recent Olympics debacle brought about an interesting omission. According to culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, it was "completely normal" for a contractor to fail to deliver on a major project.

It probably wasn’t the best phrase of words to capture the understandable difficulty of organising security for the Olympics. But there is a greater ring of truth about what is deemed as acceptable.  

For too long, it has been ‘completely normal’ for large providers to fail to deliver. For years, we’ve been watching the ‘usual suspects’ – the Job Centre Minuses, the Further Dis-education colleges, the ‘Prime Turkey’ contractors - miss the mark in achieving real education and employment outcomes for young people, but continue to devour funding contracts to do more.  For years, we’ve watched and waved large cruise ship charities offload the same old cargo of goods and ply the same waters of disadvantaged thinking without changing course to bring back fresh ideas, find different lands, or rescue the local charity canoes capsized in the sizeable backwash of their egos.

What is completely normal about all this is our failure to change what is acceptable as the norm. None of this has to be this way. Only a country devoid of intelligent leadership and enterprise could possibly manage both large scale unemployment and staff shortages at the same time.  It is not completely normal – it is what we have made normal.

Let’s make a list – and, believe me, in my world, a list is a last resort.  Let’s make a list of every current project, provider, institution, service, where we expect things not to work or be solved just because they are complex or challenging. And then let’s think about harnessing the energy and talents that are being wasted in communities up and down this country to solve those issues. 

What we will find is that we have normalised systems of failure. We have structured failure into the operating software our lives, accepted it as the limit of what we can achieve, and created commissioning and contracting conditions to sustain failure as a positive outcome.

How ironic it is, on the eve of the Olympics, when we are meant to marvel at humans pushing the boundaries of what is physically possible, that we are so ready to accept the limits of what we deem mentally impossible.  It is not so much a question of Olympic security that is the issue at stake here, but how we choose to invest in and utilise the resources we have available to secure our future.

Every day, it has been completely normal, under this and every Government I can remember, for people to struggle.  For young people, and for old people, to lose what counts in their lives, at the same time as others gain more than they could ever possibly need, without adequate checks and balances between these extremes.   What we might calmly pronounce as ‘completely normal’ in our society  - that a TV actor pretending to be a nurse will be paid more than a person who can actually nurse - is a choice we have made that demeans our humanity. If this is what is normal, then it’s time to wallow in that other great English gift: to be a positive deviant.  We need an army of them.  ‘Advantaged thinking’ Olympic deviants deployed in every local authority, every national charity, and every normally-failing Government provider, to breakthrough what we have 'accepted'.  And it certainly won't be a contract for G4S...

Doing it, whichever way we can

Doing it Differently was my 12^th annual Foyer Federation conference at Aston University, and reflected the progress made in the Foyer network over the last couple of years as Advantaged Thinking and Open Talent begin to be expressed in ever more exciting ways.  Whatever the very real impact of the economic recession on young people and frontline services, there is certainly no recession in ideas here.  Foyers are claiming their rightful place as the ‘militant optimists’ of the third sector.

 Watching Independent Futures use drama and performance to give the audience an insight into how their Open Talent ‘Connect Yourself’ programme had transformed the lives of young people and staff, seemed to me to capture the essence of the two days: not just ‘doing it differently’ but bringing the spirit of Open Talent into life. With passion, with confidence.

The conference innovation exhibition was the spirit of adventure to spot, develop and promote young people’s talents for the world of work ahead.

Our keynote speaker Nick Booth was the spirit of digital revolution, harnessing the power of social capital through social media.  

Young People in Governance was the spirit of young people’s influence, highlighting that something as essential as Foyer Accreditation was developed only because young people were given the platform to clarify its priority in the early days of the Foyer movement. 

Stephen Cox from Peter Cruddas Foundation was the spirit of positive fundraising, creating networks and relationships based around what we are good at, what we believe in, what we have to offer.

The evening entertainment was a spirited reminder that we could and should find a way for an intelligent use of comedy to ‘stand up’ to Disadvantage by exposing its stereotypes and absurdities.

Open Space and World Café sessions were the spirit of collaborative inquiry and dialogue, while the C'arl Miller show' was the spirit of energy to recharge and focus our vision.

My little magic routine was the spirit of creative dreaming, to find the advantaged thinkers and convert the disadvantaged thinkers so we can build an Open Talent team around the world.

Finally, the young person who took the microphone at the end of the conference and thanked everyone for the impact on her life, was the spirit of recognition and celebration.

When the speaking is done, when we return to the challenges that define us all, it is the spirit of Open Talent that remains our source for future solutions.  Doing it, whichever way we can. 

Where will you be in July 2013?

Creating, not cloning

Being back at in the UK, back at the helm of innovation, is a little bit like:

·         Fighting with bayonets on a sinking lifeboat in the talons of a giant octopus;

·         Jogging up mount Everest dressed as a banana;

·         Realising that humans are just oversized devices to carry phones and ipads (when is the ihuman?);

·         Stepping back onto a motor circuit with fresh tyres, doubting the meaning of life and other existential dramas whilst remembering that one can’t actually drive anyway despite travelling at over 100 miles an hour;

·         Tuning into channel Tory to find the same endless repeats of European referendum, charges against youth by feckless adults,  and dodgy trails of corruption – a reality TV show that makes one long for the innocence of the Magic Roundabout.

That said, I’m still having a good week.  The seeds of advantaged thinking are growing everywhere, and I keep getting to meet them, and they are always people more energetic and inspiring than I am, such as my latest advantaged thinking colleagues from the wonderful Chance for Change. 

Plus, tomorrow I’m in Warrington with Your Housing Young People's Services for the world premier (as my American friends would say) of the second phase of TalentS, the quality assurance approach for Open Talent and advantaged thinking.

Why does that excite me?

It’s much much more fun than a banana costume.

The premise of TalentS is that quality, like talent, resides in people.  All we need do, then, is to help people find the right processes to harness their talent and quality and create positive solutions.  It’s an investment in the DNA that defines the wonder of what humans can achieve beyond the limits. Thus TalentS is the first quality assurance scheme that is more interested in enabling people’s innovation to find the answers than to set the answers and then just mark against them.  Thus TalentS is more interested in how we present who we are, how we explore who we are, and how we experience who we are, in an advantaged thinking kind of way, than an assessment that defines who we need to be. Thus TalentS is actually about validating an experiential journey where we discover the best offer by which we can make a positive investment in young people count, rather than force feeding a set of ingredients and rubber stamping what comes out the other end.  And what comes out the other end in TalentS is more like a rites of passage than a policy and procedure manual.  Those on the journey exit the cave as shiny members of a new community of practice. Ready to energise and excite others.

It’s all about creating rather than cloning.  Creating can be messy, like paints thrown around at playschool, but it is ultimately a more powerful way to find the fresh new talent pool of life.

For those who dare to be more than a device.