Author: Nailia Tasseel

I couldn’t resist this one.  Great story in the news today about how a letter, written by a pupil in a South London primary school, resulted in a very unexpected celebrity dropping in to her school assembly.

Nine-year old Beatrice, a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, wrote a letter to Johnny Depp, inviting him to visit her own ‘bunch of pirates’ at school and offering ‘copious amounts of rum’. Aaaaarrr.

Result?  Johnny Depp turns up at their assembly, in full Captain Jack Sparrow regalia.  Much fun was had by all.

I can’t remember school visits being as exciting as this.  I think a lecture by explorer Sir Ranulph Twistleton-Wickham-Fiennes topped the bill (don’t we British have the most amazing names?), followed closely by author Gerald Durrell.  The point of all of this, though, is the power of the written letter.  Email is alive and well in the 21st Century, and letter-writing fading, but in Beatrice’s case it worked.  Well done Beatrice.  Never stop writing.

I’m sure you have the same kind of debates in your office as we have in ours:
“Do I spell the word programme with one or two m’s?’ and ‘what about fulfil – should it have two l’s at the end, or just the one?”
This kind of question certainly has the potential to spark debate here in the UK, especially if you work in a multi-cultural office.
But the other reason for confusion emanates from the fact that most of us are using office software produced in America and, even when we’ve got our spellchecker set to English (UK), we’re constantly told that our way of spelling certain words is incorrect:
“I’m sure ‘emphasize’ didn’t have a ‘z’ in it last time I looked” etc.
An even greater dilemma arises when dealing with American clients. Should we, give in to our computers and spell words in a way that our US cousins will appreciate, or should we stand up for the language we (arguably) originated on this side of the pond and risk looking, to them, like we can’t spell the simplest of words?
With most of the world now using the same US-produced software, might it be that the ‘correct’ English spelling of many words will soon become extinct?
One final thought – Language is, and has always been, a constantly evolving thing – maybe this is just the next stage of evolution for English?

India Knight (Sunday Times, 14th May) wrote an interesting article on handwriting, and highlighted a recent survey that a fifth of schoolchildren have never [hand]written a letter, while a tenth have never received a letter themselves.

Is handwriting really dying?  Has letter-writing already died?

Personally this makes me really sad.  As a child, writing and receiving letters was a joy.  I wrote letters to anyone I thought might enjoy them, and the number of Blue Peter badges I received is testament to the number of letters I sent producer Biddy Baxter at the BBC.  I still have the letter from a deeply appreciative ad-man after I congratulated BT on its inspired ‘It’s For You-Hoo’ campaign.  And one from the Queen, after I sent a short letter, aged 8, to tell her about the fact that we too had a throne-room (except it was what we nicknamed our bathroom at home).  I don’t believe my parents ever knew that I’d sent that particular letter at the time.

Perhaps it came from my school days.  As a boarder we were ‘required’ to write home once a week, although to me it was an event I always looked forward to.  By sending letters it meant we’d receive letters.  It was a big deal.  To me, opening an envelope to read someone’s personal story of the day and an expression of their feelings, personally addressed to me and only me, was deeply gratifying and part of a bonding process which meant everything to me. It wasn’t just about the content either – the paper, the ink, the style of handwriting, the odd little doodle, the construction of sentences…. all contributed to the pleasure in receiving a letter. My parents too insisted we write letters of thanks for the smallest little gift.  I remember a comment from my aunt’s father-in-law (who happened to be one of the wealthiest businessmen in the UK) saying how much it meant to him to receive a handwritten letter in return for a smallest little financial gesture, and how well-mannered it showed us to be.  It won’t surprise you to hear that I get extremely irritated by godchildren and nephews/nieces who never bother to send a thank-you (not even by email) after they receive a birthday or Christmas gift.  A letter would make all the difference, but – sigh – SMS, computing and a change in attitude seem to have put paid to all that.

It’s rare to get a hand-written letter these days.  Even TV programmes don’t boast about their burgeoning post-bags any more, because – let’s be frank – they don’t have any.   I really miss it.  E-mail hasn’t just taken over corporate communication, it’s the way we communicate personally too.  I have only one particular friend with whom I still correspond on paper, even though (we will both admit) invariably it’s word-processed these days, with some creative font to compensate.   She too understands the importance of good quality paper.

I look back on my prolific letter-writing days with nostalgia and a little sadness.  Feel free to write to me anytime.  It would really make me happy.

I’ve just been reading an interesting article from Nick Robinson (BBC) about the content of today’s Queen’s speech.

Nick begins by asking if we can remember any previous Queen’s speeches – not the visual elements of the speeches such as Black Rod, the throne or the horse-drawn carriage, but the content of the speech itself.

Can’t say I do…

Nick says that, when preparing their script for the Queen to deliver, every government tries to create a narrative that connects their disparate pieces of legislation in a way that will be compelling and inspiring for the public. He also states that so far no government has managed to succeed.

His thoughts got me thinking: Surely a set of clear objectives (the legislations), a strong narrative (the word crafted speech) delivered by a compelling leader (in this case the Queen) should stick in the mind – aren’t all the necessary ingredients there?

Well, the answer is no. It occurs to me after reading a few of these speeches that the ‘what’ is always very clear but the ‘how’ is not.
In other words, ‘here’s what we’re going to do’ but not ‘and this is how we’re going to do it’.

You might argue that the Queen’s speech is not the place to outline the how, but I disagree. If you want people to listen and believe, then you need to make what you’re saying believable, otherwise you risk disengaging those who can’t see how your objectives can ever be made reality.

When we work with an organisation to create the senior leaders’ Story (the story of the journey the business is on), we use our six-chapter StoryMap framework to create a clear statement of that business’s vision and purpose, linking together the component parts of its journey.

What we also do though is help its leaders communicate a very clear set of ‘how’s’ – whether these are practical actions, behaviors or values. They’re things the business wants and needs every employee to do in service of reaching its desired destination. This minimises any questions employees may have about the believability of the business objectives and the role they will need to play in achieving them.

Wow.  If there was ever a group of people in need of a story, it is the UK’s new coalition government.

I have personally watched hours of tv election coverage and debates, and read even more in the papers and online… and I’m fascinated.  But still a little bit baffled as to how we’ve ended up here, and potentially for five years. Is this really what we voted for?

Yesterday, we saw a fantastic example of two people uniting behind a common purpose in Downing Street: to form a stable government to serve in the national interest.  For David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the power of that purpose allowed them to rise above their differences.  Now we have to wait to see whether they can take their parties with them.  And the ministries.  And the civil service. And the markets.  And the country.

It is going to be a difficult few months, if not years, for the two parties just to stick to a ‘party line’, before they get to grips with the language of this ‘new politics’.  Having a story framework to describe the journey that this Government has embarked on, would put the complexity of their policy negotiations and compromises into a context.  It would also express a compelling vision of the future for all the people that they need to take with them.  Finally, it would develop the values of ‘freedom, fairness and responsibility’ that need to become the principles used to guide the decision-making processes.  For Whitehall at the very least, that clear direction is going to be critical as they battle with the inevitable spending cuts.

And, wouldn’t it be interesting to work on a story that this new team could align behind in order to drive the progress we need?

Everyone enjoys a sports metaphor.   The Boat Race is a good one.  Rowing is often used in corporate literature as a metaphor for teamwork – we’ve used it ourselves in corporate films.  The visual evidence is compelling; watching 8 oars in perfect time is dynamic, aesthetically pleasing and an obvious demonstration of the importance of working together.  Winning the Boat Race is, for many, one of the pinnacles of rowing and of the great British tradition of amateur sportsmanship.

Yesterday, in the 156th Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, we saw an extraordinary race and a perfect demonstration of the importance of belief, preparation and execution. In rowing, you race without being able to look your crewmates in the face, without being able to communicate.  You have to know what they will be thinking and, more importantly, know how they will react, in any given situation, without being able to see or talk to them.  So, hours are spent in preparing, testing and finally visualising every possible scenario.

Both crews will envision their success.  They will think about how they will respond if they get ahead, and how they will respond if they are down.  Cambridge spent the first two-thirds of the race yesterday chasing the Oxford crew, but they held on, they increased the number of strokes they took per minute, and crucially when Oxford should have taken advantage of their bend, it was Cambridge that actually made ground.  Afterwards, we heard from the crew that they had spent a lot of time thinking about the second half of their race – and it showed.  There is no harder way to win a rowing race than to spend most of it behind – it means that some members of the crew can’t see the opposition or how far away they are, so you are racing blind.

Everyone in the crew needs to believe in what they are trying to achieve, and believe that no one in their boat will give up… that even when it is hurting and they have doubts about whether they can make up the gap, that they will keep going.  Cambridge won the race yesterday because they won the psychological battle.  They trusted their own strategy, their training and their crewmates to execute their own raceplan and not panic when Oxford took the lead off the start.

Visualising success, and envisioning what winning will look and feel like, are tools used in all sports at the highest levels and notably in our world-class British rowing squad.  It is easy in sport to define what success means – it is getting the most points, scoring the most goals or crossing the line first – in business it can be harder to articulate… and there is no finish line, commercial races are never-ending.  But if we take the time to define what success within a business or organisation will mean and to communicate with our people about what it will take to achieve it, it becomes immensely powerful.  Visualise what your world will look like when you have met the goals that you have set.  Make it worth achieving.  Be honest about the risks and the challenges, and then plan for them.  When everyone knows what you are aiming for, they will be able to make decisions themselves that help the business to achieve them.

As a rower myself, in 2009 my crew from Thames Rowing club qualified for Henley Royal Regatta in the women’s eight event.  There are only 8 crews to qualify for that event.  Among the others, were the GB women’s eight, Yale University, a German crew with Beijing Olympians, and the GB women’s under-23 crew.

In our race, we were drawn against the German crew.  If we won this race we would get to race on Saturday at Henley. That is a rare experience; suddenly thousands of people are lining the banks, the noise is awesome and we would be the only club crew left in the competition.  We had trained hard for 10 months and this was the last regatta of our season.  We were racing against a German crew at Henley and we knew the crowds would be on our side… That was what success in this race would look like.  It was something worth fighting for.

The only data we had on the opposition crew was in much shorter races – just a quarter of the distance of the 2km+ Henley course.  So, we expected them to be fast off the start, and hoped that they would not have the fitness to hold their speed for the distance.  We discussed our fitness and previous race practice.

The morning of the race, we were sitting in one of the tents talking about our strategy.  We reminisced about a race a year previously when we had been losing for the first 1500m of a 2000m course, but miraculously had made a big push and managed to claw back the distance in the final 500m to win with clear water between us and the second crew.  We had gone from being 30m behind to 30m in front in under 90 seconds.  The point we focused on was that we knew we didn’t have to be ahead for the whole race to win.

We lined up on the start of the Henley course…

Attention. Go!

We were off.  Water splashing, oars flying and the sound of a German cox shouting into her microphone.  And they disappeared.

I was sitting in the bows of the boat – I was the last person that they had to go past.  And within just 100m they had gone past me.  I could no longer see the opposition.  We thought they would be fast, but this was unbelieveable.  Our cox kept telling us how far ahead they were.  I was thinking about that other race, and knew we had to keep working hard.  I knew that was what everyone else was thinking about too.  We kept our striking rate up (the number of strokes taken per minute) and stuck to our race plan.

Halfway down the course we started catching them.  They reappeared in my peripheral vision.  Did we have enough race left to go past them?  No one else could see them yet, they didn’t know how close we were.  But we kept moving up on them, inch by inch.  We kept making ground until, with barely 100 metres to go we were level… and we kept going past.  Muscles burning and lungs bursting we won!

Envisioning and visualising success are techniques that are well used and recognised in sport.  Sharing stories of experience and best practice can be powerful in reaching those goals. This kind of evidence builds confidence in strategy and makes sure everyone knows what is expected of them. Sharing stories of where your tactics have worked before is a way to make it real for people.

Yesterday, Cambridge executed their raceplan perfectly.  Today, they are celebrating the success that they had envisioned for themselves.  Tomorrow, they can use that story to help them achieve new goals.

Businesses may be feeling optimistic about the impending economic recovery, but need to ask themselves just what effect the recession has had on their employees.  Another black cloud looms.

Employees may well have ridden the storm so far without jumping ship in order to maintain job security and stability.  Yet after the storm has passed, employers will need to take stock of the mood in the workplace.  Trust in leadership has been reported at an all-time low; redundancies and often unexpected change has created low morale, while pay has been frozen, benefits cut and the direction of many organisations unclear.  Change and uncertainty has resulted in inadequate communication within many large organisations which just exacerbates the problem, and investment in training and development and engagement initiatives have been cut.   It doesn’t look pretty.

The implications are scary.  As job opportunities resurface many employees who have clung on will now seek new opportunities and a brighter future elsewhere.  The cost of recruitment and training is huge, so the very resources that have been cut to make savings will be challenged again for all the wrong reasons.  Yet not all organisations are in the same boat (forgive all these maritime puns) … those which have committed to regular and honest communication, made great efforts to keep their staff engaged and informed are far more likely to come out of recession in relatively good shape.  Industries such as civil engineering, where past contracts are about to expire and new contracts on the cards, are about to hit the buffers – and they need to prepare now to tell a good Story to keep people focused, aligned and committed.

For those who may not have spent time and effort keeping their employees on board?  While the proportion of cynics may have increased, and there may be a hard slog ahead, it’s never too late to tell your Story…

Washington and San Francisco.  Barack Obama and Steve Jobs.

In America on 27th January 2010, two men gave two very different speeches.  Both President Obama and Steve Jobs took to the stage last night to command the world’s attention.  President Obama’s first State of Union came in the wake of a media storm following last week’s Massachusett’s election, while Steve Jobs introduced the iPad, having managed to generate a whirl of popular speculation around Apple’s latest launch without saying a word.

In his State of the Union, President Obama set out his agenda for the next year, re-prioritising job creation over his healthcare reform plans and with a mandate to reassure the American population of his intentions.  The White House has recently been criticised for being too insular and for losing touch with the people – some of whom had the opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction in last week’s Massachusetts election and the surrounding Republican campaign.

Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the country, Steve Jobs and Apple were maintaining a highly staged, portentous silence (if such a thing is possible) while the media and blogosphere did all the PR for them.  Last night, Jobs unveiled the latest product in Apple’s arsenal.  Hailed as the ‘Jesus’ tablet because the publishing industry’s hopes for salvation are said to rest on its success – putting their trust in Apple’s ability to fundamentally alter the way we interact with different media, in the same way they did with the iPod and iPhone.  Jobs is notorious for doing no market research and for his personal involvement in product development – he is very much the leader of the business and indeed the face of Apple: share values plummet in his absence and his compelling presentation style is legendary.

So.  On the one hand you have criticism for someone getting on with the job without due consultation with his audience, but on the other hand you have someone heralded as a marketing genius for doing exactly the same thing.

Communication, media and social media have played critical roles in the different paths of these two men and you can really see both the good and bad sides of holding the weight of so much responsibility under such scrutiny.  The future of America and western democracy lie in the persuasive powers of Barack Obama, while the next step for human communication await the reception of the iPad.  Barack Obama was pre-emptively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 seemingly for what he represented, as much as for any action he had taken, and his inauguration was celebrated as a step-change in American culture.  But, just one year in and the critics are questioning his ability to deliver.  Steve Jobs seems integral to Apple’s future to provide the vision of possibility and innovation, but what does this reliance mean for the company’s future?  Where does Apple go in the, ultimately inevitable, Jobs’-less future (an unfortunate pun?) and what happens to the hope that Obama brought to a nation (and the Nobel committee) if he cannot deliver what he promised for an acceptable price?

Finally, what does it say for democracy when more people tune into Jobs’ speech about another product that aims to achieve the iPod’s ubiquity, than to hear the leader of the free world deliver his plans for conquering the worst economic crisis in living memory.  It is Steve’s iPad on the front page of today’s (British) Financial Times and number one on the Google search list (US) – with the State of the Union coming in second.  It will be interesting to see who gets the most youtube hits… and to see who’s still standing when the next election comes around.  Either way, the weight of responsibility and the scrutiny of the world rests on these two, very 21st-century, leaders.