As a child my Sundays were thoroughly boring. Our parents bought every newspaper there was to read and sat behind broadsheets for much of the day. It was a very visual experience as they literally disappeared behind the headlines. And yet we could sense their pleasure in this pastime, as they shared between them news or opinions about what they were reading and discussed the events of the day.  A friend of my older sister’s remembers it as a scary time when my parents would expect them to have read the papers and be ready to share comments at the lunch table!

Nonetheless, my parents’ pleasure was tangible and so, as I open up my newspapers at weekends now, I think of them and take delight in sitting on the sofa with countless bits of paper around me, taking in news and opinion.  I realize we are supposed to read online for environmental reasons but the problem with this is that, unlike our own childhood or that of my sons, children are not seeing what their parents are doing.  The parents may well be reading the newspaper, or a book, but if it is on screen the child has no visual clue as to what the parent is looking at.

Children watch adults and learn from them. If you play music in the home they are likely to do so in their own homes. If they see you read, they are more likely to do so themselves. And so it is important that children see adults reading books and newspapers if we want them to get off their screens and into books.  But what do they see around them? More-or-less every adult on a tube train is on their screen. Almost zero physical newspapers are being read in front of them and very few physical books.

It is therefore very important that parents and adults share what they are doing, talk about what they are reading, explain their interest and pleasure, or the emotions that are being stirred by it.  Paint the pictures, conjure up the characters.

Graphic novels can get children and adults reading but they don’t stimulate the imagination in the way a book does.  Our brains have to work quite hard – though it doesn’t feel like work – to imagine what a landscape might look like, what a character might look like, their clothes, hair, height.  They have to imagine scenes, emotions, expressions, looks exchanged between characters. They also develop empathy – feel fearful for what might happen to someone, sad about a tragedy, or angry at unfairness or cruelty (I’ll never forget Black Beauty).  Often then when you go to a movie of the book it does not match one’s imagination.  But that’s ok because one’s imagination has already been awoken and stimulated and taken into many different worlds beyond one’s own.

Children who watch movies and TV series are stimulated and drawn into stories but the director and producer have done the creative work of imagining, taking the words off a page and bringing them to life. When we read a book, we do this for ourselves.

The Times and Sunday Times have a project on at the moment to “Get Britain Reading” and are encouraging people to volunteer to read in schools and donate books.  I’ve written about the subject of reading before, back in 2017, in relation to a lack of literacy in prisoners “Reading wakes us shakes us and shapes us: which books woke you?” You can read it on that link if you choose to do so. Having recently attended both the Cheltenham Literary Festival and the Wimbledon Book Festival I have been reassured, by the huge numbers of people crowding the talks, that there are still adults reading books.  Now we have to encourage the kids, teenagers and young adults to adopt it instead of scrolling.

Reading is a habit.  It’s easy to lose the habit and, like any change of behaviour, can feel awkward for a period of time as you try to re-engage but then becomes easy because losing yourself in a book is exciting. But we all know how addictive scrolling on one’s mobile is and this is what children are facing.  We know it as adults and must show them the way, and when I say show, I mean visually show them that we are reading a book or paper even if it is on screen, but preferably, at least occasionally, on paper.  Take them to a bookshop or library, make it a fun outing. As a child, one of the favourite events of my week was to go to the public library.  I can picture it now, all those years ago, the quiet, the smell of books, the feel of the pages, the little red ticket, the sound of the stamp, then the delight in returning home and losing myself in those scenes.

Here’s the poem I wrote about that memory:

Saturday at the Public Library

Entering the silence,
a stillness of concentration,
quiet shuffling of pages turning,
a scrape of chair leg,
the ‘tut’ or ‘sssh’
of tetchy adults
waiting to be disturbed.

Then the tiptoed walk
in short white socks, Start-Rite sandals,
squeaking rubber soles of embarrassment
sweaty hand on the brass-handled door
to the Children’s Section,
a never-never land of exploration
as exciting an adventure as the North Pole.

Sacrosanct hours of mind and page,
I’d settle in to touch and scent
of red, green and blue bound books,
musty paper of patchwork worlds
and transporting words.
The prize clasped carefully,
anticipation heightened by the thud of the date stamp.

Today’s libraries open to a different quiet:
a bright screen, door to the world,
feasts of libraries, blogs, museums, news,
too much to take in or digest.
A few books hold on to their shelves
but paper becomes obsolete in the cold world
of a tapping keyboard.

Let’s hold onto the magic of books we hold in our hands as well as being awe-inspired by what our tapping keyboard can bring.  We don’t have to lose one for the addictive demands of the other. We can enjoy both – and talk about it.

Share

Oct 14

2025

8 Responses

Comments

Helen Whitten

Posted In

Tags

Every day on the tube, in cafés and shops, I bump into young girls and women with false eyelashes, pumped up cheeks and pouty lips. They are buying creams and moisturisers at an age at which I wasn’t giving any thought to my appearance or skincare. I was just enjoying my childhood. I read that huge amounts of money are being spent now on tweaking and Botox and filling and I feel sad that so much attention is being paid to the outer appearance when what really matters is what lies within, what is in a person’s heart and mind. What used to be referred to as character.

We all care what we look like as we move from our teens to adulthood. Consciously or unconsciously, we are trying to demonstrate something about ourselves, what our little tribe of friends enjoys and stands for.  What we wear defines us to some extent and can give us a sense of belonging.  The fact that, growing up in the 1950s and 60s, we wore too much make-up or mascara and wore skirts shorter than our parents approved of was a passing trend and did not impact our physical body in any long-lasting way.  We could wipe off the mascara, buy new clothes.  But when young girls and women today are using physical interventions such as Botox this potentially has a much more lasting impact, as does the trend for tattoos, which I have personally never been able to understand. Facelifts often require further work later in life.  How will all this look as they age? And what is it that is making young women so unaccepting of who they are?  To me, as I observe all this, their skin is so fresh and beautiful I just wish they could relax and appreciate it!

Which reminds me of a time years ago when I was on the beach with one of my son’s girl friends and she was fretting about her beautiful young body not being good enough. It reminded me of the fact that I had also constantly felt discontent with my appearance and I pointed out to her that she might as well appreciate what she had today, with all its (in my mind non-existent) blemishes, because tomorrow it would be older and then she would have more wear-and-tear, children, perhaps, and might lose that blossom that young girls can have. Value what you have now, was my message, and I remind myself of this frequently now I am 75, to appreciate every functioning aspect of this miracle that is our body, for whatever is working today may well not do so tomorrow!

Fashions change and it is fun to keep up, albeit quite challenging.  Hair in the 50s was wavy, in the 60s was Vidal Sassoon’s flat as a pancake style. This was hopeless for those of us with natural curls when there were no blow driers. I tried sellotaping or ironing out the curls, sadly without much success!  However, hair grows back and so if we have an awful cut one day we can relax that in a month or so we will return to normal. We did have a short phase of wearing false eyelashes when I was about 18 but they were not of a good design and would get left on the shoulders of a boyfriend if we were dancing too close.  Not a good look to have one set of eyelashes long and one set short! The eyelashes that are in fashion now are patently not trying to look natural, but these can be removed and will not necessarily have any lasting impact.

There was a rebellion against make-up in the 1980s and 90s when feminists argued that we should not need to wear make up at all, should not need to shave or make an effort, for all that mattered was who we were within.  Well, yes, that argument is a strong one and I go along with it as, ultimately, relationships are about who we are as people rather than what we look like. You can be beautiful but mean, handsome but selfish. How we are and how we respond and treat others is the key.  And yet our appearance does matter even if just because we have to look at ourselves in the mirror and want to feel confident enough to face the world.

For some decades I thought that we had achieved being taken for our skills, personal qualities and talents and not our looks when it came to our careers or relationships.  But all of a sudden, we seem to have gone backwards – to young girls fixating on their skin, the focus being on outward appearance rather than inner beauty, knowledge or wisdom. I’m not sure what is driving this, other than some influencers who are presumably being paid large amounts of money to promote certain products. Who is it for?  I have made the mistake of trying to adapt to one partner who said I needed to lose weight followed by another who found me too thin for his taste.  I learnt that you can’t please everyone, so it helps to accept what we have been given in life, and yes make the most of it but not obsess about how we look.  Yet this trend is influencing boys and men too, as they pump up their muscles at the gym and I presume that this is also being driven by influencers and celebrity role models. 

Where are the role models who promote the fact that you gain confidence by valuing who you are not just what you look like? The work to be done is, in my humble experience, usually on the inside. Reflecting on values, beliefs, behaviours, setting goals about who you are and what you want to become, and understanding that this process does not stop aged 18, when you think you have become ‘adult’, but in fact is a lifelong journey of inner reflection on who you want to be in the ever-changing world in which you live.

I still wish my hair was straighter, that perhaps I was a little lighter but it’s what happens on the inside that shapes the experience of my day.  Am I happy with the knowledge I have, with the skills I have developed? Is there something else I could learn or an aspect of my mind or personality I could develop further? Am I being the person I want to be, speaking up for the things I care about, treating people with respect, giving time to those I love?

Too many of the Gen Z influencers that I have come across are promoting all the problems of our time whilst others are promoting beauty products. Can I please put in a plea for someone to help young people to spend more time developing inner wisdom (what they are learning about life), academic knowledge, work skills and personal confidence and less on sticking on false eyelashes or pumping up huge biceps?

Share

I think everyone knows that the phrase “don’t think of an elephant” leads to pretty much everyone thinking, and even picturing, an elephant.  What you focus on gets reinforced. 

This week Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted, has expressed concern that schools are becoming centres of therapy and yet are not trained to be so.  Their main qualifications and purpose are in educating children in the academic curriculum. Despite this, many teachers are being encouraged to provide trigger warnings and even ban certain books, including, it seems, some of Shakespeare’s plays, The Great Gatsby, Charlotte’s Web (apparently because there is talk of death and also talking animals), Matilda, and my favourite book as a child The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.  You can find offence anywhere if you look for it.

The problem is that the more you train a young mind to look for offence, for problems, for bias, the more that brain will build the habit of seeking out and noticing the negatives and not the positives. Governments are talking about building resilience in young people, but their actions are in danger of disempowering them rather than empowering them. 

As Spielman has pointed out, teachers now not only highlight potential problem areas in books which most previous generations have read without trauma but also ask children to talk about their negative emotions.  If this is the case then I sincerely hope that they also focus a child’s attention on their helpful emotions too, and on what the child can appreciate and be grateful for. Otherwise we shall certainly be raising a generation whose minds have been trained only to see the negatives, not the opportunities or the creative possibilities, but potentially training them for victimhood, which doesn’t help them and certainly doesn’t help society.

Ok, so previous generations may have been too much ‘stiff upper lip’ but I suspect that if you were living in a brutal world, as life has been for centuries, a world of war, disease, small children dying for lack of vaccines or antibiotics, mothers dying in childbirth, fathers in war, people needed to focus on how to make each day good, for life was short and food and resources scarce.  That probably resulted in a need to just get on with things.

Although there is much talk of how terrible life is today, the reality is that we are healthier, living longer, more accepting of all kinds of diversity and communicating across the globe in ways our forefathers never did or could. Yes, there are threats but let’s not overlook the advances or the peace that we have enjoyed.

We have indeed gained benefit from psychology and a deeper understanding of some mental health conditions but I don’t believe that we necessarily need to treat everyone as vulnerable. Otherwise, as I have said above, we all turn into fragile beings, unable to cope with life’s everyday challenges, let alone the kind of challenges our grandparents had to face, or we might have to face in future.

For expectations have outcomes. What we expect of ourselves, and others, transmits a message through voice tone and body language as well as words. There is research that has shown that a teacher’s expectations of a child shapes that child’s results – expect them to be clever, they become clever; expect them to be stupid, they become stupid.

We therefore need to give the message that the majority of us are competent and capable human beings, not that we are all fragile and vulnerable creatures who can’t manage life. The welfare state is designed for those who really need it, but they will be deprived of essential support if funds are dissipated on many more who, through kind intention no doubt, have been led to believe that they can’t cope. Witness the huge increase in children seeking mental health support.

It seems to me that recently educators and governments have been focusing young people’s minds too much on the negatives – the likelihood of victimhood, the likelihood of bias or being upset or offended by something. Trigger warnings on everything they watch or read just emphasizes the idea that they are under threat, even if they aren’t. And whether they are under threat or not we need to help them feel empowered to deal with life.

The trouble with trigger warnings is that they alert a child’s amygdala (the part of the brain in charge of fight or flight responses) to the fact that there is a potential threat, even if that threat is thoroughly unlikely or nebulous. As I explain in Cognitive-Behavioural Coaching Techniques for Dummies you become familiar with the way that the brain builds habits and patterns of thoughts and reactions.  If someone is disempowered it is likely that they are being driven by underlying Negative Automatic Thoughts. These are neural pathways of thought in the brain and can become beliefs which influence emotions and behaviours.  A thought such as “I can’t cope” will increase anxiety and the child is far less likely to be able to face the situation. Instead the child can become aware of how their thoughts are disempowering them and build new thoughts such as

“I accept that I am a little nervous about this but I shall give it my best go.”

“I would rather this person didn’t behave this way but I will find ways to manage it even if they do.”

“I will treat others with respect and they are more likely to treat me with respect.”

Gradually, with repetition, the optimistic and empowering thoughts become automatic habit and their emotions and behaviours can change within this process.  Think stressful thoughts and the body emits cortisol; think positive thoughts and it can emit endorphins.

I sincerely hope that governments and educators alike start to treat children and the adult population with the expectation that the majority of us are competent and resilient human beings because I believe that will translate into positive actions in society.  That way the welfare funds will go to those who really need them.

Share

Sep 08

2025

1 Responses

Comments

Helen Whitten

Posted In

Tags

I still have my five-year diary, given to me by my sister in 1964 and written consistently until 1969. This covers the years when I was 14-19 and is full of anxiety and angst.  “I feel so miz” (cringe-worthy 1960s terminology!), “I hate myself”, “I feel useless”, “desperate over exams” (A levels in 1967), “Oh misery”, “I want to kill myself”, “I want my plane to crash” (end of first love in Florence, 1968). There were entries about the existential threats of nuclear war, Chairman Mao and other random things that were worrying me.  If anyone had read this at the time they might have really worried about my mental health.  But then in the 1960s people didn’t think that way.  Teenage angst was regarded as a fairly natural transition from child to adult.

I am not in any way belittling the anxiety felt by teenagers today, as reported in The Times’ survey last week. It will be very real in its own way, but my worry is that by the media, social media particularly, and adults over-emphasizing their concern for it, the anxiety could just be further ramped up.

Did I feel anxious and depressed as a teenager? Yes.  Was I actually suicidal? No. That’s not to say that we don’t need to take these words seriously, especially if a child seems to have given up hope. But I just worry that if someone had spoken to me as if what I was experiencing was something abnormal, I might have become even more worried about myself. So, I think we need to be careful how we approach these surveys and the reports emanating from them.  We were never asked these questions in our teenage years. Would our answers have been so different? I am not sure they would.

What is important is that we help teenagers normalise some of their emotions so that they don’t get fearful about feeling anxious, or guilty about feeling angry, or inadequate for feeling worried about exams, or paralysed by feeling shy, etc. We also need to help them understand how to balance these thoughts and emotions and develop resilience.  After all, we hear of the mental health facilities being overwhelmed at the moment but that is not helpful if they are treating what used to be called the “worried well” but are missing out, through lack of time, those who are truly suicidal or mentally ill.

Reading through my diaries the key concern is that nothing is clear yet.  Everything is in flux – I don’t know if I will pass my exams, I don’t know if my friends are trustworthy, I don’t know if I will get a boyfriend, I don’t know if I will find a job, I don’t know if I will find a home, I don’t know if I will get married, I don’t know if I will have a baby, I don’t know if I will be happy … que sera sera, as my mother used to sing.  It is all ahead of me.  And this is true of all teenagers.  It was the time when teenage boys would have teddy bears on their beds but posters of Pamela Anderson on the wall above them.  You really don’t yet know who you are, who you want to be, which friends are good for you, which direction to go in.  How confusing is that. Yet it is the normal journey we all have to tread.

It would have been helpful for me if someone had helped me think about my thinking.  Where was my brain taking me? Was it going into Hollywood Disaster Movie mode where the nuclear bomb was dropped and we were all exterminated, including my precious parents? (In today’s world that might be climate change.) In which case I could have been taught to consider a more rational way of looking at that situation.  The model What can you Alter, Avoid, or what do you need to Accept could have been helpful

For example What could I Alter? To alter the situation or influence the outcome I could have taken action to go on CND marches and feel I was making a difference.  (I opted for a CND badge as I was too young to go on marches). I could also Alter the way I thought about it, letting go of my catastrophising thoughts and living in the moment.

What could I Avoid?  I could avoid reading articles or watching movies that highlighted the existential risks of nuclear war.  I should never have seen the film The War Game as it haunts me still! I could live in the moment instead and enjoy life, day by day, minute by minute for if we were to die, I would have wasted my life worrying!

What did I need to Accept? That effectively I couldn’t change things and that nuclear bombs were there and, who knew at the time, they were to act as a deterrent for several decades.

Living in the Moment. Another problem in my diaries was when I went into the “What if…” mode – “what if I don’t pass my exams?” “What if that boy doesn’t want to dance with me?” “What if those two girls are saying nasty things about me?” What to do about this? As above, recognise that none of this had yet happened and it only drained my batteries to worry about something that had not yet transpired and might never do so.

Changing Thoughts. My general negative thinking patterns about the future were also unhelpful and yet, I suspect, pretty normal.  Asking myself questions such as “Is my thought logical?”, “How is this thought making me feel?”, “Would everyone react in this way and if not what other way could you think?”, “Is my thought helping me manage the situation and if not what thought might help me manage it better?” could have helped me to realise that I couldn’t necessarily change the situation itself but I could have changed my response to it and how I chose to react.

Diverse Lives. What else would have helped? To remember that there are so many different ways to live life, to be happy and to make the best of a difficult situation. So if I failed my exams, I could retake or think again about what I wanted to achieve. If I didn’t get the job of my choice, I could ask myself where else might I be happy and fulfilled? If I didn’t get married, I could remember that there are many people living many different sorts of lives all over the world and these social norms don’t happen to everyone and there are many ways of being happy.

Parallel Lives. One of the exercises I used when I was coaching was to suggest a client consider a few parallel lives they might live and still be happy.  It is interesting, as we could all be so many different things in life and yet often we are asked to think of just one thing we want to be, which can be both frightening (if we don’t achieve it) and also limiting of our potential options. For example, I started my life as a secretary in publishing and never imagined at the time that I would retrain and have the skills to run a training and coaching business. We can be many more things in life than we can visualise while we are still in our teens.

Anyway, the survey, and re-reading my diary, made me concerned that all this media coverage of teenage anxiety and mental health might only ramp up their worries. Surely the most important thing we can all do is help young people understand their thinking and train their thoughts in ways that help them to make the most of their lives by considering their options and leaving the unhelpful worries behind.

Some reading to help further:

Share

I was recently summoned for jury service. Despite my age, it was the first time I had been called and, once there, I was randomly chosen by the computer to sit on two cases.  It was an eye-opening experience in many ways, and a huge responsibility to have another person’s future in one’s hands.  I am glad to say that every person on the jury with me took this responsibility very seriously and the conversation in the deliberating room was respectful and constructive.

I read this week that Stephen Lambert of Studio Lambert, the producer of The Traitors TV series, has said that making the programme has somewhat shaken his faith in the jury system, as contestants are so bad at spotting a lie. I can understand his comment, having watched a few episodes of his series, but of course the process of The Traitors is very different to a jury attending a court case where witnesses, the police, barristers, claimant and accused all provide evidence with the aim of helping rather than hindering the jury in making their decision.  However, I did feel that there was one ingredient to success that was potentially missing from both scenarios: a facilitator.

Yes, there is a foreman of a jury, but they are not necessarily trained to chair a group or facilitate a conversation towards an end result. And yes, Claudia Winkleman acts as a sort of facilitator in The Traitors but her main role is to make the programme dramatic, not necessarily to encourage a search for truth, as the lack of truth, and the inability of contestants to spot the liars, is where the drama lies in that series.

The definition of a facilitator, just for clarification, is “a neutral guide who helps a group work together effectively to achieve a common goal by managing the process and dynamics of a meeting or event. They focus on ‘how’ the group works rather than ‘what’ the group discusses, using structured activities and processes to ensure open dialogue, balanced participation, and successful decision-making, without taking sides or contributing to the content.”  I would add that it can combine the how and the what and also involves generating a safe space for people to talk and share opinions in a respectful and focused manner.

Generally speaking, a facilitator should, indeed, adopt an objective, neutral role within the group.  Of course this is difficult, in fact impossible, in the jury system as it is made up of all twelve jurors who each have to be party to the final decision on a verdict. However, it is possible to lead a group discussion in a neutral way and share one’s views as that discussion unfolds.

None of this is particularly easy in a group who have never met before and may have very different personalities and backgrounds. It would, in my opinion, therefore, be helpful to provide the foreman, or foreperson, whether nominated by the Judge in Court or by the other jury members, with a one-page document outlining the role in more detail. This would include not just advising them that it will be up to them to inform the Court of whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty, but also to supervise the group to ensure that only facts shared in court are discussed. They must prevent people researching or applying any additional information they might have read but that was not mentioned in the trial. Also their role is to remind the group that they should only discuss the trial when all twelve of them are together in the deliberating room and not at any other time, and particularly not in a public arena. Some tips on how to manage all this, ensure that people keep on track, and don’t interrupt or dominate others etc, would surely be useful. 

As a trained mediator and facilitator, I have had my share of challenges with groups here and in other countries.  Some people can try to take over, others can be passive aggressive, others argumentative and so forth.  I firmly believe that being given some tips and guidance on the role could certainly help a novice foreman to feel confident and aware that they have the authority to call a halt to a discussion should everyone speak at once, or if one person is bullying another into their opinion. Also to encourage those who are introvert, or unused to speaking up in a group, or those who are daunted by the responsibility placed on them. The aim is to ensure justice is done.

Both functional and dysfunctional dynamics of jury deliberation can be seen played out in Channel 4’s documentary The Jury: Murder Trial where two juries judge the same case. It’s quite interesting to watch.

The comment by The Traitors’ producer inspired some conversation on Times Radio the other morning, where a commentator suggested that perhaps only “intelligent” people should be called for jury service. Not only is this a tricky measure but intelligent people can sometimes be totally lacking in common sense if they are in their ivory tower of intellect and reason and be unable to ‘see’ what others can see in the evidence. So that didn’t seem like a sensible idea to me.

Other commentators are advocating that cases should be overseen simply by members of the legal profession but, from my experience, it was in the diversity of life experience in the jury group in which the power lay.  Each person in that deliberating room brought unique insight, knowledge or perspective to the case, which helped to broaden each person’s understanding.  It was invaluable to have that diversity of information available in the room to help us reach our verdict. I felt fortunate in my fellow jury members, as each one listened and thought deeply about the case before us. I was impressed with the whole process.

I was less impressed in the way the police had collected or had not collected evidence in both the trials on which I was a juror and that was disappointing for everyone.  One cannot convict without evidence. Again, this is an area where the foreman as facilitator can keep the group on track, ensuring that the decision is based on what is credible, consistent and beyond reasonable doubt.

So, I would disagree with the producer of The Traitors but would advocate for more advice on the role of the foreman, to empower them successfully to facilitate the discussion.

And, as a postscript, the role of mediation, or lack of it, is something that has concerned me as much in politics as in the Courtroom.  I watched Trump and Putin sitting, six opinionated men in a room, and I questioned whether there was an objective and trained mediator present to ensure the discussion was balanced, that all voices were heard and that participants did not veer off onto pointless tangents or unconstructive bullying.  In my opinion, without such a person conducting the discussion, a meaningful agreement is less likely to be reached.

Watching the Channel 4 The Jury: Murder Trial programme demonstrates even more the need for a good facilitator to manage the conversations. No Foreman has been allocated and the jury are allowed to be together in a room sharing their opinions before all the evidence has been heard, which is not how it usually is. This is a dramatised programme, where people have volunteered to come onto the programme – perhaps a desire to be on tv, who knows. But it doesn’t really represent the jury experience in any way that was my own experience. The programme is, like The Traitors, all about television drama and not really about the legal process.

Share

This week we have read about how one in ten businesses have seen staff quit over office working demands, particularly the suggestion that they should come to the office rather than work from home.  We have also read about how the sickness rates of civil servants are rocketing due to “being forced back into the office”. This has resulted in the civil service losing more than four million working days to staff sickness a year, with absence rates rising by more than ten per cent a year in some departments. And, of course, we already know that vast numbers of the population are out of work due to mental and other illnesses.

While obviously there is genuine sickness and disturbance for some within these numbers, I really question whether such decisions by employees are not simply handing an invitation on a plate to those organisations to replace them with AI.  On the one hand everyone is terrified, it seems, of being made obsolete by AI but on the other they are not interested in showing their value in the workplace as living breathing human beings. They are choosing to disappear behind a screen, which is probably the closest they can get to being robotic.

I was vice chair of the Work-Life Balance Trust back in the early 2000s, so I am very much in favour of flexible and hybrid working, job shares and part-time arrangements, but I am not in favour of working from home five days a week.  As I have written before, I do not see how the experienced workers can possibly pass on as much of their expertise in narrow-focused Zoom calls, with workers often far away, nor can I see how people working from home can come to have anything like the broad understanding of an organisation that someone working in the office will accumulate.

Earlier this week I was speaking to someone who had been senior in a business, let’s call her Sally. She mentioned to me a moment where she saw a younger member of staff remain silent as she drew a meeting to a close. When she had asked the group if everyone had understood the project plan, they all answered in the affirmative, including him.  However, Sally intuited by his body language that he had not, and made a point of quietly going up to him after the meeting had finished and checking if there were gaps in his understanding.  There were, and she was able to explain the plan further to him so that he fully grasped his role in the team.

Translate this to a Zoom meeting.  Would Sally have been able to intuit that body language, that problem?  I argue that it is less likely that that she would have been able to identify such a problem on screen. It is hard to gauge someone’s expression, emotions or body language in a Zoom or Teams call where all you see is head and shoulders. Depending on the number of people on a call it is often near impossible to see people’s eyes in detail, so unlikely that you might ‘catch the eye’ of someone who agrees or disagrees with you on a point, or who potentially believes that the person speaking is bullsh*tting, whether they understand something, or whether another person on the call might be a mentor or ally.

In the workplace, yes, there is distraction and some of that can be time-wasting. However, you will inevitably get a broader understanding and overview of the organisation for being physically present. Simply by walking around a building, listening to conversations at the coffee machine or in the lift, you will brush up against people in different departments and roles who, in the small-focused targeted milieu of a Zoom call will not be there.  You will overhear phone calls to clients, hear a manager give direction to their direct reports, hear two colleagues problem-solve an issue that is not in your remit but might be interesting.  Sitting alone somewhere will not give you these opportunities. And AI, as it exists at the moment, is not privy to picking up all those random conversations and clues in lifts or corridors!

If humans are not valuing and actively demonstrating what they specifically bring to a workforce – creativity, intuition, warmth, wit, compassion, challenge, diverse ideas and opinions, collaboration, a collegiate approach, charisma, leadership, expertise, skill, experience, wisdom, emotional intelligence and far more – then why wouldn’t that organisation choose to go down the route of AI?  So much less problem, less sickness, less “quiet quitting”, less truculence. Look at driverless trains – no strikes, no problems. Surely there will be a renewed incentive to replace civil servants with AI if those civil servants are always ill?  (Statistics show that people in the private sector or who run their own businesses, and therefore have less of a financial safety blanket, are considerably less likely to be ill.) Surely there will be renewed incentive to replace those employees who demand to work from home five days a week with AI if they are not demonstrating to their bosses how much more they bring to the workplace if they are there in person, not necessarily every day but most days?

I really fear that there will be a competency dip in years to come as those who work from home come to realise that they do not fully understand how the business actually works as a whole.  Today’s means of communicating – mobiles, emails, Teams calls etc – are so narrow, so focused. There is none of the randomness of answering a colleague’s landline ringing on a nearby desk and being asked a question or being asked to take down a message that might give you some insight into an area of the business that you had not thought about previously.   In addition to this, in picking up a call for a colleague or a boss, you have spoken to someone you might not have spoken to had you not had that random opportunity, and this could lead to expanding your network.

Yes, AI can be brilliant and do some of the work, without doubt, and be brilliant in the right place and right time.  Flexible working is supportive of productivity as it allows someone to address a personal issue that they might otherwise be sitting at a desk fretting about. Indeed, Zoom and Teams are the answer to some meetings, but, in general, technology brings oh so much less to the party in the long run. Of course we make mistakes, have blind spots, are biased, yet isn’t it more likely that these issues will be challenged more forcefully within a group setting, where the nuances of a situation can be explored in more depth, than sitting on our own?

Human beings have created a multitude of ideas, innovations, solutions, machines, beautiful buildings, innovative tech and more.  It makes me wonder whether the Industrial Revolution would have happened had those men not been in a room together. For collaboration in person is energising – working in a team in a room brings both focus but also laughter and, if someone has some problems in their lives, at home or work, this is more likely to be picked up by the human skill of ‘reading’ their body language and, as Sally did in the example above, taking the time to find out what the problem might be, human to human, before it negatively impacts performance.

Each one of us is unique. Each one of us has unique perspectives and ideas to bring to an organisation. How much harder to bring those ideas to fruition if you are isolated. How much harder to ask for help on a tech-based call than it might be to quietly ask a person you pass in the corridor whom you know has worked on that type of project or issue before.

If people don’t want to be replaced by AI, then turn up and demonstrate your human value, skills, talent, experience and emotional intelligence to those around you. Enjoy sharing your knowledge with others and learning from others.  Use AI as a tool but, as I see it, it doesn’t make sense to give your organisation the excuse to replace you with technology just because you are absent or too much trouble to manage. 

Share