Wednesday 6 April 2016

The problem with being too personal

It's with a certain sense of irony that I write this blog, and once you get into the meat of it, you'll understand just why.

That's because I've started to wonder just how possible it has become for a professional person to split their personal and working lives. In an era where tools like social media are a 24/7 instrument, and blogging is for all, the lines are becoming - perhaps somewhat dangerously - blurred.

But is it important to split these two potentially competing things, and is it even possible when a person's views will inherently bias them in their professional setting? It’s a debate I not only think we should have, but must have.

We all need to think more carefully about personal comments being made in a professional capacity
So what’s galvanised me into action on this topic? Some of the recent comments made by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the man who heads up Ofsted are responsible for making me reappraise how the personal and professional intermingle. The comments Sir Michael chose to make in a very public manner took aim at the world of further education institutions, despite the fact that his organisation is responsible for inspecting, and grading, those very establishments. Those remarks, it could be argued, are at odds with the impartiality that his office demands. And yet Sir Michael, a man held in great esteem by many, still thought it was appropriate to make them. And not just make them, but defend them in the face of a veritable onslaught from the further education sector. His defence was that the remarks were not a bias, stating “it’s criticism of what we see — and have seen for a number of years.”
Sir Michael Wilshaw Pic credit: UK Government
And while I may not agree with Sir Michael’s statements – in fact, I absolutely disagree with all of these particular pronouncements – and think that his attempt to defend them was poor, there’s clearly a bigger issue at play. Namely, that the real problem is not what he said, but how and when it was said. He chose to air his very personal views, not on a blog like this one, or on his Twitter feed (both of which are fairly clearly forums for opinion), but during an evidence session to the Education Select Committee.

That is where the real issue lies; the fact that he made very personal comments in a very professional setting. And his comments were presented as being fact, as if all of the FE sector was “in a mess.” In my view (and I recognise that some will disagree with me) the platform which he has as a consequence of his job shouldn’t be used to make a case which is inherently personal. Nor indeed should anyone’s position be used to make personal comment.

With that said, the issue of making personal comments in a professional context is one which needs more debate. That is because our lives are becoming ever more blended, with professional aspects mixed more fully with our personal lives. As this professional and personal integration speeds up due to technological advancements and changes in working styles, it will become an issue which grows far faster.

So what are your views? Let me know in the comments below.

5 comments:

  1. I agree that the personal and professional should be separate when possible. I use two Twitter feeds, one has the 'work' stuff only. The other a mix including my other interests. I'd be concerned, that whilst you have to be careful, if a culture of restricting opinion arose supposedly linked to professional behaviours. In a way that would be contrary to the British values we're all meant to be promoting!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that the personal and professional should be separate when possible. I use two Twitter feeds, one has the 'work' stuff only. The other a mix including my other interests. I'd be concerned, that whilst you have to be careful, if a culture of restricting opinion arose supposedly linked to professional behaviours. In a way that would be contrary to the British values we're all meant to be promoting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's certainly a tricky topic, and one which requires quite a bit of care to navigate. Still, the debate needs to be had, and more people need to be aware of the potential issue.

      Delete
  3. Thanks Graham Razey for your thoughts. I understand and agreed with your sense of unease regarding this incident and the general blurring of professional/personal boundaries. I have felt concerned by the drift towards what could be called ‘24/7 informalism’ of the behaviours of some leaders and managers.
    Though I’m not aware of all the details; it would also be interesting to consider what Sir Wilshaw’s motives may be that justified (in his view) making personal such statements and defend. One would expect any comments/statements made in the public domain by the head of a statuary regulatory body to be considered and appropriately evidenced.
    There are many schools of thought that value leaders that show passion, are genuine, are emotionally intelligent, acting in a professional and principled manner. This, for me, includes all forms of communication - from a quick Tweek or email through to the CEO’s report. All carry the individual’s message (hidden & explicit) and by proxy, reflects the quality of how that organisation ticks. So perhaps it would be wise to debate this more and at least ‘think before you Tweek or Sqawk’. Regards Helen Hodsdon

    ReplyDelete
  4. If he was going to offer such comments to the Select Committee, then clearly, SMW would have been well-advised to preface those remarks with a crystal-clear explanation that he was consciously and deliberately about to cross that divide -- as you have indicated here, Graham.
    I still think he should not have done so at all -- particularly when you consider his astonishingly feeble and subjective basis for the remarks (see: http://policyconsortium.co.uk/hard-evidence-not-anecdote-please-chief-inspector ). But to do so in the casual, self-regarding and sloppy manner he did merely strengthens the case for doubting his knowledge, understanding, judgement and professionalism.

    ReplyDelete