 ‘Today is a day of shame. Shame on the perpetrators on both sides of this terrible conflict who have inflicted unimaginable suffering on civilians. Shame on the world for turning away while Sudan burns. Shame on the countries that continue to add fuel to the fire.’ (Erika Guevara Rosas) Two years to the day since the latest conflict in Sudan broke out with brutal ferocity, the UK and (some) other countries are finally paying attention to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It’s a complex picture on the ground with geopolitical and ethnic tensions that create a devastating mix. While the world’s attention has been fixated on Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza, Sudan’s civilian population has suffered horrific atrocities at the hands of merciless armed groups. Conferences are too often a forum for noble speeches, hand-wringing and hand-shaking, virtue signalling on a public stage and, behind it all, a pathetic substitute for tangible action. (It’s as if talking earnestly about an issue makes us appear, believe and feel like we’re actually doing something). In the meantime, the violence continues unabated with no relief whatsoever for vulnerable people on the ground. Today's event must make a difference. Sudan needs action now. What can you do? *Pray for peace and hope in Sudan. *Contact David Lammy, UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to urge follow-through from this Conference initiative. *Write to your local Member of Parliament (MP) to advocate for urgent and tangible action on relief, security and peace in Sudan.
2 Comments
 ‘A good leader is not just a head full of knowledge but a hand willing to serve.’ (Jasmin, Philippines) I was inspired and challenged by this radical teacher’s short lecture to student police officers in the Philippines today. It’s a stark reminder and grounding of the Easter story. ‘If, when you graduate as police officers, you will stand at the side of the street waiting for the sun to rise to a 40-degrees heat, and you don’t help the elderly woman trying to cross the street or pick up the rubbish that’s scattered around, then you’ll be useless. Why would I say that? It’s because when we die, the account we’re going to give to God is of our character and how we spent our talents during this life on earth. Look at Jesus – he could have been married, have spent a luxurious life on earth because he’s the Son of God, but he sacrificed his own needs and prioritised the Father’s will. It led to his death. He didn’t try to protect his life. He walked the way of the cross and he sweated blood as he feared what would happen. He said, ‘Father, take this cup of suffering away from me – yet not what I want, but what you want.’ As he was hanging on the cross, his human nature spoke: ‘Father, why have you forsaken me?’ It’s the same for us. If we forsake our neighbour, if we forsake to have initiative, if we forsake cleaning our surroundings and just stand there without doing our work, if our priority is just to pose, look good and show people we are there – it’s your choice. And so, I’m reminding you: always make an impact and a difference with your lives – starting in your own life and in your family and in your neighbours'. Because Jesus is not in the clouds. He is in the sisters and the brothers next to us. This school needs people with initiative, who are willing to do, to serve humanity, because we already have a lot of police officers in the Philippines. But who will implement what is really just and right? The only thing that's practised continually is corruption. And I hope you will not become one of them because, without true character, your education will have been wasted.' This woman practises what she preaches. And that makes all the difference.  ‘Capabilities are freedoms conceived as real opportunities.’ (Amartya Sen) I keep coming back to this question: what is it that makes the difference? I’ve been drawn recently to reflections on this theme by Indian economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen. He distinguishes between capabilities, which are our resources (including our abilities and our potential), and conversion factors, which are influences on the real opportunities we have to use and fulfil them. Sen focuses his work on wellbeing and on the kinds of lives people and groups are effectively able to lead. He moves on to questions of what people, groups and societies need. Sen offers some interesting illustrations. Two people have the same resources. One is able-bodied and the other has physical disabilities that confine them to a wheelchair. All else being equal, the able-bodied person has more net resources because the person with disabilities has more related expenses. The former may also have greater net opportunities in society because the latter may be limited to places that are wheelchair-accessible. This could lead us to the conclusion that the person with disabilities should be given more resources to ensure equity. Sen then asks, what if the able-bodied person is hard to please and needs more resources to achieve a sense of wellbeing? What if the person with disabilities is content with their life and needs fewer resources to achieve wellbeing? If the goal is wellbeing, should we therefore provide more resources for the able-bodied person? Sen poses two challenges before we leap to this conclusion: sometimes disadvantaged people lower their expectations as a coping mechanism; and society has a moral imperative to support the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Sen provides another example of a person who owns a bicycle. The bike is a means to an end, to ensure mobility rather than an end in itself. Yet to convert the potential of bike ownership to greater mobility, certain conditions need to be in place. These could include, for instance, the physical ability to ride a bike; a social-cultural context that allows the person to ride a bike; and environmental conditions such as safe roads or suitable bike paths that make using a bike feasible. It’s a combination of capabilities and conversion factors that make this difference. So, what does this look like real situations? As far back as 2003, I wrote a research paper as part of an organisation development (OD) masters’ degree that aimed to identify and address common factors that influence engagement and effectiveness in organisations. I proposed that culture, complexity, capability and climate were critical variables. It’s about releasing and harnessing individual potential on the one hand, whilst creating the conditions in which people thrive on the other. This is, in my view, where coaching, action learning and OD intersect. What do you think?  ‘Extraordinary people are ordinary people making extraordinary decisions.’ (Sharon Pearson) Who’s in the driving seat? It’s an important question in coaching and action learning. After all, the client or presenter chooses the direction, speed, route and destination, even though we travel together. As a coach, if I find myself taking the wheel consciously or inadvertently, I would need to pause, take a breath and rethink or recontract our roles. Too much control risks distracting or disturbing the client’s own insight, potential and agency; a loss that would outweigh a gain. So, what does this look like? The client decides their own starting point, their desired goal and how they’d like to get there. I help facilitate the journey insofar as the client finds this beneficial, and offer silence, questions or reflections, or signal signposts in the road, as minimal prompts. The client navigates their own way, discovering or creating solutions to any challenges they encounter on route. I travel alongside to offer support and challenge, to sharpen awareness and skill. What have been your experiences of working with a coach? What made the difference for you?  ‘An all-or-nothing approach usually produces self-limiting or self-damaging outcomes – especially in complex situations.’ (Michael Pohl) A novel experience this week was to co-pilot a new Masterclass in Action Learning Facilitation with Charlotte Snowdon of Action Learning Associates. It was great to work alongside someone with a very different background, style and approach in order to co-create an optimal range of insights and ideas. In planning and preparing the event, we decided to pool our ideas rather than to attempt to harmonise them. This would enable different participants with different interests and preferences the opportunities to draw on whom- or whatever they found most useful. This both-and approach is illustrative of a solution reflected in a Tetralemma, a helpful tool for breaking out of polarised, either-or thinking. The tool itself depicts a simple grid, with 'Option 1' at one end of a horizontal axis and a (perceived) opposite 'Option 2' at the other. On the vertical axis, 'Both' is at one end and 'Neither' at the other. This creates a possibility matrix in which instead of just Option 1 or Option 2, we can consider Option 1 and Option 2; or Neither of these options by e.g. reconsidering or reframing the situation or the issue we want-need to address. I especially like this tool for four main reasons: Firstly, it can help clients break out of an unhelpful polarity where they have become trapped by their own either-or thinking. Secondly, it can provide stimulus to create new Both possibilities that they may never have considered. Thirdly, it can draw on and preserve diversity, avoiding over-compromise or blending into boring blandness. Fourthly, it can challenge clients to reflect more deeply on whether they are focusing on or addressing the most important issues or dilemmas in the first place. What do you think?  ‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.’ (Winston Churchill) I sat at a table yesterday with a group of people in Germany who definitely don’t always see eye-to-eye on critical issues facing people and the world today. At times, the conversation flowed freely and easily with relaxed smiles and laughter. At others, passions burned, words felt strained and the room temperature markedly increased. As I looked at the faces and imagined my own, I could see we were all grappling inwardly and between us with how to be authentic and speak whilst, at the same time, how to avoid hurting one-another. Listening and hearing can be hard when beliefs and values are feel challenged, especially on people and things that matter most to us. It was, for me, a microcosm of democracy: a dance of dialogue and debate in which diverse views and lived experiences are shared, sometimes elegantly and sometimes (especially for me, with my limited German) awkwardly, sometimes hoping to influence yet without forcing views on others, that feels both difficult and healthy. By contrast, I look with near-despair at the state of polarisation in public discourse across the world today; a black-white, win-lose, zero-sum game with little desire to listen or learn. Echo chambers reverberate loudly and seek to drown out all other voices – and the UK government’s reactive response? To clamp down on free speech.  ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all.’ (Pru Hobson-West) Health and social care professions in the UK and beyond are facing unprecedented challenges. Time and again, I hear from clients – from senior leaders through to frontline staff – how they are struggling to cope with increasingly unrealistic expectations combined with hopelessly inadequate resources to meet the demand. The most common underlying questions they raise are, ‘How can I, we, sustain this?’ or, in a weary voice, ‘Is it possible to sustain this?’ There are multiple and intersecting underlying causes including political shifts in policies and priorities, underfunding in critical areas and significant staff shortages, including a shortfall in those entering the nursing profession. This is compounded by stress and burnout, leaving vacancies that add to the pressure on those needing to cover, creating a cascading effect. Add to that an ageing population with complex needs and escalating public demand. That’s the macro-systemic level. Imagine now your friend, or relative, is admitted to hospital. You want to believe they are in safe and competent hands. Everything within you tells you to ‘trust the professionals’. It’s partly a learned cultural narrative. It’s also a way of defending ourselves against anxiety. After all, to consider the alternative is terrifying. It relieves us of responsibility and places it squarely in the hands of a system. That helps us to sleep better too. So, I ask the professionals – ‘What do you say?’ ‘Firstly,’ they advise, ‘Show professional respect: staff often have years of studies, training and experience behind them.’ ‘Secondly, show human empathy: we’re often working long hours, understaffed and exhausted.’ ‘Thirdly, show personal agency: don’t imagine we’ll always know, notice and do everything that’s needed – that’s naïve. Work with us. Advocate for your friend or relative. That’s what we need too.’  ‘Whatever status or power you have, use it for those who are vulnerable; whatever money you have, use it for the poor.’ (Jasmin, Philippines) We face a global paradox. Some reports show that the wealth gap between richer and poorer countries is narrowing and, at the same time, the wealth gap between the richest people and poorest people within those countries is widening. The reasons behind these changes are dynamically complex and, as a non-economist, well beyond my ability to grasp. That said, I’m interested in how, psychologically, we make sense of and respond to such phenomena. Deutsche Welle (DW) produced an interesting documentary in 2024 that showed how the wealthy often attribute their success to their own personal qualities such as their attitudes, abilities and hard work. By contrast, the poorer often attribute their poverty to environmental conditions that lay outside their ability to control. It’s an example of attribution theory, a way of explaining (and, sometimes, rationalising or justifying) our varied human experiences. In my work, I see the polarity itself is too simplistic. I do see individuals who stand out from the crowd in their own culture and context, shattering the mould and breaking free from apparent constraints to achieve success. I also see individuals who possess similar qualities yet fail to make headway because they simply don’t have the same opportunities. It’s as if the cultural and contextual tide they are born into is way too strong to swim against alone. At the same time, I see individuals who become wealthy in spite of demonstrating little effort or aptitude on their own part, as if the inherent benefits of their background, context or connections naturally sweep them upwards. I also see individuals who possess everything it would take to become successful in their own context yet, for whatever reasons, don’t grasp the nettle or take the plunge. At times, it’s just that different people have different priorities. The counter-example that inspires me most is Jasmin in the Philippines. She grew up among the poorest of the poor where, contextually-speaking, the odds are absolutely stacked against her. Yet by power of prayer and determination, she defies a universal human instinct for acquisition and achieves the most incredible things. As far as personal wealth is concerned, she refuses to swim upwards and, instead, uses everything she has for the benefit of the poor. I want to be more like her.  ‘Our cultural strength has always been derived from our diversity of understanding and experience.’ (Yo-Yo Ma) Assertiveness is often framed as a positive trait – being clear, direct and confident in expressing our thoughts and needs. But in cultures where relationship, harmony and saving face are highly-valued, a Western style of assertiveness can sometimes feel abrupt or even rude. It’s a lesson I’ve learned – no, I’m still learning – through having made painful and embarrassing cross-cultural mistakes. So how can we adapt an assertive approach without losing our voice? Here are some general rules-of-thumb: *Observe and learn: Pay attention to local communication styles. Notice how disagreements or requests are typically handled. *Use indirect language: Try to frame your points in a way that aligns with cultural norms (see practical examples below). *Be mindful of non-verbal cues: In high-context cultures, non-verbal communication carries weight. Ensure words, tone and body language are congruent. *Seek local feedback: Engage with culturally-knowledgeable friends or colleagues to refine your communication approach. Here are some practical examples: 1. Listen beyond words: A Vietnamese colleague told me, ‘Yes doesn’t always mean yes here.’ Instead of relying solely on verbal confirmation, pay attention to body language, tone and hesitation. If someone says, ‘That might be difficult,’ they may be politely saying no. Example: If you ask someone if they can meet a deadline and they respond with, ‘That could be a challenge but we will try our best,’ this may mean they cannot meet it. Try asking, ‘I understand it’s difficult. What timeline do you think would be realistic?’ 2. Use indirect language: Rather than saying, ‘I disagree with this approach,’ try, ‘I wonder if there’s another way to look at this?’ or ‘Would it be possible to explore an alternative?’ Softening language allows for discussion without putting anyone on the spot. Example: If a team in Thailand proposes an idea you find impractical, instead of rejecting it outright, you could say, ‘This is an interesting idea. What challenges do you foresee in implementing it?’ This approach encourages dialogue without shutting them down. 3. Frame feedback as a question: Direct or implied criticism can feel very personal in some cultures. Instead of ‘This report isn’t clear,’ try ‘How do you think we could make this report even clearer?’ It invites reflection and change without causing embarrassment. Example: If a junior colleague in Singapore submits a report with errors, instead of saying, ‘This isn’t detailed enough,’ ask, ‘Could we add a bit more background information to clarify this section?’ This encourages improvement whilst maintaining respect. 4. Leverage relationships: In hierarchical cultures, feedback is often best received through the appropriate channels. Instead of challenging a senior colleague directly, discuss concerns privately or ask a trusted intermediary to raise the point. Example: If you need to push back on an unrealistic request from a senior manager in the Philippines, rather than directly saying, ‘This won’t work,’ you might discuss your concerns with a colleague who has a good relationship with them and ask them to introduce the idea tactfully. 5. Respect the pause: Silence is powerful. In Western cultures, we may jump in to fill gaps. But in cultures where people reflect before responding, allow pauses. If you ask a question and don’t get an immediate answer, don’t rush to rephrase – wait. You might get a more thoughtful response. Example: In a negotiation in Cambodia, you propose a fee rate. The other party remains silent. Instead of jumping in with a revised offer, wait. The pause doesn’t necessarily mean disapproval. It may signal they are considering it.  ‘Stop scrolling. Start doing.’ (Kati Kaia) You see the headline. Another war, disaster or existential threat looming on the horizon. Your breath shortens, your heart tightens and for a moment, just a split second perhaps, you feel that primal rush of adrenaline. Your body is gearing up for battle – but there is no enemy in front of you. There’s no fight to be won and no obvious action to take. Just a screen, glowing with catastrophe, and the realisation that you are completely powerless to stop it. This is the fight-flight-freeze response, an ancient survival mechanism designed to protect us from immediate danger. But, in the digital age, it’s being hijacked. Instead of running from a predator or standing our ground in a real-life threat, we’re reacting to the relentless tide of global crises flooding our news feeds. And the worst part? There’s nowhere for that energy to release and dissipate. When faced with a real, tangible danger, our nervous system activates to help us respond – fight back, escape or play dead until the threat passes. But when the threat is abstract, distant or beyond our control, this energy has no resolution. Instead, it lingers, simmering beneath the surface, manifesting as anxiety, burnout or even physical symptoms like fatigue, headaches or stomach cramps. Chronic exposure to distressing news can lead to what’s called ‘headline stress disorder.’ It’s a psychological phenomenon where constant exposure to crises keeps the nervous system in a perpetual state of high alert. The body can’t distinguish between immediate danger and an article about geopolitical tensions. The result? We’re left feeling exhausted, restless, and emotionally drained – and yet, somehow. unable to disengage. While I believe it’s important to remain aware of global events, especially given the international scope of my own interests and work, we don’t have to sacrifice our mental well-being in the process. Here’s are some tips for how to break the cycle (that I’m practising too): 1. Recognise the physical response: The next time you feel that surge of stress while reading, listening to or watching the news, pause. Notice your breath, your heart rate and any tension in your body. Awareness is the first step to regaining control. 2. Limit your exposure: Set boundaries on your news intake. Try checking the news only once or twice a day instead of constantly refreshing your feed. Consider turning off push notifications for breaking news unless it’s directly relevant to your life. 3. Engage in physical activity: Since the fight-flight-freeze response is designed for action, find a healthy outlet for that energy. Exercise, go for a walk or even shake your arms and legs. Physical movement can help regulate your nervous system. 4. Focus on what you can control: Instead of fixating on problems you can’t solve, redirect your attention to actions within your reach. Chat with others, write to your MP, support a local cause or do related volunteer work to restore a sense of agency. 5. Balance negative news with positive (*see below): Despite media narratives, the world isn’t only crises and catastrophes. Seek out stories of resilience, innovation and positive change. Follow groups that highlight solutions, not just problems. 6. Practise grounding techniques: Breathing exercises, prayer, meditation and mindfulness practices can help signal to your nervous system that you are safe. Simple techniques like the 5-4-3-2-1 method (naming five things you see, four you touch, three you hear, two you smell, and one you taste) can pull you back into the present moment. Yes, the world is full of challenges, but it is also full of people who care, who take action and who make a difference. And that includes you – even if your first step is simply putting down your phone, taking a deep breath, saying a prayer and reclaiming your own sense of peace. [*For positive news channels, see: Good News Hub; Good News Network; Positive News] |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed