Sunday 30 August 2015

The only man in the village

Recently I've been reflecting on being part of a minority group - men in the HR profession. I thought I'd spend this blog sharing my observations about this and what impact it has, if any. 

Read on...

I've encountered it all over the place so it's definitely a thing. But it's taken other people pointing it out recently to make me dwell upon it. 

In my current role and organisation I'm the only man in an HR section of 18. In my previous two organisations out of a total of around 30 different HR professionals in two companies I was one of only three men across both. In my work delivering CIPD qualifications for six years, I taught around 120 students and can recall only five male students. When I was a CIPD student myself I was the only man on the course for each year I studied.

I go to conferences and networking events and the audience and attendees are predominantly female. 

The CIPD once said that 72% of their members are female. In another bit of teaching I do, student numbers are almost exclusively female too and it's estimated that over 80% of new entrants to the HR profession are female. 

And there's lots of other statistical evidence on the subject too.

But do I mind?

I might well be in a minority group but I don't feel neglected, disregarded, discriminated against or otherwise excluded, for the majority of the time anyway. It doesn't bother me much. Once I did joke that I was the token male and felt like some kind of positive action role model, but that was in jest. It did make me think though about why women outnumber men so much in our profession?

I put a lot of stock by Allen and Barbara Pease' research on the differences between men and women. Although delivered HERE in a very light hearted way, there's a considerable body of research behind it and some relevant truths to explore too. He doesn't mention HR in this when he talks about professions and occupations with high gender imbalance, but the principles are the same - you can see lots of HR work being perceived in the same way as Counselling, which he does mention - as a fluffy, talking profession where you listen to lots of people complaining. 

I generalise, of course, and am just extending Pease' anecdote. But is this why the HR profession attracts more women than it does men? There's certainly not much of the geo-spatial and logistical co ordination Pease asserts attracts more men. Though there IS a lot of problem solving. 

What do you think?

Interestingly though when you look at the top levels of the HR profession, the numbers are a lot more equally divided. This suggests that whatever barriers there may be to men entering the profession, there are not as many preventing men from succeeding and advancing in the profession once they have entered it. Or does it suggest that the further away from the front line of HR you get, the less those types of roles are likely to be attractive to women? Again, just referencing Pease' line of thinking here. 

Pease also suggests that there is something about how the brains of gay men work that enables better relationships to be forged with women, and to share some of the same characteristics in terms of skills at certain jobs and attributes to succeed in them. Although this is another generalisation, there is some relevance to HR as a profession where there does seem to be a higher proportion of gay men than in some other professions. Indeed, of the various men I have referenced in my introduction above as having been part of my peer groups, around half have been gay, and it's often been the case that people have assumed that I myself am gay simply because I'm a man working in HR. Again, this doesn't bother me at all, but it's interesting how stereotypes start to develop. 

Hence the title of this blog, a reference to the Little Britain character Daffyd and for a good illustration of this, this sketch in particular. It's how I sometimes feel when I encounter another man in my HR team. 

A while back a team I was in were looking to arrange an Awayday that included a fun element and various options were presented for the team to choose from. The menu of choices included some things that were definitely aimed towards the female dominated team, though that's not to say that I might not have enjoyed them too or that some of the women may have disliked them, just that it would have been outside my comfort zone and there were no activities that catered exclusively for the male minority - and perhaps that's entirely right, after all I'm a minority of one and it's difficult to cater for all. 

On a recent training course there was just me and one other man in a group of 13 trainees, and at one stage the trainer made reference to this in order to make a point. I didn't mind, and the trainer herself admitted she was taking a risk by raising the point, but it again highlighted how obvious it must be to those looking at the HR profession from outside it. 

Interestingly though, with equal pay increasingly in the limelight and seemingly due to expand its legislative range soon, this article suggests that men in HR tend to receive higher salaries than women - which can't be a situation anyone in the profession is proud of. 

Earlier this year, David Jackson (who you should all be following on Twitter) wrote about it in his own blog, from which I've taken some inspiration.

We aren't the only profession with such a gender imbalance though. For the reverse situation, see IT in this article.

In David's blog he poses the question should we be bothered by the statistical imbalance?

That's a good question but I'm inclined to say no. Until someone can prove that HR needs more men in order to be more effective, and IT needs more women in order to be more effective, I can't see a compelling case for doing anything at all.  Yes, there are minority groups and I'm one of them. But it's not doing any harm, or preventing anything from happening, as far as I can see at least. 

It's just a statistical phenomenon. 


Its not causing me any problems.  And I haven't heard any other man complaining either.

If I'm the only man in the village, so be it. 


What do you think?

Till next time...

Gary

PS in other news, wedding invites now issued and it's just one year till the big day! Oh, and Poppy FINALLY slept through the night for the first time in ten months!

Sunday 16 August 2015

Life begins at 40...or does it?

Recently I turned 40. On 17 July in fact - telling you this so you can put in a reminder for next year when I'm 41, I'm expecting a card!  There's a popular saying about Life begins at 40, and this was uppermost in my mind for a few months beforehand. In this blog I'll discuss whether such a thing is true, and reflect on what it means to be 40 in this modern world. 

I recall when I was but a mere accounts assistant at ICI in the mid 1990s my immediate line manager turned 30. I was only 21 but 30 seemed old, very old. I distinctly remember teasing him all day that he was now closer to 40 than 20 and how annoyed he got about this.

And now I'm closer to 60 than 20, how's that for karma?

Somewhere Rob Stockton is quietly chuckling to himself. Rob - I owe you an apology. 

So I wasn't particularly keen on turning 40 lest someone tease me in a similar manner. You see, I can give it out, but I can't take it. 

So I wasn't too happy. I remember my Dad turning 40 when I was a teenager and him seeming very old, my mum likewise. And my grandparents were in their 40s when I was born and have never seemed anything but ancient, so is this how I must look to my children?

I decided to end my 30s in style. I celebrated for four consecutive days, at work with my old management team, with my family, and with my friends. It was good, even if someone did injure themselves at my party. 

But where does this feeling that life begins at 40 come from, and does it still hold true in the modern, digital age? American psychologist Walter Pitkin popularised the phrase in his 1932 book, but prior to that average life expectancy itself hadn't been much more than 40. It is supposed to represent the beginning of the time when a person feels more financially secure and, if they have children, they are approaching self sufficiency. 

Well that's not true for me. I don't feel financially secure, although admittedly more secure than when I was 20 or 30. And my children are nowhere near being self sufficient, financially or otherwise. In fact, just last night I had to borrow £1 off my Dad, so maybe I'm not even self sufficient yet either. 

This article suggests that 40 heralds the beginning of the end, bringing the time when forgetfulness, lack of concentration and poor focus become more apparent. 

So is this what awaits me? Well from a career perspective and looking above and ahead of me in my organisation, sector and profession, there are plenty of people 15-20 years older than me, and more, doing great things in their working lives and I see no evidence of them failing anything. 

And yet...

...my paternal grandfather had to finish work through ill health at age 48...my father had to finish work through ill health at age 42...and my paternal uncle only made it into his early 50s before he too finished work. Perhaps there's something genetic about it?

Even this article suggests that men usually don't feel settled and secure until age 54. So does life begin at 54 nowadays?

I guess it could. If people are taking longer to get onto the housing ladder then a mortgage could easily last until someone is 60. Careers are longer, so on average most people will be made redundant once and have one complete career change, and someone in their early 50s could be starting out on a brand new and more successful career. And with children often arriving later in life, a parent could be in their mid 50s before those children are self sufficient. 

So maybe I will be ok. I've always been the youngest on any management team I have been part of, and whilst I've lost that title recently I'm still one of the youngest, so life could yet begin for me at 40. 

And I feel quite good at 40. Family wise, I'm in a much better place than at any other time I can remember. Physically and mentally, I'm in great shape, again far better than at any other comparable time. Career wise, I've had a great last decade and a half and am in a good position to shape my own future over the next decade and a half. And THEN I might feel financially secure. 

Plus I lost my hair in my early 20s and have looked 40 for a long time. But now I actually AM 40, I think I'm looking pretty good for it. 

I was going to say I look pretty hot, but that might be stretching it. 

Basically that's the Bobby Charlton rule though. He looked 60 when he was 20, but by the time he was 60 he had grown into his looks and age. And there's more. Look at Gary Barlow and Jamie Redknapp, and David Beckham, all men who seem to be better at age 40ish than 20 years earlier. 

So maybe 40 is the new 20.

Certainly it could be for me. I feel more energised at 40 than I did at 18, 21, 30 or any other milestone I can remember. 

This blog is called the Power of Three and on the About Me page you can see why. But for me I think I've got things balanced nicely at the moment, having given the necessary attention to each area. I hope I can give others some ideas on how to balance theirs too.

But then I could give my younger self some advice, but I know I wouldn't have listened to it. 

Someone once said that at 40 you develop judgement. Let's see if I have. I've got a big decade ahead. 

Till next time...

Gary

PS in other news, hopefully you'll forgive the indulgence of a very personal blog. Back to a more professional one next time round...

Monday 3 August 2015

Incommunicado

I haven't blogged for a few weeks as I've been on holiday. I deliberately turned off my work emails and calls during the holiday and went almost two weeks without interruptions from my professional life. 

Here's why, and what I learned. 

This was my second holiday of the year. We went to South Devon and had a lovely time. But it was in my first holiday this year that I got the idea. Back in early May we went to the far North of Scotland and whilst there we had no wifi or mobile phone signal. There were occasions where signal would break through or where we visited a place that had free wifi, and on those occasions work emails and voicemails would push through and, by and large, I'd spend some time looking at them in case there was anything earth shattering. Whilst this made me feel alright about work pressures, I couldn't help but notice the glances from my partner and also the things I was missing out on, like quality family time. 

So I figured this time round I'd turn them off completely.

I think people reading this will be divided into two camps.  One camp will be thinking "its a holiday, why on earth would you be checking emails and voiemails? Are you mad?".  And the other camp will be thinking "of course if you have an important job you should keep in touch".

This has been a subject covered in the media in recent years. Germany is considering banning outside working hours contact for example.

France already has.

A lot of these come from the angle of reducing stress for the individual. I should clarify that my decision had nothing to do with reducing work stress, and everything to do with increasing the quality of the time I spend with my family. I don't often get stressed by work and sometimes the ability to clear a few emails whilst sat on the balcony overlooking the hotel pool whilst the kids are asleep has been actually helpful from a work perspective. 

After all, there was a risk that I would return to work facing an uphill battle to get my workload back on an even keel, a subject even the CIPD weighed in on recently.

In previous holidays I'd always checked work emails and voicemails, and had sent quick replies to things that "only took a minute" or which appeared very urgent. In my head I was underlining how vitally important I was that I couldn't even switch off on holiday and needed to keep a watching eye on things back at work. In fact, one wondered if work could even carry on without me.

How utterly wrong I was, and how ridiculous I must have seemed. 

There's also the risk that you'll read an email or listen to a voicemail that will get you so riled up it spoils your holiday. That hasn't happened to me but I've seen someone else do it, read an email whilst abroad and get so stressed about it that they went off sick through anxiety at the end of their leave. 

So beforehand I was determined to switch off and enjoy my family time, the first holiday I'd taken with my partner and all three of my children. 

Of course I had to make sure that I'd finished everything I could beforehand, left as few loose ends as possible and let key people know that I'd be back in a fortnight and to save anything urgent till then, as well as briefing anyone else who I needed to do anything during my absence. I worked harder in the days leading up to this than at any recent time in order to achieve this. 

During the fortnight (well, 12 days actually but fortnight sounds better) I thought I'd be tempted to turn things back on sneakily, but surprised myself by mentally switching off too. That's not to say I didn't think about work at all. I did, quite a few times. It's a big part of my life and there is a lot happening at the moment. But I didn't fret about it. I figured people could get hold of me in an absolute emergency, but I knew I'd set things up well enough not to worry for a fortnight. 

And here's the thing. I enjoyed my holiday more as a result, and our family time was amazing. And guess what? My company was still there when I got back this week. Nothing drastic had happened and although there were many hundreds of emails to wade through when I returned and a number of voicemails, some of these had sorted themselves in my absence WITHOUT MY INTERVENTION. 

Like magic. 

I guess no one is irreplaceable. But, saying that, I still hope David De Gea stays at United because he comes pretty close to being irreplaceable. 

Afterwards I felt a little guilty but tried to tell people when they asked that, of course I'd enjoyed my holiday (that's what everyone says), but a factor in that was being able to switch off. 

I had to work just as hard in my first few days back as I had done in my final few days before the holiday, but I felt better about it and felt that my mind was clear and part of me actually enjoyed being back at work as in some way I'd missed it. 

But rather that than my family miss me while I'm on holiday with them because I'm "just quickly checking emails". 

So here I am, back at work, and feeling refreshed. 

Would I do it again?

Yes. To me the pros far outweigh the cons. 

But..what do you think? What have your experiences been?

Till next time...

Gary

PS in other news, I turned 40 during the holiday. Quite a fright. But a good opportunity to reflect on life, and I might share my views on turning 40 in my next blog...