Guest blog: Does the NATO Summit basket of goodies sum up what the people of Wales see in themselves?

Today’s guest blog is from Rebecca Price, MD of brand identity specialists Frank, Bright and Abel.

I was struck by the challenge of selecting symbols of Wales in the gifts for world leaders at the NATO summit in Newport last week. (My own view follows in the next blog.)

Does the NATO Summit basket of goodies sum up what the people of Wales see in themselves?

So who better to ask for comment than a Welsh brand-identity expert.

I was looking for a couple of lines: Rebecca has sent me an eloquent essay on her national identity.

Thank you, Rebecca.

“Hosting the NATO Summit has pushed Wales right to the top of the headlines. Perhaps now people beyond the principality will stop saying Wales is in England, which prompts a question about what defines Welsh identity.

What best sums up and symbolises Welshness is something that could be the subject of several books. Despite being hammered every bit as much as the Scots (and Wales’s beautiful castles are testament to this), the resultant response in expression of national identity is less overt, but no less potent, than either the Scottish or Irish identities. Welsh identity is as subtle as its countryside, with surprising differences between North and South, my own Wales starting at Swansea and ending at St David’s. 

The willow hampers gifted at the NATO summit were fantastic and prompt the question about what I might have crammed them full of. I would have packed them full of Welsh food: healthy, hearty, unfussy and straight from the landscape. There’s always a welcome in the hillside and that often starts with food. 

First there would be fish and shellfish, not least razor clams plucked from the sand of Gower, together with health giving lava bread, the seaweed available only from that tiny stretch of coast. Secondly, there would be plenty available for tea time. Welsh cakes, a bakestone loaf, bara brith (buttered of course) and Glengettie tea. If there were any space left, I’d fill it with vegetables from Pembrokeshire, a bottle of the air that makes me sigh when I step onto the beach at Rhossili, a rug from Melin Tregwynt to sit on and a Welsh Love Spoon to eat it all with!

We Welsh are an expressive lot. You see this played out in rugby grounds throughout the South, in chapel and in the cultural National Eisteddfod. Music is not limited to male voice choirs, singing Calon Lan on a Sunday and the harp, and you’ll hear Delilah sung from the terraces of Llanelli’s rugby stands, as well as today's charts full of Welsh performers. A bit of How Green was my Valley still lives on, but Welshness hasn’t stopped evolving since. So the NATO hampers, would be incomplete without music. 

They would be incomplete without Dylan Thomas too, that giant amongst men whom we’ve been late to honour, dismissed by the English for being too Welsh and scorned by the Welsh for writing in English. 

But what ultimately defines Welsh identity is the people. From Neil Kinnock to Tom Jones, from Rhys Ifans to my mum’s 'pillar of the local chapel' next door neighbour, we’re people with heart, gently self mocking, who never take ourselves too seriously. I am who I am, because I’m Welsh. Being Welsh means I talk to people on the Underground. And that I talk too much. 

It means just like the inhabitants of Llaregubb, I find nicknames for everyone I know. It means I love language,  call my son ‘cariad’ and write profusely, in my own rather idiosyncratic style. 

It means I’m direct, with no varnish or gloss and laugh to the toes of my shoes.

Above all it means I have something that pulls at me when I see the Severn Bridge and makes me feel I belong, when I cross it – ‘hiraeth’, an example of singular Welsh identity so strong, that there is no direct translation into English.”

Rebecca Price

Frank, Bright & Abel

A play about the miners’ strike reflects the intensity of belonging

The BelongingSpace is exploring how belonging works in organisations.

Several themes of belonging at work, in society and in politics are vivid in the recent production of 'Wonderland' at Hampstead Theatre:

- Camaraderie

- Community

- Continuity

- Belonging as membership or ownership

- Pride

The play is set in a Nottinghamshire pit in the early 80s around the miners' strike. The writer, Beth Steel, digs into rich seams of human drama. As she describes it:

"The play covers the shattering events that cut to the heart of British politics, that divided communities, that changed the country forever: the Miners’ Strike of 1984, the last English Civil War."

The ‘Wonderland’ is the land of the pit deep below the earth. Beth Steel grew up in a mining community (though she was only two during the strike) and has thoroughly researched and recreated the working lives and tensions of the time, taking care that the piece
"addresses both sides of the political divide".

Camaraderie is palpable from the outset. (It’s a credit to the writing and production that this is raw not sentimentalised.)

We see two sixteen year old apprentices – Jimmy and Malcom – joining the mine, under the wing of the supervisor – ‘The Colonel’. They are initiated quickly into the routines, tools, tasks and banter that make up belonging at work.

When the two lads get into a scuffle, three miles below the surface, The Colonel  explains bluntly why camaraderie at work is so vital:

“Down here your life is always in another man’s hands. Never forget it.

Now shake fucking hands. If it ever happens again, you’ll be sacked on spot.”

The intensity of reliance on workmates in a mine, the risk of life in each shift, is palpable in the theatre.

Again later, when tensions spillover about the strike without a ballot, The Colonel splits up two longstanding workmates close to blows:

“ENOUGH! You have a problem you take it up top ‘cause it don’t happen down here!”

Wise words for some office (and creative agency) floors as much as in a pit.

These scenes capture a critical aspect of belonging at work. Preserving close bonds and avoiding conflict makes sense in any environment, way beyond safety-critical industries.

This is why camaraderie is one of the key areas of focus in the research of the BelongingSpace.

Community

There are few tighter communities than the old pit villages. As one character says:

“What's a pit village way out a pit?”

Ed Hall’s outstanding production creates the intimacy of the tight working community. We see the men working together in the mid-earth heat in Yfronts, joking together in bawdy banter, washing together, singing and picketing together.

The strong bonds tense and flex through the complexity of the surrounding economics and the simplicity of daily reality.

The colliery communities’ fine tradition of music forms a potent soundtrack. The cast's hearty singing of

“I can hew boys, I can hack it out”

is also on the film of their research visit to a mine.

The play’s communities are defined by tone of voice: 

the miners’ Nottinghamshire dialect and earthy banter, the Tory ministers’ acerbic derision (a linguistic precision implying public school translation of Greek epigrams), the economists’ dehumanising objectivity, the battle-hardened intractability of the police, the war cry of ‘Scab! Scab! Scab’.

The cast carry the rhythms spontaneously: social dissonance is conveyed instantly.

An outsider to all these communities, David Hart (MacGregor’s adviser, running the 'Back to work' campaign) is characterised as eccentric even by Tory cabinet minister standards:

“You know he lives in Claridges?

… He wears jodhpurs! Riding trousers when he's not riding”

Status is defined right from the cast list: characters are ‘Above’ and ‘Below’.

The robust engineering of the set creates the environment of above and below – the cage lift carrying the miners (and us) deep into ‘below’, the gantries and scaffolding then becoming the ‘above’, with leaders looking down on us.

We feel the physicality, claustrophia and risk of the working lives below; the brutality and survival-of-the-fittest arrogance of life above.

By contrast, the strength of Ed Hall’s production is in the status–free ensemble. Strong direction along with inclusivity also marks the way in which he has transformed Hampstead Theatre, achieving outstanding creative standards, building a community of support, and turning the theatre around from a financial deficit into a surplus of £475,000: a few lessons here for industry on leadership style.

Continuity across the generations rings out in another traditional song:

“I’m the son of a son of a son of a collier’s son:

Go down!”

It is exactly this inheritance that the Thatcher Government and (then new in role) head of the Coal Board, Ian MacGregor, took on in their handling of the Miners’ Strike.

The play shows the bewilderment as continuity – with its taken-for-granted traditions – is dislocated by Government policy set far away from the ‘Wonderland’ deep in the pits.

History is vivid on stage. Sitting on the front row near a speaker it felt like the whole place was shaking during the mine explosions. The Battle of Orgreave, with its brutal violence between police and pickets (a social explosion), is visceral.

Belonging as membership and ownership is another theme in the play that we are looking at in our research at The BelongingSpace.

Do people belong as ‘members’ at work? Or are they ‘owned’?

Again, coalmining exposes the extremes.

For the miners and their families, belonging means membership of the community, to pull your weight alongside your mates. And to turn your back on that during a strike is to forfeit your right to membership.

For the Government and Coal Board belonging was about ownership – of the mines, of the power-source (in all senses), of the workers. Employment as an economic cog not a right.

Despite the writer’s effort to be even-handed, it’s hard to avoid the dominance of those 'above', through policy, policing and tampering with news footage.

The striking miners assert belonging through ownership of the coal itself, when confronted by a security guard as they’re scrabbling for scraps in a yard:

“Nick it?! We’re miners. How do you think it got up here in the bloody first place?”

Membership of the union did not extend to a vote to strike: that was owned by Arthur Scargill, intensifying the conflict of personalities as much as ideas.

But it’s not all black and white: the economic complexities in the shift of ownership from public to private exposed the chronic lack of investment. The country's reliance on coal provided enormous co-dependent power to the unions.

Insights in belonging

'Wonderland' is outstanding theatre. 
It also holds insights to the power of belonging to (and conflict between) different tribes at work.

 

Language betrays belonging.

For anyone decoding what it means to belong to a work environment - especially of conflict within an organisation - look at the language.

-  Do different communities share a common language?

-  How often do employees talk about ‘us’ or leaders talk about ‘them’?

-  Does 'belonging' spread across all layers of the organisation?

- Or is it ringfenced, with the various communities so isolated from each other that conflict is inevitable?

- Is continuity matched with evolution, a sense of shared future as well as of history?

Pride (a great indicator of belonging in a workplace) is poignant in the final scene of the play.

Outside the theatre on a balmy summer's evening, pride surfaced in the gentle Nottinghamshire hubbub of Beth Steel’s close-knit family.

Beth’s father - the real 'Colonel', now celebrating 40 years as a miner - couldn’t stop smiling:

"I couldn't see how it would work, how could you make a play of a mine?

But she's captured it, she's got the voice.

I couldn't be more proud."

Beth described her role as playwright:

“I always feel that it's not my story.

It's theirs, the characters: I'm just the teller.”

She's submitted a new play to Hampstead Theatre – exploring another work context causing contentious social division – and is waiting to hear if it may be selected. 

I do hope so.

Is SARAH common sense or a get-out clause? Shared ethics is a vital part of Belonging

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill 
Shared ethics: shared responsibility

Mixed feelings on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, getting its second reading in the House of Commons today.

Does this new Bill encourage people to jump in and take social action? 
Or provide a get-out-clause for them to avoid being sued?

Certainly taking social action - doing something rather than standing by when someone is in need of help - is how we sustain our communities and uphold our society's ethics. Shared ethos is a vital part of Belonging. 

The rule of law works precisely because of this: integrity is both an individual and collective responsibility.

But a separate law to say 'it's OK to take part' feels a bit forced.

It has come about from serious concerns that people may avoid taking action for fear of recrimination and compensation-seeking.

As the introduction says:

"The bill has been developed in response to concerns that people may be put off from taking part in voluntary activities, helping others or intervening in emergencies due to worries about risk and liability. The government also wants to make sure that when people such as employers have been taking a responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity and something goes wrong, the courts will take account of the circumstances.

The bill therefore contains measures to reassure people that if they’re acting for the benefit of society, intervening in an emergency or demonstrating a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity, then if something goes wrong and they are sued for negligence or for certain breaches of statutory duty, the court will take full account of the context of their actions."

The ambulance-chasers, the class-action lawyers hearing cash registers ringing, the parents blaming the school for a simple knock-over in a playground: they've all added up to a massive cost in both cash and justice.

But is there a risk this is interpreted as impunity for vigilantism or lack of due diligence for Health and Safety?

We are assured not:

"The bill does not tell the court what conclusion it should reach and does not prevent a person from being found liable if the circumstances of the case warrant it. It does not therefore give anybody licence to take unnecessary risks with people’s safety or leave the injured party without a remedy when the defendant has failed to meet the appropriate standard of care."

Critics have said the new Act is unnecessary as the 2006 Compensation Act already does this job. It was devised to "find ways to discourage and resist bad claims; and to improve the system for those with a valid claim for compensation".

Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, is referred to in The Times article today on the new Act:

"British people have become too inclined to blame someone else when something goes wrong, the justice secretary said yesterday.

Chris Grayling said the “blame someone else” attitude in society had helped to fuel a compensation culture that needed to be broken."

The Government Factsheet  stresses the considerations for acting responsibly and taking reasonable care, and that the Act

"..will not tell the court what conclusion it should reach and does not prevent a person from being found negligent if the circumstances of the case warrant it. Nor will it have any bearing on criminal liability."

But this comes alongside moves from the Government to reduce the powers in the UK of the European Court of Human Rights.
  
So is this new Bill merely a way of reducing the weight on employers of pesky Human Rights or Health and Safety directives?

We express our belonging in our ethics and how we collectively uphold those standards. Language tells much. The emotionally-loaded title - "Social Action", "Heroism" - is less objective than the usual cold, neutral wording of the Westminster Bill-presses.
Wrapping this up in phrases like 'reasonable care' makes it all sound like common sense. But as human rights come under pressure the shared sense of ethics can become less common. 

It'll be interesting to see how the debate goes in this afternoon's Parliamentary business.
Though any coverage will be overshadowed by the PM's statement on the tragedies in Ukraine and Gaza. 

And in those horrors we see what can happen when we express belonging through violence, making our boundaries so small and fragile. 

Yes, Westminster, we could do with a lot more social action, responsibility and heroism. We need more SARAH: on a global as well as a national scale.

What do I belong to?

Hello,

I'm Isabel.

I belong to my family, I belong to my friends, I belong to my community.

I still belong (the ties of camaraderie) to the company I've spent five great years with, and I'm now setting out on my own new adventure.

I belong to my children's school. I belong to London. I belong to Britain, I belong to Europe.

There, that's already enough to start a few conversations.

Human beings are tribal creatures. Our individual identity is marked by that of the groups we join: our collective achievement is made up of many individuals' efforts. We share characteristics, excitements, frustrations; work towards a common purpose, vision and ethos.

I belong to musicians (a sensitive tribe with tendencies to perfectionism), parents (trading patience with indulgence) and those who love laughter (a more maverick bunch).

21st century life requires us to belong to many tribes at the same time. This brings fruitful interchange as well as tricky issues. Societies and nations have developed complex systems to manage both, some more even-handedly than others.

Belonging, and NOT belonging, raises big challenges for organisations and employees.
It is a theme for our times, at the heart of many business issues:

• What happens after a merger or acquisition? The conflict of belonging has been the downfall of much-lauded mega-deals.
• What about companies whose main business is outsourcing: if your uniform says one name and your pay packet another, what do you belong to? This confusion can dilute effort and effectiveness.
• How can organisations include remote, dispersed and isolated employees?
• In global businesses, with hundreds of thousands of employees in many countries, across different cultures, departments, disciplines... how best to ensure the healthy interchange between all those internal tribes?

  

These are not small issues. Nor are they soft. 

Belonging is hardcore. 
Businesses lose and make vast amounts of profit based on the success of belonging as much as the strength of their product or distribution. 

The old cliché that  'Culture eats strategy for breakfast' 
has a load of mangled half-chewed-and-spat-out business disasters behind it as evidence of truth. And belonging is behind most of them.

And it's not just money that's at stake. Public bodies, charities and voluntary bodies all seek to serve their purpose through the collective efforts of their people. A clear sense of belonging, of how all the tribes come together, is vital for success.

Having spent most of the last 20 years helping companies (big and small, parochial and global) to make their culture work better, and led new thinking on values, ethics and purpose, I've been more and more bothered about the big questions at the heart of this:

• How do we belong? 
• Does belonging mean 'membership' or 'ownership', or a dance between both?
• How does an organisation invite people to belong, and set out the terms of being part of it?
• How do individuals choose what to commit to? 
• How can organisations uphold common belief and purpose, maintain standards and ethics? 

I don't believe there is a single 'Belonging model' that clever consultants can shove companies into. 

I don't believe there's a simplistic answer. 
It's complicated. And individual.

I do believe that there are common themes for any organisation. 

I know the parameters for how belonging works - and how to strengthen it when it fragments. 

The shape of the model, and the most relevant methods for strengthening Belonging, will vary for each company.

I've identified some of the main reference points - but I want to pin down more detail and nuance.

So now I'm putting my efforts where my mouth is and investigating this more thoroughly.

I'm just setting out, excited by how much there is to do. 
Of course, as well as seeing new insights, I can see all the things that I'm not. (Oh dear, I did say I belong to Britain - national characteristic self-deprecation?)

I want it to be thorough and rigorous, with a clear tune (Ah yes, the musician speaks...).

And I want it to be meaningful and useful (Hmm, parenthood).

I believe that belonging matters. 

I believe it's in our interdependence (not our independence) that we can really make a difference.

And that's how organisations and individuals - and communities and nations - can all flourish.

I'll be sharing much of my thinking as I go as an open-brain process on  http://www.belongingspace.com/    

It's a space to think, a space to exchange, a space to read, a space to challenge, a space for all things belonging.

I'd be delighted to hear from any like-minded souls, and any organisations who would like to give an interview.

And meantime, if you'd like any help with how to create a stronger sense of belonging in your organisation, drop me a line at isabel@belongingspace.com

That's hello from me and the Belonging Space.

What about you?

What do you belong to?

How can we can help you create a sense of Belonging?
Drop us a line, we'd love to chat.

isabel@belongingspace.com
www.belongingspace.com

Follow us on Twitter for #Belonging insights

@BelongingSpace
@IsabelBelonging