Five volunteers SUSPENDED from NYMR

[pete_mcfarlane]

47 minutes ago, Nick C said:

As for your second example, just accepting that different people work in different ways would be a good start - something that many people and companies seem to find hard to understand - just look at the discussions on here about flexible working for example (and yes, I'm well aware that this is something I keep banging on about) - I'm the kind of person who can focus best in a quiet environment without a lot of distractions, so I prefer to work from home - but I can guarantee you now I've mentioned those three words, someone will be along to argue that either (a) They prefer to work in the office and therefore everyone must do the same, or (b) some jobs can't be done remotely, so none should be allowed to.

 

Thanks you for that reply - very interesting. As for flexible working, that is a whole can of worms at the moment. Weirdly I was going in the office 5 days a week, as I found it less distracting sitting in a virtually empty office on Mondays and Fridays than being at home. But that's just me. 

 

One thing I'd add to the list is the tendency of some managers to shape their team's work in a way that encourages lone working* and then wonder why these people aren't that interested in coming back to the office to work collaboratively. Something interesting I read recently was that some people can view things (in this case 'how I allocate work' and 'my team coming back in the office') as isolated islands, rather than linking them up in their heads. I wish I'd known that 25 years ago, as it explains all sorts of stuff like how it can sometimes be difficult to explain stuff to certain people. 

 

(* Because if you give task A to Fred to do on his own and B to Mary to do on her own, it's easier to see what people have delivered when you come to writing their end of year review. Rather than having Fred own task A to won, and asking him to involve other people, which would encourage them to work together and come back in the office.) 

 

 

 

 

 

[rogerzilla]

My SO worked in the charity sector for years.  It is full of petty politics and quite appalling "leaders", especially those who founded the charity and run it as their personal fiefdom.  She later moved to a football charity, which was doubly bad - it was pointed out above how corrupt and money-grabbing football club owners can be!

[Nick C]

50 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Thanks you for that reply - very interesting. As for flexible working, that is a whole can of worms at the moment. Weirdly I was going in the office 5 days a week, as I found it less distracting sitting in a virtually empty office on Mondays and Fridays than being at home. But that's just me. 

And that's the thing - it's your choice, which is good - you were able to pick an environment in which you were able to work most effectively.

 

50 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

One thing I'd add to the list is the tendency of some managers to shape their team's work in a way that encourages lone working* and then wonder why these people aren't that interested in coming back to the office to work collaboratively. Something interesting I read recently was that some people can view things (in this case 'how I allocate work' and 'my team coming back in the office') as isolated islands, rather than linking them up in their heads. I wish I'd known that 25 years ago, as it explains all sorts of stuff like how it can sometimes be difficult to explain stuff to certain people. 

 

(* Because if you give task A to Fred to do on his own and B to Mary to do on her own, it's easier to see what people have delivered when you come to writing their end of year review. Rather than having Fred own task A to won, and asking him to involve other people, which would encourage them to work together and come back in the office.) 

 

But "encourage them to come back to the office" isn't the correct aim - it should be "facilitate them working in the most productive manner"  - which might be giving Fred task A to do on his own at home, but Mary and John tasks B and C to collaborate on in the office. A good manager should know their team's individual strengths and how to make best use of them - and that includes not just how you divide up the tasks but also how you shape each individual's working environment.

 

This is even more important when you're dealing with volunteers, as if someone doesn't like the environment they will leave. Let's say that Bob volunteers on the station maintenance team - he's been doing so for years, and he comes in every Wednesday to paint fences. New manager comes along, and decrees that painting is now to be done on Thursdays, and that the Wednesday team will now do hedge-pruning. That's going to upset Bob, and could easily end up with him leaving, unless there's a seriously good reason for it, and it's explained to him properly*.

 

(*compare and contrast:

"Due to Health and Safety rules, all painting must now be done on a Thursday." vs

"Hi Bob, I'm really sorry, but there's been a change in the working at height regulations and our insurers insist that anyone using a ladder cannot be lone-working. Would you mind doing the painting on a Thursday instead when there are more people around" - which is more likely to get a positive reaction? The first will lead to Bob being angry - the second might well elicit a "ok, yes, that's fine" - or perhaps an alternative way of achieving the same aim -  "well, my niece Alice wants to volunteer too, could she come with me on a Wednesday so I'm not alone?")

[pete_mcfarlane]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

But "encourage them to come back to the office" isn't the correct aim - it should be "facilitate them working in the most productive manner"  - which might be giving Fred task A to do on his own at home, but Mary and John tasks B and C to collaborate on in the office. A good manager should know their team's individual strengths and how to make best use of them - and that includes not just how you divide up the tasks but also how you shape each individual's working environment.

Going back to jjb1970's comments on Managers vs leaders, the problem is that Managers tell people to come back in the office, because their Manager has told them to make it happen. What you've described is what a leader would do. 

 

(I'm sure that a lot of Managers could be replaced by an email forwarding rule, that simply forwards emails from their manager on to their team. It would be a lot cheaper.). 

 

 

[spamcan61]

4 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

 

(I'm sure that a lot of Managers could be replaced by an email forwarding rule, that simply forwards emails from their manager on to their team. It would be a lot cheaper.). 

 

Reassuring to know I'm not the only person that's had that exact thought!

[Cwmtwrch]

5 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Because if you give task A to Fred to do on his own and B to Mary to do on her own, it's easier to see what people have delivered when you come to writing their end of year review. Rather than having Fred own task A to won, and asking him to involve other people, which would encourage them to work together and come back in the office

Unless, of course, Fred only knows one way to do things, which is him doing it on his own, and he has no particular ability to manage, lead, or coordinate, even a small team and cope with the inevitable disagreements and occasional foul-ups and taking responsibility for what the others do. Putting him in that position would probably lead to him having a breakdown and/or leaving.

 

 

Edited April 4 by Cwmtwrch

[adb968008]

15 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Something to keep in mind is that manager is not a synonym for leader. A leader provides, well, leadership. That generally includes some sort of vision, inspiring and enthusing people and setting the tone for an organisation. One of the problems I always found with British business was they had plenty of managers but few leaders. 

 

On charities, one of the things I always found eye opening when I worked in London was to look at the offices of charities, not for profit outfits and unions. Lots of expensive office space,  and I don't expect those filling  the floor space are volunteers. Now clearly an organisation reaches a point where it needs office space and paid staff, but does it have to be in expensive parts of the most expensive city in the country?

Often charities will temporarily occupy prime real estate, for example inbetween leases, or before a refit. These are often  at peppercorn or lower rates, and help building management companies by increasing occupancy and building security/insurance as they remain occupied during gaps. That building opposite city airport docks was a good example, it was empty for years before London 2012 and housed temporary office space for charities until Khans mob moved in.

 

I have worked in one firm in Canary Wharf which used to accomodate some office space, and staff restaurant access for their chosen charity at no cost in their building, which I found quite good.

Right now Londons got a silent timebomb ticking on property, some reports as much as 50% vacant office space in someparts, which is getting worse as more company leases expire… even the HSBC tower in Canary Wharf will be vacant in a few years, and CW is 16% vacant now, compared to 2008 when there was waiting lists for demand and sold out construction projects for years.

 

The problem making it worse is demand for flats is also at a low, as is retail space. Which means converting offices to flats or retail is a lost cause too. Finally “pay as you go space” is hurting with WeWorks collapse too.

 

The response by management companies facing bloated empty portfolios is to hugely increase management fees on those which are occupied.. hence the stories of flat owners finding service charges jumping from a few hundred a month to a few thousand a month… and of course they cant sell either.. who’s going to buy that ?

 

At somepoint those property owners as well as their leaseholders wont make the payments.. at which point the readjustment follows…

 

it takes time for a bubble to burst.. this year the leaseholders can’t pay, next year the building managements accounts look bad, year after the landlords struggle, then the banks get hit… unless of course someone at the top is watching the bottom, that’s when panic sets in and it all falls down in a free for all.

 

Edited April 4 by adb968008

[298]

20 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

 

I think tone matters a lot and thinking about how what you say might be recieved by all audiences, including your hardcore purist volunteers. I have met an awful lot of very tone deaf managers in my time. Recent examples include a manager who during the cost of living crisis and general job insecurity would send us a monthly email (ostentiously about what is going on at work) which seemed to be about their trips to the local farmers' market. To the staff it confirmed that they were a completely divorced from reality, wealthy idiot who lacked the brains to think about how they were coming across to those lower down the pay chain. The second one was a manager who sent an email announcing that he welcomed constructive feedback - in other words, if you give me feedback that challenges me then I am going to dismiss it unconstructive.

 

What I would say is this - I have no reason to doubt that filming etc is extremely lucrative, but that is only possible because Dave, Joe, Bob, Sue and their dog Cyril turn up every tuesday from November through to February to do various tedious, thankless, dull tasks on the station to keep it looking beautiful so that film location spotters can go 'that would look perfect in my film'. (At the same time, there wouldn't be a station to keep up if the money didn't come). The point here is that both need the other.

 

If it wasn't filming it would be Thomas/Peppa/Bluey/Paw Patrol/Diesel Galas that would be seen as the betrayal of the ethos of the railway.

 

Managers need to put themselves in the shoes of those at the bottom, and unfortunately, as we can see all around us every day most seem to be devoid of the most basic elements of human intelligence necessary.

 

I have to say, that I think being part of a fly on the wall/reality programme is about the worst thing you can do for your business. If for no other reason than some people take it as an opportunity to become 'characters' even though no one likes someone  who spends their time going around gurning for the camera like Greg Wallace on speed. (Bangers and Cash is the worst one for that it has to be said).

 

I wonder if the original character from the first Moors TV series is still volunteering? The one who kept borrowing the speed gun and tried to book everyone doing 31mph...

 

4 hours ago, Nick C said:

This is even more important when you're dealing with volunteers, as if someone doesn't like the environment they will leave. Let's say that Bob volunteers on the station maintenance team - he's been doing so for years, and he comes in every Wednesday to paint fences. New manager comes along, and decrees that painting is now to be done on Thursdays, and that the Wednesday team will now do hedge-pruning. That's going to upset Bob, and could easily end up with him leaving, unless there's a seriously good reason for it, and it's explained to him properly*.

 

(*compare and contrast:

"Due to Health and Safety rules, all painting must now be done on a Thursday." vs

"Hi Bob, I'm really sorry, but there's been a change in the working at height regulations and our insurers insist that anyone using a ladder cannot be lone-working. Would you mind doing the painting on a Thursday instead when there are more people around" - which is more likely to get a positive reaction? The first will lead to Bob being angry - the second might well elicit a "ok, yes, that's fine" - or perhaps an alternative way of achieving the same aim -  "well, my niece Alice wants to volunteer too, could she come with me on a Wednesday so I'm not alone?")

 

Or "That's 'elf and safety gone mad, yet again. People these days seem to have forgotten how to do things, unlike in my day when things got done. What's all this nonsense about door locks anyway, we didn't have door locks in my day..." (Edited quote from a family member).

 

They seem to have forgotten that the rule book has been written in blood.

[009 micro modeller]

18 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

OK then, how should I have phrased it?

Possibly in a way that didn’t accidentally imply, as @Blandford1969 mentioned, that neurodivergent traits make people unsuitable for leadership roles. In the case of the NYMR there’s no evidence whatsoever that any of those “leaders” stirring up trouble are neurodivergent in any way, but seemingly an increasing amount of evidence that they may have behaved like overbearing, self-important prats. To be honest, I was mainly pushing back against the old (incorrect) stereotype of autistic people lacking empathy.

 

18 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I'm temporarily 'resting' between jobs, so wasn't aware that it was Autism month.

Not sure of the relevance here of whether you are in work or not. As I previously said though, I was willing to cut a bit of slack because I didn’t think your intentions were bad in your original post.

 

18 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

What I've never seen in any of the past communications is something on how to talk about neurodivergent people in a way that doesn't make them uncomfortable(*), which is food for thought. So now is the chance for somebody to educate me. 

I would say, talk ‘with’ not ‘about’ them, ask them how they want to be talked about individually. 

 

18 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

(* Because as a manager you want to be able to say to people "Fred likes to work in a particular way because of who he is, which is different from your way of working, so be understanding" without upsetting Fred)

It’s probably better to create a work culture where the hypothetical Fred can openly tell people he is autistic/neurodivergent and they know what that means (via training, preferably delivered by someone with lived experience rather than a neurotypical “professional”) and are accepting of it. And yes, I realise the practical difficulty of some of this.

 

8 hours ago, Nick C said:

In my experience, Neurodiverse people tend to be far better at understanding that other people's situations can be different to their own than most neurotypical folks - especially the more extroverted types...

 

As for your second example, just accepting that different people work in different ways would be a good start - something that many people and companies seem to find hard to understand - just look at the discussions on here about flexible working for example (and yes, I'm well aware that this is something I keep banging on about) - I'm the kind of person who can focus best in a quiet environment without a lot of distractions, so I prefer to work from home - but I can guarantee you now I've mentioned those three words, someone will be along to argue that either (a) They prefer to work in the office and therefore everyone must do the same, or (b) some jobs can't be done remotely, so none should be allowed to.

 

I think if you said to another employee that "Fred likes to work in a particular way because of who he is, which is different from your way of working, so be understanding", Fred would not be upset at all, in fact he'd be very grateful...

Exactly - though to complicate things a bit I am a neurodivergent person who does a job that can’t be done remotely, so I do sort of see that side of that argument as well. 😅

[009 micro modeller]

17 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Something to keep in mind is that manager is not a synonym for leader. A leader provides, well, leadership. That generally includes some sort of vision, inspiring and enthusing people and setting the tone for an organisation. One of the problems I always found with British business was they had plenty of managers but few leaders. 

I remember doing some training where they talked about leadership as a process, rather than an exclusive role, which initially sounded rather pretentious but actually in the end I thought was quite a helpful way of looking at things. I also read a good article a few months ago (which annoyingly I can’t find now) about so-called ‘heroic leadership’ and its potential pitfalls, which I definitely thought seemed relevant to discussions like this thread. And personally I’ve found that the managers I work well with are those who appear (and actually are) trustworthy and competent but are also willing to let people who work under them take on responsibilities when they’re ready, without unnecessarily micromanaging.

[rogerzilla]

Our blue-chip firm has gone from a "leader" chief executive to a very old-school "manager" chief executive.  You can almost smell the despair. Fortunately, after more than three decades, tomorrow is my last day.  This time next year I intend to be doing something on the SVR, even if it's just gardening.

[009 micro modeller]

7 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

especially those who founded the charity and run it as their personal fiefdom. 

Like this?

https://amp.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2017/apr/12/founder-syndrome-personality-crippling-charity
 

6 hours ago, Nick C said:

(*compare and contrast:

"Due to Health and Safety rules, all painting must now be done on a Thursday." vs

"Hi Bob, I'm really sorry, but there's been a change in the working at height regulations and our insurers insist that anyone using a ladder cannot be lone-working. Would you mind doing the painting on a Thursday instead when there are more people around" - which is more likely to get a positive reaction? The first will lead to Bob being angry - the second might well elicit a "ok, yes, that's fine" - or perhaps an alternative way of achieving the same aim -  "well, my niece Alice wants to volunteer too, could she come with me on a Wednesday so I'm not alone?")

Or alternatively there might sometimes be no way to achieve the good outcome, if Bob can’t come in on Thursdays or whatever. In which case, a good manager might try and find something else for him to do (that he actually would want to do, not forced on him obviously). But that potentially then comes down to issues around what motivates people to volunteer and the benefits to the volunteer vs to the organisation. I get the impression with some organisations (including some heritage railways) that they originally started with a reasonable number of volunteers volunteering because they enjoyed it and got something out of it, but have subsequently moved to a situation where they’re using a fairly overstretched and relatively small pool of volunteers to do a lot of work, largely because they can’t afford paid staff. In your hypothetical example, if Bob still comes in on Wednesday (because he can’t do any other day instead) but can’t/doesn’t want to do hedge trimming, and the volunteer manager has to invent some non-job for him to do instead, then the benefit to the organisation is fairly low. The benefit to Bob might be quite high though (though not if the work he’s now doing as a volunteer seems less fulfilling or interesting than what he used to do).

 

2 hours ago, 298 said:

The one who kept borrowing the speed gun and tried to book everyone doing 31mph...

Having not seen that particular episode I might be missing something here, but that sounds amazingly petty.

 

2 hours ago, 298 said:

What's all this nonsense about door locks anyway, we didn't have door locks in my day..."

On railway carriages or people’s front doors? 😂

[rogerzilla]

55 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Like this?

https://amp.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2017/apr/12/founder-syndrome-personality-crippling-charity
 

Yes, sometimes also called "founder-director" syndrome in the charity world.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Like this?

https://amp.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2017/apr/12/founder-syndrome-personality-crippling-charity

My charity sector professional relative who I mentioned earlier could have written that article, although I know they didn't.  Their boss is a respected public figure, rightly honoured for their achievements leading high-profile campaigns and good causes, but they sound an absolute PITA to work for.

[APOLLO]

So glad I'm nearly 72 and long retired. From leaving school to retirement. 40 odd years in the Gas industry, at the sharp end, all my bosses (good, bad and in between) were qualified and experienced engineers. They were well respected. They earned it.

 

My gangs were a mix, local lads, Irish contractors, We all got on together, got stuck in and got the job done. Superb people all (well, most !!).

 

My office was the great outdoors. When on call (one week in four) home was a dream, I rareley got there. The customer was king, and rightly so. Safety, security of supply and customer care was our mantra. We  were very well paid (but we put the hours in). When everyone else were snugged up in bed fast asleep the teams and I were out there in the cold dark and wet keeping you all warm. We survived on tea, fish and chips (and Pies !!).

 

Would I do it all again ? - Hell YES, but not as a young man nowadays. The gas industry today is FUBAR. Gas is demonised and will be gone soon, rightly or wrongly.

 

Our best leader was Sir Denis Rooke, he was an experienced gas engineer who led British Gas at privatisation in 1986 and kept the industry intact (and for a few years onwards) when Maggie Thatcher wanted to dissect it. Of course the dissection eventually took place, and now, far, far worse, the industry is villified and in decline.

 

Well done Greeta & Co.  How dare you !!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

Yes, sometimes also called "founder-director" syndrome in the charity world.

 

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

My charity sector professional relative who I mentioned earlier could have written that article, although I know they didn't.  Their boss is a respected public figure, rightly honoured for their achievements leading high-profile campaigns and good causes, but they sound an absolute PITA to work for.

I suppose the other issue, as alluded to in that article, is that someone who has the experience and drive that prompts them to set up a charity doesn’t necessarily have the skills or experience needed to run it when it grows into a huge organisation (whereas somebody hired specifically to run the organisation generally would, as they’d be selected on that basis).

[Tumut]

Hello All,  1 / as Apollo alluded to re British Gas, we are definitely now in an era of "managers" who lack qualification, experience, or engineering ability ( where applicable ), Boeing being a classic example ( whose idiotic Board has now appointed another non engineer as CEO of an engineering company ) as opposed to people who once had background, experience , and qualification, to run the organization. ( Think Post Office )

 

2 / Whilst I think that it is important for Boards to have outside members to give a different perspective, in my view you really do need insiders to be day to day executives ( and I agree that there have been exceptions to this in the past, but like all exceptions, that was not the norm ).

 

3 / There are many specialist firms ( Boeing ) that really require specialist qualifications to run, or long industry experience to run ( Post Office ,Railways ) , the Board needs to give general direction and oversight, but the specialists are needed to reduce the likelihood of major, and potentially very expensive, muck ups. We currently seem have well and truly missed that point.

 

4 / the other related issue is "shareholder value, as defined by stock market performance", where we have allowed share buybacks, which in reality push up the share price, and which ensures senior executives get large bonuses, and shares ( some of which they have authorised the buy back ), so their focus becomes increasing share value, and their bonus, over everything else, and the smart ones move off quickly after a few years so that the next team has to sort out the mess created.

 

5 / as an aside, many years ago I read a commentary by a Wall St icon relating to Boeing wasting money now on the new generation aircraft that were not expected to enter service for another 15 years, these projected planes became the 757,767 generation. This is a prime example of a Stock Market guru being clueless on how engineering and technology companies need to plan for the future. This probably also explains American GE's disappearance as a multi faceted electrical engineering giant.

 

Regards to all, Tumut.

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Tumut said:

Whilst I think that it is important for Boards to have outside members to give a different perspective, in my view you really do need insiders to be day to day executives ( and I agree that there have been exceptions to this in the past, but like all exceptions, that was not the norm ).

The Association of Independent Museums guidance on trustee recruitment (and some heritage railways are members of AIM) recommends that organisations recruit widely and attempt to fill skills gaps, and that trustee vacancies are properly advertised (though compared to the rest of the private sector it’s slightly different in a charity context where trustees are not paid). That is obviously in tension with the idea of a membership organisation that has traditionally elected its trustees from within its existing membership, which I’ve mentioned earlier in the thread but I’m not sure that’s as relevant here. But the idea as you say is to give a different perspective.

 

In terms of needing insiders as day to day executives I would usually tend to agree, but for a heritage railway who are the ‘insiders’? Lots of them in the past seem to have been run by people who understood railways and were thus insiders in that sense, but didn’t necessarily know much about the wider heritage sector or how to run a tourist attraction, which I’d argue are equally relevant in this context. More recently there have been people who know about those things and come from a museum background but don’t know as much about railways (or engineering?), which in some cases hasn’t worked very well either (though it should work in theory, if they are willing to learn from those around them and to employ people with appropriate technical knowledge).

[johnofwessex]

Many years ago when Waverley was (mostly) run by single men who remembered paddle steamers as they were the Lavvies could have done with some improvement.

 

It wasnt until the Chiefs wife refused to spend more than two hours on the ship that the message got over loud and clear and the situation was improved.

 

So yes thats the sort of problem that you can get if you done have someone with an outside view 

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Many years ago when Waverley was (mostly) run by single men who remembered paddle steamers as they were the Lavvies could have done with some improvement.

 

It wasnt until the Chiefs wife refused to spend more than two hours on the ship that the message got over loud and clear and the situation was improved.

 

So yes thats the sort of problem that you can get if you done have someone with an outside view 

 

My dad said when the RAF sent him to Canada for aircrew training during WW2, the Lavvies on the improvised troop ship he was on had too much of an outside view .... he said you perched on a horizontal telegraph pole with sea water rushing past below you.

[H2O]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

My dad said when the RAF sent him to Canada for aircrew training during WW2, the Lavvies on the improvised troop ship he was on had too much of an outside view .... he said you perched on a horizontal telegraph pole with sea water rushing past below you.

Was that on the poop deck?

[john new]

4 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

The Association of Independent Museums guidance on trustee recruitment (and some heritage railways are members of AIM) recommends that organisations recruit widely and attempt to fill skills gaps, and that trustee vacancies are properly advertised (though compared to the rest of the private sector it’s slightly different in a charity context where trustees are not paid). That is obviously in tension with the idea of a membership organisation that has traditionally elected its trustees from within its existing membership, which I’ve mentioned earlier in the thread but I’m not sure that’s as relevant here. But the idea as you say is to give a different perspective.

 

In terms of needing insiders as day to day executives I would usually tend to agree, but for a heritage railway who are the ‘insiders’? Lots of them in the past seem to have been run by people who understood railways and were thus insiders in that sense, but didn’t necessarily know much about the wider heritage sector or how to run a tourist attraction, which I’d argue are equally relevant in this context. More recently there have been people who know about those things and come from a museum background but don’t know as much about railways (or engineering?), which in some cases hasn’t worked very well either (though it should work in theory, if they are willing to learn from those around them and to employ people with appropriate technical knowledge).

The one extra I would add is the need for a cross-section of ages. It has been mentioned in other threads about a lack of younger people - they consume things in a different way to those of us who are older (I am 71 so include myself) and as just one example, any nostalgia I have for the things that were around when I was a boy is history to my grandchildren. The oldest of the four is 54 years younger than me, so hardly surprising that with all the changes in life that occurred in the 1980s he sees life differently. Take 54 years off my birthdate and Victoria was still the Queen.

[pete_mcfarlane]

12 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I suppose the other issue, as alluded to in that article, is that someone who has the experience and drive that prompts them to set up a charity doesn’t necessarily have the skills or experience needed to run it when it grows into a huge organisation (whereas somebody hired specifically to run the organisation generally would, as they’d be selected on that basis).

This is of course true of any organisation. The kind of people who are good at driving startups aren't necessarily the kind of people who can run the business in the long term. You can see that with some of the more prominent Silicon Valley types, who are good with the 'cool' innovation stuff, but less good at giving the impression of being a steady hand on the tiller. 

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, john new said:

The one extra I would add is the need for a cross-section of ages. It has been mentioned in other threads about a lack of younger people - they consume things in a different way to those of us who are older (I am 71 so include myself) and as just one example, any nostalgia I have for the things that were around when I was a boy is history to my grandchildren. The oldest of the four is 54 years younger than me, so hardly surprising that with all the changes in life that occurred in the 1980s he sees life differently. Take 54 years off my birthdate and Victoria was still the Queen.

While a proportion of society - often it has to be said, the older generation - objects and complains about Diversity and Inclusion, this is exactly what a well-structured and delivered D&I policy sets out to achieve.  If you have a diversity of backgrounds, you are much more likely to have diversity of ideas.

[DaveF]

When I was 64 I retired from my second career as an IT consultant working mainly for one school as I realised that younger people could do the job better than me, they had fresh ideas, I knew I was beginning to resist change.

 

At 70 I decided to step down from committees of several societies for much the same reason - I've seen too many older people get in the way as they resist all change, not just bad changes.

 

Tomorrow morning I have been invited to coffee and lunch at my church, I know it is to try to recruit new members to the PCC and to fill other positions.  I will go and chat but will not volunteer, I am 75 this summer which is too old to take on a new responsiblity which would take about a year to fully master and who knows what my health will be like then.  I am happy to do things and am in fact starting on some now but not to organise them any more.

 

David

Edited April 5 by DaveF