09 Jun

Relationships and Mental Health

Daughter and father

The Mental Health Foundation have released an excellent report, which you can read here, which sets out further evidence that investing in relationships is at least as important to our health and wellbeing as not smoking. Their argument, like that of Relational Thinking Network, is that  both as a society and as individuals we need urgently to prioritise relationships and tackle the barriers to forming them.

The importance of relationships for health

Looking at a range of evidence, the authors show that people who are more socially connected to family, friends, or their community are happier, physically healthier and live longer than people who are less well connected.

Indeed, a review of 148 studies concluded that:

the influence of social relationships on the risk of death are comparable with well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption and exceed the influence of other risk factors such as physical inactivity and obesity.

They make reference to a longitudinal Harvard study, that began in 1938 and published in the 2012 book ‘Triumphs of Experience’, that found that that relationships are the most important factors for health and happiness.

Factors causing relationship problems

The report discusses a number of inter-related factors that negatively affect relationships. For example:

  • Moving away from one’s hometown, family and friends can have a very real impact on our relationships. Moving means having to adapt to a new physical and social environment. Studies suggest that one of the biggest challenges facing individuals when they move is building relationships and connecting with others.
  • Social media and other online technologies have many positives. However, the report notes that almost half of internet uses in the UK reported that the internet had not increased their contact with friends or family who had moved away.

Indeed, while they have increase our sense of belonging, online relationships cannot replace our offline relationships.

The neurochemical response that occurs during face-to-face interactions contributes to our sense of connection, understanding and ultimately wellbeing. In other words, face-to-face communication still matters.

  • Bullying can have a negative effect on people’s health. Conversely a positive experience at school, particularly with teachers, can “act as a buffer and help protect young people during this difficult time.” This is something that Relational Schools has been researching on.
  • Loneliness and isolation are a significant issue for older people. See an earlier blog post we wrote about this here.

Actions to be taken

The report ends by calling, as the Relational Thinking Network has done, for “a sea change in thinking”. We need to not only recognise the importance of relationships, (which we instinctively do), but that we take an active approach in the way we build and maintain relationships, and to tackle the barriers that prevents strong relationships from being built.

 

04 Mar

If you could have dinner with anyone, living or dead, who would you choose?

Who-would-you-most-like-to-meet

It’s an interesting question you may have heard before or even asked others yourself: If you could invite (say) six people, living or dead, to eat at your dinner table, whom would you choose? Read what Barbra Streisand said recently when she answered the question and then tell us what you would say…

For some inspiration, why not watch the video below:

No need for my pithy thoughts: the video says it all…

Relationships matter!

By Dr Rob Loe, Director of Relational Schools. It was originally published on their website here.

26 Feb

The debate over Brexit – does distance matter?

Europe for blog

The debate concerning Brexit, whether Britain should leave the EU, has well and truly begun. The Financial Times has published a short debate over the issue, between the Labour politican Peter Mandelson and Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. During the debate, Daniel Hannan, arguing for Brexit, says that geographical proximity has never mattered less. There is, therefore, no reason why Britain should prioritise trading with those closest i.e. Europe; instead Britain should focus on trading with the rest of the world. With open global markets, rapid transportation and high speed communications, geography simply doesn’t matter that much anymore.

It might be true that geographical proximity has never mattered less but it is not the case that geographical proximity is unimportant. A recent study on ‘The Impact of Venture Capital Monitoring‘ shows just this. The authors show that venture capitalists’ “on-site involvement with their portfolio companies leads to an increase in both innovation and the likelihood of a successful exit”. Specifically, direct flights increase the interaction that venture capitalists have with their portfolio companies and management, helping them to better understand the companies’ activities.

So regular face to face communication between venture capitalists and their portfolio companies led to increased innovation. In an earlier blog we focused on cluster initiatives to show the link between face to face communication and innovation. The important point there, as in the case of the venture capitalists, is that the innovation is a result of the greater communication possible in face to face encounters.

The fact that direct flights increase interaction is clearly because of the reduced time it takes. It is also the case that the closer two countries are, the shorter the flight between the two. Therefore, geographical proximity is not irrelevant.

While open global markets, rapid transportation and high speed communications mean that it is easy to do business with anyone in the world, it is not true that physical distance is irrelevant or unimportant. Distance is still important because face to face communication is so important. Physical encounters lead to greater connectedness; high levels of directness lead to good quality communication. Whatever one’s views about Brexit, physical proximity still matters, because physical proximity affects relational proximity.

Joshua Hemmings works for the Relational Thinking Network in marketing and communications.

Image: Blank_map_of_Europe_(polar_stereographic_projection)
_cropped.svg: Ssolbergjderivative work: Dbachmann (talk) – Blank_map_of_Europe_(polar_stereographic_projection)
_cropped.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14871393

12 Oct

Watch: Susan Pinker on why relationships matter

Relational Schools Book Launch & Premier - 17th September 2015

The Relational Thinking International Conference last month provided a great opportunity for leaders in business, the non-profit and public services sector to come together to explore the concept of Relational Thinking in their particular fields. On 17th September, teachers, leaders and education policy makers gathered for the launch of the film and book “The Relational Teacher”. We were honoured to have Susan Pinker, international best-selling author of The Village Effect, come from Canada to speak. She was passionate, humorous, engaging and persuasive as she spoke about the importance of face-to-face interaction for education, health and life.

Photography: Julian Claxton

Buy The Relational Teacher here.

Buy The Village Effect here.

 

05 Jun

Location, Location, Location: Does Where We Work Matter?

Silicon valley

Does location matter in business? Is physical proximity an obsolete concept in today’s technologically advance world? Through emails, phone calls or Skype, we can instantly contact people who live on the other side of the world. Through the internet we have access to almost unlimited information and we can easily share information and resources with our colleagues through email. If I need to get the advice of a colleague who is on the other side of the world, all I need to do is pick up the phone at an appropriate time.

Yet physical location matters hugely. Organisational clusters, the phenomenon whereby firms from the same industry gather together in close proximity, is a perfect example of this. Michael Porter, who is Professor at the Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness and has been studying organisational clusters for some decades writes

“location should no longer be a source of competitive advantage. Open global markets, rapid transportation, and high speed communications should allow any company to source anything from any place at any time. But in practice, location remains central to competition.” (Porter, 1998)

A good example of this is the Silicon Valley, to where, in the 1990s, huge numbers of tech companies began moving. This geographic concentration of similar businesses increases productivity with which they can compete. There are a number of reasons for this, such as access to labour and suppliers. However, one of the most important reasons is the directness in relationships that geographical proximity brings. Despite all the many advantages that technology has brought, we need physical encounters.

This is because much of the most valuable information is obtained not electronically but from face-to-face meetings. Informal learning, acquisition of know-how, and building trust require the face-to-face contacts that occur through social, professional or trade, and business situations.

When we meet someone face to face, communication is enhanced, as facial expression, tone of voice, dress and the actual words used all add to what is communicated. Without this, opportunities can be missed. Furthermore, we base conscious and unconscious judgements about traits such as likeability, trustworthiness and competence on people’s faces. In fact, one study has found that physicians spent more time looking at diagnostic scans when they were accompanied with the photograph of the patient. It is suggested that this picture is a reminder that there is a real person behind the scans, which leads to greater ethical commitment (Turner & Hadas-Halpern, 2008).

If organisations are located close to one another, the number of meetings is also increased. Workers can much more easily speak to those who work around them or pop their head into their colleague’s office next door than call someone on the phone. It is also often in casual meetings, over coffee, or by the water-cooler, where important information is shared. In areas with organisational clusters, workers often end up living in the same neighbourhoods, where they are much more likely to meet each other outside of work, for example in pubs and bars. This deepens the relationship, builds trust and will increase the amount of information sharing there is.

Being together in the same place, at the same time also reinforces belonging in groups and communicates worth and importance. People who work away from rest of their team can quickly and easily feel isolated.

Physical encounters lead to greater connectedness. High levels of directness lead to good quality communication. This is why location is still a source of competitive advantage, even though in theory, in an era of global competition, rapid transport and high speed telecommunications, it shouldn’t be. It explains why different organisations in the same industry cluster together and the large amounts of money spent by companies in getting their staff together for their annual conference. It should encourage us all to make time for face to face meetings and think about how we can encourage directness in our organisations and communities.

References

M. Porter, ‘Clusters and the New Economics of Competition’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1998, p77.

Turner and Hadas-Halpern ‘The Effects of Including a Patient’s Photograph to the Radiographic Examination’, Radiological Society of North America 2008 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, February 18 – February 20, 2008.

 

08 May

The Relational Student: developing social capital capacity

Relational Schools FilmingLinton Village College

CAMBRIDGE – By Robert Loe, Director of the Relational Schools Project.

This week saw the final day of filming for “The Relational Teacher”. The film explores a pedagogy for relationships and has followed six outstanding teachers and their classes. Whilst we have sought to highlight teacher practice/behaviours that lead to strong relationships in the classroom, the film has explored the view of students as well; their objective perspective has been crucial in understanding the subtle nuance of relationship building.

In turning the spotlight on the students, it becomes clear that being a Relational Teacher is not a solitary pursuit. The best Relational Teachers describe the environment of the Relational School (highly suited to their way of working); the Relational Staffroom (teachers who build relationships in community) and the Relational Student. A fundamental question has arisen from our work; to what extent do we need to develop the relational capacities of young people so that relationship building in the classroom becomes a shared responsibility?

In an attempt to analyse, observe and describe the ways teachers build social capital with those around them – I was struck by the need to develop the same social capital capacities in the very young people in their care.

Do relationships with teachers even matter?

The theory of social capital was distilled into two words by Field: “relationships matter” (Social Capital, London, Routledge 2003). The significance of a relational dimension is depicted in most models of social capital. The building blocks of social capital include: trust; engagement and connection; collaborative action; shared identity as well as shared values and aspirations.

When students have a positive teacher-student relationship, they adjust to school more easily, view school as a positive experience, exhibit fewer behaviour difficulties, display better social skills, and demonstrate higher academic achievement (Buyse et al., 2009). They are also more active participants in class, express a greater interest in [schooling], and maintain higher grade point averages (Hallinan, 2008)

Although both parental and teacher support are important in predicting students’ achievement, several studies indicate that student-perceived teacher connection was the most closely associated factor with progress through Key Stages 3 and 4 (Gregory & Weinstein, 2004). Positive student-teacher relationships serve as a resource for students at risk of school failure, whereas conflict or detachment between students and adults are the foundations of disconnection and, specifically, outcomes such as truancy. Research by the Centre for Social Justice (2000) suggests that over two-thirds of all those who truant do so in order to avoid a particular lesson, with ‘relationship with the teacher’ cited as one of the principal grounds for relational breakdown. Where relationships are strong in the classroom, they can surmount social inequality; where they are poor or dysfunctional, evidence suggests they reinforce educational disadvantage. Simply put, students who have difficulty forming supportive relationships with teachers are at a greater risk of school failure (Ladd & Burgess, 2001).

Developing Relational Resilience 

So, how do we actively create social capital within school communities?

Research indicates that not all students have equal access to the opportunity to develop close relationships with their teachers. According to Jerome, Hamre, and Pianta (2009), some subgroups (including certain ethnic minority groups, males, those of lower ability or those who exhibit externalising behaviours such as aggression or hyperactivity) experience teacher relationships with more conflict than their peers. Likewise, students with emotional disturbances, mild learning disabilities or students who display more problem behaviours at home have more conflictual relationships with teachers than with students without these problems.

Whilst education has witnessed a shift in focus in relation to the students’ role, the learning and assessment processes, teacher-to-student relationships remain asymmetrical. As such there is, perhaps, an expectation, that it is the responsibility of the teacher to develop the  professional working relationship between them and the student. But that some groups of students struggle to build close relationships with teachers, more than others, suggests relational capacities of young people are exceptionally important to building strong relationships and need to be developed. We need to help to develop relational resilience in students so that when they meet others who aren’t as good at developing relationships, they can overcome perceived obstacles. Students need to know where to begin and not passively to expect the teacher to initiate the process.

picThe Culture of Open Dialogue

One area that can be focused on to build relational resilience is the area of communication. Effective communication is fundamental to building relationships and consequently students with poor communication skills will struggle to build relationships. One way to develop this is through the practice of dialogue (West-Burnham & Otero, 2004). This dialogue needs to be rich – not just focused on ‘instructional conversation’, but including community conversation, where people can share views and develop social capital. When students practice dialogue with their teachers and classmates, they will develop their communication skills, and likely feel greater mutual respect, thus building relational resilience.

The National College poses eight interrogatives to assess the Relational culture of your classroom/your school. How open is your school’s culture of dialogue?

In our view, there is no surer route to community building and to fulfi lling the promise of democracy and lifelong learning than through the deepening of good, ongoing dialogue. Such dialogue can increase student achievement, transform teaching and learning and renew relationships that connect communities to schools (Preskill et al, 2000)

The Relational Teacher is released this September.