This behaviour appears to have become a social and cultural phenomenon which has permeated throughout our lives, both at work and outside it. Instead of just saying "No" when every instinct is crying out for us to do so, it seems far more common these days, to just sit on the fence and respond with a 'possibly', 'perhaps' or a 'maybe'.

Three months of concentrated investigation into this phenomenon produced nothing tangible at first until I applied the principle of the 'Five Whys' to unlock the dilemma. This meant excluding a number of obvious and superficial symptoms until the root cause is finally uncovered.

So, to start with, why are people reluctant to just say NO?
Over three-quarters of my small and unscientific sample responded that they didn't want to upset the other party. In other words, they wanted to let them down gently and they felt that saying NO would be just too hard a pill for them to swallow.
A rather shallow and obvious symptom of human behaviour perhaps, as opposed to a fundamental root cause of what we were ultimately searching for.

So why were these people so concerned about upsetting the other party? Almost two-thirds of responses fell into a generalised category called 'being seen to be doing the right thing', which I took as yet another layer of the onion, to be peeled away and discarded. However, when then asked why it was important to be seen to be doing the right thing, in excess of 80 per cent responded that they wanted to be well thought of. This is, perhaps, a perfectly natural and instinctive reaction from most people, and could so easily become mistaken for a root cause masquerading as a symptomatic veneer of an individual's behaviour.

So, why was being well thought of important to them? The answer was that it made them feel good about themselves. At this point, we were getting very close to the real point of this exercise, because the fifth and final 'WHY' extracted the response that it made them feel happier; and isn't that a good feeling to have in one's personal and professional life? Yes, of course it is. There are reams and reams of research purporting to prove that people are at their most productive and effective when they are at their happiest. So there you have it, in a nutshell. People don't like to say NO, because it makes them feel unhappy.

So, in conclusion, although this was not particularly scientific exercise, it was one in which the outcomes were not wholly unexpected; until, of course, the process was reversed and the same individuals were faced with the uncertainty of having to face their own positive or negative outcome. In that respect, they remained a distinctly and unhappily unified group, when faced with a situation where their own future uncertainty was exacerbated, and they certainly didn't respond positively to being 'let down gently'. Indeed, the overwhelming and preferential consensus was to just tell it as it is; warts and all. It was no surprise to any of them therefore that if the answer they were looking for was not an immediate or obvious yes, then JUST SAY NO!

During my last 15 years in private practice, I've seen at least 3-4 cycles of ups and downs, during which employers can be relied upon to boost the recruitment industry in their vain and often meaningless search for this mysterious 'holy grail'. The saviour with the Midas touch, who will single-handedly, with one giant leap, transform a struggling business into a successful one.

And why do they keep on repeating the same behaviour and get the same results time after time? For the same reason that we play the lottery, I suspect; if you don't buy a ticket, you can't possibly win. However, I submit that as much as the psychology is the same; so are the chances of pulling a winning ticket. And yet, businesses can be relied upon to keep doing it again and again; just so long as there's a chance, then it's worth the gamble. After all, it's only a small outlay for a potentially sizeable return. I can certainly see the lure and understand the thought processes which drive such decision-making. However, in much the same way as playing the lottery, it really has very little chance of success.

Business Development is not for the faint-hearted. It's a clear and definable skill which has its roots firmly planted in one-to-one relationship building. And yet, so misunderstood is this role and so misaligned has it become over the years, that the role has become synonymous with something which sits in the twilight zone between sales and marketing. A role which requires an incumbent to make repeated and unsolicited calls to leads and potential customers, armed with a brochure or sales pitch of the latest product or service offering. The ultimate door-knocker, if you will. The snake oil salesman of yesteryear; and if that's not bad enough, businesses which err towards a marketing bent, often swamp leads or potential customers with so much useless and confusing collateral, that they barely know what it is they are being asked to consider. Both approaches are about as useless as baling water out of the Titanic with a saucepan.

So, is there a better way?

Yes, there is, and one which is guaranteed to give every business the best possible chance of surviving and beating a downturn. Firstly, recognise that business development is a clearly defined skill, with purpose, clarity and definition; and secondly view it as a long-term sustainable investment, which, over time, will pay a steady and ever-improving return. Recruit and develop a talent pool of those who are the most natural and gifted relationship-builders, from whatever discipline they come from, and set them to work on forging long-term 'trusted partner' status with your key existing and target potential clients. Give them the freedom to operate outside of constraining and restrictive targets and work practices and reward them on their skill and ability in maintaining an ongoing dialogue with their clients. It's this dialogue which is key to sustainability and which, ultimately, propels them and the business into trusted partner status. The most successful business developers don't actually sell anything; they don't need to, because their clients are only too happy to buy from them, as and when the opportunity arises. And what's even better, is that they continue to buy, again and again and again. Just so long as there's trust, there will always be a return. It may not be immediate and it may not scoop the jackpot, but it will be consistent and reliable.

What value this level of consistency and reliability in the current economic climate? However, just like any solid and worthwhile investment, it requires time, patience and good judgement, which might well be a better bet than a weekly punt on the lottery.

Welcome to the World of the 'Poisonous Parasite'; something which is sadly alive and kicking in almost every workplace you'd care to mention and has done so since the workplace was invented.

To deal with the poisonous parasite, you first have to understand what it is and where it lurks, before you can even begin to deal with it.

Dealing with it, requires you to immunize yourself from its destructive effects and then exorcise it from your immediate environment. What you cannot do is to turn it into a benign or even benevolent bug, because it feeds by poisoning and destroying its host before moving on to a new victim.

First and foremost, you must not allow a poisonous parasite to see, sense or feel that their attitude and behaviour towards you is having any effect at all. It's hard, I know, because to instantly develop a cloak of insensitivity does not come naturally to most of us.

Nevertheless, that's what you have to do. Treat whatever they say to you as though it's inconsequential or irrelevant, which it probably will be, for the most part. Tell them (don't ask them) to put anything in writing, that they believe to be important.

At the same time, always make sure that you follow up any verbal instructions or discussions, in writing. That way, there's a record of it, to support any disciplinary action, should that be required at a later stage.

Never get embroiled in any email or written tit-for-tat.

Always ensure that you make them responsible for finding you and not vice versa.

Always tell them (never ask them), to put any comments or observations they might want to make about your behaviour or management style, in writing. When they want to meet with you, make them attend either first thing in the morning or last thing at night, depending on whether you're a morning or evening person.

Never discuss or gossip about their behaviour with anyone else in the office and keep a short written record of any and all dysfunctional behaviour which relates to the productivity and wellbeing of you, your colleagues or your team.

Poisonous Parasites are always looking for an angle; something to feed off. Give them nothing. A common strategy is often a crude attempt to goad you or make you look foolish in front of colleagues or your boss. Be aware of this strategy and don't rise to the bait. Meetings and social occasions are also rich hunting ground for the offhand remark or the spiteful repost, so be ready for them. They're looking to pick a fight, so give them nothing to feed off. A slight shrug, coupled with an 'Uh-Huh' or a 'Yup, you're probably right', will give them nowhere to go.

Be polite; be proper; be professional and be courteous at all times.

Trust me, you will eventually bore them into either finding another 'victim' they can feed off, or they will just become more and more angry and frustrated that they're getting no response from you that they will slip up and do something terminally foolish.

Remember, Poisonous Parasites are always on the look-out for potential victims. If they've honed in you, it's because they think you're an easy target; and whilst they've got you in their sights, all your other peers and colleagues are going to be looking at you to see how you're going to handle it.

However, don't become lulled into believing that anyone else is going to do anything about it. They are not. They are just pleased that they are not a current target.

The solution lies with you, because, guess what? If you allow yourself to become a victim here, you'll end up a victim wherever you go and whatever you do, because working life everywhere is filled with poisonous parasites.

And so it is in the workplace, as well. No one seems to have any time any more to stop and think. Everyone seems to be moving at breakneck speed, just to keep up. As a consequence of which, I've been having rather too many conversations of late with stressed out workers, who just can't see the wood for the trees. Whether it's a case of not enough hours in the day, or just too much to do, the theme and the sentiment are one and the same. So, just imagine the reaction when I suggest to them that they take 15 minutes each day for themselves.

15 minutes a day. That's a mere 900 seconds.

The predictable responses have been anything from the ridiculous to the absurd. But consider for a moment what 15 minutes each day actually represents. Given an average day (and no one works an average day these days), of 8 hours; that's 480 minutes. 15 minutes represents a lowly 3.125% of the working day. Even though employment legislation requires individuals to take a lunch break, many choose not to, simply because of the pressure of work. Consequently, it's a real struggle to persuade people to set aside 15 minutes of downtime for themselves. This downtime, or 'self time', as I call it, is just not considered important enough by most, as they absorb themselves in their tasks of the day.

However, 15 minutes of time dedicated exclusively to oneself is surprisingly refreshing and relaxing. It's the equivalent of holding one's breath 15 times, since most people average out at around a minute. It is in essence, 15 minutes of meditation within the maelstrom of the work environment. It reinvigorates the spirit and regenerates enthusiasm and energy. It's the blink of an eye in a long days' work, and lifetime when it's yours to do with what you will. Whether it's listening to an i-pod (or equivalent), reading a book, going for a walk or staring out of a window. Choosing what to do with one's 15 minutes each day becomes an ever increasing and enjoyable challenge. One which, with practice, you'll look forward to with as much anticipation as you will the tasks and assignments which make up the working day.

Usually this starts with a conversation about their job, their CV, their career prospects and the whole process of recruitment. However, within a very short space of time, we end up talking about what it is that they actually do. No, not their job title, their job description, or the role they are currently occupying; but a detailed conversation of precisely what it is that they actually do. Now what's intriguing about this, is that most of them cannot describe what they do - they've never had to do it before.

The CV/Resume or the recruiter does it for them, and that's just it. We have all been relying on someone else or something else to define our working lives; what jobs we do and how our employers, colleagues and the World at large, sees us. So, the very concept of sitting down and addressing it ourselves is a complete anathema to most of us. Most of what we do is pretty straightforward and uncomplicated, but it's truly astonishing how complex we can choose to make it. We totally abandon the concept of KISS (keep it simple stupid, for those of you who have grown up in the digital age), choosing instead to describe what we do in the most complicated and confusing manner. It's almost as if we are programmed to believe that the more complex it sounds, the higher our value and the more we are worth. It's all nonsense, of course, because it only serves to confuse those around us, who might be attempting to find us a new job or a better position.

How often does a recruiter come up with the same job in a different organisation and how many times has your Boss given you a task that you are wholly unsuited to? Too many times to make it coincidental, I suspect. The responsibility really lies within all of us to be clear about what we do, and then articulate that with clarity, brevity and certainty. It's not easy of course, and the chances are that you've never done it before; however, once done, you'll find it so much easier to focus and concentrate on what's right for you as opposed to what's right for someone else.

Now, what we're talking about here are successful, intelligent and well-educated Men and Women questioning what they know to be true, and what's even more disconcerting, when I analyse them, is that they are all very different, come from totally different backgrounds and on the face of it, have nothing at all in common with each other.

And yet, they are all smitten by the same uncertainty. You could well argue that that this uncertainty is driven by fear. Fear of failure or fear of success; it makes no difference really, as they are both sides of the same coin.

I assumed for many years that it could only be fear which fuelled this irrational behaviour - but now I'm not so sure. After all, what would these successful, well-educated and intelligent people have to fear from anybody? If they're not already captains of industry, then they are all pretty close to it.

No, the real issue here is the fundamental difference between being successful as a business manager and successful as an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs tend to be single-minded loners by nature, whereas business managers tend to be (or aspire to be) more collaborative, cautious and consensual - they're the oil and water of professional personalities if you like.

But what happens during a particular phase of an executive's development is that they need to experiment with the entrepreneurial side of their personality, in order to demonstrate to their organisations that they have the wherewithal to make it to next level of executive management.

And this is where the problems begin to occur, because while behaving like an entrepreneur might be exciting it's also fraught with risk - and risk is not something senior executives do particularly well.

So as a result, many find themselves caught in a continuous loop, cycling and recycling backwards and forwards between the two, unsure of which course of action is best.

And the outcome? Well, they eventually end up doing up neither - and that's what drives even more paranoia, uncertainty and irrational behaviour. It's just like oil and water; the two do not mix well, and so it is with the personalities of the entrepreneur and the professional manager.

So, can it work the other way around? Well yes, there are some examples of semi-successful transitions from entrepreneur to manager, ( Stelios Haji-Ioannou and Richard Branson spring to mind), but I can think of many more examples of entrepreneurs who just can't make the successful transformation into business managers, with the smarter ones realising the error of their ways and hiring professional managers to look after the businesses they started.

Quite why this came as a surprise to the learning and development director, Rick Woodward, whose group undertook the study, is beyond me. Surely it's obvious that when people are supported and encouraged, they tend to perform better - don't they?

Just take the parent child relationship and the positive and negative transactions which take place in our formative years. This is really nothing new and was of course, well documented by Eric Berne in his early theory of Transactional Analysis, which was originally developed in the 1950's.

Even today, Modern Transactional Analysis theory splits the Parent ego state into four quadrants. Nurturing and Structuring as positive quadrants; Spoiling and Critical as negatives.

Applied to most modern day management and mentoring techniques, it is easy to see how managers of all shapes and sizes fit into each of the TA quadrants, and how they might therefore elicit the sort of responses they do from those they are responsible for.

The role of the manager has traditionally been seen as that of an individual charged with the responsibility to apply structure and process to those they manage. Structure, because for the most part, they themselves are required to deliver against a set of goals which require organisational planning and resource management.

Consequently, the positive nurturing parent as an ego state, would not normally be associated with a directive style of goal setting and task management. Nurturing requires an individual to have the consummate self-belief and self-confidence to back themselves, so in a way, it should be of little surprise to Rick Woodward and his colleagues that only half their sample felt that their leaders backed them and mirrored their coaching and mentoring efforts.

In the meantime, the challenge remains managing the balance between the two, although in the case of Kimberly-Clark, both Woodward and his CEO Tim Falk appear to have been so impressed with the findings that they are extending their coaching and mentoring across the board of senior managers.

To my mind, their challenge is more cultural and behavioural than structural. Although their commitment and support of the processes they are introducing should be applauded, it remains to be seen whether this one-shoe-fits-all, one-trick pony approach will repay the dividends they deserve for the risks they are taking.

This only occurred to me recently when I was in the throes of reviewing my mobile phone contract; something I hadn't felt the need to do for the past three years. I'd been a very happy bunny, just bumbling along in blind ignorance.

But hunting around the marketplace to find out what mobile phones do these days and what sort of alternatives are available from the network providers has been a real eye-opener. Options that I'd barely thought about three years ago are now commonplace - and of course, everyone's got the best deal to throw at you with phones which can do almost anything except cook dinner and I suspect that by the time I get around to looking again, they'll be able to do that too.

So, what does all this have to do with staff retention? Well, I was talking to one of my clients recently about the games organisations play when they are trying to retain staff and it seemed remarkably similar to what network providers do to retain their customers.

Take my case. Would I be looking to leave if they hadn't decided to double my service charges? Probably not. Would an employee be thinking of leaving if they hadn't been over-worked, under-valued and given no recognition by their employer? Probably not, because, the chances are they actually really enjoyed their work, their colleagues and their environment. Yet because their organisation failed to recognise this and value them accordingly, they felt they were being overlooked and their good graces were being abused.

So they hunted around and found another job just as I found another network.

They went to talk to their manager about their concerns with the intention of resigning. I spoke to my network provider to get a PAC number. Their employer was horrified about losing them and asked for time to make them an offer. My network provider was disappointed about losing me and made me an offer to stay that I'd have been hard put to reject. Their employer took them into their confidences and drew up a plan, with more responsibility and authority, more compensation and greater visibility. I reflected on what the other networks had to offer, what technology was available, but most importantly what I REALLY needed from my phone contract for the next 12 months.

As a result, the employee decided to give their employer the benefit of the doubt and stayed and so did I.

What can we learn from this? Well, the rule is that generally, people prefer stability and consistency over change and uncertainty. No surprises there you may think. But what is a surprise is how casual most organisations have become about staff retention and how myopic and negligent they have become in spotting behavioural signals from their workforce.

Consequently, this sort of reactive, knee-jerk response by employers has become a de-facto standard, by which time it is often too late.

Had my network provider come to me prior to doubling my bill and offered to extend my current contract, I would probably have continued to bumble along in blind ignorance. But the fact is that they didn't - and neither do most organisations when it comes to staff retention. To value customers and employees and enable them to feel appreciated and valued, seems as far away as ever. It won't eliminate attrition altogether, but it's a damned sight better than the business model of the insurance sector; one where customer retention is measured only by the differential between those customers they gain through the top of the funnel versus those they lose out of the bottom.

So what else is new? What about telling us something that we don't already know!

Until those people leading major organisations begin to understand and appreciate the asset potential and value of their workforce, this will forever remain the case. Name me one CEO of a leading FTSE or Dow company that comes from a people-related background.

I can't and I bet you can't either - although you might want to chew on this absolute fact, which no one has yet picked up on. Warren Buffet, one of the most successful investors of all time bases his investment strategies, in part, on the strength of the workforce as he sees it, through the vision and long-term planning of the senior management.

If ever there was a ringing endorsement for organisations to learn from, this is it, but then, hey, I don't suppose anyone is taking too much notice. They are all to busy feting the veteran guru for his uncanny investment skill. Funny that, isn't it?

Please, let's have no more of this inanity.

Doesn't everyone know that productivity is largely affected by the quality of human relationships including cooperative, social group moods and interaction? Or must it now be postulated by the high and mighty before it's actually taken notice of?

Have we, as free thinkers, progressed so far that we have become brainwashed into the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome? Have we really lost the ability to think freely and actively and challenge the conventions that surround us? Have we become so conditioned that we MUST seek someone else's validation and verification for any original thought we might have?

Stop the wheel and let me off, please. Conventions, you can keep 'em. Enjoy the taste of your own bathwater, I'm off to enjoy something a little more stimulating; in a bottle, with a label marked Merlot. Cheers!

Perhaps the answer lies in the belief that 8 out of 10 bosses believe that their managers are, in fact, good decision-makers. Well, they would, wouldn't they, since they did after all appoint them in the first place; and that's precisely where many of the problems stem from. Human nature prefers certainty as opposed to uncertainty. Consequently, bosses often make appointments which reflect a degree of hierarchical predictability. Hierarchical management structures still predominate the workplace today, with instructions passed from one tier to another, so it should not be any surprise at all that there is so much scope for mis-interpretation and misunderstanding. I am reminded of the classic word-of-mouth mis-communication from the 1st World War which started out as 'send reinforcements we're going to advance' and ended up as 'send three and four pence we're going to a dance'.

Rather than each side blaming the other, isn't it time that all parties stood up to be counted and shouldered their responsibilities to the best of their abilities. Lack of confidence, vicissitude, indecision and sheer laziness affect everyone in the workplace from time to time; they are not solely confined to the most senior or the most lowly. If British middle managers are comfortable to remain branded as dithering and incompetent ninnies, then nothing will change. However, if they wish to discard this image, then they will surely they have to face the T-Junction of choice where change is inevitable, with all the unknown uncertainties that accompany it. The jury is still out on whether or not their bosses will understand, appreciate, value and support these changes, or whether they will default to a conservative style dogma which, so often, drives the personality of the organisations they manage

Honestly, what a load of claptrap. To suggest that women in business who conform to gender stereotyping may too soft; or that those who don't might otherwise be considered 'ball breakers', does a complete disservice to those thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of women, who as managers and senior executives, regularly put their male counterparts to shame.

The business community has become so conventionally stereotyped in its own way, that it seems to have forgotten that there is no such thing as a guaranteed formula for success. True, there may be no obvious female equivalents to Jack Welch, Lee Iacocca or Bill Gates, but have any of these three business leaders, for example, been berated for expressing their feminine side too often, whilst in charge of their respective organisations?

The concept of invention, manufacturing, commerce and trading still has its roots entrenched in male dominated prejudices; a history in which women were neither encouraged to collaborate or participate. These roots still go deep, as do the prejudices which accompany them. However, as much as we are drawn kicking and screaming into the new millennia, very little has changed, other than a grudging recognition that women now have a greater role to play in the workplace. It is still the case that they have to work 50% harder than many of their male counterparts to achieve the same levels of recognition, reward and appreciation; and they may forever, labour under that yoke of historical prejudices which still remains. However, they are now becoming a group to be reckoned with in their own right and they no longer have to force their way through from the second line of the chorus to gain recognition and stardom. The new generation are the stars of a new breed of business; the catalysts for a different level of thinking about how to engineer the best return for their shareholders. Recognise their value; applaud their commitment and support their intellect and let's do away once and for all with this stereotypical sort of thinking which organisations such as Catalyst regularly uncover.

Well, please, knock me over with a cleft stick whilst I digest and absorb this stunningly original assessment from our industry body; however, not content with this original jaw-dropping analysis, it goes on to elaborate further, that one of the main causes of this stress, is workload! It further speculates that this could be due to employees in smaller companies seeing the direct impact and value of their work, whilst the work of those in larger organisations may be generally more amorphous.

The study concludes with the advice to organisations to provide "sensible working opportunities to help people balance the conflicting pressures between work and home, and introduce a policy on stress management, as recommended by the Health and Safety Executive".

How unhelpful and unoriginal in the extreme.

If organisations as a whole had even a vague interest in pursuing this line, they would surely would have done so by now. The truth is they don't. It is far easier for them to allow work-related stress to continue to take its inevitable toll on the working population; a sort of unnatural culling of the workforce if you will. Most organisations, be they large or small are not in the slightest bit interested in the wellbeing of their workforce; that's what has helped to spawn and create this global economy of coaching and mentoring. It's a bit like taking your car to the garage to get it serviced now and again; a kind of insurance against terminal breakdown if you will, where a mechanic fine-tunes the engine from time-to-time in order to keep the vehicle ticking over.

Sensible working opportunities and a policy on stress management as recommended by the HSE is a bit like asking the owner of the car to drive it exactly as the manual or handbook specifies. It's just not going to happen that way, and consequently, industry bodies such as the CIPD should stop and think again. The answers lie in educating and persuading organisations to optimise the productivity and effectiveness of their employees by investing in their capabilities and potential; and that starts with looking beyond their ability to perform the tasks they have been hired for and not by creating yet more guidelines as to how they should be performing those tasks. Ask anyone who runs a small business...

The most common incidents of rudeness cited were being rude to and undermining colleagues who question someone's judgement, excluding colleagues from situations, interrupting people when they are speaking, making derogatory comments, withholding information and belittling ideas.

However, what passes for rudeness in the workplace might be considered something of a moot point. For example, in 2004, a similar study in New Zealand established that swearing, in certain situations, actually helped to boost team morale and that letting off steam as an emotional response, can in fact build rapport with other team members.

And yet, in the UK, for example, bad manners have, in many organisations, lowered the behavioural bar of what is, and is not, acceptable in the workplace. Another UK-based study found that two thirds of office workers admit to being regularly late for meetings and also think it is acceptable to answer mobile phone calls during meetings or send text messages while in conversation with someone else.

All behaviour, good, bad or indifferent, tends to impact in some way or another, the motivational drive and creative energy of everyone in the workplace. Good manners and positive behaviour tends to reap its own rewards, whilst bad manners often leaves people feeling less committed, less engaged and far less inclined to go that extra mile.

What's the secret to it? There isn't one, other than RESPECT. Respect for yourself and respect for others, wherever you and they happen to be on the organisational foodchain.

However, does that necessarily make them any better at managing the selection process?

Regrettably I suspect not, since more often than not, organisations are far too myopic about the whole recruitment process; creating and issuing job recruitment briefs as well as job specifications which reflect little or no progress whatsoever from what the job might have been two or three years earlier.

The internet certainly has its place in the market as probably one of the most, if not the most, cost effective route-to-market tool. However, surely it cannot and must not supplant the professional recruitment consultant and the valuable service they provide. I'm not talking about the kiss-me-quick merchants of whom there are plenty who thrive in many of the volume-based, short-term sectors. I'm referring to those who have learned the tradecraft of their profession over a number of years. Those who are capable and confident enough to challenge clients with a push-button mentality on recruitment. Hiring people is a serious business and not for the faint-hearted. Getting it right as often and getting it wrong is not as was once related to me, a case of 'spinning the roulette wheel' and picking the right colour, red or black, with a 50/50 chance of getting it right or wrong. It's about taking the risk out of the decision-making, where often as not, an outsider will see one side of the candidate that an employer doesn't.

Employers, large and small, public and private, still have much to learn about how to leverage their brands more effectively on the internet, in order to recruit and retain the talent they seek. The recruitment industry should welcome and support these initiatives and embrace the obvious changes they will bring to their existing business models. Their opportunity and their future lies where it always has; namely in unravelling the DNA of candidates, unlocking and validating their potential and providing a counterbalance of advice, counsel and wisdom to their clients, in what is still and should always be, one of the most enlightening, insightful and complex of professions.