Help me make a fool of myself

July 3, 2009 by matthewtaylor · 2 Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized 

Thanks to everyone who helped out on my cultural theory challenge yesterday. I am still hoping for a few more replies but so far options 1 and 3 are doing well with options 2 and trailing badly. This is interesting as, arguably, ‘do nothing and wait for the Government to sort it out’ (a combination of 2 and 4) is the majority attitude of the public.

In line with my emerging habit of ‘dress down Friday posts’ I have another request to make. I have long harboured the ambition of doing a stand up comedy routine. It’s not that I want to be a comedian (any more that I inadvertently am already) I’d just love to do it once and see if I could survive.

Anyway, the idea I have for the theme of my ten minutes is strange things that people say. I don’t mean slips of the tongue or malapropisms but things which are perfectly good English just rather odd when you take them apart

My favourite is simply ‘I said to myself’. But who is ‘I’, who is ‘myself’ and who exactly is this conversation between?

The other day I heard another. In a meeting that was in danger of over running, the chairman tried to push the agenda on by saying ‘I am conscious of time’. What is the appropriate response to this? ‘I am aware of space’ perhaps, or ‘I am in touch with the universe’.

So I am on the look out for another three or four of these. The deal is that if I get them I promise at some point to go to a comedy ‘open mic’ night and give it a go. All my blog readers will of course be invited.

Have a good weekend

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: ,

What kind of climate change thinker are you? (version 2)

July 2, 2009 by matthewtaylor · 38 Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized 

(This is a modified version of an earlier post. I have changed the rules of the experiment after some very useful reader feedback).

OK folks, I need your help. For some time I have wanted to develop a speech applying cultural theory to policy dilemmas and organisational change. To help make the speech engaging, I want to start with an audience experiment, but I need to test it out before taking it on the road. This is where you, my clever, generous, loyal blog readers, come in.

The experiment is to describe, in the simplest of terms, the four cultural theory perspectives on an issue (to start off I have chosen climate change) and then to ask the audience to pick the one to which they are most attracted. Second, I want each of the four self selecting groups to choose which of the remaining positions they favour least.

To work well, I need two things to happen. First, the audience has to be willing to choose. This may be hard because they are likely to think there is some truth in more than one of the propositions. Second, I need to get a reasonably even spread between the options; otherwise the whole idea of the four perspectives is undermined. A bonus would be if some kind of pattern emerges between people’s likes and dislikes.

Here’s what I am asking you to do:

Pick which one of the following four statements about climate change most attracts you. Don’t think about it too much; go with your initial instinct (this is important).

Then, picking this time just from the remaining options from 1 to 3 identify the one you find least attractive as a proposition (NB you are not allowed to pick 4 as your least favoured).

Finally, tell me – briefly please – if you think the whole exercise is interesting or silly.

1. We will only tackle the threat of climate change if we fundamentally change the way we think about our relationship to the environment. Lifestyles in the developed world are unsustainable. We have to learn to live differently, taking responsibility for our duty to the world we inhabit and to future generations.

2. The climate change challenge will only be solved by decisive global leadership. A powerful new Copenhagen Treaty is vital. We need an enforceable framework of rules so that Governments of every nation in the world deliver their contribution to addressing this threat.      

3. Climate change is a huge challenge but human beings can rise to that challenge, as we have done to challenges past. With the right framework of incentives, markets and technological innovation will generate solutions allowing us to be prosperous and green.

4. For all we know climate change – if it is real - may already be unstoppable. Despite all the rhetoric and people jumping on the bandwagon, we won’t do anything serious about it until we really have to, and by then it may be too late.

So, please, choose one of these, then, choose the one you find least convincing (not including 4), then - if you want to - tell me if you think I could pose the question better.

I am looking for a sample of about 100, so do please pass it on.

Thanks

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags:

What kind of climate change thinker are you?

July 2, 2009 by matthewtaylor · 23 Comments
Filed under: Public policy 

OK folks, I need your help. For some time I have wanted to develop a speech applying cultural theory to policy dilemmas and organisational change. To help make the speech engaging, I want to start with an audience experiment, but I need to test it out before taking it on the road. This is where you, my clever, generous, loyal blog readers, come in.

The experiment is to describe, in the simplest of terms, the four cultural theory perspectives on an issue (to start off I have chosen climate change) and then to ask the audience to pick the one to which they are most attracted. Second, I want each of the four self selecting groups to choose which of the three remaining positions they favour least.

To work well, I need two things to happen. First, the audience has to be willing to choose. This may be hard because they are bound to think there is some truth in more than one of the propositions. Second, I need to get a reasonably even spread between the options; otherwise the whole idea of the four perspectives is undermined. A bonus would be if some kind of pattern emerges between people’s likes and dislikes.

Here’s what I am asking you to do. Pick which one the following four statements about climate change most attracts you. Don’t think about it too much; go with your initial instinct. Then identify which of the remaining three you least favour. Finally, tell me – briefly please – if you think the whole exercise is interesting or silly.

1. We will only tackle the threat of climate change if we fundamentally change the way we think about our relationship to the environment. Lifestyles in the developed world are unsustainable. We have to learn to live differently, taking responsibility for our duty to the world we inhabit and to future generations.

2. The climate change challenge will only be solved by decisive global leadership. A powerful new Copenhagen Treaty is vital. We need an enforceable framework of rules so that Governments of every nation in the world deliver their contribution to addressing this threat.       

3. Climate change is a huge challenge but human beings can rise to that challenge, as we have done to challenges past. With the right framework of incentives, markets and technological innovation will generate solutions allowing us to be prosperous and green.

4. For all we know climate change – if it is real - may already be unstoppable. Despite all the rhetoric and people jumping on the bandwagon, we won’t do anything serious about it until we really have to, and by then it may be too late.

So, please, choose one of these, then, choose the one you find least convincing, then - if you want to - tell me if you think I could pose the question better.

I am looking for a sample of about 100, so do please pass it on.

Thanks

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: ,

The RSA mission and brand - responding to the debate

July 1, 2009 by matthewtaylor · Leave a Comment
Filed under: The RSA 

It’s time for me to respond to the challenging and fascinating conversation following my posts last week about change and branding in the RSA. I have read all the comments carefully and replied to some directly. My points don’t cover everything, but these are the issues that stood out for me:

1. The branding exercise is not a superficial paint job. We have been in the process of realigning the RSA since my first Chief Executive’s speech with its emphasis on social change and citizen responsibility. The Trustees and Exec saw the development of a new account of the RSA’s role and the re-engineering of activities around that account as a precursor to any rebrand.

2. The broad outline of the RSA’s mission and operating principles has developed iteratively in a variety of fora ranging from Fellows’ meetings to blogs and Journal articles. At the core of this is the idea that the RSA is here to enable future citizenship; in other words, we think people aggregately need to be able to think and act in different ways if we are to thrive in the future.

3. Through its unusual organisational form the RSA can pursue that goal by:

• exploring different dimensions of this idea (thus the emphasis in our lectures and Journal articles on how human beings make decisions)

• experimenting with new forms of citizen engagement, empowerment and development. This is the focus for our Projects team

• enabling the Fellowship to be a powerful force for social good and civic innovation         

• the House being a place of ideas, collaboration and creativity.

4. It turns out that this is easy to describe but many parts of it are much, much harder to do. The branding process, along with other strategic challenges like the development of the Fellowship Charter, is helping to surface some of these tough dilemmas. I described three last week of which the most challenging is making engagement with Fellows a powerful way to achieve social progress.

5. Fellows join for a variety for reasons and have a variety of ways of engaging. That will never change. But at heart we want the Fellowship proposition to contain three elements:       

• You have been chosen as a person of achievement (which is, by the way, not the same as status or seniority). The badge of FRSA celebrates that achievement

• You are being invited to join a fascinating, powerful network of people who have at their disposal a set of resources provided by the Society (everything from the Journal to the seed corn investment fund that has been set up by RSA Scotland)

• In joining you commit to supporting the RSA’s mission, not just through your annual donation (important though this is) but by engaging with our work, and being open to collaborating with the Society and other Fellows in initiatives that further this mission    

6. Redefining and renewing the idea of Fellowship is the hardest but also the most important part of this whole change process. That’s why we have been experimenting with a whole range of ways making this real, from the November 22nd 2007 event, to the City networks to the new Fellowship Council. We have come to see that the kind of shift we want to see involves challenging more traditional (hierarchical and bureaucratic) views of Fellowship, developing new capacity, and identifying content propositions (what is it that Fellows can do together to make an impact). In all of this what we need more than anything is critical true friends; people who are excited by, and committed to, a new Fellowship and can help us understand what we have to do at HQ to enable this (and who are themselves committed to being part of the process of change).

7. I am sure of two things. The RSA can become one of the most exciting and powerful third sector organisations, and to get there we still have further to climb on a steep and twisting road. In my view, the biggest barrier now is the ‘content’ challenge. We can sit and talk about the Fellowship as a force for change until the cows come home, but now we need examples of what this means in practice.  Then the Fellowship as a whole will be able to see how the combination of FRSA inventiveness and commitment and RSA HQ support can turn a good idea into exciting intervention in the wider world.

I hope this helps the debate. I know not everyone agrees with what we are trying to do. Every word I have said is open to debate and challenge by the Fellowship (and indeed by the wider public). It is unusual for a Chief Executive to talk so openly about organisational challenges but I see this as being in small part a token of the way we want to work. Finally, once again, I am incredibly heartened by the quality of the thoughts and ideas being put forward in this debate and by how much people care about the future of this amazing 255 year old Society.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: ,

Why did I have to be so Frank?

June 30, 2009 by matthewtaylor · 3 Comments
Filed under: Politics, Public policy, The RSA 

I need a holiday. I keep making mistakes. I did it again today.

Michael Gove spoke here this morning. In a typically robust and engaging performance he repeated his scepticism about competence based curricula like our own Opening Minds. Gove is highly rated by just about everyone and is very likely to be running our schools this time next year. I need to keep on the right side of him to try to persuade him and his team to be a bit more open minded about Opening Minds. So, this morning I politely asked Michael if he would have an on-line debate with me so we could go into the issues in more depth than was possible in a ten minute Q and A session. He kindly agreed.

So far so good. But then this afternoon I was at a Conservative Home conference organised to brief various public affairs types on the Tory Party as it prepares for power. 

In response to a question about whether the Conservatives could have a positive message for the next election I contrasted Conservative health spokesman Andrew Lansley (who was here last night) with Michael Gove.

I recalled the difference between Labour’s education strategy pre-1997 and their health strategy. In the former case, David Blunkett battled with his own Party to make clear he would keep most of the framework created by Kenneth Baker in the 1988 Education Reform Bill but with some changes at the margins, acceleration of elements like the literary strategy and also using money from abolishing assisted places to reduce primary class sizes. In health, by contrast, Labour said the Tories were totally wrong and pledged to dismantle the Conservative internal market, which they subsequently did, only to later rebuild it under Alan Milburn at huge cost.

Approaching the next election Lansley is in the Blunkett position, broadly endorsing Labour’s approach but emphasising areas he would change, things he would stop and new offers he would make. But Gove sounds more like Labour on health in 1997 suggesting that the whole school system is in a mess and that only the practice he likes from the very best schools is worth emulating. Gove is also arguing for some profound changes in funding and structure. Indeed his agenda was described by Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home as ‘a school revolution’.

The contrast was underlined in the audience reaction to the speeches. Both got warm applause, with many people clearly agreeing. But while no one seemed to want to disagree loudly with Lansley, with Michael Gove I have never known an event where so many people came up to me at the end to express concern about what they had heard, including two head teachers. (Not that this will worry Michael too much as cocking a snook at the educational establishment is, I suspect, part of his strategy)

Not everyone will agree with me so far, but it’s not that which is the problem. You see, the minister in charge of health policy for Labour in 1997 was Frank Dobson and so, in front of lots and lots of Conservatives, I said ‘in his tendency to condemn the schools system wholesale Michael Gove reminds me a bit of Frank Dobson’.

It is a toss up which of these two eminent politicians of different generations would be most appalled by my comparison. But when Michael is told – which he most certainly will be – that could be our bridges burnt.

I suppose it’s too late to say sorry?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Older Posts »