As seen in the Independent 16 August 2010
The Government has reportedly set up a behavioural insight team at No 10, heralding the return of Nudge as a key policy driver. Andy McSmith’s article in The Independent last week provides an excellent summary of the principles of nudge theory. What it and the original work of Thaler and Sunstein underestimate, however, are the controversies and inconsistencies in the academic research on which these ideas are based.
For example, one key ‘nudging’ principle is to make the ‘desired’ activity the default on the assumption that people are much more likely to stick with this than change. This ‘nudge’ can provide the basis for encouraging people to sign up for organ donation or pensions – in each case the public may be automatically opted in, so must opt out if they don’t wish to be involved in these activities. Research shows that initial uptake is enhanced under these conditions.
However, this idea overlooks other key principles of human decision making that may modify or even nullify this ‘nudge’. For example, when people are actively involved in making a decision they are more committed to it and will stick to it longer, even when the outcomes are not as good as expected. This shows that being involved in the decision is vital in sustaining commitment to the action over time. ‘Nudged’ decisions are associated with less commitment so people will give up on them more readily when the outcomes are disappointing.
So ‘nudging’ people may be effective in the short term. However, in the longer term it may be less effective, particularly in situations where people are likely to experience a mixture of both positive and negative outcomes. Since longer term change is usually the primary objective, we may be better encouraging active involvement rather than a ‘nudge’.
Professor A John Maule
Director: Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School
Linstock Communications Associate
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
16 August 2010
22 June 2010
World Cup woes and calamity comms
The English and French football squads are clearly not happy and harmonious places right now. The sending home of French striker Nicolas Anelka for arguing with coach Raymond Domenech was swiftly followed by John Terry’s ill-advised press conference, in which he revealed details of imminent ‘clear-the-air’ talks between the England squad and manager Fabio Capello. While both represented a boon for the national press, they also highlighted complete failures of communications.
A recognised characteristic of Capello’s career has been the autocratic nature of his managerial style. In many senses, his no-nonsense style can be seen as a positive, providing as it does clarity for those who play under him. However, when it comes to communications, it can cause problems. Successful external communications rely upon strong internal communications. While it is not always possible to have everyone buy into the same message or pull in the same direction, internal communications need to aim to achieve this.
First and foremost, there must be dialogue. This doesn’t need to be constant, but it does need to involve structures being put in place that allow people to voice their concerns internally. Capello’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge this has arguably breeded a damaging inflexibility. Instead of effective internal communications providing a pressure valve for players, matters were brought to a head with a damaging and very public show of division within the camp.
However, flexibility, although important, must be checked by a structural balance. The flip side of a rigid internal communications system is the fiasco that has engulfed Les bleus. In the French camp player power trumps all, so much so that the French Football Federation’s managing director, Jean-Louis Valentin, resigned in light of player protests. This, obviously, is the other less favourable end of the spectrum and only perpetuates the point that flexibility and structure are not mutually exclusive.
The best laid communications strategies can be undermined by rogue voices of dissent. By failing to build structures to encourage effective and harmonious internal communications, both England and France camps have paid with poor external communications and the negative press coverage and public opprobrium that often follow.
John Hood and Jay McGregor - Linstock Consultants
www.linstockcommunications.com
7 June 2010
Stay of execution offers RDAs a chance to demonstrate their clarity of purpose - as seen in June 2010 issue of NewStart magazine
For Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) hamstrung by the political uncertainty of the last 18 months, the Chancellor's first statement on spending cuts must have been relief of sorts. In-year cuts of £270 million are hardly to be celebrated. But at least they begin to clarify the future of regional development. RDAs have not been abolished outright. We are led to believe the views of business will determine their future. But they will play a pared back role and have less to invest. Behind the front line numbers the Government seems more inclined to cut in the south and east than elsewhere. The picture is hardly crystal clear as yet, but at least the RDAs have something to work with.
As with any organisations, the RDAs have done some things well and could do some things better. Independent evaluation suggests the RDAs return an average of £4.50 for every £1 they spend. RDA investment has been an essential catalyst to major regeneration programmes, such as the Ipswich Waterfront and the renaissance of NewcastleGateshead. The RDA role in business support has helped turn a baffling array of services for small businesses into a more streamlined and cost effective offer. But RDAs have suffered when Government has broadened their remit with new responsibilities and diluted their focus on business led economic development. Whether or not Regional Spatial Strategies were a good thing, RDAs were left with this unpopular responsibility as a consequence of their geographic remit, rather than their expertise in housing and planning.
Perhaps most significantly, RDAs have faced difficulties communicating what they do. They use relatively small budgets (only in the Northeast is RDA expenditure more than one per cent of public spending) as a catalyst to private sector investment and to align the spending of other public sector bodies. But while they serve this strategic role they have been measured against tactical results on the ground, such as the number of jobs created and the area of brownfield land regenerated. This leads to confusion about what the RDAs are for – hands on delivery or strategic leadership. And it results in bad feeling locally, where all the agents involved in a scheme set out to claim its results on the ground for themselves.
Local and regional confusion is compounded at national level. RDAs are tasked with supporting the economic growth of all regions while reducing the disparity between regions – a built in contradiction in terms. The Greater South East economy grew by nearly 18% from 1999 to 2006. This was not reported as success for the RDAs in the south and east but as a failure of those in the north, although the economy there expanded by 15%. On these measures, RDAs are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But it shouldn't be a zero sum game. To address inter regional disparities the UK’s economic drivers in the south and east need continued investment, so the returns of economic growth can be reinvested in the north where needs are different.
So what can RDAs learn from their journey so far and where do they go next? Again, communication is one of the biggest challenges.
We are told that the future shape of RDAs will depend on the views of businesses and local authorities. Businesses in the north have convinced business secretary Vince Cable to look with fresh eyes at the RDA record of achievement. In the East of England, businesses have prepared a blueprint for investment that makes the case for strategic economic development at a scale beyond the local authority. But persuading businesses and councils to champion the role of RDAs while previously committed programmes of investment are being cut is a big ask.
Three key principles can help the RDAs grapple with the task.
First, personal detachment. Jobs and egos are on the line but the challenge facing the public finances and the economy supersedes the interests of any institution. To fulfil their public duty to promote the economic development of their regions, RDAs need to set aside personal interest. The arguments for and against strategic investment to create an environment in which business can thrive are top of the agenda. The names of public bodies, or even their precise remits, are 'any other business'.
First, personal detachment. Jobs and egos are on the line but the challenge facing the public finances and the economy supersedes the interests of any institution. To fulfil their public duty to promote the economic development of their regions, RDAs need to set aside personal interest. The arguments for and against strategic investment to create an environment in which business can thrive are top of the agenda. The names of public bodies, or even their precise remits, are 'any other business'.
Second, RDAs need to demonstrate how their core strategic role is in line with the Government agenda. They can bring greater efficiency to public sector spending by aligning streams of funding and targeting investment where it will deliver greatest economic return. This can be exemplified by the nature of the cuts RDAs choose to make. Which programmes are of greatest strategic importance to the economy and which, however worthy, would return least per pound of investment? By shouldering these tough decisions RDAs will demonstrate their value in austerity Britain. They may lose some friends in the process, but it's better to be respected than liked.
Third, RDAs need to live up to their billing as business-led and arms length from Government. They need to challenge Government thinking where necessary, provide impartial economic evidence that no other body can provide and demonstrate that local businesses support their arguments. If they wait to be told what to do by Government, they will both abdicate their responsibilities and speed their own demise.
RDAs must demonstrate their impact on their own terms, make cold, calculated economic arguments, and shoulder some unpopular funding decisions. They may still be abolished, but at least people would understand what they stood for.
Jon Bennett - Director
14 May 2010
How will a Hung Parliament affect the Third Sector?
After 96 hours of horse trading and negotiations, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats finally came together to form a coalition government. As the parties assign posts and priorities, what are the implications for the charitable and voluntary sector?
Some have suggested that a hung parliament could benefit the sector as charities may find it easier to shape and influence public policy. However, with an emergency budget due within 50 days, programmes for 2010-2011 still hang in the balance for many. Businesses, local authorities, and charities are finding it difficult to make long term decisions.
The success of any coalition government will largely rest on the degree of agreement between the parties forming the coalition. Francis Maude is the newly appointed Minister for the Cabinet Office, and Nick Hurd has just been confirmed as the new Charities Minister. We also know Nick and Jenny Wilmott (Conservative and Liberal Third Sector spokespeople respsctively) seem to broadly agree on the need to reform the administration of Gift Aid, set up a Social Investment Bank, and open up the delivery of services to the voluntary sector. Of course, the sector will need to use its persuasive powers across the political sphere, since Labour could yet be in a strong position at the time of the next election and that could be sooner that the five year fived term being proposed.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NVCO) has invited third sector leaders to a summit to consider the impact of the new coalition Government on charities. This is widely anticipated to discuss how the Third Sector leads the way within David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ vision for the UK.
This could be a new dawn for the Third Sector. On the surface there seems a broad consensus in working towards the same outcomes – the difference in opinions seems to be who has the best ideas to deliver them in timely fashion for the good of the sector.
Priya Shah, Consultant, Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
Some have suggested that a hung parliament could benefit the sector as charities may find it easier to shape and influence public policy. However, with an emergency budget due within 50 days, programmes for 2010-2011 still hang in the balance for many. Businesses, local authorities, and charities are finding it difficult to make long term decisions.
The success of any coalition government will largely rest on the degree of agreement between the parties forming the coalition. Francis Maude is the newly appointed Minister for the Cabinet Office, and Nick Hurd has just been confirmed as the new Charities Minister. We also know Nick and Jenny Wilmott (Conservative and Liberal Third Sector spokespeople respsctively) seem to broadly agree on the need to reform the administration of Gift Aid, set up a Social Investment Bank, and open up the delivery of services to the voluntary sector. Of course, the sector will need to use its persuasive powers across the political sphere, since Labour could yet be in a strong position at the time of the next election and that could be sooner that the five year fived term being proposed.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NVCO) has invited third sector leaders to a summit to consider the impact of the new coalition Government on charities. This is widely anticipated to discuss how the Third Sector leads the way within David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ vision for the UK.
This could be a new dawn for the Third Sector. On the surface there seems a broad consensus in working towards the same outcomes – the difference in opinions seems to be who has the best ideas to deliver them in timely fashion for the good of the sector.
Priya Shah, Consultant, Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
7 May 2010
The day the electorate jilted the Lib Dems
Linstock Associate Ben Rich, ex Deputy Policy Director of the Liberal Democrats and Vice Chair of the Policy Committee, bemoans what might have been on election night.
We Liberal Democrats are used to the occasional flirtation with us by voters between elections: the occasional by-election victory that sets Peter Snow’s swingometer all a-quiver.
We have even had the odd period of elongated engagement, most notably during the height of the alliance, although even then by the time of the 1983 election, we knew the love had gone from the relationship.
Yet this time it was different. This time it was for keeps. The minister was booked, the flowers arranged and the invitations sent out. Despite the odd pre-marital jitters the electorate seemed to have decided this time to see it through.
And then came the day itself. We got all dressed up, gave the rings to the best man and made it to the church in good time. All our friends were waiting to cheer us on and then, at the very last minute the electorate left us standing at the alter.
A friend said to me “you Lib Dems, you’ve been cheated again.” Yes, but not by the electoral system – we all know the system is loaded against us. This time it’s the electorate that has cheated us, left us all dressed up with nowhere to go.
What happened yesterday? There were no fewer than nine opinion polls in the previous 24 hours, showing the Liberal Democrats on a solid 27-28 per cent of the vote. With the occasional ups and downs, this had pretty much been the picture since the third leaders debate. Although our share had slipped from the highs achieved after that first debate, this would have represented a massive advance for the party.
Then, election day and around 20% of our voters (with the honourable exception of Redcar – I must go there) simply went awol.
When push came to shove, in the privacy of the polling booth, the British electorate suffered a collective chronic loss of courage. Some looked left, some right, and simply could not believe that things could really be different. With, I suspect, a collective sigh they choose to vote against what they most feared, rather than for what they actually believed in.
I would say that, would I? Well I suppose so, but then so did the electorate. Even in the week of the election itself nigh on 40 percent were telling pollsters that they would vote Liberal Democrat if they believed we could win in their area. Oh, the agony, I shout, “if you voted for us, we would win!”
But if not now, when? Self-evidently, never again will there be a first ever election debate with all its possibilities for a third party. The old parties have been warned, and the electorate will be less easily bedazzled.
And without such a transformational event is it possible to imagine under this electoral system the circumstances in which – given this experience – voters might ever believe that their neighbour, and their neighbour, will have the courage to vote for the Liberal Democrats, rather than simply against their worst fears?
So I find myself, this morning after, with all the pain of the jilted lover thinking what’s the point? Under this electoral system, the voters will never feel able to give us a break. And so I say to my leaders, if this political impasse opens up even the slightest opportunity to change that system, be self-interested for once - grab it with two hands.
Because, if we don’t, politics will go on the same for ever. Forever, these two old parties and no others. And that, quite, quite clearly is not what the public actually wants or they’d have jumped into bed with one or other of them last night.
And also, because I can’t go through that again. Better, maybe to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, but I’m for grabbing the bride’s train as she flees down the aisle and clinging on for dear life.
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
We Liberal Democrats are used to the occasional flirtation with us by voters between elections: the occasional by-election victory that sets Peter Snow’s swingometer all a-quiver.
We have even had the odd period of elongated engagement, most notably during the height of the alliance, although even then by the time of the 1983 election, we knew the love had gone from the relationship.
Yet this time it was different. This time it was for keeps. The minister was booked, the flowers arranged and the invitations sent out. Despite the odd pre-marital jitters the electorate seemed to have decided this time to see it through.
And then came the day itself. We got all dressed up, gave the rings to the best man and made it to the church in good time. All our friends were waiting to cheer us on and then, at the very last minute the electorate left us standing at the alter.
A friend said to me “you Lib Dems, you’ve been cheated again.” Yes, but not by the electoral system – we all know the system is loaded against us. This time it’s the electorate that has cheated us, left us all dressed up with nowhere to go.
What happened yesterday? There were no fewer than nine opinion polls in the previous 24 hours, showing the Liberal Democrats on a solid 27-28 per cent of the vote. With the occasional ups and downs, this had pretty much been the picture since the third leaders debate. Although our share had slipped from the highs achieved after that first debate, this would have represented a massive advance for the party.
Then, election day and around 20% of our voters (with the honourable exception of Redcar – I must go there) simply went awol.
When push came to shove, in the privacy of the polling booth, the British electorate suffered a collective chronic loss of courage. Some looked left, some right, and simply could not believe that things could really be different. With, I suspect, a collective sigh they choose to vote against what they most feared, rather than for what they actually believed in.
I would say that, would I? Well I suppose so, but then so did the electorate. Even in the week of the election itself nigh on 40 percent were telling pollsters that they would vote Liberal Democrat if they believed we could win in their area. Oh, the agony, I shout, “if you voted for us, we would win!”
But if not now, when? Self-evidently, never again will there be a first ever election debate with all its possibilities for a third party. The old parties have been warned, and the electorate will be less easily bedazzled.
And without such a transformational event is it possible to imagine under this electoral system the circumstances in which – given this experience – voters might ever believe that their neighbour, and their neighbour, will have the courage to vote for the Liberal Democrats, rather than simply against their worst fears?
So I find myself, this morning after, with all the pain of the jilted lover thinking what’s the point? Under this electoral system, the voters will never feel able to give us a break. And so I say to my leaders, if this political impasse opens up even the slightest opportunity to change that system, be self-interested for once - grab it with two hands.
Because, if we don’t, politics will go on the same for ever. Forever, these two old parties and no others. And that, quite, quite clearly is not what the public actually wants or they’d have jumped into bed with one or other of them last night.
And also, because I can’t go through that again. Better, maybe to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, but I’m for grabbing the bride’s train as she flees down the aisle and clinging on for dear life.
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
Were you up for Lembit?
So there was no castration of Balls but cheeky Lembit did meet his political maker. As did other heavyweights like Charles Clarke, Jacqui Smith and Mike O'Brien. But Labour held on strongly in a number of key marginals to prevent a Conservative majority.
It was an extraordinary night with some extraordinary results. With swings varying greatly across the country it was hard to predict any result.
The one thing you could predict was that each party would carefully control and manage the message. Within minutes of the exit poll Labour Ministers were checking their blackberries and repeating the mantra that this showed overwhelming support for electoral reform. The Lib Dems were disputing the polling figures while the Conservatives were calling it a rejection of the Labour Party.
But not all MPs could be kept on message. Ex-Labour Minister David Blunkett was the first to discard the official line in the early hours and call it a defeat for his party.
The question is will the public accept the lines being used by the respective parties? With over 600 seats now declared it is clear the Conservatives will become the largest party. The constitutional convention dictates the sitting Prime Minister, in the event of a hung parliament, has the first shot at forming a coalition. But can they come to an agreement with the Liberals? And will the public support such a partnership?
Those are the questions of the day. Let the horse trading begin!
Tony Cox Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
It was an extraordinary night with some extraordinary results. With swings varying greatly across the country it was hard to predict any result.
The one thing you could predict was that each party would carefully control and manage the message. Within minutes of the exit poll Labour Ministers were checking their blackberries and repeating the mantra that this showed overwhelming support for electoral reform. The Lib Dems were disputing the polling figures while the Conservatives were calling it a rejection of the Labour Party.
But not all MPs could be kept on message. Ex-Labour Minister David Blunkett was the first to discard the official line in the early hours and call it a defeat for his party.
The question is will the public accept the lines being used by the respective parties? With over 600 seats now declared it is clear the Conservatives will become the largest party. The constitutional convention dictates the sitting Prime Minister, in the event of a hung parliament, has the first shot at forming a coalition. But can they come to an agreement with the Liberals? And will the public support such a partnership?
Those are the questions of the day. Let the horse trading begin!
Tony Cox Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
6 May 2010
A sector approach needs commitment - as seen in PR week 7 May 2010
Richard Millar’s restructuring of Hill and Knowlton (News, 30 April) is sound corporate strategy and good news for clients if it’s based on genuine staff expertise. The sector approach means clients get more from consultants from day one – intelligent advice, policy understanding, and good relationships with key journalists and third parties. The model has underpinned Linstock’s growth.
But the sector approach requires commitment. When a client’s in house team is organised by discipline, structural realities can make a sector specialist harder to buy. If the head of media relations has an agency on board, the head of public affairs may be reluctant to hire a cross-disciplinary consultancy.
In our experience, there’s no point trying to cut your cake in every direction by switching to a single discipline approach (however good your credentials). All you can do is make a second case on your own terms and accept that you can’t win them all. Fortunately, what you do win is more interesting and rewarding work. Head to head, sector expertise will overcome generic, recycled assertions every time.
Jon Bennett Director of Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
But the sector approach requires commitment. When a client’s in house team is organised by discipline, structural realities can make a sector specialist harder to buy. If the head of media relations has an agency on board, the head of public affairs may be reluctant to hire a cross-disciplinary consultancy.
In our experience, there’s no point trying to cut your cake in every direction by switching to a single discipline approach (however good your credentials). All you can do is make a second case on your own terms and accept that you can’t win them all. Fortunately, what you do win is more interesting and rewarding work. Head to head, sector expertise will overcome generic, recycled assertions every time.
Jon Bennett Director of Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
