informal coalitions

Yes or No? The fateful question

A week today, the votes of people in Scotland will determine the future of the United Kingdom. As an English Brit, I have no choice but to wait, fingers crossed, to see what they decide. Hopefully a majority will see the sense of staying part of the UK and reject independence.

But therein lies the problem for the "Better Together" campaign. Because of the way that the question has been formulated, they have been dealt the "No" card. And No is, by definition, negative! Its role in language is to point out where things don't make sense; not to 'pull at the heartstrings' or create positive vibes. Nor does "No" sit comfortably alongside creative new visions of the future. It's about continuity, rather than change. Preservation rather than possibility. Being against something, rather than for it.

Unsurprisingly then, the pro-union voices have been accused of scaremongering and negativity, as they've sought to counter the speculative claims of the Independents. And, most significantly, they've inevitably struggled to match the positive, emotional appeal that is implicit in the word "Yes". 

Endorsement of "management as muddling through" in Sunday Times

In an article in the Sunday Times of 7 September, Carly Chynoweth, explores my proposition that "muddling through" is not a sign of dysfunction or substandard performance but rather the very essence of the manager's role. The article can be found here.

Head of RWE Generation UK, Kevin Nix, and former CEO of the British Olympic Association, Simon Clegg, endorse the view that this reflects their own experience of managing in the real world.

And, as I've argued in earlier posts (such as here), doing this with purpose, courage, and skill is the very best that they – or anyone else - can do.