informal coalitions

From CoCoNuke to ReStCoNuke?

Whilst thumbing through some old papers recently, I came across the above mind map that I had drawn in the mid-1970s. At that time, I was a young engineer in what was then the UK’s publicly owned Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB). The ‘map’ summarises the company’s energy policy of the time, which was referred to as “CoCoNuke”; emphasising its three central elements of coal, conservation and nuclear.  I thought I'd share it here, with a few quick reflections on some of the shifts that have taken place in this area over the past 50 years or so.

Remembering Ralph - A personal reflection

Ralph Stacey 10/9/1942 - 4/9/2021

A unique and unparalleled contribution to the understanding of organizational dynamics from a complexity perspective

____________________________________

Since Ralph Stacey’s sudden and untimely death, there have been many tributes to his life and work from friends, colleagues and others (see here, for example).  I’m sure that there will be many more. In sending him a personal copy of my new book in May, I was lucky enough to be able to thank him for the significant influence that he has had on my thinking and practice for the past 30 years.  He was generous, as always, in his response and looked forward to our meeting up again at next year’s Complexity and Management Conference.  Sadly, that will not now happen.

A passionate 'muddler througher'

    

Every Sunday, during the Pienaar's Politics programme on BBC Radio 5Live, there is a section entitled, Backbenchers Questions. Yesterday, it was the turn of Bob Stewart, MP for Beckenham and one-time Colonel in the British Army, to take the hot seat.

At one point, stand-in host Chris Mason asked him whether or not he was confident about the forthcoming negotiations on Brexit.

"In the end," he replied, "We always muddle through and get something."

"Is muddle through good enough, though?" challenged Mason.

"That's what happens in life," said Stewart, with a hint of incredulity in his voice that anyone should ask such a question.

And so it is.  Muddling through is what happens in life.  It's what all of us do. All of the time.

Mason signed-off the section by describing Colonel Stewart as, “A passionate ‘muddler througher’”. 

The folly of promising a ‘cast-in-concrete’ future

In today’s copy of The Times, Matthew Parris comments on the outcry that has followed the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer’s decision to raise a particular tax on small businesses. Under the headline, “When it’s right to break political promises,” he supports the rationale for breaking the Conservative Party’s 2015 commitment not to raise National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for the self-employed. At the same time, he criticizes what he sees as the inept manner in which the change in policy has been introduced.

Surely, though, there is a wider issue here. The real problem is not so much with what Philip Hammond has done in policy terms. Or the fact that the proposed changes break a promise in the manifesto. It is with the very notion of making firm manifesto commitments in the first place.

In the run-up to the 2015 election, candidates of all parties were constantly asked by interviewers to explain precisely what things would be like at the end of the five-year parliament, based on the pledges made in their party manifestos.  In the main, they duly obliged (as politicians always do!). 

As things turned out, of course, their inability to predict what would happen in the future was laid bare on election night itself.  Politicians, pundits, and pollsters alike all expected the election to result in a so-called “hung parliament”, with a coalition between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties being the most likely means of forming a viable Government.  In the event, the Conservatives gained an overall majority and a triumphant David Cameron put together his Government, with a seemingly unobstructed path ahead of him and his colleagues for the next five years.  Eighteen months on, the rest – like David Cameron’s premiership – is history.

Leadership secrets of Jeremy Corbyn...

 

 

Following Jeremy Corbyn’s startling victory in the UK Labour Party's leadership election, we can no doubt look forward to a number of articles and blog posts that claim to have identified what it is about 'Corbyn the man' that accounts for his success - and what leadership secrets we can glean from his achievement. This, though, isn't one of them.  Wrong focus. Wrong question.

If we really want to gain some insights into the dynamics of leadership from Corbyn's win, we need to look elsewhere. Being a "principled", "authentic", and "honest" individual (all adjectives used to describe him during the election period) is worthy of note. But this is not the main thing that managers, politicians and others might most usefully take from the events of the past few weeks. So what is?

Pledges, promises, and policy commitments – How not to run the country

With less than eight weeks to go to the UK General Election, Ed Miliband yesterday unveiled Labour’s “five pledges” to the British electorate. These are not the first statements to be made by the leader of a political party during the current campaign. And they won’t be the last.  As usual, politicians of all parties are falling over themselves to out-promise each other, as they go in search of media headlines, people’s votes, and what they see as the ultimate goal of political power.

The five ‘straplines’ on Labour’s pledge card are so vague and anodyne that the words would not look out of place if they had been issued by the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. But, as Election Day gets closer and manifestos are launched, Party Leaders and other senior politicians will not be backwards at coming forwards with ever more specific “We will…” commitments.

So what does this implied belief in their own ability to deliver on detailed promises – come what may - say about their grasp of the complex and uncertain dynamics of everyday life?  Or of how the world works in practice? Not a lot, it seems to me. Either that or it’s all bluff and bluster, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of so-called “public opinion”, and to satisfy the constant demand from TV interviewers and media commentators for “straight answers”.

On financial regulation and the complex social dynamics of organization

A recent discussion in the Complexity in Organisations group on LinkedIn drew attention to comments made in June 2010 by the then head of the Financial Services Authority, Hector Sants. In a speech to members of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment (reported here), he expressed his view that regulators should have their brief extended to include oversight of the cultures of those organizations that were subject to their regulation. According to Sants,

"Unacceptable culture within firms was a major contributor to the financial crisis and so regulators should play a greater role in judging how culture drives firms' behaviour and impacts on society as a whole, according to the chief executive of the Financial Services Authority (FSA)."

He made great play on the need for prudence in managers' decision-making, before concluding that,

"Determining an ethical framework is for society as a whole, not an unelected regulatory agency. However, it is, I believe, our role to police behaviour and expect firms to have the right culture which facilitates the delivery of the outcomes we expect."

For Sants’s prescription to make sense, though, the following statements would need to be true:

• The “prudence” or otherwise of a manager's decision is obvious at the instant that the decision is made.
• There is a direct causal link between managers' decisions and “societal outcomes”. 
• “Culture” is the product of a manager's intentions (i.e. something that they can design, build, and change at will).
• There is a direct causal link between an “unacceptable culture” and the “outcomes [that] that drives”.

So do these stack up?

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". 

Politics and muddling through

In recent posts¹, I've suggested that "muddling through" most accurately describes what managers - all managers - do in practice. whether done well or done badly. With this in mind, it was interesting to come across a Financial Times article of 28 February, in which Simon Kuper extends this idea into the political world.

Reflecting on the nature of politics and human fallibility, Kuper concludes,

"... promising the moon no longer persuades anyone. Politicians might try offering muddling through instead."

His observation provides an important health warning ahead of the policies, promises and pledges that will rain down on us from politicians of all parties, as next year's UK General Election gets ever closer.

The tyranny of the explicit

Great observation and commentary from Johnnie Moore on our obsession with formal enquiries and the presumption that we are able to model the complex dynamics of real-world interaction:

"It seems a default setting in this country to demand enquiries, led by authority figures and typically lawyers. These take a long time and produce dense, thick detailed written reports. It all sounds sensible, but I think the whole grammar and style of these things is seriously disconnected from the way people actually function in the real world ... We get seduced by the idea that if we work hard enough, we can produce a sufficiently detailed model of the system and figure out what’s wrong."

He calls this "the tyranny of the explicit" - a great phrase, which I've 'half-inched' for this post's title.

Read Johnnie's full post and onward links here.