Tuesday, 14 September 2010

NEW-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING?

   
I've not blogged for a while - busy busy and all that.

So, today I'm going to kick off a run of daily blogs. To keep it nice and short I'm going to put down a rule a day from what I've been reading on Neuro-Linguistic Programming lately (wiki entry here for 'what is NLP?').




One rule per day from the secrets of the NLP trade.... otherwise known as factors that can affect your judgement and change your decision or mind when faced with everyday information.  Some are obvious, some less so.

Day 1 - Observation 1: Wow! You're just like me!
  • Watch out when you're asked about your hobbies, interests, your home town,
    values, beliefs, favourite TV, music or foods etc. if this is followed by a
    'wow, me too' response from somebody.  If it happens a lot, then they are
    probably not being 100% truthful with you.
  • Another aspect of this rule is that if someone is being nice and agreeing with
    everything we are saying we tend to like them more and - as a consequence - tend
    to automatically agree with them more even if it doesn't really make sense to do so.
    This response is automatic and very difficult to fight off.
  • Rapport and chat create trust that might not be correct. Talking with someone in
    a certain way, that is similar to the way they talk (speed, tone, words used etc) allows
    a person to create a psychological or emotional bridge.  If this happens to you then
    you immediately feel more comfortable, less inclined to stop and think about what it
    is the person is saying - after all they are saying it how you would..  Take great care
    if your movements, speech pattern or tone are being echoed.
On a slightly less intense theme, Michael Heppell, he of 'Be Brilliant' fame(?) posted a link recently to a great site that carries pics of 3-D street art.  Click and wonder for yourself at the skills of Julian Beever
    

Just remember, If you don't take control of your mind, others will do it for you.
  

Thursday, 2 September 2010

LEPers Day!

  
Tomorrow, 3rd September, is LEP day in the UK.

Let me explain. Since the change in government here during the Spring the coalition, led firmly by the Conservatives and with little real influence from the Liberal Democrat Party, have engaged on a de-construction exercise of the public sector.  This would have probably happened anyway given that the Labour Party had spent so much money - even they didn't realise exactly how much - on boosting public sector employment and influence over things economic in the past 10 years or so.

A little diagram will suffice - the expansion of public sector employment in total employment 1998 to 2008.  A jump that equates to 1.3 million more people employed by public sector organisations.  At some point during 2002 the public sector became the largest employer type in the UK economy, surpassing even 'distribution, hotels and restaurants' which has always been a big employing sector given the number of part time jobs that it provides.



'nuff said.


I will not be drawn into the debate on whether this was good, bad or indifferent.  But the key thing right now is that the country cannot afford to employ such a large scale public sector workforce as the tax take from other activities is not high enough and fewer people are now in work in non-public sector organisations.  Added to that, the government is finding it more difficult to borrow ever increasing amounts of money to fund such a public expansion in today's credit crunch climate.

So what about LEPers?

Local Economic Partnerships LEPs are the dynamic new buzzword on the block since the coalition government came into power.  The LEP movement (don't look for any real movement.. not yet.. they're still drawing up their plans and Word documents!) is essentially a nice way of combining some powers from local authorities and other public sector organisations into (hopefully) smaller organisations that cover a large area somewhere between local and regional - i.e. cost cutting in the main.

There are plenty of reasons why this is a good idea - joint buying power will help drive down costs where the same work is required across a wider than local authority geography for example.  The main and immediate casualties of the new LEPers will be the demise of the Regional Development Agencies, organisations that have had a massive allocation of money from the central government budget and who have been the focus of much criticism for the way in which they have operated / boosted staff numbers / become political / opened international offices / duplicated work of other organisations despite also ploughing (tens of) millions into each of the regions of England and Wales. It is unfortunately in vogue to give them a good kicking right now rather than assess the many things they did right in each region.  And they did. But don't quote me on that one.

But there are also many reasons to be suspicious about LEPs becoming just a re-branding exercise rather than a re-construction.  More of that in a later blog. Perhaps.

So why LEP Day?

3rd September is the first deadline set by government for the receipt of initial LEP plans.  There are so many flavours coming out of the various parts of the country that it is impossible to see the new shape of economic development as yet.  What is clear is that the government have been trying to make LEP authors work hard at defining what it is they want to do in future.

Some areas have found this very hard indeed, lacking clarity among groups of local bodies or simply lacking the intellect to put together anything but a document that contains all the buzzwords.  This is exactly what a lot of public sector management staff have been busy (possibly the wrong word?) doing for far too long to be honest.

Other areas have everything in place already.  Manchester, ever a pioneer in things economic development, were the first to announce a coalition of ten local authority areas and a Shadow Board to drive it forward within weeks of the call for LEP proposals.

One thing is for sure.

It's all change at Regeneration Grand Central...
 

Tuesday, 31 August 2010

A LITTLE FREAKONOMICS..


As I try my hardest to stay focused on something this week that really has to be finalised I am also looking for ways to kick-start my ambition.  A good few years ago I had bags of it, left home early(ish), trod the golden pavements of a big city, worked in a crazy Japanese securities house in the City, went on to study an economics degree and further, got a job, travelled and lectured, wrote a book, got another job, travelled more, advised some government departments and generally had a good time whilst doing it all (interviewing the Hungarian environment minister whilst sobering up from the night before wasn't my best move though!).

These days I find it harder to motivate myself to walk out the door let alone go and do anything like I used to. God knows why, but it's just the way it has been for a while.

But it has to change.

And so.. onto a little story about genetics, economics and games..

Recently experimental economists Lise Vesterlund (University of Pittsburgh) and Muriel Niederle (Stanford) conducted a study in which they assembled 40 men and 40 women, gave them five minutes to add up as many two-digit numbers as they could, and paid them 50 cents for each correct answer. The subjects were not competing against one another but simply playing against the house.

Then the game was changed to a tournament in which the subjects were divided into teams of two men or two women each. Winning teams got 2 dollars for every right answer, nothing for getting it wrong. Men and women performed equally in both tests.  In a third round, the participants were asked which of the two ways they wanted to play, tournament or simply against the house for the most money they could.  Only 35% of the women opted for the tournament format against 75% of the men.

So what was the conclusion? "Men and women just differ in their appetite for competition," says Vesterlund. "There seems to be a dislike for it among women and a preference among men."

Even though this research is the latest by Niederle since she began looking at gender issues and testing them in 2003 I'm not too sure this is true.  Or maybe I've just met some strange women?

I'll post some more on game theory later as it is useful in where a lot of economics is going at the moment - behavioural theory and biology to test out economic results.  Why wasn't this blend in vogue when I was studying economics? grr...

Here's a link to Muriel's web page - click
And Hal Varian also covers the research on men/women differences to
competitive environments - here

   

Friday, 6 August 2010

POLKO'S BOWL...


 
...is full of Galaxy Minstrel's