Who is in charge?

You are put in charge. Someone has selected you above other contenders, seen some quality and has placed their faith in you, you are in charge. Keen to justify that faith you want to show leadership, you want to be seen to make a difference, you want those under you to now raise their game to match your own performance. You are in charge so you direct, you issue instruction, you resolve conflict, you are in control. Those under you begin to appear to have lost all initiative, they no longer make their own  sound judgement calls, everything is queried or requires your confirmation. You begin to suffocate under all the calls on your decisions as you bewail the lack of initiative of those working under you. Sounds all too familiar?

We are social animals, we perform at our best within the herd and with the herd's approval. That is who we are. We are also lazy, prone to just follow the next person rather than take the risk extra work or failure by going our own way. The worst performing societies, knee-jerk respond to the first skitter of reaction. The whole herd dashing off to follow that first change of direction. Like lemmings dashing off without forethought, panicking in response to some ill-define threat until they all leap off the cliff edge, following blindly that frightened first alarm call. The best performing societies the herd balances it responses with a measured view drawn across all the whole range of reactions, from the flighty, skittish, to the philosophical, the thinking out of the box, to the been there done that, to the plain weary to the stubborn not changing until it has to change. Choosing a course out of that gamut of reaction may at times be ponderous but with the wealth of experiences that range of reaction brings, may more often make a sensible lasting judgement call than the knee jerking at the first signs of a hiccup.

As individuals we bring our own unique style, experience and judgements to the task at hand. Not one of us will set about skinning the cat the exact same way as another. The variation in technique matters not. What matters is that the cat is skinned. Management may want to raise targets of time or quality or cat welfare. How those in charge of the task set about achieving a better output is vital. If they issue orders and instructions, then those doing the work switch off and submissively follow the order or instruction. More expansive orders and instruction then have to follow because those doing the work have not read the mind or seen the work the same way as those issuing the orders. The alternative is to empower those in charge to do the task their way whilst encouraging and supporting them to raise their standards to those targets. Those in charge offering gentle suggestions or meaningful comparisons along the way. Those doing the work, in the absence of direction will share experiences amongst themselves, support each other and will find a collective way to achieve the required result. Those in charge being left free to attend to other matters with just the occasional light touch to adjust output. This is collective societies working at its best, working collaboratively but accepting accountability for your own input.

In the scale of things, just tosh. Except of course that governments act and work like simplified people. Our Political Leaders exhibit that need to show they are in control and are seen to be acting divisively. Government rush in to be seen to respond to the latest emotive outburst. Control, followed by ever more detailed prescription of what is permitted and which sanctions will be applied to what defaults. We teeter, with the best of intentions, remorselessly to Totalitarianism. The citizens slowly surrender their will to think for themselves, to question, to challenge and sink into despair of just doing what is required, no matter how illogical, just for a quiet life. We lose all round. No one wins.
We have to empower people to think and act for themselves. We have reform our society so people take responsibility for their own actions. Government has to restrain itself, guiding on the long term objections but easing up on the desire to control the now.

Surely when the person in the street is baffled by the logic of the bedroom tax, penalising of the destitute, requiring access to everyone's electronic communication, official encouragement of zero-hour contracts, commercialisation of core state functions, to name but a few, then it is past time for a sea change.

The Political Wilderness

There are two crisis issues staring at us. First the obscenely absurd wealth ratio between the poorest and the richest standing at 1 to 300 and ever rising. Secondly an economy based on ever increasing consumerism but founded on a World now showing that it has very finite resources and capacity to regenerate those resources. The two issues are of course inter-related but necessarily linked. Both issues need to be tackled, urgently. That takes courage, vision and political muscle. Courage because any solution is going to generate upset as toys are taken away. Vision to see through the mires of preconceptions, adherence to comfortable past practice, to look beyond to how a good Society might be solidly founded. Political muscle simply because there are some big heavyweight opinions or organisations who have a vested interest to maintaining the status quo and can call on inter-global support.

We simply do not have a single political leader with the balls and charisma to sell a solution. I do not care particularly which solution, which view of outcome success. The issues are so big it may well be impossible to define one comprehensive approach. I personally doubt that a single strategy is possible, but nibbling away multi-directionally, but always consistently in the 'right' direction, is not only possible but essential if we are to ever stop this slumber walk into the abyss.

Instead all the Political Parties are pre-occupied with throwing sweeties to the voters. Hoping to come up with the 'best' colour wrapper and flavour combinations that will win voter support and give them their majority. Sweeties like 'immigration', 'EU', 'welfare', 'cost of living' in fact such an array of sweeties that are known to have mass appeal. In the absence of any vision of a just and equitable society it is no wonder the voters will hoover up the sweeties on offer, something, even a sweetie, is better than nothing.

With the Election hype escalating around us, all the Parties on offer are digging deep into their sweeties reserves hoping against hope they can differentiate themselves enough to win out. That their nuance's of colour and flavour will standout sufficient to get that crucial vote that puts them in power. The voters will no doubt be bewildered by the sameness Me To sweeties on offer. For me, there is only one possible vote, "None of the Above". I just hope enough of us can make that one sane choice so that the small voice of reason can be heard over the clamour of sweetie distribution. We all need to hear the voice that talks to these big issues facing us. Put sweeties behind you, time for the big boys to come out.

Living a Now Life

In this era of information overload and instant vox pops by courtesy of the social network sites, putting a cross against some others nomination to signal your consent for the next five years seems just a tad limiting. Time to radically rethink how democracy must work in this era opening up before us. A democratic society is all about finding a consensual middle ground, inclusive of the widest majority. The twittering of tweets around a theme that has caught the public's imagination is as clear a demonstration of how a new democracy might work as could be found. The public have opinions, want to share it and most of all want their opinion to count.

Simple. One downside is the public are impetuous, rushing to voice an opinion so expressing a gut emotion rather than reflective thought. Sometimes the populous 'hang the murderer' on reflection is not the right response when eventually it emerges the youth was not the victim as initially seen but a drunk youth who fell into the path of a lawful car. So we have to steer away from instant polls to determine our future paths and find a more reflective and considered route. It takes time before all the shades of opinion really begin to emerge. The first headlong rush of 'me too' subsides and slowly other options and different takes begin to gather support. This is the point when we want public opinion to begin to influence our future.


Step up to the plate our leaders. We still need you to guide, gather and promote a future view for others to line up behind. The numbers of your disciples determining the impact you have in setting the national agenda. Of course large following will always be easily gathered by keeping close to the knee jerk responses, but does not make for good politics though. We have to re-educate ourselves as to the how's of debate, not character assassination, but about issues. The how to cut to the quick, compare and contrast and weight the strength of evidence for and against. Learn to listen to the nuances of those we disagree with, the better to confound their flimsy arguments. A sophisticated mature agenda but one I see every evidence of being attainable in this our society. A wrong path is not forever immutable, it is possible to change tack and find that other route.


The present media outlets own the political agenda, they determine what and the context in which any thoughts may be presented. That is despite any political parties strong resolve to address some other aspect of that issue. Our media controls the selection, the presentation and the target audience for any political announcement. In our new brave world, at present anyway, no one owns the ether and ideas are 'free' to spawn, gathering critical mass and attention focus. 'Free' because of course the search engines which decide what is at the top of your noticeboard is determined by their own objectives and criteria. So a hint of caution then, when nevertheless, a vogue posting can go viral just by being networked to friends.  Our new leaders have to sign up to this networked world and claim dominance amongst all those that profess to like their agenda. 


A different world, but still a world where we have to take long term strategic views of how to evolve and adhere to that policy for more than short term opportunism. I see a willingness to follow good leadership, I see loyalty prepared to weather bad times for the promise of good, I see a mature adult society that can rise to the challenges of being part of their societies evolution. What I also see are huge numbers of people disaffected by how the current system works against their interest. Where the 'X' fails to reflect the complexity of ideas they have about their and their families future.

Consensus

Consensus is beset with contradictions. A consensus takes form as a wraith out of the mists, suddenly everyone seems to be concerned about the same topic and leans towards one convergent view. Yes of course there are always the controversial ones either with heads buried deeply in the sand or with backs firmly planted against the general trend. It is remarkable how from one day to another a topic arises and people, apart from these exceptions, all seems to hover around a consensus view. We are born with this innate desire to seek out the middle ground and conform, at a subconscious level, almost without rational monitoring.

That said, the consensus wraith does not just materialise out of the ether, the thought, the idea, the spark, the argument position is seeded. Seeded by a leader, a very lowercase leader. Just one that thinks for them self. Most people follow received ideas, just a few have, from time to time, that original thought. But then it has to be broadcast, to be put it out there, no point just being internalised. That separates the little player from the bigger player, how socially connected and the potential sphere of influence one is against another. We are not talking here about the greatness or otherwise of the 'original idea', just the social connectivity and how potentially fast it can spread out. The capital letter Leaders do not necessarily have to have original ideas, but they do need to be connected with a circle who do generate ideas. They can then use their perceived status to broadcast those worthy ideas more widely, ensuring a faster pickup and a greater chance of entering into the public conscious.


Which idea gets picked up, and which idea, though intellectually far more profound or relevant, is cast aside, is another aspect of this almost sub-conscious sensing for the common ground. Our expectation is that the strength of the argument, or the higher moral ground, or overturning a gross injustice, or a razor sharp insightfulness that cuts through the fog of confusion is what inspires these new ideas. Occasionally it is one or another or combination of these worthy ideals. More often it is just timing.  Some ideas just hit the right note, at the right time, making relevant comment, about something that is on the surface or is bubbling away just under the surface of conscious thought. It is just ripe to be picked up. It is not necessarily an amplification of, or bringing clarity to, something already out there. It often is but it can be an entirely novel idea that just happens to ripen at that time when people are ready for it. There is no better explanation. 

We are beginning to discover that the thoughts that we hold in our minds are not direct products of the conscious and therefore logical thought sequences but are a meld arrived at though sub-conscious processing of sensory imput, past experiences, memories and anticipations of social reaction. We justify the logic after the thought becomes conscious. Until that moment we have no conscious power to control the internalised processing.


There rest is all down to momentum. If broadcast widely the greater the chance it will be picked up, enter into the common domain, to be tested and balanced against all those social interactions, looking for concord, to be adopted or rejected. But from time to time a good idea hits the right or needed note, or offers a solution out of an impasse that is immediately picked up and reverberating in harmony becomes magnified and you get what we now might call a viral idea. It spreads like wild fire, it is just right for the moment.

So our would be leaders and other shapers of public opinion are all trying to plant seeds to form public opinion and swing consensus their way. We, the public, sway this way or that, trying to pick up signals from all our social interactions which way is the wind blowing today. We are the spontaneous consensus, unpredictable, contrary, perverse, whimsical, irrational but always with the majority behind us. 

Advocates for advancement

Focus groups are the new must have assurance benchmark. Taken from a representative selection of economic, political, racial, sexual, or whatever background to accurately reflect our whole society. Their responses being the final arbiter on what is deemed acceptable. Trouble is the populace at large is conservative, looking within itself for reassurance of what might be agreeable. all very self-referential. A classic recipe for mediocrity, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, do nothing which stands out, adventurous or pushes out the established and comfortable boundaries.

There are two generalisations which my experiences have found to be true. That fifty five percent of the population will resist any change from what they are familiar with. It matters not how agreeable and beneficial the changes might turn out to be. Any change is to be resisted and grumbled over. The other thirty five percent of the population are willing to consider change and will weigh up the pros and cons for the effects on them. The last ten percent are the adventurous creative individuals who look out and beyond for new ideas and initiatives and have a personal energy to pursue and promote these distant aspirations. Secondly it takes about fifty years for a novel idea to permeate society, becoming a norm for the generations after the next, by which time, it is the acceptable norm for new change to be compared back to it.

If our society is to escape from this path to mediocrity, this dumbing down so only a small handful can find anything to complain about, to find a path to progress keeping abreast of technological developments, we are going to need a new class of leaders. We just cannot afford to wait for the masses to catch up before any new change is implemented. We need inspirational charismatic leaders but not just TV presentable smoothies with the glib sound bites that say next to nothing. We need what we had in the past, raw-edged, passionate, even verbose spokespersons but, most of all, with a vision for a future. A vision they can wrap up in words that resonate. Maybe not their own vision, may be a vision they have adopted but at least the expression of a vision of a new future. Able to offer words and images that will inspire and stir. A person able to lift the spirit to see a new attainable Eden. Not the rhetoric to be found surviving the cutting and dicing of the focus groups.

To shake off our feet of clay, the media we have now become reliant on, has to find the courage to seek out those visionaries that can see beyond to a future we may aspire too. Bold hopes. We need to be led and we need leaders able to see ahead with the stamina to get us there, overcoming all the doubting thomas's on the way.

News Propoganda

It worries me more than just a little that months after the event, having absorbed all the various media reports on an event and having formed a considered opinion about the course and substance of those events from the media reports, drip by drip a more truthful account appears. All the warty misjudgements come to light, changing entirely the summation of cause and justification. Need for secrecy or National interest or delicate negotiations could be derailed, or some such are rolled out as justification as to why the public should be mislead, misinformed at the time.

By my reckoning, to set out to mislead, misdirect, to encourage a false assumption to be arrived at, is tantamount to lying. I know by the strict definition it is not a lie. But to set out to leave a person with a wrong impression and not to take steps to limit or correct that false impression, an impression that you are fully aware will be formed from the limited and coached words you have used to convey the information, is a lie. What can be worse for a country than to be routinely lied to by their leaders? Nothing destroys trust or being prepared to over look an occasional transgression faster and more completely, than being lied to.

We are told that it is an essential and inescapable facet of modern life. Inorder to complete complicated and delicate negotiations and to arrive at a solutions which best benefits out Nation it is unavoidable. The Nation cannot be told the whole truth at the time, it might costs lives, we might lose an important deal, our competitors will gain a commercial advantage, our enemy will be forewarned as to our moves and have time to thwart them or any number of other very persuasive and compelling reasons. Except we are left with this sour taste in our mouths, we are being lied to by our leaders.

In a wheely dealy commercial world, getting one over your adversary, is the name of the game, it kind of makes sense and certainly has become the daily yardstick of judgement. Except this is not how I want to be ranked, I really do not want the esteem I am held in to be based on how clever I have been to outsmart, out bluff, out perform in some brinkmanship game, how I managed to beat a weaker opponent down by a couple of points. These are not the principles of my life and certainly not for the country I want to stand proud of and promote.

There really is an alternative manner to conduct our everyday lives. It harks back to the old professional qualities we, as English, used to be world renowned for. Honesty, integrity, men of their word who would rather stand by their word than break it just make a deal or win a profit. Being prepared to set aside robust codes of conduct for a short-term goal can only have one conclusion. Sacrificing decency inorder curry favour with an evil dictator so to bolster your position against a mutual 'enemy' can only have one inevitable conclusion. The evil dictator will only gain strength from your support and in the end you will be mired and what is even worse, your own standards will become corrupted, by association. The short-terms gains are never worth it. A sales deal stolen at the last minute from a competitor, by nefarious, means will not win long term support or loyalty of your customer, that in the long-term you need to survive. Better by far to win a contract straight on quality, delivery and service even if you 'lose' out to competitors who are prepared to cut more corners than just a discount price. In a dog eat dog world, we should all learn to eat dog? No of course not, better to live a poorer life but proud of your standards than to root in the gutter. Not a universally supported position but without doubt the only position that has any long-term prospect for trust and growth.

So lets start here and now, no more lying, no more concealing to the public on any issue by our political leaders. Tell the public and the rest of the world exactly how it is. Accept that we might lose ground to rival Nations in the short-term but our stature in the longer lasting term will be so much greater and at least we will be able to live with each other in trust and respect.