This topic has been addressed before in our blogs but I make no excuse for choosing another article on such an important issue. It is often the ‘Elephant in the Room’ in discussions about new learning initiatives; we all know that line manager support is key to learning being applied but we also know that it is the area that we can influence least. This article does not provide any fundamental solutions but it does recognise the issue and provide some interesting ideas.
It starts off with some interesting statistics from two studies, one from the ASTD (American Society for Training and Development) and one from the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development). These are worth reproducing here in summary form as they can be useful evidence when diagnosing problems and making the case for manager support:
• 70% of failure in training takes place after the formal training has finished
• Only 12% of people being trained feel that their line managers take L&D seriously
• 90% of those involved in training believe that manager support is important to success
• Only 5% of learning practitioners’ time goes into follow-up activities
The authors start by looking for the causes of the problem and the article spends rather too much time on this diagnosis rather than the potential solutions. Most of this is quite obvious stuff - competing business pressures, not seeing L&D as part of their role, having too high expectations, wanting training to provide the ‘finished product’ rather than a foundation to build upon. There are some interesting examples of good practice - for example an unnamed company that has a KPI targeting this kind of learning support - but these are less powerful because they are reported anonymously. If the example is genuine and the practice is good, why would companies not want to be quoted?
Having broadly agreed with the causes, I was looking forward to the solutions, hoping that these would be less obvious and more original. There were certainly some obvious but frequently forgotten points - for instance seeking post-course feedback from managers - though there was no recognition of the time that this is likely to take. In practice much depends on the length and strategic importance of the programme and the number of participants; contacting every manager after every short programme is unlikely to be realistic in many cases.
The ideas that caught my attention and are worth sharing were:
• Rather than action plans, ask participants to produce a summary of learning for their line managers, which then becomes the basis for them to move forward to action together
• Take advantage of more modern technology when reminding participants and managers about follow-up, either text messaging or on-line applications (apparently there is an on-line application called ‘Huddle’ which can be used for post-course sharing)
• Inviting key managers to contribute to the course as a way of increasing their commitment (though I had a few reservations here; might there be a danger of damaging a course by inviting a poor or off-message speaker?)
• Training line managers to be more supportive
I felt that the last point was too idealistic and it reminded me again that, though interesting, the article misses out an important point, the issue of time and its cost. In most companies these days, managers are increasingly busy and problems of manager commitment are often due to their being resentful about members of their team being taken away from the job. So the idea of asking line managers to give even more time to be trained may harden attitudes.
Perhaps the answer is mainly around attitudes, partly caused by a lack of resources and spare capacity to cover the time required for training activities. Unless line managers and course participants feel that they can spend time away from the job without performance being adversely affected, the problems are unlikely to be solved by the ideas in this article.
Click here to view the article in full
http://www.trainingjournal.com/search/?pageName=magazines-magazine-2011-09-training-journal-magazine&formName=fSearch&query=The+role+of+line+managers+in+L%26D+by+Joanna+Knight
Tuesday 8 November 2011
The role of line managers in L&D, by Joanna Knight and Rob Sheppard, Training Journal, September 2011
‘Inside the mind of a tyrant’ by John Arlidge, Sunday Times, 9th October
In the next blog, we will be reviewing Walter Isaacson’s new book about Steve Jobs but this time I have chosen what I thought was the best of the many immediate articles written after his death. Those writing since he passed away seem to have gone one of two ways, either to idolise him as the new Messiah, or to question whether the adulation is going over the top. This article seemed to get it just right by admitting that he was a bullying tyrant but also a man who changed the world for the better in quite fundamental ways. ‘Good Steve, Bad Steve’ is how the author expresses it.
I have previously read a number of books about this remarkable man but this article provided me with a number of extra insights. I did not know for instance how much his greatest rival - Bill Gates - admired Jobs, even though it was not reciprocated. And Gates summed up his genius pretty well - ‘he could figure out where the next big bet was coming from’.
The author makes it clear that Jobs was disdainful about all ideas of conventional marketing, in particular of market research. This was evident in his early Apple days; the joke was that his method of market research was to look in the mirror each morning. The arrogance behind his statements - ‘it is not the consumer’s job to know what they want’ and ‘the customer is not always right, I am’ - is unbelievable yet it worked for him, because he was a genius. He could see instantly what would sell; the moment he saw Rank Xerox’s first ideas of the Mouse, he rushed back to Apple to exploit its potential.
That was the Good Steve. The Bad Steve came about because he was also arrogant and dismissive of his own employees, calling anyone who opposed him a ‘bozo’ and either sacking or causing to leave a whole series of despairing employees. This is what caused the Board of Apple to throw him out in 1985, only to plead for his triumphant return in 1997.
Yet he was very different when it came to people he really valued and on whose commitment he depended; for example Jonathan Ive, the Englishman on whom his latest successes at Apple have depended and John Lasseter at Pixar. One criticism of this article it is that it rather plays down Jobs’ achievement at Pixar between his Apple stints, encouraging and selling the technology that enabled Toy Story to happen and paving the way for a new generation of children’s films. Maybe this development would have happened anyway but it was on his watch that the breakthrough came.
The article also makes it very clear what was behind Jobs’ genius. He was not a green-fields innovator; he took other people’s ideas and converted them into marketing successes because he did, as he claimed, know what would sell to the masses. And that was simplicity of design and operation, combined with a special kind of elegant and minimalist beauty. This made Apple products seem to be cool and fun, creating an army of addicts and devotees.
The danger for management learning of such unique success stories is that others begin to think that such genius can be bottled and copied, when clearly it can’t. But the message is clear; there is always more than one route to success, more than one strategy that works. We will explore this issue further when we review the new book.
I have previously read a number of books about this remarkable man but this article provided me with a number of extra insights. I did not know for instance how much his greatest rival - Bill Gates - admired Jobs, even though it was not reciprocated. And Gates summed up his genius pretty well - ‘he could figure out where the next big bet was coming from’.
The author makes it clear that Jobs was disdainful about all ideas of conventional marketing, in particular of market research. This was evident in his early Apple days; the joke was that his method of market research was to look in the mirror each morning. The arrogance behind his statements - ‘it is not the consumer’s job to know what they want’ and ‘the customer is not always right, I am’ - is unbelievable yet it worked for him, because he was a genius. He could see instantly what would sell; the moment he saw Rank Xerox’s first ideas of the Mouse, he rushed back to Apple to exploit its potential.
That was the Good Steve. The Bad Steve came about because he was also arrogant and dismissive of his own employees, calling anyone who opposed him a ‘bozo’ and either sacking or causing to leave a whole series of despairing employees. This is what caused the Board of Apple to throw him out in 1985, only to plead for his triumphant return in 1997.
Yet he was very different when it came to people he really valued and on whose commitment he depended; for example Jonathan Ive, the Englishman on whom his latest successes at Apple have depended and John Lasseter at Pixar. One criticism of this article it is that it rather plays down Jobs’ achievement at Pixar between his Apple stints, encouraging and selling the technology that enabled Toy Story to happen and paving the way for a new generation of children’s films. Maybe this development would have happened anyway but it was on his watch that the breakthrough came.
The article also makes it very clear what was behind Jobs’ genius. He was not a green-fields innovator; he took other people’s ideas and converted them into marketing successes because he did, as he claimed, know what would sell to the masses. And that was simplicity of design and operation, combined with a special kind of elegant and minimalist beauty. This made Apple products seem to be cool and fun, creating an army of addicts and devotees.
The danger for management learning of such unique success stories is that others begin to think that such genius can be bottled and copied, when clearly it can’t. But the message is clear; there is always more than one route to success, more than one strategy that works. We will explore this issue further when we review the new book.
‘China Calling’ by Andrew Saunders, Management Today, October 2011
As usual Management Today’s article on business schools is wrapped around an advertising feature for a selection of institutions but the content is different and interesting; it is about the growth of management education in China and the development of the China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) based in Shanghai. This school is being run by John Quelch, a former professor at LBS and Harvard.
The article makes the case for managers to think about broadening their education by a spell in China, either a few years in management or attendance at business school, or both. It is suggested that a period in Asia will in future be regarded as a necessary part of the CV for those who want to take the top jobs in global companies.
CEIBS is still dominated by Chinese participants - partly because 85% of sessions are in Chinese and need simultaneous translations for non-speakers - but there are increasing numbers of western participants for the full time MBA, despite the $50,000 price tag. And, unlike the UK and USA, it is the full time MBA which is growing and not just at CEIBS; there are now more than 120 different MBA programmes in China. The appetite for learning is voracious and continuous.
Unlike the western institutions, the majority of participants are into middle age and have significant management experience; in fact a significant proportion are at senior level. It is not so much seen as a route to the top; it is more a requirement to stay there and improve. The most needed and popular topics at CEIBS have been on the softer side of management with managing change and finding/developing talent at the top of the tree; the harder subjects are seen as areas of strength already.
Ironically it is finding training talent that is seen as a key limiting factor in the development of CEIBS. They have been relying on 50% visiting faculty but feel that they need a higher proportion of full time people to expand and still retain quality. Another problem is some resistance to professors from western business schools; eastern participants quite reasonably question their qualifications to teach them when they see such a lack of growth in western economies. There is also some blame attached to the west for the financial crisis.
It would have been interesting to hear how western participants to Chinese MBA programmes had fared and whether the Chinese MBAs are getting the same kind of global recognition as those from the top western schools. But the article was certainly an interesting reminder that Harvard, INSEAD and LBS may be facing significant competition from Asian business schools in the future.
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1094849/mt-mba-business-education-guide-autumn-2011-china-calling/
The article makes the case for managers to think about broadening their education by a spell in China, either a few years in management or attendance at business school, or both. It is suggested that a period in Asia will in future be regarded as a necessary part of the CV for those who want to take the top jobs in global companies.
CEIBS is still dominated by Chinese participants - partly because 85% of sessions are in Chinese and need simultaneous translations for non-speakers - but there are increasing numbers of western participants for the full time MBA, despite the $50,000 price tag. And, unlike the UK and USA, it is the full time MBA which is growing and not just at CEIBS; there are now more than 120 different MBA programmes in China. The appetite for learning is voracious and continuous.
Unlike the western institutions, the majority of participants are into middle age and have significant management experience; in fact a significant proportion are at senior level. It is not so much seen as a route to the top; it is more a requirement to stay there and improve. The most needed and popular topics at CEIBS have been on the softer side of management with managing change and finding/developing talent at the top of the tree; the harder subjects are seen as areas of strength already.
Ironically it is finding training talent that is seen as a key limiting factor in the development of CEIBS. They have been relying on 50% visiting faculty but feel that they need a higher proportion of full time people to expand and still retain quality. Another problem is some resistance to professors from western business schools; eastern participants quite reasonably question their qualifications to teach them when they see such a lack of growth in western economies. There is also some blame attached to the west for the financial crisis.
It would have been interesting to hear how western participants to Chinese MBA programmes had fared and whether the Chinese MBAs are getting the same kind of global recognition as those from the top western schools. But the article was certainly an interesting reminder that Harvard, INSEAD and LBS may be facing significant competition from Asian business schools in the future.
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1094849/mt-mba-business-education-guide-autumn-2011-china-calling/
‘The top thirty’, the Economist, October 15th 2011
This is a short article in the Economist, providing its ratings of international business schools, based on a number of criteria. These combine salary levels, ability to find a job, calibre of faculty, age and experience of students, fees and programme duration. The responses come from former students.
It is interesting, in the light of the above article, that the only Asian representative in the top thirty is the INSEAD school in Singapore, though the article mentions that there are three more in the top hundred, including CEIBS and Hong Kong University. One wonders also if, with seven American schools in the top eight, there is some bias in the criteria or the process. It is also surprising to see the usual suspects like Harvard, Stanford and MIT still well down in 5th, 8th and 11th respectively, with the less well known Tuck School at Dartmouth and Booth School at Chicago taking the first two places. The Tuck and Booth schools were also the top two last year, though the positions were reversed.
So how do UK and other European schools fare? Not too well. The only European entries in the top 10 are IMD of Switzerland and IESE of Spain, which are rated third and tenth respectively. The highest ranked UK school is London at 13th with Bath and Cranfield the only other two in the top 30. This must be bad news for others whose reputations should have put them in the top league, notably Manchester, Warwick and Ashridge.
The full results are available on line at economist.com/whichmba
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.economist.com/node/21532270
It is interesting, in the light of the above article, that the only Asian representative in the top thirty is the INSEAD school in Singapore, though the article mentions that there are three more in the top hundred, including CEIBS and Hong Kong University. One wonders also if, with seven American schools in the top eight, there is some bias in the criteria or the process. It is also surprising to see the usual suspects like Harvard, Stanford and MIT still well down in 5th, 8th and 11th respectively, with the less well known Tuck School at Dartmouth and Booth School at Chicago taking the first two places. The Tuck and Booth schools were also the top two last year, though the positions were reversed.
So how do UK and other European schools fare? Not too well. The only European entries in the top 10 are IMD of Switzerland and IESE of Spain, which are rated third and tenth respectively. The highest ranked UK school is London at 13th with Bath and Cranfield the only other two in the top 30. This must be bad news for others whose reputations should have put them in the top league, notably Manchester, Warwick and Ashridge.
The full results are available on line at economist.com/whichmba
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.economist.com/node/21532270
‘How to win investors over’ by Baruch Lev, Harvard Business Review, November 2011
This article is an interesting counter to the messages coming over from CEOs like Paul Polman of Unilever and Warren Buffet of Hathaway, that producing too much information to the outside world, particularly about future performance, is not in the company’s or shareholders’ interest. This is because it encourages short-termism and adds no value to the business. Thus Polman and Buffett have ceased to provide formal quarterly earnings guidance.
It is interesting that the author is a professor from New York University, better known previously for his theoretical work on accounting issues. He disagrees with Polman and Buffett; he argues that failure to disclose information will destroy value. His views are based on the economic theory of information asymmetry, which I confess to not having heard of before. It says that when one party to a transaction has more information than another, one of the two suffers. The author compares the buying a share to buying a house; if you don’t have full information, you are unlikely to pay as much for it. I was not entirely convinced by the analogy because, if the seller of a house gave a forecast of future house prices, I am not sure that either party would benefit!
The article’s other argument in favour of forecasting sales and profit levels is the more conventional one of providing early warning systems and avoiding nasty surprises; this is more easy to relate to, though not necessarily more convincing. All depends on the accuracy of the forecasts and the quality of the results. If the results are bad it almost doesn’t matter whether there have been previous forecasts; it is just a question of how the pain is spread.
Another argument for disclosure is that it encourages a two way dialogue, that regular communication with shareholders will encourage responses from them and there will be greater understanding of their expectations and what needs to be fixed. If this dialogue takes place, it is more likely that changes to forecasts will be understood and that share prices will be less volatile.
This sounds valid in theory but it assumes the ideal that all CEOs would like to see; shareholders who are in it for the long-term, who are prepared to enter into dialogue and who will take a reasoned view of the company’s strategy. But, as was mentioned in a previous blog which featured an article on Paul Polman, the majority of share transactions are short-term and the share price is often driven by those who are constantly changing their portfolio. It is difficult to have a reasoned dialogue when - as the earlier article suggested - 70% of shareholders are changing every year. Polman’s view was that he wanted to encourage more long-term shareholders who did not care too much about this quarter’s earnings.
In the end each Board has to decide how it wants to communicate with its shareholders and it is difficult, with different corporate histories and shareholder profiles, to generalise. This article is an interesting, if rather theoretical, contribution to the debate. But I am not sure that Paul Polman and Warren Buffet will be convinced enough to change their mind.
Click here to read the article in full
http://hbr.org/2011/11/how-to-win-investors-over/ar/1
It is interesting that the author is a professor from New York University, better known previously for his theoretical work on accounting issues. He disagrees with Polman and Buffett; he argues that failure to disclose information will destroy value. His views are based on the economic theory of information asymmetry, which I confess to not having heard of before. It says that when one party to a transaction has more information than another, one of the two suffers. The author compares the buying a share to buying a house; if you don’t have full information, you are unlikely to pay as much for it. I was not entirely convinced by the analogy because, if the seller of a house gave a forecast of future house prices, I am not sure that either party would benefit!
The article’s other argument in favour of forecasting sales and profit levels is the more conventional one of providing early warning systems and avoiding nasty surprises; this is more easy to relate to, though not necessarily more convincing. All depends on the accuracy of the forecasts and the quality of the results. If the results are bad it almost doesn’t matter whether there have been previous forecasts; it is just a question of how the pain is spread.
Another argument for disclosure is that it encourages a two way dialogue, that regular communication with shareholders will encourage responses from them and there will be greater understanding of their expectations and what needs to be fixed. If this dialogue takes place, it is more likely that changes to forecasts will be understood and that share prices will be less volatile.
This sounds valid in theory but it assumes the ideal that all CEOs would like to see; shareholders who are in it for the long-term, who are prepared to enter into dialogue and who will take a reasoned view of the company’s strategy. But, as was mentioned in a previous blog which featured an article on Paul Polman, the majority of share transactions are short-term and the share price is often driven by those who are constantly changing their portfolio. It is difficult to have a reasoned dialogue when - as the earlier article suggested - 70% of shareholders are changing every year. Polman’s view was that he wanted to encourage more long-term shareholders who did not care too much about this quarter’s earnings.
In the end each Board has to decide how it wants to communicate with its shareholders and it is difficult, with different corporate histories and shareholder profiles, to generalise. This article is an interesting, if rather theoretical, contribution to the debate. But I am not sure that Paul Polman and Warren Buffet will be convinced enough to change their mind.
Click here to read the article in full
http://hbr.org/2011/11/how-to-win-investors-over/ar/1
‘Blink’ by Malcolm Gladwell, published by Penguin Books
I reviewed Gladwell’s book ‘The Outliers’ for an earlier blog and have been fascinated by the way in which his ideas have caught the imagination of people I know. Mention Gladwell’s name to a group of managers and you are likely to find someone who has read one or more of his books, often people who would not normally read management texts. I bought my son in law ‘What the Dog Saw’ last Christmas; the copy is now on his desk in ‘dog eared’ form and he’s regularly boring me with quotes from it.
Yet the response from some academics has been typically negative, ‘just a colourful story teller’ and ‘cherry picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry’ were two typical reactions in reviews of his work. Yet ‘Tipping Point’ sold two million copies. This reaction from the academic world reminded me of the initial response to Peters and Waterman when they published ‘In Search of Excellence’; it smacked of jealousy that it had become the best-selling management book of all time. Academics do not like journalists getting in on their act.
I decided to review ‘Blink’ on a friend’s recommendation that it is the best of his books, even though it is the least well known. After reading it I emerged convinced that there is something in his arguments and was armed with lots of ideas and anecdotes that are useful in both course and dinner table environments. Just as I could initiate debates about whether it takes 10,000 hours practice to be really good at anything after reading Outliers, I can, after reading Blink, quote evidence for my long held belief that being six feet tall makes success in business more likely.
The underlying message of Blink is that first impressions and intuition count more than we realise and can be more valid than more complex analysis and research. As with previous books, Gladwell keeps the reader’s attention with lots of anecdotes and statistics, with sometimes a bit of theory. He keeps our attention because his stories reflect everyday life and cover a wide range of contexts and disciplines. He links them all to what he calls ‘Rapid Cognition’, instant assessment which will produce better results than can be achieved through more considered judgment. The secret is in knowing what to discard and what to keep.
Having advanced the theory, he chooses anecdotes to back it up and, though one would have to agree with academic critics that his scientific method is questionable, he certainly makes you think. He suggests that a four question decision tree has proved to be a better predictor of heart disease than medical examination, that you can better predict a student’s personality by quickly examining their bedroom, compared to interviewing them. I could see this point but was unsure how, with rapid cognition, you can be sure that you have chosen the right factors. Love at first sight is a well-known concept but how valid are the results?
One particularly interesting theory was that you can predict the effectiveness of a teacher by looking at a silent two second video of their appearance in the classroom; I recalled the troubles MTP has had over the years judging effectiveness of potential trainers after a whole series of interviews and trial sessions. But you can see where he is coming from; sometimes you do just know that someone is not going to be a good teacher after those first few seconds, yet, out of politeness, you still have to sit through the full session!
The problem with Gladwell’s books is that you end up unsure whether he is just very good at stating the obvious and backing it up with nice stories or whether he really is making a contribution to management thinking. I described some of the ideas in the book to a marketing colleague and his view was that it was all obvious stuff to marketers, the basis for instance of focus groups and segmentation. But, more than any other management writer of modern times, he makes you think and he makes reading enjoyable. So, despite the criticism, I’m a fan.
Yet the response from some academics has been typically negative, ‘just a colourful story teller’ and ‘cherry picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry’ were two typical reactions in reviews of his work. Yet ‘Tipping Point’ sold two million copies. This reaction from the academic world reminded me of the initial response to Peters and Waterman when they published ‘In Search of Excellence’; it smacked of jealousy that it had become the best-selling management book of all time. Academics do not like journalists getting in on their act.
I decided to review ‘Blink’ on a friend’s recommendation that it is the best of his books, even though it is the least well known. After reading it I emerged convinced that there is something in his arguments and was armed with lots of ideas and anecdotes that are useful in both course and dinner table environments. Just as I could initiate debates about whether it takes 10,000 hours practice to be really good at anything after reading Outliers, I can, after reading Blink, quote evidence for my long held belief that being six feet tall makes success in business more likely.
The underlying message of Blink is that first impressions and intuition count more than we realise and can be more valid than more complex analysis and research. As with previous books, Gladwell keeps the reader’s attention with lots of anecdotes and statistics, with sometimes a bit of theory. He keeps our attention because his stories reflect everyday life and cover a wide range of contexts and disciplines. He links them all to what he calls ‘Rapid Cognition’, instant assessment which will produce better results than can be achieved through more considered judgment. The secret is in knowing what to discard and what to keep.
Having advanced the theory, he chooses anecdotes to back it up and, though one would have to agree with academic critics that his scientific method is questionable, he certainly makes you think. He suggests that a four question decision tree has proved to be a better predictor of heart disease than medical examination, that you can better predict a student’s personality by quickly examining their bedroom, compared to interviewing them. I could see this point but was unsure how, with rapid cognition, you can be sure that you have chosen the right factors. Love at first sight is a well-known concept but how valid are the results?
One particularly interesting theory was that you can predict the effectiveness of a teacher by looking at a silent two second video of their appearance in the classroom; I recalled the troubles MTP has had over the years judging effectiveness of potential trainers after a whole series of interviews and trial sessions. But you can see where he is coming from; sometimes you do just know that someone is not going to be a good teacher after those first few seconds, yet, out of politeness, you still have to sit through the full session!
The problem with Gladwell’s books is that you end up unsure whether he is just very good at stating the obvious and backing it up with nice stories or whether he really is making a contribution to management thinking. I described some of the ideas in the book to a marketing colleague and his view was that it was all obvious stuff to marketers, the basis for instance of focus groups and segmentation. But, more than any other management writer of modern times, he makes you think and he makes reading enjoyable. So, despite the criticism, I’m a fan.
‘Nudge’ by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, published by Penguin Books
I chose this book because, during the last few years, its ideas have often been quoted as being behind the thinking of the new government as it tries to change our behaviour in certain areas, without introducing new laws and regulations. The authors are two professors at the University of Chicago who have become well known on the back of this work and its enthusiastic acceptance by politicians in the USA and Europe. I was interested to read about the ideas and consider its application to business.
The underlying assumption behind the book is that most people are lazy when it comes to making choices and, unless they are ‘nudged’, they will take the short-term view or maintain the status quo. My initial reaction to this was that this did not apply to me but then came the killer questions; do you complete questionnaires that will save you money? Do you send back the form that offers the flu jab? Do you walk that extra 50 yards to pick up a free sample?
Therefore, the argument goes, people need to be nudged so that it is easier to make the choice that is in their long-term interests. Many of the examples refer to health issues. Healthy food needs to be at eye level and near to the store entrance; people are encouraged to eat from smaller plates; you have to opt out rather than opt in for injections and free treatments.
This idea is dressed up in rather academic terms by being expressed as ‘choice architecture; the way in which choices are presented so that the ‘best’ choice is the one that is automatic or requires the least effort. The goal is to alter people’s behaviour in a predictable way without imposing rules or sanctions or economic incentives. As an example, putting healthy food at eye level is a nudge but banning or taxing junk food is not.
One problem is that the implementation of this idea causes accusations that governments and do-gooders know what is best for people and that nudging is just another way of creating the dreaded ‘Nanny State’. It can also be an excuse for failing to take decisive action, like recently when Andrew Lansley decided against regulating the food companies and went instead for educating us to eat more healthily.
After reading the book, I was uncertain. My natural inclination is to leave people to make their own choices and let us do what we like to ourselves as long as we are not harming others. But does this mean that people shouldn’t be nudged in the right direction and saved from themselves? I guess it all depends on the issue and the nature of the nudge: OK to put cigarettes out of sight but not chocolate; OK to remind us of the risks but not to forbid us to take them.
The book also raises some interesting issues for business; should employers adopt what the book calls ‘libertarian paternalism’ and nudge their employees to make additional pension arrangements, organise life assurance, have health checks and eat the right foods? Is it any of their business to extend their influence in this way? In the end each company and each government has to make its own choices and, based on the culture it wishes to create, strike the right balance between liberty and paternalism.
The underlying assumption behind the book is that most people are lazy when it comes to making choices and, unless they are ‘nudged’, they will take the short-term view or maintain the status quo. My initial reaction to this was that this did not apply to me but then came the killer questions; do you complete questionnaires that will save you money? Do you send back the form that offers the flu jab? Do you walk that extra 50 yards to pick up a free sample?
Therefore, the argument goes, people need to be nudged so that it is easier to make the choice that is in their long-term interests. Many of the examples refer to health issues. Healthy food needs to be at eye level and near to the store entrance; people are encouraged to eat from smaller plates; you have to opt out rather than opt in for injections and free treatments.
This idea is dressed up in rather academic terms by being expressed as ‘choice architecture; the way in which choices are presented so that the ‘best’ choice is the one that is automatic or requires the least effort. The goal is to alter people’s behaviour in a predictable way without imposing rules or sanctions or economic incentives. As an example, putting healthy food at eye level is a nudge but banning or taxing junk food is not.
One problem is that the implementation of this idea causes accusations that governments and do-gooders know what is best for people and that nudging is just another way of creating the dreaded ‘Nanny State’. It can also be an excuse for failing to take decisive action, like recently when Andrew Lansley decided against regulating the food companies and went instead for educating us to eat more healthily.
After reading the book, I was uncertain. My natural inclination is to leave people to make their own choices and let us do what we like to ourselves as long as we are not harming others. But does this mean that people shouldn’t be nudged in the right direction and saved from themselves? I guess it all depends on the issue and the nature of the nudge: OK to put cigarettes out of sight but not chocolate; OK to remind us of the risks but not to forbid us to take them.
The book also raises some interesting issues for business; should employers adopt what the book calls ‘libertarian paternalism’ and nudge their employees to make additional pension arrangements, organise life assurance, have health checks and eat the right foods? Is it any of their business to extend their influence in this way? In the end each company and each government has to make its own choices and, based on the culture it wishes to create, strike the right balance between liberty and paternalism.