Belbin strikes back ...

... or the rise of the Monitor/Evaluator.

We have just been reading through a thrilling 340 page document called a Business Survival Toolkit. This includes some 69 different rather 'tools' for business planning drawing largely on the works of various academics. For those of us who have been around a bit, it is notable that few of the basics have changes much from the work of the great business thinkers of the post-War generation: people like Hawthorne, Herzberg and Maslow whose work was so able summarised by people like Charles Handy and others. A new generation must have its say, however (Smith & Jones 2013).

Somewhere deep inside this riveting document is a quotation from someone called Richard Piper of the NCVO (National Council of Voluntary Organisations). He says:

Some people in our sector concentrate more on the technical problem of measuring outcomes, and less on the strategic problem of achieving them. This is a disease, an affliction, and we can call it measurement anxiety. It can paralyse us and it seems to be contagious. 

It goes on to describe an exercise in which he asked 50 people to word associate with 'outcomes' and 48 of them mentioned something about assessment or measurement.

Now this is interesting for three reasons. The easy one is that we all know it has happened and has become endemic over the last twenty years leading to paralysis of action. The word Ofsted is enough to send quivers through any teacher's bloodstream as Accreditation should in the Museum world: inspection and measurement by those who can't of those who can and are doing their damnedest to do better.

We have mentioned before Einstein's remark that Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. This should be written over every Monitor/Evaluator's desk.

The second is that someone is brave enough to say it out loud, knowing that a whole cohort of assessors will round on him from a great height and claim that they are absolutely convinced that achieving objectives is the Most Important thing and that their systems are designed to be Entirely Helpful... a this will hurt me much more than it hurts you response.

The third is that he seems to have been quoted as saying it and this suggests that the report writers approve of what he is saying. This is a document of 340 pages almost wholly given over to the thoughts of academics setting out the 'best practice' way of doing things which, you guessed it, include lots and lots of monitoring and evaluation. And being the work of academics even the most banal or self-evident remark is referenced (Smith & Robinson 2013) but that is a topic for another time (Mumblings, date to be announced).

Every Belbin group needs its different role-players, even including Monitor/Evaluators, but when they start to impose their vision of how business should be done, acting as judge and jury, we do feel inclined to agree with the old ladies in Arsenic and Old Lace, that they would be much happier with a nice dose of elderflower cordial which, you may recall, contained something less harmless to end the existence of those who were lonely or did not have a fulfilling life. It would do wonders for this particular disease or affliction.

Who are you?

We have just had one of those delightful conversations with an insurance company. It went along the following lines:

Me: Hello, I would like to cancel my insurance policy and receive its surrender value.
Them: Can I just confirm your identity: what is your policy number?
Me: [reads out the number]
Them: What is the first line of your address?
Me: [gives it]
Them: What is your date of birth?
Me: [gives it]
Them: When did you start this policy?
Me: (reading from a letter they recently sent me) February 1988
Them: How much have you been paying monthly?
Me: I think it is about £18 a month
Them: OK, I shall send you a form to close the thing down … we will need evidence of identity for both you and your wife.

Me (thinks): So you have been taking £18 a month off us for over 25 years and only now, when we want OUR money back, do you even think to ask us to prove who we are. What if we had been funding this policy by some criminal activity all these years?

Cold calling letter

We received a letter this week from a company with whom we have not done business who claim to be 'Winning Contracts for [County]'. They presumably want our business. Why do we feel an instinctive desire to put it straight in the bin?

I am writing to tell you about a new project supporting the social economy and to invite you to participate in a survey that will help us to tailor this and future projects to your needs. (So I fill in a survey which allows you to tailor your products ... about which I so far know nothing ... to which of my needs?).

[Our scheme] is a project that aims to increase the number and size of contracts being won by social enterprises in [county] by facilitating business development, collaboration and engagement of potential product and service buyers. (Nothing like a good bit of facilitating ... it's those fleas again)

We are conducting a survey to identify the drivers and barriers for growth and scaling up of social enterprises in the area. The results of the study will enable us all to understand where to focus resources to benefit enterprises like yours ...

If you are interested in winning new or bigger contracts for your enterprise - or engaging with prime contractors of services - we would love to help ... (And your knowledge, expertise, experience and understanding of our sector is what?)

Are you any the wiser as to what they are offering and why we might be tempted to waste time on their survey?  

No 1 file, I think.