Friday, 24 July 2009

Does Size Matter ?

Stephanie Flanders started a blog yesterday entitled "Does size matter?" ... but in my view it mostly missed the point ... so I have started to ask this question in a more effective way (see below). Stephanie (and the BBC) are clearly failing in their job (and their duty) so we'll have to do it ourselves instead ... Stephanie referred to QE (Quantatitive Easing), but I think there are much more fundamental issues than that ...


Does Size Matter? .... Well I think the question should be "Does the Size of ..... Matter?" For instance take a look at few 'starter for ten' examples I've included below ...

* The size of our debt
* The size of the trade/budget deficits
* The size of the future pensions crisis
* The size of our untapped talent (unemployment, part-time, temporary working)
* The size of the innovation gap
* The size of the population stressed and insecure about their jobs/future
* The size of the waste (between 40%-90%) and frustration systematically created by out of date 'leadership' and 'management' practices
* The gap between what current 'leaders' are 'telling you' and what is actually 'true'
* The size of the gap between the 'leadership' we currently have and the 'leadership' we really need
* The size of the cover ups we now see
* The size of the greed/incompetence current leaders show
* The size of the culpability, current leaders will bear
* The size of the anger that is yet to rise from the people
* The size of the problem that will be eventually occur before most people decide to do something about it
* The size of the failure that will result from people not taking responsibility, or being accountable for what they do (and don't do)
* The size of the hypocrisy we now see
* The size of the gap between the behaviours we now see and the ethical behaviours (trust, honor, responsibility, respect - Leanomics) we now need
* The size of the 'backlash' likely to occur when most people realise what 'leaders' have been doing
* The size of the wealth being generated for just a few, and the expense of the many
* The size of the self interest/greed which will cause certain nations to collapse
* The size of the collusion that exist to stop progress/improvements being made
* The size of conspiracies that exist, to benefit the few and not the many
* The size of the group who 'manipulate wealth' rather than 'add value' and 'create wealth'
* The size of the arrogance of those in Power
* The size of the failure in 'leadership' we now see
* The size and number of scams we now see
* The size of failure and the lack of democracy people actually have (one of the biggest scams/spin of all)
* The size of the failure by mainstream education, and the impact this will have on us too
* The size of the failure created (and the lack of wisdom shown) by 'traditional establishments', and their failure to see this too
* The size and misuse of power, from all those in 'power' (Poweromics)
* The size of the group who do not understand this (an example of Ignoromics Type 1*)
* The size of the apathy from people at large (an example of Ignoromics Type 2*)
* The size of the collapse the nation is still yet to see
* The size of power hard-working people currently have but have not yet realised
* The size of change we have to come
* The size of the crisis will get before we see the changes we now need
* The size of our irrelevance in the world of the future
* The size of gap that will continue to grow, until people become more curious and take more responsibility for doing things differently
* The size of the gap between what current 'leaders' & 'management' do and what 21st century "leadership" & "management" is (e.g. take a look at the book Lean World)
* The size of the holes in the Government plan (or any other party's plan of action) for doing anything about it

This is a just quick list I've started off ... and everyone's welcome to add to it here (and in future blogs) too ... Take a look at this (the blog here) for more (*and definitions of Type 1 Ignoromics and Type 2 Ignoromics too), as it'll add more and more (including yours), along with a few examples too ... (Leanomist Post 70)


Here are the definitions of Type 1 Ignoromics and Type 2 Ignoromics ...

Ignoromics (Type 1) = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment).

Ignoromics (Type 2) = People aware of the overall situation, but not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better.

I have highlighted the above so we can start to reduce them, and address some of the Poweromics that's resulting in much of what we see above today .... Leanomics is about showing respect and taking responsibility for improving the situation for others .... and without this soon all the above will unfortunately resign us to history (as a failed & irrelevant nation) ...

NB Type 2 is arguably what applies to the BBC (and Stephanie Flanders) as they clearly understand, but fail to take responsibility for doing anything about it. It's worth noting that Stephanie likes to tell us that she went to Havard, and that many of her friends / colleagues just happened to go to such places too ... so perhaps we should not be surprised, particularly given the report issued by Alan Milburn (on the same day), highlighting how positions are obtained in such establishments (which includes journalists and the BBC), and how they 'promote' their own ... their own people, ideas and incompetence!

It's a shame that 'leaders' have not yet realised, that just like most MBA's, such establishments are "Maybe Best Avoided" ... !

This post was also referred to on "The shrinking economy' too (Leanomist Post 9)