Yesterday's post was self indulgent and silly (not to mention giving 'OldAndrew' an open goal). To have something different on my homepage, I am posting from my mini break in France.
I am looking for thoughts on a question which is at the front of my mind right now: what are the best conditions for small groups of people to develop good ideas and (the ' and' is very important) commit to taking the ideas forward.
A few suggestions to get us going:
1. A group incentive is good but it should not be so large that it distracts (see Dan Pink's world beating Animate) or introduces perverse incentives.
2. Apparently, according to some research I plan to look into properly next week, 12 is the optimum group size to develop ideas (strikes me as a bit big).
3. There needs to be clear norms - or even explicit rules - which stop the people with the loudest voices or strongest opinions from dominating.
4. Like the incentive, the focus should be medium sized - not so wide that the conversation lacks a thread, not so narrow to stifle imagination.
There's four to be going on with - over to you dear readers ...
In his fifth post for the RSA Living Change Campaign, Matthew Taylor explores some of the implications of the framework he has outlined over the last month and asks why ideas like these aren’t more widely known and used.
As we emerge from Covid-19, Ruth Hannan argues there is an opportunity to shift from short-term solutions to approaches based on deeper understanding of citizens’ needs and which focus on systemic change.
If young people are to flourish in this new world of rapid change and insecurity, we need policies that support young people in the here and now, whilst also protecting their futures. Thinking about economic security is one way to do this.