Just another WordPress site
‘We pass through this world but once.
Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life,
Few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive,
Or even to hope,
By a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within.’
Stephen Jay Gould
Share this Post
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPnudujlBZI]
Wipes tear from eye….
In 1993 Gustafson suggested that entrepreneurship education would be an ideal context for students to address “their identity, objectives, hopes, relation to society, and the tension between thought and action”.
In 1995 Kourilsky commented on the over-focus of much of entrepreneurship education on business management rather than other aspects such as recognition of opportunities.
…the traditional focus on business and new venture management provides an inadequate basis for responding to societal needs and proposes the wider notion of ‘enterprise’ (Gibb, 2002).
HALLELUJAH! We say it – but we don’t do it!
Anyone interested in helping me put together a paper?
My only question is that if academics have been onto this for almost 20 years – how come they have had little or no impact on enterprise education or business support?
Regeneration aims to bring opportunity to areas that are in decline, and to empower people to take advantage of those opportunities. The decline of an area is often caused in the first instance by structural economic change and a reduction in employment. Parts of the UK have experienced substantial deindustrialisation and loss of jobs since the 1970s, particularly during deep recessions in the early 1980s and early 1990s. In some areas there has been a rapid turnaround in employment; in others a cycle of decline has been set off.
Unlocking the Talent of Communities – DCLG 2008
This is a fairly standard analysis of the reasons for decline.
When industries pulled out things went wrong.
I believe things went wrong when the big employers moved in.
Policy and practice focused on providing a largely compliant workforce that was fit for purpose. Employer engagement ruled. All parties were more or less happy with the deal. At the time, and for many years after, it (arguably) worked reasonably well.
A bureaucratic mindset prevailed – characterised by patriarchal contracts between workers and employers which rewarded compliance. Industrialists and managers came up with the plans. Unions negotiated for pay and conditions and the majority just had to pick sides and choose leaders – on whom they felt they could depend.
A deep mindset of dependence set in. Dependence on employers, dependence on unions. DEPENDENCE. Generations learned how to successfully play the dependence game. Many still play it.
Entrepreneurial qualities were lost. Autonomy was devalued.
The genesis of the problem was not when the industries left, it was when they arrived.
For nearly 30 years now I think policy has largely neglected this deep change of identity, personality and self image that swept through many of these communities.
If we are serious about unlocking talent, then as well as providing skills training, CV clinics, classes in self employment, business planning and entrepreneurship we have also to tackle these issues of identity, personality and self image. And this is best done through conversation – not classes.
Challenging, caring, compassionate but powerful conversations. Conversations that accept, catalyse and confront. Conversations that are characterised by high trust and strong relationships. Conversations that are genuinely focused on helping to unlock potential and to enable potential to develop. Conversations that start from where people are at – and follow them where they need to go. Not the usual conversations that steer people towards opportunities predefined by the planners.
Instead we breeze into these communities and ask naive questions;
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
A paper published by the UK Government’s Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology provides a useful reminder that people do not always/often make rational decisions, and that one of the reasons for the irrationality is a bias for the present.
In short this means that we put off or never do things that are in our own best interest simply because we see the pay-off being to far away in the future. Hence we stay fat and smoke – because any benefits of giving up won’t be experienced for ages.
It transpires that the poorer you are the more likely you are to show this bias for the present over the future.
This bias would seem to be important for enterprise professionals to :
Any tips you want to share for helping cleints overcome their bias towards the present?
You can read the full OST paper on Delaying Gratification here.