tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4539198850707571267..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Matt Tee communicatesStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17326872123972989352010-12-13T00:35:40.472+00:002010-12-13T00:35:40.472+00:00We have a staggering amount of this kind of thing ...We have a <i>staggering</i> amount of this kind of thing in the US. That may be one reason the US version of The Office is in its 7th year - there is so much management-speak and communications-speak to satirize.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78114198939489877812010-12-10T05:28:36.237+00:002010-12-10T05:28:36.237+00:00Stephen,
I'm an American, and I can assure you...Stephen,<br />I'm an American, and I can assure you we have plenty of this over here, too. As a journalist I've had the displeasure of hearing hundreds of these kinds of talks by bureaucrats, and often I've had the same thought you describe: Maybe this guy is an excellent administrator, so it really doesn't matter if he's a lousy communicator. In this case, however, it really is quite ironic. A government communications minister speaking unintelligibly on the subject of improving government communications. There's a Monty Python sketch in there somewhere.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28062595005706517352010-12-08T08:44:22.466+00:002010-12-08T08:44:22.466+00:00Matt
I just stumbled upon this video by accident ...Matt<br /><br />I just stumbled upon this video by accident recently. I'd never heard of you before.<br /><br />Yes, I don't doubt the talk was well-received. I imagine much of what annoyed me is common right across these kind of management, PR, etc talking shops generally.<br /><br />As I said, the talk really, really wound me up, but I'm not entirely sure my reaction was justified, and am asking for other opinions. The Uncredible Hallq's view seems to be that my reaction was not really warranted.<br /><br />I guess if I have an agenda, it's that I suspect the answer to the question: "Do those in public or private sector being paid vast sums (you are paid more than Cabinet ministers and even the PM) to do management and PR stuff really merit their enormous salaries?" is "No".<br /><br />But of course it would be ridiculous to base that judgement on a one-off talk. Maybe you were having a bad day, and/or maybe you are excellent at your job, but not quite so good at doing this sort of thing.<br /><br />I am now wondering, actually, what *would* be a really good, stimulating and informative talk to your peers on this topic. Maybe I'm asking too much. Maybe management, comms, PR etc. is to a large extent about doing the bleeding obvious. But then how to justify such enormous salaries?<br /><br />*Perhaps* the answer is that while what needs to be done might be fairly obvious, some people are which better at delivering it than others?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49095951660009980432010-12-07T23:59:04.641+00:002010-12-07T23:59:04.641+00:00So Stephen, you find the time to comment on a talk...So Stephen, you find the time to comment on a talk I gave 18 months ago. To a civil service audience. From which I received positive evaluation.<br />For the civil servants in the audience the relationship between policy and communications was and is an important issue. The application of behavioural economic theory to Government policy is important and not 'trite', where ever you may come from.<br />18 months is a long time to take to trash a considered talk that was appropriate to the audience. Why do it now? What's your agenda? <br />Matt TeeMatt Teenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67833040084808431152010-12-07T20:30:38.751+00:002010-12-07T20:30:38.751+00:00Of the three points, (2) is the only one that stri...Of the three points, (2) is the only one that strikes me as completely trivial. <br /><br />A better way to apply the denial test to (1) is to imagine someone saying, "Matt, I disagree with you, people have always been able to provide feedback to the government, and the internet hasn't fundamentally changed anything."<br /><br />To which he would response, "Of course people have always been able to provide feed back, but the internet does represent a fundamental change, here's why..."<br /><br />Of course, if he failed to give the "here's why" in the talk, that's a major failure.<br /><br />(3) is obvious, but sometimes people needed to be reminded to follow obvious advice.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.com