The Squawk Point

Organisational Mechanics

  • Home
  • Blog
    • People
    • Data
    • Process
    • Wild Cards
    • Index
  • Podcast
  • Book

Step 4(b)

25 September, 2013 by James Lawther 5 Comments

The UK government worries about unemployment

Unemployment is generally agreed to be a good thing for governments to worry about.

  • There is an argument that employed people are happier
  • There is an argument that employed people will vote for you
  • There is an argument that employed people pay more taxes

Either which way, if you are in government, unemployment is worth worrying about.

So the UK government applied a little improvement methodology

They had a go at using the improvement cycle. It went like this:

Step 1. They measured unemployment rates

Step 2. They changed some things they thought would make a difference

Step 3. They checked to see if they had made a difference

Did they reduce unemployment?

I don’t really know.

But what I can tell you is that they made a methodological mistake. They didn’t use the recommended approach.

The recommend approach is:

Step 4. Act on what you have learnt and try again

What the UK government did instead was:

Step 4(b). Change the way they measured the problem

In the 1980’s the UK government liked this approach so much that they changed the basis for calculating unemployment rates over 23 times.

No doubt somebody would argue that getting a “more accurate assessment of unemployment” helped refine policies and the intervention strategy.

Personally (cynically?) I guess that the only real change to employment was that a lot of statisticians found jobs.

A rule of thumb about Step 4(b)

It doesn’t work.

If you are spending time changing the metric so you can manage the message, then all you are doing is managing the message, not the situation.

Party Political Note

I have little doubt that the current incumbents of Number 10 Downing Street have also been seduced by step 4(b) on occasion (and the White House, 24 Sussex Drive and the Steward’s Lodge as well for that matter). But that is, of course, only conjecture on my part.

If you enjoyed this post click here for updates delivered to your inbox

Number 10

Read another opinion

Image by The Prime Minister’s Office

Filed Under: Blog, Operations Analysis Tagged With: cheating, government, measurement

About the Author

James Lawther
James Lawther

James Lawther is a middle-aged, middle manager.

To reach this highly elevated position he has worked in numerous industries, from supermarket retailing to tax collecting.  He has had several operational roles, including running the night shift in a frozen pea packing factory and carrying out operational research for a credit card company.

As you can see from his C.V. he has either a wealth of experience or is incapable of holding down a job.  If the latter is true this post isn’t worth a minute of your attention.

Unfortunately, the only way to find out is to read it and decide for yourself.

www.squawkpoint.com/

Comments

  1. Annette Franz says

    28 September, 2013 at 6:31 am

    James,

    Sadly, this is the same issue in the US, too. I scratch my head (as do many others) as to why (I do know why) we measure unemployment the way we do.

    Love the analogy, though.

    If you don’t like the numbers, change the numbers… or the way you measure them. Sigh…

    So much for root cause analysis… and getting to the heart of the matter.

    Annette :-)

    Reply
    • James Lawther says

      28 September, 2013 at 6:33 am

      It makes us look good though Annette…

      Reply
  2. Adrian Swinscoe says

    1 October, 2013 at 11:29 am

    Hi James,
    What worries me about unemployment right now is what they are not taking into account…..the rise of part-time workers.

    Maybe they should be measuring how many people are or are not fully employed?

    Adrian

    Reply
    • James Lawther says

      5 October, 2013 at 11:06 am

      I don’t think it matters so much what they measure Adrian, so long as they keep on measuring the same thing.

      Then at least they will have an understanding to work from.

      James

      Reply
      • Adrian Swinscoe says

        5 October, 2013 at 11:50 am

        I agree with you that we need to retain some consistency in order to gain some meaningful insight but I still have concerns about what is being omitted.

        Adrian

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Explore

accountability assumptions beliefs best practice blame bureaucracy capability clarity command and control communication complexity continuous improvement cost saving culture customer focus data is not information decisions employee performance measures empowerment error proofing fessing up gemba human nature incentives information technology innovation key performance indicators learning management style measurement motivation performance management poor service process control purpose reinforcing behaviour service design silo management systems thinking targets teamwork test and learn trust video waste

Receive Posts by e-Mail

Get the next post delivered straight to your inbox

Creative Commons

This information from The Squawk Point is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Creative Commons Licence
Customer Experience Update

Try This:

  • Circles of Influence: Do You Want Your Team Flexing Their’s?

  • Should You Punish Mistakes?

  • Fish Bone Diagrams – Helpful or Not?

  • Solutioneering

Connect

  • E-mail
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • YouTube
  • Cookies
  • Contact Me

Copyright © 2025 · Enterprise Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in