The growth and extent of world trade is staggering. In 1950, trade accounted for just 8.6% of world output (GDP). By 2008 it accounted for an astonishing 60% of world GDP, involving $20 trillion in goods and over $5 trillion in services. Despite setbacks — financial crises, wars (including Trump-style trade wars) and even pandemics — trade seems set to expand, bringing yet greater interaction between the world’s peoples, ideas and cultures.
Trade has always existed. That is because, as Adam Smith noted in The Wealth of Nations, both sides benefit from it: they wouldn’t bother if they didn’t. David Ricardo went on to observe that by specialising on their ‘comparative advantage’, countries can overcome the bounds of geography and climate. It’s why we can enjoy bananas in December.
Like all progress, the long-term impact of trade is positive; but in the short term all change produces winners and losers. Thus, people in rich countries complain that cheaper foreign workers are taking their jobs, while developing countries complain that their fledgling industries cannot compete against transnational giants. But consumers everywhere benefit from greater choice, and from the competition that bids down prices and bids up quality.
And the boom in trade since 1990 — brought on by reforms that brought China and South East Asia, India, Eastern Europe and South America into the world trade network — has produced history’s biggest and fastest rise in prosperity, particularly for the world’s poorest. It has taken roughly a billion people out of $2-a-day poverty. And it has made the world culturally richer than ever before.
Yet governments still face fierce lobbying from producers who see foreign competitors eating into their markets. Tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers are the result. But while these might give temporary comfort to a few producers, there is a cost. The imported goods that their consumers want, and the inputs their manufacturers need, become more expensive or even unavailable. That is why almost all economists agree — uniquely — that protectionism is a mistake.
Realising how two world wars had stifled trade and prosperity, the major trading countries sought, through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor the World Trade Organization (WTO) to limit protectionism and promote, easier, freer trade. And indeed, though high tariffs do remain (the EU, for example, imposes taxes up to 30% on imports of agricultural products), average world tariffs have been brought right down.
As a result, value chains today have become truly global. The iPhone, for example, is assembled in Taiwan and includes parts from South Korea, India, Brazil, the UK, China, Singapore, the US, Switzerland, Indonesia, India, France, Japan — and others.
The gains are not just economic. There is good evidence that trade promotes international trust, cooperation and understanding. It is also associated with political freedom, the rule of law, honesty, free speech and other liberal values. It helps defuse nationalism and ethnic conflict, and promotes peace, fairness and equality. After all, if people are to reap the many benefits of trading with each other, they have to cooperate.
Of course, the expansion of trade has thrown up new issues. One is a rising focus on security. For example, the US and UK ban mobile providers from importing new Huawei 5G equipment, fearing it could be used to spy on their networks. Another issue is the export of counterfeit and pirated goods, including clothes and shoes, electronics, perfumes, toys and medicines, which the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates at a chunky 3% of world trade. Services (such as banking, accountancy, legal services, healthcare and education) have become a much bigger part of world trade, leading to questions about whether the qualifications of one country’s lawyers, bankers, doctors and other professionals should be accepted by others. Another big concern is the environment, with countries resisting imports with high carbon footprints or banning the importation of certain fertilisers and pesticides. And more generally, the growth of ‘emerging’ economies (such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, South Africa and Turkey) is tilting the traditional economic balances between regions across the globe and bringing new challenges of its own.
However, most policy on trade is driven by domestic politics rather than economic logic. To work well, therefore, trade needs an international framework, and a global rule of law. This is no easy task, given the many pressures on countries to protect their own industries and raise barriers against others. But we have no way of knowing where trade will take us, or the new benefits it will bring in quite unexpected areas.
Ahead of the Spring Budget we look at how Universal Credit could be reformed in the recovery from Covid-19
The coronavirus pandemic has been defined by data. How that data has been communicated and presented has really mattered. There have been some great examples of how to do it – think the early representations of ‘flattening the curve’ and charts from the likes of the Financial Times, Our World in Data and others – but also some great ones of how not to do it, not least from the UK government.
Of course, data visualisation – a broad term covering charts and graphs, tables, and infographics, often shortened to dataviz or data vis – wasn’t invented during the pandemic. William Playfair, an early pioneer, stated why it matters: a number in a table might be unmemorable, ‘like a figure imprinted on sand… soon totally erased and defaced’, but charts make ‘a sufficiently distinct impression… to remain unimpaired for a considerable time, and the idea which does remain will be simple and complete’. Last year’s bicentenary of Florence Nightingale’s birth reminded us of her dataviz innovation and the impact her charts had on government policy – they can convey key information to busy policymakers eye-catchingly, concisely and quickly.
The interest in ‘data journalism’ over the last decade and the ability of think tanks to communicate directly to their audiences thanks to the internet and social media means many research organisations are thinking about how to use data visualisation in their work. I ran the Institute for Government’s Whitehall Monitor project – which analyses and visualises the size, shape and performance of government – for seven years, and helped develop data and dataviz capability across the Institute. Here are some of my top tips for visualising data as a think tank.
If your starting point is thinking at the end of a project, ‘we want a fancy chart that will look great on social’, let me humbly suggest you don’t start from there. Good charts allow you to communicate important analysis from your work in compelling ways, and that should be your starting point. Readers will often only spend a short amount of time on a chart, so you should be careful not to overload it – what’s the key thing you want them to take away from the chart? Be clear about this – if you’re not, throwing charts at the problem isn’t going to help.
Once you know what story it is you’re trying to tell, think about the best way to tell it. You wouldn’t throw letters randomly onto a page and expect them to land in crisp paragraphs and perfectly formed sentences. Similarly, don’t throw numbers into chart software and expect the first thing that comes out to be the best way of conveying what you’ve found in the data.
There are a lot of different chart types – you may already be familiar with bar charts, pie charts, line charts, scatter plots, tables and maps, but there are many, many more and many, many variations within types. There is a wealth of online resources to help you navigate your way through and understand what chart types work in particular circumstances (try the Data Visualisation Catalogue, the FT’s Visual Vocabulary, or the Graphic Continuum by Jon Schwabish and Severino Ribecca for a start).
There is often nothing wrong with keeping it simple – sometimes, a simple line chart going up or down can be the most effective way of making your point, and your audience is likely to be familiar with how the chart works. (Though beware the false promise of pie charts, which are often not the best way to present data. And just because data is about a location doesn’t mean a map is the best way of displaying it.) But don’t be afraid to experiment – sometimes more unusual charts which tell a number of stories can draw the reader in (this was one of our signatures at the IfG).
Obviously, when we talk about telling a ‘story’ with data we’re not talking fiction. It should go without saying that you shouldn’t be bending the data to fit a preferred narrative. You should make sure that any caveats that would fundamentally affect the reading of the chart are clear, as is the source of the data (so others can go and dig into it if they wish). You will always be making choices and trade-offs in designing dataviz – but be careful with them.
Bad design can distort the data too. The chart may be so cluttered it lacks any clarity in what it was trying to convey. You might compress the range of the axes in a way that makes things look more dramatic than they are. You may get so caught up in the aesthetics it makes the analysis difficult to grasp (this upside down chart is a classic of the genre). In delivering dataviz training, I sometimes use the Star Wars prequel trilogy as a cautionary tale – in getting so caught up in what you are able to do with the tools at your disposal (computer graphics, in the case of a galaxy far, far away) you can lose sight of what really matters (narrative, dialogue, characterisation).
When it comes to clarity, attractiveness and accuracy, you may want to think about two Twitter tests: would someone seeing the chart be able to understand its key message in 15 seconds (or be sufficiently drawn in by it that they’ll study it for longer), and how would you feel if your chart image were shared without any further context?
What you do with labels, axes, gridlines, ordering the data and everything else on a chart area also helps with your storytelling (it’s instructive that one dataviz expert has an entire series on ‘the little’ of dataviz design). Axis labels taking up so much of the chart area that the data gets squeezed? Gridlines so bold they distract you from the data? Then you have a problem. A decent rule of thumb is that you want most of the ink on the chart to be spilt on the data itself (or things which actively help your reader understand what it’s showing) – minimise the ‘chart junk’, as it can sometimes be called.
You’ll have been in the weeds of a particular subject, and engaged on the finer design points of the chart displaying information about it, for a while. Your audience won’t. Will they understand the abbreviations you’ve used and all the assumptions you’ve made?
Who do you want to reach and what do you want them to do? Social media can get very excited about whizz bang interactives which may help increase your reach, but simple static charts that the right civil servants can easily download and drop into presentation slides for ministers may be what you want. And you’ll be able to do different things with a single graphic for social media, versus a chart in a longer form piece, versus an interactive, versus presenting in person where you can take more time to talk your audience through what you’re showing them and build up the story.
There are some great online tools – Flourish, Datawrapper, Highcharts, Tableau (many others are available) – and lots of visualisation software packages. If you have the right expertise, you might be coding things directly. But any tool is only as good as what you’re doing with it (see all of the other advice above).
Don’t write off Microsoft Excel. Nearly every IfG chart to date has been made in Excel. It’s a powerful tool, you’ll be surprised at just how much you can do with it, there are digital reams of advice on how to get the most from it, and (crucially) it’s something that most people are likely to have some familiarity with, so it’s a brilliant starting point if nothing else. But move away from the default colours and fonts; use your corporate ones instead, and don’t be afraid to play around with the other chart junk. It’s amazing how much more professional your charts will look with a little tweaking.
Every new dataviz created, every new dataset explored is a learning experience. You don’t want to have to reinvent the wheel every time you publish a new chart – build on what you’ve done before. Develop a style guide, a portfolio of charts and a process of getting from the dataset to a finished product (at the IfG that was getting charts from Excel into a template in some free graphics software) that you can go back to. Your existing knowledge is what will help you innovate and is good for branding, understanding (you’ll be going back to things that work) and ease (save time by using something that works).
Are there particular data releases that your think tank can ‘own’, and datasets you want to keep going back to? For example, I live-blogged government reshuffles for 6 years at the IfG and there’s no way we could have produced numerous data-informed annual reports without these building blocks. The Resolution Foundation and IFS have a strong focus on particular government fiscal events. These are worth investing in – both in terms of the plumbing as well as the finished product.
One of your most important audiences is going to be your internal one. To do dataviz right is to do data right – to build it into your research and comms processes and think about it throughout a project, not as an afterthought as the press release is about to go out. ‘Data’ can still be intimidating and/or boring to many – you will need to bring people with you in supporting them to develop the right skills, in showing how better use of data and dataviz can help them in their work, and in making it interesting (and less intimidating) and fun as well as functional. (My weekly newsletter started as an internal effort to do some of this.)
The best thing to do is give it a go. What starts with a simple dataset in Excel today could lead to an all-singing, all-dancing interactive dashboard with APIs spitting out data in time. You’ll never know if you don’t try.
You’re going to make mistakes – that’s not to be cavalier with accuracy, merely to say that you’ll publish the odd chart that doesn’t quite sing the way you want it to– but you’ll learn from them, and from the mistakes other think tanks, data journalists and others have made along the way. The freedom to experiment (take some time to get things wrong internally) is vital, and another reason to get others in your organisation on board: they’ll be your most useful critics.
The dataviz expert Alberto Cairo has described data visualisation as a ‘functional art’. Both words are important. Don’t get so carried away with the artistic possibilities that you forget its function: to communicate stories you’ve discovered in data. But equally, if it is so functional as to become dull and have no art, it’ll cease to be functional as no one will want to look at it.
President Biden arrives in office with a full foreign policy in-tray, albeit one that will have to compete for attention with myriad domestic priorities from tackling run-away virus to repairing the foundations of its own democracy. Most of America’s traditional allies will let out a huge sigh of relief that his predecessor has left the building, with Biden and his team known quantities with more similar values. Their number will include the UK despite the well-known scepticism of the Prime Minister within Biden world. However for some of America’s Middle East Allies who have been the recipients of Trump’s largess, there will be more nervousness with the US returning to play a somewhat less overtly partisan role in the Israel/Palestine conflict and taking action against Saudi behaviour in Yemen and on human rights.
The pandemic response will clearly be the primary short-term goal, reintegrating the US into the global coordination structures and seeking opportunities to demonstrate restored American leadership. However it is not as if the world is short of things to worry about right now. A brief tour of the global risk map might include: increased tensions in the Pacific as strategic competition between China and the US and its allies intensifies, particularly as attempts are made to hold Beijing to account for its abuses of the Uighurs and in Hong Kong; uncertainty in the Middle East over whether Iran reengages on a nuclear deal or lashes out over the assassination of its officials while the Saudi’s and Emiratis fret over what Biden’s approach means for the balance of power; potential flash points around North Korea after the failures of Trumpian personal diplomacy; the risk of Hungary and Poland’s deteriorating relations with other EU member states over their slide towards authoritarianism paralysing European institutions; the possibility of further escalation in border tensions between India and Pakistan spiralling out of control; and potential disputes between the global north and south over the rollout of Covid vaccines.
Biden will seek to use two international conferences this year in particular to fulfil domestic political priorities and reset America’s global leadership: 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow and his own proposed ‘Summit of Democracies’. The international community has a brief window of opportunity after Joe Biden is inaugurated to kick on after years of delay to address both the climate crisis and rising authoritarianism, the two challenges that may define foreign policy for decades to come.
The Taiwan Straits maybe the most volatile point in the Asia-Pacific. Even if this thin strip of water, separating Taiwan and China, is not the site of a great power collision this year it nevertheless will be a source of tension between Beijing and Washington.
The Communist Party of China claims Taiwan as “an inalienable” part of its own territory and has refused to rule out using force to make this a reality. Taiwan conversely wishes to continue governing itself and the island’s transformation into a vibrant liberal democracy, since the 1990s, has only reinforced this desire. While China’s political system has remained essentially the same its rapid economic rise has equipped it with the military might to actually act on its expansionist desires.
America has strong, albeit informal, ties with Taiwan and may aid it in the event of an attack by China. Although Washington is traditionally deliberately ambiguous about this under the Trump Administration America has been edging towards clarity.
Arms sales have been regularised, numerous pieces of pro-Taiwan legislation have been passed by Congress, and last year the White House authorised two high-level visits to Taipei. Not to mention this year’s last-minute ditching of self-imposed restrictions on US-Taiwan interactions by Secretary of State Pompeo. All of which signal America’s resolve. Yet, China with intensified military manoeuvres into Taiwan’s air and sea space wants to send a message too.
This will be a challenge for the incoming Biden team who already have a lot to deal with vis-à-vis China. Matters in the Taiwan Straits have heated up considerably since they were last all working in the White House. Defusing tensions seems sensible however turning back some of the recent advances made in US-Taiwan relations risks encouraging China to take its chances.
The House of Lords is an extraordinary place, full of gold leaf, ushers in full white tie dress and an imposing throne. Few other countries have legislative chambers quite like it. It is hard to miss as a physical presence but is often overlooked by think tankers and policy professionals promoting new policy ideas. Any campaign or the profile of a report is amplified by ensuring it is raised in both Houses and will ultimately be more likely to come to the attention of Ministers.
The first (and very simple) top tip for policy wonks and think tankers is simple, don’t forget the House of Lords. If you find that your internal language around parliament tends to just mention “MPs” make a point of changing it to “MPs and Peers”.
One big difference between the two chambers, which should catch the eye of think tankers and policy professionals, is the different style of timetabling business within the House of Lords. Unlike the Commons, which is often tightly focused on legislative business and questions to ministers, there is more room in the timetable for responding to topical issues or bringing under-discussed issues to the attention of ministers.
The Lords also have their own committee system which is just as influential, publishing very authoritative reports, and not to be overlooked either.
The business of the House is often planned and made available weeks in advance. Make the Lords Whips website a favourite. It can be used to see who has ‘put down’ to speak in a debate giving plenty of opportunity for helpful engagement. Likewise, Oral Questions in the Lords are effectively mini debates, unlike their Commons counterparts, which can take the form of repeatedly partisan (or extremely local) questions being thrown at the responding minister. The more lightly whipped House of Lords will mean that fewer Noble members (honourable in the Commons and noble in the Lords) will be required by party managers to speak on issues they know little or nothing about.
Our ermine clad friends generally have more time to focus on policy interests than MPs with constituency and party demands on their time. They will therefore often take a deep interest in one or more policy areas and as such are likely to speak with authority on these matters. This might be because they come from a professional background in a particular subject, or they have committed to spending their time in the House focusing on an area of policy. Very often they have the gift of time with which to focus on a subject but, unlike MPs, they have no administrative or research support (unless they pay for it out of their own pocket). You are therefore likely to find Peers very receptive to serious policy engagement on their specialist areas in a deep-dive sort of way and over the long term. They are there for life after all.
Like any political (or stakeholder if we must use that awful term) relationship it is worth putting time into identifying Peers who seem to have an interest in a policy area you’re working on. Use the much underrated Hansard search tool which is like Google for spoken contributions in parliament and Written Questions to find Peers who regularly speak on matters you’re interested in. You’ll soon discover a pattern and Peers who pop up again and again. These Peers will often be recognised by ministers in the Lords for their interest and will become the ‘go-to’ people on any given subject.
The upper chamber is typically less adversarial than the House of Commons and contributions can be more data focused. The Government has no inbuilt majority in the House of Lords so a canny think tanker should always look to build cross-party relationships in the Lords, based on a policy area. This includes cross bench and ecclesiastical Peers who take no party whip. Party allegiances are much less pronounced in the House of Lords with members always working ‘across the House’ on a subject area, and members recognised for their interest in a subject. Policy professionals can work very effectively with Peers to provide them with the latest data or evidence to support their parliamentary work in debates.
The House is getting bigger and bigger and spoken contributions are much shorter than they can be in the Commons, often only a few minutes depending on how many people are speaking in a debate. This means tighter speeches which are often uninterrupted and then on the record.
When it comes to draft legislation, Peers have much more freedom to table amendments to legislation, especially through ‘probing amendments,’ and test ministerial thinking. If your work involves legislative change then the House of Lords is often the best place to start. Improving legislation is, after all, a primary function of the House and peers will likely welcome research which highlights problems with existing legislation or bills coming before them.
One issue that often comes up and causes many colleagues great anxiety is the formality of addressing the different types of peer, from Dukes and Earls to lowly Barons and Baronesses. It can be very confusing. This page on the parliament.uk website provides a handy guide to addressing them. It is well worth saving to avoid a very British slip in protocol.
Building strong working relationships with Peers will help to promote your work. If you’re working away inside a think tank, make sure you don’t overlook the House of Lords and the work done by Peers across the House in using the latest data or promoting new ideas to challenge all the different parts of Government to do better.
At the start of October my organisation transformed from the New Local Government Network to simply New Local. We swapped our plain black acronym for bold lettering and a hot pink colour scheme and unveiled a new website and logo. Post-transformation, it seems like a no-brainer: we now enjoy a name and brand that accurately reflects who we are as an organisation and where we are going. External feedback has been amazingly positive, but the process of rebranding was complex, time-consuming and at times nerve-wracking. Here are my ‘top tips’ of how to get through it.
It pains me to say this but when I first saw the job at New Local Government Network advertised, I didn’t want to apply. I wasn’t attracted by the organisation’s bureaucratic-sounding name, the unmemorable acronym it produced, and the plain, corporate logo.
This changed when I read ‘The Community Paradigm’, an NLGN report calling for an upheaval of how power works in our society – moving it away from institutions and towards people and communities. The ideas this organisation was sharing felt big, timely and exciting, and I wanted to be a part of sharing them.
I don’t say this just to diss the old name or logo. They had taken NLGN to a position of credibility and trust. But there seemed to now be a gulf between how the organisation appeared on the surface and what it was saying. Joining the organisation, I realised this was a feeling that had been bubbling away for a while, as the think tank and our council members expanded our focus beyond local government and broadening out towards public services and communities.
Although you might not be the typical or intended audience, your own first impression can be a good barometer for how others will judge the organisation from a snap impression (and let’s face it – a snap impression is what most of us get). So your gut reaction is something that’s worth holding on to as you get comfortable inside a brand. After all, you may be used to the ugly wallpaper but that doesn’t mean it won’t stop other people moving in.
Regardless of who is ‘leading’ the project, remember that many people will have a personal relationship with your name and brand – including staff, board members, supporters, partners, etc. Create a detailed plan of who will be involved, consulted with, or informed and at what stage.
Buy-in should start with staff members. For them, your new brand is going to be what they are using in every email, report and in nearly every bit of small talk they’ll ever have. Their enthusiasm and engagement will be essential in how the brand is shared and perceived long after the launch.
At the very beginning of contemplating a name change, we held a strategy away day with all our staff and Board. We discussed the vision and mission of the (then) NLGN; where we felt we were and where we hoped to go.
Team members put forward famous people or characters they felt most encapsulated us – ranging from the grown-up Lisa Simpson to Steve Jobs, Antman and Greta Thunberg. We used this to discuss how we were viewed externally vs our own internal aspirations and a gulf between how we were appearing, and what we wanted to become, began to emerge.
By starting the rebrand this way, we didn’t lead with the top-down assertion that we were going to change the name; it came up organically, as a logical and natural step to becoming the grown-up Lisa Simpson we aspired to.
Audiences should always be the top consideration with any piece of communication, and this especially applies to something as major as a rebrand. Questions like ‘Who are our audience?’ ‘What do they want from us?’ ‘How do they view us?’ should never be far from anyone’s mind.
At New Local, one of our most important audiences are people working in local government, especially those who are members of the 60-plus councils in our network.
Before beginning any design work we put out a survey to this group asking them:
From a selection of negative and positive adjectives, the most popular choices to describe NLGN were: ‘forward-thinking’; ‘progressive’; ‘credible’ and ‘connected’. However, this contrasted with perception of our visual identity, which respondents saw as ‘establishment’, ‘credible’, ‘boring’ and ‘old-fashioned’.
Their answers confirmed what we had heard from staff and board members, that there was a gulf between our visual projection, and our work.
This research was our most valuable mandate for changing the brand – providing justification for our Board, and clear direction for the designers with whom we later worked. It also ensured members were involved and informed from an early stage.
Later, we held more focus groups with our members – comparing different logo versions and looking closely at the final brand and website design. Just before launching we purposely engaged our ‘best friends’ – people who we felt would not only give us some final advice, but who would help us to share the change with their peers.
Existing audiences and stakeholders are vitally important, but they shouldn’t override your strategic priorities.
When consulting with your organisation’s closest friends, you may receive some push-back – after all, if someone already has warm feelings towards a brand, they might not see the need for it to change.
However it’s likely that the rebrand is intended to move the organisation forward, and to attract new and emerging audiences, so think about the voices that are not in the room as well as those who seem loudest at present.
A phrase I’ve found particularly helpful is ‘we’re gathering views from a range of different people with whom we work.’ It’s useful to set expectations among people advising you that while their views will be considered it is as one of a range of important voices.
I wish I’d done this more clearly at a previous role I had at a prison charity where we asked prisoners we supported to come up with logo ideas, as part of a broader consultation. One man drew shackled hands emerging from a dove, which were in turn bursting out of a book. It was a cool image but totally wrong for the funders and elderly supporters who provided most of our income. This initially threw me – were we authentically representing people in prison if we didn’t take on all their views? However, I found that when I explained this to the prisoners they understood that different audience priorities needed to be weighed against each other. They ‘bought-in’ to the final outcome, even if it wasn’t their first choice.
Indeed, people who are sceptical or risk-averse to this change can be some of your most valuable assets – they’ll provide a sense check for your decisions and force you to rationalise and justify choices. And of course, their buy-in (if it comes) is ultimately the most rewarding.
*By you, I mean the organisation as whole. I prefer to forget now that our final logo wasn’t my first choice (in fact I fiercely campaigned for another) but I’m now a convert so another tip would be to know when to compromise and to let go!
There should be a strong and relatable narrative around your decision to rebrand.
This may not be the same as your internal narrative.
Externally, it’s better to focus on the positive causes for change rather than any defects with your former brand. And it’s important that all your internal stakeholders have a firm grip of what the top lines are when they are asked about the change.
Our own name transition was relatively straight-forward – removing only two words from our name meant we could easily frame the change as a transition rather than complete upheaval. Our comms emphasised that the choice was based on what we had continually heard from our members. Their remit had expanded beyond local government and therefore so could our brand. We spoke about their – and our – aspirational vision of working towards a ‘new local’. And we put forward various interpretations of our new bold, hot-pink logo (equals sign or two building blocks – you decide.)
Of course, the messenger is as important as the message. Our Chair, Professor Donna Hall (who is hugely admired in our sector) filmed a short video telling people directly about our rebrand and the reasons behind the change. I’ve no doubt that this helped it to reach more people and encouraged them to see the change in a positive light!
A rebrand is a massive endeavour and should only be entered into with strong evidence and real conviction that a change is needed.
It’s also one of the most rewarding things you can be involved with professionally – a chance to go back to the fundamentals of what your organisation’s for and what makes your audience tick.
At the end of it, you’ll hopefully be left with a brand that feels like a genuine reflection of your organisation’s mission, values and aspirations – one that can help propel you forward and make you a little bit proud during every bit of work-related small talk to come.
‘Levelling up’ has become one of the big agenda items for this government but how can it be helped by industrial strategy?
The business case for attracting, developing and retaining diversity has been made repeatedly. But diversity is not just about the quality of the work, it’s a reputational issue for the sector as well. A sector lacking in diversity will undermine the importance of the work it produces.
Increasing diversity within any workforce can be daunting. As a task, it’s complex and filled with potential pitfalls. But it doesn’t need to be intimidating. The best way to begin is to find out where you stand now. Think tanks should begin not just by collecting reliable data but also the right data. There are a lot of considerations when collecting diversity data that can feel discouraging or overly bureaucratic but you might start with understanding your staff population. Think about where you want to go and the data you will need to get there. How are you measuring and understanding hiring and promotion decisions? Who are the most “visible” people in your think tank? How do people experience your organisation as a workplace?
It is also important to think about the wider picture. Think tanks are often smaller organisations and at times deriving meaning from your diversity metrics will be challenging. When considering your data, put it in context with the think tank sector as a whole. This can help you understand which challenges are sector-wide, and which might be specific to your organisation. Benchmarking against other organisations isn’t about using other think tanks to explain away your issues, it’s about getting a fuller understanding. If the data shows a diversity problem across the whole sector, then the sector isn’t the bar. Benchmarking with the wider sector is about driving aspirations and understanding progress.
While the data is important it is just the beginning of the process. How do people experience working in your organisation? Having a diverse workforce is of limited value if people feel inhibited in their work. Some of this information can still be captured quantitatively. Consultation with think tank staff can take the form of a workplace culture survey, but more descriptive methods (survey comments, interviews, discussions) can also help give a structured sense of how staff are affected by policies and arrangements in your think tank (or the lack of policies and arrangements).
Be mindful that this should be done sensitively. People should be able to give feedback in a way that won’t impact on their own career progression.
Think tanks should apply the same methodology they (hopefully) do when writing a report or developing a policy idea. Interventions should be driven by evidence. These interventions will take effort, but the burden shouldn’t fall on underrepresented groups. Involving people in the development of policies and practices that will affect them is important, but giving people additional labour in the workplace, without reward or recognition, will only compound the issues you are trying to solve.
Going back to the data, how do you know your interventions are working? You should set yourself some targets based on the quantitative data you collect. This could mean improvements in representation in your staff population or at more senior levels. But there are other important milestones to consider. Track improvements in staff feedback in the consultation mentioned earlier. Evaluate how policies are working. Whatever interventions you decide upon, you need a way to know that they are worth doing and are having the intended outcome.
Think tanks should share good practice with one another. Having opportunities and spaces to reflect on what the challenges and opportunities are lends itself to organisations that have a lot in common. Think tankers are used to analysing issues and some inward reflection would not go amiss here.
As you begin collecting data don’t forget why you are collecting it in the first place. This data can enable think tanks – as individual organisations and as a broader sector – to understand what their challenges and opportunities are when it comes to creating equitable, diverse and inclusive working environments.
Ahead of the Spring Budget we look at how Universal Credit could be reformed in the recovery from Covid-19Read more
President Biden arrives in office with a full foreign policy in-tray, albeit one that will have to compete for attention…Read more
The Taiwan Straits maybe the most volatile point in the Asia-Pacific. Even if this thin strip of water, separating Taiwan…Read more
'Levelling up' has become one of the big agenda items for this government but how can it be helped by…Read more
This event, hosted by UK think tank Chatham House will discuss Ethiopia’s economic reform trajectory and long-term developmental vision. Ethiopia’s…More Info