Masterclasses

Once upon a time, masterclasses were things that were put on by people who were obviously masters at their trade. A masterclass was put on by someone whose technique everyone admired even if there might be inevitable disagreements about taste and artistry. World renowned musicians put on master-classes teaching the technique that you might pick up from a master but only to students who’d already spent years at the con.

Today high-profile and/or high-chutzpah consultants put on masterclasses. And apart from the reassurance their profile (or their chutzpah) might give you, you can’t really tell that they’re masters at all. Well they speak confidently. And they may have written a book. Anyway, as a conference organiser has told me, you can charge more and get more people in if you call something a ‘masterclass’. And so they do. Commercial conference organisers find academics to give masterclasses.

Anyway, here’s a masterclass you can go to. It is a masterclass on delivering policy under pressure. And who doesn’t want to deliver policy under pressure ? (If they are under pressure that is – and if they need to deliver policy). And of those who deliver policy who isn’t under pressure?

Anyway, I know you’re wondering whether my self-respect will stop me from putting on master-classes.  Time will tell, but I wouldn’t put money on it. You’ve got to get with the lingo, get with the base-superstructure tectonics of your age. If I do though, we’ll have this little blog post as our private joke on Yehudi Menuhin and all the other great masters in technique the modern world has seen (I don’t know if they had masterclasses in the ancient world).

In the meantime, if you’re under pressure, I’d say get along to this masterclass and make some policy.

Who should attend?

Policy Officers
Policy Analysts
Policy Developers
Program Managers
Program Administrators
Stakeholder
Engagement Managers
Compliance Officers
Branch Managers

Especially those under pressure.

You know it makes sense.

This entry was posted in Bargains, Economics and public policy, Humour. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JJ
JJ
10 years ago

Probably it will be a world class state of the art master-class I would guess!

FDB
FDB
10 years ago

I’m pretty sure that’d be “world’s best practice” JJ.

Matt Cowgill
10 years ago

Wow, I’ve always wanted to know how to “Explain ‘policy marketing’ for improved stakeholder”! I need some improved stakeholder!

Nicholas Gruen
10 years ago

You’re a definite to go Matt – note “Policy Officers/Policy Analysts” – hello?

MikeM
MikeM
10 years ago

There is a common tendency to use a long word or phrase rather than a related short one, often inappropriately, in order to sound important. Thus in the United States the alternative to walking is transportation, not transport – although I have yet to see the verb form “to transportate”.

An increasingly common local example is the use of “epicentre” to mean “centre”.

The Economist Style Guide:

Epicentre means that point on the earth’s surface above the centre of an earthquake. To say that Mr Putin was at the epicentre of the dispute suggests that the argument took place underground.

But The Economist sometimes ignores its own style guide, most recently (“How a young revolutionary fooled the city elders”, Sep 23rd 2010):

The mural culture then spread to other places in California and to the rest of the country. Philadelphia might today be described as its epicentre. And so, from beneath the whitewash, re-emerged the art that defied censorship, mocked the patronising American taste for Mexican curio knick-knacks, indicted American excesses south of the border and encouraged, then as now, the many Latinos who live in America’s shadows.

John J
John J
10 years ago

Federal Labor should attend this masterclass because just about all of the policies they have delivered under pressure have been PR disasters. If they had promised a chicken in every pot, the chickens supplied would have been rabid, the pots would have turned radioactive, and every peasant’s hut in the land would have burned down. I support Labor but sometimes I wonder…

derrida derider
derrida derider
10 years ago

Come on, Nicholas, surely you can expand the Who should attend list beyond that – use your imagination. Heaven forfend that any solvent potential customer should find themselves excluded. At least add “policy bloggers” to the list …

FDB
FDB
10 years ago

I wonder if ‘stakeholder’ (in the singular form that is) is a Freudian slip.

John B
John B
10 years ago

Remember when the stakeholder was a person who was not party to a wager, but who held the stakes pending determination of the outcome, at which point the stakes were distributed in accordance with the agreed wagers? The stakeholder was there to keep everybody honest.

As currently used, the word means something else entirely. This makes me wonder what, if anything, is the new word for the person who holds the stakes, as distinct from one of who has an interest in the outcome of the wager, ie gambler.

This is an excellent example of a word which has been taken from the language, when there are other quite satisfactory words and phrases available, eg interested party, gambler, potential beficiary.