An observation on agency from my job hunt. Amidst the terrible job market and refusal to play the online casino that is applying for jobs on LinkedIn - I have taken it upon myself to start reaching out to CEOs or people with power in notable organisations.
What I have noticed is that American organisations and American people by and large are far more receptive to this type of behaviour than we are here in the UK. This suggests that the UK culture has an aversion to people who are trying hard to make things happen. I wonder how you change such an embedded cultural norm?
Reminded me of your podcast on the Industrial Revolution and how some of those textile industry innovations were available to people for a very long time before someone thought to actually try and improve things! Agency, innovation and efficient governance was a part of our culture
I don't know if you both considered it, but you really have spent 50 minutes describing another South African, not Nelson Mandela, but Elon Musk. Optimistic, forward looking, very very high agency: Tesla, X, Starlink, Grok and so on. Frustrated by government and bureaucracy (DOGE a draw at best). Highly trusted by his team who he in turn trusts. Very detailed focus: his strategy as CEO is to find the biggest current problem (bottleneck) and bypass any middle management getting into the details and solving it. Can you have Elon-like impact and still remain British and diffident and detached and ironic? I don't think so, whatsmore I think if you are a high agency and highly capable young person in Britain should you battle with the culture here, or just head for America?
I understand that some of his social media activity is on the nose - he is political but no politician, and what happened to his son changed him into something of an activist. But he is also 'possibly the most high agency person in the world', and I think to explain things you need to understand how the world is, not how it might be in theory, and that what makes someone "high agency" might not be all puppies and roses. Richard Hanania, who I suppose you could call a libertarian troll, tried to come up with a concept of "elite human capital", centered around the academy, but it floundered, at least in part I think, because he wanted to exclude Musk from his definition. Which ends up making it look inadequate.
I think Peter Thiel has achieved more than Musk. That's because you get much more leverage from ideology than from specific, bankable projects. He more than anyone else seems to have forged the ValleyBro ideology. He's funded protoges here there and everywhere - one of whom is the vice president. He has built a pipeline of talent - some of it bankable, some of it more public focused.
His level of agency is a separate thing from whether he's used it for good or ill however.
This was a fascinating interview and quite pertinent to the UK, more specifically England's quandary. Speaking as an American, who travels to the UK on an annual basis (my daughter has lived there for the past decade), the focus on culture is important. Churchill's "two people divided by a common language" addresses the way our two cultures can misunderstand each other. The contempt many people in the UK have for Trump concerns not his agency, but his amorality and raging narcissism. He was remarkably inept at implementing his policies during his first term and his short attention span would seem to limit his powers of agency. This time around, his Project 2025 people are providing the traction. Mr. Jones astutely noted how Elon Musk fits the high agency profile, perhaps due to his engineering/problem-solving mindset. Which is also why he failed so spectacularly at DOGE; he could not understand the difference between running a company like Tesla, where his directives are implemented, and trying to transform a government agency (!) with its vested interests and legal protections. I would be interested in knowing whether amorality, or at least an unconcern with how one's actions affect others correlates highly with a strong sense of agency.
This is an incredibly thought-provoking interview.
One thought is that yes, just getting on with it and fixing a specific problem is important. But I do think there has to be some sort of framework or theory that underpins the way you chose that specific problem and the way you went about fixing it. Otherwise it comes across as a bit ad hoc, and so harder to repeat for a different problem.
One of the characteristics that seems to be associated with agency is determination, persistence and doggedness. Strikes me that it must be hard to persist with something unless you've got some overarching belief about why that thing matters in the broader scheme of things.
James's point on the connection between resentment and contentment confirms Professor Layard's research in his book 'Happiness' which established that happiness levels rise when income differentials are narrowed. It may be no coincidence that that two thirds of the UK'S wealth is owned by a fifth of the population. Add that to the endemic credentialism and stimulating agency looks like the hardest - but possibly most important - issue to fix.
If there is anything making Reform popular it is that Farage is chiming with people that things are broken but, far from nihilism, that something can be done. Whether Reform is capable of doing that is a different question of course.
Add also to that some sense of fun and play - see Gareth Roberts Spectator lead last week.
Yeah I’m in two minds about that. His rating as potential PM still very low even though he’s relatively popular(much lower than Starmer). So I do wonder if most Reform voters really believe he’ll fix anything. Agree on the fun and play, might write about that.
An observation on agency from my job hunt. Amidst the terrible job market and refusal to play the online casino that is applying for jobs on LinkedIn - I have taken it upon myself to start reaching out to CEOs or people with power in notable organisations.
What I have noticed is that American organisations and American people by and large are far more receptive to this type of behaviour than we are here in the UK. This suggests that the UK culture has an aversion to people who are trying hard to make things happen. I wonder how you change such an embedded cultural norm?
Reminded me of your podcast on the Industrial Revolution and how some of those textile industry innovations were available to people for a very long time before someone thought to actually try and improve things! Agency, innovation and efficient governance was a part of our culture
Definitely! Made me think about that too.
I don't know if you both considered it, but you really have spent 50 minutes describing another South African, not Nelson Mandela, but Elon Musk. Optimistic, forward looking, very very high agency: Tesla, X, Starlink, Grok and so on. Frustrated by government and bureaucracy (DOGE a draw at best). Highly trusted by his team who he in turn trusts. Very detailed focus: his strategy as CEO is to find the biggest current problem (bottleneck) and bypass any middle management getting into the details and solving it. Can you have Elon-like impact and still remain British and diffident and detached and ironic? I don't think so, whatsmore I think if you are a high agency and highly capable young person in Britain should you battle with the culture here, or just head for America?
Yep possibly the most high agency person in the world
I understand that some of his social media activity is on the nose - he is political but no politician, and what happened to his son changed him into something of an activist. But he is also 'possibly the most high agency person in the world', and I think to explain things you need to understand how the world is, not how it might be in theory, and that what makes someone "high agency" might not be all puppies and roses. Richard Hanania, who I suppose you could call a libertarian troll, tried to come up with a concept of "elite human capital", centered around the academy, but it floundered, at least in part I think, because he wanted to exclude Musk from his definition. Which ends up making it look inadequate.
I think Peter Thiel has achieved more than Musk. That's because you get much more leverage from ideology than from specific, bankable projects. He more than anyone else seems to have forged the ValleyBro ideology. He's funded protoges here there and everywhere - one of whom is the vice president. He has built a pipeline of talent - some of it bankable, some of it more public focused.
His level of agency is a separate thing from whether he's used it for good or ill however.
This was a fascinating interview and quite pertinent to the UK, more specifically England's quandary. Speaking as an American, who travels to the UK on an annual basis (my daughter has lived there for the past decade), the focus on culture is important. Churchill's "two people divided by a common language" addresses the way our two cultures can misunderstand each other. The contempt many people in the UK have for Trump concerns not his agency, but his amorality and raging narcissism. He was remarkably inept at implementing his policies during his first term and his short attention span would seem to limit his powers of agency. This time around, his Project 2025 people are providing the traction. Mr. Jones astutely noted how Elon Musk fits the high agency profile, perhaps due to his engineering/problem-solving mindset. Which is also why he failed so spectacularly at DOGE; he could not understand the difference between running a company like Tesla, where his directives are implemented, and trying to transform a government agency (!) with its vested interests and legal protections. I would be interested in knowing whether amorality, or at least an unconcern with how one's actions affect others correlates highly with a strong sense of agency.
This is an incredibly thought-provoking interview.
One thought is that yes, just getting on with it and fixing a specific problem is important. But I do think there has to be some sort of framework or theory that underpins the way you chose that specific problem and the way you went about fixing it. Otherwise it comes across as a bit ad hoc, and so harder to repeat for a different problem.
One of the characteristics that seems to be associated with agency is determination, persistence and doggedness. Strikes me that it must be hard to persist with something unless you've got some overarching belief about why that thing matters in the broader scheme of things.
Agree with both points. It’s not a recipe for success/progress, just a vital ingredient.
James's point on the connection between resentment and contentment confirms Professor Layard's research in his book 'Happiness' which established that happiness levels rise when income differentials are narrowed. It may be no coincidence that that two thirds of the UK'S wealth is owned by a fifth of the population. Add that to the endemic credentialism and stimulating agency looks like the hardest - but possibly most important - issue to fix.
If there is anything making Reform popular it is that Farage is chiming with people that things are broken but, far from nihilism, that something can be done. Whether Reform is capable of doing that is a different question of course.
Add also to that some sense of fun and play - see Gareth Roberts Spectator lead last week.
Yeah I’m in two minds about that. His rating as potential PM still very low even though he’s relatively popular(much lower than Starmer). So I do wonder if most Reform voters really believe he’ll fix anything. Agree on the fun and play, might write about that.