Topic
Sign in
Alex Vince

Alex Vince

Faculty

I teach Strategy, Civics & Serious Games at Newspeak House, which will give you an insight into how governance works in Britain and how you might get big things done. You might think about it as politics without the political: not party positioning, but the practical mechanics of power, institutions, legitimacy, delivery and decision-making.

My interest is in how people move from “this is broken” to “this is changeable”. British governance is full of formal diagrams, constitutional language and institutional myths, but most real decisions are shaped by timing, incentives, relationships, capacity, risk, legitimacy and the ability to coordinate people under pressure. I’m interested in helping fellows understand that machinery well enough to act on it.

My background is in the UK Civil Service, working across reform, leadership, stakeholder engagement, delivery, crisis recovery and public-sector systems. I’ve worked on large-scale convening across senior government, reform networks, operational recovery, policy development and complex public administration problems where the question is not simply “what is the right answer?” but “what can actually be made to happen?”

I’m particularly interested in serious games because they make hidden systems visible. A good game can show you why institutions behave irrationally, why bad incentives persist, why contracts collapse, why coordination fails, why everyone can be acting sensibly and still produce a terrible outcome. Games give people a safe way to practise judgement before the stakes are real.

I can help fellows think through questions like: How does government actually work? Where does power sit when no one seems to be in charge? How do you build legitimacy for change? How do you design interventions that survive contact with institutions? When should you use persuasion, pressure, coalition-building, process design or escalation? And how do you turn a good idea into something that can survive politics, bureaucracy and implementation?

My current and previous work has included:

  • Working in and around central government on reform, crisis management, leadership development and institutional coordination.
  • Designing and running programmes that bring together senior leaders across the Civil Service.
  • Government Wargamer and facilitator of Megagames
  • Working on operational recovery and public-sector delivery problems where political, contractual and institutional incentives collide.
  • Designing practical tools, briefings and exercises to help people understand complex systems under pressure.
  • Developing serious games and simulations about governance, conflict, strategy, crisis management and institutional failure.

I am at Newspeak for most Ration Clubs. I expect to run at least two sessions per term, with more if there is interest. I am especially useful in 1-1 conversations where a Fellowship Candidate brings a live problem, project, game design, institutional puzzle or strategy question.

I’m happy to help people sharpen a messy idea into a more practical theory of change. You are most likely to get value from speaking to me if you are trying to understand how something really works, where the leverage might be, or how to design a game or intervention that teaches people something serious.

Bring me messy problems - a broken institution, a half-designed game, a civic project, a campaign that has lost its way, a public-sector puzzle, a theory of change that feels too vague, or a governance problem where the formal answer clearly is not the real answer. I am most useful when helping people make the implicit explicit: who matters, what they want, what they fear, what can be changed, what cannot, and where the next useful move might be.

Topics

A lot of people understand Britain’s political system formally but not operationally. They know about Parliament, Ministers, departments, regulators, local government and the Civil Service, but not how decisions actually move between them.

I can help fellows understand the difference between constitutional power, administrative power, political attention and practical leverage. That includes questions like: Who actually decides? Who can block? Who implements? Who carries risk? What happens when formal authority and operational reality point in different directions?

This is especially useful for fellows interested in public institutions, reform, state capacity, democratic systems, civic technology or policy entrepreneurship.

Most ambitious projects fail not because the idea is bad, but because the strategy is vague. “Raise awareness”, “influence government” and “build a movement” are not strategies by themselves. They need to become choices about actors, incentives, sequencing, legitimacy, pressure, trade-offs and timing.

I can help you move from a broad ambition to a practical route to change. That might include actor mapping, identifying veto points, choosing insider versus outsider tactics, designing escalation ladders, building coalitions, or deciding when a quiet conversation is more useful than a public campaign.

I’m particularly interested in helping people understand influence without fantasy. Power is not always where it appears to be, and access is not the same thing as leverage.

Serious games are not just “fun workshops”. Used well, they are tools for thinking. They let people inhabit incentives, test assumptions, reveal hidden constraints and understand systems that are too complex to explain in a slide deck.

I can help fellows design games about politics, governance, crisis, public administration, contracts, conflict, institutions and social systems. That includes thinking through objectives, player roles, mechanics, incentives, adjudication, escalation, information flows and learning outcomes.

I’m particularly interested in games where the lesson emerges from play rather than being preached at the players. A good serious game should make people feel the problem in their hands.

A lot of the most important political questions eventually become delivery questions. Can the state actually do the thing? Does it have the data, capability, authority, money, trust and operational grip? What happens when responsibility is fragmented across departments, contractors, regulators and delivery bodies?

I can help fellows think about public-sector failure in practical terms: incentives, governance, accountability, data ownership, delivery chains, outsourcing, crisis recovery and the gap between policy intent and operational reality.

This is useful for anyone interested in reform, public services, infrastructure, procurement, digital government or the practical limits of “just make government do X”.

Many institutional problems are not really persuasion problems. They are legitimacy problems. People may agree something needs to change but disagree about who has the right to decide, whether the process is fair, whether the evidence is trusted, or whether the people leading the work understand the consequences.

I can help you think about how legitimacy is built in practice: through participation, transparency, competence, sequencing, evidence, consultation, ownership and visible fairness.

This matters in government, but also in communities, movements, organisations, civic projects and any environment where formal authority is weak or contested.

Institutions behave differently in a crisis. Attention narrows, risk appetite changes, people bypass normal process, and short-term fixes can create long-term vulnerability. A lot of strategy is understanding how to act under pressure without destroying your position later.

I can help fellows think through crisis dynamics: escalation, accountability, political attention, operational grip, communications, trade-offs, and the point at which stabilising the system starts to undermine future leverage.

This is an area where serious games are particularly valuable, because they let people practise pressure before the real crisis arrives.

A lot of civic projects fail because they solve an imagined problem rather than a real one. The hard bit is not only having a good idea, but understanding the user, the workflow, the institution, the adoption barrier and the incentive structure.

I can help you move from idea to intervention: What problem are you actually solving? Who needs to change behaviour? What would make adoption rational? What evidence would convince people? What existing process does this need to fit inside? When should you build something new, and when should you adapt what already exists?

I’m especially interested in practical interventions that increase agency, competence, coordination and trust.

Some kinds of power come from formal authority. Others come from convening, sense-making and helping groups act together. In complex systems, the ability to bring the right people into the right conversation at the right moment can be decisive.

I can help fellows think about leadership as stewardship: creating the conditions for good people to do more good, building trust across boundaries, clarifying choices, and helping groups move without pretending conflict does not exist.

This includes practical questions like: How do you design a useful meeting? How do you build a network that actually does something? How do you help senior people make better decisions? How do you create enough shared understanding for action?