Money, motivation, Buffet, business and community.................

There are many things and people that impress me and a few things that, in the words of a rather dodgy song, ‘don’t impress me much’.  This list includes drunkenness (why do some people see that as an achievement?), vanity, selfishness, attendance at public school and gambling (also tattoos but two very dear friends of mine have them and I wouldn’t want to upset them).   What links these together is that no skill or effort is required in obtaining them and hence I am not sure which aspect of their procumbent I am meant to find impressive.  What has this to do with business you may ask.  Well the Guardian today had two interesting articles.  One about Buffet and tax (and please note we are not talking about punitive taxes here) and one about bankers and bonuses.

As a business academic I am quite familiar with motivational theory.  As a human I am also quite familiar with that concept of course, but it’s good to have theory.  The reason I tie Buffet’s views on tax with bank bonuses is probably obvious however I feel it is underexplored.  Buffet’s wealth is self-created and linked directly to his actions.  In other words his wealth and the company he controls are intrinsically linked.  It goes down his wealth goes down and in this way he is the classic businessman (perhaps in another blog I’ll go through my definitions of businessperson, entrepreneur, enterprising).  ‘The City’ (banks, fund managers, etc) on the other had are salaried corporate drones.  If the bank goes down their bonus may go down or they may even lose their job but their personal wealth remains intact.  How does this link to motivation and community?  Well I continue to be amazed by the way the City behaves.  Money is extracted from pension funds and investment trusts to pay bonuses way beyond any link to effort or ability and we are instructed that any attempt to restrict this will result in these individuals fleeing the country for less oppressive tax regimes. 

Let’s just unpick that a bit.  Individuals (you and me) invest in various funds and pensions.  An employee of the fund takes some or all of that money and gambles it.  If they win they take a sizable cut of it for themselves, if they lose they levy a management charge anyway.  In other words you lend £100 to a gambler, if they win on the horses they will give you back some of ‘their’ winnings, if they lose they will give you back £90 (or maybe less if they lose overall).     That is basically how the model works.  Ok that’s the system so where do taxes and bonuses come in?  Well in order to make these gambles the individuals involved, not always the brightest sparks, need to be paid salaries in excess of anything a medical Dr could hope to achieve.  Failure to pay this or the levying of a higher tax will result in them leaving the country.  I would contend that there are three problems with that last statement.  First what evidence is there of flight?  Can anyone point to an area where this has happened beyond pointing out that people like to exploit tax havens?  Secondly if these individuals are motivated by money then taxing them will not hurt; it introduces a stimulus to work harder.  The idea of bankers quitting and going on the dole seems a little farfetched.  Thirdly, and most important, these individuals are not wealth creators they are wealth takers.  A properly functioning market makes funds available for businesses as investment.  It matches investors with companies that offer appropriate levels of risk.  This is a simple transaction, a process and administrative function.  The risks are taken by the providers of capital (the actual person who pays the pension - you and me - not the fund manager) and the full return should be available for them and the full fund available for the business.  What we see is a proportion of this money leached off to pay excessive salaries and bonuses to the City.  In other words the City ‘taxes’ the transactions.

This may seem a little farfetched, it may not, but I believe that a lack of understanding of what happens in markets allows the City to tax us.  There are no models of markets that work, no methods and no plans that ensure results.  All evidence shows that funds behave in an almost random manner and are tightly linked to the performance of the overall market.   If we go back to Buffet you will recall I described him as a businessman.  What I meant by that was he uses his own wealth to generate more, not through speculation but through investment.  There is a fine distinction between those two terms.  Speculation is buying something in the hope it goes up; investment is buying something because of its cash flows.  Buying a taxi is an investment, buying a classic car is speculation.  Buffet buys taxis.  Investment creates wealth and jobs.  I know at times Buffet has laid-off staff – that is part of the ebb and flow of business cycles.  The difference lies in the fact that companies are meant to take capital and deploy it to satisfy consumers’ need for a product or service at a profit.  They are not so many roulette chips to be thrown around in a Champagne fuelled frenzy of arrogant self importance. 

How does this link back to community?  The behaviour of excess we see in the City is as far removed from community as we can get.  There is no sense of empathy, no sense of belonging to a wider community, no sense of responsibility.  The City is unable to benefit society or the economy in its present state.  Basically it perpetuates its own myths.  It sees itself as a wealth creator but has required billions in subsidy and cost trillions in lost ‘wealth’.  The current infatuation of politicians with the city is comic.  To take instruction on austerity from institutions unable to curb their own excess and still in denial as to the causes and problems of the downturn will no doubt keep future economic historians in research papers for decades.  In the meantime we continue to miss the real wealth creators, the small, medium and large firms that provided products and services, that work with communities and stakeholders, that invest and that pay taxes.     

Why do I have an iPhone?..........

Was pondering recently why I have an iPhone, or should I say why I have just bought a new one.  In fact it’s stranger than that; I have just bought a new 3GS not a 4.  First I thought about my initial purchase, this was mostly motivated by the fact that at the time only iPhone seemed to accommodate LinkedIn.   I had Blackberries before and loved them but I really wanted access to this app.  Of course after buying the phone I discovered that LinkedIn only seems to work when you have WiFi – darn!  But I grew to like the phone.  Not for the cute trick of turning it sideways – that’s fun but I rarely use it.  Not for the, somewhat temperamental in truth, YouTube app.   No, the thing I like is the way it feels in your hand.  I have quite big hands and it sits neatly in them with its rounded corners – and this explains why I avoided the rather ugly square iPhone 4. 

You see the 3GS is an E-type next to the 4’s TR7.  It is a Salif Orange Juicer  next to a Kenwood.  But I guess it’s not all ergonomics.  It manages all I need in terms of e-mail, Twitter, web and (badly) LinkedIn.  There are a few games for Beth too.  Of course I often hear people talk about using a phone ‘properly’ and it’s safe to say I rarely do.  I maybe make one call a week – in fact my number is a closely guarded secret (as I mentioned before) and I prefer to be sent an e-mail.  Humorously I once had a diner on another table complain to the management about ‘the man on his phone’ – which was amazing as I thought the touch screen was silent?   

So why haven’t I waited for the 5?  Well first I’m guessing it will be as ugly as the 4.  It took a long time for Jag to return to a shape as pleasing as the E-type and I’m guessing Apple will take a while too.  Second I doubt if it will have 4G and, even if it does, I find 3G coverage so bad I think I can wait a bit longer.  And why did I buy a new one?  Well the battery life, always shocking, was getting worse.  So I bought myself a new one and Beth now enjoys the old one – minus the social networking capabilities - until she can figure out how to add apps!

 

I have seen lots of comment, status updates and debate on our recent social unrest/crime/revolution (delete as applicable).  Of course there is never one simple direct cause to such phenomena, but I have seen a lot thrown in to the melting pot for consideration.  This got me thinking.  Where are we as a country; are we the worst, the best, the most shocking, the most moderate?  It seemed worth finding some sort of data to capture this.  So, and I promise no charts or analysis, let’s take a trip through league tables:

Taxes

“We pay too high a tax and it puts people off working”; “Corporation tax puts firms off” and other such statements:

OECD

Let’s start with top rate tax.  Now income tax is really hard to compare as each country uses a different threshold and different additions and bits –it’s as bad as mobile phone tariffs!  But our level of top rate tax is the 18th highest (high = bad) rate (below France, Germany, well most of Europe – and the USA!).  I will focus mostly on OECD type countries in this blog.  But that’s an interesting start.  The UK is not too dear a place to be rich in terms of tax.

But will we ever get to be rich?  Well the average wage is 4th highest (high = good) when converted to dollars (depends on $ exchange rate of course).  Of course we should never rely on averages as the data is skewed – more latter.

Interestingly (I think) the average wage to top rate tax threshold multiplier is 1.3 – 10th lowest (low =- good) – so our average is closer to top rate tax payer than many countries (don’t worry the top rate starts at about £37,000 – so you can see how high the average is).

But we don’t just pay tax we also pay NI and if we look at an ‘all in’ measure then we come 6th internationally for top-rate payers (51%)– but next 11 are all similar – the USA is as low as 43% - but of course you get no free health, no NHS so no need to pay for it through tax.

Ok so what if you only earn average wage (OECD)?  Well if you have no kids tax is the 14th highest (high = bad) - but in fairness next 3 are about same and USA is 2.5% less.  Get yourself some children and we are 8th (but tax has dropped by 6%) next 7 are about the same (so little difference in our position with or without children) – US is very generous in this regard with about 10% less tax

So that explains individuals what about firms?

Well not too good being an SME big enough to pay corporation tax (OECD), we are 7th highest (high = bad)– but lower surprisingly lower than the USA (by 0.1%).  France is 5% lower but they did invent the word entrepreneur after all.

Big Business (OECD) does well.  This time we are 17th highest (high = bad) – below Mexico and 14% below (cheaper!) than the US and Japan (we are about the same as Korea). So a good place for big business, not so good for medium sized.

Finally we also pay tax on things we buy.  With regard to VAT (OECD) we are 10th highest (high = bad) (with 4 others) and we were 20th before the rise this year.  Finally the old favourite fuel; petrol is the 6th highest – but 5 (including France and Germany) are within 7p. 

A more complex index that shows all of these taxes merged together places us at 29th (low = good) with Germany and the two lowest in Europe by some way.

Families and benefits:

Parents and Children (New York Times)

Not easy to get data but about 70% of children live with two adults – but this places us about 4th – and almost ties with the USA.  What is perhaps surprising is that 50% of those single parents do not work – however about 40% seems max for Europe so we are not alone.

Benefits (nationalmaster)

Of course maybe benefits are too high?  Well we are ranked 16th – a tiny bit above USA and it makes up about 0.3% of our GDP. So we are neither the most generous nor does it consume a lot of our GDP.

Work

Do we work harder?  Well 50% work more than 40 hours, placing us 9th (high= lot of hours) – but above this is a strange mix of Japan and USA (expected) and Italy and Switzerland (well less expected by me anyway).

Contrasting back to the previous statistic about non-working single mums 55% of mums in general do not work (child under 6) which places us 11th highest (high = lots work) (interestingly in Japan only 35% of mums with under 6s work).

When we are there are we productive?  Unfortunately no – we are about 30th.  Unemployed – well about 19th highest (high = productive) – so not that high.  And 24th for 15-24 year olds.  So we do work, we work averagely long hours, but we aren’t very good at it (it would seem).

Ethnicity:

I’m not even going to repeat some of what I have heard, even as examples.  But what it the picture of diversity in contemporary Britain?  Well do you think we are ‘flooded’?  Not even close.  85% white British, 87% including Irish and 92% white in total.  So where does that leave us in a league table?  Well for a start quite far behind the USA which has 75% white, behind South Africa which has 80% black (yes South Africa is more diverse than we are), behind Germany which manages 91% (ok so they won that one on penalties maybe), about the same as China, way behind New Zealand at 70% and behind Holland (83%) and about the same as Australia.  So we are not exactly diverse by international standards.   

 Poverty:

So far we have looked at income, taxes and productivity.  Clearly we are wealthier in absolute terms than the majority of people on the planet – but what about cost of living and distribution of wealth?

Well in terms of consumer prices in general it is not cheap.  We are 14th highest (high = dear) but below some of our near neighbours (France, Denmark, Sweden etc).  If you are looking for rental property it is worst – we are 11th and things are not much better for groceries (14th again) and all those celebrity chefs have not moved us from 11th dearest for dinning out either.  So not the dearest place to live; but certainly not the cheapest.

With regards to the gap between rich and poor I am pleased to say we are not in the worst 20.  We are also not in the top 30 either!  Another data sets shows we are worse than the OECD average and a tiny bit fairer than Poland; but way off the majority of Europe.  So, not the fairest place to live in terms of income distribution.

Education:

Literacy is a little tricky, it is assumed to be 99% in developed countries and so is not recorded.  Some data are available and it does make a very pretty chart – even if ugly reading.   About 20th (1 = best) for reading, 22nd for math and 11th for science.  Not too impressive.

Crime:

Are we soft on crime? Well we are ranked a lowly 92nd in international standards with ‘only’ 150 people per 100,000 locked up.  But, before you pen your letter to The Mail, let’s look a bit more closely.  The USA, Russia and Israel are ‘ahead’ of us – last time I looked the USA and Russia had not solved their crime problems?  Also ahead are numerous island states and a few eastern European countries.  But when we compare with France, Germany, Sweden, Norway etc we are far ahead.  The link between occurrence of crime and prison is clear enough but the link between prison and reduction in crime is not so clear.

In case you thought we had too much freedom as an explanation of the need to lock us up our privacy score places us in 14th (1st = best) – a tiny bit better than China.   Linking many of these measures together we can use a Human Development Index score – this composite of wealth, poverty, education and other measures again places us around 16th internationally.

So where has this left us?  Well we are not diverse, we are not over generous with benefits, our taxes are not high but our inequality is.  We are not too good in school but we are very good at locking people up.  Whatever caused the recent riots you can be sure of one thing – it wasn’t one thing!  Understanding the complex way these variables work together, within the policy framework and cultural narrative that exists in contemporary Britain will go some way to understanding the problem and from that moving to a solution – I doubt it’s water cannon.

Markets and riots....

I’m going to try to things together here, possibly not in the way you would expect.  There is an obvious and very clear link between the greed of the City and the greed of the street, between the trader looting markets and the hoodie looting HMV.  However this is not what I want to focus on.

We have seen riots before and we have seen market crashed before.  I certainly don’t believe one has caused the other.  What I am interested in exploring is cause and effect, or at least the limits of it.  If we look at both the market and the street as ecosystems with environments and actors what do we see?  Well first there are a diverse range of actors in both.  There are the casual bystanders, the ‘ringleaders’ the, the authorities, the media circus, the people caught up in the excitement and the disgruntled.  One of common element in both seems to be a prevalence of males – but that’s probably another blog.

Also there are the stories these actors tell themselves about their actions and reasons and this informs the usual check we place on ourselves in terms of ethical behaviour.  We have all become familiar with the explanation that this is related to powerless actors defending themselves in a hostile environment beyond their control or influence – but is that the traders or the looters?  We have heard people question the point in self regulating when the people around them aren’t – heroic traders/raiders struggling against a cruel world.      

Of course both exist in environments that are poorly regulated.  The markets are poorly regulated because the actors have argued that is the most efficient way to organise markets, our streets are poorly regulated, thank goodness, because it would curtail the behaviour of self-regulating citizens if they were not.  Here is where the two diverge though.  The behaviour in markets is not only mostly selfish it is exclusively selfish in fact.  There is no regard for responsible behaviour beyond that which influences profit.  The ‘streets’ on the other hand are (normally) surprisingly well behaved without the need for constant vigilance.  People will let you pull out first in your car or will open a door for you.  They will miss their turn simply to make life flow easier in general.  That seems both odd and uplifting.  It seems as if the market exists more like a permanent riot?

If we observe the regulators in both cases we seem a similar pattern.  Both are slow to (re)act and both rather powerless.  But this is no surprise.  The rioters did not wake up that morning and start planning a riot and it is clear that traders have no idea which way the market is heading (I saw one broker forecast 6,500 by Christmas on Friday morning).  So if the actors are not clear as to direction how might the authorities manage?  Bear in mind that in war generals go to great lengths to keep their plans secret a plan that does not exist at all must be the hardest to predict.  Regulators could sense the mood I guess – but in truth the ‘mood’ always seems a poor predictor – works best in hindsight.    We could close the streets and send in the riot police each time an individual is shot or arrested but in truth this was probably not the catalyst and certainly would be an expensive and intrusive way of policing.  With markets there is clearly little central banks can do but at the same time this should not come as a surprise.  Their reaction will be late, will be manipulated and will, inevitably, miss the target.

Interestingly the role of the media is similar in both.  We see ‘inside’ Tweets, interviews with victims and victors, expert opinion, excitable newsreaders, politicians and elder statesmen – be them veterans of Brixton or BCCI.   The news begins with a small change, a few tweets and a couple of videos hint at trouble.  Speculation begins as to motives, cause and developments (remember the errors made over Utøya?).  The story unfolds.  Stressed protagonists explain how they have no choice, victims are paraded, minsters try to calm matters and the outraged are increasingly outranged.  There are promises we will act to prevent this again and we slowly settle back to normality. 

The damage done to London is counted in millions and the loss due to the market crash the same week – trillions.  Both will have resulted in a loss of life.  Neither can be stopped.  We cannot have freedom if we do not allow protest; we cannot be sure protest will not spill over into riot and riot into looting.  We cannot have capitalism without markets; markets will tend towards greed and monopoly.  We don’t have to tolerate both though.  Both raiders and traders can be educated.  Both can be drawn in to a more active society and community that does not see personal greed and possessions as aspirational.  We can all help.  Not ‘hug a hoodie’ but by slowly turning away from the excess and base elements of society that promote exclusivity. That doesn’t just mean turning away from gangsta rap lyrics it also means turning away from the likes of Location, Location, Location..............       

 

 

Common sense........

Oh how I hate common sense.  If there is a more misused phrase in the English language I do not know it.  As Einstein put it so well “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Of course at this point we can dismiss him as ‘an academic’ or ‘not practical’ and many probably would.  Therein lays our problem.  Which use of the word sense and what definition of common? 

In an attempt to gleam more I once tried to read John Coates’ brilliant “The Claims of Common Sense” but got a bit stuck.  No fault of the author – in fact I may go back and give it another go.  See if we try to play with the word common we conjure up ideas of ‘most people’ (and of course that not-as-funny-as-they-think ‘trouble with common sense is it is not that common’ line).  So what do most people know – well they have shared prejudice as Einstein observed.  We expose ourselves to the views of friends, visitors, media, meta-narratives, drunks in bars and get an idea of a shared understanding.  A few hundred years ago it was common sense the world was flat and the sun moved around the earth. 

If one was to watch and read only those channels aimed at business and markets (Bloomberg, the FT for example) you would see a very clear narrative developing and that shared narrative could start to sound like common sense.  Cut  spending (then we could pay less tax and there would be growth), cut regulation on markets (then they can be free to raise more capital in innovative ways)  and pay massive bonuses (as you need to pay these to motivate staff).  All common sense and who could argue – but that’s exactly what caused the 2008 (2011?) recession(s).  Will Hutton has written a thoughtful piece in today’s Observer under the headline “Our financial system has become a madhouse, maximising fear and uncertainty” (subtle title there Will) and picks up on a similar point:

“What is required is a paradigm shift in the way we think and act. The idea transfixing the west is that governments get in the way of otherwise perfectly functioning markets and that the best capitalism – and financial system – is that best left to its own devices. Governments must balance their books, guarantee price stability and otherwise do nothing.

This is the international common sense, but has been proved wrong in both theory and in practice.”

Let’s jump in another direction.  Let’s look at a more community orientated view.  Why are decisions taken centrally when it is the local community that is affected, why shouldn’t we have more flexible working (so mothers can do the ‘school run’), why can’t parents have more say in schools?  All makes perfect sense.  Well apart from the fact that centralisation is efficient (I think you will find Tesco is highly centralised), how do we define local (plenty of wars started with that issues) and do we really want to live in Stepford.  As for flexible working apart from the continued and very problematic narrative that it has to be ‘mum’ who does the ‘school run’ (repeated by a young mum Conservative MP on Radio 4 recently) we also find that without some structure we never get a call answered or efficient delivery (I have seen colleges get so helpful on this front the day shrunk to 10-2 to allow for ‘school runs’ – that’s darn expensive!).  And as for parents running schools – excuse me but I want a qualified experienced professional educating my daughter – not someone who ‘has a bit of spare time’.  The influence of parents on schools is already too great – I have received too many cards and such at various points during the year.  I’m not the Grinch – it’s just I would rather they let my daughter express herself artistically rather than manufacture greetings cards factory style for the whole family at various pinch points.

Somewhere between these two is the world of the ‘pub’.  In a recent surreal episode I was enjoying a twitter conversation with a friend (a fairly regular burst of sanity, humour and insight I appreciate greatly) whist three older gentlemen talked loudly on the table behind about the fishing industry.   “Throwing fish back is a waste of fish” – true.  “They should be allowed to land them” – hmmm “and only be allowed to sell them for the cost of fuel and expenses.  That way there is no motivation for going over quota but it’s only fair their costs are covered”.  Brilliant – that’s fair isn’t it?  Only expenses covered so they aren’t making a profit.  Well either I have stumbled upon what is wrong with British enterprise (we aren’t very), I have gleamed an insight into my own ruthless business mind (scary) or we have found a radical limit to common sense.  If I was the skipper of a boat up to quota and many miles from home I would simply go over quota until my holds were full to pay for my fuel home – surely that is common sense?

I’m going to leave you with one last twist to common sense.  I understand there is a link between badgers and TB in cattle; I also understand this is disputed.  I have read that some in the farming community want a cull of badgers to reduce the spread of TB (common sense I guess they argue) and that the most humane way to do this is with guns.   In which case it follows that the most humane way of controlling foxes must also be with guns rather than hounds – it is common sense after all.

 Common sense tells me I need to go for surfing before the tide drops too far – no wait that’s a fact not common sense – common sense would tell me I’m too old for such silliness.  I shall surf and dream of my own farm were the badgers can roam free – until next time – Abandon All Common Sense Now and Await Further Instructions (apologies to the KLF).  

  

Enterprise, entrepreneurship, business and employability education............

Ok got a bit carried away this time and thought I would look at four areas of ‘business’ education in one short blog – but things have been swirling  around in my mind inspired by various posts and conversations.  I think there’s a theme here though – we’ll find out soon.

Enterprise and Entrepreneurship

Starting with the newest first we also come across wonderfully misapplied terms.  To me, and by no means am I an authority, there is a subtle difference between these two terms.  To me an entrepreneur is an individual that risks their own wealth for growth of an innovative venture.  Said quickly it sounds like any business, or can be constructed that way, but of we look again we see two key terms.  ‘Risk own wealth for growth’ – not the company’s, not yours or mine, but their own on-going wealth.    So the individual puts at risk themselves and does this in an obsessive drive for growth.  So there is no comfort, no success but growth.  The entrepreneur is interested in percentage growth not actual sales – a strange beast.  Now, of course, this also describes Warren Buffet to a large extent – but I would never describe Buffet as an entrepreneur and, I suspect, neither would the Sage of Omaha himself.   This is because Buffet is a brilliant businessman and not one who seeks innovation, the second of our two terms.   Innovation is required in entrepreneurs (I believe).  Taking something and making something very new. 

Switching to enterprise things get a little easier.  We see the same interest in new ways of working, of change, of innovation and creativity but we drop the risk.  So far so good.  Two areas that share a central them – creativity.  Great, so how do we teach this?  Well this is where we start to have problems.  Too often enterprise is taught in terms of ‘business start-up’, ‘business plans’, ‘tax returns’ and ‘margins’ – in other words a little too much Dragons’ Den.  Not that this does not have its place but imagine dedicating most of a music degree to box office sales, staffing, PR, finance and such and only a small proportion to composition – that certainly wouldn’t work would it?  Enterprise needs to focus on problems, solutions, creativity, fun and ideas.  Unfortunately most business schools are ill equipped to teach these – and as for state schools – well maybe the PE teacher can look at it in a free period?  I know I get more of my enterprise solutions from Dr Seuss than I do from Ansoff, and I get precious little from standing on the shoulder of the ‘would be giants’ and reading their biographies.  

Business

After having tore a little bit polemically through enterprise let’s turn our sights toward traditional business education.  At this point I need to declare that I have a degree in business so am guilty as charged.  Business is a great degree, ideal if you are not sure on career and want real value for money.    But, and you knew there was going to be a but, I am not sure what it creates.  We dabble across a range of subjects, each subject itself problematic.  Taking accountancy for example, we do instruct in the basics and cover a fair bit of ground but to what end?  Accountancy itself is a very poor lens through which to view business.  It is dwells too forensically on too few variables.  It’s boring – no really it is.  It lacks an understanding of wider environment and of markets.  Which takes us to marketing, is this a creative or analytical subject, or both, or neither?  Human resources will equip you with a few insights (too strong a word) into motivation and leadership and strategy will tell you why Coca-Cola is successful (in case you couldn’t work it out for yourself).    Don’t worry all of this will get you a good job, it is an accepted discipline.  What interest me is the link between subjects and reality.  Before you say the next line for me “you can’t teach experience” let me stop you.  If experience was that useful a guide we would be in a much more prosperous country – we have too long been embarrassed of theoretical studies and allowed ourselves to be lured onto the rocks by the sirens of ‘common sense’.  You’ve had your turn – we threw away academic funding 30 years ago and followed you into the abyss.  No what I am calling for is a breaking up of silos, a move away from pseudo-disciplines.    Most accounting problems can be solved by an un-indoctrinated maths graduate and better marketing copy written by an English graduate – so what on earth are we teaching?

Employability

Vying with enterprise for first place in the policy beauty pageant is employability.  I’m not too sure what this means, or at least what the universally accepted definition is.   I have seen everything dumped underneath it - CVs, interviews, literacy, numeracy, research methods with the ‘common sense’ answer that you need these to get a job.  True.  But that makes anything part of the employability curriculum – and we pretty much have all assumed that learning makes people better and better probably helps them get a job.  I think if we back off of this meta view and look at what helps someone get work and gain promotion, and what is lacking in students’ more general education, we can probably focus on attitude.  If we consider the contestants on the Apprentice, perhaps with the exception of the recent winner, we see a collection of un-employables.  Over sold CVs, a ‘say what they want to hear’ mentality, over confident and under-delivering – great TV though.  We need to help students realise the importance of attitude, of accepting that they have a positive role to play in society and that, despite what the adverts say, you don’t automatically deserve everything just because you can breathe.   I’m not sure how we teach this alongside CV writing and interview skills, and I admire those who are trying.  

Apologies for another long blog, but I think we have developed a bit of a theme that I will flip into another blog – common sense and its limits.

I’m still in process of moving office, in many ways it’s a bit of an archaeological dig as I go through various artefacts.  Of course all this has got me thinking – what’s the purpose of an office.  I say this because for me it is mostly a repository (I so hope that’s the right one – known for my typos as I am).  But I notice that for others it is some sort of home from home, some even seem to have personal shrines created with various stickers, googly eyed fur balls and photos.  Others seem to use the office as a status symbol or a symbol of ‘teamwork’ by the battery farm approach.

Let’s dig in to these a bit more.  What does the home from home suggest about the user?  Is this an attempt to remind them of home (where they would rather be), to bring together the two things they love or to make a cosy space from which to work? What sort of space do these people need?  I would suggest that perhaps all three of these ‘needs’ would be mostly satisfied by stability and few changes of location.  In addition there seems to be a need for borders and boundaries.  Ok we can achieve that in the work place – but is that desirable?  Can you innovate and create in such a space or does it lend itself more to familiar routine?  Of course we could argue that not everyone needs to be innovative and creative – but I purposefully added ‘argue’ – I’m not convinced that there is separation between effective and innovative.

So what of our status seeking friend?  What of the need to prove who is boss?  Well I think we have answered it there.  I once heard a story about an English army officer who was in charge of a garrison where swagger sticks had become some sort of status symbol resulting in junior officers parading around like peacocks with these devices tucked under one arm.  It was getting out of hand the senior officer thought.  His response was a simple memo: “RE swagger sticks: If you need one use one.”  This had the desired effect.   Not sure a similar email would work with offices but this idea of status is interesting.  A desire for status and a desire for perfection (which in many ways are similar traits) stems from insecurity I believe.  Worryingly this may mean some organisations have senior staff who are quite insecure – and actually I would content they do. 

We all need props - literal and metaphorical.  As one of my students once pointed out in a presentation, I am rarely seen without either a phone or a cup of coffee or both (thanks Mark).   I also like some comfort – I feel happier using my ‘own’ PC or laptop for example.  But I guess it is at the edges and fringes we can start to worry.  As a student (amateur) of architecture I was always interested in Le Corbusier’s quote “The house is a machine for living in”.  Not as minimalist as it sounds (in my interpretation) but rather the building works for you and not you for it. 

Doors, silence and space seem to me to be the issues.  Probably throw a bit of observation in there too – our very own panopticon.  I like the idea of spaces but no doors.  Imagine your office corridor but with double size door openings with no doors.  Sort of substantial cubicles.  Quieter than open plan, less enclosed than offices and yet still having a feeling of substantial walls and not the fragility of ‘dividers’ that are as useful acoustically as hospital curtains. 

As for me – I’m back to do some more sorting out and think I’ll experiment with a nomadic style taking advantage of technology and allowing me to maximise time with students and staff – I just need a cupboard to dump this junk in................