Orders Given

I can’t seem to get off this topic. Here’s a story from yesterday’s Telegraph:

Companies in the UK must undergo a “genuine culture change” to get rid of alpha males and promote women, government ministers have said.

Ministers John Glen and Victoria Atkins have called for “greater diversity” in the workplace, adding that companies should “call out” non-inclusive behaviour.

They particularly highlighted the “woefully low” number of women in senior jobs the City, which is both “morally wrong” and affects the sector’s productivity.

“We have a problem when it comes to the representation of senior women in the financial services sector,” the ministers said in a letter to MPs.

There is just so many things wrong with these four paragraphs it’s easier to make a list than fisk it:

1. Why is it assumed alpha male traits are bad for business? Are companies filled with beta males more profitable?

2. Why are Conservative MP’s calling for culture changes? What, if anything, are they interested in actually conserving?

3. Why is “greater diversity” assumed to be better for businesses? If this was the case, why are they not doing it already and reaping the rewards?

4. Why is the number of women employed in the financial sector a moral issue? As I’m fond of saying, these people would be better off going to church rather than haranguing the public.

5. What is the basis for the claim that putting more women in senior jobs in the City will increase productivity? And why are firms not doing that already if this is the case?

Responding to the Treasury Committee’s Women in Finance report, the Government accepted MPs’ calls to abolish “alpha male” culture, remove the stigma of flexible working and encourage senior men to lead by example.

Its letter says there is still a “long way to go” for the financial sector to become diverse. “This includes encouraging gender balance at all levels of seniority and focusing on other forms of diversity,” it said.

This story says far less about the role of women in London’s financial sector than the role of women and wet beta males in politics. If politics is downstream of culture, then business is rapidly becoming downstream of politics. And if this is what passes for a Conservative government, there is absolutely no reason to vote for them. None at all.

Share

23 thoughts on “Orders Given

  1. You only have to look at the Fish Faced Cow’s rotten career to see that she is a tub full of marxist feminist horseshit. She has created around herself a “culture” –think of cheese started with a pinch of shite rather than rennet–of femmi-sucking offal of both sexes. Offal who push exactly the sort of vapid marxian clichéd and utterly false garbage that the dickless twins from the Treasury are preaching in Tim’s blog above.

    The Treasury is , of course, as empty as their heads compared do the debts they have run up in our name but without our approval.

    Which is the manner that they do everything.

  2. In a sane world some entrepreneur what spot the opportunity and start an all women, or women and beta male, finance company and make a killing.

    Those days aren’t coming back *sigh*

    After marriage to a physicist, Derek Shirley, in 1959, Shirley founded, with a capital of £6, the software company Freelance Programmers,[2] (later FI, then Xansa, since acquired by Steria and now part of the Sopra Steria Group). She wanted to create job opportunities for women with dependents, and predominantly employed women, with only 3 male programmers in the first 300 staff,[7] until the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 made that practice illegal. She adopted the name, Steve, to help her in the male-dominated business world.[8] Her team’s projects included programming Concorde’s black box flight recorder.[1][9]

  3. “They particularly highlighted the “woefully low” number of women in senior jobs the City, ”

    Odd that it is not highlighted by the complete absence of women from low paying jobs in harsh conditions like offshore fishing or sewage plant operations.

    “which is both “morally wrong” and affects the sector’s productivity.'”

    The evidence for this is provided where?

  4. “Are companies filled with beta males more profitable?”

    That is actually likely to be true to a surprising extent. Tech is completely full of beta’s, and is significantly more profitable.

  5. I’m still eagerly awaiting the campaign for equality amongst mid-wives. They should be 50% male because equalities.
    Shouldn’t be too much of a problem right?

  6. @David Moore

    “Odd that it is not highlighted by the complete absence of women from low paying jobs in harsh conditions like offshore fishing or sewage plant operations.”

    And the lack of men in high-paying jobs in publioshing, PR and HR, amirite?

    Anecdote: I once worked for a guy whose management style was to look at any piece of work and start examining it for flaws. Whether the work achieved it’s objectives, made money, solved the problem it was designed to solve, made no difference. It was whether it was perfect or not (I think he’d been on a training course on the basics of six-sigma, and got the wrong end of the stick).

    I put up with this for a few months, until he did a bit of work for his boss and asked me to give it a sanity check. You can guess the rest.

    I’m reminded of this guy whenever I see one of these pieces calling for change of a fundamental nature in something that appears to be working pretty well already. Don’t kill the golden goose, dumbasses.

  7. David Moore:
    Tech is profitable because you get to underpay the staff.

    The model error is the government believes that senior roles are handed out as prizes and clearly it is unfair for prizes not to be shared equally.

    The classic model is people can be sole traders or employees of a firm. A bank or a law firm is a bit different. In finance/law/consulting (fields I know) you see people and teams move on a regular basis. The firm provide the general platform, they want to get into a specific niche (say competition law, or high yield trading) then they hire a team. If you are even middling senior in a bank you are running a mini-business. If they don’t give you enough money to pay you and your team properly, then you move elsewhere. Almost all of your compensation is variable comp, so if you don’t perform then (i) you don’t get paid; (ii) the firm tends to think about whether they want to fire your team and hire a different one. This model explains the amount of compensation (you are really running your own business), the accusations of no loyalty (there is some loyalty in supplier/customer relationships but not unlimited), and the structure of compensation, why banks struggle to make super normal returns as the profits are shared so heavily with teams, and why a bank will pay bonuses when it is losing money (you can’t screw the good teams too hard or they will leave).

    Once you view the world this way then most equal pay / diversity drives are like alchemy in a world of chemistry. The kind of person who can run one of these businesses and negotiate a decent deal with a bank/lawfirm/consultancy in order to retain a decent team is always going to be pretty aggressive (in the achievement focused sense). Government see senior roles as prizes to be handed out regardless of ability…which explains a lot of what you see when it comes to incompetence and government.

  8. isp001

    “Tech is profitable because you get to underpay the staff.”

    That’s perhaps what happens when you only employ herds of betas!

  9. That is actually likely to be true to a surprising extent. Tech is completely full of beta’s, and is significantly more profitable.

    Well, yeah. Betas perform well in some roles, alphas others. But let’s get rid of the alphas.

  10. The alpha / beta language is misleading as it implies one is “better” than the other – that is very context dependent.
    For contexts involving a lot of competition to win business then you tend to need someone who is on the more aggressive side.

    As TN says – what makes sense depends on the role
    Legislators are famous for ignoring context.

  11. In any company or group of people for that matter you have a makeup of drivers and passengers. Both are needed and there should be and normally is more passengers than drivers.

    I work in construction contracting and we have the normal make up and ratio of drivers and passengers, it is also 99% male.

  12. I am middling senior in a consulting firm based in the City and I guarantee you that the top brass are super keen to find and promote women and BAME when they can.
    I can name 2 female partners in Big 4 consulting firms who openly admit they are earning a premium because they are women. I can name an Indian male partner who will admit his payoff was outsize because his firm did not the publicity around removing an Asian.
    It’s a racket.

  13. “”When I hear the word ‘culture’, that’s when I reach for my revolver”

    Apparently not a direct quote from Herr Goring, but I am happy to offer it, amended to ‘culture change,’ for the good of all society. (Sorry about the missing umlaut, can’t be arsed to find it on der keyboard)

  14. Thinking of offering my services as a token female to sit on any board of directors (with zero responsibilities) to fulfill any legally required quota. I will sit there quietly in exchange for a nominal sum.

  15. @nemesis
    Better discover a cherokee great-great-grandmother, or you’ll quickly be out-competed.

  16. Large companies are rarely run by alpha males. You get the odd one like Jeff Bezos, Mike Ashley and Larry Ellison, but that’s about the founder CEO. These people built the company and no-one is going to fuck with them.

    Most large companies are run by bureaucrats. Often rather mediocre bureaucrats. People who can behave in senate committees or say the right things when an employee is accused of racism, or paint the company multicoloured for pride days. They run the places OK. But any disruption that happens and they’re toast. Because they don’t really lead.

    You find more alphas in SMEs. Companies people founded themselves and are building. And a lot of them will sell those companies when they get really big because they just don’t want the tedious existence of huge places. They’d rather go and build a new business.

  17. Slightly off topic but apparently it’s society’s fault over at the Grauniad. https://bit.ly/2OrUIvo. Even in the “I want a man and kids but I’m in my thirtees” question.

    The social engineering that’s going on in business and family life and the promotion of women compete with men who have wives who had kids on time isn’t working out well.

    My response in the comments, before it gets the attention of the moderator.

    Potted version. “I am unhappy as I haven’t settled and had kids.” Response “it’s the fault of society you’re unhappy”

    Sorry but there are a ton of personal reasons why this woman is alone and childless and has discovered that’s not what she wanted. She’s says men are rude in dates. What is she like? Is she demanding they have a 250k salary and lifestyle to keep her and her mews kids in comfort? Is she unattractive and mannerless? Does she act like a petulant teen? Is she any of a huge range of things that cause people to be rude in return? No. It’s society’s fault.

  18. The whole point of the current government seems to be to pile so much crazy red tape on companies that they collapse. Take a look at this requirement, highlighted in a professional journal:

    “Since the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act (MSA) in 2015, UK companies with turnovers above £36m have needed to produce a statement setting out the steps they have taken to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their operations and supply chains. Of the 9,000 to 11,000 companies in scope, all should have published a first statement prominently on a corporate website by September 2017. By March 2018, only 5,600 had done so, according to CORE, a coalition made up of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), academics, lawyers and trade unions that focuses on corporate responsibility. ”

    Why is it now the responsibility of companies to sort out slavery? Isn’t that something that governments are meant to do ?

  19. Why is it now the responsibility of companies to sort out slavery? Isn’t that something that governments are meant to do ?

    Well, quite. This is just another example of the government outsourcing to private companies that which it wants done, but is unwilling or unable to do itself.

  20. @Graeme

    Wait, what is this slavery thing again? Is it forced work without compensation? A bit like producing that statement to comply with MSA then, is it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *