\u00a0Immorality is not what caused banks, giddy with their own cleverness, to squirm money out of the system; and morals will not prevent it in the future.\u00a0 It was trickery and scheming and the solution is plain, simple logic.\u00a0 Having it, being OK with simple logic, and insisting on logic in return.<\/p>\n
Having people understand what they were doing, or having people be comfortable with the idea that they should understand \u2013 and then we would all keep asking questions.\u00a0 What do you mean?\u00a0 What are derivatives? No, really… that makes no sense; what are futures? How does the stock market value of a company relate to the company?\u00a0 Really?\u00a0 I can inflate the value with a good marketing campaign? Trickery.<\/p>\n
If I am basing my stock market valuation on hope, like facebook or diamond prospecting, then our imaginations fuel the price, I think we know that.\u00a0 And I should be allowed to have that hope.\u00a0 But what if the company is tracked by a number of narrow parameters that become inviolable and impenetrable by simple logic; and what if those are then focussed on at the expense of the company, the customers, the long term, and the employees. What if the only conversation is about delivering value to shareholders?<\/p>\n
While this could sound like whining, I am not saying that it is unfair or immoral.\u00a0 Just that people inside and outside the company should feel comfortable with asking questions until they understand what is going on.<\/p>\n
I worked for a small multinational family-owned company that was acquired by a stock exchange listed company while I worked there.\u00a0 The new bosses instantly broke agreements that they had made about keeping on staff.\u00a0 But then there was something else amiss with the continuity of the company, something beyond simple change.\u00a0 It took me a while to work out that the disconnect between upper management and middle, technical management was that, effectively, it was now two companies in one.\u00a0 Upper management was running a financial business for the benefit of the shareholders, which needed quiet, and controlled information release.\u00a0 The middle managers and technical staff were running a technology company that relied on a small number of big, happy customers for repeat business, and this required a level of transparency in pricing and systems.<\/p>\n
Secrecy and obfuscation only suits a small percentage of people.\u00a0 Most people find it easy to understand no or low bonuses if we have missed two big contracts in a year, and that we lost the contracts because of late delivery, poor quality.\u00a0 But massaging 3rd<\/sup> quarter results so that share prices go up, pretending to have contracts that are not in the bag or holding them back to a later date so that the 4th<\/sup> quarter looks good, so that the trends are ever upward. \u00a0Staff stops understanding or feeling in control.\u00a0 People outside the company are unable to unpick the numbers because they have become felted together to leave a smooth surface.<\/p>\n And while the system makes money it is declared good and nobody is supported in a mission to understand more deeply.<\/p>\n It is understanding, and the transparency that allows understanding, that will make systems more seemingly moral.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0Immorality is not what caused banks, giddy with their own cleverness, to squirm money out of the system; and morals will not prevent it in the future.\u00a0 It was trickery and scheming and the solution is plain, simple logic.\u00a0 Having it, being OK with simple logic, and insisting on logic in return. Having people understand … Continue reading The fundamental morality particle<\/span>