Well, its not my idea really.  It belongs to Ayn Rand.  In her most famous book, Atlas Shrugged, she imagined a scenario when the wealth-creators of the world would go on strike in order to free themselves from exploitation by the less talented.  This strike was lead by the mysterious John Galt, who considered it a matter of justice that he should enjoy the full fruit of his own labour.

Those in favour of taxing the wealthy today use words like ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ in order to describe their belief that the rich should pay for the poor.  I call it stealing.  It is theft to force someone to part with their own property against their will.  But this is exactly what tax is.  If you don’t pay it, you get punished.  Did you agree to pay tax at that rate?  No.  Do you have a say as to how it is spent?  No.  How is it just that people are expected to pay different rates of tax for the same service, simply because their earning powers differ?  Any why do they differ?  Hard work and creativity, that’s all.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t give to the poor.  But first off, who is really poor in this country?  Second, giving should be voluntary, to charities of your choice, so you can see how it will be spent.  Giving should not be enforced by the courts and police.  Third, the richer the rich get, the more money flows down to the less rich and society as a whole.  This is called ‘invisible hand’ economics.  Fourth, the social responsiblity of business is to increase its profits, not to right societies so-called ‘inequalities’.  There are and always will be inequalities of  talent, effort, skill, and luck between human beings, and it is immoral to try and level these.

No, Green was wrong to threaten to go abroad with his money.  Instead, the whole private sector should go on strike!  But I don’t suppose this will happen.  Capitalism is an unknown ideal in this country.  We’d rather compain and decline and let everything remain the same.

Image credit: shoops.

Ireland needs a hero. Like superficial Superman, the recent economic bailout may have saved the day, but it hasn’t solved any deeper problem.  I’ve spent the last few weeks working ‘down south’ and its people are angry, worried and at a loss.  Maybe an Irish superhero is required?

News reporters and local bloggers alike have made the call recently for a just such a hero.  Unfortunately, the best they could come up with were ancient warriors or their modern comic-book equivalents.  Good for escapist daydreaming, bad for fiscal policy.

I have another suggestion.

His name is John Galt.

Who is John Galt?

The hero in a novel called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.  He brings about the collapse of an already corrupt Western economy by persuading the world’s creative leaders – including inventors, artists and businessmen – to go on strike.  He fights against “parasites”, “looters” and “moochers” who demand the benefits of the heroes’ labour.

One writer in The Wall Street Journal put it like this:

“In Atlas Shrugged, Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?”

Rand’s heroes are interesting.  They aren’t crime-fighters or warriors.  They are entrepreneurs, engineers and architects.  These are skilled professionals who bridge the gap between theory and practice, ideas and action.  They have a vision of what they want to create and they bring it to pass.  On their own.  Without government subsidies; despite government interference.

Ireland needs what the rest of the world needs.  (1) Incredible individuals who raise themselves above the herd by their own creativity and resilience. They are the motor of any sustainable and growing economy.  (2) Everyone else to get out of their way.

If this hero remains the stuff of fantasy, then it will take more than a Superman to save us.

CSR?  Another bandwagon that all us business owners have to jump on, large or small?  I was listening to Radio 4′s You and Yours programme, on this very topic last week - listen here - and thinking about it a bit this weekend.

How does meeting pressurised targets balance with ensuring staff work in a healthy environment, they asked?  Good question.  The programme also mentioned the cash and cabbage “incentive” employed by one company.  If you met your targets, you were awarded with cash, otherwise you were presented with a cabbage, in public.  (Great for morale and loyalty, don’t you think?  Treating colleagues as you would your valued customers!?  Eh, no.)

CSR is a term referring to an organisation’s perceived obligation to all the stakeholders, even ones they aren’t aware of.

(Definition – blogger’s own.)

The programme asked an interesting question:

Who has to DO Corporate Social Responsibility?

It seems larger businesses have to do it, since there is more of a growing public expectation on them, than on smaller organisations.

Some of the big areas in the UK seem to be:

• Environmental considerations.
• Internal and external consistency.  That you practice what you preach.
• Developing a learning culture, where staff are encouraged, supported and developed.

CSR claims to be new and radical.  But, one of the radio panel commented that it concerns itself with more than a company acting by itself.  It’s for all companies and organisations.  For now, though, it’s the case that people can choose for themselves in some organisations.  But, for others, bound by regulation, they can’t.  Many have actual laws to abide by.

Does it just refer to ethical issues?  Many of these regulations, or at least codes seem to be are driven by consumers and consumer groups.

But is CSR a rational response to the public’s demands, some driven by anti-business, political motivations?  The panel was concerned by dictating that all businesses should act in the same way, in a way that would not be good for business in the long run.

Those on the side of CSR advocated that there should be a set of principles established for public owned businesses, to keep them accountable. But these principles should also be good for business.

Or is it all just a PR exercise?

In my humble opinion, CSR is here to stay.  And, not only CSR, but regulation.  Why are laws invented, if not to deal with those who do and will continue to break them?  Why are principles enforced, if not to make people conform to good practice?

Having had experience with organisations who have to abide by regulations and codes, some voluntary, some not, I’m of the firm opinion that we should have them.  Not all organisations would pay staff a fair, liveable wage, just because it’s a good thing to do.  Would most, even?

If there were no laws of public order, would all of us keep the generally and loosely accepted standards of good conduct?  Of course not.

Regulation is here to stay.  I for one applaud it, when it is based on two principles:

• That it is good for people.
• That it is good for business, not just for people.

It has to be about more than box-ticking.

That nice, modest Mr Blair is at it again, this time in the name of religion.

As founder of the appropriately named Tony Blair Faith Foundation, he has spoken from on high.

You’ve heard calls for ‘financial literacy’ and ‘emotional literacy’ in our schools, which I applaud.  You’ve read my thoughts on the subject in such blogs as Teach Skills, Not Subjects and Never Mind the Three Rs – What About the Three Cs?

Now, Blair calls for ‘religious literacy’ to be taught in schools.  He says that it is a ‘vital skill’ in our globalised and multicultural society.

And, guess what, this time, Tony is right.  But for the wrong reasons.

Yes, it is a skill.  And, yes, it should be taught.  But not, as Tony thinks, for reasons of international peace-making.  This is too grandiose, too messianic…too Blairite.  I’d like to suggest two points on this.

(1) I’ve studied philosophy and theology at post-graduate level, and I can tell you, the overlap in content, method and terminology is massive.  Humanists don’t need to worry about indoctrination.  There’s more chance of that happening by watching the latest episode of Coronation Street, I kid you not.  If you like, don’t call it ‘religious studies’; call it ‘worldview studies’ or equivalent.  That way we can include modern ‘religions’ like Marxism.  It’s all about meaning, stupid!

(2) As far as international business is concerned, knowing something about the thought-patterns of those from other cultures is a vital skill.  Up until now, the subject of business etiquette, when dealing with international issues, was content to limit itself to greetings, dress, gestures, dining, gift-giving and the like.  Sometimes it delved into the deeper waters of customs and ethics.  But really, to get at the psychological roots of any people, religion is required reading.

I’m designing a some workshops in business etiquette at the moment.  Its a fascinating subject, drawing together many different strands and subjects, from negotiation strategies to sexual awareness to business writing to body language.  I’ll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, don’t think religion, think reality tunnel!

Image credit: kevindooley.

Do you think like a man or like a women when it comes to work?  One way to find out is to examine your attitude towards pay.

According to Marilyn Davidson – professor of work psychology at Manchester Business School – men get more pay in the workplace than women because they expect it, they ask for it, and they (think they) deserve it.

If women want equal pay, they have to think in the same way as men.

Why don’t they?  Here’s what this woman says.

“Partly women fear being too aggressive and feisty – which can be viewed as negative in the workplace – but I think it’s more complex. It is part of our conditioning that men equate money with status and power but women see job satisfaction as more of an issue.”

So some of it is due to traditional stereotypes of the assertive workplace women as a bolshy ball-buster, able to out-drink and out-think her male compatriots.  The superwoman.  Margaret Thatcher.  You want a merit fight?  Bring it on!  And scary with it.

But some of it also has to do with our gender ‘conditioning’ according to which money means more to men.

A man looks at a promotion and thinks – power, status, money, achievement.

A woman looks at the same opportunity and thinks – “Promotion just means longer hours and more stress all with very little thanks.  If you have no free time to enjoy the money you’re earning what’s the point?”

(So says Emma from Oxford.)

I first came across this perspective in one of the best books on gender I’ve read.  It’s called The Sexual Paradox: Troubled Boys, Gifted Girls and the Real Diffrence Between the Sexes by Susan Pinker.  I’ve mentioned her book before. Amazon describes the book’s thesis like this:

“By comparing the lives of troubled schoolboys and promising girls, Pinker turns several widely-held assumptions upside down: that the sexes are biologically equivalent; that intelligence is all it takes to succeed; and that men and women have identical goals.Pinker argues that men and women are not clones, and that gender discrimination is just one part of the persistent gender gap. A workplace that is satisfying to us all will recognize differences between the sexes, not ignore them or insist that we will all be the same. The Sexual Paradox reveals how gender differences influence ambition and success.”

In essence – women get less pay because they want less job.  They have a life.  Men do not.  Work is their life.  Now that the glass ceiling is cracking, women could push on through.  But they (generally) don’t want to!  Why?  Because maybe we’re asking the wrong question.

It’s not, How can women think more like men about their pay?  Rather, how can men think more like women about their job?

Quality of life is not quantity of remuneration.  Or even close.

Men need to wise up to this fact.  Money can’t repair your shattered family, your shattered health or your shattered dreams.  Money leaves you wanting more.  Always.

Take the gender pay test here.

Image credit: fuzzbabble.