I have always believed, and in my career studiously applied the principle, that no matter how hard we try to take perfect decisions, we fail because we are never perfectly informed. When new evidence arises that impacts the quality of our initial decision or standpoint, we should review our analysis and conclusion. I did this as a project financier and as a compliance officer, where an inaccurate conclusion could lead to severe consequences for individuals, organisations and society. It’s a mindset that puts professionalism before politics, responsibility before self-esteem, and encourages open-mindedness, curiosity and active listening. Being able to change your mind is a strength, not a weakness. 
 
​Why is it so difficult? What are the forces that impose inertia of thought? Can we influence flexibility of mind?

• Are we rewarded or punished for our flexibility of mind?
• Are we independently minded or dominated by groupthink?
• Does biology restrict our ability to see perspectives other than our own?

 
Life has taught me that humility is a far more important quality than assuredness, although this should not be interpreted to mean that humility denies us to hold a conviction; we just have to be willing to listen and learn, always. To some, this sounds idealistic, perhaps unrealistic. But why do some of us feel free to change our minds, while others do not. Is it a matter of character, or circumstance?
 
As my hairs have greyed, experience has shown me that changing minds, your own or that of others, is inordinately hard. Beyond the application of rational logic, I have realized how prejudice, stereo-typing, groupthink, hubris and denial make us vulnerable to pursuing a wrong outcome, even when we act with the best of intentions.
 
This past week I have listened to two podcasts that have helped my understanding of the question as to why this is. The first was by Stephen Dubner. His Freakonomics podcast (episode 379) entitled “How to Change Your Mind” reflects on the fact that “changing your mind means admitting, on some level, that you used to be wrong. It can be seen as an act of weakness, even heresy.” 
 
It is a favoured mantra of mine that to be ethical is not a virtue in and of itself – it is merely the act of complying with a popular version of behaviour defined by society as morally correct; the type of behaviour that others expect of you, encourage you to enact, and will punish you for if you do not comply. For many, it is the unthinking path of least resistance, and over time it stagnates into unquestioned habit. Tragically, we have a predisposition to cling to “approved, tried and trusted” views and behaviours – after all, it is a human trait to seek the comfort and safety of a social group – “our” social group. We defend our group ethics by decrying the mores and norms of others, rather than question our own standards. The reward for perpetuating a myth, or an inaccurate view of the world based less on factual analysis than conventionally repeated viewpoints is high. To go against them can lead to bullying, exclusion, exile, and excommunication from the group we identify with: what price integrity? To seek, discover and review accepted truths, and then to change one’s mind is potentially a costly exercise. 
 
The second podcast I listened to was Hidden Brain by Shankar Vedantam (May 27, 2019). If Stephen Dubner emphasized the difficulty of communicating across the barriers of social group ethics, Shankar Vedantam made me audibly scoff when he asserted “how the partisan divide in our country (USA) might arise not just from our upbringing and lived experiences, but from biology.” As I mentioned before, however, I try to apply the principle of life-long learning and listened nonetheless; and, yes, I had to adjust my views on gene-based mindsets just a bit. In the end it made sense when he asserted that “liberals and conservatives differ when it comes to how they see threats and danger”, and asked the rhetorical question “When liberals hear (X), what do they hear? When conservatives hear (X), what do they hear?” I already know that we tend to apply selective hearing and analysis to things we see and hear (aka confirmation bias), but is our listening tendency really determined by our DNA? By the end of the interview with John Hibbing, co-author of the book, "Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, And The Biology Of Political Differences" I was convinced that it was an influence. 
 
If we combine initial, genetic predisposition to view the world as one of (say) danger or opportunity, and if we then seek social groupings that support us in this view of the world, and then consider the incentives and disincentives to maintaining or abandoning a particular world view; we can start to understand the enormity of the task that faces us when we try to “educate”, “explain”, or convince by any other means someone who is diametrically opposed to our viewpoint. What follows is partisanship, division and polarization. One group will say about the other that “they just don’t get it” – and it’s as true as the other group responding “what planet are you on?”
 
As a governance professional and a professor of organisational behaviour – even as a member of what has seemed a collaborative society until the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008/09 – I cannot accept the hypothesis that dysfunctional conflict is a necessary human condition. It has simply been neither my personal experience, nor my observation of a Europe that has been free of wars for an unprecedented period of time and that has, still, a predisposition to consult, collaborate and find compromise. 
 
The essential ingredient for cohesion and progress in organisations and society is the willingness and the ability to listen and to care for each other. This condition requires a culture that empowers the expression of doubt, skepticism, and promotes individual courage to experiment and innovate. Given the right environment, our power of reasoning should still be strong enough to overcome our DNA. As Stanford Professor Sapolsky explained to Stephen Dubner, there is evidence out there that “Every time you learn something, from something profound to something idiotic, something changes in your brain. Every time you have a sensory experience, your brain is constantly rewiring in major ways.” Life-long learning, it appears, is not wasted effort!
 
If my assertion is that blindly ethical behaviour is the path of least resistance, then daring to challenge perceived ethical standards is a path that requires courage. If we want to discover the point of view that supports the best outcome for ourselves and others, then we must remove, or at least reduce the pain threshold of changing our mind and listening to others with an open mind and heart. Our society and democracy will only thrive if we have a culture that tolerates and embraces views that are alternative to our own. For that culture to be effective, it must be seen to be predictably fair and just. Social systems that perpetuate privilege, accept creeping corruption and seek to impose one view on another, without consideration for the impact on all stakeholders, will destroy any hope of trust and only increase the sense of conflict instead. 
 
For those of us who apparently have the DNA that urges us to reach out and connect with the world, to make allies of potential enemies, this is a great challenge. It is a simple thing for those who seek to isolate themselves and to polarize society to voice overly simplified solutions to complex problems – social media is naturally inclined to repeat and accentuate simple sound-bites. A message of measured collaboration and considered compromise does not lend itself to easy slogans and is easily attacked at its weakest link, the inflection point between opposing arguments – the point of compromise where you show concern for others.
 
There is hope that we can return to a sense of shared destiny. It is heartening to see how often individuals, free from fear of either harm or group exclusion, can and do behave in ways that show empathy, generosity, even altruism to strangers. Tribes thrive when they perceive external threat and exclusion. Yet, tribes have always succumbed to organized and functional society. Our world works best when all parties seek to integrate and find security in common ground. 
 
That is why we have to persist in trying to reach out and engage with those who hold different views, who have different life experiences and priorities. We can only succeed if we can catch a glimpse of the “promised land”, where we perceive common concerns and interest. For that we need leadership. For the majority of us who are “followers” in the bigger picture, we have to have the courage of our convictions and be leaders on our own smaller, local scale. By common insistence on a more trusting world, we have to create the groundswell of demand for change, and who knows what will happen? Out of an army of small-scale leaders, will big picture leaders emerge? Look around you. Is the next Greta Thunberg standing next to you, or (perish the thought) is your neighbor looking at you to step up? To quote the slogan of the OECD Forum 2019:
 
What can I do? What can we do? What can we do together?
 
Post-script: I decided to write this blog when, after listening to these two podcasts, I browsed the online news platform, Blendle, that collates and gives access to articles from a broad range of sources. It allows me to try to break out of my “bubble” and see the news headlines of those opposing my own preferences, and then to read those articles in an attempt to understand and integrate alternative viewpoints better. It was in reading an article by Charles Cooke, editor of the partly Koch Foundation funded National Review that so much of what I had heard from Stephen and Shankar fell into place. I wanted to write a blog in response to an article entitled “Socialism is not Democratic”, because of what I deemed Charles Cooke's one-sided "listening", and the use of heavily loaded definitions of what democracy and socialism represent and deliver in practice (as a Scandinavian, forgive me for having a different perspective on the subject). It was interesting though, that upon checking his Twitter feed, many of his retweets reflected values and concerns that I could identify with. Is this not a hint that we might do better to focus on common ground, rather than engage in intellectual argument that at the end of the day reflects differing definitions and exaggerated assertions for the sake of “winning” the argument? On this occasion I got distracted to write this blog, but I will write a reply to Charles C.W. Cooke – I’ll be curious to see if he will “listen” to it?

​In truth, I picked up my copy of the book “The Post Truth-Business: How to rebuild brand authenticity in a distrusting world” - by Sean Pillot de Chenecey, in response to an old marketing trick: “Buy one, get one half price”. I’m decidedly not a branding and marketing expert, but the title intrigued me. The challenge of living in a distrusting post-truth world affects us in all walks of life, as much in my own field of governance, compliance and ethics, as in our politics and society in general. 
 
I do not believe I am courting too much controversy to argue that as a planet and as a society, we are facing stark and divisive challenges.  #MeToo, Extinction Rebellion, the polarization of politics, School Strike for Climate, the Gillets Jaunes; they are all recent manifestations of public frustration with suppression and/or inaction in the facing of critical change.
 
As much as we try to have a sensible debate on the way forward, we do not seem interested in listening to the ideas of others – we all just want to communicate our own. If we believe we have worthwhile ideas, then we have to find ways to gain an audience, and then convince them we are to be trusted. Our message must resonate with our audience to engage them, and be believable to convince them. I reasoned that if branding is about the creation of a message, and marketing is about communicating that message in the form of a call to action (buy a product, for example), then there might be lessons to be learned from this book; one of the few that I have seen that tries to deal with the challenge in a hands-on, practical manner. Sean Pillot de Chenecey himself explains his drive to write the book stemmed from the fact that there seemed to be none other on the market. In short, and if you wish to read no further, I’m glad I bought the book.
 
The book has a solid red line running through it and is a coherent exposé as a result. His writing style is relaxed, if at times a little wordy - I admit to the occasional skim-reading.

As I read it, it sets out to answer three major questions: 

1. How did we arrive in this post-truth era, and now that we are in it, how dire are the consequences?
2. How can we repair the damage inflicted on our businesses and society from a branding perspective?
3. What is the new paradigm (of branding and marketing strategy) for success in a digitized, transparent world?

 
Sean takes us on a brief history of the bending of truth, from Plato with his “noble lie” (the art of selective truth), to the more recent marketing practice of spin and distraction in the attempt to differentiate product and increase sales. Corporate history, old and recent, have shown us that the stereotypical “have I got a deal for you” car salesman, is in fact not restricted to used car showrooms. In a global market, in a digital world, there are a regrettably high number of companies who believe that targeting sales towards global, niche audiences and pandering to their desires (realistic or not) is a model for business success. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is but an expression of this mindset, albeit that in that case the mission was in the pursuit of political power rather than commercial profit.
​
Sean leaves us in no doubt as to the thickness of the infosmog created by institutionalized and organized misinformation. The consequences, in terms of mistrust and disengagement with business and institutions, are merely amplified by social media, which feeds, click by click, on speculative rumour, entertaining speculation, drama, and our own desire for confirmation that we have control over our lives and choices. Alas, Sean plunges us into the depths of despair, before he starts to reveal what he believes is a possible light at the end of the tunnel.
 
It is in the eradication of trust that we might finally see #FalseProphets, the purveyors of alternative facts and fake news, be held to account and ostracized. Social Media may be the friend of bullies and enemies of choice when misapplied, but eventually, Sean argues, the transparency it imposes will pinpoint the abusers, reveal their failure to keep false promises and eventually destroy their reputation (of individual or product) – if consumers no longer believe in the brand promise and marketing claims of producers or politicians (and platforms like Trip Advisor and Glassdoor are increasingly effective), then employees and consumers alike will look for choices where authenticity might be easier to detect and verify. Even big and global businesses will have to look to the real purpose of their organisations and seek to discover what it actually is. To quote a mantra of mine, profit is not an objective, it is merely a performance indicator as to how well the business is producing value for its clients and society. It is not uncommon to encounter business which engages in “purpose washing”, looking for stories of values and purpose which fit the product – when it is the product that needs to fit the purpose for which the organisation has been established in the first place. 
 
As the reestablishment of trust becomes paramount for the continued success and survival of the business, Sean argues that organisational purpose needs to be identified, properly understood and integrated into everything that the organisation does – the search for a “Brand Soul” is launched, and once found it can/should not be separated from business strategy. Complete transparency and authenticity will be demanded by all stakeholders – and innovations like blockchain will provide the tools to achieve it. 
 
Neither Sean, nor anyone else can confidently predict the new paradigm that will guide us into a world of accountable, sustainable actions. However, he does a good job of describing a world where business and politics have to embrace the power of emotional engagement with stakeholders, in a manner which is believable to them – in other words: authentic, visible and emotive. Let’s hope he is right, and that it happens sooner rather than later.
 
Sean Pillot de Chenecey has produced a book that intelligently ties the many threads of current events, research and theory into a coherent story. His perspective is no doubt founded on many years of experience as a consultant within the field of branding and marketing. Somewhat ironically, perhaps, whereas his views and interviews are easily accessed online, his background including such things as academic credentials are more difficult to find. In the end, it doesn’t seem to detract from the authenticity of his message and his ability to tell a story. The Post-Truth Business is an enjoyable and easy read, and has given me the value I purchased the book for – food for thought.

 We take a vote. Always 3-4 weeks into the semester. Each week we’ve practiced a reflection exercise at the start of the lecture. Should we continue the practice? Is it meaningful or is it a waste of time and effort? Semester by semester, the result is always the same – roughly 99% of students vote to continue. This blog sets out to describe what one student labeled “literally the best part of my Monday!”. 
 
My first encounter with mindfulness was at the Advanced Management Programme at INSEAD in the summer of 2000. In amongst heady debates about global trends, unseen dynamics and a glimpse of what differentiates management from leadership, we had a weekly session on health – both of the physical and mental kind. We were mostly men – we believed we were manly – this was a goofy module, but it was mandatory. Over the weeks, most of us came to value it. 
 
Some aspects of understanding our physical health were attention grabbing. We learned to differentiate between our biological age (time since birth) and our physical age (reflecting the state of our body). It particularly caught our attention when we were informed of test results revealing our physical age – it was a salutary moment when one of our number left the room in tears, quickly to be followed by a member of the medical staff. A rather large gentleman aged 48, his physical age was 75. 
 
Mental health awareness was a more gradual process that started with meditation sessions interrupted only when the odd colleague student started to snore. At the very least, we reflected, this was a good way to fall asleep. That, however, was the essence of our discovery – it’s OK to switch off; to deflect stress; to allow ourselves to be … to enjoy our existence.
 
I have been teaching undergraduates International Management for 4 years now. Essentially focused on organisational behaviour theory and the positive school of psychology. My students consist of millenials and, increasingly, the selfie-generation Z who have grown up with the incessant presence of the smartphone. The all intrusive social media dominates their, and our, every day. 
 
Increasingly, CEO’s of global companies purport to practice the art of mindfulness. In a world that never goes offline, professionally or privately, the art of “switching off” – hitting reset – seems ever more important. Since 2000, I have participated in various courses that included mindfulness. I have to confess, the endless focus on and indulgence in being aware of the here and now, beyond achieving a seperation between personal and external demands, has never enamoured me. Yet, I draw from it what I find is helpful to me – and I try to teach this to my students. 

1. Achieving distance from everyday demands imposed on us from other actors, giving us room to breath and to know that if we do not care for ourselves, we will be abused or go astray from what is important to us;
2. gaining an appreciation of what we experience and humbly bestowing gratitude on the people or circumstances that privilege us with them; and
3. building an awareness of our own growth and achievements, celebrating them all, be they large or small, as a path to greater self-confidence and self-esteem.

 
Every class, students arrive in various stages of stress. Some have rushed across campus from another class, others have assignments that need to be done, or are worried that they have not sufficiently prepared for our session. To change our mindset from one of disarray to one that is focused and ready to tackle challenging ideas, we take three minutes – to empty our minds and reflect on what is meaningful to us. 
 
We start our session by straightening our huddled, tense bodies to sit upright in our chairs. We find the centre of gravity on our chairs that allows us to relax with our heads high, and our hands on our thighs. We relax our shoulders and arms and concentrate on deep breathing. Our 3 minutes of reset has started.
 
As we focus on our breath, we enjoy the sensation of air entering our lungs and luxuriate in a long and slow exhalation. We become aware of our bodies and the energy that flows within us, circulates around our chest and how it moves through our limbs, warming our bodies. As we feel the throb of our heartbeat, perhaps in our fingers, perhaps in our legs or upper body, we start to realize how wonderful a gift being alive is. Gradually, our thoughts calm and we become aware of our physical presence, for us, in a classroom. Now we can hear the previously unnoticed chirping of a bird outside the window; the creak of a door down the hall. A peace and calmness descends on us, reinforced by the fact that we have given ourselves license to switch off, individually and as a collective group.
 
Inevitably, the pending demands of others infringe on our private moment of sanctity – we cannot fight them; they will not disappear. However, with patience and practice we can learn to acknowledge these concerns, large and small, but tell them to pass us by for now – we will return to them later. We know that right now, this moment is about ourselves. Difficult at first, it does get easier as we discover that we can survive a few minutes of selfish, self-awareness. Problems that are not immediately life-threatening can, indeed, wait. This is my portal to meditation, or indeed de-stressing and relaxation that will (for my part) most likely result in sleep. In class, we do this for just over a minute, privately we can dedicate as much time as we are comfortable with. At this point we can continue a process of relaxation that focuses on tensing and relaxing every part of our body until we are entirely at rest.
 
Once we have achieved a state of calm and awareness of our surroundings, I like to encourage my students to feel gratitude for what they have experienced over the past week. There are social situations where they have experienced happiness and laughter. There have been sights seen on their travels and adventures that they may never see again. They have had illuminating conversations or lessons that have changed their perceptions of truth or understanding of who they are. There have been many positive moments for which these students might feel gratitude – towards friends or family, strangers, or even simply those medieval builders who constructed an ancient cathedral or other monument. As we experience them, we need to learn to savour these positive impulses in our life, and to feel, if not determine to express, gratitude towards those who guided us to such moments. Through empathy and gratitude we can discover our own humanity and the importance of authenticity. It will equip us to better relate to others, and appreciate the interconnectivity we enjoy with them.
 
The final phase of our 3-minute reflection is devoted to bolstering our sense of confidence and achievement – in short, our self-esteem. For most of my career, I have forever felt dissatisfied with my achievements. My father taught me the wonders of cross-country skiing – that over the next hill there is always another peak to be discovered, and beyond that another. It is an inspiring state of mind, but one that precludes looking back at the wonders one has already experienced. To achieve a sense of progress, we need to pause regularly, and appreciate the distance already covered, to see the distance already traversed from a new angle, and congratulate ourselves on what we have already achieved. I ask my students to reflect on the various experiences and challenges they have encountered over the past week – some will be minor like finding their way to a destination without the help of GPS, others will be the completion of an assignment or the execution of a trip that was well planned in advance. They, and I, need to stop and take stock of what we have achieved, to congratulate ourselves. It will bolster and build our confidence in tackling our next challenge with all the more conviction.
 
If student feedback is to be believed, these three minutes of reflection enable the students to better focus and concentrate on our three-hour session. Whatever the immediate impact, I believe that each of the three moments carry enormous value for each of us, individually. Practiced together or separately, the more we build our self-awareness, our appreciation for all around us, and pay tribute to our own ability to overcome, the better prepared we are for dealing with the challenges we will encounter - today and tomorrow.

N.B. If anyone is having trouble finding the promotion, I apologise. It appears to be restricted to the US and UK only and I'm trying to find out why.
As a special promotion for my students, and as a particular extension to all of my network friends, a Kindle version of my book "Surviving Organisational Behaviour: Unleashing the Power of Purpose, Culture & Values" is going on a "Semester Start" promotion on the Amazon.com website only, for one week starting 15th September 2018. Anyone can buy it there, but local taxes may result in variations from the prices indicated below. The link to the book website is https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G4HK2TN
 
Pay attention – the early bird gets the more substantial discount!! ​
Here follows the promotion dates and prices:
 
US$1.99 plus taxes
From Sat 15th Sept from 9AM in Paris (or 0.01AM in San Francisco) 
US $6.99 plus taxes
From Mon 17th Sept. from 7AM in Paris (or Sun 16th Sept 10PM in SFO)
US $12.99 plus taxes
From Tue 18th Sept. from 8AM in Paris (or Mon 17th Sept 11PM in SFO)
US $16.99 plus taxes
From Thurs 20th Sept. from 9AM in Paris (or Wed 19th Sept 0.01PM in SFO)
 
The promotion ends Sat 22nd Sept at 9AM in Paris (or midnight on Fri 21st Sept in SFO)
 
The book is downloadable to all Kindle Fire readers, and to the free Kindle apps for Android and Apple; regrettably not to the basic Kindle Paperwhite reader. It may also take a while to download, it is a big book!
  
It is a feeling of satisfaction to have completed the writing of a book. Many months, much thought and anguish over a turn of phrase, let alone the use of commas, is over. I feel a tinge of embarrassment to announce to the world that I have a book out there. But it is also one of pride that I have produced something that my undergraduate students can use and refer to in the knowledge that all they need to know for their course is contained in one bound copy of "Surviving Organisational Behaviour" – although it may be a surprise to them that it requires 320 pages to do so.
 
There are a number of people who have already bought the book – and there are many others who have asked for a copy – unfortunately I don't have complimentary copies to give away, so this is the next best thing. I hope all those in my network with an interest in exploring the world of organisational behaviour will take advantage of this offer, and find it contains useful explanations of everyday events at the office. As I say to my students, this is a subject where everything seems obvious – once it has been explained to you …

Dear students, friends and colleagues
It has taken 18 months; a "Beta publication" of a "Management in Black & White" version with a deliberately off-putting price (no longer available, but still visible on Amazon); three re-writings and lots of editorial and design work. I couldn't have done it without the tremendous help of my wife Birgitte, and the creative and helpful comments from my adult children. Camilla, in particular, worked with Andre and me on the cover design, which is worthy of a blog of its own.
 
But here is is – Surviving Organisational Behaviour: Unleashing the Power of Purpose, Culture and Values – all 340 pages of it! In the first part of this blog, I will explain a little about its content and intended audience. In the second part, I will tell you where, how and when you might acquire a copy, should you wish.
 
I have written this book with the intention of spreading the word on how the organisation is not an algorithm, how individual passion impacts motivation, and how having a meaningful purpose beyond the P&L fuels that passion. I applaud young students who aspire to be more than "just another employee"; I congratulate the company directors who discover that their true vocation is in finding and preserving the real purpose of their organisation, and who act to ensure that its unique aspirations serve the company, its shareholders, its employees and other stakeholders in a way that sustains its long-term success.
 
The book is written in a manner and style to suit the unencumbered mind of the undergraduate management student. I have sought to diminish academic speech to a minimum and to use straightforward examples that students are more likely to be able to relate to easily. The job of Kiely, my ex-student editor, was to ensure the text was readable and easily digestible for BA students, also those without a background in management or business. For the experienced manager, executive or company director, therefore, it may come across as a little simplistic – but not irrelevant. Allow me to explain the value I found in researching organisational behaviour after 30 years of corporate experience.
 
With experience, emotional reactions become gut instinct, and instinct turns to intuition. We take decisions that we "know" will have the desired outcome. We observe conditions of conflict and instinctively handle the situation in the manner that has worked for us in the past. When I first started reading up on and revising the subject, I kept thinking "yes, but this is obvious". In a way, it does deal with the obvious, and the higher quotient of Emotional Intelligence you possess, the more obvious many of these academic theories may seem. However, it gradually dawned on me that these theories and concepts provided me with analytical tools with which I could better and faster, more consciously identify the red flags and warning signals, the opportunities and hidden capacities that surrounded me. It is not from reading this book that I replace my experience and intuition, it merely allows me to refine my use of them, and to more consciously understand when, where and with whom I need to intervene to get the best out of the organisation and my colleagues within it. Reflecting on these unconscious instincts that we possess, allows for a more deliberate and wise application of our experience. Do this in a disciplined manner, and I believe we can all be better managers and leaders. My next project is to write a book on the same topic for executives and directors – drawing on case studies and assuming a much higher level of experience. I also want to draw on the expertise of many of you, out there in my network. However, it took me 2 years from conceiving the idea of Surviving Organisational Behaviour, to launching it on Amazon – so don't hold your breath!!
 
Eventually, say from October 2018, the book will be available at a "normal"  price on Amazon of €85.- or so. It costs more to produce a book than I thought (aside from time invested). It is 340 pages with lots of licensed pictures, and Amazon does not distribute its books for free. To launch the book, I am offering it at an introductory price of about €50.-, including an opportunity to obtain the eBook version also. The "normal" price of the Kindle version will be around €25.-. Link to Amazon.de, Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com
 
I will launch a special introductory offer of the eBook on Kindle for a few days at the start of the next university semester (last days of August 2018) – if you are just curious, that will be time to buy a copy at around €2.- just for a few days. I will announce it on my networks.
 
Many have asked me for a signed copy, and although I'm happy to sign copies and I would love to give the book away for free, it just doesn't work, I'm afraid. The best I can do is to promote the book from time to time. I ask for your understanding, and – of course – I'm happy to talk to you about it as often as you like!! ;-)
 
Best regards
Anthony Smith-Meyer – Author!

​I was given a book as a gift from some good friends of mine; he a life-long banker and her a marketing and communications executive. The book was “Swimming with Sharks” by the Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk. The book, first published in 2015, is a belated attempt to make sense of what really happened “inside the world of bankers” during the financial crisis of 2008/09 in the City of London.
 
My first reaction was to wonder how it can be that 7 years after the fateful summer of 2008, this is still a topic of curiosity? A more frightening question is how it is possible that even in 2017, incomprehension as to its cultural roots persists. What starts as a quest to understand the inner workings of bankers and banking culture in the City, ends with the worrying conclusion that it is human to fail, and that failing in an industry that boasts a heady mix of creativity and the equivalent of financial high explosive, is – at some point – likely to happen: again.
 
As an experience banker who has worked in half-a-dozen banks in numerous functions, and latterly and through the financial crisis as an executive compliance officer, I approached the book with some scepticism. What could a book written by an anthropological journalist with no previous financial knowledge teach me about the world of banking? I read the book, and as I closed it I was impressed with how this journalist had managed to understand much of the workings of the banking world, and of the psychology of many of those working within it. I would, I decided, recommend it highly to any non-bankers who want to understand more about why, as Joris describes it, there seems to be no-one in the cockpit – no-one responsible for the financial crash. It may also be useful for some partners of bankers to understand the long hours worked by their banker spouse?
 
Then it struck me. Joris Luydendijk has used his anthropological perspective to dissect the tribal nature of banking, and to explore the bonds that bind bankers together, or ties them addictively to a master that dominates their lives, and blinds them to the dangerous and potentially toxic tools of their trade. To any student of organisational behaviour and workplace psychology, by design or not, this book is an important contribution to the discussion on what organisational culture is, and how it might be managed, or not. When we discuss corporate culture, the focus tends to be on what constitutes a “good” culture. In organisational behaviour, we consider how cultures influence behaviours, and how behaviours serve outcomes depending on the nature of the product or service in question. We explore personality traits, the impact of diversity, and how our self-perception influences our motivation to pursue our objectives. We even speak of how “bad” cultures have a dysfunctional effect on business conduct and harms individual and corporate performance, especially over time. When we consider how to change behaviours, we concentrate on barriers to change, how the social infrastructures, values and norms of group behaviours obstruct our efforts. Often we pretend that by adjusting the corporate debate and communications strategy, we can realise change. However, when we consider the effort and the investments spent on consultancy fees trying to change culture and render organisations more aware of their social impact and responsibility, we see more examples of failure than success. Swimming with Sharks offers a hint as to why.
 
Governance and management people, such as myself, believe that leadership and discipline offer the path to salvation. However, a path remains no more than a path along which humans may tread. Joris focuses our attention on the many-varied concerns and complex psychologies of our fellow workers; each being individuals with individual concerns. As organisational leaders we must provide leadership, evoke corporate purpose and a dedication to the values that we wish for our corporate members to apply and have dictate their behaviour. As any coach or psychoanalyst will no doubt explain, the human psychology is far too complex for such a simplistic solution. We must not only offer leadership and point the way for others to follow, we must also understand the nature of the problems and fears facing our followers and provide them with the necessary support and comfort to allay those fears. To do this we need to understand them better. Joris defines six distinct, but sometimes overlapping characters, each of whom are trying to make sense of, and are having to adopt coping tactics to live with a constant conflict between personal beliefs and corporate objectives.  Intended or not, his final message is that leadership is not only about leading, it is also about understanding the situation facing our followers – something business leaders often take for granted.
 
In this brief blog, I do not intend to expand upon each of these six categories. Suffice to say, I recognised each and every one of them. I could also espy elements of each that have influenced my own psychology at different phases in my career where I have sought to rationalise differences between “my” way of doing business and that of “others” within the same organisation or industry. I have never felt as conflicted or trapped as a number of the 200 City interviewees who opened up their thoughts to Joris as (i) I have been lucky in my choice of employers who appear to have had a greater sense of corporate responsibility than some, and (ii) I have been fortunate in finding the exit door leading to alternative activities if personal versus organisational objectives have been too wide. Admittedly, I am also of a different generation from the bankers interviewed by Joris – it is easier to cope with some types of conflict when in a position of seniority and executive power.
 
This book emphasises that changing the mindset of an organisation is a greater challenge than most leaders are willing to accept. It takes time, and a lot of effort. This is perhaps the Achilles heel of the positive psychology movement that believes that superior performance can be achieved by releasing the creative abilities of individuals. We have to acknowledge that perhaps a body of individuals does not a collective make? Was this what lay behind the thoughts of Robert H. Schuller when he wrote “Anyone can count the seeds in an apple, but only God can count the number of apples in a seed.”

The Brexit story simply gets better and better, and comparisons have moved from the popular, fictional, House of Cards comparisons to Game of Thrones instead. As Nigel Farage follows Boris Johnson in abandoning his post in the face of irreconcilable differences between fantasy and reality, the comparisons might swerve towards Fawlty Towers before too long. How could this have come to pass? How can this be allowed to continue? 

A week has now passed since the momentous vote in the Brexit referendum, the vote intended to resolve the long standing and vexing question of Britain’s role in Europe. Yet, the matter is not settled. It continues, with a passion. The Leave campaigners crow victory and demand Remain adherents “get on with it” - IT being the democratic decision of the majority. Still, the Remain campaigners feel betrayed, disappointed and bereft. As a petition for a second referendum surpasses 4 million signatories, there is an unspoken sentiment of “not fair” in the air. The values of fair play and the acceptance of fair outcomes is part of the British psyche. There is therefore little voicing of what appears to be a deep sense of injustice: no-one wishes to be labelled a “sore loser”, after all.

To demonstrate the concern, I suggest the referendum be considered in a different light, such as what is considered fair and just in our much scrutinised financial markets. If the referendum had been a new financial instrument issued by Leave (with a promise of a future vision), and voters had been investors in that promise (a future with repatriated wealth, freedom from immigration and Brussels domination), is there any doubt that the Issuer, Leave, would be pursued by the UK regulator, the FCA, and the law as a gregarious instigator of market abuse.

Within hours of the result, and one by one, the selling arguments of the Leave campaign  have been shown to fall short of their promises. Excellent articles such as that of the FT’s Jonathan McHugh “What a British divorce from the EU would look like” (28th June, 2016 http://bit.ly/28J3G5m) and the BBC’s article “Reality Check: Have Leave campaigners changed their tune?” (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36641390) eloquently explain and show that promises voiced and implied on migration, sovereignty, EU market access, as well as “that” bus poster promise, are contradictory and in conflict, one with the other. These are now subject to expectation management adjustments, and exposed to be either misleading half-truths or simply erroneous. Would an issue whose prospectus and promises mislead, misinform and encourage confusion not be deemed to have abused its investors? Would the Leave campaign not be adjudged to have manipulated the market with rumours and deceit? Should the voter not have a right to the same protections as a financial investor?

One final thought: Most countries with a written constitution require a significant majority before instigating a constitutional reform in the order of 60 – 75%. Is an action, such as joining or deepening relationships with the EU,  or of leaving it, not a decision of worthy to be considered to carry a constitutional impact? Under UK company law, there are protections laid out for minority shareholders of considerably smaller size than 48% - should the minority interest of almost half the UK population not also be protected from the “dictatorship of the majority”?
​
There seems to be a clear contradiction in the standards of decency and conduct expected in the financial markets, from that of our rights as voters in a democracy. Much is spoken of the perceived democratic deficit in the EU – is there not a greater danger pending, from democratic deceit in the UK?

For an excellent article on the lack of political mandate for the UK government to trigger Article 50 due to the constitutional nature of that decision see this article.

​Well, that’s it then. After a stunned disbelief it is now time, 48 hours after the Leave vote prevailed, to consider what it all means. Who will do what, how will this seemingly imponderable situation play out? Listening to BBC interviews of UK voters on both sides, one alarming reality is clear – no-one knows what path lies before them, and there is no UK leadership to map out a course. This blog is a little “game theory” exploration on what drives who in this scenario, and what is going to happen over the next months.
 
UK political pressures: The UK has decided to respect the wishes of the 52% majority who voted to Leave the EU. Elected UK MP’s however, are largely in favour of Remain. The conservative leadership is in disarray after Cameron’s resignation. A new leader and PM must be chosen. This will either be a “Leave” campaigner, or a neutral opportunist. There is no “obvious” candidate who is considered both credible to lead the exit negotiations and an attractive profile to lead the conservatives to the next election. Neither Labour nor the Liberals have leaders of sufficient stature or credibility to map out the future of Britain, or to negotiate with the EU. Someone will step up, hopefully a new talent of exceptional ability? For now, UK political leadership is not a driving force of the future, and the dynamics are to slow decision taking as far as possible.
 
UK Business Pressures: Investors avoid uncertainty and seek to diminish risk. Since the New Year, boardroom decisions on significant new investments will have been hamstrung by a lack of clarity on the referendum outcome. Such reticence has been proved right. Maintenance investments, and decisions related to purely domestic businesses may proceed, but larger decisions will be shelved UFN. Urgent, long-term investment decisions will seek whatever destination that favours predictable outcomes, hence the EU-27 before the UK. As UK growth falters, pressure will grow to clarify UK’s role in the global economy – over time, this will render the need for action urgent.
 
UK Social pressures: The referendum has brought enormous social tensions to the surface. Scottish independence is again a topic, and repercussions amongst sectarian interests in N Ireland risk resurfacing as the umbrella of EU bonds to Eire are removed. Perhaps most important, the social split between London and the rest of England, perhaps a mirror of the haves and have-nots, and certainly disdain for the UK political elite. The UK political scene is disruptive, to say the least. The obvious, continuing passions between the 48% remain voters and the 52% Leave voters risk keeping the debate both acrimonious and heated as fear and resentment dominate the political scene. Social interest lies in re-establishing stability and allaying fears derived from uncertainty as quickly as possible. The demand for political stability and eventually a new general election will grow.
 
EU political pressures: This is the biggest disruption to European politics since the fall of the Berlin Wall. People in Brussels are stunned and fearful. As always in such situations, some will be angry at the UK, but the need to control nationalists and populists across the EU will focus minds quickly and speed of action will be the order of the day. It will be imperative that euro-sceptic forces cannot point to an easy divorce process for the UK, without consequences and difficult choices. At the same time, the need to understand and rethink the EU’s role and profile towards its peoples is urgent.
 
EU Business pressures: Less onerous than in the UK, but uncertainty will weaken the Euro and taper off enthusiasm for investments aimed at future growth. Any decline in growth will further encourage the euro-sceptic forces in France and the Netherlands, possibly elsewhere. Less of a burning platform than EU political imperatives, these concerns will none-the-less push for a speedy clarification of what post-Brexit Europe looks like. The EU have no grounds for being overly patient with the UK.
 
Putting it together: The UK political establishment have no idea what the “Great” in Britain is composed of outside the EU. Elected Westminster officials have largely been opposed to “Leave” and do not have a vision for the future. “Leave” campaigners have been focussed on the campaign, perhaps not entirely believing it would happen – in any event, neither Boris J, Farage or any other political figure is able to outline what the future path is. Without such a vision, the UK does not know what to negotiate towards. There is no answer to the “Leave” conundrum of satisfying the vote for freedom from Brussels and safeguarding jobs in the financial sector and access to the Single Market. The Norwegian and Swiss models, with access to the internal market, relatively free of tariffs, both require the adoption of EU level playing-field regulations. Refusal of those standards risks upsetting the balance of competition within the EU, hence the imposition of tariffs. As the saying goes, "you cannot both keep the cake, and eat it".
 
In the near term, UK politics will argue for delay, delay, delay. Cameron has started this process by his resignation, thereby creating a much needed breathing space. Without an effective “Leave” government in place, the UK cannot start negotiations – they do not agree with it. Hence, we must wait until the Conservatives elect a new leader and Prime Minister. This individual will no doubt have personal views, but will not be able to establish a party / government view until elected. The new PM will therefore play for time to formulate a plan and a negotiating position. Expect a further delay of at least 4-6 weeks. We are now heading towards Christmas.
 
Imagine now that a new plan is formulated – can this be implemented without parliamentary debate? We are not in a state of national emergency or martial law. Given the many possible views of the future, and that the decision taken at the referendum was only to leave the EU, not on what terms, there will again be turmoil in parliamentary debate as questions of alternatives and degree surface. Local constituencies will seek reassurance that Westminster will replace the withdrawal of EU funds, and exactly how much of the EU  “savings” (if any) should now be used to support the NHS? How will immigration be controlled whilst balancing the economic interest of free trade within the EU single market? Will any Westminster government consider themselves mandated to make such momentous and variable decisions? Will the choice not need to be presented again to the people, in a much bigger referendum, namely a general election? Can a strategy for a future Britain outside the EU be decided by a Parliament dominated by those who stood against leaving? They may act in good faith, and seek what they believe is the best deal for Britain, but they are by definition caught in conflict between their own views and those of the 52% who unilaterally voted to Leave. Such questions need clarification, and a general election largely fought on the future vision for Britain, must take place. How long does it take to organise a general election? At least 4 months, preferably more. The UK will not want to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty until after such an election. This will be the reality confronting the British. To proceed in negotiating a deal with the EU without a popular mandate can be done, but it will have no support. Without this support, can a call for a second referendum, or a general election before the final act of signing a binding agreement with the EU in two years time be resisted? If we fear a democratic deficit, it seems that here is a UK one in the making. Surely the British electorate must be allowed to opine on the new deal for Britain before it is implemented?
 
In the meantime, politicians across the EU, and business leaders, will be tearing their hairs out – or become desperate enough to abandon any pretence of being “reasonable” and patient with the UK. Brexit has destabilised the EU and is an invitation to further disruption via nationalist forces seeking their own Frexit or Dutchit. Waiting three months for a new PM is at the limits of EU patience, anything longer, threatening to extend into the Q2 of 2017, will be intolerable. Working on the EU’s own future with an defensive UK “Leave” voice at the table will at best be redundant, but could surface a real conflict between UK interest as a Leaver, and EU interests to save, eventually reform the EU. The EU will feel it necessary to exert pressure on the UK to invoke article 50 as soon as possible – it might even turn to a legal fight between previous allies – not in anyone’s interests.
 
But the EU will also need to avoid the temptation of using a recalcitrant British as a scapegoat, and focus on why so many have lost faith in the EU establishment. Some uncomfortable truths need to be confronted and a return to the founding principles and purpose of the EU formation be sought. If this is done quickly and transparently, perhaps a second UK Brexit referendum, more informed about the future options open to the UK may be held and actually reverse the decision of the first referendum. That though, probably has very long odds at the betting shop.
 
To game theory the future with so many uncertainties is, admittedly, merely to speculate. However, one thing seems clear to this writer:

• It is in the UK political interest to delay invoking article 50 as long as possible.
• The longer the delay, business imperatives will increase pressure on UK politicians to outline a realistic vision for Britain.
• The UK cannot negotiate and finalise an EU exit deal without a proper mandate on a future vision for Britain. This requires a second referendum or a general election.
• The EU has to look at its mission and purpose urgently and go back to basics.
• The longer the delay of article 50 being invoked, the more relations between the UK and the EU will become acrimonious.
• Article 50 will not be triggered before November/December 2016 at the earliest, possibly as late as May/June 2017.

 
This is probably a good, if busy, time to be a journalist.

With barely a week to go before the referendum on the remain or leave question for Britain in the European Union, I have finally decided it is time to voice an opinion. Some may contend that I have no right. I am a Norwegian by law and a European by residence; but I am also a Brit by upbringing, schooling and social influences – dare I say that some of my best friends are Brits! Lastly, some of these same friends have actually asked my opinion in the full knowledge that once I get going on a subject, I can be opinionated!

Some of these friends feel their hearts tell them to leave, yet their brains urge them to remain in the EU. Given the ludicrous claims, counter claims and accusations springing from the mouths of all manner of conflicted, and apparently ignorant UK politicians – sometimes foreign ones - I’m perhaps less surprised that they are desperate enough to ask me. 

So, amongst all of this scaremongering; what is the view from the Smith-Meyer stronghold in Castle Luxembourg? My UK friends feel it is so complicated. I maintain that it isn’t; that there is simply too much “noise” around for many to see the wood for the trees. The short answer, for those who want to simplify things, is that if the future is, by definition, always uncertain, then that future for the UK is all the more uncertain outside the EU. If you accept this, then it is a question of how much uncertainty you are willing to bear, and what you require in terms of potential reward outcomes to justify taking the risk of uncertainty. Let us approach this point by point.

Migration: The most common emotion I hear from BBC interviewees, or see quoted in the papers, is the fear that the UK is being overrun by immigrants. Immigrants, who in passing, appear to have become a by-word in the popular press for social scroungers and destroyers of the British way of life. 

• No-one seems to argue that existing immigrants should be sent away, but that flood gates must be raised to stop future flow. But leaving the EU in order to stop EU immigration, will only deal with half the “immigration problem” - at best. Most reports confirm that EU immigrants are less likely to be on social welfare than home grown British workers, and that they are a net, positive contributor to the Exchequer. So if there is a burden (and some argue there is none), it must surely be with non-EU immigrants. Add to this that Cameron has very “cleverly” negotiated that EU tax payers in the UK should be excluded from UK social welfare in the event of need (presumably therefore paying for UK workers on the continent experiencing social and financial distress in return), it flies in the face of reason that the burden of EU immigrants on the NHS et al is a reason to leave the EU. Would the UK government prevent productive skills and expertise being imported into the UK? Probably not. If a productive, tax paying migrant workforce were to be turned away, the British worker may benefit – but the pressure towards cheaper labour costs would encourage the outsourcing of jobs to cheaper locations abroad, such as Romania, or for industry to continue investing in capital intensive, non-labour processes. Either way, the British – indeed European worker – is not promised any significantly greater job security, unless the same, less flexible, more worker friendly market rules, such as those EU rules for which the UK government has secured multiple opt-outs, are introduced. But are these rules not part of the over-regulation that the Leave campaign wants to avoid?
• The argument that immigrants are destroying the British way of life, begs the question what that is. From a historic perspective, the UK has been proud of being a melting pot of refugees of all types, and has greatly benefitted from the creativity and innovation that has ensued. A 2-hour walking tour of East London will provide all the history needed to confirm this. So, are we at a point where “Britishness”, seemingly for the first time since 1066, is now defined as maintaining the status quo? And what is that status quo? If it means keeping jobs for home-grown talent, avoiding small businesses run by immigrants from taking over the high street, saving the likes of BHS, then we should examine the root cause of the concern. We live in a world of global brands. “Britishness”, like “Frenchness” or “Germanness” are all under threat. We have our national, global brand champions, but these are becoming fewer and more niche oriented. The England that was once known for its shop keepers, is becoming reborn by immigrants.Is the energy required to take on the risk and hard work of running a corner shop business the choice of home grown talent, living on the time and comfort lent them by built up parent wealth, capital and welfare rights, or by immigrants who have made a sacrifice and aspire for a better life, and will make every effort to make the disruption to their life a worthwhile investment? If it is a lack of integration by these immigrants that “we” fear; if it is that traditional values will be overtaken by zealous, foreign influences that "we" fear; then is the real challenge not to ensure that these traditional values are strong enough to withstand the onslaught? Do we really believe that worthy, and strongly held “domestic values”, properly nurtured by the majority, will so easily be undermined by minority views? Britain, the land of free speech and expression is surely stronger than that. If it is not, does anyone seriously believe that leaving the relatively harmonious confines of the EU will change anything? Will the fight to maintain national identity be easier when standing alone? Is the British spirit now defined by conservatism, and not entrepreneurism?

Over-regulation: It is a favourite pastime of many who dislike the EU to complain of the endless reams of regulation that comes from Brussels. From the ludicrous nature of regulations dictating the shape of cucumbers to capital requirements for financial institutions, to executive remuneration. Outside the EU, so they say, Britain would be free of all this. Or would they? There are two aspects of this line of argument that both fly in the face of this dream.

• The Single Market, even for the Leave campaigners, is one of those aspects of the EU that is worth something. Leave argues that the UK is too important a market for the EU to leave the UK on the side-lines – access would be assured as a result of economic reality. To a point this is true. No-one in the EU wants to leave the UK adrift in the Atlantic – but neither do they wish to say that Club rules may be ignored. A Single Market is built on the concept of a level playing field, allowing a player onto the pitch who wants to ignore those rules simply cannot happen. So the regulations on cucumber shapes will remain. Then again, why does the Leave campaigner think this rule exists in the first place? It was not the “eureka” moment inspiration of a Belgian philosopher that gave rise to it, but the desire of business to reduce transportation costs – which it did to the benefit of UK consumers, amongst others. I recently visited a local food market in Liguria, Italy. The shapes of the locally produced cucumbers were something our younger generation of consumers would find hard to believe. EU regulations are not created to obstruct, but to open up and consolidate the gains of a Single Market. Leaving the EU will either not change anything in respect of complying with Single Market rules, including large chunks of “meaningless” rules, or will result in a huge uncertainty, or trade tariffs, without obvious replacement of business opportunity or benefit.
• The financial sector complains about over-regulation from Brussels. What seems to be missed is the fact that the UK regulators are amongst the most ardent fans of gold-plating EU regulation: the art of adding to,not simplifying basic EU directives. What also seems to be missed, by would-be British regulation-free traders, is that much of the regulatory debate and agenda is driven by the UK regulatory establishment.  There is a significant risk that once no longer at the EU table, the UK regulatory drive for rules may continue in a UK / US axis, but be eased in the EU markets where some of the worst excesses of risk appetite are not perceived to be present at the same scale as has been the case in the UK and US financial sectors. Leaving the UK may disadvantage the UK financial sector in terms of relative regulatory excess, certainly not reduce the burden.
• The discussion around human rights in the UK is confusing. On the one hand, the British are proud protectors of human rights, yet they despise the European “interference” on the topic. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was a document created in 2009. It was hardly revolutionary. It merely brought all the human rights elements of past directives into one document. There is little in it to disagree with (from a UK values standpoint) and it interferes little with nation state legislation on the subject. The European Convention on Human Rights however, is not part of the EU, was strongly advocated by Winston Churchill and does in fact hold jurisdictional rights on its adherents – UK included. The Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution – leaving the UK will have no impact on this (to me, still incomprehensible) debate. 
• Worker rights, however, admittedly is a separate matter. Social pact / worker solidarity policies emanating from the Continent with their “socialist / welfare state” obsessions have since long been opted out of by the UK. Cases of worker abuse such as those recently heard in Parliamentary Select Committees on Sports Direct would be illegal elsewhere in the EU – but the UK is already free of them … for better or worse. Leaving the EU would, of course, relieve any pressure to improve the lot of the British worker.

Sovereignty: OK. What is sovereignty in today’s global world? There was a time when Britain ruled the waves – that was a sovereignty of sorts. Not long ago, US influence was that of the most powerful nation on earth – that was also a, at times questionable, freedom to act unilaterally. However, in a global world of free trade, there is little clarity on sovereignty. Life is a series of compromises, it’s just that some (such as within the EU) are visible, whereas others are less easy to see, or easier to ignore. The phrase “wilful blindness” comes to mind.

• The UK and many other EU states resist the transference of power to Brussels – the structure and voting powers of the EU Council, where all EU governments gather to seek consensus agreement, guarantee this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Indeed, much of the bureaucracy and inefficiencies referred to by the leave campaigners are the direct result of this continuous need to negotiate and reach common agreement. The EU can exercise "sovereignty" only on terms the EU Council, including the UK government, agree to. 
• Outside the EU, the UK would be sovereign to ignore such discussions: True. However, if the UK wishes to have access to the Single Market, then the Norway solution will have to be adopted. In essence, the UK would be subject to decisions taken at a table where the UK is no longer present. 
• Furthermore, the UK may now independently negotiate terms of trade with third nations, or seek to influence other powers to act in accordance with UK values or interest – but does anyone seriously believe such influence will be greater than if acting as part of the largest trade block in the world? If the EU Council and its constituent governments decide to pursue a common policy, or to resist foreign pressure – there is little doubt in my mind as to who will hold greater influence. 
• It may be gratifying that the UK has placed itself in this position by exercising its sovereignty, but at what price? And, again, for what gain?

Freedom: Linked to sovereignty, many of the issues are the same. This is a global world. If the UK wants to be a player, it needs to be integrated, not floating in magnificent isolation believing that a whole new world will open up to it. 

• Is the Commonwealth supportive of the UK because of its colonial history and the Queen, or is part of the story the influence it gives them in the EU? Realpolitik is no different after a UK exit.
• The UK can pursue markets in the East and West! To be honest, if this isn’t happening already, then it is because British exporters and importers prefer to work with a more stable, uniform and predictable EU. Forcing British commerce to look away from Europe sounds expensive, risky and more complex. Don’t forget, British industry are free to pursue and prioritise these “lucrative” markets already – they just choose not to? Why, I wonder?

The Democratic Deficit: It is a grand delusion that the EU is not accountable. It is true that the Commission is appointed in a political negotiation between the EU member governments; and that the now elected, but only partially powerful, EU parliament approves that choice. But these “Brussels powers” are the EU governments themselves. In pursuing the objective of not transferring sovereignty to Brussels, they resist true democracy. It is, nonetheless, a representative democracy of sorts. EU states are democracies, and the elected governments go to bat for their electorate in their place. One cannot, surely, complain of the threat of a loss of sovereignty to Brussels, and a democratic deficit in the same breath? One is the consequence of the other. 

The Expense: Net of rebates and transfers to the UK, the reported cost to the UK of membership of this trading block and EU Single Market is minimal, £8,4 billion in 2014, about 0.4% of UK GDP. Is this repaid in increased trade and commerce?

• In Norway, despite its access agreements, processing industries in fishing (for example) are subject to trade tariffs. The result is lower profits, the closure of fish processing plants in Norway and the transfer of capital and jobs to Sweden, Denmark, etc. Smoked salmon from Norway? No, not really. Norwegian fished salmon is exported and smoked in Sweden, folks! … so disappointing! 
• Is the expense really so high? And will leaving the EU not risk existing benefits and incur higher known and unknown costs? How will industry be impacted? All we know is that the outcome is uncertain. 

The Euro: Not really an issue is it? The UK is not in the Euro. This is evidenced by Sterling’s decline against the Euro as we approach the referendum.

Economic Outlook: Many have issued dire warnings about the consequences of leaving, many have promised great growth if we leave, and everyone has rubbished the arguments of the opposing side. I say again: It is a matter of risk.

• As far as recession goes, some of the damage is already done. According to the BBC, there has been less permanent employment contracts signed in the UK this year, replaced by more flexible temporary contracts. Any business considering non-essential investments will not have done so this year – why should they? Investors hate uncertainty and want to minimise risk. Furthermore, the nature, sectors and calculated internal rates of return on such investments will probably vary depending on an “in” or “out” vote. I certainly would not invest in a fish processing plant at the moment, would you?
• As for the future – within Europe, investment decisions will be based on the assumption of a continuation of the past, with stable political and economic environments, even if not at emerging market rates. Outside Europe, the UK has to reconfigure what the future holds in terms of opportunity. Short term investments with quick payback will be fine and establishing bridgeheads in the EU proper will be popular, but until we see the emerging reality of future trade flows and partners – most investors will be cautious. This uncertainty, this risk, will slow investment. Will the new freedom from the EU and dash for new markets provide a wealthier future for the UK? We do not know. Until further notice, expect Sterling to continue to decline – good for exporters, but bad for imports … remind me, is the UK not a big importer of physical goods?

Security: The EU is in a rough patch to be sure. It has over expanded, but in doing so has brought the risk of military strife down drastically over the past decades, including the most recent additions. Who would have honestly thought the Ukraine would descend into civil war and the Crimea be annexed? Consider for a moment why the Baltic States were so keen to relinquish “sovereignty” to the EU? The slide to conflict is much, much steeper than people think. The EU was born of conflict, and has been hugely successful in preventing more conflict. If not, Thomas Piketty probably would not have had occasion to write his book on “Capital in the 21st Century” – might there have been a redistribution of wealth away from the privileged classes by way of destruction of property and capital in the interim?

Conclusion: So, with apologies to those who do not like my opinions, here is my opinion and answer to the question as to what my (European perspective) view is on the Brexit question. The future of our societies lies, not in isolation, but in forming a community of interest. The undemocratic aspects of the EU are entirely the making of the member state governments themselves - it is the elected governments in the Council who decline to give the authority to the commission to take effective and streamlined action. If Brexit does happen, will the next stop be NAFTA? The UK will need a new framework within which to survive and prosper. Electing to “free” the UK from the shackles of the EU is an adventure. Is the UK ready to take the risks that come with adventure, and even more importantly, is this the future that the younger generations aspire to, or is it a nostalgic, emotional lurch by those nearing retirement? The demographics of the polls might lead you to suspect so; it does me!

Finally, whatever you decide dear friends and cousins – rest assured we will still love you, watch your football and enjoy holidays in your country – who knows, it might even be more affordable?
Good luck. Bon voyage?

Price-fixing, cartels, corruption … Left to the imagination we quickly conjure up images of smoke filled rooms with powerful individuals conspiring to organise the world and its markets to suit there own ends. There is little to distinguish between collusion aimed at manipulating the market for one’s own benefit, be it conspiracy to eliminate competition by way of establishing a floor or ceiling price on a product or service, or bribing one’s way into a procurement contract. Both are corrupt, both are anti-competitive, and both are detrimental to society. ELIG Attorneys-at-Law and the Journal of Business Compliance have teamed up to produce a great review of the approaches of enforcement authorities and laws, and the lack of common understanding of, and encouragement of compliance programmes in the organisational context.
 
Whereas legislators view legislation on anti-competitive and corrupt practices separately, the origins of such misconduct are surprisingly similar. Engaging in anti-competitive behaviour or bribing one’s way into a large contract are of direct benefit in terms of sales and profit to the business engaging in such acts. For the individual employee, there is an indirect benefit in the form of status gained from the perception of being a successful businessman or woman, bonus payments related to the profitability of illicit deals as financial performance targets are met, or simply the psychological boost to self esteem that can come from the sense of power, derived from the ability to influence markets and counterparts in such manner.
 
Normally, we associate anti-competitive and corrupt behaviour with deliberate, conscious acts. When this occurs, it is more than a mere question of the interpretation of the law; it is a question of mindset and organisational culture. An act that undermines the integrity of free markets, or intentionally bypasses institutional rules on the functioning of that market, may be either clearly illegal, debatably legal, or tentatively exploitative of a legal loophole. Whereas it may always provide grounds for a lively discussion between lawyers, it is however, always unethical and detrimental to other members of those markets, and ultimately to consumers and the broader members of society. The similarity is striking.
 
Yet, there is another, important source of misconduct – and it is where there is an accidental infringement of laws due to ignorance, a lack of awareness or even a result of a mistaken respect of local norms and culture. In such cases, we may be facing amorality rather than immorality, but their consequence equally leads to breaches of the law, or loss of reputation. Again, irrespective of whether the offence falls under the legal category of antitrust, or corruption, the causes of such mishaps are so similar.
 
Further similarity may be found in the price paid by the markets for such deeds: the undermining of confidence, loss of trust in its guardian institutions, and ultimately a reduction in the willingness of investors to assume the higher risks of intransparent markets and decision processes. Similar indeed.
 
If the cause and effect of anti-competitive or corrupt behaviour are so similar, it is not a leap of faith to understand that the way to combat these behaviours are also very similar. When the business leader sits down with her compliance officer to discuss the management and mitigation of risk arising from anti-competitive behaviours in various parts of the organisation, she would be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu from the anti-bribery and corruption meeting held in a previous week. The measures needed are very much the same. There is a need for awareness, legal education, training, the development of relevant and accessible policies and procedures, controls to capture misdeeds or accidents about to happen. They will discuss the usefulness and implications of putting in place a hotline for legal and compliance advice, or a whistle-blowing mechanism for emergency, career threatening situations. It all seems so similar.
 
The question asked by ELIG Attorneys-at-law in this article is a good one. Why, given the similarities of cause and effect, is there a disparity in the treatment and handling of mitigating solutions in cases involving anti-competitive practices on the one hand, and bribery and corruption cases on the other hand? Is it possible that the left hand of the law, does not know, understand, or agree with what the right hand is doing? It is, it seems, very possible.
 
Law is not an exact science – it is an evolving framework seeking to cage a most fluid threat to its desired state of affairs. Case law, increasing complexity of rulebooks, and the subsequent specialisation of legal actors, be they lawyers, barristers or judges, mean that the holistic view – a glance beyond the perimeter fence of one’s subject – is considered a luxury not often afforded. In the search for a better outcome, a more compliant future behaviour, it is not a luxury. That is why this initiative, this article by ELIG takes on an important significance. Both branches of these laws of misconduct, antitrust and anti-corruption, need to understand the similarities existing between them in terms of cause, but also mitigation – and the courts need to seek more than mere justice for past actions. They too need to work for a better future, and encourage market participants to be more effective in protecting the reputation and resilience of the markets in which they operate. One path towards this objective may be found in harmonising and recognising the value of mitigating actions taken by responsible firms seeking to reduce the incidence of misdemeanours and/or breaches of the law.
 
How mitigation measures, and under what circumstance these should be taken into account when sanctioning a breach can be debated; and should be. One legal view may be that obeying the law is non-negotiable, and misconduct should be punished without mercy. However, in a world of endless complexity and coincidence, how often does a judgement not require a lengthy deliberation? Would it not be a better world where firms are encouraged to invest in compliance programmes to reduce risk caused by poor culture, ignorance or even misinterpretations of corporate intent? In a domain where there is so much similarity of cause and effect, does it not make sense to find harmony?

​This blog is based upon my editorial in the Journal of Business Compliance Special Issue of February 2016 entitled "Call for a unified anti-corruption law and competition law programme: Why compliance programmes should be viewed as a mitigating factor". A free copy of this paper may be downloaded for free here.