The Nuremberg Defence

I love it when I am able to speak with a client about a problem and use an example from the news. 

I have spent a day and a half or so training a group of people who will have to do sales (rather than sales people) in the dark art of pricing and costing. One of the areas we covered was in disbursements - charging on expense to the client. One of my bright young things suggested that this was one area in which there was no need to search around for the best price. "The client's paying - if they want the best price, then they should buy the tickets", was his case (although not argued in a very articulate manner - I do worry about young people today).

Hmm. We engaged on a long discussion about this, using the focus of our lovely MPs. I explained the Nuremberg defence which most had been using (and, being the intelligent readers you are, I have no intention of explaining it again) and we looked at our own reactions to that defence. Sadly some of the team still didn't quite see that this analogy meant that they had any requirement to shop around on their client's behalf. I decided to try a more near-to-home example and asked one of the trainees to give me (it is possible that, as an oversight for which I apologise, I used the phrase "lend me...". This is, of course, not fraud. I have apologised and, if necessary, will pay the money back. A little parable for you.) some money for lunch. "How much do you want" she said (somewhat suspiciously, I thought). "£20 please", I said with my had out. "But you can get lunch for about £5 just around the corner!" "Yes, but it's not my money..."

That started another debate - partly, unfortunately, about the inapplicability of the example. Oh well.

I have a colleague who says that Ethics cannot be taught. Most of us who went through a top-notch MBA will have studied Ethics as part of the course, and having gone through that programme, I'm siding with my colleague. People will either act according to a set of socially-approved ethics, or they will not. I don't think that the requirement to "do the right thing" can be taught. It can be explained, but only as a concept. 

This seems to have been the problem with some or many of our MPs (some or many depending on your level of cynicism). Some of them just don't seem to get it. 

Let's hope that our shiny new Speaker in late June "gets it" and can help to engender a new ethical approach to expense claims on our behalf. Let's also hope that at least some of my group "got it" and will go on to treat every expense as if it is their own.

SC

Foreign climes

I had a few days in Moscow last week. I've worked out there on and off over the last few years and still find it a somewhat worrying place to work. My clients and contacts seem to have a different set of rules by which they live and work - rules that I either don't understand, don't agree with, or don't notice. All of which can cause problems.

This time out, I was working on the European structure of a Russian technology firm (that's enough detail). After a fairly long day - a day during which I had tried to give an understanding of European ethics - I was invited out for dinner with the MD. Being Russia, it wasn't that simple. I was collected from my hotel by a driver who spoke no English (and my Russian is terrible) and so was unable to find out where we were going, something I find always makes me nervous. We arrived outside a fairly non-descript restaurant where I met the MD and his "people". He was a lovely man in general and I amused him in so many ways. He thought it was funny that I worked on my own (and so had no "people"). We sat at a table and drank for about 3 hours. By that time my head was spinning and I was fairly sure I was making little sense. Given that the MD was making no sense at all, this seemed to be a good assumption. Finally we stood up and went through to a different room where we, at last, started to eat. More drinks came with the food, as did a procession of different people, some of whom I was introduced to. To be honest, I'm not sure what was going on, other than that the food was reasonably good, there was far too much alcohol about and that almost everyone seemed to be laughing a lot.

At the end of the meal, the MD took me in a bear-hug, called me "friend" and escorted me to his car. "A night-cap" was one English phrase he was very keen on, and proud of using. 

It took me about 10 minutes to work out that the "bar" we ended up in was, in fact, a brothel. In my defence, I was rather drunk by this time. There was an assumption that I would, ehm, "indulge". Now I'm all in favour of cultural differences and of pleasing a client. My degree of client-pleasing, however, stops some way short of sex. Politely, I hope, I declined a statue-esque blonde and asked for a coffee. Fortunately, the MD thought that this was hilarious - and called for more vodka. The rest of the evening is rather fuzzy, but I know that I avoided any horizontal activities - and that I had a spectacular hang-over then next day. When I met him in the afternoon, the MD congratulated me on a great evening out.

Each time I go to Russia, I think I understand it, and the people, a little more. And then something happens to remind me that I really don't know that much at all.

So - the Secret Consultant's advice about working in Russia: keep your moral compass to hand, practise drinking, eat before you go out. Those should help.

SC

Politicians, spin and stupidity

More political scandal. More politicians exposed as manipulating a system and "forgetting" certain expenses (and tax)  - have a look a this from the BBC.

Two things. Firstly isn't amazing that with all these revelations, not a single act of omission or forgetfulness has been to the benefit of the tax payer rather than to the benefit of the politician. Surely the law of averages would suggest that, if these really are mistakes, then there should be cases of under-claiming coming to light too...

Secondly, would this really be allowed in business. I don't mean so much the "claim everything you can" mentality. I suspect that we've all worked with people who thought like that - and with their opposite who would not think about claiming for a newspaper or other small expense and who have to be reminded that they paid for a team lunch. In general this is private money and so long as the owners of the business know what is going on and are content, then fine,

My concern is with a group of people who are being exposed - not as fraudsters or cheats - but as penny pinching tight-wads who seem to spend a huge amount of time working out how to ensure that they spend nothing of their own while claiming as much as possible from us - the tax payer. As one of the "owners" in this circumstance, I do now know and I am not happy. Mostly I'm not happy with the view that, although a particular politician has been exposed as making a number of "errors" and, as importantly, as a person determined to screw every penny possible out of a job in which they were supposed to be serving the people, feel no inclination to resign.

This is a system which desperately needs an overhaul if public confidence is to be restored. A wave of sackings or resignations would help too. Why not simply use the same rules that the rest of us have to cope with so far as tax is concerned - is the the expense wholly and appropriately attributable to the business being undertaken? No need for a new set of rules - why not just treat everyone the same.

The Secret Consultant for Prime Minister, I say...

SC