US
The Duke of Wellington famously described his army as being “composed of the scum of the earth – the mere scum of the earth.” That was almost 200 years ago. Today many across the globe would argue that bankers in the City should be similarly described.
However, Wellington’s “Scum of the Earth” managed to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo and today’s military offer a range of skills that should be welcomed in the Square Mile.
As the paradigm of City employment shifts radically – decimated workforce, state-owned banks and the demise of the “get rich quick” bonus structure – it is worth looking at a pool of people who bring a strong set of work ethics, with in-built teamwork as a natural part of their culture.
When you join the Navy, Army or Air Force there is a mandatory period of basic training which can last from six months to two years depending on role; and this takes place after a rigourous assessment process from which many drop out. In fact, the concept of assessment centres started in the military many years ago and has now been adopted across business as the best way to select staff.
Having passed out of basic training, military personnel join their relevant units, whether in barracks or – more likely – on operations typically in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thereafter they undertake continuous and regular training throughout their careers. The result is people you can hire into civilian roles who are tried and tested team players, and who know the value of being motivated to succeed.
Some argue that the military do not have relevant skills to fit into financial services. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the product that emerges into civilian life. In the past, many people in the City had either done their National Service, or spent their formative adult life on a short service contract with the armed forces. As a result, many employers knew the potential of military staff. Now, people are less aware and need to be educated.
The core benefits of military-trained individuals are thus: they are used to performing at a high level; they have strong personal discipline; and they are completely reliable. These are qualities that you cannot easily train into people. Individuals can, however, be given the specific technical and product skills required of a new job via training and development.
It is at this point that I should show my hand – I came into the City in 1986 after seven years in the Army. One could say that I am biased. However, 23 years later, I still firmly believe in the virtues of employing military personnel. As we embark upon a new world that requires a work force with a strong “moral compass” which is not tarnished by the City excesses of the 90′s and early 2000′s, the military offers an obvious solution.
Andrew Pullman is managing director of People Risk Solutions, a City-focused HR consultancy.
Andrew, it’s nice what you say. Intangible Army skills and a “moral compass” in today’s financial world. But to break into the City in a front office environment from a military background would be next to impossible. That thing you so easily gloss over…”the specific technical and product skills required of a new job via training and development….” takes a lot and I mean A LOT of hard work and time. If as a MD have to get someone financially literate over the space of 18 months (on a good basic salary) before he can add any value to my team, then I would get…..FIRED. I don’t have the luxury anymore to give a lengthy training period to someone and our graduate training program reflects this. Business and finance degrees are still mandatory.
What about all the ex army bods that struggle massively to adjust to civilian life and end up as alcoholics living on the streets?
They clearly have “strong personal discipline and are completely reliable”
Totally agree with Tom. I’m not an MD, but I actually think the influx of Army types into the city is in NO WAY a solution. These people lack the technical expertise, and are rushed into a managerial role simply because they were officers. Soft skills, leadership skills, organisations skills, whatever- these are NOT ENOUGH. Todays market is highly complex and the pace of change can be very dramatic. Therefore we need people who can adapt quickly and effectively. We already have enough army types. My former manger was one and he was clueless. Always looking like a rabbit in headlights whenever we had a conference call because he didn’t have a clue what people were on about. Unintentionally hilarious! toodlepip!
“they are used to performing at a high level; they have strong personal discipline; and they are completely reliable…”
I think you will find that a lot of people in the City, at least the top half of performers, are already like this….
Unfortunately I have rarely met someone from the forces who is truly open-minded and flexible… rigid is quite an apt description for ex-military types. In the world of commerce this does not serve you well.
I’m a trader at a bank and work with some ex-Army officers on the trading floor (sales/trading). They are by far the most disciplined and some of the most motivated anywhere on the floor. There appears to be a large degree of ignorance (not just in the City) however among those who’ve never spent in/around the armed forces. As for lack of experience…we all have to learn the ropes at some point.
As for stories of alcoholism after the army generally stem from former soldiers in the ranks who came from unverprivilaged backgrounds and who find the lack of structure/rigour in civilian life hard to fathom.
They lack the intelligence to be good bankers:
(1) 99% of times (relevant) degree-less
(2) made the choice of joining the army in the first place
(3) tim – nice – but – dim type of people
Being able to shout at people is barely a skill – officers in the army are used to ordering around people who do not in anyway compare to the calibre of people in banking.
army people = “moral compass”???
bc you’re being very ignorant of army life. 99% of officers have degrees, most of them from top 20 universities. One of the most popular degrees is Engineering. The Army is not banking, no-one has attempted to claim it is. The average intellect of someone in banking FO/IDB will be higher than an army officer; that is not to say that there are not incredibly bright officers in the army. I fail to see why chosing a career other than banking marks someone as inferior? It’s attitudes like that which give us all a bad image.
Anyone who can command 25-100 troops with a calm head while being shot at/RPGd has a quality few on the floor have. Hence my comment about the impressive nature of the couple of ex-officers on my floor.
‘calibre of people in banking ?’
Who are these high calibre people you refer to? The ones who needed bailed out by the Government, lost 90% of their companies equity in less than a year structuring nonsense instruments, written of billions of bad loans funding ludicrous LBO, have had to lay offs thousands and are being spat on in the street by members of the public?
Greenfly and Davros lay down the 1 – 2 combo, silly bc flinched and is floundering…
“Think 60 times before coming out with such outlandish statements!”
Lots of terrible nice, earnest chaps, with immaculate attire and accents to match do make their way into the city, mainly in client facing or sales roles in IB or Wealth Management. Usually after doing an MBA thingy.
Many not so lucky chaps have in the past ended up with the rotten end of the stick and have had to spend their time running operational process teams, using their leadership, egineering and organisational skills in managing teams of back office essex boy types. Sometimes these chaps are lucky enough to rebrand as consultants.
Many chaps have tried to get in during the up years and have failed as a result of their own lack of research and ability to network.
What those chaps left in the city who might have a job or two to fill need most now though would be some chaps who have a client base or a techical understanding of financial products. These chaps may well be more likely to give the nod to a chap from the old regiment if in fact he does have the client base or product knowledge.
If a chap doesn’t have these advantages and has just joined civvy street then he will almost certainly now have to find another industry to fund his childrens education with.
Ex- Army Officers have a degree of leadership lacking in most so called “leaders” in the City. What leadership training do most City leaders have – mostly one dimensional accountants glued to their email. I have worked in change projects in the Army and the City, by far, the military projects were dramatically more demanding and the investment would make a banker faint. There is no real comparision. Banking projects are almost all IT , military projects have multi-dimensions. Don’t be fooled by the “chinless wonder ” myth. The Army invests hundreds of thousands in training these guys over years – the banks put managers on a one week leadership course !!! Oh …. bc …. Army officers don’t shout, they lead by example, the only hissey fits I have witnessed came from banking managers – don’t base your opinion on war comics! Banking ain’t that complex or hard to understand and the structured training that Army Officers receive, often on top of a top class degree, is better than anything I have witnessed on offer in the City – inflexible ????? Laughable, I think you find that a lot of graduate training techniques come from the Army – they are just a few years ahead in their thinking.
I am very interested to see the debate that my article has prompted. As I suspected, a number of individuals who, on the basis of one or two bad experiences, and extreme ignorance, seem unable to see past their rather inflated egos.
Having worked in fixed income sales at a US investment bank, as well as being responsible for recruiting and developing capital markets staff for many years, I still believe that the City could do with far less arrogance and a bit more sane, solid hard graft – have some of these guys still not woken up and smelt the coffee yet!!!
And, by the way, has no one the bottle to say who they are and what they actually do … !?
Andrew Pullman:
Interesting that you mentioned you worked in fixed income sales. More interesting is the fact that you DIDN’T mention how high you climbed before you set up People Risk Solutions. I suspect that your fixed income sales Head of Department had a very, very strong finance education and /or MBA. I’m not knocking diversity and different backgrounds in the business, but it should be a small minority. Ultimately, investment bankers want people like themselves. For example, you would not want a whole HORDE of hairdressers suddenly wanting to become doctors…so why would finance be different?
Agree with Nicholas. Dude, you had a few good years in Fixed Income when they wanted to get ANYONE in the seat…and you think you got all the answers. When you been through a few boom and busts and you are STILL there, then you can lecture to others.
I think we should all calm down a little, he’s not saying ex-officers should automatically get roles in the City but that their skills are often not appreciated by many as so few people have military experience these days. Basically that a tank commander might just be on par with some 27 year old who has just done their banks 6 week classroom training and is now on random 6 month rotations.
In my own experience Army guys I’ve worked with have always been pretty smooth, confident and got things done. Though they also had MBAs.
I don’t know Andrews’s specifics but to it’s vastly untrue to generically say it was bums on seats in the good old days. Sure, we don’t 2 HHs a day calling anymore but all those interviews were rigourous (well…at the decent houses!). Our head of FI sales doesn’t have a finance degree, although does have an MBA.
I’d still rather have a bright ex-army officer on my right age 24 than a kid with BA, Msc and a gap year who’s 23. Some people have real ego problems in this business.
What on earth are you talking about. From my year at Oxford, the top percentile did entrepreneur or creative stuff, the second set joined the Foreign Office, then came banking and business etc. And it’s like that every year, no debate.
I think Ex Cav has nailed the true value of an army “education” on the head: Leadership. This is something IBs have lacked. I think the current mess speaks volumes. I have never seen so many reasonably intelligent yet conceited people rise to levels of authority in IB. Being smart doesn’t mean you can lead and yet IBs promote P&L ahead of true management skills.
How about looking at the youngsters coming out of university that were part of the University squads – whether Air Squadron, Army or Navy.
While I never done those during my time at uni, I was part of the Air Cadets during my teenage years. I still had to wear a uniform, be disciplined while on camps, in my uniform on parade nights and while on RAF bases. I learnt leadership skills and held a rank, and I wish employers would look at this part of my backgroud as it seems to be over looked despite me mentioning it on my CV and in interviews.
I’ve learnt doing my job at work, and I think if you get the right youngsters you will not have to spend ages training kids that want to be in the sector up.
I have worked for a couple of successful banks (i.e. not bailed by the government!) who have made a point of recruiting some ex-military (and not just to add tone to the vulgar brawl!). Most have done very well. True, they don’t know a lot on entry, but learning curve and motivation mean that what is supposed to take 2 years to master is done in a few months. I know some very successful senior bankers who have military backgrounds, sure not all of them make the grade and quickly self select out, but I would guess churn rate is lower than other recruits.
Ex-Military types bring much to the party, for all the reasons discussed. It is also true that the depth of network leads to good sales skills too.
I’ve been surprised over the years by the poor leaderships skills in banking. You don’t learn this on an MBA, but through real experince. Officers don’t shout, they command respect based on personal example and flawless intergrity.
To the cynics as to need and quaility of leadership skills amongest you, I suggest you join the TA, put yourself in harms way and be humbled by what you will learn. Serving to lead is a privilege. Banking sorely needs more of it.
The debate is very interesting and the most prominent theme is generalisation. True: there are lots of ‘chinless wonders’ or ‘Tim nice but dims’ in the Army serving as officers but they make up a very small percent of the overall officer core. It’s also true that not all ex-officers will be effective at what they put their minds to. But this is also applicable to the banking industry.
What prompts me to make this observation is the way that ‘bankers’ have received such bad ‘generalised’ press and surely that should teach those who are on the ‘inside’ that the organisational fabric is far deeper and individual than that?
In my experience, I saw bad officers. Some were awful; utterly useless. But we could all tell that. Similarly, there are some utterly useless and ineffective managers in this industry; but not a lot of people seem to notice that.
So why the difference?
Is it because ex-officers grow witnessing leadership having bound to have been subjected to it at some point during their careers but the organic bankers not so often?
I am very disappointed with the calibre of some of the managers but I’m not sure either the Army or an MBA would help them…
Nuts, the ex army captain who was brought in as a settlements manager (offered the job at a party when he had just left the forces) when I was at ABN Amro (ok, it was 1999) was a complete dork. OK, he could make an omelett with earth worms but his man-management skills were zero.
A thoroughly nice chap and good egg, though.
BC,
Your comments have deeply angered me. I’m a serving army officer with no intention of getting into banking. The stereotype of a “Tim nice but Dim” army officer that you seem to take as reality appears to be a combination of “posh morons” from Sharpe’s Rifles and “terribly nice chaps who are waiting to take over the estate”.
Although these stereotypes always seem to be the first to appear in the script of any TV drama involving the army- they are outdated and frankly, unimaginative writing.
It amazes me that you think that with today’s tempo of operations and intensity of fighting, you still think total morons would be allowed to be responsible for young soldiers lives on operations.
As for ‘just shouting at people’, you’ve obviously been watching a few to many ‘Carry on’ films.
With regard to us all being thickies with crap degrees, I have a first from Edinburgh, and the two guys in the rooms either side of me have firsts from Oxbridge.
I wonder if this comes down to “every man thinks less of himself for not having been a soldier”
I’d love to see you trying to type your office emails with bullets zipping past your head…. then we’d see who was of what
Lets all be honest here shall we, there is an element of snobery and old schools tie in play here and of course someone with a military background is going to have a predujice for those with a similar background to themselves. People hire in their mirror image.
My Pullman’s suggestion that ex milatary backgrounds can cure the city’s ills is pure poppycock. The last thing the city needs over the next couple of years is to hire more middle managers who lack the understanding of what is happening with the balance sheet.
There are literaly 1000′s of highly skilled professionals out there on the street right now, through no fault of their own. We run the risk of permanently loosing some of this knowledge to the sector, should we take Mr Pullman’s advice.
Where Mr Pullman does have a valid point, and something he has been saying for some time, is the industry’s need to deflate compensation expectations – this is the issue the city needs to address as a matter urgency.
Like a cold shower, a good dose of unemployment usually gets people on the same page.
I agree, it takes more than an Army background to become a successful banker and great leader. I am talking by own experience as my last two managers were ex. Army guys (ex. heli pilote and marine soldier).
“they are used to performing at a high level and have strong personal discipline; (they were always in the office an hour before everyone else BUT to their own benefit as it allowed them time to go to the gym and “made them look good”. They were also the first to leave; and they are completely reliable (my managers were hiding their client meetings/agenda for each other putting the people on the team in an uncomfortable position. After instructing members on their team, in the event senior management was unhappy, they would deny it was their decision and blame it on the person who followed their instructions).
They thought that they were superior to everyone else and were patronising. Something I felt was very offensive and shows a lack of common sense. They also lacked some technical skills.
As a background note I conducted some of my Master’s at a National Defence College, and have nothing against Army people as long as they understand courtesy.
This debate is “interesting”. One would be well advised not to judge on a limited number of examples nor using boiler plate statements all the time. Yes, Leadership has been of debatable quality in many companies (not only banks – think of the car industry, media companies, regulators, etc.). Yes, certain individuals at banks can have inflated egos. Yes, army personnel can be very good in soft skills. However:
i. I cannot see a clear relationship between being in a very hierachical environment like the armed forces and managerial skills per se. Certain situations demand non-hierachical solutions, and questioning the opinion/decisions your line manager has made. Being critical of orders is not necessarily something they train you in the army I suspect.
ii. In this economic environment, there is hardly ANY leader who can claim his / her leadership led to successes (this includes all bulge bracket companies of all industries AND the political establishment). Skills like leadership, etc. are desirable, but the lack of technical understanding of securitized products and the embedded risks at all sides of the table (rating agencies, banks, investors, regulators) led to this crisis.
iii. It is a rather “sky-is-blue” statement to say you would rather sit next to a bright army officer than next to a random Joe straight out of college kid. Question is if the defining factor comes from being the army guy or the bright guy. I suspect the latter.
If someone from any kind of background comes in bright, has good soft skills and demonstrates the ability to pick up QUICKLY, he/she is a save higher for many roles in the finance industry and beyond.
For the records, I have dealt with many army people myself during my grad studies and on the trading desk. Kids straight from Iraq, demanding now their share of the cake. Rational being that their peers “owe” them to help with the entry into the City – while their peers made money on the Street, they fought for “their nation” abroad and now come in with a very pronounced feeling of entitlement. How this helps solving the greed problem in the banks, I lack to see… True though that Wall Street has a much more developed army alum network than the Square Mile. If this makes the one better or worse off ?!?
I was quite ‘interested’ by what ‘Truce’ had to say until his/her true feelings came out. Is it a fact that ex-Army chaps feel ‘owed’ by their peers? Where’s the evidence to support that? You sound very bitter.
I also detect some seriously bitter feelings from Janine: You also sound like someone speaking through anger and not from a fair and reasonable perspective; what is the comment regarding going to the gym about? Janine you have 1200 characters to get it off your chest…
The Sage: I think what you have written is ‘poppycock’. Old School Ties? Is that based upon a quantitative survey of the secondary education of Army Officers passing through RMAS? I think you will find that the majority are not from Private Schools; just Graduates from a wide range of universities.
There has been some good, balanced opinions throughout this, but in the most, the commentary is based upon personal and bitter experience in some cases and does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
Rather than feel threatened by an Ex-Army type; try and embrace them and use their varied skill set to your advantage. Don’t fight it; work with it. Improvise, adapt and overcome.
If I get some ex-Army types who behave as id they were at Abu-Ghraib, Iraq or those other outstanding officers kicking and beating an Iraqi prisoner…then no, I don’t want such calibre people in our bank.
John, no reports official, unofficial or newspapers say that officers were invovled in the Abu-Ghraib gaol incidents. Perhaps you were thinking of Non-Commissioned Officers, which this thread is not about.
Truce, the “bright” ex-army qualification was to be sure I meant a person as equality bridge as just-finished-quant-MSc but with definitive leadership and character-building experience.
Surely at this time the industry should be looking to embrace talent from whichever field it comes. There are great leaders in all aspects of life and there are also complete idiots (john who posted the lasted comment being a good example!). Technical knowledge can be quickly picked up be capable people. Leadership however takes a lot longer and in some cases never. Banking needs real leaders (now more than ever) and if the forces is a good supplier why not exploit this.
John does raise a good point though. Where exactly were the officers in charge who let those soldiers torture? Is that leadership? I remember that report now on the news showing a bunch of british soldiers, kicking an iraqi civilian in Basra…I’d like to know how the officers there allowed such conduct to happen? What officer leadership skills were present then?
Peter…QED. Oh the irony of a lack of reporting/discipline by a single captain vs that of almost all financial firms’ mangement.
Rothers
why are you looking at a financial employment website if you have no intention of coming into banking?
I mistakenly forgotten i’d written the comments i made before – but having read all the drivel it provoked, I still feel I am right. I wouldn’t even bother with the CV of some toff wanting to “be a leader” in banking as he could command a couple of hundred guys in a warzone or whatever.
The need for a leader in banking is not so important. Most banks have little hierachy, certainly on the trading floor, as most people are professional enough to go about their business without being told what to do. The risk dept are the ones who monitor what you do and tell you to stop and go. Your boss is someone who is a political figure – goes and argues for your bonus, keeps the team alive in restructures etc etc. The only true requirement for a leader is at the group level – i.e. right at the top of the bank. There are not too many of these roles. The skill of leadership is therefore not that important in banking if you mean leading teams etc.
I’d easily do an army job, – I just don’t want to kill people for a living or get involved in conflicts i do not believe in
“The stereotype of a “Tim nice but Dim” army officer that you seem to take as reality appears to be a combination of “posh morons” from Sharpe’s Rifles and “terribly nice chaps who are waiting to take over the estate”"
nope – more from the recent video clips of prince harry et pals
“With regard to us all being thickies with crap degrees, I have a first from Edinburgh, and the two guys in the rooms either side of me have firsts from Oxbridge”
Probably in history, religious studies, history of art etc etc.
“I wonder if this comes down to “every man thinks less of himself for not having been a soldier” ”
Not at all. I would think the opposite w.r.t killing people, being told to do things i do not want to do, risking innocent peoples’ lives, blowing up stuff, making locals despise my country etc etc
“I’d love to see you trying to type your office emails with bullets zipping past your head…. then we’d see who was of what”
I am sure you’d be better at that than me but it makes you better than me at banking? or you’re proving some point here? Rambo is a better soldier than you are but i bet he’d be rubbish at leading a interest rate structuring desk. The point is – the two fields are unrelated
I did not mean to come across bitter and believe me I am not. In fact some of my best friends on the floor have been in Afghanistan 2 years ago. HOWEVER, I think this thread starts to deviate from a discussion of leadership to a “army guys are good because they have discipline” contra “army is only there to kill hence they are dumb” discussion. For the records, if anyone feels to discuss the viability of current and past wars than I believe there are different forums for that online at hand.
Isn’t the real question: What kind of leadership does the current financial industry demand to overcome the obstacles faced? Have the obstacles been a lack of leadership? Is it possible to effectively “lead” complex organizations with even more complex exposures by ONE leader? What should a leader have done differently?
Though I do not like it (since it effects my bonus) I do see how short term incentives have spurred short term thinking in the front office – particularly lev fin and prop trading. Hence, there has to be a new measurement of performance in an industry which believed in top line performance measurement only!
Hello everybody.
This is a very interesting discussion. There seems to be a lot of hostility against ex-Army soldiers wanting to join an investment bank. As a recent immigrant to Britain, I am very impressed by the opportunities people in this country give to others who want to start life again in something else. In my country (Sri Lanka) this would hardly ever happen. I hope people still give others a chance here.
BC: it’s probably people like you who create this false, insecure organisational fabric, which is driven by ego and testosterone. To suggest that leadership is not required only highlights your ignorance in what really makes an organisation competent.
And how does a ‘Group Leader’, as you put it, expect to lead effectively if they have never had the opportunity or indeed need to lead prior to being appointed, nor been fortunate to experience leadership across the employee spectrum (if a trading floor is devoid of this?)?
Congratulations: MD = Instant Leader… ?
OK.
So what is the job of a leader of a typical desk?
Stop talking about soft notions re the need for a leader and the current “insecure organisational fabric” that apparently prevails.
Just describe to me what a leader should be doing. Persuade me we need to change the current hierachy to one that is more structured where people are employed purely because they can “lead”.
the problem isn’t leadership – just that risk needs more power.
how is an army guy going to change banking because of his superior leadership skills? He lacks experience. I just want “leaders” who have seen alot of cr@p happen, where things can go wrong and well.
Errapan
“There seems to be a lot of hostility against ex-Army soldiers wanting to join an investment bank.”
It’s not hostility to any group directly – just hostility to the idea that someone can help with today’s financial problems JUST because of his army experience. The cool thing about finance is that everyone is welcome.
I think firstly to forget the notion that finance revolves around a ‘desk’. Egocentric views create sub-cultures, which breed inefficiencies and stifle collaboration and understanding, whereas a leader would
install that. Leaders tame the wild and nuture the weak and make sure that their growth follows the strategic direction of that organsiation. Otherwise you develop imbalances such as was seen in J. Kerviel (SocGen 2008).
More risk doens’t equal power. More risk means more need to inherently understand the effect of that ’cause’ and how the balance in success may shift.
A leader will understand that the ‘softer’ elements of an organisational fabric are actually the most critical; and if you pull that fabric away from under the feet of the organisation then it will fail.
Organisations need people like you, BC, because we cannot all be leaders. Some people like to lead and some like to be led. Not everyone will have the desire nor the notion to consider what the effect of not adressing the ‘softer’ side; they may only be focussed on their P & L; and quite rightly so.
Therefore it’s about having people who have a critical understanding of what makes it ALL go tick
BC – the first thing a decent leader / manager would be doing is to stop you writing so many ignorant emails when you should be doing your job. You’re not one of the board members from Northern Rock are you ??
Real issue here is whether the transferrable skills add value to the banking community. I believe that if they didn’t the city would not be awash with ex-forces.
Oh my god – you guys don’t know aything
a “desk” is commonly used to describe the component pieces of a bank. You would know this if you worked in one.
“rISK” is short for “risk department” – again a commonly used term in banking. I believe these guys should be paid more and given stronger power than they have. How on earth is your comment “More risk doens’t equal power” related to this?
“Therefore it’s about having people who have a critical understanding of what makes it ALL go tick”
- i.e. not ex army types but people with EXPERIENCE
TO JB – i am on vacation (well about to leave tomorrow)
and teh city isn’t awash with ex army types
yo henry – help me out here – it’s a tough one arguing with a bunch of people with a chip on their shoulder about never getting into banking.
It is a pity that some people (BC and the like) do not recognise the value of different skills. In particular , they do not show enough respect to people who may well have put their lives on the line to ensure that people like him do not get bombed when they go to work in the morning.
Everyone is different, and not everyone is born to be a banker, however everyone should be given a chance to try. They certainly could not do any worse than the current batch of “Masters of the Universe”!
tenn…shun!!!!! Left right…left right….
Usually, when people are conversing on a blog, they’ll tailor their use of language to suit all audiences.
De-jargonising it. That’s another leadership trait; being able to appeal to the masses. So I will not hold it against you for talking in ‘banking’ terms.
“a “desk” is commonly used to describe the component pieces of a bank. You would know this if you worked in one.”
Well I do; and at a desk, funnily enough. Although are you absolutely sure that ‘desk’ refers to all component parts? Why isn’t ‘Risk’ called a ‘desk’; it is a component part, right? Does it not usually refer to a trading or front office desk? Do you call the desks in desk, I mean risk, desk? Or do you call them ‘risk’? Or rISK as you put it. Or is that a new product you’re rolling out? You might want to trademark it.
Maybe you could phone a friend if you’re not sure. Try Henry…Henry?
Finally BC: are you on vacation or are you telling lies? Are you really sat at home, pretending it’s a desk or are you having to minimise your browser every time your manager walks past? You didn’t seem too sure: “TO JB – i am on vacation (well about to leave tomorrow)”
Well?
Ciao for now x
Fear Naught – most people in banks have more than 3 screens – not sure they’d need to minimise their browser. You would know that if you worked in a bank.
I think the best captain tottenham hotspur has ever had was the magnificent Gary Mabbutt. The greatest leader at the lane.
Now, based on all the rubbish discussed so far – he has the same qualities as any army general for getting us out of this mess.
It seems to me that touting the army for its’ soft skills / leadership is hardly a good idea. After all the leadership what is the end result? Last time I checked the British Army was pulling out of southern Iraq in retreat….no matter their political masters say. Does anyone seriously think they can do better in high finance?
anybody using the term oxbridge should be discharged on the spot – clearly 3 years of tertiary education have been wasted if a person refers to an imaginary university- you might as well say you were educated at hogwarts
anybody using the term oxbridge should be discharged on the spot – clearly 3 years of tertiary education have been wasted if a person refers to an imaginary university- you might as well say you were educated at hogwarts
Fear Naught – You are a total waste of space. BC doesnt need to generalise his banking colloquialisms because this is a FINANCE website, not a general blog. You are stupid it seems. Also if you worked in a bank, you would know that the reason a “Risk Desk” does not exist is because a “Desk” is used to describe a team situated on the trading floor. Typically because all team members tend to sit in interconnected desks or “islands”. You’d know this if you worked in an investment bank with a trading floor. Teams outside of the trading floor are simply called “teams” for no malicious reason, other than because they do not posess this physical attribute. Go away and watch some day time TV would you.