Replacing Diamond as a “Gilt’s Best Friend”.
“Barclay’s CEO, Bob Diamond, resigns with immediate effect” the Sky News tickertape announced just before 7.30am a week ago today, 3rd July. I was at the gym and the whole place stopped to read the story before gradually nodding with the appearance of a David having finally defeated Goliath. Over the following few hours, news of the Barclay CEO’s sudden departure caused greater hysteria than would have been seen had England actually made it past the EURO 2012 quarter finals a week earlier.
Politicians immediately Teflon coated themselves; the media went into overdrive with yet another banker’s scalp to display; and every anti-capitalist/anti-banking/anti-employment/anti-bathing protester cheered so loudly they almost dropped their fat-free, caffeine-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, taste-free, offense-free Soya latte on their sandals.
But what now?
Some people will try and pretend that LIBOR hasn’t been ‘played with’ for years and that it wasn’t common knowledge across ‘The City’, the Bank of England and the Treasury – indeed the perfected ‘surprise faces’ must have taken longer to perfect than the well rehearsed statements condemning the practice.
Bankers lied. About that there is no doubt. But people ‘flex’ values and truth all the time. Selling your house, you do what you can to ride the market? Even cheating is sometimes, seemingly fine. Were England’s football team vilified for failing to immediately fess-up that the Ukraine goal actually wasn’t?
For Barclays, the UKs second biggest bank (behind HSBC), they are suddenly left without a leader, made even worse by the intention to resign from Chairman Marcus Agius in the same week. But as, every Teflon politician, every revolting shareholder, every band-wagon jumping tabloid paper and every socialist will tell us; CEOs are overpaid and easily replaced. They are nothing special and frankly do not earn, nor deserve their comical pay awards.
Meanwhile, Barclays, along with other major corporations defending their CEOs’ awards are insisting the awards are just, not only in recompense for effort and success, but also as their leaders are irreplaceable.
So who’s right?
Barclays had spent over decade preparing Bob Diamond, the world’s best banker, to ascend to the throne. Ergo: he became more powerful, and ever harder to replace. He had also steered the only true major UK bank not to need a government hand-out through the worst financial services crisis, and the worst macro-economic environment in living memory. He was the King of the Brit Bankers, and the best paid. Hence he was public enemy number one….hence Barclays will struggle to replace him, or to find someone up for such ascension.
The obvious internal candidate, COO Jerry del Missier, is out of the running – he resigned before Diamond did over the LIBOR fiasco. Two other leading contenders, Rich Ricci, head of the investment bank, and Tom Kalaris, wealth management CEO are deemed too close to Bob Diamond (although knowing Tom Kalaris, I believe he would make a fantastic Group CEO).
Let’s take this outside…..
So the search will head externally. We have recently been involved in two, FTSE-100, C-Level Financial Services searches. In the FTSE-100, there are 5 Banks, 5 ‘Financial Services’ groups, 6 Life Insurance businesses and 2 non-life insurance (18% of the FTSE-100 tells us how important the broader FS sector is to the UK). That gives traditional search firms and traditional methodologies just 17 businesses to hunt from.
I have spoken to lead contenders from around half of those businesses, and let’s just say, appetite to move in the current climate is not overflowing – let alone to move to the hottest of political hotbeds that comes with greater media scrutiny than a premiership footballer on a seemingly indefensible race charge.
Common sense would suggest one of the 8 insurance businesses as a target, as their sector has been largely unaffected (or rather un-maligned) by the ‘banking crisis’ and thus leaders from that sector are seen as cleaner and more shareholder/regulator appeasing. Persuading insurers to become bankers is not an easy task though!
Diamond’s successor will have to be a “detail person”, and to appease public, authorities and media alike will have to at least speak of the desire to reverse Diamond’s expansionist zeal in investment banking. They will also have to have the ability to appease and make peace with the authorities, something Diamond was seemingly spectacularly bad at.
The traditional old school search firms will explore their well trodden networks, come up with the same names, take 3-6 months to do so, then marvel at the lack of interest before blaming their client for an impossible brief, further complicated through recent events whilst still pocketing at least 66% of their banker’s bonus size fee.
……Meanwhile we could have expedited the search to just 2-3 weeks, whilst thinking laterally – and guaranteed success with a 100% refund; such is the extent to which we back ourselves to deliver.
Diamond geezer or flawed gem?
Is Diamond the toughest substance known to man?
Bob Diamond has been accused of being the epitome of the rot in The City, the embodiment of greed. He was billed as being wholly unsuitable to run a major organisation, let alone a major global bank. But was he? Barclays spent 15 years grooming him to take over – they must have seen something?
He remained hugely popular in key circles. “He engendered great staff loyalty right through the ranks” says one former colleague. Even at this year’s annual meeting of shareholders, most investors lauded the chief executive, even as they excoriated the board for granting him such a generous pay deal, but a few vigilantes aside, no-one really disagreed with his value.
Diamond was undoubtedly an entrepreneurial banker. He took over Barclays Capital in 1997. At the time, the investment banking unit had £135bn in assets and made £250million pre-tax profit. By last year, assets were five times higher at £1.2tr and profit was twelve times greater at £3bn.
Credit boom aside, much of that gain was due to Diamond’s ability to persuade the main board to pour resources into investment banking. His entrepreneurial flair continued after the credit crunch when the bank acquired the largest chunk of Lehman Brothers out of bankruptcy.
Diamond’s pay reward has been the subject of immense scrutiny, vilification and downright hatred. It is estimated, and well reported, that Diamond has earned £120m over the past 8 years since he joined the board (and less well-reported that he has given around 25% of that away to charity). Massive sums, but in the context of lifting annual profits to £3bn in BarCap alone, (contributing 79% of Barclay’s group Profits), not as excessive as the Daily Mail and members on both sides of the house would perhaps have you believe.
“You’re irreplaceable”….?
The replacement will be a mountainous journey, led by Marcus Agius before he leaves
Agius. On his bike…..
the stage. He is tasked with undertaking the search as his swansong, whilst also leading the executive team in lieu of a CEO – this despite accusations that he is as unsuitable to perform either function as he was as acting as Chairman to control Bob Diamond, again an unfair levy in my opinion.
Most Chairmen plan the replacements of their CEOs like military maneuvers. We deal with many Chairmen who start the informal discussions about when/how/who well before it is needed, this to ensure a seemly transition. This long-term succession planning also keeps us very well abreast of the key contenders at any one time, hence our ability to truncate an industry average 24 weeks turnaround to 6 – and guarantee it.
All of a sudden, Marcus Agius has the immense challenge of replacing Bob Diamond, years ahead of when planned (Diamond was only 18 months into the job) and in double quick time. Such a task is unenviable as it is, but with the appointment being absolutely crucial in helping to fix regulators’ concerns about the whole “culture” of the UK bank, as well as his sudden responsibility for the day-to-day running of a Bank on its knees, his task will be a far bigger cause of insomnia than his appearance before the Treasury Select Committee today.
Succession planning is vital. Diamond’s succession plan had been in excess of 8 years and arguably 15. Due to the scandal braking within Barclays as opposed to one of the other doubtless proponents, the current internal succession planning has been thrown into disarray with the departure of one and deemed ‘too close’-ness of two others.
Mr Agius needs to do something not only quickly, but do something different. The standard, old fashioned list of old-guard executive search firms such Groups use is as unimaginative as the longlist of CEO contenders they in turn come up with.
Even the regulator has implied, strongly, that a whole new approach is needed, not only in the Group’s management and leadership style, but in how that management is sourced, selected and appointed. The shareholders crave similar, a fresh approach, and shareholder value. Will Marcus Agius listen?
Mr Agius, you can reach me here.
garychaplin.com 
Great piece, and not what I expected. I still can’t make my mind up whether or not to hate Bob Diamond or feel sorry for him. I am biasing towards the former, but do think he was on a hiding to nothing regardless. MUCH MUCH more is going to come from this, and I suspect many more scalps will fall – how far towards government that lands will be very interesting.
Great and well written blog though Gary.
Scott
Really enjoyed reading that Gary, very well written and balanced piece. Whether or not you are proved right will be very interesting to see, but I can’t think there will be a huge list of capable individuals waiting to pick up the shards of Diamond…
Good blog, although I am sure you will get plenty of opponents to your opinion over Bob Diamond being anything other than a villan. He led an apparently strong and profitable business, but how robust was it really? and how much of it’s might was down to political influence? Diamond might have been his own man, but Aguis was one of Cameron’s stooges.
That said, a good account and brings interesting insight into the task of replacing such a mighty figure. Good luck.
The notion that Bankers are anything less than crooks is rediculous. To falsify data is fraud, and should be dealt with through criminal courts. Bob Diamond should have been sacked for gross misconduct and taken away by the Police.
If he didn’t know everything that was going on, he was incompetant as a CEO. If he did know everything, as every CEO should do, he is a criminal. Either way he is scum.
Add in that he took our money to prop up his business as he couldn’t make it survive even with such fraud makes him a laughing stock. We need to implore the government to claw back every penny of his £120m salary.
He and his type are the biggest reason we have millions of unemployed. I am just glad that he is now one of them.
I think your position is a little unfair Sarah. No CEO can know everything, especially with 100,000s employees in all 5 continents. As for ‘scum’, that becomes subjective and I disagree, but each to their own.
Two issues you are incorrect on, Barclays had no direct government money and so ‘we’ haven’t bailed them out at all. The government also have absolutely no right to claw back anyone’s salary just because a small fraction of the public suddenly dislike an individual.
“He and his type” are the reason our country is a global power.
Great blog Gary, I really hope Agius gets in touch. You deserve it.
Thanks Adam – I hope so too. Tough gig, but I’d love to show what can be done with some innovative thought!
As an banking insider but based in the Eurozone, the amount of public mistrust and misinformation surrounding our sector continues to stagger me. These practices that have caused Mr Diamond such heated accusations are not criminal, in the circumstances they were not really unethical and the United KIngdom benefited enormously from them. I am failing to see why anyone who appears to have success in big business is hated with such venom. Your country confuses me.
Jan, alas this country is great at making a villan out of business leaders, yet very poor at punishing real villans/criminals. Much of it stems from ignorance and jealousy fuelled by a lazy media!
Good piece there Gary (as always), insightful and interesting. I have watched this story with interest and feel that Mr. Diamond is being made something of a scapegoat – basically for doing a bit too well in these times of hardship.
I think that Sarah’s comments above are a little naive and ill informed:
1) It is IMPOSSIBLE for a CEO of a company the size of Barclays to know every detail about what his employees are doing (over 140000 people work for them!). You have to delegate and trust those to whom you delegate. Somewhere in that chain – someone has broken the law but I sincerely doubt that it was Bob Diamond.
2) Just when did he take our money to prop up Barclays Bank? They are notable for having refused government money in 2009 (you try saying no to £6.5 billion) and are currently stronger than ever as shown by the figure in the article above. Most of this is down to excellent leadership by Bob Diamond.
3) The government has no right to claw back ANY of his salary as they have NO STAKE IN THE BANK. It is for the shareholders to do as they see fit to best run their business and (except when the law is broken or regarding taxes, etc.) no business of yours mine or the government’s.
4) Banks do not cause unemployment – in fact (when correctly run) they are the source of funding to invest in business ventures thus creating and maintaining employment. In addition, they employ large numbers of people themselves.
Gary, keep up the good work – a bit of intelligent and well researched controversy is always healthy.
All the best,
Mark
Thanks Mark – echo your comments. It demonstrates how much ignorance there is behind those who vilify anyone who leads a successful business.
As for controversy… me?
Great Blog, really good view point and an interesting debate about the replacability of mega CEOs such as Diamond. Critical question will be what if they cannot replace him with someone of such high quality? Will principles go out of the window?
Interesting Blog and interesting comments, far less scathing than I expected, for most at least. I’ve consistently felt that expecting a CEO to know everything is too extreme, but surely as head of Barclays Capital, this would have been in Diamond’s remit in 2008? That said, the emails that have been released from Paul Tucker and Heywood are damning indeed. Struggling to see why only Barclays heads are rolling so far?
Interesting and thought provoking blog, and not as controversial as I had expected on this subject given your other blogs! Does bring about a series of questions about if we need big CEOs and if we do, how do we properly motivate them as they are going the way of footballers requiring bigger and bigger pay packets to keep them motivated?
Great Blog, articulate and some great points. Diamond has been made a scapegoat, he is far from guilt-free, but he’s being billed at the butcher of business and ethics. Not fair. Well done for highlighting the difficutly replacing such a big and great man will be in the environment others have created.
I share the above comments hoping you get the call from Marcus Aqius.
So because he made £3bn profit for his business he is justified in getting £120m in bonuses? Attitudes like that cripple countries and cause recessions.
Susie, he made £120m over 8 year, the £3bn was annual. His £120m was also total reward (i.e. including salary), the bulk of which was in shares, not cash.
Even then, at an average of £15m per year, that equates to 0.5% of the profit he elcited. No sales person would even accept a 0.5% commission scheme, let alone total reward package. Even Friends of the Earth street collectors get way way more than 0.5% of their ‘sales’.
Really interesting blog Gary and a good insight into what a business faces in seeking to replace such an individual. Begs the question though, if the role is so big as to become a problem to replace, is it another reason why such mega businesses should be broken up?
The only real reason the role is to be difficult to replace is because of the environment that has been created – partly by Barclays own actions, but also through the media hype and misinformation.
To then decry that the business should be broken up BECAUSE of those difficulties is ludicrous. Big businesses simply need big leaders. Big leaders need the incentivisation to lead, and the ability to lead without every two-bit authority on nothing man on the street deciding they are perfectly placed to deride what the leader is doing.
£20m per year and you seriously think they will struggle to find someone that would do the role? How about getting 200 people on £100,000 to replace him? I’m sure between them they could do a far better job.
Good ridance Bob Diamond, you are as corrupt as your business, I hope Barclays folds over this scandal, they don’t deserve a place in this country.
For reasons covered in , £20m may not be enough. Any than CAN do the job doesn’t NEED to do the job, they will only do it if they WANT to do it. Incentives need to be there, and given what the media has done, and is increasingly doing to C-Level execs, those incentives to be greater than ever.
Sure there are dozens on men on the street that would do the job for a fraction of the £20m bounty, but none of those are likely to have anywhere near the ability to do so.
As for getting 200 people to club togtheer – have you seen what happens when committees try and make decisions?
Good blog Gary, nice to see some notion of rationality in the Bob Diamond witch hunt, Such twaddle being written by so many people who know so little about him, banking, Libor and City life, the media being the worst. Well done for putting a mature point forward from a position of experience, although I will think twice about wearing my sandals again.
Regards
Judith.
Good points made Gary. Can’t help thinking Diamond is just the next Fred Goodwin, a single individuals who has been made to bear the full brunt of a blood-thirsty media despite the fact he is no worse than many CEO, and certainly no worse than most politicians.
Peter
Good Blog Gary. Real media hype surrounding what has gone on, interesting to see where the trail leads. Part of me expects to see the story suddenly get buried as it gets closer to government! Probably the right thing, this country doesn’t need more reason to be glum and shed confidence, especially on such a globally notcable platform.
Echo the sentiments to hope you get your call from Marcus Agius!
Great comments Gary. Really pleased to see someone finally making rational comments on what the sensationalist press has unfortunately put at the forefront of people’s minds without highlighting the underlying business case behind the payments.
Unfortunately Dan Mac seems to be missing the point here, but I’d be very surprised if you (or any other headhunter) could find 200 people willing to work in a role such as this for ~£100k (presumably without any prospects for future pay rises) and even more surprised if any of them were up to the task.
Great blog, and love the energy and venom that discussion over banks creates. We really are hated, especially by those who have no idea what they are talking about, usually those taking time off from hugging trees.
“Being a banker is so socially uncool that at cocktail parties, bankers claim to be paedophiles just to be more acceptable”.
Joke, but it’s not far from the truth. My brother is ex-Lehman now with GS. He tells people outside the city he is just in sales to avoid ignorant flack.
Like the blog. Well written and even I struggle to disagree with most of what you write. Logical and interesting findings.
Well done
Great blog again Gary, well written and logical. I hope key individuals inside and outside of Barclays recognise the difficulty you will have in finding capable, willing condidates for such a mammoth job. People may see bankers as one letter away from their true definition, but the UK needs the banking sector whether we accept it or not.
Sebastian
Oh and true or not, I love Alan’s analogy!
Picking up on a comment made above, it is noticable that the Libor scandal seems to have suddenly subsided massively – there wasn’t even really a great furore over his pay-off? Is this political guilt pulling strings and getting the sotry quashed?
Back to the blog, very professional piece Gary, really enjoyed flicking throiugh some of your blogs for 15 minutes. Love to see and hear you speak more. Your opinions may be left field (or should that be right-wing?) but they are all valid, interesting all well grounded.
Keep it up!
Stephan
Great Blog, really interesting read. I’m no fan of Diamond, nor was I of Fred the Shred, and do class them together as both villans that got what they deserve, but your points about how it leaves these huge businesses that we all rely on, like it or not, are very valid indeed and make for a fascinating discussion.
Love reading your blogs Gary, this one especially. You obviously enjoy writing these, you can really feel your passion and energy flowing through your words, as well as the knowldge that you have within your field being so very apparent.
I’m a big fan of seeing social media used in this way, We’ve never met, but I feel like I know you and more importantly feel like I could trust you based on the vibe I get from reading your blogs. I’m sure clients and potential clients of your will feel the same way, and is, or will be a reason for your obvious success. It’s a crap phrase, but your blogs are a real portal into both your heart and your mind.
You are obviously a great and positive guy and I wish you every success in using that to wide ranging advantage.
Well done!
Thanks Sam, really appreciate the comments!
Your loyalty to bankers is obvious, I can only assume they are a mainstay of your client base, but the facts remain Gary, bankers have ruined this country. The Great has been taken out of Britain because of Bankers. Period. If it were not for them we would not be in recession, we would not be in deficit and we would not be in debt. We would not have mass unemployment and we would not be losing millions of vital public sector jobs filled by people who earn a modest day’s pay for a hard days work (rather than bankers that have that split the other way around).
Climb out of Banker’s arses and see the real world. Slam Bob Diamond in prison, his treachery against this country is akin to treason.
Your comments are either seeking to get a rise from people, or you are actually deluded and barking mad? Either way, the comments are more damaging than any banker.
Why deluded or mad? If it weren’t the banking industry, we would not have had the problems that led to recession. If we didn’t have to pay to prop all the banks up, we would not be in debt and we would have the money to maintain the public sector workforce to ensure the country was still be looked after. Greed has caused the problems. Bankers greed.
I’m not taking you on, only to say there is a LOT more to the country’s negative growth, deficit, debt and fragility than can be laid at the feet of bankers.
As for Bob Diamond being in Prison, on what grounds?
Gary, well done on a very well structured and measured blog. As typified by some of the comments above, there is huge ignorance misreporting of what really does, and has gone on in the banking sector. Media being allowed to misreport is hurting the sector, but more importantly hurting the country and it’s position globally.
Well done on putting some fact and rationality forward.
Sarah, I’m afraid you have your facts very wrong. Please check before you launch into a tirade that makes you look rather foolish.
That said, greate blog Gary. Interesting to hear of the legal fees/fines some of the large banks are already making provisions for. RBS setting aside $bn? Guilty conscience?
Such a witchhunt, led my people who know now better, policed by those who are proven to be more currupt(able) is making the UK look incompetant on a global stage and is more than undoing all the overseas investment attraction work that we are doing. Shame.
Great blog Gary, only just seen it. Very accurate portrayal of what is going on and an insight into the complexity of the task ahead, and not just for Barclays.
Have you had your call from Agius yet?
Good blog, good opinions, interesting comments.
You must know plenty of board level bankers and financial services individuals – what is the genuine concensus?
No-one in the City is surprised about LIBOR, it was a known practice across the square mile. Regulators/Minister/Bankers/BoE were all aware of it.
…..”allegedly” of course….
Another great blog Gary, very professionally written, very good. Well Done
As rightly pointed out, if you want to see a proper failure at CEO level, catch some of the footage today of Nick Buckles, CEO of GS4 . How bad can your risk management systems be – you need 10,000 people to staff the biggest event in our history and three weeks before the event starts you are barely on track to find half of them. I’m afraid on TV he looked like he had just been dragged out of bed to appear on TV and his performance was very weak.
I think another vacancy for Gary and his competitors to fill is on its way, and this time it is deserved I’m afraid.
Thanks Nick – a fair summation.
Buckles is a failed CEO, but it isn’t whooly his fault. The selection criteria gave minimal concern to delivery and most to price/cost, furthermore the required staffing number went from 2,000 10 months ago to over 10,000 a month ago.
G4S have screwed up, but the govt and LOCOG are also to blame for not managing the process correctly!
Only just seen this blog, great account and some very interesting comments and opinions. The football analogy is particularly intersting, not only in behaviour but also in a acceptability of how they perform but also contrasting that with what they earn.
Fabulous blog Gary. Love your style of writing and the humour. I’m never wearing sandals again!
On the blog, great points made. I’m not quite as defensive of Diamons’s treatment as you are but can’t fault your comments.
Pingback: Priority seating for Pregnant CEOs? « @GC_HeadHunter
Only just seen this Blog, fantastic write up and some exceptional points made. The most ‘criminal’ element of this debarcle is the way in which this great organisation has been hung out to dry despite being no worse than any other Bank, and far better in all other areas than most other banks. Once again the quest for headlines over-rules the greater good of this nation.
Well done for pointing out the real issues Gary.
Fantastic blog, really well written and some great points made. There is so much hatred towards banks, such vital elements get forgotten. With Barclays shareholders doing far better than all others, are they really in a position to be kicking off so stromgly? They will be the ones that lose out overall.
Carly
Good blog and well written, but does miss a fundamental point, Diamond is a crook and a fraudster. His (former) business have cost this country dear and thus woes on how tough they have it now are unfounded. Do the crime, do the time. I for one am glad that Barclays are struggling to attract anyone.
Good blog Gary and setting a strong tone with good writing. There does appear to be a witch-hunt going on in the UK at present. Barclays were surely one of the stand-up banks when it came to the banking crisis. Their woes since appear to have been created by those searching for headline above truth.
Has anyone workout if anyone lost out the under stating of Libor? From my calculations, the UK will have benefitted?
Another good blog Gary and much as I don’t fully agree with what you have written, your points are valid and well researched. Much as I don’t think Diamond is directly culpable, it happened on his watch, and therefore as CEO he simply has to take full responsibility for it. Just a shame it took media pressue for him to realise what we all already knew, but at least he responded quickly at that point. I don’t fancy his chances of getting another CEO appointment any time soon, regardless of how directly involved he was in the rate fixing scandal.
I can’t beleive you are defending this man. He is a leech on humanity, thinking he is above the law and above standard morals. I have moved my account from Barclays and urge everyone to do the same.
If he was such a nice guy, why only 25% of his HUGE salary to charity? and why not now work for nothing FOR charity?
Having praised you for your stance on Marissa Mayer, you have now confused me on this blog. I want to vehmently disagree with you (without being branded a Banker-Hater, largely as I am married to one) as he has shown he is unsuitable to lead an organisation of this size, even if solely through his inability to keep tabs on what is going on.
I don’t like nor feel sorry for Bob Diamond. But I don’t blame HIM, nor even what he stood for. The problem is the ego of the sector as a whole. That culture need culling, but I suspect it already is.
Interested in your comments/ascertions that this was almost common knowledge in the City. What’s your source on that?
Good blog and exceptional writing though Gary.
So it transpires Diamond wasn’t the only crook in the banks, your other love-target, Stephen Hester is also just as culpable. Will he do the decent thing and fall on his sword too, as he should have done earlier in the year.
Nationalise all banks and make the bankers work for us. That is only way we will get the banking service we deserve…..then slam all the CEOs in prison for fraud and deception.
Even is diamond going is seen as his being a sacrifical lamb, he will do more for this country out of employment than did in.
The more we read about this so called scandal, the more we realise that it was more standard practice across the industry, backed by authorities. Bob Diamond was just unlucky that he was captain of the first institution to be rumbled and saw all his fellow gamers turn their back whilst praying they don’t get rumbled (and provisioning £100m’s for future fines such is there expectation of “innocence”).
Still agree with other points made, there are more important things to spend political time on that hunting for obvious answers over a simple Libor rate fixing racket.
Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
Major businesses have just gotten too big. Many are bigger than some countries yet they get run like dictatorships without criticism. Time for the seeds of change to blow harder.
Great Blog Gary, and loads of great comments, I’m sure you’re not surprised by the response this has created. Nothing like a good bit of contoversy to get pulses racing.
Following on from my comments on the Women in Business blog, it is very strange that men who are deemed underhand, suffer no social ill-effect or loss and are even deemed as heroes for givign it a go, or deemed unlucky to have had someone willfully act against them. Yet women who really do do nothing wrong (other than dare to have a family) are the ones that are treated with contempt?
Strange world?
Found this blog following your tweet about Rob Van-Persie. Can CEOs really be compared to footballers, and who comes out on top?
Good blog though and interesting insight from someone who spends time with those on the inside.
There is nothing more heart-warming that to see disgraced bankers shamed publicly. These guys might be able to afford not to work, but it is off the back of others that they do so.
Pingback: Women in Boardrooms: Supply not Quotas. « @GC_HeadHunter