A radical perspective on banks

In the future, banks as we know them, will not exist.

1. Operational banking will be publicly managed and intervened. Since all financial operations will have to be done through electronic means (so fraud and money laundering are controlled), governments will fully regulate them; the same way they regulate education, healthcare and other services that citizens have agreed as mandatory and needed for human survival.
2. Speculative investment banking and wild trading will slowly disappear. Technology will give people the power to invest their savings directly on those causes, business and people’s projects they trust and believe in with very little need for middlemen. Investors (people) will be willing to take the risk themselves and will keep ‘secured savings’ for the bad times managed by operational financial entities, as said, already regulated (point 1.) to do what they are meant to do (secure the savings). Wealth advisers will work for virtual platforms analysing companies, risk and helping direct investors make the most of their money on the causes and business that people will want to support.
3. Current aggressive trading and speculative investment practices will be treated as gambling. They will be either openly banned or super heavily taxed, so that money is reintroduced into good causes. In reality, it should be made illegal, but, what do you do with compulsive gamblers and misers? They exist, we’d better have them under control and discourage people believe their behaviour is good and normal. They are addicts.

A positive view of what we, normal well-intentioned humans, will do in this context:

Being rewarded for a job, product or service for life will not be possible anymore. The early initial investment that our parents and society made on us will no longer be a guarantee of survival. Living longer will be associated to working differently at different stages of our life to contribute within our limits (age, strength, intelligence). Services that will be no longer required will quickly disappear and labor survivors will reconvert not to become poor. Wealth (yes, wealthy people and less wealthy people will still exist) will be naturally associated to the capacity of individuals to contribute to knowledge, evolution and wellbeing of others. A person will easily transition from different wealth stages, past positive progress toward better conditions will not be guaranteed (it is not the case anymore, anyway). However, it can be a more fair system by design, more meritocratic.

This might be a future further away for some societies than it is for others. However, governments (politicians chosen by citizens to represent them to help them live) had better start working to bring in the policies to make this world happen. Otherwise, chances are that citizens will decide that they do not need politicians to rule them anymore. In my view, not working towards a better ideal world will lead us to the ancient bipolar world (privileged people exploiting less privileged people),  not bringing any progress but regression to darker ages. I believe that at this stage of our evolution, people will not accept it without revolt, it is no longer a choice.

This blog entry is dedicated to my friend Sven, who encourages me to continue writing each time he sees me. Thanks, Sven! 

Londres: ciudad de contrastes

Son las cuatro de la mañana y no puedo dormir. Ayer fue un día intenso; ayer descubrí la cara más triste y dura de Londres.

Dejé la Costa Azul porque quería vivir en un entorno real y no en una burbuja artificial. Pues si realidad quería, realidad he encontrado en Londres.

Mientras todo el mundo celebra animado la exaltación de unos Juegos Olímpicos que, para mí, se han convertido en otro gran negocio comercial, yo veo como unos amigos míos deciden marcharse de Londres. Hace un año tuvieron un hijo: “no queremos educarlo aquí”, me dicen, “éste no es buen sitio para niños, nos volvemos a España” En ese mismo momento me pregunté a qué se referían con ‘buen sitio’. No he tardado en descubrirlo.

Londres es una ciudad de contrastes. Junto a sus edificios maravillosos, sus museos gratuitos, sus múltiples oportunidades, justo al lado, se encuentran el riesgo, la violencia, el abuso de cierta población hacia otra.

Se tiene que ser fuerte psicológicamente para no caer en ciertas trampas que la ciudad lanza. No importa en qué nivel de la escala social te encuentres. De la misma manera que existe una energía muy positiva que te revitaliza, existe una de signo totalmente contrario que te la absorbe.

Es por eso que cruzarse con gente que te explique que en su trabajo se codea con ‘malas personas’, encargadas de estafar, manejar dinero de grandes fondos de inversión sin escrúpulos, no es difícil. Ya no se ven millonetis gastando miles de libras cada noche en champán y lujo, pero no porque no se les siga pagando bien, sino porque se les pidió que fueran menos fanfarrones con su dinero para que la población normal no se quejara, o si no, sus primas estaban en riesgo. La posibilidad de perder primas has sido efectiva, pero los locales nocturnos ahora ya no llegan a final de mes. Los que trabajan en esos locales, ya no tendrán de qué vivir (y son muchos). Una economía basada en el derroche y la estafa, no puede ser buena, por defición.

Un año después de las revueltas, me parece necesario recordarlo. Los Juegos Olímpicos sólo son maquillaje. Para ver el verdadero Londres se ha de rascar.

Londres es una ciudad maravillosa, pero peligrosa. Educa a monstruos, entre ricos y pobres. Esperemos que la crisis  no extienda lo malo que se cultiva en ella aún más. Personalmente yo creo que el cáncer ya se está extendiendo y nadie está haciendo nada por evitarlo. Ojalá me equivoque, aunque raras veces lo hago.  

Applying diversity of views to governments

In the past months I have been reading about the importance of having a diverse set of individuals: different background, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. to have a successful corporate board. Following the same line of thought, I ended up with the conclusion that our governments will never be successful and achieve what they are there for if they do not go on that same transformation road.

Governments are not formed, at least not in Spain-where I am originally from, by a healthy combination of people with different perspectives that are working together to agree on what is best for a country, city, social group. Furthermore, in most cases, or at least in the case of Spain, they are not formed by people with large experience running economic matters, or social matters. In most cases, the politicians that represent the people have rarely ever dealt with the issues that bother and concern the people. How can they actually know?

I am not saying that all politicians are like this, I am saying that in the past years most politicians are like this. Sometimes, it is almost worse than what I picture because those few politicians that actually struggled to live like the people they represent used their position to get an easy life and detach themselves from the reality that surrounds them. A real shame!!!

I think, and this is completely my personal opinion, that this situation would not have happened if governments were functioning as a mechanism of consensus and diversity. Consensus: all groups that have been voted have a saying in the actions, not only in the discussion, as proportional as everybody else's, not because you are a minority you have less of a voice, but you are forced by thecrules of tge system to work towards consensus. Critics will say that, like that, laws and actions will take long to be made. Well, who wants speed when that speed is bringing you downhill? We would expect decisions to be made and kept for them to cause an effect, instead than changed by a populistic attack of the major parties on board. If the law forces commitment on politicians, if they are forced out if no commitment is reached, I am sure they would be working hard to reach it. Clearly, the best way to get representation in this kind of scenario is by direct democracy, otherwise you risk holding general elections every month. However, there must be an evolution towards direct democracy: if you do not trust your own knowledge, you should be able to trust the person that represents you: person, not political sect!

And what about diversity? Right, left, up, down, liberals, communists, tories, labor, blue, red, ... These tags on politics are something of the past. The crisis is showing us that parties from different colors end up making decisions that even go against what they usually preach. Conclusion? We must do the right thing, based in honest principles and balanced views. We can only do that if we have a balanced government, and that includes people with different points of view. We are not good at everything, a diverse team has better chances to succeed.

Why don't we design our governments to run like successful teams? At the end of the day, we are the shareholders of our governments, we should be demanding, we can induce change!

Size matters

I have worked for large corporations for quite a long time now. I am now learning about making large systems... The more I look at the complexity of creation and development, the more I realise that size matters, and not in the good way.
Larger is not better, growth is not the equivalent of progress. Corporations are learning this the hard way, society even in a harder one. When does this ambicion for getting larger and larger comes from? At what point the weight of management, whether people, software, processes, overrides any kind of benefits from being part of a large more impactful part?
Large corporations are getting it wrong. They are accepting that overhead is unavoidable... That is not very far from the civil servant attitude towards public work. The process justifies the people and the people justify themselves on the process, clearly inneficient and not leading to any progress at all.
Can we run systems in smaller better interconnected ways instead of aiming at becoming the head of a super large group so that our salary/compensation/profits are aimed at being proportional to the structure beneath us?
I do not have an answer. However the current model is failing and we'd better start experimenting with other ways before everything completely collapses. Maybe forcing splitting in manageable units was not such a bad thing after all?

The perfect professional: the eternal student, the motivating professor, the inspiring leader.

I attended the first European EPIC (Ethnographic Praxis in Corporations) last Friday in beautiful, sunny and hot Barcelona. It was the first time I attended a meeting of this kind. It was a very interesting experience, I learnt a lot. I learnt that there is a complete body of professionals “worried” about making the workplace a better place, looking at all possible perspectives (technology, hierarchy, command…) but above all, looking at it from the a human viewpoint.

As the day progressed and I listened to the panellists about what their issues were, how difficult was for academic experts to collaborate with the industry, I could not help thinking that the model of professionalism and career evolution in companies has clearly been evolving and that we are in front of a dramatic change.

We are facing the era of the ever learning professional, which is maybe not news for most of us. However, we are also entering the era of the ever teaching professional, which might not see so obvious as a need to survive as a professional at this very moment. Corporations should understand that the best way for their people, their staff to be fit to productively provide the right strength and performance lies on them becoming a continuous source of inspiration and help for future generations, both internally and externally. If that were already the case, natural cooperation between academia and industry would not be exceptions but the rule and both worlds, above all the industry, would be profiting from intellectual enrichment and motivational energy and a very high level of tailored well focused expertise coming directly from universities.

The perfect professional: the eternal student, the motivating professor, the inspiring leader.

Reinventing the wheel

I have started a twitter account that I use as an input timeline for simple events in my life, in a way of a diary. I like to post microdescriptions with pictures, so I use FourSquare.


Who am I kidding? Am I trying to reinvent the wheel? Shouldn't I be using a blog and keep it private? Can I keep a blog private? 


Should I send myself e-mails like this dad did with his daughter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk


At the end of the day, if I chose that complicated ForSquare-Twitter path is because it was the combination at hand the moment I thought about doing it.


I think I should dig a little bit more.

When you feel alone: A late entry for International Women's Day

An unusually long contribution...


I consider myself a strong minded energetic person but nothing close to a feminist. When in the past I have heard stories about how women are not really treated fairly at work and even some times abused, I kind of thought it was part of those anecdotal experiences exaggerated by feminists to give more emphasis to their points.

I believe the glass ceiling in professional progression for women is a reality. I always thought that it was caused primarily by a set of cultural habits embedded into society, and preconceived role and family models rather than a high hostile attitude from female colleagues. This perception has changed through the years.

When I was in my teens and twenties, I was mainly surrounded by men at uni. Their attitude towards me was good, as good as to any other mate. I could not see the difference in treatment from teachers or my supervisors at the internships I took. As I grew older, I progressed and held more responsibility, I started seeing a change in attitude. First, I dealt with an apparently harmless patronising attitude from my boss. Then, the not so professional comments from colleagues appeared. I was once congratulated by my boss in public for my perseverance, being described as the team's 'pitbull with lipstick'. Honestly, whoever knows me well, also knows that I do not behave like a pitbull at all,  however the lack of consideration towards me fades when you realise that most likely no man would have been called publicly 'pitbull with a tie' unless there was a real good reason to brag in private, and still...

Going down my thirties the aggressiveness of my colleagues, above all, if I have to interact with them often or I need to share disparate points of view, has just gone up. The latest on that front has come from catching an e-mail exchange in German (and thus I should have had no clue of what it was saying) mentioning that 'Ana, this lady, well, you know, she is like any other woman, speaks a lot but actually says little or nothing'. You can only imagine what I felt when reading this. Even if I only grant as much importance to the words as the level of intelligence of the man who wrote them. This was my introduction to somebody important in the business from one of my male colleagues...

I only think that this will get worst with age. It might be as horrible and stressful in the corporate world for men, I do not know. But, if I had a family and somebody who actually cared and treated me nicely at home, I would not have any encouragement to go up any corporate ladder an contribute positively to the company health and success, as women do, by facing more and more abuse.

It seems that some women still have and can afford an apparently nicer but maybe not completely fullfiling option... 


NOTE from the author one month later... might be hard some days, but I love what I do and I am very grateful for the support I've got (family, friends and colleagues). Fortunately, these anecdotes simply make the effort more worth it