Founders Thoughts: Fibonacci, mugglism and other riddles

Despite having a punishing time of it myself recently I invariably find that what doesn't kill me will, sooner or later make me stronger and more determined. The prospects for the next 12 months for everyone still look decidedly grim with the threat of more cuts and more hardships on the way. Why though, when the answer I feel remains in our own hands?

Either the same amount of money is still milling around somewhere so all that needs to really happen is for it to start circulating again, or people lied about the amount of money there was in the world. To me that's the long and short of it. Why complicate it further? Why panic?

That, to many I know sounds crass and naive, but the truth often does. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) is I think a useful maxim to help us all whittle things down to the bear essentials to ensure that functioning in our highly complex world can continue. There are occasional glimmers of hope here and there, but perhaps the greatest cruelty of all is to give hope only to snatch it away again from those in most need.

Economists will no doubt argue that due to inflation and the complexity of modern financial systems of trading etc that things are not that simple. Track back to the Dark Ages and we find similar mumbo jumbo gobbledegook to try to distract us from the truth - the implication being that ordinary mortals are stupid. Yes, there is more money about than in the Dark Ages but it is proportionate to the increase in global population and our concepts about wealth along with other silly ideas that have cursed our beautiful planet since the year dot. Don't get me wrong, I don't think money is the root of all evil, but what we do with it can be.

Economists I feel are rather like doctors and solicitors, it's not that they are all bad many are honourable trustworthy people, but some are... shall we say... slightly less ethical than others simply by not being entirely straight with us. Sometimes that is for our own good, sometimes they assume that covering up is wise when it is emphatically not. Privately most such professionals would agree with me - publicly few would as they would rather not end up unemployed themselves.

Facts do have an unavoidable pitfall, namely our individual interpretation of them - most so called stats are usually edited to suit a particular argument. Too late not to educate the general population on such things I'm afraid - they already know. It rather begs the question of why so many try so hard to continue to bamboozle ordinary folk. Yep, I own that I am guilty of it too, but I at least attempt to see both sides of any argument.

I also confess to being mischievious, glib and challenging to prompt reaction in order to hopefully help people to think beyond their lot in life and relate it to the whole. Everyone's action or non-reaction has a bearing on the rest of us to a greater or lesser extent. If others take that the wrong way, well that tends to say more about them than it ever could about me.

A curve ball thought

What would happen if all banks throughout the world suddenly went on strike? Or if all multinationals did? Would human life suddenly cease? No, it would not but not for the reasons that many would suppose. A voucher system is money by another name. Barter systems are not viable as the crew that builds your home only has to do it once while you might have to spend a lifetime working to feed them in exchange with little time for much else. Like it or not money as a system for trading remains the only system that is viable but we need not be as reliant on it as we think.

We're lumbered with this inanimate crazy substance and its quirky system, but we don't have to be lumbered with how it is used. Now steady on, don't get excited, I don't advocate violent revolutions here, quite the opposite. In the most democratic of nations of recent times we have neatly avoided those by using protests, voting, lobbying, petitions with the occasional strike and riot thrown in for good measure. Shame about the latter two, but at least we haven't resorted to civil wars for a while so it's progress... of sorts. Long may it continue that way but preferably without with strikes and riots - not being a deity I'm afraid I have no control of that.

The root of the difficulty is not money, but our own addiction to it's potential to provide power. However, through working for many years in the world of theatre and events I can assure you that not many reach positions of fame and fortune and survive it well as I'm sure former inmates of both the Priory and the Betty Ford Clinic would testify. In short, money isn't life or death in itself, what we do or choose not to do with it can be, but it remains a matter of personal choice and that is something that has never changed throughout human social history and will not change unless we collectively agree to change how we use it.

Muggles and mugglism

I've referred to us all being as muggles (JK Rowlings' term for not very bright humans or non magical types), and following on from that I had a conversation with someone who works with victims of domestic violence on the hypothesis that we are as children no matter how old we are. They commented that we are brought up with fairytales of good triumphing over evil precisely because as adults it's what we perceive to be facing every day. It's a way of preparing our children for that world. I say perceive as we often mistake one for the other because as humans we are all endowed with a degree of fallibility. I am no exception at all as on occasions I have allowed my passions to get the better or me - hence the moralising, hence the at times appallingly phrased tweets at times for which I most humbly apologise. Who of us has never been guilty of mistakes and therefore mugglisms?

In the business world we tend to be less forgiving of such things, yet expect the slack to be cut for us whenever we blunder. So are we all muggles and hypocrites? I would say so, but we also all have the potential to be the most magical creatures of all and to do all manner of wondrous things.

Fibonacci sequence

Unlike a male friend of mine, I don't happen to be a whizz at the sciences or mathematics as being at school in the 1970s and female I got streamed and encouraged into the arts despite having an equal aptitude for both. I used to mind, now I don't. The arts and humanities are far from the easier option given employment challenges that ensue which is part of the reason I like both - I usually rise to challenges even when most come in unwelcome form. Interestingly organisations like NESTA have recognised that there is much to be gained by challenging the arts and sciences to work collaboratively.

With regard to the sciences, I remain for the most part like a window shopper peering in enviously at what's on display. It doesn't mean to say I don't understand concepts though - when time permits I read up on things. For those who are not acquainted with the Fibonacci sequence it's in essence a mathematical equation that 'seems' to be behind the structure of about 80% of life on Earth. Nearly every tree, plant, animal or insect can be analysed and identified as having something about its structure or formation that matches up to the Fibonacci sequence. I doubt anyone has quite worked out why yet. The question "why" is an infinite one as any parent will tell you when their child first starts getting the hang of using it. "Yes, but why does it do that? Okay... but why is that? I don't understand! Why, why, why?"

Mathematics and science always seek the patterns behind things by way of trying to find answers and just like the arts, science too has it's trends. The laws of gravity were at one point in question when Einstein came up with his theory of relativity only to have those 'laws' brought into question when science embarked on the world of quantum physics. Just as in the world of business, science makes educated guesses based on what information is available and sets about exploring them by trying to prove or disprove theories. We all use what we know to capitalise on that knowledge and use it to our best advantage. We take a gamble - well you've got to go with something as a starting point. The more information we have the better equipped we become to reduce the risk of getting that gamble wrong.

What often happens when there's a conflict or dispute in the world of science is that eventually a kind of negotiation takes place until a compromise is found to make all systems still able to co-exist. So it is with science on gravity, relativity and quantum physics... at the moment. Sooner or later something will come along to throw a spanner in the works again no doubt, but here's where science seem to differ from the world of business and in part even to the world of arts and community services.

Instead of tearing at each others throats trying to win a war by discrediting anyone who disagrees, scientists have a greater tendency to huddle together to resolve the issue more often than not to find an alternative way to look upon things that helps explain things once more so that we can continue to function and, more to the point, develop and progress. Business, community services and the arts tend to diversify instead as a result of differences, but as we're in a recession, where there's a safe common ground to thrash out economic solutions perhaps...

Hence one of my quirky tweets... maybe scientists and mathematics will find the equation to fix the world's troubles once and for all one day. A rather happy thought I think, but yes, idealistic. The question is... Would we listen and act on it such a solution if science did find the answer to such a riddle? I think we have the knowledge, skills and ability to do resolve everything anyway, so just as a child might say, why don't we?

Co-existence of ethics and principles

I personally don't think it's in anyone's interests to prevent people excelling and getting handsomely rewarded for their skills and talents, so long as they truly merit it. We all have strong opinions on that which is why it's such a long standing bone of contention. I don't think it wise to stop people being rich because if we impose a restriction on others as to the level of reward that can be achieved we will deny such opportunities for ourselves. The wish to be rewarded for our efforts is a natural, normal, healthy human desire.

However, I think some public service salaries should be capped so that it deters corruption to a degree. Earning a big salary and gaining bonuses just doesn't fit with what should be the motivation behind those who choose such careers however much those who serve and often do merit the highest salaries of all. A trainee nurse could be saving someone's life from their very first day for example, so I'd rather see their salaries increase before directors of services do.

We should be realistic about who can reach the very top. No, it's not always the wealthy and well placed as programmes like the X Factor show. You just need to be particularly good at something and get lucky enough to be spotted and encouraged be it business, sport, arts or community services. You can even get ahead through personality alone. Who'd have believed someone who can stay in the same house for a few weeks and watched on TV 24/7 could end up famous? A far cry from that male friend of mine who could have been another John Nash (see the film A Beautiful Mind), had he been luckier early in his life, and had he been born at a later point in history. Who else have we missed out on I wonder, and why?

Do not expect a level playing field because life isn't fair as we will never all be born equal, but DO try to level out the bit you are playing in and if possible grab the whizzing goalposts when they least expect it and cement them in once and for all. That would just leave the rules of play to contend with.

TOP TIP: silly rules you can always use against the originators of them, but you mustn't break them even when others do. Two wrongs have never made a right even though in the English language a double negative makes a positive and how it can in science which could explain a few financial figures. The concept I believe is termed 'a negative profit situation' and I've heard some organisations and politicians have gone for this in BIG way!

Reality Check

The real truth is, no society will be able to function if we have just leaders and no workers. Lucky then that we have so many different interests and preferences for our working lives. How fortunate that we have diversity as far from it diminishing possibilities, it increases them. A pity though that although an entrepreneurial spirit seems to be the order of the day for the next generation, it still isn't as yet fully embraced or encouraged among ordinary workers who... build our homes, office blocks and factories and man them, install and maintain our utilities, grow and distribute our food, dispose of our waste, look after our health, educate our children, save us from fire and crime, install and operate transport and communications systems, manage our finances etc and hopefully help us with their expertise and advice.

"How to be wise: 1. make mistakes but learn never to repeat them. 2. learn to avoid the mistakes of everyone else." Tweeted by me.

I firmly believe we have great possibilities as a species, but only if we learn to be wise on what we should compromise on so that all can enjoy a quality of life of our own individual choosing. Yes, that's idealistic, but as the maxim goes - "aim high and be prepared to drop."

I believe we will always find what we seek so long as we are dedicated enough to keep looking. The trick is to spend the bulk of our time seeking possibilities to overcome the barriers in our way and to be flexible enough to adapt. For example I never thought I would suit care work or that it would suit me. I was wrong. It doesn't mean I will stop doing other things I enjoy just as much. Enjoyment it seems can come from the most unexpected directions, better to be open to that possibility than fixated with what happens to be the latest fad, especially if you want to excel and be unique.

My final thought is a question for scientists... are you absolutely sure the Fibonacci sequence only applies to 80% of life structure on Earth and/or beyond? What explains the other 20%?

Hoping my readers enjoy my musings and take them in the spirit they are meant - always.

Article: Ethical Trading

Despite appearances I don't like getting involved with politics, but the fact is that the political landscape affects us all, all the time. In a democracy it is a landscape that is shaped by our demands upon it. It is not helpful to merely criticise, nor is it helpful to stay silent when things that have been introduced then turn out to cause more difficulties. Just as no business can correct mistakes if it is not aware of them nor can any government. I wholeheartedly advocate not only highlighting the difficulties we all face but to use our imaginations to think up more viable solutions too. The one without the other is no solution at all. I certainly don't have the monopoly on solutions, no one does. Collectively I believe we can and do find them and always have and will. They we always need amending though, because progress never has had a reverse gear.

Over the past year I have encountered many organisation that are not wholly organised, or ethical in how they trade. If it their administration right, it slips up on it's customer service, marketing, budgeting or how it treats it's staff. While that could be true of any time - enterprises, like government reforms, take time to evolve - it seems more prevalent during an economic crisis. I strongly feel therefore that resolving these challenges requires time out to do so if we are to get on a better financial footing sooner rather than later. Hasty, knee-jerk emergency measures without due research, careful planning including contingencies and a thorough and detailed understanding of all the elements that are in play will only ever result in a deeper and more complex mess to unravel.

Information is the key to all matters, but in a time when goalposts seem to be whizzing about at hyperspeed it is perhaps no surprise to find so many enterprises struggling to function at all, even at a basic level. Take comfort though as throughout history, people will eventually slow down, calm down and stop acting rashly, it's just a question of when.

Do not assume that silly edicts will last - they never have. Do not assume they have been instigated from a sense of malice or cruelty - they seldom are. They arise mostly out of ignorance and fear due to there being little time to think clearly or collect information while the demand is for change. It's as if change of any kind will do, when in fact change at all could be the worst thing to do. Changes only help when they have been well planned and all the information has been collated to restructure a business and/or lead to government reforms that are sensible, logical and wise. I believe we can learn much from history, but what we learn and what ideas we come up with do need to be adapted to factors that we are encountering in the here and now to be effective and for the good.

From where I am sitting, the key change of our times is the growing demand for ethical trading. While it has always been in most people's psyche, it seems to have gathered momentum and a stronger voice in recent times - hence my interest and passion for social enterprises as it seems to yield more solutions than anything else on offer. That is not to say though that it has a monopoly on solutions though.

Why ethics is becoming more influential
In the UK in recent years we have had the scandal of cash for honours and politicians using their power for the betterment of themselves as individuals long before the economic crisis actually hit. It is not surprising therefore that many are still calling for parliamentary reforms to correct such things even now when such things have been reported to have been improved and fixed. The level of trust from individuals and businesses alike in any government has been seriously damaged by these things. It's led to all manner of petitions, protests and new movements starting. Add to mix the struggles that always ensue during a recession and it's no wonder at all that any government will have a hard time of it trying to effect sensible reforms while people are less inclined to trust and therefore talk to them.

What is true of our governments is also true of the world of business and industry. People are much more informed about scandals and corruption in those circles too thanks to the development of the internet and in particular social media and there is no going back on that now. With more information comes understanding of what is unjust, unfair and of how these things have come to happen but without full details again no viable solutions will be found. It has led to a growing sense of unrest and dissatisfaction with how things have been run.

Add to that how the Paralympics and the Time to Change campaigns etc have given disadvantaged people a platform to have a voice this year and it starts to become obvious why morals are becoming an element of social structure which will have to be factored in. I cannot see how such sections of our society can ever go back to being forgotten, overlooked or silenced now. For myself I think that's a positive step so long as we can avoid extremist reactions which could result in a reversal of discrimination against people who have not been so disadvantaged.

Ethics is complicated
We are all products of the societies in which we live. The smaller the circle of influence we move in the more insular we become and the less informed we are. Again the internet and media can help us to be informed but we can only ever make decisions based on the information we obtain. The maxim of 'we only find what we seek' holds true. People do not tend to believe anything that does not suit their own agenda, belief or ambitions unless they actively make an effort to understand and be considerate of their opposition to improve communication and negotiate. When it comes to social issues (which without exception helps form who we are and our opinions), we find the intensity of emotion at it's peak.

For example, is is right for governments to spend large amounts of money on trying to reform convicted criminals and less on supporting victims of crime? The hope is that by making such efforts there would be no victims as there would be no crime if they were wholly successful. Add in the fact that many people turn to crime because they are illiterate and the solution might seem simple at least for illiterate types. You might think it would it be right to say criminals are all mentally ill but by doing so you'd make it more difficult for victims of crime to be treated fairly and NOT be tarnished as criminals by mistake. Yes, we want to contain the worst offenders and punish them, but even some of them have become offenders because of what they have been subjected to. I often confuse people because I refuse to come down on one side of the fence or the other without access to all the facts.

A law has to apply to everyone regardless of circumstances but it should in my opinion have discretionary powers to allow for individual exceptions e.g. parking on double yellow lines to save someone's life, but you'd have to prove that that is precisely what you were doing. Ethics is extremely complicated, so it follows that governments and businesses alike have a hard time of it in attempting to be fair to all.

Gearing up in business and industry
Fortunately in business and industry, away from public and community services (including charities), ethics are far more easy to get right. No sweat shops, no excessive hours of work, rest and meal breaks, and a fair wage that reflects the value of worker's skills are all a good start. Paying staff promptly so they don't have to struggle with finances to get to work, allowing them time off to look after relatives in an emergency and providing good training to help both parties develop and succeed all help too.

It's my guess that those businesses and organisations who are already supportive of their staff AND the community will be ahead of the game for the future. Those who provide work for disabled and disadvantaged people, who support public services through giving a slice of their profits will be the most profitable by growing ever more popular and therefore successful. The one common factor all people respond to, is giving more to those who support them in their hour of need and this is something all employers would do well to invest in as their greatest asset will always be their own staff and the broader community, as working or not we are all a part of it. Employers could, and I think eventually will, change not just our current economics with regard to trading, but the political landscape too. For me, it's just a question of when, however, now seems to be as good a time as any to start trading ethically if you are not already doing so.

Article: The greater part of communication - listening

With both Irish and Yorkshire ancestry I could win an Olympic Gold for talking for England - bluntly. Sensitively blunt is how I often describe myself. In the business world we need both skills to be able to work effectively. However, I was born and have lived for most of my life in the south of England where curious communication habits have developed.

I am not a fan of jargon, abbreviations, acronyms, marketing spin or irrelevant waffle as a general rule. A spade is a spade not a manual earth transference device or METD for short! People who delight in looking down their noses at those who do not know the jargon or acronyms I find irritating as they either way they are on some private ego boosting trip of their own or into power mongering in my humble opinion (IHMO). My tendency is to invent a few terms of my own to remind them that they do not know everything and that they too are learners. I guess that's my mischievous Irish side.

That said industries develop a short-hand to help increase the speed by which information can be relayed and certain types of media such as Twitter and texting sometimes merit that short-hand. Then there are affectionate pet names for things which get to be common parlance such as grellies instead of grelcos or hoovers instead of vacuum cleaners. I happen to know that some parts of the IT industry in particular loves inventing quite rude acronyms to keep 'those in the know' happily amused and focussed on their work - fear not they are safely tucked away from the gaze of the public. As we acquire knowledge so the terms we use with our colleagues adapts.

We are also human so general chit-chat is I feel, an important and necessary element to include in a healthy working environment. We cannot gauge when is the right time to approach our superiors or when to inform a member of staff about anything without taking into account how busy they are or what mood they are in. If we want to work in a happy and more productive environment it makes sense to take an interest in everyone we work with anyway.

So, while I am a staunch advocate in working purely with facts, I also advocate ensuring those facts are placed in context as it helps inform decisions on not only what is the most appropriate route forward but also how a task should be actioned. Wording is crucial to effective communication... rumour has it that's why people get trained in the art of marketing as they should be the best at it at all times. However, no one is perfect 24 hours a day, every day (24/7).

A pause of my Irish prattling... time to illustrate a different communication style - that Yorkshire bluntness.

How to listen effectively

Fact: learnt in studies on counselling.

1. Applicable to all verbal communication but also some written forms.
2. The acid test on whether or not you have listened is to list all the adjectives (describing words such as productive, proactive lovely and successful) used by the person you were supposedly listening to. Oh, you think 'successful' is a factual statement do you? It is always a subjective (personal) perspective.
3. Adjectives provide clues to where that person is coming from, what they know and what their preferred style of communication is.
4. To hone and develop those skills, go on an Introduction to Counselling course.

Please note: this does not in any way imply that you have understood a single word you have heard!

Body Language
Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is but one form of learning how to read body language - there are plenty of others. Subconsciously we all pick up on body language, it's how we get our 'vibes' about others. We are often totally wrong in the detail because as humans we interpret our information according to what we have experienced ourselves and by what we choose to believe those experiences tell us about others.

Body language does at least give us a starting point - it's usually pretty obvious if someone is in pain, stressed, happy, excited, interested, unimpressed or bored from body language on its own. The 'why' behind those signals is where we err. To find out, try asking! In the working environment though it is not always either appropriate to ask or to tell people why they are interested or unimpressed. Different work situations require each person to behave differently in a set of generally understood (for the most part) but hardly ever voiced rules of conduct.

If a person is making a pitch for you to give them business their body language might say that they are unimpressed and bored with you. If so, you're not likely to stop and ask why!

Again to fully understand body language requires proper in depth training on a dedicated course.

The written word
Listening also applies to all forms of written communication. We can gain insights by noting the order in which information is conveyed, the vocabulary used, the structure (bullet pointed lists, paragraphed statements etc) and of course by what is missed out. Reading between the lines (i.e. interpreting what is put) again is at our own risk - we might be wrong. Omissions might be because of the writer being ill, distracted or phenomenally busy. Again and again I find I regularly have to remind people not to assume but to seek facts by asking for clarification.

I was tempted to now go on to how to put all this together by providing a myriad of examples listening skills and apply it to the above key areas of verbal, body language and written communication. However I feel it would be an insult to my reader's intelligence to do so and it is against my policy to spoon fed anyone anyway. Empowerment means providing the tools for people to do things for themselves.

A single example
I will leave you with one recent example though which covers all three. A volunteer offered their services to a charity. They were invited to an interview and the charity was delighted with them. On leaving the volunteer said that they were looking forward to helping in the ways discussed but beyond that they would want to be paid for their assistance. They later badly reinforced this with an email. The charity did not like this attitude even though many volunteer positions are the precursor to paid employment when positions become available. The result was the volunteer was rejected. Had the charity taken time to listen carefully or get clarification in writing from that email things might have turned out differently so that both parties would have profited from the arrangement.

The volunteer was so angry with the charity that I suggested they contact the head of it as I doubt they would be pleased. I also ensured that the volunteer understood that the person they were interviewed by was perhaps not the best person to represent the charity or its policies on volunteers. Fortunately the individual still believes in the charity but whether or not they have written to the head of it, I have no idea. I kind of hope so though as I loathe potential going to waste and it sounded like both parties had a lot to offer each other. Ah well... "Nowt as strange as folk" as my Yorkshire ancestors would say.

Even at its best language can only ever be an approximation of meaning, but by asking for clarification we greatly reduce misunderstandings and thereby costly errors in time, money, resources, stress levels and worthwhile relationships. Listening helps us all acquire more accurate and information to help shape our decisions. If avoidance of misunderstandings is ever a goal, investing time in letting others speak is an absolute must. That's how great things (miracles) can begin!

Operations: The paper free office – possible or not?

Once upon a time people thought that with the advent of computers and all manner of useful programs people began to dream of a paper free office. The concept is already fast becoming a fairytale belonging more to the realms of fantasy than reality, but why?

Ask just about anyone who works in an office environment today who has seen the transition from pre-digital to digital and they are likely to tell you that far from reducing the amount of paperwork, the arrival of the computer age has resulted in more being generated. Thoughts on why this might be the case include:

· Offices are genuinely overall more efficient, productive and therefore busier

· Computers have provided more ways to gather information more easily

· People still prefer to have hard copy that read off a screen

· People fear computer systems crashing and feel safer if there’s always a hard copy

· There’s more red-tape these days to store

· Archives in hard copy are essential for litigation procedures

The theory behind being paper free is sound enough, so much so that it should be possible to achieve a 90-99% paper free office. The exceptions include original documents needed for auditors such as receipts, insurances, certification and any document requiring an original signature including contracts and some personnel files.

With facilities such as scanning and back-up hard drives and remote servers the majority of documents ought to be able to be stored electronically alone. In the event of accident, theft, fire, flood or ‘Act of God’ the use of such devices should enable any company to survive with minimal disruption to the services and/or manufacturing processes provided. And in an age when we are all being urge to ‘go green’ it makes sense to minimise the amount of hard copy produced.

In the experience of Mel Dixon, WildeHeads founder, the extent to which companies have adopted a paper free policy varies enormously from organisation to organisation. Whereas some have worked hard to embrace it, others seem to prefer to take the opposite route of using new technology as little as possible. There have even been a couple of examples when the introduction of some computer systems being introduced for archiving records when none had been used.

The truth is that electronic documentation simply doesn’t appeal to some people and this usually (but not always) stems from a fear of change and new technology being too complicated to learn. The “we’ve always done it that way, so why change” would be fine if the world of business stayed static and didn’t evolve. To survive, and particularly in such times as these, it is necessary to adapt and evolve quickly before you organisation runs the risk of turning into little more than a living museum example of how things were done in years of yore.

This might sound that WildeHeads is firmly in favour of transforming every office into a paper free, clean desk operation, but it is not. Far from it.

Which type of person are you?

Are you the sort of person that likes to print-out a file you are working on at regular intervals so you can scribble notes or a person who prefers to wait until you feel the document is as complete as possible before you hit ‘print’?

Is this your way of working on all types of documents, files and processes or only some? Does it depend on the program used or the type of task undertaken?

Interestingly WildeHeads has worked recently in a office in which different staff were at opposite ends of the spectrum in their approach to paper free working. On one side of the office sat a desk barely visible for the amount of files stacked up on it and on the floor beside it including copies of emails which merely said “Thank-you” and the return “You’re welcome”; on the other a seemingly clear desk with hardly any paper on it and on the computer itself as few files as folders as possible.

Not only are individuals often inconsistent about when we decide to print a document, but often inconsistent with regard to what is deemed worthy of keeping on file. More than this, as the above example shows, within any organisation you can find people operating quite successfully at the opposite extremes.

Much can depend on the policy of the company and different organisations have very different approaches to hierarchy over such matters (subject for one of next month’s articles). Some company managers and even chief executives and directors can be extremely firm about being paper free or conversely about having absolutely everything printed and both stances stem from very logical reasons. To an employee moving from one extreme to the other through changing employer the change can be quite a challenge.

WildeHeads believes that both ways have their merits and pitfalls but that ultimately the reason why we are unlikely to ever realise that dream of a world of paper free offices is the human factor. For maximum productivity from any individual in any company staff at all levels need to feel they have some degree of control in how they work in order to be able to work efficiently. This does not preclude learning new techniques and organisational systems to improve efficiency, but being too prescriptive can result in leading to a serious problem with morale.

A last observation and thought... how many half empty and untouched filing cabinets and cupboards do you have in your office and why?