Barclays: No Jerks Allowed
Discussion
I must say, I quite like the attitude of Mr Diamond.
The Times said:
Bob Diamond, the Barclays chief executive who was once dubbed the unacceptable face of banking, has imposed a “no jerks” rule across the bank and kicked out more than 30 of his employees for breaking it.
Those who were considered to be prima donnas, too greedy or too ostentatious, or who failed to be team players, had been encouraged to leave the bank, Mr Diamond told The Times.
“If someone can’t behave with their colleagues and can’t be part of the culture, it doesn’t matter how good they are at what they do, they have to be asked to leave,” he said. Between 30 and 40 Barclays staff had been encouraged to find other jobs.
Mr Diamond referred to an infamous episode in 2002, when six Barclays bankers celebrating their bonuses spent £44,000 at the London restaurant Petrus, as “the no jerk rule personified”.
“That was embarrassing,” he said. “It was taking advantage — we have a responsibility to our colleagues and to have acted that way in a public place was inexcusable.”
The bankers consumed a 1982 Montrachet costing £1,400 and three bottles of Petrus Pomerol, the 1945 at £11,600, the 1946 at £9,400, and the 1947 at £12,300. There was also a dessert wine, costing £9,200. The restaurant threw in the food for free.
Mr Diamond, who sometimes received bonuses of more than £10 million in the years leading up to the banking crisis and was paid £6.75 million last year, has been trying to foster a more socially responsible culture at Britain’s second biggest bank.
There was no excuse for nastiness, he argued. “Everyone gets stressed from time to time but no one should ever not be nice. You know what a jerk is when you see it,” Mr Diamond said. He told The Times that his own tastes were relatively frugal: he liked to fly on the no-frills airline easyJet, not a private jet, and preferred Pizza Express to Michelin-starred restaurants.
Mr Diamond, 60, who has dual American-British nationality, built the Barclays investment banking arm into one of the world’s most successful securities houses and was rewarded with the top job across the whole bank a year ago. Although abstemious and a workaholic, he is no stranger to occasional lavishness. At the 2009 IMF conference in Istanbul, a year after the Lehman collapse, when other bankers were reduced to five-star hotels, Mr Diamond and his entourage rented an entire floor of a luxurious Ottoman palace overlooking the Bosphorus.
There was an angry reaction this year when Mr Diamond told MPs that the time for remorse and apology was over for the banks. He was called the unacceptable face of banking by Lord Mandelson, the former Labour Cabinet minister. Mr Diamond and the Barclays board will shortly have to decide how much to pay out this year in bonuses in the face of pressure from regulators and ministers for restraint. He described a report that £5 billion would be paid out as “completely speculative”.
He said that he could live with UK proposals for ring-fencing of investment banks to prevent taxpayers having to bail them out. George Osborne, the Chancellor, is due to outline the new regime on December 19.
Those who were considered to be prima donnas, too greedy or too ostentatious, or who failed to be team players, had been encouraged to leave the bank, Mr Diamond told The Times.
“If someone can’t behave with their colleagues and can’t be part of the culture, it doesn’t matter how good they are at what they do, they have to be asked to leave,” he said. Between 30 and 40 Barclays staff had been encouraged to find other jobs.
Mr Diamond referred to an infamous episode in 2002, when six Barclays bankers celebrating their bonuses spent £44,000 at the London restaurant Petrus, as “the no jerk rule personified”.
“That was embarrassing,” he said. “It was taking advantage — we have a responsibility to our colleagues and to have acted that way in a public place was inexcusable.”
The bankers consumed a 1982 Montrachet costing £1,400 and three bottles of Petrus Pomerol, the 1945 at £11,600, the 1946 at £9,400, and the 1947 at £12,300. There was also a dessert wine, costing £9,200. The restaurant threw in the food for free.
Mr Diamond, who sometimes received bonuses of more than £10 million in the years leading up to the banking crisis and was paid £6.75 million last year, has been trying to foster a more socially responsible culture at Britain’s second biggest bank.
There was no excuse for nastiness, he argued. “Everyone gets stressed from time to time but no one should ever not be nice. You know what a jerk is when you see it,” Mr Diamond said. He told The Times that his own tastes were relatively frugal: he liked to fly on the no-frills airline easyJet, not a private jet, and preferred Pizza Express to Michelin-starred restaurants.
Mr Diamond, 60, who has dual American-British nationality, built the Barclays investment banking arm into one of the world’s most successful securities houses and was rewarded with the top job across the whole bank a year ago. Although abstemious and a workaholic, he is no stranger to occasional lavishness. At the 2009 IMF conference in Istanbul, a year after the Lehman collapse, when other bankers were reduced to five-star hotels, Mr Diamond and his entourage rented an entire floor of a luxurious Ottoman palace overlooking the Bosphorus.
There was an angry reaction this year when Mr Diamond told MPs that the time for remorse and apology was over for the banks. He was called the unacceptable face of banking by Lord Mandelson, the former Labour Cabinet minister. Mr Diamond and the Barclays board will shortly have to decide how much to pay out this year in bonuses in the face of pressure from regulators and ministers for restraint. He described a report that £5 billion would be paid out as “completely speculative”.
He said that he could live with UK proposals for ring-fencing of investment banks to prevent taxpayers having to bail them out. George Osborne, the Chancellor, is due to outline the new regime on December 19.
Surely he is just asking for a series of employment tribunals? Asking staff to leave isn't a realistic option for getting rid the last time I looked, surely they either have to get made redundant or get fired for something measurable like gross misconduct or fraud?
That example of the bankers spending stupid money on wine might have shock value, but the last time I looked people are entitled to spend their wages exactly as they like.
That example of the bankers spending stupid money on wine might have shock value, but the last time I looked people are entitled to spend their wages exactly as they like.
turbobloke said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
Inkyfingers said:
last time I looked people are entitled to spend their wages exactly as they like.
I agree, up until the point where they need bailing out.IMO, and very simplistic, i know
Inkyfingers said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
I agree, up until the point where they need bailing out.
It's still up to the staff what they spend their wages on. It's up to the bank's owners and management to make sure they are not paying the staff more than they can afford.
the policy looks to be about more than lavish displays of spending ... If it focuses on effective and collaborative behavior at work - could be useful.
The US multinational where I worked before emigrating to Asia had a policy of not tolerating people who embraced disruptive or selfish behavior at work ..and hence was an excellent place to work and the business performed really well.
A large bank where I worked before almost encouraged a$$hole like behavior in some areas to the extent that many of us spent half our time coping with the internal politics rather focusing on the business. The bank did not perform well and was taken over by a larger European bank.
The US multinational where I worked before emigrating to Asia had a policy of not tolerating people who embraced disruptive or selfish behavior at work ..and hence was an excellent place to work and the business performed really well.
A large bank where I worked before almost encouraged a$$hole like behavior in some areas to the extent that many of us spent half our time coping with the internal politics rather focusing on the business. The bank did not perform well and was taken over by a larger European bank.
Inkyfingers said:
Surely he is just asking for a series of employment tribunals? Asking staff to leave isn't a realistic option for getting rid the last time I looked, surely they either have to get made redundant or get fired for something measurable like gross misconduct or fraud?
.
You don't think they will get a nice pay off with a compromise agreement? .
turbobloke said:
NightRunner said:
Mr_B said:
So basically, they can have as much bonus as they wish, just don't shout about it. Not sure who that really helps
The Bankers.99% of us current terrible terrible bankers to.
NightRunner said:
turbobloke said:
NightRunner said:
Mr_B said:
So basically, they can have as much bonus as they wish, just don't shout about it. Not sure who that really helps
The Bankers.99% of us current terrible terrible bankers to.
I don't shout about banker bonuses either, and I'm not even a banker.
I have worked in Barcap, amongst many other IBs, and have to say that the corporate culture as described is pretty much in line with what is told to employees from day one. Sadly, my bonus payments (or lack of them) did not allow me the possiblity of behaving in an ostentatious manner .. 
Shuvi Tupya said:
I agree, up until the point where they need bailing out.
I don't think Qatar or Singapore Wealth Fund have raised any complaints about renumerations .. unless you are referring to the general 'bailout of the system'?Edited by fido on Saturday 10th December 14:02
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff