Professor Julian Birkinshaw of London Business School looks at corporate culture in banks and whether it has contributed to the financial crisis and controversies over bankers’ behaviour. The British Library has many different resources to support research in this area, listed below. These include other articles and resources contributed by Professor Birkinshaw.

Barclays (BCS), in the wake of its £290 million ($360 million) fine for manipulating the Libor rate, recently announced it was commissioning a top lawyer, Anthony Salz, to review the bank’s corporate culture.

Let me spare Mr. Salz the trouble and tell him what he’s going to find. He will discover that Barclays has an aggressive, performance-oriented culture where people are under a lot of pressure to deliver the numbers. There is a short-term focus, an intolerance of mistakes, a cover-your-backside mentality, and a lack of collaboration. People work long hours, and the work-life balance is poor.

The problem here is not Barclays—it’s the entire investment banking industry. This is just a description of the every-man-for-himself culture that pervades Wall Street and the City of London.

The underlying problem, of course, is money. If you pay big individual bonuses, you get results. You also get a toxic corporate culture.

We have known for years that individual performance pay works only under a very limited set of conditions—essentially when one person’s attempt to maximize his bonus is completely unlinked to what anyone else does: door-to-door selling, for example. In all other situations, it creates unwanted side effects.

Group-based bonuses, on the other hand, can be highly effective for rewarding teamwork. U.K. retailer John Lewis (JLH) gives the same bonus to every single employee, typically 15 percent to 20 percent of their base salary. The day the bonus is announced is a day of celebration—because they are all happy for each other. At Barclays and other banks, bonuses are allocated individually, the amounts of money are huge (often many multiples of base salary), and the process is political and secretive. Everyone assumes they are getting less than the next person. Bonus season, rather than being a time to celebrate, is the most miserable and depressing part of the year.

So what can the banks do? Reduce the variable rate of pay, increase base salaries, put in place broad-based, long-term incentives, and use these levers to shift all the softer elements of culture toward collaboration, long-term thinking, and a tolerance of well-intentioned failure.

These are obvious and proven solutions, but of course, getting there from here is the challenge. Barclays itself just proposed a scheme for withholding bonuses until retirement—but unless the other banks put similar practices in place, it will just end up handicapping Barclays in the war for talent.

It would be nice to think the banks will voluntarily reform their incentive systems and cultures, but I cannot see it happening without regulatory pressure. Fasten your seat belts.

Resources

For more resources on banks, business ethics or the financial crisis from the British Library, see:

• Topical bibliography on The financial crisis (credit crunch)
• Topical bibliography on Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
• Management & Business Studies Portal: read the latest management research online, including more articles by Julian Birkinshaw, or search the British Library’s collection
• UK Web Archive: find relevant, archived websites including a special collection on the Credit Crunch.

About the author

Julian Birkinshaw is Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship and Senior Fellow of the Advanced Institute of Management Research at London Business School. This post originally appeared on the Bloomberg Businessweek Management Blog. The views expressed are those of the author.

Applications are invited for a PhD scholarship on the project “Freedom, oppression and resistance: Evolving stories in South African political ephemera and propaganda, 1948-2004”. Informed by a critical geopolitics approach, the project provides for a longitudinal analysis of the changing expressions of power, resistance and participation within the British Library’s holdings of political ephemera. Supported by the University of Sheffield and British Library, this project draws together South African state and civil-society produced narratives of nationalism, citizenship and participation during the Apartheid (1948-1994) and early post-Apartheid (1994-2004) periods. Focussing upon the political ideals and ideologies expressed through political ephemera, this project will address the evolving nature of political participation within contested public spheres in South Africa. In particular, attention is focused upon the ways in which Apartheid and resistance influenced and were manifest in everyday political life and thought. Overall, the project will contribute to understandings of the changing nature and role of (un)civil society in South Africa as located within shifting landscapes of invited and invented spaces of public participation.

The studentship is supervised by Dr Daniel Hammett and Professor Charles Pattie (University of Sheffield) and Ian Cooke (British Library). The scholarship pays: UK/EU tuition fees (Overseas students can apply but will need to cover the difference in fees), a stipend at standard RCUK rate (£13,726 in 2013-14) and a research support grant of £500 per year. Awards are tenable for a maximum of three years, subject to satisfactory progression, with the project scholarship starting September 2013. For further details see: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/postgraduate/research/scholarships/britishlibrary.

Applications and enquiries are welcome from interested applicants with a first class or upper second class first degree in a relevant subject area and who hold or expect to complete a Masters level degree before September 2013. Deadline for applications: 5pm 31 May 2013.

Enquiries and applications should be directed to Dr Daniel Hammett – [email protected]

Sarah Evans recounts an especially absorbing session at the British Sociological Association's annual conference which examined archival research in sociological inquiry.

Last week I managed to spend some time at the annual conference of the British Sociological Association. There was one session in particular that inspired me in relation to my work at the British Library. A session on 'Archival Research in Sociological Inquires and Beyond' brought together four academics who have undertaken feminist, archival research in different ways: Liz Stanley, Maria Tamboukou, Andrea Salter and Niamh Moore.

Liz Stanley has written about archival research in the social sciences as an emerging field, and as someone who works with social science researchers in the archive, I'm aware that there are still relatively few sociologists who work closely with archival materials. It was great to hear the issues given voice and discussed by real advocates of archival research.

One member of the audience asked a question about how the sociologist in the archive is different to a historian; must the starting point be a different one? How does the methodology differ? What are the different epistemologies and practices that take place within the different disciplines, and how do these come into being through engagement with the archive and the resulting interpretations? I began to wonder whether the pressures and limitations of the REF exercise might go someway to explain the relative dearth of sociologists within the archive - could there be concern about mis/recognition in relation to 'units of assessment'? Or are the main issues in training and awareness?

Liz Stanley and Andrea Salter gave presentations on the different methodological and theoretical issues which arose during the process of undertaking archival research, specifically in relation to their research on Olive Schreiner's letters which has produced the Olive Schreiner Letters Online. Andrea Salter spoke about how the production of a digital 'archive of an archive' requires the practice of a particular kind of sensitivity which draws repeated connections between past and present. Their work made me think about the relationship between the researchers who use Olive Schreiner Letters Online and the researchers (including Liz and Andrea) who have used the original letters in the archive. If I had thought of it at the time I would have asked about the conversations which have taken place between these different users; no doubt these conversations are productive.

I very much enjoyed hearing about Feminist Webs, a participatory feminist project which has created an archive and produced an online resource for those involved in youth and community work with young women. Niamh Moore described the process of creating and building the archive and the process of change which occurs in the imagination when one works in the archive. Some of what she and the other speakers said connected to my own experience of using archival material in which reality can be suspended at certain moments (with the deep imaginative absorption one might experience in reading a great novel), whilst at other moments the social world is enhanced through occasions of real clarity. These very different kinds of thought seem to fuel one another. Maria Tamboukou's paper spoke beautifully about these moments and of how working in the archive generates particular imaginative connections through time and space in her paper on 'archival rhythms'.

What struck me across all of the presentations was the way in which archival research requires a sensitivity to multiple audiences and stakeholders (dead or alive) - from the people who produced the material, to those whose lives have been documented and represented, to the future researchers who may use the 'archive of an archive' which is necessarily produced as we sort and organise archival materials in the process of our research. This session really inspired me to seek out more ways to work closely with sociologists in the archive.

Addendum

25 April 2013: I received a lovely email from Liz Stanley following this post which alerted me to an article which she, Andrea Salter and Helen Dampier have published in Cultural Sociology and which examines and answers many of the questions raised here. The link to the online copy is here and the print version will be out in early summer.

What do the British Library's collections offer to those interested in examining issues around food, fear and risk?

A recent news story about 'dangerous' triangular flapjacks (!) which have been banned in an Essex school prompted me to think about the different ways that foods can be perceived to be risky, and to the varying degrees of proportion in how we respond to risks around food.

Risky foods and food scares (in varying extremes) seem to be constantly in the news, ranging from large-scale cases of contamination - such as the horsemeat scandal - to daily stories about the possible threats and benefits of consuming too much, or too little, of a particular food type. Our cultural obsession with the potential dangers of too much/too little food, contamination through eating (though additives and suspect ingredients which might make us ill, destroy our health, ruin our beauty or make us age etc.) can be seen beyond the news stories we see everyday. Indeed, we probably all remember literary examples of dangerous foods from the stories we read as children (from Snow White's poisoned apple, to other examples of tempting foods as a currency of evil such as Edmund's Turkish delight in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe). In the academic realm, managing risk to children through diet and nutrition is a huge topic across the disciplines and is a major subject for many of the cohort and longitudinal studies as well as being explored by research groups such as Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent.

 

  The 'Frances' Regulated Feeding Bottle, 1981. Evan.6704 

The British Library's collections are of particular value to those seeking to examine and understand changes in social and cultural practices. For example, the Library's collections enable a historical examination of changes in knowledge and culture around feeding, especially in relation to children and families. These show that managing risk and promoting health through carefully planned diets and feeding schedules are not new concerns. The Library's collections include many child reading manuals from the 1850s onwards, such as:

Baker, Benson (1880) ‘Milk for Babes:’ How to Feed an Infant. London: Bailliere, Tindall & Cox. 

Bull, William (1890) How Shall I Feed My Infant? Hints and Suggestions Valuable to Those in Charge of Children. London: Dodds. 

Doctor. (1898) Baby Feeding: A Doctor’s Advice to Mothers on the Rearing and Management of Infants. Bristol: John Wright & Co. 

Like many people, I am always drawn to the accounts about health, risk and food that appear in newspapers. I'm constantly thinking about our family's food (and navigating our different food allergies!) and am fascinated by how risks around food are communicated, perceived and managed by individuals and families. The sociology of risk and 'risk culture' has become a useful tool for framing these discussions and I have found on the British Library's Ethos service numerous PhD theses which examine food risk from this perspective. The first couple of examples that the search engine pulls up are:

Coulson, Neil Stewart.(2000) Concepts of healthy eating and perception of food related risks in children and adolescents. University of Exeter.

Shaw, Alison.(2000) What are 'they' doing to our food?: expert and lay understandings of food risks. University of Bristol.

With my family's allergies to think about, I've found that the access the British Library provides to scientific papers exploring the causes, effects and management of food allergies an invaluable way of reading around the subject and understanding 'risks' in a way that enables my ability to make informed decisions as a parent. I'm not sure that the journals will have much to say about the hazards of the triangular flapjack…but still I feel confident enough to leave these at the very bottom of my own list of food-related risks.

This post was written by Sarah Evans and any views expressed are her own.

This guest post from Stephanie Minchin highlights some of the discussions on ‘Addictive Personality’ as presented at the British Library’s ‘Myths and Realities’ public debate on 18^th March, 2013; with  Prof. Phil Withington, Prof. David Nutt and Prof. Gerada Reith, reflecting upon what drives addiction.

As part of the ‘Myths and Realities’ series of public debates the British Library was host to Professor Gerda Reith, University of Glasgow, Professor David Nutt, Imperial College London and Professor Phil Withington, University of Sheffield who discussed and challenged the myths and assumptions attached to the concept of addiction. The event was chaired by Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas who questioned the notion of an addictive personality with the term that society may be a nation of ‘addiction addicts’.

Prof. Phil Withington introduced the debate with ‘Addiction – an early modern perspective’. The language of addiction from the 16^th and 17^th century was described in the depiction of a cloth worker in 1628 as being “overtaken with drink”. The point was raised that the way we consume and think about intoxicants is reflected in the understanding of ourselves and where we come from. Therefore, it seems to some extent that today’s perception of addiction reflects the same as the early modern roots. Prof. Withington accounted for a historical perspective of intoxication and capitalism, such that substance use grew into a big business as an important feature of international trade in the industrial revolution; organized import and export allowed for the transfer of intoxicants (tea, coffee, chocolate, opium) as durable and profitable substances. The language from the renaissance period to today has also increased in the number of words used to describe the meaning addiction. Samuel Johnson’s (1740) reflection “he addicted himself to vice” still holds meaning today.

'Opium fleet descending the Ganges on the way to Calcutta'. Image taken from The Graphic. Originally published/produced in London, June 24, 1882. © The British Library Board

Following from Professor Withington’s portrayal of the language of addiction, Professor Nutt began with the translation of the Latin verb ‘addictio’ meaning ‘to enslave’. Professor Nutt firmly contended that he has never met an addict who wanted to be an addict, and used Amy Winehouse as an example of a great loss in a person who struggled to escape the pattern of addiction. From a biological and neurological perspective Prof. Nutt highlighted pleasure seeking behaviours as a natural evolutionary mechanism for the survival of the species. However, in an addiction, it is the compulsion, pressure and drive to change the brain with a substance that creates a loss of control. The brain circuits of addiction were detailed as self-control, pleasure, salience/attention, learning and memory and individual differences that all happen differentially in people.

With the example of tobacco and alcohol the audience was encouraged to reminisce on their very first taste of a cigarette/alcohol, unanimously agreeing that it evoked an instant dislike. So what is it that leaves us wanting more? The biology is all about how fast and how much of the substance gets to the brain. The faster the substance gets into the brain, the higher the addiction. In withdrawal, the quicker the substance is secreted from the liver, the higher the addiction. Prof. Nutt concluded his presentation from a political perspective to challenge the associated stigma and blame of societal problems with substance use; in order for Government to provide interventions and rational treatments for addiction, we need to de-stigmatise those suffering and understand that addiction is “not a lifestyle choice”.

Professor Gerada Reith encouraged the audience to think beyond the individual to consider the sociological complexities and ambiguities behind addiction. Prof. Reith’s presentation titled ‘If addiction did not exist, it would be necessary to create it’ portrayed the reality of addiction as being a combination of environmental, political, cultural and historical contexts. In a laboratory experiment titled ‘Rat Park’ it was found that the group of rats in a small cage became addicted to morphine, whereas the rats in the ‘social housing’ cages (with light, space, toys and other rats for company) did not. This experimental finding highlights the differential behaviour patterns associated with contrasting living circumstances. Therefore, Prof. Reith highlighted that geographical areas with certain populations and social groups may experience poorer housing and health, poverty, high rates of unemployment, short life expectancy and a low level of education, which in turn can lead to a vulnerability to addiction.

The concept of environmental influences was further supported by the notion that the social climates within cultural contexts attach meanings and values to social activity. In the case of substance use, Howard Becker’s (1953) book titled ‘Becoming a marihuana user' detailed how jazz musicians of the 1950s attached meaningful social activity to smoking marihuana, whilst it was condemned by other social groups, conveying the juxtaposition of cultural core beliefs  ‘cool’ vs. ‘deviant’. Further social tensions were described in the historical use of opium which created racial tensions between societal classes; consumption was very different in function for the degeneracy vs. middle-class. In agreement with Prof. Nutt’s political stance, Prof. Reith contended that the association of crime and unemployment with drugs has blamed individuals for universal social problems. Today, drugs are the “ideological fig leaf to place over unsightly urban ills” (Jimmie Reeves and Richard Campbell 1994). The term addiction now has a cultural specificity and popularity in its label. Addiction as a term and meaning is normalised; addiction is a discourse in its widest sense.

 'The Gremlins will get you if you don't watch out!' US Office for Emergency Management. War Production Board. (01/1942 - 11/03/1945). This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the US National Archives and Records Administration. 

The discussion was then opened to the audience for questions, comments and thoughts on the topic. The first question asked do we lack individual responsibility for our own pleasure-seeking behaviours, and to what extent does the economic determinism of social deprivation account for substance abuse? The answer was a medley of biological vulnerability and lack of social opportunity with Prof. Nutt clarifying “Never does one drug addict everyone”. Questions continued to scale the continuum of biological vs. sociological factors, inquiring about addictions influenced by life events; peer pressure; endorphin pleasure factors; pharmaceutical companies; prohibition issues. At the moment society has an absolutist view against addiction. Can we really drink and use substances without losing control? Definitions and cultural power lie in the hands of medical professionals who influence how we understand addiction and the changing meanings of substance abuse. Regardless of what ‘type’ of addict one may be defined, be it compulsive or impulsive, the younger you are when you start the more likely you are to be an addict. The youth is the real target; the future needs to address addiction at community level.

In conclusion, the audience were left with provocative final thoughts: Prof. Reith highlighted the individual brain as a starting point within a cultural environment predisposing addiction. Alternatively Prof. Nutt posed the question ‘Why in our brain do we have the propensity to become addicted to substances?’ His answer? ‘It is all about LOVE. Substances are hijacking the pathways of love.’ For the reality of addiction we are now contemplating a new myth: are substances a surrogate for love?

Combining the understanding of historical, biological and socio-cultural perspectives will help find further answers in what is an undeniable reality of today’s modern society: addiction. The new myth: drugs or love?

Stephanie Minchin is a practitioner in NHS mental health services for ‘City and Hackney Centre for Mental Health in' the East London Foundation Trust’ and is a Masters student in Clinical Research at City University, London. 

Jonnie Robinson (Lead Curator for Sociolinguistics) writes about his observations on dialect in Warwickshire in relation to the BBC Voices collection. From 'babby' to 'batch' - read about some of the linguistic highlights in this collection in his most recent post on the British Library Sounds blog.

Ian Cooke, Lead Curator in International Studies and Politics at the British Library, outlines some of the key messages delivered by Noam Chomsky (in conversation with Jonathan Freedland), at the British Library on 19 March 2013.

Yesterday evening, the British Library was host to Noam Chomsky in conversation with Jonathan Freedland. The packed event covered subjects from the role of Biblical prophets to a “mafia model” of international relations. Professor Chomsky was here to help us launch a series of events that will accompany our Propaganda: Power and Persuasion exhibition, which opens on 17 May 2013.

The topic was propaganda, but Professor Chomsky provided a strong support of the value of information and the use of evidence that is open to all. Professor Chomsky, with his co-author Edward Herman, wrote Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, a book which still influences discussion of mass media 25 years after it was first published in 1988. The book proposes a ‘propaganda model’ for news reporting in the United States, which predicts a strong bias towards state and elite interests. This is achieved through structural factors, described as filters, such as: corporate ownership of media and the reliance on advertising revenue; a reliance on state and elite sources of information as “authoritative”; and the ability of state agencies to create ‘flak’. So, propaganda can be seen as a structural process by which values, sources and evidence are selected according to elite and state interests.

Professor Chomsky described the origins of propaganda as we recognise it today in World War I, in particular the recognition of the success of British propaganda aimed at American intellectuals, in order to sway US political opinion in favour of war. Intellectuals generally came in for criticism, both for uncritically supporting elite interests, and for developing propaganda techniques to help sell elite interests more widely. In democracies, this deference to state and elite power comes not from coercion, but from obedience.

Franklin Roosevelt’s message to young people (illustrated with Hitler mask and skull) O.W.I. (Office of War Information, United States) USF. 4, 1942 © Crown copyright

Chomsky argued that, in such a system, the real challenges to state propaganda came from dissidents, making use of the evidence that is freely available but under-reported. But dissidents need popular support to avoid marginalisation, and the interests of the general public are often under-represented in policy decisions. Looking at the United States today, he used the example of public opinion-polling, the results of which are made available. The stratification of opinion survey results makes it possible to see whose interests are reflected in policy decisions. Chomsky argued that, for the majority of Americans, the most important issue right now is employment. Only wealthier individuals prioritise deficit reduction over jobs. It’s an argument that resonates with policy debates in the UK – and seems particularly significant today as the Public and Commercial Services union have organised a strike to protest about austerity policies and job cuts in the public sector.

Propaganda: Power and Persuasion opens at the British Library on 17 May 2013.

This blog highlights a conference that was held to celebrate the launch of Social Welfare at the British Library www.socialwelfare.bl.uk a new free online service offering a single point of access to our vast print and digital collections on social welfare and social policy.

Developed in partnership with the Social Care Institute for Excellence  and the School of Social Work, Allied and Public Health, University of Staffordshire , Social Welfare at the BL showcases and provides a single point of access to our social policy and welfare content, collections and services for researchers, policy makers and managers in government and in the voluntary, independent and statutory services sectors.

The Conference

The Conference was opened by Roly Keating, CEO, British Library followed by a brief presentation on the Social Welfare Portal by Jude England, Head of Social Sciences.

The first presentation by Dr Jo Moriarty, Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College focused on the need for good evidence in social care, some of the challenges in disseminating evidence in the sector, and the need to think beyond academic users to the general public and frontline care staff. The presentation drew in part on her NIHR School for Social Care Research funded project, Social Care Practice with Carers.

The presentation by Prof. Pete Alcock, Director, Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham, focused on the Centre’s work in disseminating research on the development, role and organisation of the sector. It showcased the Third Sector Knowledge Portal, a free resource bringing together reports from third sector organisations, academic research, and government studies in one easy to use collection. Through its unique thesaurus, the KP helps voluntary organisations, government departments, academics and others to access evidence on a broad range of topics related to the sector, including commissioning, service delivery, impact measurement, social and community enterprise, volunteers and volunteering, and fundraising. The presentation concluded with some preliminary results from a KP user survey.

The keynote presentation by Prof. Jon Glasby, Director, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham looked at the role of evidence in health policymaking, how policy is implemented, and how knowledge spreads. Using at case study from his own career, Prof Glasby explored what constitutes valid research evidence. He concluded by calling for a move from evidence- to knowledge-based practice, arguing that: 1) there is no such thing as a hierarchy of evidence - the ‘best’ method for researching any given topic is that which will answer the research question most effectively; and 2) the lived experience of service users/carers and the practice wisdom of practitioners can be just as valid a way of understanding the world as formal research

Dr Georgina Brewis, John Adams Fellow, Institute of Education, University of London, and founder, Campaign for Voluntary Sector Archives, with Gareth Millward, Phd student at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, opened the afternoon session with a presentation on the value of charity archives as evidence for research, policy and practice. They argued that use of archival evidence would prevent reinvention of the wheel, by showing which policies and interventions had been tried in the past and whether or not they worked.

Diana Leat, Board Member, Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, considered the value of preserving and giving access to foundation archives. These organisations are in many senses different form other voluntary organisations in that they do not have to raise funds and therefore have the freedom to fund what could be considered niche causes. Their archives help to record the historical and political context of particular periods and add to the overall sense of the role of the third/voluntary sector within society across time. Foundation archives can reveal why certain projects were funded and others not, how the development and growth of small, newly formed organisations can be supported in non-financial ways and help tell the story of how issues first 'bubbled to the surface' in the public consciousness

The conference concluded with a lively panel discussion on use and abuse of evidence, chaired by Amanda Edwards, Deputy Chief Executive, Social Care Institute for Excellence with Dr Helen Kara, independent author, researcher and consultant, and Pete Simcock, Senior Lecturer, Staffordshire University School of Social Work, Allied and Public Health Birmingham. The panel and audience debated how evidence is used to inform social welfare policy and practice. The session was interactive and tackled questions such as: different interpretations of the same evidence, the barriers to use and dissemination of evidence, and whether there are sometimes good reasons not to use evidence. The audience were asked to vote on the questions before and after the discussion, to see if views had changed.

 

Please visit the event web page to listen to a podcast of the conference proceedings.