I spot one achievement from the Turner Review already. It may have legitimised “bravery”.
The 1980s comedy “Yes, Minister” embedded the terms “brave” and “courageous” deep in the British psyche as synonyms for “politically suicidal”. But now, some twenty five years after Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey left their Ministry for Administrative Affairs, this could be changing.
Such is the FSA’s language shaping power that not only are we now all considering “outcomes-focused regulation” but also the need for genuine bravery.
The Turner Review Discussion Paper says that “The new model of supervision … requires a ‘braver’ approach to decision-making by supervisors” (ie. by regulator employees) and the FSA aims to have a culture that “attracts and retains quality people who act in a ‘brave’ and ‘decisive’ manner”.
Talking to others in pensions and investment recently, I get the impression that this is having an impact. With this FSA support, suddenly bravery has become a more respectable characteristic.
Many would say that - with notable exceptions - bravery has not traditionally been a strong feature of the culture of pension fund trustees and managers. But, as Hugh Wheelan’s recent Responsible Investor article highlights, trustees like the PRI’s Chair Donald MacDonald have stepped forward to share responsibility for the crisis with a notable demonstration of what we might call the “new bravery”.
I look forward to “bravery” becoming a core competency within City job specifications. It is part of the answer to one of today’s key challenges: “How do you regulate for character not for compliance?” After all, as FSA Chief Executive Hector Sants said recently “a principles-based approach does not work with individuals who have no principles”.
The 1980s comedy “Yes, Minister” embedded the terms “brave” and “courageous” deep in the British psyche as synonyms for “politically suicidal”. But now, some twenty five years after Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey left their Ministry for Administrative Affairs, this could be changing.
Such is the FSA’s language shaping power that not only are we now all considering “outcomes-focused regulation” but also the need for genuine bravery.
The Turner Review Discussion Paper says that “The new model of supervision … requires a ‘braver’ approach to decision-making by supervisors” (ie. by regulator employees) and the FSA aims to have a culture that “attracts and retains quality people who act in a ‘brave’ and ‘decisive’ manner”.
Talking to others in pensions and investment recently, I get the impression that this is having an impact. With this FSA support, suddenly bravery has become a more respectable characteristic.
Many would say that - with notable exceptions - bravery has not traditionally been a strong feature of the culture of pension fund trustees and managers. But, as Hugh Wheelan’s recent Responsible Investor article highlights, trustees like the PRI’s Chair Donald MacDonald have stepped forward to share responsibility for the crisis with a notable demonstration of what we might call the “new bravery”.
I look forward to “bravery” becoming a core competency within City job specifications. It is part of the answer to one of today’s key challenges: “How do you regulate for character not for compliance?” After all, as FSA Chief Executive Hector Sants said recently “a principles-based approach does not work with individuals who have no principles”.
No comments:
Post a Comment