Thread by @swardley

X : What do you think about professional politicians?
Me : I would like all MPs to have relevant qualifications.
X : A degree?
Me : Useful but more important is 12 months living on dole + council estate + 12 months "manual" work i.e. labourer, cleaner + state educated.

X : You'd ban any MP who hasn't been unemployed for 12 months?
Me : On the dole. Benefits can be provided for training / apprenticeship / education. I spent a year on the dole doing a masters. It teaches you the value of money and the stress of poverty.

X : Manual work?
Me : It teaches you the meaning of work, of humility and an appreciation for others. You can't get high and mighty with memories of your hands down some loo.
X : Estate?
Me : It teaches you empathy for the plight of others and the hardships they face.

X : State School?
Me : It teaches you that we all start from the same place, the real societal value of good teachers (who are criminally underpaid compared to lesser fields such as law), that the system is biased and talent is often wasted through no fault of the child.

X : You think all MPs should have this?
Me : I think anyone in a position of leadership / responsibility should have this, from PMs to Ministers to MPs to DGs to CEOs / Chief Execs to Directors and down.

... I expect leaders to think about context, to have humility, to have genuine empathy, to understand bias, to know the meaning of real work and to realise that "there but by the grace of God go I".

X : Do you think of EQ tests should be part of management?
Me : Hmmm, EQ certification and consultants flogging empathy training and booster techniques? Would you like a dollop of Myers Briggs with your psycho babble? I prefer experience and immersion.

... you cannot empathise with being poor until you've been poor. You need to know your limits and when to defer. Rich trust fund kids talking about poverty is like middle aged white blokes talking about discrimination.

X : What about discrimination, that's not in your list?
Me : It was an example of relevant "experience" but I have no issue with banning men from all new leadership positions for the next 50 years to correct inbalances.

X : 50 years?
Me : Society changes slowly. In tech, one of the fastest moving parts, then it's 30-50 years to industrialise + 10-15 years to become the new "norm" for the majority (not the laggards). So, 40 - 65 years would put 50 years in the right zone for meaningful change.

X : What about the impact on company performance?
Me : Negligible to positive. It's worth reading Fitza's study on deomposition of existing CEO impacts, it's almost all random noise. Increasing diversity by only women for new positions should cause a positive uptick.

X : Are you saying that replacing the boards of companies with state educated unemployed women cleaners won't impact performance?
Me : No, don't be silly. I'm saying doing it over time should cause a positive boost in performance of most corporates.