In a climate of cutbacks is the conference the first to go?

As we draw towards considering diary commitments for the autumn the mind is inevitably drawn towards the conference season. Over the years I have had the pleasure and misfortune to attend a wide variety of conferences covering many sectors. Sometimes as a speaker, others as a delegate I always make it a rule to look back and consider what it was that I gained from attending.



When I first started attending conferences I came back disappointed almost every time. I felt that my time could be better spent in the office and that I learned very little from my time away. After a few such episodes I looked at the common denominator linking all these conferences and it was me! Like much else in life you get out what you put in and I was a passive attendee despite always paying my own way.



To change this I knew that I had to play an active part in any conference which I was going to attend. Prior to setting off I have an indication of who it is that I wish to meet, what questions I am seeking answers to, what areas I need to be updated on and what it is that will make a difference to the business when I return.



As such I only attend those conferences which pass the tests above and always come back invigorated, with ideas to implement and new contacts made. How many people prepare themselves for conference attendance? Very few in my opinion. Too often I see delegates gravitate to those people that they know, never widen their circle of acquaintances and use the conference as a whinge session! Why?



Each year NWES takes a small contingent to the NFEA conference. We use this event as a valuable networking opportunity, chance to learn some tricks from other similar companies and gather ideas which may benefit us. I usually take a cross section of my staff to help them gain a wider appreciation of the industry and see how we compare to our peer group.



In the last week I have spoken to a couple of "wise men" in the industry who are probably not attending the NFEA conference this year. They have good reasons (excuses?) for being elsewhere but I would suggest that now more than ever attendance is vital for any agency that is serious about its future. Times ahead could, and probably will, be very hard and it is through continual learning and sharing of experiences that you stand a better chance of surviving intact.



For members of the NFEA the conference is astounding value and should be pencilled in as a must attend event. With 100+ members I would suggest that taking 2/3 people from each agency will be an investment that will pay dividends in the future. However to get that benefit consider the points above and make sure that you speak to as many new faces as familiar ones, that you get answers - or at least suggestions - to your questions and learn something that you will put into place when you return to the coal face. It could be the best money that you spend all year!



For members and non members alike see http://www.nfea.com/ for details of an industry specific conference which could help you.

Short term mentality - long term suffering.

This week we will learn how much profit (or loss) that our Banks will post. To the fore comes comment on bonuses paid to those traders "gambling" in a high risk - high reward environment. Howls of outrage are usually met with protests that it is too difficult to change the culture, that it will lead to an exodus of talent etc.

We have two issues here 1. Should Banks be allowed to gamble on the markets this way and 2. How should traders be rewarded.

On the first point then the answer should be yes however there has to be strict limits placed on the trading related to the strength of the Bank balance sheet and ability to meet obligations should losses be made. It was unlimited gambling on ever more obscure derivatives which caused the downfall of many institutions and yet we seem prepared to let the same mistakes be made. The argument that a bank is too large to be allowed to fail simply means that it is too large.

Reward for traders has a simple solution and yet no-one wants to break ranks. Traders can be paid bonuses according to how successful they are but the bonuses should be in shares and must be held for at least 5 years before they can be traded. In addition if losses are made then entitlement to shares reduces proportionally. This way there is an incentive to look at the long term rather than short term and each trader is tied to the performance of their parent company.

The bleats that this may affect the city in a negative way and drive away "talent" are foundless. Do we really want financial mercenaries gambling with our future? If they have no moral guidelines or sense of responsibility then quite frankly we are better off without them.

We talk about corporate responsibility and it is a real interest of mine but I have doubts if any of our top 250 companies pay anything other than lip service to this.

Reward exceptional work but tie it in to overall company performance and make any incentives long term - do this and we may just have a better society and stronger companies as a result!