At last, a waeguk answers a question!

It's taken more time than there is any excuse for but, here finally, is my attempt at an answer to the first question this blogger received. Simon, late of England, now in New York, has a professional background similar to mine; a career in foreign exchange which includes vault work in multiple countries, a variety retail operations at a variety of levels. The main difference between us is that Simon is substantially younger than I so, while I look back on 37 years finished, he is still doing it and looking as much forward as back. His question, reflects that. He asks:-

"I was wondering how you would cope with being who you are now, but back in Berkeley St (our mutual company's HQ in London until the 90s, D) in the 70's, and having to do your job of that time, but with the knowledge and experience you have now? Do you think you would fall back into the old routines or would your 21st century experience change your views and methods? Would you try and move things forward for them or let them work it out for themselves? Would you take advantage of your advanced knowledge and aim for promotions and praise or sit back and have an easy life?

In an attempt to prevent this from being either a) as dry as old bones to any unfortunate reader not versed in all the same things we are or b) turning in to an old dinosaur's rant about the good old/bad new days, I will try to couch the answer in the most general terms possible.

A number of things changed in the 37 years I was in that business and most of them seem to have changed elsewhere too

1. Systems. In 1970, the word never came up. There was one computer and only the white-coated specialists were allowed in its hermetically sealed room. It took up most of a floor of the building and only did two things. For about half the time, it processed the serial numbers of traveller's cheques, changing their status from "ordered" to "printed", "shipped", "in central stock", "in transit to agent", "in agent's stock", "issued", "lost or stolen", "paid" and, the demon of the bunch "PWA" (Paid Without Advice). The other half of the time, it processed payroll. It was not connected to anything anywhere, got it's data from punch cards and huge rolls of tape and churned out huge reports on "music paper". In contrast, the desk I just retired from housed four computers, each many times more powerful than the 1970 mainframe and connected, quite literally, to the entire world. Each could run several applications at once, even the simplest of which - a dinosaur VAX system some 20 years old - would have been beyond the grasp of any system, except possibly one run by NASA, in 1970.

2. Promotion/Recruitment policy. In 1970, and for some years after, in order to be promoted to a higher position, even at very lofty levels, you were expected to understand EVERYTHING your underlings did. You didn't need any fancy qualifications. There were a handful of chartered accountants in the Finance department, a few engineers in "EDP" (that's Electronic Data Processing, or IT as we know it today) and possibly some other professionals I didn't know about but, in general, you came in with "O" levels, occasionally an "A" level, started as a trainee cashier and went as far as you could or wanted, learning as you went. Progressively, down the years, the MBA's, PHD's and various stripes of accountants took hold and made most of the senior positions their own. Never mind that they couldn't tell a Franc from a Dong, thought a "hedge" was something you clipped at the weekend and "forward" was a position in football. They knew BUSINESS! "Business is business", they had been taught. "Don't get bogged down in the detail", they had learned. And boy did they know how to mess things up.

3. The 80/20 rule. I first heard this described sometime in the late 1970's by a new kind of professional called a "business analyst". I became one for a time and, as callings go, it's fun. What the 80/20 rule says, in a nutshell, is that, in any project, 80% of the job is completed with 20% of the resources (time, money, equipment, whatever). It's the other 20%, that messy list of exceptions, oddities, manual bits of awkwardness, that swallow up the big bucks/hours/kit. As an observation, this was wonderful and right on the money; I've seen it proven 100 times over. BUT, the fussbudgets got hold of it and tried to argue that we should therefore only do 80% of the project, thereby saving 80% of the money. At this stage, nobody had really caught on (and many still haven't) to the downside of #2 above; to wit, in a labour market dominated by qualified professionals, they can all work anywhere. Under the old regime, my experience and knowledge might be of some use to a handful of companies similar to my own but no oil company, drug store chain or truck manufacturer was going to want me. I was most valuable where I was so I had a vested interest in making sure that any new systems would work, even in the messy 20% bits, even if I myself moved on in the organization. These new guys, though, the pros, were like elected politicians. As long as they could look good long enough to get the next job, which would be elsewhere, they really cared not a jot if the whole house of cards collapsed after they'd gone. "Stay Within The Budget" was all that mattered. The result has been a succession of iterations of the 80/20 rule, each one doing 80% of what the last one did so that, eventually, the LATEST system only does 80% of 80% of 80% of 80%........ of the whole job (that's "not very much" in old money). I shouldn't complain, that's what kept me valuable through the last years - I was the guy who knew how it all REALLY worked.


So, what's the answer to Simon's question?

I would NOT use my knowledge to climb the ladder and take an easy life - I don't like rarified atmospheres and don't think it would work anyway.

I WOULD have a lot to say about systems. How not to paint yourself into corners, get stuck with non standard formats, etc.

I would know the trends of the future, of course, and many of them I would be powerless against. I would therefore just have to be prepared, recognise the demons at the gate when they appeared and do my best for myself and my colleagues.

I would buy more of the rare and odd notes and coins that came my way and live off them now. Better than any pension. I would also keep my savings in Swiss Francs.

I would be better able to "not sweat the small stuff". Many of the crises I and others faced down the years felt, at the time, as if they were the end of everything. Clearly, they weren't. The Sun still rose, the paycheck still came, the lunatics still took over the asylum and, guess what, I'm still here.

Otherwise (and I've had lots of time to think about this), I wouldn't do it very differently. I would know better who to trust and who not, and that would lead to some changes but, by and large, I'd do it all again. I would get different breaks, I guess. Probably would not end up in Canada this time because that was a fluke that isn't likely to happen twice. But I would travel, take all the relief jobs, the overseas assignments, experience life as it came along.

People don't tend to think of "Foreign Exchange Cashier", if they think of it at all, as a career that lets you see the world. It took me all over the UK and Ireland and to France, Spain, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Hong Kong, Singapore, Macao, Australia, lots of bits of the USA, Canada, Mexico, and I've probably missed a few. If I tried to change the past by reliving it, I think I'd fail. I would use what widom I could, but, mostly, I like how it went the first time.

Simon, I don't suppose that's the kind of answer you expected, or possibly even wanted, but I had more time to think about it than I should have and, really, that's it. When I was happy in my working life, it was because I was being ME. When I tried to live in someone else's world (like my brief trip into "upper management", I wasn't me and I wasn't happy. So, I'd be me, and that hasn't changed much (sepfer the grey and the wrinkles).