logo
Workplace etiquette has gone to the dogs – these rules can bring it back

Workplace etiquette has gone to the dogs – these rules can bring it back

Telegraph13-04-2025

Ruthless, he must be, I thought: some kind of Ivan the Terrible of the office. A man without fear, a dictator, a veritable piste basher flattening all the snowflakes.
For surely, these days, a boss can't address his company and dish out admonishments? One word of criticism and there'd be a stampede to the psychiatrist's couch. The website Glassdoor, on which employees share horror stories ('My boyfriend had dumped me and my beast of a manager made me come in to work…'), might crash under the weight of anonymous postings about bullying and harassment.
So, how refreshing this week to read of a missive from Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, in which, in no uncertain terms, he dished it out to his employees.
'I see people in meetings all the time who are getting notifications and personal texts or who are reading emails. This has to stop. It's disrespectful. It wastes time,' he raged.
Perhaps, at that very moment, shivering underlings reached for their phones, seeking out the crying emoji, #traumadump. Might there now be rumblings of discontent that spill over into HR, and then ensuing investigations, official warnings, a suspension pending further enquiries?
Well, given that 69-year-old Dimon has run America's biggest bank since 2006 and is known as 'the $25 billion man', in reference to how much the stock would drop if he left tomorrow, this is unlikely. Having woken at 5am, read all the papers, exercised and travelled to his office in midtown Manhattan, where he runs a bank that operates in 100 countries and employs 250,000 people, when he says: 'Stop looking at your phone', you stop looking at your phone and you don't complain about it.
And Dimon does the whole world a favour as he lays the laws of some much-needed office etiquette. 'Talk like you speak; get rid of the jargon,' he also wrote in his letter to shareholders. He also warned people against virtue signalling and said, 'More and more people are being disrespectful, condescending and unwilling to listen to one another.'
Dimon reminds me of a great boss I once had, one John Brown. Each month, he would gather all staff into the office café and address us. First he'd soften us up with readings from the latest issue of his beloved Viz, the magazine he proudly, and very successfully, published. Having read out some choice snippets from Roger's Profanisaurus, as the laughing faded he'd dish out some truths. 'Work starts at 9.30am' he might say. 'That's 9.30am. That doesn't mean you get to the office at 9.30am, have some breakfast, get some coffee, chat with your buddies and then think about walking to your desk. It means starting work at 9.30am.'
He also had a firm company rule that no meeting should last longer than an hour. To which I would add the following 10 rules:
Do not bring your laptop to a meeting. You might say it's there for writing notes, but we all know you're watching Netflix, albeit muted with subtitles on. And don't claim you need it in case a client emails. It can wait. It is only your demented fetish that makes you think anyone needs a reply within 30 seconds of receipt.
Place your phone face down during meetings. Even if it so much as shimmers, do not look at or touch it. And don't think we don't know you're cheating by glimpsing at your Apple Watch.
If you're chatting to a colleague in the office, do not look at your phone until the conversation is over.
Do not walk through the office looking at your phone. You're not that important. No one is. And if they are, they don't look at their phones – they have people to do that for them.
If you're out to lunch with colleagues, friends, even Grandma, do not place your phone by your side as if to say: 'Whatever is on my phone is more important than you, so when it buzzes, I'll be looking at it.' (I once had lunch with a self-important chum who brandished two phones. 'The second one is in case I'm on the first and someone needs to tell me something important.' Needless to say, over two hours, neither even buzzed.)
Do not consistently work late. It does not impress anyone; it merely suggests you can't control your own workflow or delegate efficiently.
Never eat at your desk. It's unhygienic (if your desk is dirty), antisocial (if we don't like the smell of it) and selfish (if we do).
Do not type loudly (and if you do, like me, stay away from the office – see rule 10) or discuss football.
Do not take off your shoes, nor wear shorts (men).
Do not go to the office and don't attend meetings. This is one rule by which I abide, thus avoiding any of the above dangers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tariff-hit firms should review bonuses or risk backlash, US lawyers warn
Tariff-hit firms should review bonuses or risk backlash, US lawyers warn

The Guardian

time5 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Tariff-hit firms should review bonuses or risk backlash, US lawyers warn

Businesses hit by tariffs should start reviewing their bonus policies and how deeply they may need to cut executive payouts if they hope to avoid a public backlash, lawyers have said. Partners at the Silicon Valley law firm Cooley said that while pay was probably the last thing on bosses' minds as they scramble to adapt to Donald Trump's unpredictable tariff policies, pay committees should start assessing their options soon. 'Many will encounter rising material costs and reduced profit margins, particularly given the significant pressure on the supply chain,' a memo by its top lawyers said. 'Taken together with the recent stock market volatility, companies (both public and private) will need to address the impact of these challenges on their business and, importantly, consider the effects on director and executive compensation programs.' Cooley – whose clients have included Netflix, Apple, Meta, and Twitter before its takeover by Elon Musk and rebrand as X – said that without a proper review of pay policies, companies may end up handing big bonuses to bosses while the rest of the workforce suffers from cost cuts and job losses. That may be due to remuneration policies that do not automatically account for the impact of so-called 'black swan events', such as a dramatic U-turn in US trade policy or a global pandemic. Michael Bergmann, a partner at Cooley, told the Guardian: 'There is a meaningful risk that rank-and-file employees are going to suffer here, and that could take the form of layoffs, folks losing their jobs or wages.' The memo said: 'Given the overall macroeconomic and sociopolitical climate, there is a strong risk that any accommodation for those [tariff] impacts will be viewed as unduly rewarding executives, particularly if rank-and-file employees do not benefit in a proportionate way. Accordingly, compensation committees and boards must tread deliberately and carefully.' Cooley lawyers said there was also a possibility that executives might be unduly punished for tariff impacts that were beyond their control, and that this should also be considered by remuneration committees. It is likely that pay packets will start to reflect tariff impacts from early next year. Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs against most countries in April, in a shock move that left companies looking at how they could offset a potential hit to trade and revenues. The US president later paused and then reduced most tariffs, but last week he refocused attention on steel and aluminium imports, doubling tariffs for all countries except the UK to 50%. Tech companies have also suffered as a result of Trump's trade war with Beijing, which has included an order restricting AI chip exports to China. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion While Cooley's original memo was aimed at US companies, Bergman said the warning was relevant to others around the world, including in the UK, with the ripple effects also due to hurt businesses even if they do not directly trade with US companies. 'The company's nationality is not really the driving question here,' he said. Luke Hildyard, the director of the High Pay Centre thinktank, suggested the tariff fallout should prompt a more fundamental review of executives' multimillion-pound pay packets. 'The entire flawed premise of vast executive pay awards is that business success is driven by a tiny number of business leaders, and that companies should pay whatever it takes to attract and retain the best ones,' he said. 'The tariff furore is only the latest example – following energy supply challenges in Europe, the pandemic or the supply chain issues in its aftermath – of business leaders being pretty powerless in the face of wider events. Maybe the most useful lesson here is that they are mortals like the rest of us and more moderate pay awards that reflect that fact would be appropriate.'

Canelo Alvarez vs Terence Crawford in another twist as UFC boss Dana White says he IS promoting super-fight
Canelo Alvarez vs Terence Crawford in another twist as UFC boss Dana White says he IS promoting super-fight

Scottish Sun

time19 hours ago

  • Scottish Sun

Canelo Alvarez vs Terence Crawford in another twist as UFC boss Dana White says he IS promoting super-fight

DANA WHITE has insisted he WILL promote the Canelo Alvarez vs Terence Crawford fight - marking yet another twist. Canelo is due to defend his undisputed super-middleweight titles against unbeaten American Crawford in September. 3 Dana White insists he will promote Canelo Alvarez vs Terence Crawford Credit: @danawhite And Saudi boxing supremo Turki Alalshikh - the financial backer behind the bout - initially announced that UFC boss White would promote. The super-fight was set for the Las Vegas Raiders' NFL stadium with Netflix on board to broadcast that bout. That was until Alalshikh made a U-turn and claimed Saudi-based Sela would promote and it would instead be on pay-per-view. White was probed on Alalshikh's comments after UFC 316 - but hit back to maintain he will be involved in the fight. READ MORE IN boxing JAKE TO SAY IT Jake Paul blasts Canelo's win over Scull and but says shock bout WILL happen He said: "I'm promoting the fight. I'll let you guys know when it's time to let you guys know." TKO Holdings - who own the UFC and WWE - signed a multi-year partnership to establish a boxing promotion alongside Saudi Arabia's Turki Alalshikh. As well as a UFC-style boxing league, two super-fights were set to be promoted by TKO and White every year. And Canelo's blockbuster against Crawford was due to kickstart the partnership. 3 CASINO SPECIAL - BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS Then all of a sudden, Alalshikh told Ring Magazine - which he owns - that the date of the bout was set to change. And he was also considering having the bout move to New York or Los Angeles - opposed to the £1.5BILLION, 65,000-seat Raiders Stadium. Three-weight world champion Vasily Lomachenko retires after more than 400 FIGHTS in lengthy video It caused huge confusion with the news the fight would also be under the Riyadh Season banner and on PPV - suggesting White and Netflix were out of the picture. But, White clarified: "Listen, when we're at work in UFC headquarters, I'm in my own little world, man. I don't pay attention to any of that s***. 'I know what's going on, I know what we're doing, I don't really pay attention to that stuff." White has partnered with Alalshikh before having held two events in Riyadh in the past. Canelo, 34, beat William Scull, 32, to regain the 168lb undisputed thrown in early May as part of his four-bout deal with Alalshikh. Meanwhile Crawford, 37, has not fought since moving up to 154lb to win the WBA title against Israil Madrimov, 30, in August 2024. 3 Crawford with Turki Alalshikh and Canelo

Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding

Telegraph

time2 days ago

  • Telegraph

Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding

Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. Identity crisis The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads and £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that Government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Sony Pictures international boss Wayne Garvie said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store