Senior Partner Blog

That we stand out from the mainstream. In Sweden it is almost a mortal sin (Sw Jantelagen) to go your own way, be confident, aim for success, believe in your dreams and express views which are different than most or, even worse, provocative. We must all agree or there is something wrong – we have an environment of consensus fundamentalism. Still, some people disregard these golden rules of social interaction. Like Wonna I de Jong. She is born in1960 in Poland behind the iron curtain. Wonna lived under poor conditions but she was innovative. Her family had a garden with fruits and vegetables which she sold on the local markets and she was allowed to keep the proceeds herself. She invested in a gold ring which she has kept until this day. On a school trip to Russia, she sold some of her clothes and bought gold and diamonds for the money. One day a couple of foreigners in the streets of Warsaw asked her a question and Wonna was one of the few people that spoke English in Poland back then. So Wonna started talking to the strangers and found out that they were Swedish engineers who had helped to build the new Forum Hotel in central Warsaw. Wonna thought it was strange that Poland with its 30 million people needed experts from Sweden to build a hotel and became curious about Sweden. She decided to emigrate and came to Sweden in 1978 with two empty hands. Some thirty years later she has built a business empire and is one of the biggest property owners in the country.

Before getting there she had to fight people’s negative attitudes and “Jantelagen”- who do you think you are? After all she was an immigrant and a woman, a truly hopeless combination. Wonna did not care. At school she was recognized for her excellent academic skills but when she told her career guide at school that she wanted to become a business woman, she was advised that this would not be possible but that medical school would be an option. So Wonna took the advice and went to medical school for a few years before switching to law school. And then Wonna did business. With a strong minded focus. Now she is a very wealthy woman and she continues to run and develop her substantial property portfolio. Wonna has the nerve to say her mindset and thinking created success and that everyone can do it. A revolutionary thought in a country where the general perception is that people are just victims to circumstances – if you are successful you have been lucky, if you have been less successful, it is somebody else’s fault. Thank you Wonna for bringing a breath of fresh air!

Somebody has analyzed the use of certain words in the Swedish Parliament. According to this study women more frequently than men use words like “women”, “children”, “men”, “tremendously”. Men more frequently than women use words like “possibly”, “the item”, “of course” and “note”. The linguistic experts further notes that the differences between the sexes are more significant among politicians to the right than among politicians to the left. The expert behind the study goes on to conclude that politicians to the left are more equal between the sexes than politicians to the left when it comes to communication. Really? Leaving aside whether or not the study is scientifically relevant and assuming it is, how can this conclusion be drawn at all?! Just because women and men in a certain circle of people have different preferences when it comes to the use of word, how can any conclusions at all be drawn from this? And it has not even been suggested that certain words in themselves imply inequality.

On a related note; It is often said that there should be more women in leading positions and in the board rooms. And yes, given that women are half of the population, women are indeed underrepresented. The question is how to bridge the gap if you think this is a good thing. People talk about patriarchal chains and patterns that need to be broken up. Traditions passed on by heredity need to change. Positive discrimination of women. For starters, is it necessarily desirable to bridge the gap? Provided nobody is formally prevented from taking on a certain assignment just for being a women, it could be debated as it is a matter of free choice. Myself I happen to think it is desirable to bridge the gap because I believe in variety of all kinds. But this is not only in relation to the ratio between men and women. In general I think we should aspire to benefit from experiences, qualifications, cultures and viewpoints of different individuals. Be that as it may. In a chronicle of Dagens Industri (2012-04-30) the former spokesperson for the Swedish Green Party Maria Wetterstrand offers some interesting thoughts on how to bridge the gap. It seems to be the case that women are more self critical than men of their own capability. As a result, women sometimes decline attractive offers even if they are more than qualified. Simply because they think twice, questioning their own skills and if a new position would consume too much of their time which means sacrificing time with family and friends. Whilst men on the other hand hardly ever think twice and routinely overstate their capability. I tend to agree with Maria Wetterstrand’s analysis. She then goes on to suggest that men should change their behavior and more often say no to high status positions because they may be more suited for something else. I actually tend to agree with that as well. However, if the goal is to bridge the gap, I would put emphasize on the women. We should encourage women to say yes more often when they are given the opportunity to climb on the career ladder. Yes I can!

We all know how that the hassle of travelling by plane has been stepped up. Long queues at security, taking off your jacket, belt, shoes. Remove liquids and computers. Stressing and sweating – am I going to make it to the gate in time?! We all accept to be scrutinized and questioned in the interest of keeping us safe and protecting us from potential terrorist attacks. However, as a frequent traveler I know that there is not one security control that is applied consistently with another. More often than not, the scanner does not register liquids in the carry-on luggage. IPads are sometimes registered, sometimes not – from time to time IPads are explicitly allowed to be kept inside the bag. Some request you to empty your pockets and/or take off your watch, before or after passing the electronic security frame. The variations are endless. So what does all this tell us? It certainly pops the question whether airport security control is for real or just a delusion to make us believe that we should feel safe. Or is the system simply a worldwide job creator for security staff? In any event, credibility of the extensive, expensive and time consuming airport security measures is severely undermined.

Transforming dictatorship and oppression into democracy and tolerance can sometimes seem like mission impossible. One step ahead, two steps backwards, at best. Dreams and hopes crushed. Escalating violence and a vicious downwards spiral. Like Syria. When the dictator feels that he has nothing to gain from unlocking the chains of oppression. We analyze and try to understand. It is so difficult. We talk about the problems of turning the clock after decades of tyranny. It has become part of the culture, we say, so people know of nothing else. Experts say that we must not think that democracy comes lightly. And that we need to understand the specifics at hand. And then we have Burma. After many years of military junta regime, imprisonment of the opposition and isolationism, changes start to happen. Slowly, step by step. Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is released after more than twenty years in house arrest. Censorship is eased. Multi-party system is allowed. General elections, seemingly democratic are held and effected.

So what is this? The world is somewhat skeptical, is this for real or just window dressing? Well, time will tell but things are certainly improving. So establishing a society built on democracy, human rights and human dignity can be seen as hopelessly difficult or simply quite doable. I think we should opt for the feasibility version, yes we can. And maybe this is the first step towards digging people out of the big hole of poverty. Because after all, there are really no poor countries, but only countries poorly managed.

I wish I had your problems. This is an espression with friendly irony used by the inhabitants of Berlin, referring to people’s complaints about insignificant matters.  Perhaps for historical reasons reflecting upon the hardship in Berlin towards the end of and after the second world war. Be that as it may. The saying is really universally timeless and should be food for thought for all of us. When we complain about our difficulties and how annoyed we are with the flaws of life, a moment of reflection might be in order. Is the problem or disturbance that I am confronted with, really such a big deal?! In perspective, maybe not. And would it not be more productive and satisfying to focus on the positive aspects of my daily life and how to develop those even further. Worth a try I should think-hardly any downside!

Gender equality is a buzz word in Sweden. The “Gender Perspective” shall be applied. As a result we need “Gender Therapists” (with a University degree) who can advise us ignorant men, women, boys and girls who do not know how to reach Gender Nirvana. It is said that we are behaving and treated differently by others depending on whether we belong to the male or female sex and that this relates to upbringing and structures in society and that these structures need to change. To that end it has now been suggested by the Gender Experts that we must do away with the Gender specific words she (sw. hon) and he (sw. han) and replace it with a gender neutral reference to human beings, namely “hen” in Swedish – how that would translate into English is beyond me.

Certain schools have banned the use of gender specific terms. As an example, saying “come on boys and girls” is clearly inappropriate according to the new Gender Doctrine. And from there it goes on. I thought that equality meant that everybody is given the same opportunities regardless of and without discrimination because of sex. And I thought tolerance meant accepting that we are different, be it due to gender or otherwise, not that we should all be viewed as if there were no differences. But then again, what do I know, being an ignorant layman on the complicated Gender subject?

Andreas was 20 years old when his life changed. His adult life was just about to begin. Andreas had a night on the town with his friends. On the bus back home some youngsters started to pick a fight. One of Andreas’ friends had a tooth knocked out. Andreas tried to calm everyone down. When leaving the bus, another kid (17) knocked him from behind. Andreas fell and hit his head on the asphalt leaving him unconscious. In hospital it was found that Andreas had several bleedings in his brain. The outcome was uncertain. However, Andreas survived and woke up. To a new beginning. He had lost his hearing on one ear, memory was largely gone and he had major difficulties concentrating. In other words, Andreas’ life was changed to the worse for good. Now he can only work part time, at best, and he is not able to continue his education.
So what about the guy responsible for all this? Yes he was caught and sentenced to eight (8) months in a juvenile correction center. Then he goes on with his life. Andreas cannot. Ever. Is this reasonble? Hardly. I am not saying that the assaulter necessary should be punished harder (even if a little bit harsher consequences would not be wrong). After all, also the assaulter represents a young life which should not be ruined easily. But here society has a responsibility. Society decides on the punishment of the assaulter and should then also be liable to compensate the victim generously. That is the hallmark of a civil and humane society.

The moment of truth is here. Unless the Eurozone leaders now conclude that Greece is now eligible for the next rescue package, the collapse seems unavoidable. At the same time the riots on the streets of Greece continue – people say that they have had enough of austerity measures. And who can blame them. Many feel that they are paying for somebody else’s financial mismanagement. Which is to a large extent true. But that comes with the territory, literally as well as a figure of speech. Greece is a country and has problems which affects its citizens. A bit like when children suffer from wrongdoings of their parents, even if grown up citizens can vote out their leaders, an option which is not available to children. So is this fair? Perhaps not, but difficult to avoid and life is not fair. Because if corrections are to be made, somebody else has to pay for it which in turn could be said to be unfair – what have the citizens of the Netherlands, Belgium and Estonia done to deserve liability for the Greek debts? Sure, support from others may at times be desirable and reasonable but it is hardly a given. When the Greeks are protesting including some of their leading politicians, they may want to think about the alternative. The terms of the lenders may be too harsh, so don’t take the loan and live with the consequences. But I think it is somewhat provocative to simply take it for granted that someone else is paying. Then again, spending other people’s money (OPM) seems to be a popular game everywhere.

Swedish social democrats are trying to deal with the crisis. The party leader has resigned (or rather being forced to resign) after an unprecedented short period of time in office, 10 months. They have lost almost half of its voters in just a few years and the bottom may not have been reached. The powerful Executive Committee (Sw Verkställande Utskottet, VU) has five members and eight deputy members – what a fantastic composition! VU’s immediate task is to identify a new party leader or at least the process to find the new leader. Last Thursday and Friday they had meetings discussing if there was a vote of confidence with respect to the party leader Håkan Juholt. The meetings went on for some twenty hours in two days. Then VU announced that there was a vote of confidence in Mr. Juholt only for him resigning the day after – is that not a credible story to be told! Yesterday VU met again for another marathon meeting until midnight without reaching a conclusion. New meetings will take place today.

With all respect that there may be delicate matters to discuss, but how could 10-12 hours and beyond meetings in a group of some dozen people, lead anywhere?! Journalists monitor developments every hour and ask the same questions over and over again about the results and get the same answers over and over again that VU is addressing some difficult and unique issues which have not yet been resolved. None has questioned whether these meetings are actually dysfunctional and in fact a telling illustration of the crisis. Moreover, speculations about names for the job as party leader are endless. As well as reporting about how many of these names that have declared that they are not interested. None has questioned whether all these no’s are a telling illustration of the crisis. To be continued…

World famous company Kodak with a proud 100+ year history, just filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in the US bankruptcy laws. The Swedish social democrats with a proud 100+ years of history, are imploding from within. Finland is about to have a conservative president for the first time in half a century. China has become a global economic power in less than three decades. Russian people begin to question icon leader Vladimir Putin. Poland is a top performer in a turbulent Economic environment. Long standing Arabic dictators fall. The list could be made long. Dramatic changes of the seemingly stable. Still we are surprised that we are surprised. How could this happen? It seemed like a rule of nature! As humans, we are inclined to look for predictability and think that it can actually be achieved. And when this does not happen we are all shook up, disappointed or euphoric. Then we move on and continue to make more predictions for the future. This may be an interesting roller coaster for some. As an alternative, we could view changes as the main road, and stability as a side track. Expect the unexpected if you will. Perhaps such an approach will make us better equipped to deal with change and surprise which no doubt will continue to happen.