…of time. The piece in today’s FT is helpful because, for me at least, it explains what I have always known but struggled to articulate that, for example, the assertion by a company that “integrity” is one of its “values” is “particularly feeble”, according to Lucy Kellaway because “it makes no sense to assert integrity as a value, as no one would ever dream of asserting the reverse”. Love the use of the word “feeble”. Made me laugh. She goes on to analyse in a similar vein the rest of a typical values list. However, I disagree with the end of the piece where she quotes a statistic that those FTSE companies which do not publish values outperform those that do, by a whopping 70% as if this proves her point. It might do. But it might also suggest that their performance was because of dodgy values. What does her “man in our statistics department” have to say about that?