Clean Business Cuisine - Now & Z/Yen

Clean Business Cuisine is a uniquely enjoyable yet informative read, perfect for managers, students and anyone interested in enlightenment. The design of this book is stunning – a great gift.

DETAILS:

• "surprisingly funny considering it is written by a couple of accountants" - "Between the Covers", Accountancy Age, page 36 (14 March 2002).
• "entertaining and excellent spoof...worth buying as a present for a colleague or customer" Long Range Planning (2001)
• "A fascinating book with fascinating accolades." Becky Anderson, "World Business This Morning", CNN (7 August 2000).
• "entertaining and excellent spoof…worth buying as a present for a colleague or customer" – Graham Hutton, "Book Reviews", Long Range Planning, Vol 34, Issue 2, pages 268-269 (April 2001).
• "shows how business acumen can be successfully combined with humour, fun and a distinct lack of regard for convention . . . very sharp and even witty" - Ruth Sachs, "Kli Ning Up and Dum Ing Don", Strategy, page 21 (September 2000).
• "Cleverly constructed and amusingly related, this will appeal across the board." - Ingrid Fisher, "Best of the Rest", Venture, page 202 (September 2000).
• "it’s a must for any management student . . . it really does make management studies fun while simultaneously covering all the main topics" - Lucy Cole, "Dealing with Dirty Laundry", Kaleidoscope, page 26 (Autumn 2000).
• "firmly grounded in management theory and practice . . . design is stunning" - James Bayliss, "Clean Business Cuisine: Now and Z/Yen", Business World, page 18 (August 2000).
• "Clean Business Cuisine is the 1066 and All That of management." - Francis Beckett, "No More Chinese Laundry Blues", Ambassador, page 32 (September 2000).
• "very tongue in cheek and very funny but also strangely enlightening" - Alex Smith, "Clean Business Cuisine", Business Age, page 126 (September 2000).
• "light style and unforced humour" - David Shirreff, "Fishy path to enlightenment", Euromoney, page 6 (August 2000). 

Michael Mainelli and Ian Harris are founders/directors of the risk/reward management firm Z/Yen and the modern scions of Chao Kli Ning’s dynasty. Before reaching total Z/Yen enlightenment, Michael and Ian’s monastic duties included service as management consultants and corporate strategists, advising businesses and organisations on the one true path(s), as well as writing and contribution to numerous business publications.

CONTENTS:

Prologue – Z/Yen Things You Always Wanted to Know About Business; Chapter One: Centralisation/Decentralisation – Confederal Unity; Chapter Two: Technology – Gizmo’s Big Adventure; Chapter Three: Human Resources – People Are for Turning; Chapter Four: Continuous Improvement – Quality is Free; Chapter Five: Management Information – The Question of Hu; Chapter Six: Leveraged Growth – Brothers in Alms; Chapter Seven: Strategy – The Greeks Have a General Word for It; Chapter Eight: Commercial Ethics – Kli Ning’s Principle Problem; Chapter Nine: Sales and Marketing – Saving Faith; Chapter Ten: Risk/Reward – Fat Chance’s Risky Business; Epilogue – See You, Z/Yen.

TELEVISION:

• "a fascinating book with fascinating accolades" - Becky Anderson, CNN World Business This Morning (7 August 2000).
• "a recipe for success" - Heather Scott, Sky News (1 September 2000).

 CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENTS:

• "Clean Business Cuisine offers advice on business principles and practices in a highly imaginative and entertaining way. It will amuse and fascinate business managers, students of management and anyone interested in life." - The Baroness Dunn of Hong Kong and Knightsbridge (July 2000).
• "A very lighthearted, entertaining read that would make an ideal gift." - The Rt Hon John Gummer MP (September 2000).

More information:

View Online

Order Form

Strategic Scenarios For The 21st Century

Many clients ask Z/Yen to help them develop a variety of scenarios in order to challenge and form strategic thinking.  Z/Yen normally develops custom-scenarios, but felt that people in the voluntary sector might benefit from seeing three different examples of typical scenarios.  These scenarios can be used directly in a strategic planning or change management exercise, however Z/Yen would normally recommend that they are part of a structured programme.  Nevertheless, a well-written scenario (naturally, it is for the reader to judge) is normally a fun and challenging read, as well as a serious tool.

The three scenarios which follow are the:

• über-egalitarian scenario – Control Freaks;

• hierarchist scenario – Power Brokers;

• individualist scenario – Free for All.

 All three scenarios were developed by developing the following characters, drivers and events.

Characters:

• Global charity chief – on the airplane from disaster to disaster, always prepared with soundbites for the global media;

• Mer-charities – the new mercenaries, raising funds from disaster to disaster, crisis to crisis;

• Major politician retires in mid-50’s and devotes 10 years to voluntary sector;

• Major multi-billionaire spends money to be centre-stage in voluntary sector;

• Ralph Nader of charitable exposure;

• Ignored beneficiary;

• Activist beneficiary – over-informed? over-involved?;

• Government regulator, tax man, minister, spin doctor;

Drivers:

• unclear voluntary sector definition;

• multiplicity of goals, multiplicity of means – intra-sector conflict;

• disconnection from beneficiaries;

• increasing government tension over tax take/break;

• consumerism – donor desire to restrict income usages;

• sector growth leads to increasing tension among NGO’s;

• tension between unemployment and volunteer work;

• accountability and governance;

• accreditation/certification;

• internet increases exposure and governance;

Events/Provocation:

• greatly, greatly increased international demand;

• major disaster in Europe, not developing countries for a change,e.g. Bangladeshi-style floods in London as Thames Barrier and subsidence take effect after 2003;

• global scam, in excess of £1 billion;

• physical conflict between voluntary sector organisations;

• strong evidence of charity/government collusion;

• strong evidence of charity involvement in politics;

• major charity bids to take over another;

• vote your tax return – now vote your voluntary expenditure;

• US courts pursue major UK charity for tax/regulation;

• major care charity takes major activist organisation to court for interference;

• UK charity accused of propping up African dictatorship through aid.

NGO’s are the new glamour sector.  Since the early 00’s emergence of the MCA (Master of Charities’ Administration), the voluntary sector has been the career of choice for more and more high-fliers.  The sector’s closeness to government, particularly as the second career of choice for ex-Prime Ministers given the powerlessness of the House of Lords, has led to increasing power and influence.  On the international scene, the voluntary sector is the new cavalry, riding to the rescue.  Since AAA (Aid and Administration for Africa) took over the management of three African countries five years ago, with at least limited success in two of the three countries, NGO’s have been the mechanism of choice for dealing with international systemic failures.

Naturally, all this activity requires resource, currently up to 20% of OECD GDP is within the voluntary sector.  Much of this is tax expenditure; NGO’s working for government, implementing government policy.  Charities claim that they are there to realise a better society when government and the market are unwilling or unable.  Critics claim that the larger charities are too cost-obsessed to take risks.  More severe critics claim that the larger charities are government lackeys, “outsourced government”, unable to say No when confronted with an unjust or unworkable policy.  Some of this has been mitigated through direct participation, for instance when the Red Cross was voted out of Korea on vote4me.com, although the Charities Council always retains the right to overrule these votes.

Voluntary sector overheads are also increasing rapidly.  The sector has warmly welcomed the Government Approved NGO certificate.  Critics complain of the bloated policy and administration, but charities have a tremendous amount of government regulation, particularly since the £24 billion “Hug the Globe” scandal of 2007.  Charities are perhaps their own best cops.  In fact, most government regulation has been proposed and pushed by the voluntary sector itself.  Most of the charity scams over the past ten years have been reported to the authorities by other voluntary organisations, among whom the “Angels of Malfeasance” are probably the best known.  Other overheads include the new, mandatory Beneficiaries’ Councils.  While perhaps a great idea at the time, these groups are frequently hijacked by special interests.  A case in point is probably the diversion last year of some AIDS serum from the developing countries back to the UK because of a temporary shortage in Britain for which the Beneficiary Council insisted on taking no chances.

Looking at longer-term beneficiary relationships has led to interesting dynamics.  Some countries, notably the USA, have been testing CMO’s (Charity Maintenance Organisations).  In these, members are tithed on a combination of income and voluntary time.  In return, members in need are guaranteed a minimum level of CMO support if they fall on hard times.  What distinguishes CMO’s from other membership schemes are strong government pushes for membership (perhaps compulsory in the future), the implicit guarantee of aid for members in preference to others and the government/employer support for existing members – although critics claim that this policy of CMO annuities is merely “milk the grannies” or “beat the legacy”.

Top of page 

Power Brokers - Hierarchist

The voluntary sector has grown significantly from 2000.  The voluntary sector in Britain and the USA is now 15% of GDP, the result of sustained 10% real growth relative to the regular economy.  European and Asian voluntary sectors are showing similar growth, albeit about a decade behind.  With size has come recognition.  The first meeting of the C8 in 2010 revealed that their combined annual expenditure was larger than Italy’s economy.  Today, IMF and World Bank meetings honour the Observer status of the C8’s General Treasurer, while the UN Peacekeeping forces frequently report to the C8’s Commander of Voluntary Relief in non-combat situations.  C8 Councils, and the new Voluntary Parliament, have struggled to inform public opinion while working with, and within, the larger international organisations.  In particular, the ISO21000 standard, and its enforcement through the C8, has led to better practices and clearer delineation of the charitable sector from activists.

Growth has not been painless.  Events leading up to the formation of the C8 saw the suppression of heretical voluntary organisations, acting outside the Code of Government Co-operation agreed by the major organisations within the C8.  Rogue organisations, frequently based in Charity Havens, have been using the internet and other surreptitious fund-raising activities to breach the agreed 15% expenditure level agreed with the major governments.  Violation of the 15% GDP expenditure level will force governments, acting to preserve a reasonable economy for their tax base, to enforce even stricter definitions of voluntary work, as France recently required a “test of total unemployability” before exempting charitable staff expenditure.  Other countries may soon also outlaw volunteers because of the effect on employment statistics.

All this growth owes quite a bit to the ever-more-aggressive and successful fund raisers.  By uniting globally, and with a few public “outings” of non-givers, voluntary sector giving is trendy.  Making the individual 5% Norm work led to the corporate 5% Norm being successful.  By structuring the funding through payrolls, the C8 Councils have been able to increase their power through ensuring control of financial resources.  Responsible funders now only deal through a Funding Manager.  Funding Management Organisations in the Square Mile, controlling over £162 billion, are the only authorised fund distributors in the UK.  Individual donors, as always, are able to donate directly, but only a few renegade, typically larger donors do so.  Renegade donors need significant sums, in one Sunday Times exposé £10 million, before they can get attention.  Much of this funding structure is USA-driven.  USA regulations, in particular the GOECC (US Government Organization for the Environment, Charities and Care) rulings, are increasingly forcing charities worldwide to meet US listing standards.

Beneficiaries have not been forgotten in all the growth.  Increasing leisure time, combined with an aged, but too-early-pensioned retirement generation, has allowed the voluntary sector to deploy increasing numbers of workers, although demographics indicates future staffing problems.  The passing of the National Service Act of 2010 was a major help to voluntary organisations, particularly as it forced older people back into helping with care.  It was ironic that some pensioners were caught by National Service both coming and going.

In a series of “smash and grab” raids, southern NAFTA non-profits have been taking unauthorised liberties with the EU voluntary sector.  Displacing authorised giving in areas such as humanitarian aid, cancer research and environmental relief, these NAFTA nifties are being rooted out by the Continental Revenue and the EU Border Patrol.  It is testimony to the impoverished state of NGO’s globally, that unauthorised NGO’s have targeted the richer European markets for smash and grab fund-raising.  Nevertheless, EU authorities have also had to shut down over 50,000 European NGO’s in the last year for illegal activities in support of their causes.

Within Europe, NGO’s spend at least as much effort fighting their European brethren.  Strongly-defined battle lines exist not just in the long-running abortion versus birth-control or slavery-purchase versus child-labour conflicts, but also in the pharmaceutical-cooperative versus patent-breaking malaria and AIDS conflicts, the children’s rights versus less-than-zero-tolerance conflicts and the legalise versus criminalise drugs conflicts.  The Southern African Control Zone has banned all EU activist, and most relief, organisations since the incident in 2017 when a pitched battle and bombings led to a small-scale war with over 1,800 casualties.  To this day, Swiss NGO staff still have trouble getting clearance because of their military service.

NGO’s have also struggled with middling growth.  While some of the headline causes remain as popular as ever, donors seem to want evidence of smaller NGO’s intention to seek their own superfluity – “we hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources”.  This has driven some NGO’s to renounce all government funding as detracting from the main mission.  Changing society’s commitment to causes through activism is believed to be far more important than the direct alleviation of need.  Voluntary sector groups have witnessed severe schisms between those who will, and those who will not, work with government.  Perhaps the most vivid illustration of these schisms was the cancellation last year of the EUCVO because of the successful “Say No to Government” boycott.

Clearly, some of the middling growth is down to the anti-tax-break movement of 2005.  In a strong bid to catch up with the USA, the EU decided to unite on at least one tax-break area; all NGO tax exemptions were abolished as too arbitrary and unfair.  Despite years of legal wrangling, this abolition has held up in the European courts and has intensified over the years as consumers refuse to deal with charities that take from government – “A Charity is for Life, Not Just a Tax Break”.  There has been some silver lining to the removal of special exemptions.  Commercial regulations and company law requirements reduced some voluntary sector specialisms, removed some arbitrary regulators and opened the sector to probity without special laws.

The removal of exemptions has led to the removal of gloves by charities, with a more aggressive, pro-beneficiary stance.  More and more voluntary sector organisations help beneficiaries coerce government, locally through consumer-style aid and information, at a national level through lobbying and legal action. Some of the US organisations are in hot water over their use of Political Action Committees (PACs) in the last election, but globally, most seem to agree that given their independently-raised funds, charities have every right to participate fully in democracy.

Top of page 

 Free for all - individualist

In a series of “smash and grab” raids, southern NAFTA non-profits have been taking unauthorised liberties with the EU voluntary sector.  Displacing authorised giving in areas such as humanitarian aid, cancer research and environmental relief, these NAFTA nifties are being rooted out by the Continental Revenue and the EU Border Patrol.  It is testimony to the impoverished state of NGO’s globally, that unauthorised NGO’s have targeted the richer European markets for smash and grab fund-raising.  Nevertheless, EU authorities have also had to shut down over 50,000 European NGO’s in the last year for illegal activities in support of their causes.

Within Europe, NGO’s spend at least as much effort fighting their European brethren.  Strongly-defined battle lines exist not just in the long-running abortion versus birth-control or slavery-purchase versus child-labour conflicts, but also in the pharmaceutical-cooperative versus patent-breaking malaria and AIDS conflicts, the children’s rights versus less-than-zero-tolerance conflicts and the legalise versus criminalise drugs conflicts.  The Southern African Control Zone has banned all EU activist, and most relief, organisations since the incident in 2017 when a pitched battle and bombings led to a small-scale war with over 1,800 casualties.  To this day, Swiss NGO staff still have trouble getting clearance because of their military service.

NGO’s have also struggled with middling growth.  While some of the headline causes remain as popular as ever, donors seem to want evidence of smaller NGO’s intention to seek their own superfluity – “we hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources”.  This has driven some NGO’s to renounce all government funding as detracting from the main mission.  Changing society’s commitment to causes through activism is believed to be far more important than the direct alleviation of need.  Voluntary sector groups have witnessed severe schisms between those who will, and those who will not, work with government.  Perhaps the most vivid illustration of these schisms was the cancellation last year of the EUCVO because of the successful “Say No to Government” boycott.

Clearly, some of the middling growth is down to the anti-tax-break movement of 2005.  In a strong bid to catch up with the USA, the EU decided to unite on at least one tax-break area; all NGO tax exemptions were abolished as too arbitrary and unfair.  Despite years of legal wrangling, this abolition has held up in the European courts and has intensified over the years as consumers refuse to deal with charities that take from government – “A Charity is for Life, Not Just a Tax Break”.  There has been some silver lining to the removal of special exemptions.  Commercial regulations and company law requirements reduced some voluntary sector specialisms, removed some arbitrary regulators and opened the sector to probity without special laws.

The removal of exemptions has led to the removal of gloves by charities, with a more aggressive, pro-beneficiary stance.  More and more voluntary sector organisations help beneficiaries coerce government, locally through consumer-style aid and information, at a national level through lobbying and legal action. Some of the US organisations are in hot water over their use of Political Action Committees (PACs) in the last election, but globally, most seem to agree that given their independently-raised funds, charities have every right to participate fully in democracy.