A few interesting stories I have seen in the past few days.

• John Moulton resigns from Alchemy Partners, the private equity group - many in the industry may not have liked that he was so outspoken but I actually think his ability to communicate openly did the industry a great service. Private equity has often been poorly understood for such and many in the wider public had little idea what it did. By having someone speak publicly about it, he humanised a big industry. But then, as a journalist, I suppose I would say that. NB: Do read his remarkably candid letter to investors.
• Ikea Beijing - more as theme park than store - My three-year old nephew loves Ikea. It’s his favourite place to hang out and eat (he loves the meatballs). Apparently, he’s not alone. At the company’s Beijing store, “thousands” go there for “fun” and, on occasion, even to catch a nap in one of the beds on display. (Hat tip: First Drafts, the blog for Prospect magazine)
• How Merkel’s attempt to save Opel went awry - interesting essay on the machinations behind Angela Merkel’s efforts to steer the sale of Opel. A tale of how domestic and international politics and business mix in troubled times - and why things don’t always go according to plan.
• Pedigree, the dog food maker, promotes dog adoption through a children’s book - Ad agency TBWA/London publishes a children’s book encouraging kids to be dog lovers. Aren’t there rules about marketing to children? And surely cute dogs do a better job of wanting kids to have them then a children’s book.
• The Washington Redskins sue a fan who goes bankrupt- Thought the headline was a bit sensationalist, but it is true that loyal sports fans always see themselves as more than mere consumers; they are part of a community which means they see their investment as more than financial (a topic I discussed in ‘Why Communities Matter’ a few weeks ago). In the era when sports is big business, is this a position that can be reconciled with reality? Or is it an illusion clubs are willing to encourage in order to keep fans on side?

A couple of stories on FT.com highlight some of the more difficult aspects of life in a downturn.

Our ongoing series “Trading places: Migration in a crisis” is a fascinating, if slightly depressing look, at how the downturn is affecting migrant workers for a number of different communities across the world: Japenese-Brazilians who are returning to Brazil after years in Japan; Mexican labourers who have lost their jobs in the US and are unable to remit money to their families; migrants in China’s Pearl River Delta who are being offered school places to stay; and for Nigeria, a “brain gain” as emigrants are coming home.

Another story that has been getting a lot of recent attention has been the decision by BT to rethink its graduate recruitment policies by no longer particpating in the annual “milk round” of UK university job fairs (see Stefan’s column in the post below). My colleague Andrew Hill offers the latest take on the debate by assessing the value of trainees (and, as he declares, he too is a former trainee, so he knows what he’s talking about).

I can’t claim to know the answer - is it really knowable? - but there certainly seem to be divergent views on the issue.

New research suggests more women on the board can improve governance but has a negative effect on profitability. In the words of Daniel Ferreira of the London School of Economics, one of the report’s authors: “This is a complicated picture.”

That may well qualify for understatement of the day but a few of recent pieces highlight just how complicated - and current - the issue is.

In today’s Lombard column, Andrew Hill points out that the authors are not coming out against female directors but do “warn that about forcing the issue with quotas, Norwegian-style, and then expecting automatic improvements in performance”.

A few weeks ago, Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, a consultant and co-author of a book called Why Women Mean Business, wrote: “There is a convincing business case for designing organisations that attract and retain women to the top.” Further, she argued, “having a greater proportion of women in decision-making roles improves business performance and profitability”.

A few weeks later, our own Lucy Kellaway, who also happens to be a non-executive director, took a different view, describing the so-called “asset-to-oestrogen” ratio as “total twaddle”.

Who’s right? Comments welcome.

As we continue our strand of military strategy coming back into the boardroom (it wasn’t intentional but we obviously tapped into something in the management air). Our colleagues on the business education beat have picked up on a reverse trend - how retiring military officers are getting commercial business nous from an executive programmes at Manchester Business School.

For those looking for work in these troubled times, there is good and bad news. On the positive side, there are at last “British jobs for British workers” as migrant labour heads home. The bad news? The vacancies include meat packing, sorting potatoes, grating carrots, cleaning, and – the least bad options – working as a retail assistant or in a fast-food restaurant. In Spain, strawberries are being harvested by Spaniards for the first time in years. “Picking strawberries is the last resort, but it’s all there is,” said Jose Maria Gomez, a 29-year-old former construction worker, in The New York Times last month.

As one employment agency manager told this newspaper recently, a new type of job-seeker has emerged. “It’s what I’d call older, middle-aged people who have been in work for 10, 15, 20 years in one place,” she explained, “and now with the climate as it is, they are made redundant and are willing to take on anything. It is heartbreaking.” It is sad seeing highly skilled people being forced to take on semi or unskilled jobs. But while such work may be back-breaking, is it really “heartbreaking” as well? Having a good job – that is, interesting work in civilised conditions – is clearly preferable to having a bad one. But better a miserable job than no job at all.

So with unemployment rising just about everywhere, it might seem an odd time to start a debate on “good work”: what it is and to how create more of it. That is what the Smith Institute, a London think-tank, has done, launching a pamphlet* on the subject at a seminar last week.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.

In the workplace, green issues used to be the preserve of activists. Now they are drawing in careerists too.

By factoring sustainability into their day-to-day decision making, managers can gain plaudits from their bosses. Reducing waste, for instance, is a great way to cut costs in a recession. Many companies are also looking to profit from green-tinged government spending plans.

In a new FT Management podcast, Andrew Shapiro of GreenOrder, a sustainability consultancy that helped GE craft its ‘Ecomagination’ strategy, explains why middle managers can profit from a policy of enlightened self-interest when it comes to the environment.

You can listen through the FT’s podcast player or through iTunes.

Harvard Business School runs a week-long course that helps mothers return to paid employment after taking time out to look after a child or children. It’s called ‘A New Path: Setting New Professional Directions’ and costs $5,000.

On behalf of those mothers whose budgets won’t stretch that far, I asked Professor Tim Butler, the course leader, for some free advice in a new FT Management podcast.

Declaring that active parenting is “project management with a capital P and a capital M”, Prof Butler nonetheless suggests that it can be useful for stay-at-home mothers to do voluntary work in order to keep their CV or resumé relevant.

Among other pieces of advice: keep networking. Yes, that’s easier said than done given the time constraints faced by full-time parents, but it can make professional re-entry a lot less daunting.

You can listen to our conversation through the FT’s podcast player, through iTunes or by just clicking this direct link to the MP3 audio file.

Today I have conducted a fascinating experiment. London is covered in up to a foot of snow. Buses have stopped running. The underground train system has been disrupted. Since my physical presence was not really required in the office, I have worked from home.

Here are my findings. On the plus side:

You don’t have to shave.
You can wear unbelievably awful clothes (bad even by the standards colleagues have come to expect from me).
You can have lunch with your spouse and children.

On the negative side:

You are constantly available “just for a minute” to help out on household chores, childcare etc.
You have to suspend office brusqueness and engage other people in civilised conversation.
You can daydream and delay without the shame of getting caught doing it.

Conclusion: Working from home? Not always quite what it is cracked up to be.