Tag: freedom of speech

“Passive-Aggressive” CFO


One of my former CEO’s contacted me after reading my post on Bill of Rights in Small Business Environment (who knew they would be looking?). He’s been in business for 27 years with many employees passing through. Listening to his opinion on the Freedom of Speech, I came to realize that his point of view might be typical for a lot of business owners and should be shared here.

According to him, employees, including his current CFO, choose not to voice their opinions as a manifestation of a passive-aggressive attitude. In reality, he says, he would not mind listening to what they have to say on variety of business issues.

My first impulse was to laugh. I used to work for this person and, to put it mildly, he is not the friendliest of bosses. My policy, nevertheless, was always to express my judgement on all professional issues. This, I must say, received mixed reaction, depending on whether my opinion was in agreement with his or not. It was fortunate that our commercial views were nearly identical and we rarely had disagreements. However, on those occasions when my opinion differed, what I got back was the cold silent stare that could have discouraged someone less straightforward.

But I didn’t laugh, because I wanted to know more about the reasons he has classified his new CFO as passive-aggressive. So, I asked more questions. Actually, this was not the first time I asked these questions. Over the years more than a few senior execs have used that term to describe some of their employees to me. It always puzzled me how these business people recognized a behavioral (i.e. psychological) trait.

Let me tell you, most of the time, including in case of the CFO in question, it amounts to “sulking.” Instead of speaking out, the employee shows a “bad temper”: he is morose, with disappointment and annoyance written all over his face. In other words, unreleased frustration (my favorite subject), jumps from inside onto his face. And yes, that can be classified as a passive expression of aggression.

Yet, at the same time the CFO still works hard, diligently performing all his duties and making sure that the business continues to survive and prosper. And that’s actually the opposite of passivity.

Sulking on its own is not a sufficient symptom to diagnose someone as passive-aggressive. There are far more significant and damaging, especially in business environment, manifestations: procrastination, obstructionism, chronic tardiness, tendency to blame others for one’s own failures, making excuses for non-performance, deliberate creation of chaotic situations.

If you keep catching your employee shuffling papers on his desk every time you walk by, or even if he appears to be busy but never delivers any results; when a deadline of a project gets pushed further and further back, then you may have a passive-aggressive person in front of you.

However, if the employee does his best, but looks upset, maybe you should just let him exercise his constitutional freedom to speak his mind.

SOPA, PIPA and “CFO Techniques”


GI_98327_CFO TechniquesThe inner conflict many intelligent people experience over Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), is an old problem for me. For many years before the pharmaceutical and media lobbies brought the issue of proprietary rights infringement in the Internet age to Washington DC, I've been torn between two firm believes of mine: (1) that content creators (writers, musicians, artists, designers, etc.) are entitled to get paid whenever their creative products are used for commercial purposes (i.e. to make money), and (2) that the information available on the Internet cannot be restricted by any means.

That's why more than 10 years ago, I thought of Napster as a violator of musicians' rights to financially benefit from their products. It was obvious to me that the whole purpose of the "file-sharing service" was Sean Parker's publicity stunt to show off the Fanning brothers' technological platform with a purpose of selling it and profiting from it (which is exactly what happened).

YouTube, whose owners obviously always intended to capitalize on the advertising, is also at fault when it lets the users to upload copyrighted material without paying the content owners royalty out of their revenues. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with YouTube being a promotional portal for young artists, musicians, filmmakers, and such (including the crazy exhibitionists catering to voyeurs), who upload their own creations knowingly in hopes of receiving the tangible benefits of being noticed.

Of course, the most conflicting entity is Google. On one hand, we cannot exist without their search engine (I am well aware that there are geeky alternatives out there, but let's face it – Google dominates); on the other hand, when it comes to the Internet advertising they are the closest example of a monopoly we've got in our screwed up economy. Moreover, Google attains its riches by using every single one of us, the information-seeking users. Ultimately, it's in their interests to tag counterfeiters and bootleggers, because users are looking for them. And I guess they know that their hands are not exactly clean. Why else would they settle with the Department of Justice to pay $500 million for allowing Canadian Pharmacies' advertisement?

Presently the issue of the online copyright infringement hits very close to home for me. A bunch of unlicensed eBook-hacking sites are offering "CFO Techniques" downloads for free. Neither me nor my publisher is getting a single penny out of this, while the sites' owners get advertising income, revenues on sales of their users' information, and ability to pollute the hapless freeloaders' computers with the spyware invisibly attached to the plug-ins required for viewing the books. They profit unfairly using MY PRODUCT. And that's not fair.

Still, even this wouldn't force me to support the half-assed anti-constitutional laws like SOPA and PIPA. Why? Because if these laws are passed, I could go to jail for offering my readers a clip from "So, I Married an Axe Murderer" within my post about The Best Boss in Cinematic History , even though I derive no material benefits from this blog (none at all). I'd rather people steal my shit than go along with freedom of speech violations in the name of copyrights protection.

Yet, I am all for fighting piracy in an intelligent way that doesn't take our civil liberties away. And the "financial benefit" criteria seems to my CFO mind like a sensible approach. If a site takes any form of payments or generates advertising revenue through deliberate peddling (not just illustrative usage) of unlicensed and unpaid for content, the enablers of payment processing and advertising portals should stop providing their services to this site. This would be not much different than YouTube's actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): they get a notice and remove the violating content.

Money is the key. I always said that the best way to fight terrorism is going after the financial sources. The now supposedly dead Osama Bin Laden without his multimillion wealth would've been just a thug on the street. Facebook without the advertisement revenue would be just a well-designed electronic hangout with no prospects for an IPO (expected in May this year).

Cautionary Tale About Artificial Intelligence Progress


Don't you worry, dear readers, I am not planning on retelling "The Terminator" plot.  As the matter of fact, the two technological developments I want to discuss are related to the CFOs' and Controllers' supervisory responsibilities.  On the surface (!), they seem to serve a good purpose and could be attractive solutions to some of our common problems.

Every exec with subordinates communicating with financial institutions, investors, key vendors and customers, is vulnerable to their emotional whims, diplomatic abilities and verbal skills.  This is especially true with out favorite mode of communication – emails, which remove the recipients' faces and voices thus making the expression of aggression easier.

I have a list of actual stories to be told about relationship damage caused by employees' spiteful writing.  And it is not like I don't employ prevention strategies.   I give training talks.  I impose a sense of supervision by requesting to be copied on all important communications.  I even write Post-Its and stick them on the worst offenders' monitors, "Please re-read ALL your emails three times before sending them out."  Still, once in a while something happens that requires damage control.

Lo and behold!  In NY Times Year in Ideas I read about ToneCheck – "an e-mail outbox filter that works as a sort of emotional spell-check, offers typists a chance to reconsider their words before" sending their missive.  I watch the cute animated video attached and my first reaction is like "Finally!!! Hooray!!!" 

Then I read further and I forget that I am a CFO with unruly subordinates who require monitoring.  I remember that I am a Person and that Freedom of Speech is an important issue for me.  Yeah, it's useful in the office environment, but this dangerous program has a capacity to be tuned to ANY CONTENT.  I imagine it being installed without my knowledge by my ISP and checking my personal emails for "inappropriate" content as defined by… whoever has the power to do so.  How do you feel about it now?

Here is another common problem and even scarier solution for it.  How many times we catch our employees attending to their personal business or even playing online games during working hours?  We wonder about the hours they waste the costs of it.  Frustrated, we think we should like to watch them.  So, here you go Computers That See You and Keep Watch Over You.  This "wonderful" program sees you and analyzes your facial expressions.  And it can be installed on your personal computer without your knowing it. 

You know what?  I don't want these "solutions." Not even in my office.  Let me work harder with my employees on their work attitude, verbal skills and aggression management.  If boycotting these products means that we can keep them away from invading our personal privacy, then be it.  I hope you click on the links, read about it and agree.    

It's like what Benjamin Franklin said,"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The Curse of Private Business: Nepotism


My friend, a fellow career CFO and frequent correspondent, MJZ urges me to write on nepotism. Her acute sensitivity to the subject is understandable: over the years, she's had more than a few encounters with this practice and I intend to use some of those shared with me as examples.

The dictionary gives a definition of nepotism as "the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs." Nowadays, a lot of people confuse nepotism with networking. Let me correct them. Circulating a resume of someone you know because you can attest to their professional achievements is not nepotism, but a favor to those seeking good people to hire. If you do the same for someone who is a poor worker and a nitwit, it's not nepotism either, it's just your own stupidity. Merit is the key.

The people who mistake networking for nepotism also miss an important element of the definition – "those with power." In monarchical states and dictatorships (such as Kim dynasty's North Korea) the passage of power from parents to children is a given. And in my post on The Distortion of the Bill of Rights in closely-held businesses, I have pointed out that these companies are not democracies, but absolute monarchies. Yet many of us, who still crave the illusion of meritocracy, still cringe at the unfairness of the "family" business arrangements.

It's not always that nepotism has a poor impact on business. For example, it would be a great relief for the media world if strangely progressive Lachlan Murdoch, son of Rupert, got a chance to  overhaul his father's empire. His departure from News Corporation has only deepened the company's regress. However, that's a rare exception: 99.99% of nepotism cases are bad both for commerce and morale.

In her early career, MJZ held a Controller position in a manufacturing and distribution company. She was responsible for all accounting, trade finance, and credit functions. As the matter of fact, she was the one who transitioned them from manual into computerized accounting. She was revered by the business owner. But when his daughter with a marketing degree hit the ceiling in her career at now defunct telecom company, MJZ's job went to her. The company went out of business within a year.

At her more recent job, MJZ had to suffer an onslaught of owners' children (all recent college graduates) being appointed as Presidents of the company's subsidiaries. As the conglomerate's CFO, she was forced to educate them, tolerate their shortcomings and listen to her peers and middle managers complaining about the kids' laziness, time in the office they spent on personal matters, and unlimited PTO. These stupid people made a terribly destructive impact on the business.  Yet, MJZ was unable to voice her opinion, because, say it with me, there is no such a thing as Freedom of Speech in a place of one's employment.

Curiously enough, the industry where nepotism is the most prevalent is the one that suffers the most from the lack of fresh talent – the entertainment business. But that's a subject for other posts.

A Canadian Blogger Jailed in Iran


Even though the topic of this AOL News Article Iran's 'Blogfather' Sentenced to Long Prison Term is not related to the topics of CFOs and Controllers' frustrations, it is related to the freedom of expression issues that concern all of us. That is why it should have its place in the spotlight here.

I don't want to diminish the severity of the sentence and the horror of what Mr. Derakhshan is going through in Iran as the result of expressing his thoughts and opinions in cyberspace.  However, essentially everyone who publishes honest and edgy, or even boring and banal, material on internet are exposed to unpredictable consequences. 

In one article, or post, or conversation after another, we are warned that prospective and current employers are searching internet for possible controversial material on you.  So do the political opponents, educational institutions, investors, country clubs, religious congregations, etc, etc. Here is a typical example of such warning provided by the CEO of TheLadders.com Marc Cenedella in his new book "You're Better Than Your Job Search": In a Google World, Prepare to Be Investigated.   Jail sentences in foreign countries are extreme and rare incidents, but we do learn that people get fired, rejected and harassed because they express themselves.

That is the reason so many bloggers are writing under noms de plume.  That is the reason so many people who have something to say don't write at all.  That is the reason I guarantee 100% anonymity to anyone who shares their professional experiences with me. 

And it does not apply just to cyberspace.  One of my future planned posts will address my favorite topic – something I call the Bill of Rights in the Workplace.  There is a reason the new great American masterpiece from Jonathan Franzen is called "Freedom."  Obviously, it is a concern.

And of course, I disagree with Mr. Derakhshan's politics.  Moreover, I am a life-time student of World History and it seems inconceivable to me that any private citizen without diplomatic immunity would actually accept an invitation from any organization sponsored by an authoritarian government.  History is full of actual repatriation incidents that sound like horror stories: China, Russia, etc.

Nevertheless, my disagreement with his ideas, does not mean that I will not support this writer's freedom of expressing them with all my heart.  It's like what Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."