Category: Bosses

Trying to Impress by Talking Too Much? Ur Doin It Wrong.


Images-1 Life screws with people: neglectful parents, inconsiderate spouses and partners, selfish children, boorish bosses, and disdainful co-workers create scores and scores of attention-deprived people desperately seeking approval.  Most frequent manifestation of this subconscious desire is excessive, out-of-place talking – lengthy stories with self-boosting subtext. 

This type of behavior is usually classified as social awkwardness.  I don't know a single person capable of keeping a grip on himself under any circumstances.  Once in a while certain conditions come together and something activates the stupid switch even in the most brilliant people.  I've seen some pretty impressive humans falling into this mode during lectures, important meetings, fundrasing parties, and social gatherings. 

During 2010 New York's World Science Fair, I attended a panel Consciousness: Explored and Explained with the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation) and the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi.  It was monitored by the actor and director Alan Alda (better known as Hawkeye Pierce of M*A*S*H) – a fairly smart guy who got close to popular science by hosting PBS's Scientific American Frontiers.  One concept that Giulio Tononi has described was too much for Mr. Alda to grasp.  He restated the scientist's words once, was corrected, then again, and again.  Finally, he realized that he wasn't getting it, but he couldn't help himself – he kept talking, and talking, and talking…  

Hey, sometimes I catch myself doing it and thinking, "What's going on?  Why am I relating my interpretation of A Streetcar Named Desire to this uninterested person?" But only very self-aware people are capable to recognize the symptoms and stop themselves.

Consequently, the degree of this affliction widely varies.  In some people it gets triggered by a selected audience (sometimes even one particular individual), or specific circumstances.  I had a sort of a paralyzing effect on my boss of two years ago.  He would be acting his aloof self around everybody else, but every time he would come to my office, he ended up ranting.  Eventually, I became wary of starting even super-important discussions with him.  It was always, "Let me tell you,.." and we would be off on an absolutely irrelevant tangent.  At one point he was telling me that he shares a surfing coach in East Hampton with Gwenyth Paltrow and Chris Martin.  I kept thinking to myself, "I am not impressed, dammit!"         

In many people this trait blows up to extreme proportions: people simply cannot stop themselves.  They don't need any special circumstances or triggers – they grab every chance they get to talk, even if they have nothing to say.  In public these people are usually extroverted, talking non-stop.   The overwhelming popularity of Facebook and Twitter is the testimony to the pandemic proportions of verbal diarrhea.

In social situations you can simply walk away, or turn your phone off to stop seeing three tweets per minute.  However, you cannot do the same at work.  You have to deal with it one way or another.  Ok, so not everyone can find the right way to tell their bosses to shut up.  And my advice – don't do it.  Even if it seems that you've done it in the mildest way possible, they never forget it.  And, as we all know, no one can hold the grudge as long as bosses do.  On the other hand, when it comes to your peers or subordinates, the issue must be addressed if it interferes (and it does) with the normal course of a meeting, an assignment, or a working day.

The best way to approach it is with a friendly private talk.  Most likely the person is not aware that what he is doing is an obvious display of insecurity, and that people recognize it as such.  Explain to the person that he achieves the exactly opposite results: while trying to impress and seeking approval, he gets co-workers and supervisors annoyed.  To earn this person's trust, you can share your own experience in similar situations (just like I did here).  Most importantly, tell them that the best way to make a difference and get appreciated is by doing the best job they can. 

CFO Folklore: The Home Front


Images-1 I touch on the gender inequality among financial execs once in a while – an obligatory topic for a female CFO/author/blogger.  I mean, everyone writes about it.  Entire institutions and organizations compile sociological studies dealing with these issues.  None of it seems to be creating any changing momentum, but hey, at least someone is willing to pay the researchers their salaries. 

The interesting thing, though, that most of the time these topics (including my earlier posts) deal with the social, rather than practical, aspects of the phenomenon.  People talk about advancement rates, compensation levels, female-to-male executives proportions, etc.  In a very scientific way, we say: all things being equal (education, achievements, intelligence, etc.), women still don't get a fair shake.   And nobody talks about the fact that, on a practical level, things are never equal between men and women, who strive for, or already achieved, top job positions.

First of all, women by nature are more conscientious and responsible than men.  That is why we have higher percentage of female straight "A" students both in high schools and colleges (yet, there are more male valedictorians!).  Secondly, women know only too well that they are at disadvantage due to the simple fact that they are not men.  That makes them work ten times harder than any man in their position would.  So, in truth they get rewarded at lower rates not for the equally good work, but for the job done much better.

But the biggest practical inequality occurs on the executive's home front.  I remember having a friendly airplane conversation with my CEO, on our way to a meeting in Germany.  At one point he said that I was the hardest working person he knew besides him – he honestly believed that he worked as hard as I did.  Of course, he was talking about the job itself.  Well, I thought that even at that I worked much harder (I did not take Friday's off during summers), but I chose to turn to more obvious facts of life.

I asked, " Who prepares your suit, shirt and tie for tomorrow every evening?"  "My wife," he said.  "We frequently work until 9 or 10 pm, is the dinner ready, when you come home?" "Yes."  "Who writes checks?  Who deals with repairmen?  Who talks to teachers?  Who buys groceries? Who takes kids to the doctors'?"  "The wife" was the answer to all the questions.  "Now, who do you think does all that in my home?"  

He knew the answer, of course.  So, every day I was working my executive job, let's say, just as hard as he did, plus his wife's job.  And that's true for most of female CFOs, whether married or single, with or without children. 

Look, how many unmarried male CFOs or Controllers you know?  I don't know any.  Even if their wives leave them, they get remarried very quickly – someone needs to take care of the home front.

On the other hand, a woman expected either to give up her personal life for the career, or hide it away, as if she does not have any.  It is especially true for those female executives who work in small and midsize companies – the salaries are not large enough to afford a Mr. Mom of a husband.  So, we are talking inequality cubed: the majority of women work harder, plus cover the home front (or give up life outside of the job), and still get paid and promoted on a much smaller scale. 

Here is the funny part.  At the end my boss asked, "How come you still read more than I do and go to the theater all the time?"  "Because I don't sleep," I answered.

Is Rupert Murdoch Really Responsible?


ImagesI get CNN's Breaking News emails.  I got one last week during Rupert Murdoch's questioning by the British Parliament's committee regarding the phone-hacking scandal that stems from News of the World and threatens to overtake the entire News Corp.  The email was dedicated specifically to his statement that he did not consider himself "ultimately responsible for the fiasco," and that these were misdeeds of the people he trusted.  In other words, he is blameless because he did not give direct orders and it was all his employees' fault.

Indeed, unlike Bernie Madoff he did not personally masterminded to rip off thousands of people; he did not instruct anyone to tap private phones and  bribe police officials.  For all we know he had no clue who poor Milly Dowler was until inquiries began.  News Corporation holdings include over 100 newspapers, magazines and TV stations.  He cannot possibly keep track of every single report they publish. 

He could not recognize (or so he says) most of the names of people working for him.  Also not surprising – News Corporation employs over 51,000 people worldwide.  We cannot expect him to know every single one of them.  I myself always argue that the Boss should deal only with the uppermost echelon of management. 

Yet, he does know Rebekah Brooks very well.  She's been making his scandalous rags Sun and News of the World profitable for nearly half of her life, climbing up the ranks with his personal support.  She knew how to deliver what was needed and he liked it.  In 1994, at 26, she hired techies to secretly wire the entire hotel suite for the interview with Princess Diana's beau.  And that was just a start.  Everything she did was ruthless, unsavory and amoral and Rupert Murdoch was promoting her for it. 

I wonder what kind of conversations this boss and this top exec had? 

RM: "Great job, great job, just watch yourself, don't get caught." 

RB: "I do what I can to please you, sir.  And don't worry – everything is under control, I hold them all by their balls."

RM: "That's my girl! Here's £3.5 million bonus.  Just don't tell anyone."

And that's makes him personally responsible.  He knowingly hand-picked this woman to be one of his top executives.  Journalism has seized to be an honorable profession long time ago, but Ms. Brooks' tactics go beyond levels of immorality we've learned to accept.  What kind of organizational environment he expected her to cultivate?  He knew exactly what he was doing, and I hope the British law enforcement will see it that way as well.

The reason this case is a good topic of discussion here is that business owners frequently display deliberate negligence in their executive staffing and still don't feel responsible for their employees actions. 

I know a national law firm specializing in consumer debt collections.  Most of the cases come in a wholesale form: debt-owners, such as credit card issuers and mortgage companies, outsource collection of delinquent balances to such attorneys.  This is very different from the regular law work when a counselor is face-to-face with his client.  This is bulk work – individual attorneys never meet the plaintiffs.  And that gives the principal partner the freedom to save on the quality of attorneys he hires.  He gets them straight out of fourth-tier law schools for salaries of office workers, he does not train them, he throws them into regional offices and lets them "swim or sink."  Meanwhile, thousands of cases get no attention and pass the statute of limitation.

There is no question in my mind that this is a violation of fiduciary duty to the firm's clients.  So, did Rupert Murdoch violated his fiduciary duties to the public by keeping Rebekah Brooks and letting her to do "her thing"?


The Frustrated CFO Takes Lessons from Robert McKee


Images-1 Human beings are like sponges – the second we are born we start acquiring general knowledge of things from everything around us.  It is a natural process. 

When it comes to intellectual knowledge, however, we tend to make our own choices.  Some people read Pynchon, others prefer Sports Illustrated.  Some go to see Black Swan, while others would never miss a new Transformers installment. 

It gets even more selective for specialized knowledge -  higher education, professional publications, technical books, etc.  Even with the subjects of human psychology, relationships, our understanding of the world around us (all frequently featured in The Frustrated CFO's posts), people are more likely to go for books written by "specialists." 

But the truth is that the nature of human interactions and the principles of emotional response to life do not change from industry to industry and from trade to trade. They are universal and I have learned long time ago that the knowledge of things pertaining to human experience can come to us from anywhere.  There is a reason I frequently present my topics by referring to books, TV programs and movies – the best examples of these art forms pursue the truth of life; that is why we can relate.

Those who have seen Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman's "Adaptation" may remember the screenwriting guru character played by Brian Cox.  Well, he is a real person – one of the best theoretician's of creative writing in the world Robert McKee.  After several decades of writing for theater and television, Mr. McKee found his true calling in formulating a set of fundamental principles for compelling storytelling, which became the framework of his world-touring STORY seminar.   He also compiled them into a bestselling book by the same name.

I happened to know a young screenwriter who attended McKee's seminar twice and described it as a life-changing experience – not just as a writer, but as a human being.  You see, Robert McKee teaches how movies should be written so that they penetrate straight into the audience's soul.  So, inevitably he touches on the subjects that reach far beyond cinematic matters.  That, together with the fact that his films recommendation list pretty much matches my own roster of favorites, persuaded me to buy his STORY book.

What can I tell you?  This is a very brilliant man.  Anyone who loves movies should read this book…  And everyone who considers himself a student of human nature should read this book.  It is impossible to convey all the wisdom Robert McKee generously shares, but his study of "the principle of antagonism" is particularly invaluable.  

He goes beyond the conventional knowledge that antagonistic conflicts are at the basis of existence (and a story, of course).  He concludes that there are three primary antagonistic forces for any positive value, progressing from contrary to contradictory to "the Negation of the Negation," which, unlike in math where two negatives make a positive, is "a force of antagonism that's doubly negative."  

He further constructs illustrative charts for such values as love, truth, consciousness, wealth, communication, success, bravery, loyalty,  justice, wisdom, and freedom.  I find the last three absolutely universal and applicable to many conflicts we encounter both in our professional and personal lives.  They are reproduced below.  It's mesmerizing: you look at them and it's like a reel of your life's events, fitting perfectly into these diagrams, unspools in front of your eyes.

McKee


CFO Folklore: When Your Boss’s Secretary Becomes His Girlfriend


Here is a sensitive and complex topic – it involves people's personal lives and therefore should not be anybody else's business.  Yet it affects our work environment and impacts employees morale.  Always!  There are no exceptions.  

It is not a rare occurrence either.  In the past I had a boss who was seduced by his secretary and ended up leaving his family.  In another company I had to fire a general manger to avoid a possibility of sexual harassment law suit, while the company's owner was on his second marriage to a woman who was his former secretary.  And the list of stories I've heard from my colleagues, associates, subordinates and just friends is endless.

The nature of the boss/secretary professional relationship by itself has a somewhat intimate connotation.   They are near each other in the office space.  All day long the secretary attends to the boss's needs, frequently takes care of his personal matters, stays by his side when he works late.  Add to that the fact that most secretaries nowadays are younger women, as the class of "career personal assistant" is disappearing.   Plus, there is the appeal of power and a possibility of material benefits.  All this together creates an undeniably fruitful environment for trysts.  Hell, we have wonderful independent movies about it.



      

Unfortunately, it is not as much fun when you actually have to work with this in your face.

I frequently repeat in these posts that private businesses are absolute monarchies.  Historically, every single Royal figure had his or hers favorite,  i.e. an "intimate companion of a ruler," or, as OED defines it "one who stands unduly high in the favour of a prince."  The contemporary "rulers" are just upholding this "fine" historical tradition.

The key here is the unduly power bestowed on the favorite.  Again, I don't care about people's personal lives.  I really don't!  Moreover, if favorites were working ten times harder and their attitudes were twenty times nicer, I would consider that an improvement. 

However, that is not what usually happens.  In reality boss's secretarial lover stops working altogether.  I witnessed a hiring of an "assistant to personal assistant" to patch the hole in the workflow.  They become arrogant and acquire nasty disposition towards other people in the office.  Frequently they get promoted to managerial jobs they are not qualified to perform with salaries they didn't deserve.

In a small business, even with 500 employees, that's hard to hide.  Well, as a CFO or a Controller, you have your own powers and you don't really need to bother yourself with this unless she starts infringing on your scope of command (sadly, that happens too).  And yet your position exposes you to the unfairness of the situation in the most explicit way: you are the one who has to sign off her 50% raise; you are the one who has to approve her 12 weeks a year vacation time; those are your direct reports that get mistreated by her.  

Talking about terrible frustration!