Category: CFO Folklore

“We Are Good Bosses,” Says One Boss to Another


Screaming BossSo, that's how these people manage to live with their own shitty selves!  They walk around with a clear conscience; with no doubt in their souls about their actions.  They don't think about the injustices and the insults of different caliber they spread around with every step they take.  They don't even qualify them as injusticies and insults.  Instead, they pat each other on the backs and tell themselves that they are good bosses!  Their self-delusion probably goes even further: I am terrified to think about it, but they might have convinced themselves that they are good people.  Honestly, the idea of these people going through their lives thinking that they are saints makes my skin itch on the inside.  

To tell you the truth, I prefer honest assholes, like the ones whose primary traits are itemized in the list provided by the Time's article attached on the bottom of this post.  They are at least somewhat conscious of their attitudes and  justify their behavior with the "business necessity."  You know: A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do – that sort of thing.  I also think that self-aware bastards are less casual with their cruelty.  Unless they are real sadists, they apply it knowingly and, therefore, sparingly.  

The conversation quoted in the title is not an allegory: I actually had the misfortune of witnessing it.  I had to summon all my will power not to burst out laughing at these jerks.  I've had pangs of suspicion that many business owners felt good about themselves, but this was the first time one of them actually voiced such self-deception in my presence.  Why was it so bitterly funny?  Because, the statement was prompted by their finally adapting a pension plan they promised their employees two years ago. 

These are employers who pick favorites and treat them with an obvious preference, while discriminating against others.  They forget to disclose new commercial initiatives, thus forcing everyone to run against time in order to turn their ideas into business realities.  They will not hesitate to make a "good-natured" joke at an employee's expense or brazenly comment on someone's deficiency.  The list can go on, and on, and on, and on…  What can I say?  Swell guys! 

But let's see.  What are (in my opinion) the attributes of a really Good Boss???

1.  Fairness and objectivity; no bullshit like, "I don't like that bitch's personality, so I don't care if she's going to leave, even if it'll hurt my company."

2.  Dedication to a merit-based system of rewards comprised of both tangible and moral incentives.

3.  Intelligence and business acumen that perpetuates the company's success and keeps employees gratified that they don't work for an incompetent idiot.

4.  High performance standards applied equally to everyone – first and foremost to his/her own work.

5.  Capacity to fully comprehend the abilities and  values of their direct reports.

6.  Sufficient organizational savvy to match subordinates' abilities with functional tasks.

7.  Acceptance of personal responsibility as a job-creator and human-resources leader.

8.  Strong emphasis on the development of employees' know-how and professional growth.

9.  Balanced combination of delegation and efficient supervision; none of that hands-off micromanagement crap I write so much about.

10.  An actual effort to understand people working for the company.

11.  Sufficient tact and self-confidence (!) to prevent casual personal insults, usually resulting from deeply seated insecurity.

12.  And this one is just for me: For once in my life I would like to work for someone with a good memory, because I'm fucking fed up with their forgetting time after time the stuff I say, write, and report to them.   

So, my dear business owners and other chiefs, try to test your performance against the criteria above and see how you do.  None of the "good bosses" I know would score enough for a "D" grade.

Related articles

9 Core Beliefs of Truly Horrible Bosses

CFO Folklore: Mortal Kombat – CEO vs. Outlook, FIGHT!


MK 3I am the biggest advocate of an entrepreneurial CEO's freedom from any administrative, technological, and infrastructural minutiae.  They must not busy themselves with making their own reports or calculations in Excel, devising organizational routines, catering to bankers' demands, nurturing relationships with customers, etc.  They have functional executives and senior management for that – CFOs, COOs, CIOs, Controllers, Sales VPs, etc. 

An effectual CEO should be focused almost exclusively on the strategic development of the business and the tactical decisions pertaining to the company's survival and prosperity.  Therefore, he may be, but  doesn't need to be an Excel pro, an IT geek (unless, of course, that's the business), a bullshitting ace, or a financing maverick.  He must be a visionary – that's all.  I stated my position on this issue multiple times and dedicated an entire post to the defense of CEO's limited scope of responsibilities.  I even wrote about it in CFO Techniques.      

I have to say, though, when it comes to technology, for most CEOs outside of the high-tech industry, it's not even the result of division of labor -there's some sort of a pervasive impairment.  Most business owners I know personally or have heard about from other people are not very technologically advanced, to put it mildly. 

There are CEOs who call for help every time they need to insert a column in a table; are incapable of  logging onto a network; and wouldn't touch scanners even if they stand right on their desks.  And that's Ok.  As I said, they don't have to trouble their valuable heads with these things as long as they attend to their primary job and manage to be brilliant at it. 

However, we do live in the second decade of the 21st century and some level of sophistication in the ways of contemporary communication is simply required.  It has nothing to do with being a small business owner, a big-time CEO, or The President.  This is one area of technological advancement, where everyone at a certain point had to overcome their innate resistance to novelties and get on with the program.  Radio, telegraph, telephone, video transmission, cellular connection, etc. – they have simply become mundane tools of every-day existence.   

Nowadays, using electronics as a means of organizing your life and exchanging information is as elementary as turning the pages of an old-fashioned desktop calendar.  And if you don't know how to do it, it makes you look silly and inadequate; it's simply unbecoming for a business leader. 

I currently have a client who comes to the office on Saturdays and Sundays because he cannot follow instructions on how to access his business emails remotely or push them through his iPhone.  His partners, employees, and commercial associates laugh about it behind his back.  It's likely that these inadequacies have an impact on their overall attitudes towards this business owner.

But I am particularly annoyed with those CEOs who are not able to utilize Outlook beyond the most primitive actions of receiving and sending emails.  I mean, for businesses operating in the PC environment, the program has become one of the most vital cross-functional tools since 1997!

I am currently exposed to one of these.  At this point I've already resigned myself to the sad fact that she will never learn how to accept or reject meeting invitations.  I wouldn't even dream of her creating one herself.  She will never get rid of her humongous appointment book, which, due to its instrumental limitations, is incapable of reminding her of important events or tasks at hand.  However, emails are her life, she lives and breathes them.  Wouldn't she treat them with proper care?  Guess again.

The other day she comes over to my office and asks if I still have "that email about…" (the subject matter is irrelevant).  Of course, I do.  She is standing right next to me looking at my screen, prepared to read the email with me when I find it.  I switch to Outlook, which is opened, as always, on the Inbox.  There are maybe 10 emails there, which arrived in the last 30 minutes.  "Where are all the emails?!" she is utterly surprised, "I keep all important emails.  I've got hundreds of them."  "So do I," I reply, "But not in the Inbox, of course."  I slide to my Navigation Pane, go straight to one of my 30 subject folders.

She is not stupid and she is a pretty good CEO.  She understands the importance of time-saving tools.  But she is too proud.  She will not ask me or any of her employees how to do it.  And so, she continues searching through hundreds of messages in her Inbox.             

2013 Audit Season: Joke #4


Inventory CountI remember a few years ago, during a business lunch, somebody was recapping an episode from one of the numerous crime series all networks are running to compete against each other.  My head was preoccupied with the business purpose of the meeting, nevertheless I do recall that the murder plot turned on a discovery that one of the characters, a compulsive gambler, bet his classy wife's sexual favors in poker and lost.  FBI questioned if the payoff actually took place.  Of course, it did: the real gamblers are "men of honor."  When asked how the pimped out wife handled it, the winner said, "She was willing, but not happy."  I bet this is the best line the screenwriter who churns out this pedestrian crap has ever written! 

Willing, but not happy…  The state of mind applicable to so many situations.  This is exactly how all corporate accountants feel about financial audits, lenders' exams, investors' due diligence, etc.  Commercial and fiscal needs of our employers throw us at mercy of the outsiders: we are forced to carve out time from our main responsibilities and open ourselves up to various poking, probing, and testing.  Oh, we totally understand the importance and the unavoidable necessity of it.  Frequently,  it's our own search for new financing resources that culminates in these proceedings.  Yes, we are totally willing, but we are not happy to go through with it.

I devoted two whole chapters (29 and 30) of CFO Techniques to advising readers on how to deal with auditors, keep yourself focused on the ultimate benefits for the company, and minimize the pains of distraction and intrusion.  It helps to remind yourself that your company needs it more than the one that sends people to conduct the examinations.

And I have to say, most of these specialists of prodding are well aware of the invasive nature of their jobs.  They understand that a financial executive abides by their standards and accommodates all their requirements, because he wants good results, and that this puts a CFO or a Controller into a subservient position. Many auditors are very apologetic for the endless interruptions, inquiries, requests, follow-ups, etc.

Of course, there are always exceptions…

For the CFO with exposure to international measurement systems from this season's joke #2, the last stage of the bank's field exam included physical inventory counts at three locations specifically selected by the bank.  This is habitually done by auditors and examiners in order to (a) establish the presence of various inventories and (b) verify the accuracy of the subject's records.  Obviously, nobody at the audited company has any impact on the choices of locations, timing, or people sent to perform the task.  In fact, the CFO, who every year faces a financial audit and three bank exams, never knows who the hell the counters (usually junior auditors) are. 

This time was bound to be different.  One of the locations the bank selected was the company's storage in Savannah, GA.  A day before the scheduled visit the CFO gets a phone call.  An agitated young man in the receiver tells her that he is from the bank's Jacksonville office and that, according to Google Maps, the drive is 2 hours and 40 minutes each way.  "And it's Friday!  This is outrageous," he says.

The CFO was perplexed: anyone who had dealt with these matters even for one month would know that she had nothing to do with the rookie's plight; that, if it was up to her, she would much rather avoid the scrutiny.  Considering her executive position and professional status, she could've just hung up on this wimp.  But she is the one with a sense of humor, remember?  So, she asked the boy, "Well, what would you like me to do?  Move the inventory to Jacksonville, or cancel your visit?"

"Could you, please, cancel it?" was a hopeful answer.     

2013 Audit Season: Joke #3


Cartoon-Confusion-Question-Mark-300x300A bank's field examiner (read my previous
joke if you don't know who that is) comes to review books and records of a company in the NYC's Financial District.

The company leases space in one of those pre-furnished/pre-wired office suites setups with reception services, heavy-duty business equipment, and highly presentable conference rooms shared by various renters.

(Educational  Side Note:
It's a very profitable business. I believe Regus, headquartered in Luxembourg,
is the largest player in the world. Started only in 1989, today it has presence
in 99 countries, operating over 1400 centers. During my career I have dealt with Regus in Amsterdam, London, Moscow, Frankfurt, and New York.)

Those who have never been in such places don't realize that owners try very hard to maximize the rentable footage and fit into the space as many offices as they can without violating occupancy regulations. There could be, like, 120 companies, some of them consisting of a single employee, on one floor. And, therefore, during business hours it never feels empty or quiet. People are coming, going, walking by. The noise level is much higher than in a conventional business space: at any given moment one can hear at least three phone conversations and virtually participate in two neighboring meetings – one with a real estate attorney and another with an advertisement outfit specializing in cosmetics. It's pretty much your garden-variety beehive that sometimes gives an impression of being even more populous than it actually is.

One of the specific aspects of the office suites is the absence of companies' signs and name plaques – just the numbers on the doors. Yet, if you give the name of the company you are visiting to the doormen, they will direct you to the right floor. There, receptionists will not act surprise when you ask for a particular person and will call him or her up right away. (I mean, there is a reason why these businesses are doing
well.)

This is how the field examiner found her way to the company's CFO, with whom she was in contact after the assignment was scheduled.  The auditor was set up in a separate room next to the CFO's office.  Most of the electronic communications and data exchanges transpired between the two of them.  The supporting documentation was provided by the CFO's staff.  But in the hallways, reception areas,  at the coffee station in the kitchen, through the open doors of multiple offices – everywhere the visiting woman saw, to put it mildly, quite a few people.

Please keep in mind, this is a little story about a person of numbers. Moreover, one of the key requirements of qualified auditors is their ability to gage the validity of the data in front of them. The examiners cannot possibly look at every recorded transaction – they make representative selections for documentary proofs; they construct trends; they look at schedules and statements; and they must apply analytical scrutiny and critical thinking to every number to make sure that it makes sense in the context of the examination's scope.

For example, it is expected of an auditor, who already studied a company's Profit & Loss statement, to understand the physical reality of annual rent expense of $85,000 (especially in NYC's Financial District) and annual payroll of $1 million. Call me crazy,
but I don't think one needs to have a business degree and a CPA to interpret these numbers. I mean, any logical person can effortlessly come to the correct conclusion, right?  One can only hope.

The field work was going very smoothly; the company's finance and accounting staff was well prepared and accommodating; the books were clean and the paper trail was flawlessly coherent. Yet, at the very end, when the auditor was reviewing prior exams'
statistical questionnaires to see if anything required an update, all of a sudden she hit a stumbling block…

She walks over to the CFO with the papers in her hand, looking genuinely puzzled. She points out to a section in the questionnaire, "It says here that the total number of
employees is 10." Now, it's CFO's turn to be baffled as she doesn't understand
why this is so surprising, "Yes, that's correct. Ten total."

The field examiner looks into the CFO's face, still confused, "But I thought this whole floor was you…"

2013 Audit Season: Joke #2


StimpyA lender's field examiner is sent to conduct a periodic review of a borrower's books and records. 

These exercises are regular occurrences in, what I call, the balance sheet financing: a company pledges its assets, receivables and inventories foremost, against a line of credit.  It's only natural that the financial institutions want to make sure, from time to time, that the collateral securing the loans, letters of credits, bank guarantees, etc. actually exists and is properly valued. 

The banks used to be somewhat lax about it and satisfied themselves with quarterly internal financial statements and annual audit reports.  Most of them would ask a client to undergo a field exam (it's always at the client's expense, by the way) only when the issue of a credit line's increase came up.  However, the neverending tittering on the verge between recession and depression has changed things.  The banks got burned by failing companies and defaulted mortgages.  Those that couldn't recover their losses got acquired for peanuts.  The remaining institutions got smarter and stricter.  Nowadays, many lenders demand 2-3 field exams a year.  

Most of these engagements are outsourced to specialized accounting firms, the rest are conducted by the banks' auditing departments.  Either way, the examiners are constantly rotated – every time it's a new team, which is very prudent as far as the auditing standards go, but a pain in the ass for CFO's and Controllers of the companies being reviewed: you feel like a fucking parrot, delivering a summary of the company's business, its operating processes, and accounting procedures over and over again.

Many companies with significant receivables and inventories to pledge against credit lines of $10 million and up are, obviously, international businesses.  The commercial globalization affects both the procurement of resources and the distribution of products.  The ancient golden rule of market success still holds true: people try to buy where the prices are the lowest and sell where the prices are the highest.    

Now, let me remind you, boys and girls, that the United States of America is a solitary customary-measurement island in the global ocean of the metric system.  (Of course, it will cost billions to convert the entire American existence into the world-wide standard. Yet, I always thought that this clinging to the 18th century  units is primarily a manifestation of our country's fundamentally puritan conservatism.  But that's another joke altogether). 

So, back to our examiner.  On the second day of the assignment she comes to her designated point person – the borrower's CFO (the best practice to avoid someone saying something stupid, especially a CEO, is to restrict auditors' access to one person) and shows her an item on the inventory breakdown.  "It says here that the cost is $1.05 per pound, but the supplier's invoice states $2,315 per em tee," she says, actually spelling the stated weight unit – mt.

Reportedly, at this moment the CFO felt like making a joke: "…You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?/They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?/No, they got the metric system there, they wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is." 

But looking at the shellac-stiff blond hairdo of this Western PA resident, she changed her mind.  The examiner looked utterly perplexed.  So, instead, the CFO said, "This product is distributed here, in the States, and we keep the inventory records in pounds to match the sales units. However, it was purchased in Korea, so all of the supplier's documentation is in the metric system.  'MT' stands for 'metric ton,' which contains 2,204.62 pounds.  So, if you divide the cost of one metric ton ($2,315) by 2,204.62, you will successfully convert it into the cost per pound ($1.05)."  She writes everything down as she speaks, so that she doesn't have to repeat it again; at least not to this woman. 

The examiner is extremely relieved and very grateful for the little lesson.  The CFO (obviously in humorous mood that day) says, "Wait until you get to our liquid products.  They are bought in metric tons, stored in gallons, and sold in pounds."  "Oh, my God," the auditor looks mortified. 

This is not an isolated anecdote.  It's remarkable how frequently this happens.  I personally never met an auditor who didn't require a tutorial on US vs. metric units conversion.  I'm used to the appalling ignorance. The question is: why is it Ok to come with your tail between your legs and your tongue out, asking these stupid questions?  Haven't these people ever heard about Google?