Category: Movies, Entertainment & Media

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"?


Quote of the Day (House M.D.)


Images-1 Wilson to House:

" You don't like yourself, but you admire yourself.  That's all you got, so you cling to it.  Being miserable doesn't make you special, it just makes you miserable."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


“The King’s Speech” Illustrates The Frustrated CFO’s (and Mark Twain’s) Point


11154473_detThose who have been reading this blog since its start, hopefully remember this early post about my personal tools of frustration release.  The first method on the list advised to go into an isolated place and let your frustration out with the worst curses you know.

More recently, I posted this Quote from Mark Twain,  emphasizing the same notion.  The great writer, who found humor even in the rumors about his death, also found solace in profanity.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, everyone recognizes the power of cursing.   We use it far more frequently as an expression of physical pain, anguish, anger, and frustration, than as a deriding instrument.  People curse at themselves, at their lives' circumstances, at the damned table corner always in the way.  Most of the time they do it when they are completely alone and nobody can hear them.  They do it because it is an intuitive tension-release mechanism.

Case in point – Oscar-nominated The King's Speech, based on a true story.  Prince Albert (always fantastic Colin Firth), had a speech impediment caused by multiple childhood psychological traumas.  Because of his position, the future King George VI was in the public view and, through the popularization of the radio, in the public ear – stammering and all.  It made him an object of ridicule even before the abdication of his older brother David pushed him into the throne of British Empire.  

For many years he sought help of different doctors and linguistic practitioners.  Finally, he meets Lionel Logue (even more fantastic Geoffrey Rush).  This unorthodox, way-ahead-of-his-time speech therapist worked with post-traumatic WWI veterans and understood that acquired defects are psychological in their roots and have to do with fear and tension. 

Mr. Logue takes on the Royal patient.   His methods are designed to remove the stress that causes his charge to stumble over the words.  He has a lot of tricks up his sleeve: breathing, exercising, singing and, of course, cursing are all used as means of frustration release.  The movie wonderfully shows how the speech center in His Majesty's brain has much easier time dealing with difficult sentences after the fear rides out on those few "dirty" words.   Thus, it illustrates my point that if you find yourself chocking with anxiety, profanity helps.

Sadly and ridiculously those few oaths caused the movie to be rated R.   I mean, 13-year-olds, can hear more curse words on their way to school.  Now, the entertainment media talks about the Weinstein brothers deciding to cut those therapeutic outbursts out in order to "re-introduce" The Kings Speech with PG-13 rating.  I have no clue why they want to do that.  The movie has already grossed nearly 900% of its budget.  Some people say that it will not take anything away from the story, but I strongly disagree.  It is an integral part of keeping yourself functional in this stressful life – for a king, a writer, or a CFO.

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!