Category: Movies, Entertainment & Media

Objectivism, Part 1: Maureen Dowd on Ayn Rand


It does not happen very frequently that you encounter mentioning of Ayn Rand and objectivism twice during your weekend reading of periodicals.  Even though the ideas and ideals of the diminutive woman, who produced such monumental works as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged seem to be getting renewed attention in the last six years or so, they usually call for multi-page discussions.

Ah, but the first reference came from the master of economic writing – The New York Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd in her Atlas Without Angelina piece.

I am a big fan of Maureen Dowd's journalism.  Her subtle sarcasm and amused curiosity mixed with political seriousness and broad intellectualism appeal to me in such a way that, when I read her column, it seems that I chat to a like-minded friend. As someone who has been in pursuit of knowledge in diverse areas of life, I appreciate Ms. Dowd's multi-faceted erudition.  Those who read this blog know that I use every chance to connect cultural and professional themes in my posts.    

In the April 16th column, timed with the release of Atlas Shrugged Part I, Maureen Dowd used her ability to get right down to the core of issues and, in a few beautifully brief stabs gave their due to the Tea Party's confusion, to the perversity of government bailouts and to the degenerative state of our current economic system:    

"capitalism evolved into a vampire casino where you could bet against investments you sold to your clients, and make money off something you didn’t own or that existed only on paper"

Ms. Rand would be utterly terrified by all this.  As someone, who witnessed her farther, a hard-working pharmacist, being stripped of his possessions so that they could be distributed to "those in need," Alisa Rosenbaum (Rand's birth name) had a very personal relationship with ideas of unearned rewards. 

I always found Ms. Rand's philosophy intellectually liberating.  Unlike her faithful acolytes, I don't believe in blind literal acceptance and treat her teachings as a scientific methodology to be sensibly applied – like her notion of Ethical Egoism as a pursuit of self-interest without infringement of others' freedom.

As Tea Party's mis-interpretations show, this is one of the most misunderstood philosophical concepts.  Many people interpret it as refusing to do anything for others. That is not right.  As long as there is a self-interest embedded in the act, it's great to do things that benefit others. 

In my post Why Do I Work So Hard? , I explained that first and foremost I do it because it satisfies my personal work standards – that's my self-interest.  Of course, I have to get paid adequately for my work, but my pay doesn't affect the quality of my work.  And nobody should benefit from my efforts without giving something back to me. 

Real artists create because they cannot live any other way, whether they do or don't sell their work.  But they definitely don't do it for the sake of public.  And it would be most unfair to just take it away from them without any reward and give it to other people, because they arbitrary "need it."  It's as simple as that.  

The idea of absolute truths independent of human perception is a bit more contrived.  It is hard to find a concept that would not mean different thing for different people under different circumstances.  I think about it more in terms of freedom to select moral truths by an individual.  Ayn Rand herself named only one – REASON.   I have three:  LIBERTY  (both personal and economic), LOGIC and MERIT.  And that brings us to the second reference and Part 2.     

Job Search: Sales Pitch Behavioral Breakdown


In "The History Boys," a play by Alan Bennett, Douglas Hector explains to his student how, once in a while, you read something that is so close to your own thinking, it makes you feel as if a friend extended a hand towards you.  Beautiful! 

Sometimes, it happens with online reading as well.

Like this article, written for The Ladders by Dan Coughlin, Understand the Mind of the Interviewer.  I really appreciated his applying fundamental concepts to a particular issue.  It targets the job search process, yet it addresses business behavior topics I frequently discuss, namely the importance of:

  • understanding people's motivations,
  • treating everyone you meet with equal respect,
  • keeping professional demeanor at all times.

Mr. Coughlin's  assessment of the interviewing process is applicable to any form of "bargaining."  Whether you are selling your professional skills and qualifications for a job position, or pitching a TV series idea, or promoting an improvement in your organization – the behavioral principles are the same.  And there are important conditions to keep in mind:  

  • you are on somebody else's turf,
  • you may interact with people who are not directly involved in the selection,
  • in the first rounds you encounter people who decide whether you can go on the next stage or not,
  • if you get recommended, you meet the final decision-makers.

Because you are on somebody else's territory, you don't know who can observe you.  When you drive through the security gate on the way in or out, you may be seen on a camera, for example. So you'd better keep your professional armor on at all times.  Don't miss that garbage can in front the building, when you throw the soda bottle on your way in – the woman having a smoke nearby might be the HR Manager. 

Many people loose their creditability by saying or doing something in the reception area.  Doormen, assistants, secretaries may have their own impact on your case.  Once, I interviewed someone: by the time he walked into my office, I already knew that he was snappy and rude with the receptionist.   Did I hire him?

The actual decision-makers who have the power to either recommend you for the next round or to hire you (buy from you, option your script, adapt your improvement proposal) are motivated to make the choice by their own sets of reasons.  Your task is to understand what those motivations are and to try to accommodate them.

The two most important stimuli are the interviewer's reputation and professional advancement.  If there is a possibility that an HR manager will look foolish for passing your candidature to a CFO, she will never do it.  On the other hand, if a creative exec reading a script thinks that showing it to the executive producer will boost his status, he will be running to his boss like an olympic athlete. 

Understand what the person sitting opposite from you wants and bring the ability to fulfill that need forward.  That's the trick.

The Frustrated CFO Takes Lessons from Karl Pilkington


Images Karl Pilkington of Ricky Gervais Show and An Idiot Abroad has nothing to do with CFOs and Controllers.  Nevertheless, his unconventional wisdom, profound understanding of how bizarre life is, and unwavering ability to stay calm, deserve recognition in this blog.  After all,  the majority of issues we discuss are related to coping with the overwhelming strangeness of our professional existence, and human behavior.   Moreover, we look for the ways to get rid of our anxiety and frustration, and Karl has a good grip on his emotions and an admirable attitude towards life.  Watch the video at the the end of this post and you will see what I am talking about.

It is difficult for over-educated and jaded people like us, who spent their lives doing what was expected, to take lessons from someone who accepts life as it comes and is not afraid to voice his unusual opinions.  Karl Pilkington possesses the truthful innocence that we either never had or lost in the early stages of our childhood through severe parental and educational brainwashing.  Nevertheless, considering how frustrated most of us are with our lives, we should definitely try.  So, here are five lessons The Frustrated CFO draws from Karl Pilkington's wisdom.  None of them are profound breakthroughs and you probably knew them to be true already.  It's just that we frequently forget these truths, while Karl lives by them.

1.  If you keep your cool and don't refuel attackers, they stop pretty quickly.  We see Ricky laughing at Karl's every sentence, calling him names, etc.  Karl just sits there with Zen calm, not even smiling, or saying anything back.  The attack dies very quickly.

2.  If you don't retaliate people's insults, you automatically get yourself on the sympathetic side of the argument.  Ricky calls Karl an idiot, an empty-headed buffoon, etc.   We never hear a single crass word back.  So, what happens?  People say that Ricky is "soooo mean"  and everyone loves Karl.

3.  If you criticize a group of people instead of attacking a particular individual representing that group, it will have a much better effect.  When you address faults of one person they get offended and stop listening.  When you speak about shortcomings in general terms, people think its not about them, but subconsciously may recognize their own traits.  Karl never says "my doctor," or refers to his local Chinese restaurant.  So, instead of attacking an employee whose lack of urgency drives you insane, or throwing accusations of oppression into someone's face, we should find a right moment to talk about laziness and bullying in general.

4.  You can speak your mind and cover up your harshest statements with innocent humor.  Of course, this one is hard – not everyone possesses a sense of humor, but I found for myself that a smile alone goes a long way when you make severe statements.

5.  This is the hardest lesson to learn.  If you manage to unclog your mind of politically correct, pre-programmed bullshit, you can unlock free-thinking abilities that you didn't suspect were inside your head. 


 

Female CFOs and Controllers: Are We Equal?


March 8th, 2011 marked the 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day.  

I have to confess my aversion to such holidays.  Why do we need designated days to appreciate mothers, fathers, love, Earth, women?  It's like we treat them badly all year long and then try to make up for it in a single day. 

The Women's Day also troubles me because of its Socialist origins.  However, it provides an opportunity to raise issues of social and professional inequality.  If we have to choose between one day of awareness vs. none, of course, one is a better choice. 

Especially, if A-list stars like Daniel Craig and Judi Dench commemorate it with a video for Equals? partnership.  Watch it: Dame Judi spends two minutes reciting statistics of global-scale injustice.  It's important, but may create an illusion of remoteness.  When she says that women perform 2/3 of work, but earn only 10% of income and own 1% of property, surely, it accounts for all those "other" countries. 

Well, are we equal to our male counterparts here, in corporate America? 

Let's see.  The pay gap is still 19%.  Let me spell it out: a female CFO or Controller will make 81 cents against a dollar earned by a man in the same position.  Among the Fortune 500 companies,  only 9% of CFOs are female.  The same goes for Midcap 1500…  Enough of this lifeless statistical data.  Let me pull few examples out of my personal experience folder.

The brightest auditor I've known was assigned to my books by the CPA firm I've engaged about eight years ago.  Every time I praise her to the senior partner, he tells me that she knows ten times more than he does.  At one point I asked, when she was going to make a partner?  The answer was, "Well, the company never had a female partner before…"    

For many years I've been invited to participate in executive focus groups.  Banks are particularly interested in researching opinions of CFOs, Controllers and Treasurers.  There is never more than 25% of women in a group.  Once, when the subject was Board of Directors' accounting awareness, I was the only female participant.

Speaking of BODs, during internet bubble I worked for a high-tech start-up backed by venture capital.  The investors had their hands in a lot of businesses, which forced them onto a merry-go-round of board meetings.  They were freshly surprised every time I presented monthly results.  All other investees had male CFOs.

Five years ago I was asked by my boss to give up my CFO office for a newly hired COO.  What made this person more important than me?  Nothing at all, except for his gender.  The boss said, "I just cannot put him into a smaller office."  Really?  This big shot spent most of his time just staring out of the window.

Notice how cleverly the Equals? video is set up: even though M is 007's boss, she would never get away with shenanigans that make James Bond so endearing to the world.  So, no, we are not equal. 



 

The Bottomless Well of Nepotism and the Issue of Business Survival


My dear readers, I wish I could stop writing about it, but it never ends – there are always more examples to share. I already wrote The Curse of Private Business: Nepotism and then More on Nepotism, but I cannot resist the urge of giving a space to yet another example. And even though it concerns the entertainment industry, it is an important financial issue as well.

You see, in the deteriorating economic environment (and it will continue deteriorating), there is only a handful of industries that have a chance of surviving. Filmmaking is one of them. Not the whole of entertainment, but cinema in particular. People already pretty much stopped reading books, and who knows what's going on with the music industry. Only a small percentage of population can afford to go to the concerts, sporting events, or theater.

But no matter what happens, people will continue seeking an escape from their dreary lives in the darkness of movie theaters or in front of their TV screens. So, whether we like it or not, it is socially important that Hollywood spreads their financial resources wisely and survives. It would be even better if the production funds were also distributed with artistic responsibilities in mind, but that's a subject for another post (or, perhaps, even another blog).

From a strictly financial point of view, I cannot even complain about the stupid Michael Bay's movies – at least they make money. But I have a problem with irrelevant films that get pushed through studios and independent production companies with the help of connections and familial relationships. Some of them are not able to cover even 10% of their budgets. And not because they are complicated intellectual creations (I don't mind money being spent on actual masterpieces), but because they are simply crap. And it is not about the nepotism per se, as I previously wrote. It is about mediocrity and losses caused by nepotism. In any business, not just filmmaking, if nepotism results in success and profits, objectively it can be tolerated.

So, how is it done? The August 29th issue of New York Magazine had a little interview with Zoe Kazan – Zoe Kazan Needs Coffee, conducted by one of my favorite magazine writers, Jada Yuan. It is actually in the theater section, because on top of having her screenplay being made into a movie (He Loves Me), in which she also stars together with her boyfriend Paul Dano, this 28-year-old has a play, commissioned by Manhattan Theater Club, opening this fall in New York (!).

Of course, Ms. Yuan shines the light on the grounds of this first-time screenwriter's ability to penetrate Hollywood's entry barriers. She starts by defining the interviewee as Elia Kazan's granddaughter. Then she goes on to point out the connection between the directors spearheading He Loves Me – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, and the boyfriend (they directed Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine). Finally, in her last question she names Zoe Kazan's parents – both screenwriters: Nicholas Kazan (who co-wrote Frances, adapted Alan Dershowitz's Reversal of Fortune, and penned excellent, but underrated Fallen) and Robin Swicord, who has a good knack for adapting highbrow sentimental literature (Little Women, Practical Magic, Memoirs of Geisha, The Jane Austin Book Club).

And again, the nepotism would be okay (after all, we know how lazy people are – nobody wants to work hard and look for new talents), if writing was Ms. Kazan's genuine calling and her ideas were original. But He Loves Me is just another rehashing of the Greek legend of Pygmalion. And here is how she answers Jada Yuan's question, why did she start writing:

"Because when I was first trying to get acting jobs, there would be these huge slots of time, where I wouldn't have work…"

Soooo, she started writing because she had free time? Are you joking me? True writers write because they cannot live any other way. Not, because they need to kill some time or as a form of "self-actualization." The saddest thing is that I happen to know incredibly talented young writers with original ideas, who try and try again, querying agents and production companies just for a chance to get their excellent scripts read. Robert McKee says that one of the main concerns of the screenwriting professors is preventing their best students from killing themselves.

But Ms. Kazan? Whatever she is going to write, will be read by someone with a finger on the green-light button. And then, money and resources will be invested on something that only a small group of people (most of them also connected) will be interested to see.