Category: Peers

Book Recommendation: “The Imperfectionists”


21i4J04UUZL._AA160_Tom Rachman's "The Imperfectionsts" have received the most glowing literary reviews for a debut novel I've ever encountered.  It is, indeed, a wonderful book.  Maybe one day, I will switch to cultural critique and start writing belletristic essays about artistic qualities of creative endeavors.

For now, though, this is a blog for working stiffs, primarily those operating in entrepreneurial environment with all its quirks, disadvantages, vulnerabilities, strange dynamics and faulty objectives.  Unexpectedly, in addition to its novelistic value, "The Imperfectionists" had something remarkable to offer from that standpoint as well.  Its setting, "the paper," is a microcosm of the small-business universe.  The book dissects extremely personal matters of human misery; and the author appears to be digging deep into his first-hand experience with actual people, whose traits fed his imagination.  Yet, these characters turned out to be a surprising array of archetypes we meet everyday in our offices.

You've got a backstabbing bully, who uses the little authority his position allows him to doll out misery to others and boost his own ego by spewing teasing insults.  You've got a quiet schemer, who hides behind the wall of seeming indifference, while devising and implementing his intricate plan of revenge and ascension.

You've got your driven career woman who will sacrifice everything, including her own happiness, in the pursuit of what she defines as success.  And you've got a perfectionist with encyclopedic knowledge of all matters related to his profession and ambition of high quality.

You've got your obsessive-compulsive sloppy staffer, who has been there for twenty years, still as mediocre as ever and ridden with fears of dismissal, displaying the full spectrum of passive-aggressive behavior.  And so on, and so forth…

There is even a painfully familiar female CFO who thinks that the other employees "can't accept that she's young and a woman and above them in the food chain.  But she's the one keeping them employed."  Sounds familiar?

And yes, there is the expected succession of private owners: from the brilliant founder; to the son, desperately trying to prove his worthiness, but failing exactly because of that; to the completely disinterested and unfit grandson.  None ever caring about people they employ and at the end betraying their own legacy.

The business is small, struggling in the era of media transformation, dying…  I was astonished with Mr. Rachman's description of the strange sensation overwhelming the employees when they realize  that this stage of their lives is over – I have observed these emotions in people's eyes myself: "All these years, they have vilified the paper, but now it's threateining to quit them, they're desperately in love with it again."

Isn't this amazing that inside a very private book we still find characters so familiar, we recognize them as if they were our co-workers and, in some ways, ourselves.  What does it say about us?  Is it possible that with all our uniqueness and human individuality, when it comes to our jobs, we just fall into the draws of files organized by type?

Bean Counters vs Breadwinners


I hope my fellow CFOs and Controllers don't mind my calling us "bean counters."  After all, I am one of them and, hence, it's Ok.  It's like with all derogatory terminology – if you belong to the group, you are allowed to use it.  And if that name-calling has upset you, beware – this is just a beginning.

The truth is, many of my peers are just that – the bean counters limited to their narrowly defined tasks, thus contributing to the frequently observed conflict between finance and accounting on one side and the revenue generators on the other.  Both sides have to tolerate each other, but it is a precarious armistice. 

CFOs and Controllers think that sales and operational people don't work too hard, while getting high performance-based compensation.  They are loud and overconfident, while not necessarily well educated and intellectual.  They are never in the office, taking long lunches with customers and prospects.  When they are in the office, they are on the phone most of the time.  They take paid trips to foreign lands and get car allowances for their domestic travels.  They jeopardize the company's well-being with their grandiose "strategic" deals that end up losing money.  Most importantly, they wouldn't be able to do anything without our funding their transactions, controlling their profits, calculating their commissions and reporting their results.

On the other hand,  VP of Sales and COOs think that they are the moving gears of the company.  They despise the bean counters for stifling their "important" deals with "useless" profitability criteria, for knowing how much money they make and for suspecting that there is nothing behind the confident appearance – just the rolodex and lots of air.  Most importantly, they feel that their unique ability to bring business is not respected enough.  Money is not everything, you know.      

The fact is, however, that a sales (or procurement, or operations, or trading,) ace does possess a truly unique ability to generate revenue with skills that frequently have nothing to do with education, professionalism, or intellectual expertise.  There is a reason you don't need a college degree to obtain trading, brokerage, insurance, or real estate licenses.  You definitely don't need an MBA to become a VP of Sales.  These jobs require intuitive abilities and social skills of a very special sort.  Trust me, not too many people are born with those talents.   The real great ones are quite rare. 

It must be said that I am one of the few CFOs who always support the people responsible for bringing business to the company, even if they don't like me.   Many of my colleagues forget that all our functions are secondary and subservient.  Everything that we do either facilitates the breadwinners' success (and failure) or reports it.  That's all. 

Without them I wouldn't have my job.   They are the ones responsible for generating enough dough to cover my salary, benefits and bonuses.  And if I could do what they can, I would have. 


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.

Life’s Mind Tricks


When I was a senior in high school and it became apparent that I will not be allowed to become a theater theorist, a cultural critic, or an art historian, and would have to settle for something more practical like finance or engineering, I went to see my history teacher to pour my frustration on her metaphorical shoulder.  And it was just that – a metaphor: I was upset, but I was not going to cry.  The roots of the tough Frustrated CFO that I am now were already forming then.  No, I was not planning on shedding a tear over it.

I wasn't, but the teacher cried.  This hard core, no bullshit lady couldn't stop crying.  I made tea, put it in front her, and asked, what made her so upset.  She replied that these were tears for my mind.  She got me slightly worried, not for my mind, but for hers.  What was she implying?  That the forced career choice will make me crazy?

When she calmed down, she explained her empirical theory that, regardless of your natural intellectual inclination, your occupation (note the key word – it occupies you!) little by little changes your brain; reshapes it comply with the job requirements.  She said, "If you are going to count money and look at numbers 60 hours a week, it will change you forever.  Your mind will never be able to respond to a movie, a play, a piece of music or art, the same way it can now."

"It will never happen to me!!!" – that was my answer.  And I can proudly say, it didn't.  Through MBA, PhD in Economics, and over 20 years in accounting and finance, somehow, I retained my ability of unadulterated absorption of any artistic expression.  Don't get me wrong – my profession affected many sides of my personality, and not in a good way, but somehow I retained the sensitivity to the arts.  Maybe I subconsciously resisted the alteration of the mind because I was warned?  Who knows?  But, I am a rare exception.  Years of observing other people proved to me that my old history teacher's theory was correct.  Life does play tricks with most people's intellect. 

A month or so ago I attended a philanthropic event headlined by Andrew Bird.  I really love his eclectic music that combines classical technique with rock-n-roll melodic structure and folky stylistics.  It always has a tremendous emotional impact on me.

I was there with a group of people, some of them big time art philanthropists, including one hedge-fund guy, who supports many art organizations in NYC and around the country.  In his youth he was a follower of the Great French Mime and a member of a street performing group, but then Life called him away to become a multi-millionaire.  He never saw Andrew Bird before and after the concert talked to me about him.

The first thing he said was, "What a technical range!"  Considering that my heart was just shredded into pieces by the beauty of the performance, I was secretly taken aback by such cold, mechanistic assessment.  Then he picked my brain about the artist's career, and I relayed how he was classically trained as a child, but lost all his fancy scholarships as soon as he made a shift to rock.  The response was, "I'd say, he's done well for himself, regardless."

And that's how I was reminded about my old history teacher's theory again.  Youthful artistic endeavours – that was all in the past.  Now, the cold mind of the big-money-maker cannot absorb the emotional outpouring of the musician he just heard!  He reacts with "Professional skills!  Career achievement!"  His mind is twisted towards that train of thought and there is nothing anybody can do about that.