Tag: Business

Why Amy Jellicoe (Laura Dern) from “Enlightened” Drives Me Mad?


Enlightened10I like whatever Mike White (a friend of Jack Black) does. Ever since "Chuck & Buck," "Orange County," "The Good Girl," and "The School of Rock" I've been a fan of his writing, which is always quirky and amazingly original. And his new series on HBO "Enlightened" is fantastic: honest, insightful, filled with an incredible array of complex and realistically fucked-up characters. On a human level, it makes me laugh, cry, sigh in recognition, squirm from awkwardness, nod and shake my head – all within the same episode.

Yet, the economist in me cannot stop being constantly mad at the show's protagonist, Amy Jellicoe (played by always fabulous Laura Dern, who shares the show's executive-production credits with Mr. White). And it's not because I don't believe in the phony enlightenment through expensive retreats and self-help books. It seems that the creative team shares my opinion on this issue - the persistent cracking of the artificial facade exposes the impossibility of achieving peace in the realm of contemporary American existence, plagued by social and monetary fights for survival. What really makes this CFO frustrated is the fact that this woman DOESN'T PERFORM ANY WORK, BUT STILL GETS PAID.

There is nothing wrong with coming to realization that there are important things in your life beyond the job. Take if from me, most people work for a paycheck, not for self-realization, including those at the very top of the business hierarchy.   That's a sad truth about our lives. However, "WORK" is an operative word. Coming to the office whenever, occupying yourself with personal matters throughout the day, and then waltzing out smiling before anybody else, like Amy does - there is only one word to classify that kind of an attitude: STEALING.

If the job heavily bears on your psyche and you feel that you will not be able to tolerate the meaningless work for one extra second, leave and quit getting paid. That's the honest thing to do. And Amy does find a job, which agrees with her newly-acquired outwardly predisposition. Guess what? It pays only $25K a year and she "cannot survive on that!" If only she could continue getting the regular direct deposits from the bad-wolf corporation, while contributing her time at the shelter – that would be a blissful combination!

Amy seems like a person who wouldn't be toiling for eight hours in front of a computer screen even for the most noble purpose – it's just too much for an "enlightened" person. But she especially despises the fact that her department analyses the employees performance metrics. I am not going to judge here what the corporation does with the results – there is not enough information in the show to do so, only vague hints. Yet, I can definitely say that there is nothing wrong with productivity analysis per se. Companies of all shapes and sizes must to do that, if they want to survive and prosper.

Socialist countries provided most people with work (albeit at incredibly low salaries), regardless of their efforts. Many people there would come to places of employment without any impulse to attend to their jobs. Look what happened to those economies! It's people like Amy Jellicoe who end up at Zuccotti park hanging out and screaming about the disappearance of the middle class, while the real members of that class continue going to work, doing their jobs, helping their businesses to survive. Those, who don't want to work are the reason why the quality of products and services continuously goes down, why the economy deteriorates right in front of our eyes.


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?

CFO Folklore: Defensiveness and Excuses


Coyote-Canis-Latrans-Puppy-28811856-0 It's funny how we, humans, manage to degenerate powerful natural instincts into regressive psychological traits. Look at that little coyote pup.  Something has attracted his attention.  He is in full alert, assessing the situation, deciding if its dangerous; ready to fight or flight – a perfect display of a healthy defense mechanism crucial for survival.  

People are granted the same insitincts.  Of course, those of us living in "civilized" conditions are rarely presented with real danger.  On the other hand, mentally we are constantly put to test.  The instincts are pushed into psyche, and there, they deteriorate into Freudian ego defense mechanisms, which can get neurotic and pathological.

CFOs and Controllers deal with defensiveness and rationalization (aka making excuses) all the time.  People become defensive at the slightest hint of criticsm, which frequently exists only in their imagination.  They don't understand that instead of helping them to survive, this degenerated mechanism makes them more vulnerable by exposing their insecuruty, fearfulness and anxiety.

A few years back I had an employee who was the best expert of trade finance documentation I've ever met.  At the same time, he was an incredibly difficult person.  Eventually I found out that this guy had a misfortune of being raised by an extremely critical adoptive father.  As unlikely as it sounds, in the early 80s, just 20 years old, he got hitched to a woman who hated everything about him.   As the result, he developed a severe case of defensiveness. 

Just invinting him to my office to discuss a business issue was enough to put him into a state.  Walking into my door, he already looked like an angry animal forced into a corner and ready to bite.  It would usually take me at least ten minutes of casual small talk to bring him back into normality, before I could address the matter at hand.

Of course, on few occasions I needed to point out a mistake or an inaccuracy.  What a nightmare! He wouldn't let you finish the first sentence: "I am swamped!  You gave me too much work!  It is impossible to deal with that bank!  I will not let you blame me for this!  " he would shriek, even though it was never about the blame.  His desire to shield himself from the imaginary threat was so strong – like a child, he would cover his eyes with his hand, avoiding your eyes.  He looked helpless, pitiful, and guilty.  Most importantly, the problems remained unresolved.  It was really painful.

Here is my advice: don't get defensive when you are criticised, justly or unjustly.  Listen.  Think.  Evaluate.  Maybe you will hear some constructive insights.  Maybe you could have done something differently and achieve better results.  Recognizing that will give you an opportunity to (1) disarm your opponent by owning up to your mistake and (2) find ways to avoid this situation in the future.  At the very least, you will save yourself from an emotional sparring match that cannot resolve anything.  Trust me.  I've been there – on both sides.

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. 


Writing Angry Letters Is Therapeutic, Sending Them Out Is Foolish


I remember reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People when I was about sixteen years old.  Early in the book, he talks about dangers of criticism and gives examples of written but unsent letters: by Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain.  It made a great impression on me.  I cannot avoid being critical entirely – the tongue is difficult to control.  However, I made a rule of letting stinging letters to stew for 2 days.  Then I re-read them.  If I still think it necessary, I send the letter.  90% of the time it doesn't get sent.

This is a recurring topic for management training gurus, self-help writers and bloggers.  They say,"Write an angry letter, if it makes you feel better, just don't send it." Unfortunately, no matter how many times people hear that advice, they write and send flaring mail, causing commercial and social damage.  If the problem was not persistent, there wouldn't be any demand for products I have described in the Cautionary Tale About Artificial Intelligence Progress.

As CFOs and Controllers, we deal with a lot of irking and ireful people.  With my firm believe in therapeutic qualities of writing, I always advise to let the paper or the monitor to bear your negative emotions.  As supervisors we also have to manage the anger of our subordinates.  How do we prevent hostile writing from going out?

In the times of hand-written letters, it took longer to complete them.  Plus, you had to stuff, seal, stamp and post the envelope.  By the time you were done, you might have changed your mind about the whole thing.   Dictating a letter worked even better.  Saying the angry words out loud had a potential of making you sound ridiculous even to yourself,  leave alone those girls in the typing pools.

Emails made us more vulnerable to our impulsiveness.  In the beginning, at least the ISPs were slow enough for you to recall the unwanted message.  Nowadays, soft keyboard, easy mouse, and fast internet create a volatile combination.

Here are few preventive measures I can recommend:

1.  Always leave "To", "Cc" and "Bcc" fields of the email header blank until you are absolutely positive you need to send it.

2. Re-read your letter at least three times right away and then yet another time later.

3. I have previously described my habit of putting stick-ons, stating "Please re-read all your emails before sending them out," on the sides of employees' monitors.  If you know that you suffer from the short writing fuse, then stick one on your own monitor as well.

4.  Whether for my electronic or conventional mail, the 2 days stewing rule works very well.  You should try it too.

5.  The Frustrated CFO actually offers a healthy alternative allowing you to go a step further than just writing your message.  Sharing your stories here lets you spill your frustration onto the virtual page and actually send it.  Not to the object of your anger, but to me – an understanding and compassionate reader.