The Frustrated CFO

This Is What It Feels Like When the CFO Cries

When I was a little girl, a preteen, a teenager, my parents always teased me, "Why are you crying?  Feeling sorry for yourself?"  I could've been weeping about some really heart-breaking moment in my life or over a beautiful passage in a book - it didn't matter, their reaction was always the same.

Well, if that was their way of toughening me up, it worked.  But discouraging crying?  Nah, their badgering wasn't successful - I'm still a crier.  Blatant injustices, the disappearance of Earth's beauty, the unfairness of life; but also a goosebumpy music passage, a powerful piece of acting, an especially brilliant bit of storytelling, a rare instance of mesmerizing artistry - all are known to bring quick tears to my eyes.  

But all these occasions allow me to cry secretly - in a privacy of my home; in the darkness of a theater; sometimes in the middle of a crowded place, where nobody knows me (which is the same as being alone); or in front of a few people (can count them on one hand), who are so close to me, most of the time we cry about the same things.  To the rest of the world, however, I'm known as Marina of Steel, always composed and together.  In fact, most people think that I am a gruff bitch.  The mother-fuckers would probably have panic attacks if they saw me all snotty and whimpering - the way I get, when I fight with my daughter.

In my entire career there were only a few occasions, when, while in the office, I simply couldn't hold back tears - the ducts just acted on their own accord, the way they do when you get hit on the nose.  One time, during a meeting, my CEO threw some reports straight into one of my subordinate's face, and I couldn't do anything about it: couldn't protect the victim, couldn't say anything to the boss - just had to watch it happening.  I remember thinking, "God, if somebody else did that in front of me, I would've fucking slapped him.  But I have to pretend that I'm paralyzed, because I need my job!  It hurts!"  And the tears just rolled out involuntary.  

Nearly 20 years ago (God! I was still young then!), a different boss, always insecure about his origins and education, got angry with me, because he forgot to request some analysis he urgently needed, yet expected that I would telepathically infer his wishes.  I was already a Controller and have accomplished some pretty amazing stuff for the company (for which, truth be told, I was very well compensated).  So, I felt pretty secure to simply explain that he never asked for it.  To this he retorted: "You're probably lying that you were always a straight A student.  No doubt your mother bribed your teachers."  There were other people around too, listening...  The randomness and the absurdity of the insult hit me like a ton of bricks.  I was lost for words and my eyes just swelled with tears.  Nothing was to be done or said, of course - my family's well-being was much higher on my list of priorities than my self-esteem.

Just the other day, a business owner, who was my torturer-in-chief at that moment (he is the one who thinks himself a Good Boss), demanded some pretty serious piece of performance analytics to be delivered to him the next day, before his meeting with X.   Considering the available resources, this was impossible to accomplish.  So, I informed him accordingly.  And yes, I'm too fed up with all this bullshit now, so I let a bit of a sarcasm escape me: "How long have you known about this meeting anyway?" I asked him.  "Let me explained to you the idiocy (Miriam-Webster: extreme mental retardation) of this question," he replied and then embarked on a long-winded rant about...  Well, who cares?  And I wasn't listening anymore.  I wanted to laugh, but somehow sparse teardrops started falling down instead.  Thank God, I cried - at least it stopped his blabbering and he left the room.                    

Yeah, things like that...  So, it's true - I cry because I feel sorry for myself.  I'm sorry that my life is nothing what I hoped it would be.  I'm sorry that I don't have enough time to do things that I truly love.  I'm sorry that I always work harder than anybody else would in my place and the rewards never match my efforts.  I'm sorry that I always work for people who are not sophisticated enough to understand my value and appreciate my contribution.  I'm sorry that they always turn out to be insecure assholes.  I'm sorry that, even though I held them in my hands, I let all the means of my personal security slip away.  I'm sorry about so many of my choices that led me to where I am...    

...What is that you are saying?  A pity party? So what if it is?  Nobody else pities me - everyone thinks that I'm some fucking stone.   

Related articles

Top Female Execs Tell Us Whether It's OK To Burst Into Tears At Work

"We Are Good Bosses," Says One Boss to Another

So, 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!

I 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

I 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

A 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

A 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?       

2013 Audit Season: Joke #1

I already wrote about subsequent-events analysis during audits in my post Ignorantly Insolent Bosses.  Payments received from customers in January and February prove the validity of sales invoices outstanding as of 12/31.  On the other hand, if you made a payment to a vendor on 01/07/13 for an invoice dated 12/08/12, which wasn't included into your accounts payable schedule - that's an error: both the liability and the related expense should've been recognized in 2012.  There are subsequent events tests for all accounting cycles - really useful, powerful, mandatory for any audit.  If done thoroughly, they can uncover all those overstated revenues and hidden costs that result in public companies' going out of business and their executives going to jail.

"If" is an operative word.  Here is an actual story that happened during the week of 02/25/2013.  An audit field work was under way at ABC International, Inc.  A mid-size NYC CPA firm has been servicing this company for a few years, covering all corporate taxation needs as well as providing their independent opinion on the annual financial statements, which the company submits to their lenders, insurance underwriters, major suppliers, and other users.  ABC has a very strong CFO and the auditors never find anything out of order in the company's books, records, and statements. 

That's great, except that the audit quality should not be affected by the previous experience.  Yet, this time around the CFO noticed that the audit manager seemed a bit lax - the test selections were smaller, there were less questions and supporting documentation requests.  She was pleased: it shortened the exam time and also signified the auditors' confidence in her own work.  Of course, there is confidence and there is negligence. 

As soon as the audit started, the CFO asked her staff accountant to generate January and February schedules of sales, receipts, vouchers, and payments (the subsequent events), which were provided to the auditors with a copy to her.  When the CFO reviewed the information to make sure that everything was in order, she has realized that the payment journal was drawn for the beginning of 2012 instead of 2013 (people do have a tendency of clicking keys without thinking).

The CFO immediately generated correct schedules and was about to email them to the audit manager, when she stopped herself.  Why the hell didn't he notice it?  Did he even looked at it?  She decided not to do anything for the moment and see what would happen.

A couple of days later, the field work was completed.  Two weeks later the CPA firm prepared the draft of their independent opinion and the footnotes, which were sent to the CFO for review (she told me she's received it today).  Nobody ever mentioned the year old supporting data.  Nobody caught it: not the auditing staff, or the manager, or the firm's quality control department.  What quality?  Please, don't make me laugh!                

Related articles

CFO Folklore: Ignorantly Insolent Bosses

CFO Folklore: Ignorantly Insolent Bosses

In accounting and auditing, first two months of a fiscal year (for most, January and February) make up a period of Subsequent Events, which are directly related to a company's previous year's Financial Statements.  Goods listed as 12/31 inventory are (hopefully) selling; last year receivalbes are being collected; cash being disbursed for unpaid expenses that comprised your year-end payables and accruals.  Financial auditors specifically target these post-12/31 sales, receipts, and payments to test the accuracy of the Financial Statements.  

Business owners, most of them lacking formal accounting knowledge, are especially confused about the expenses: they see payments being made now for the last year's interests, services, and commissions, and it worries them that somehow the current period's profitability will be affected.  Never mind that every year you explain to them that these items have been already recognized as expenses in the previous fiscal period through payables and accruals, and, therefore, impact only current cash flow, not the operational performance.  Even the ones who don't ignore your explanations and, furthermore, remember some of the terminology you've used, can't help but be a little disconcerted.

So, let's say last week (a week of 02/11) you have approved a $75K commission payment due to a procurement agent for the fourth quarter of 2012.  It requires a second signature - your boss's.  Now, she sees the check and your approval.  She knows your qualifications and what you've done for her company.  Before meeting you, she didn't know anything about accounting and finance at all, but she has learned a great deal from you.  Yet, she is a Business Owner - someone who is not capable of making an effort to overcome her impulses.  The strength of the "I-pay-you" sentiment in her subconsciousness is empowering.

So, she comes to your office, announces the topic ("This commission check") and tries to formulate the question.  First, she mumbles something about "the last year's income," and then the light bulb comes on in her head and she asks, "Was the expense accrued?"

Your mind is very fast and in a fraction of a second a swarm of neurotic, childish thoughts storms through your head: "Are you fucking joking me?  This is from someone who had no concept of revenue and costs recognition?  From someone who like a fucking bookie recorded everything when cash exchanged hands?  You, bitch, didn't have proper records, reports, financial statements!  Your tax returns were made up!  Did you forget that the bank demanded you hire a CFO before they gave you the credit line?  Now, everyone gets weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual reports and statements, thanks to ME!  I pass audits and bank exams without anybody finding a single error or omission!  How dare you!!!"

But you have two post-graduate degrees, 20 years of business experience, a book on CFO's functionality, 10 years of age, and a lifetime of hard knocks over this privileged pixie financed by her husband.  So, you look her straight in the eyes and calmly, almost jokingly, say, "Are you checking on my work?  Accruals and prepaids is what I do.  This was a 2012 expense and, in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, it was recognized as such."

Look, the truth is you should not get upset at your bosses for who they are.  "...Forgive them, for they know not what they do," and all that.  I always say, they are like spoiled and unruly children, who cannot control themselves.  And as long as you need the salary, you have to continue swallowing their shit pills. 

I wish I could stop taking incidents like that personally.  People with my intellect, background, knowledge, and experience - professional, psychological, cultural - should just brush it off.  Yet again, if I was able to do it, I wouldn't have had this blog.

What to Expect from a Boss with a Peter Pan Syndrome

Oh, Peter Pan, the "boy who wouldn't grow up," he is so endearing in his never-ending boyishness.  He doesn't care about the adult world problems.  His disregard for the laws of physical and emotional gravity allows him to fly without wings and fight pirates with an uncommon valor; but it also propels him out of the windows of the heart-broken girls: Wendy, and her mother Mary Darling before her, and who knows how many more.  Really, he belongs in his Neverland.

Yet, Peter Pans live among us.  You meet them every day: in your office, on your business trips, in stores and public transportation; you pass them on the street; they may be related to you and you see them across the dinner table.  They don't soar in the air or prance with swords (well, maybe some of them do).  Nevertheless, their true nature is that of unabashedly cocky young boys ready for adventures.  

Permit me to clarify.  We are not talking about physical appearance here.  People who look 10-15 years yonger than their age, whether because of their genetic make up or because they treat their bodies right, can be very grown up.  I am not talking about those who take part in what society perceives to be "young" activities either.  I actually think that people who never stop going to rock concerts and enjoy parasailing in their eighties are on a higher plane of sophistication.  No, the subject matter here is the psychological immaturity; the inability to accept the reality of the adult world.       

The Peter Pan Syndrome is not officially recognized by the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders.  It's considered to be a "pop-psychology" term.  In other words, it's okay to use it in cultural and social context, but no doctor will get reimbursement by insurance for treating this affliction - there is no code for it.  I frequently wonder whether it is a ploy of the closeted Peter Pans of psychology.

Peter Pan of J.M. Barrie's story can be recognized right away.  The book illustrators even gave him pointy ears, hinting that he is not quite a regular human.  But in every-day life they are hidden inside people who appear to be all grown up.  Yet, there are certain telltale signs one can pick up right away.   It could be a sports car too small for the owner's body, or a tan in the middle of winter, or a jacket a size too small for a middle-aged banker, a hipster watch on a wrist of a 60-year-old lawyer, a second wife 25 years younger, a newborn child at 57.  I'm sure you know what I am talking about.  

However, at the end of the day, it's the personality traits that betray the Peter Pan's tendencies - the propensity for undisciplined, uncontrolled, irrational, irresponsible, disorderly, intoxicated behavior.  But, like with all archetypes, the negative trends coexist with positive potential that manifests itself as a free spirit, unbound instinct, potential for growth, hope for the future, untamed forward drive.

It's one thing to handle Peter Pans socially and even privately.  It's a completely different matter when you are confronted with men-boys in the work place, especially if one of them is your boss.  You have to be very careful: bosses like that think that they are invincible; they believe that they will come out on top in any situation.  They take big risks and trust they can get away with anything.  If they are lucky, their endeavors may lead the company to brilliant successes.  But many of them get smacked against the cruel wall of reality, crash and burn.

One of the most prominent symptoms of the Peter Pan complex is absolute inability to take No for an answer.  Many private-business CFOs deal with the childish behavior of their bosses and can fill in the blanks in this conversation:

CEO:    I want to...

CFO:    We cannot do this...

CEO:    Why not? (like a 10-year-old)

CFO:    We don't have...  And it's against...  We will jeopardize...

CEO:    I want to do it anyway... (like a 5-year-old)

It's very difficult to find the right way of dealing with an intelligent and talented person, who looks like an adult, but frequently falls into the pits of the child-like stubbornness.  The only thing you can do is to be constantly aware of the reality of the syndrome.  Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Let me leave you with this popular culture example.  Mark Zuckerberg, a student at Harvard University, threw a tantrum like a 3-year-old boy in a sandbox, when his girlfriend dumped him - he called her mean names and told her secrets to the entire nursery school.  Then he ran out and slammed the door behind him as hard as he could.  The result of it was the creation of a network that pervaded the lives of hundreds of millions of people all around the world and made him the youngest billionaire.  Now, he will never grow up - he never got a chance to face the real world.  He went from childhood into a fantasy land.  He boasts that he wears the same thing every day.  So, does Peter Pan - the protective uniform of a boy who will never grow up.

The Boss Who "Cares" aka The Hypocritical Bastard

Hey you, hard-working people, regardless of your profession, stature, or rank! I am talking to all of you!  Beware of "NICE" BOSSES!

You know the type - he always smiles at you, tells you jokes (and laughs loudly himself), asks about your family (sometimes even during first interviews), says "thank you" at the end of the day, declares that he wants everyone who works for him to be happy, claims to keep your opinion in high regard.  

This is all BULLSHIT!!!  This boss is a liar and a hypocrite!  Don't think for a second that because he acts like that on the surface, he really cares and will do right by you in terms of things that really matter, i.e. create material (compensation, benefits, working space) and moral (respect, recognition) stimuli for you to work harder and feel satisfied with your own performance!  

In fact, this faux exterior should be taken as a first sign of a shitty character.  There is an old proverb that applies perfectly here: "He makes a very soft bed that will be hard to sleep in."  The only person such a boss cares about is himself!  At the end of the day, all that huggy, phony warmth is just for him and him alone.  And because people like that lie to themselves the same way they lie to others, he goes home honestly believing that he is a swell guy and a wonderful boss.  He simultaneously pats himself in the back and jerks himself off.

 But when it comes to serious, important staff...  This is the guy who will fight you tooth and nail for every penny of raise or bonus you want to give your direct subordinates at the end of the year.  It doesn't matter to him that you only want to reward those who applied themselves the hardest, grew, learned, developed, and that you keep it all within the budget.  He'd rather double his own withholdings (for being so wonderful!) than reinforce the merit.  In fact, he will say, "Didn't we pay for her plane tickets when she went to her grandmother's funeral?"  Yes, we did - you suggested it to  be "nice."  So, now you think that was in lieu of the annual performance bonus?

And this is the guy who will reply to every great proposal from the members of his executive team, writing the exclamation-point emails: "Thank you!" "Great idea!" "Brilliant!" But he will never green-light the actual implementations.  You will see the mean gleam in his eyes every time the life proves you right or someone on the outside of the business confirms that you understand it much better than he does.  If that happens, he will enter a crazy cycle, competing with you all the time, even though he is the boss and, therefore, already won by default. 

I believe that the best working environments are created not by cuddly fakeness, but by indiscriminate fairness, accommodation of professional growth, and respect of achievements (the principles I myself exercise).  If that's impossible to have, I prefer an honest brute instead of a "nice" hypocritical bastard.  In this economy (or, as I call it "new reality") only a few of us get lucky and find "better" jobs.  The rest must tolerate whatever hateful things they are forced to experience.  And that's Ok (there is no such a thing as a "perfect" job anyway), as long as you face the reality with the full understanding of the situation and don't get fooled by appearances.