The Frustrated CFO

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..."

Sometimes You Get Lucky and See a Spark of Intelligence

I always complain about the general population's low level of intelligence heightened by inertia and group mentality. The gray matter deficit upsets me in its many manifestations: the music that tops the charts (Justin Bieber!), the books that become uber-bestsellers ("Fifty Shades of Grey," judging by the synopsis, didn't really stray too far from 1919 "The Sheik"), the movies that break box-office records ("Pirates of the Caribbean, part XX"), the TV shows that attract most viewers (American Idol - over 6 million watching every airing!), the celebrities who get the most hype (Angelina Jolie, who has not shown us a glimpse of decent acting since 2001 "Original Sin"), etc. Even dear to my heart nerdy world of independent filmmaking is degrading (more about this in another post). Some say, "Stop oppressing people with your judgements! Why do you care anyway?"

I'll tell you, why I care. Only a small group of people can construct their lives in isolation from the world. The rest of us are forced to interact with surrounding individuals, frequently in a very direct manner. The general population is where those unbearable customer service representatives come from, those waiters who screw up your orders, those cab drivers who don't know where to go, those doctors who throw random diagnosis at you and prescribe the most expensive procedures, and so on, and so forth.

Most importantly for the frustrated CFO, this murky pond spews out the job applicants as well as auditors, field examiners, bankers, investors, etc. - people that have an impact on our professional lives. Most are so dull and limited, dealing with them quickly turns an intelligent and composed CFO into the frustrated one.

Once in a blue moon, though, you may get lucky - the wave of professional activities may land on your shore someone with a spark of genuine intelligence in his or her eyes.

I have a client with a trade finance line provided by one of the major banks. Among lender's requirements are periodic field exams of the client's books and records. All banks conduct these reviews from time to time. That doesn't mean, however, that they employ departments full of highly-paid auditors. Instead, they outsource and make the clients bear the cost. There are large and small consulting companies and CPA firms that have built their practices specializing in this type of work.

I've helped this particular client to go through their first field exam. The examiner flew to New York from a medium-size firm in Chicago. My expectations were pessimistic (what else is new?): I was preparing myself for days of explanations about the nature of the business, the accounting principles and pronouncements that apply, the international trade conventions, etc.

But this guy was different. Five minutes after the introductions I knew this was a kindred spirit: someone who is not just smart, intellectually quick, logical, and absorbent, but also a person with the same high standards for the quality of work as I have; someone who doesn't allow garbage to come off his desk. Just like me, he has developed his own analytical tools and instruments that set him apart from everybody else.

Working with him was a gift, an unexpected pleasure. In 3.5 days we have completed the field exercise. Of course, both of us understood that such meeting of professional minds is quite rare, so we felt compelled to share our future aspirations. I genuinely hope that our paths cross again soon.

When he concluded his work and was ready to leave my client's office, I asked him how many other associates in his firm were as good as he was. He said, "Just one other guy." And here you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the real-life statistics on the proportion of professional intelligence in the general pool of employees: 2 to 58, or 3%.

Ten Reasons Why "CFO Techniques" Is a Must-Read for Small-Business CFOs

Reason #1.

"CFO Techniques" was NOT written from an academic perspective, such as of a typical university professor with a consulting-for-large-business on the side.

On the contrary, it WAS WRITTEN by your fellow CFO, who earned her professional stripes in the small-business trenches. During more than 20 years of this hands-on experience, with the last 18 in CFO and Controller positions, she was fortunate to gain exposure to all facets of financial management and organizational administration. Just like the most of you, she knows only too well what it means to wear many hats at the same time.

Reason #2.

Yet, the author did not loose a constructive touch of a theoretician. In writing the book, she employed her:

• in-depth knowledge of the fundamental principles that govern all areas of corporate accounting and finance,
• methodical approach to all tasks that compile ever-expanding scope of a CFO's responsibilities,
• and ability to dissect the cause and effect relationships of various concepts.

The result is the crystallization of the vast experience into a streamlined functional system, easily adaptable to various types of businesses and industries.

Reason #3.

"CFO Techniques" doesn't try to rehash official regulations, statistical information, bits of hot technology news, results of narrow studies, and such. The book's mission is to spotlight the most important areas of a CFO's or a controller's functionality:

Reason #4.

These professional cornerstones are broken down into crucial components described in bite-size, easily digestible chapters written in a fun and lithe language. The book presents the most complex financial and accounting concepts in comprehensive forms,  which can serve as introductory aids for those who just attained their first controllership appointment and as concise refreshers for seasoned professionals.

Reason #5.

It is an unfortunate truth that millions of small businesses struggle (and frequently fail) to survive not because they are neglected by owners and managers, but because these hard-working people simply have no clue what exactly is wrong with their companies, where are the weakest points, which areas require immediate improvements. Smaller enterprises suffer the most from the lack, even complete absence, of business intelligence and performance analytics. "CFO Techniques" is a part of the author's personal crusade to help small and mid-size businesses by providing them with survival tools (analytical, budgetary, procedural, etc.) that don't require expensive and complicated software.

Reason #6.

One of the most unique and valuable devices offered within the book is the proprietary  chart

INCOTERMS FOR ACCOUNTANTS.

Originally developed by Eclectic & Dynamic Controllership Consulting (E&D CC) specifically for businesses involved in buying and selling goods, it expands the definitions of standard Incoterms to include such accounting notions as title transfer rules and description of applicable source documents, thus accommodating needs of proper revenue, COGS, and inventory recognition.

 

Reason #7.

One of the main underlying themes of the book is the necessity for small-business CFO's and controllers to raise themselves above the bean-counting stereotype and become critical thinkers, indispensable members of the executive management team. "CFO Techniques" emphasizes this pressing demand throughout every section and accentuates the tasks that may facilitate such transformation.

Reason #8.

While shedding new light on the day-to-day routines and spinning conventional accounting and finance tasks as crucial and indispensable cogs in the business machine, the author's functional system gives equal rights to new categories of CFOs responsibilities, such as company-wide Information Technology Management, Risk Control, and Strategic Planning.

Reason #9.

The book takes a holistic approach to multi-faceted positions of CFOs and controllers and supplements specific structural guidelines and practical functional advices with discussions of more general topics applicable to any senior professional operating in private-business environment. Among others, it includes observations and suggestions on how to deal with people on different level of corporate hierarchy and what changes to expect in your future, even if at the moment you feel 100% secure.  

Reason #10.

Even if you don't learn anything new, or if you'll find the book not applicable to your specific professional niche, at the very least you can entertain yourself with the multitude of eclectic cultural references and business insights from the author's personal experience woven through the book's text.

Audit Season Woes

As a corporate controller, CFO, and consultant, I've been on auditees' side of the table for the past 20 years. Yet, I still remember the gratifying excitement of coming to a company as an auditor and testing the depth of my expert knowledge in an unfamiliar territory, quickly absorbing the business's specifics and immediately identifying the scope of testing. Well, Ok, I've been called a "show-off" and "know-it-all" many times, so forget me. Over the years, there were other public accounting professionals (not many, but some), who impressed me with their knowledge and sharpness, but it doesn't happen anymore.

I've been complaining about the decline of the quality of work across all jobs, from customer service representatives on the phone to the cardiologists in fancy hospitals, for years. But somehow I still get very frustrated when I encounter the same trend in my own profession. I cannot even explain why. After all, I am very conscious of the managerial accountants' limitations. The main reason for writing "CFO Techniques" was the desire to fill their knowledge gaps. Just a few weeks ago I wrote about The Unimaginable Abyss of Accounting Ignorance in the small-business environment. So, I should not be surprised when I am faced with the same situation while dealing with financial auditors. Nevertheless, it still gets me.

It's audit season, so in the past couple of weeks I've been helping my client (a young company) to go through their very first independent year-end examination of books and records. It's conducted by a small CPA firm hired before my consulting engagement commenced.

Under my guidance, the client's accountants did what I always advise to do in preparation for an audit (see Chapter 30, What Guarantees Fast and Painless Audit, in "CFO Techniques"), i.e. they loaded the appointed auditor in advance with statements and schedules of data required to make all testing decisions. He definitely had time to prepare well.

The client is an importer of raw materials. So, the revenue/cost recognition and cut-off tests are very important. Accordingly, the auditor gives a list of sales and purchases he wants to test. We provide all supporting documents to verify the propriety and accuracy of each transaction. After a little while the auditor knocks on my door with a bunch of papers in his hands. "How do I know," he asks timidly, "if these invoices have correct dates?"

Inside my head I scream, "Are you fucking kidding me?" But this is not about my frustration, this is about my client. So, I calmly explain that he needs to compare the recording dates with the source documents proving the product's ownership transfer as defined by Incoterms. I go further and demonstrate with one of the selected items: this sales order states CIF (cost, insurance, freight), which means that the customer owns the product as soon as it's loaded on the transport; hence, your source document is the Bill of Lading (BL) attached right here to the Commercial Invoice and the Packing List; the BL's date is the sale's date.

He soon comes back with another file and he is very apologetic, "I am sorry, could you explain this to me again? I never heard of those... terms... before. What did you call them?" I help him out, "Incoterms?"

Will somebody, please, explain to me, since when it's Ok for an auditor, who is responsible to lenders, investors, and other outside users to verify the correctness of books and records, to come to the client without the full knowledge required to perform his tasks? Why is he not even embarrassed to admit that? Why the hell in 2012 it did not occur to him to get his ass onto the world wide web, as soon as he heard the word "Incoterms" from me, and study them?

I guess, that would be too much to ask. Hey, he didn't even know what a "metric ton" was and asked me for the ton-to-pound conversion ratio instead of finding it by himself. He continued coming over, I continued providing him with definitions and rules. At some point he got so comfortable with this teacher-student setup, he even asked my advice on how to "test for prepaid expenses." Seriously? Did he forget that I was their from the client's side, essentially being audited?

And here I have to bring up my book again. There is Chapter 29 in "CFO Techniques" called Choose Your Auditors Wisely... Dear business owners, CEOs, CFOs, and controllers, please, read it if you want to avoid paying $25,000 - $100,000 (average range for small businesses) for low-quality accounting services.

Self-Deprecating Ageism, or Impressions From Tool Concert

When iconic bands like Tool go on tours the good tickets land onto scalping sites almost instantaneously. Well, a middle-aged CFO with uber-eclectic cultural tastes is used to it: the same is true for Radiohead, Kanye West, The Cure, Wilco, Florence and the Machine, etc., and The Met charges scalping prices in its own box office. The biggest concern is handling the crowd: you want to be on the floor, but you are too old to fight off the crashing violent tendencies and the crowd-surfing of the young fans. It's fine to be in the front row of the GA pit at the Radiohead concert as there is no pushing and shoving, but the Tool audience may get carried away in the pit.

So, when fate brings an assigned-seat concert (the audience rocks standing close to their ticketed seats) and as near as East Rutherford, NJ (Tool have not given a full performance in NYC since 2006), you thank the blessed benefactor for the floor tickets and go. After all, who knows if you can summon the courage for the next time.

I guess, the front-man, Mr. Maynard James Keenan, who is mere 3 years younger than me, for a hot second felt middle-aged as well. The sentiment was rather of the nostalgic than the physical nature: he looked as robust as ever and his voice did not loose an iota of its incredible beauty and strength. But this is what happens: you get to a place and a memory of seeing Van Halen there 25 years ago hits you - fuck, I've been alive for quite some time already.

So, Maynard addressed the audience as if it consisted 100% of younglings born before his experience of the band with the most #1 hits on the Billboard Mainstream Rock chart. This was absolutely unjustified - to my quick eye the distribution of attendees was pretty much even over a broad spectrum of age groups, from 19 to mid-50's, with slightly higher density of late 20s to early 30s. But as I said, he felt like it, so he promised us that the band will "try" to perform some tracks that they have not touched for some time... as long as they "don't forget" what they are supposed to do, because they "are old". "So," he said, "if you see us wondering away in search of mashed potatoes..."

This made me laugh. Not because it was funny (Maynard is capable of better jokes), but because it reminded of me of myself always telling younger people how "the most brilliant I've ever been was at the age of 25-27, when I was writing my dissertation," and how "I used to have a near-photographic memory, but it's not the same anymore," and how "when you get older, the expertise replaces originality," and so on and so forth.

Pretty much the same coquettish crap that Maynard was trying to feed us right before him and his band-mates pulled off a set to die for, a performance one can never forget (there was a woman next to us who said that she saw Tool eighteen times and this was THE BEST CONCERT EVER!). Indeed, they were rocking like fucking hell, testing the reality and the nature of humanity with their existential lyrics and mind-blowing visuals. Their force transcended all ages; the generations converged and disappeared, chanting in unison the haunting lyrics of "Forty-six & 2" and "Aenema."

You know what? We, boys and girls born in the 60s, the so-called Generation X - the first generation conceived with The Beatles and The Stones playing in the background, potty-trained with the Pink Floyd's accompaniment and hit over the head by puberty while Led Zeppelin was hitting the Big Time, we should really stop this self-deprecating bullshit.

Nobody bought Maynard's "old-age" tirade, just like nobody buys my "I am not the same" crap. I just wrote a book full of novel ideas, I still enter companies and within a few weeks uncover their weaknesses, embarking on solving their problems and quickly coming up with solutions.

Is anybody going to think of Quentin Tarantino (1963) or Richard Linklater (1960) as "middle-aged" directors? How about Eddie Vedder (1964) or Thom Yorke (1968), would we qualify them as "middle-aged" rockers? If the beloved Kurt Cobain (1967) did not act on his disdain for human existence and kill himself at the age of 27, would we think of him as "old" now? C'mon, his fucking widow (1964) still acts like a juvenile delinquent. I can go on and on.

For better or worth, we are made differently. We count our years and we think, "Oh, I should be changing," but we are not getting "old" and we don't want to. And I don't think we will. 25 years from now, if the world is still in one piece, I intend to be at a Tool concert and expect Maynard to rock his hardest ever.

 

 

What If You Don't Look the Part?

Ah, December!  The month of office parties and corporate gatherings.  Small or large, every company feels obligated to do something: sandwiches from a nearby deli with soda in plastic cups, or formal cocktails and fancy dinners - whatever fits the budget (frequently, way over budget).

On Monday I had to take part in my client's festivities.  The company is small, but has a lot of external relations (bankers, financiers, big-time suppliers, shippers, brokers, lawyers, consultants).  So, the gathering turned out to be pretty significant.  As their acting CFO I am viewed as an insider and, therefore, was placed at the head of the "finance and legal" table.  Funny!  Other tables - operations, logistics, etc. were vividly mixed-gendered.  At my table - I was the only woman.

"But no matter, no matter!"  As all of us - females of corporate finance, I've been working in the predominantly testosterone environment my entire career.  I know how men operate and expect them eventually, after obligatory discussions of each other's success, politics, economy, and the stock market, to fall into a football patter.  And even though I myself find basketball and tennis far more exciting (and, as my readers know, prefer arts altogether), I am ready.  It's not really that difficult - here, in NYC, they are predominantly Giants' fans.  All it takes is to remember few key names and events, and they feel like you are "one of the boys." 

So, here we are, in the third hour of the event, with enough liquor in all of them to knock a team of stevedores to the ground (ever since the martini lunches have become their industry's long-gone past, the thirsty bankers make up for them in the evenings), when the Giants sneak their way into the conversation.  Only this time around, there is a twist - a politely contained and quiet tiff erupts over Eli Manning. 

You see, there is this guy, second from me on the left, in his early sixties, who looks like the Nazi who got the scepter's head burnt into his palm in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."  Only 30 minutes ago he said that the best presidential candidate right now was Michele Bachmann, which made me bit my tongue so hard to prevent a spontaneous response, I bled a little in my mouth.  Now he is arguing with other neighboring boys, telling them how much he hates Eli, and the way he sits on the side, and his smile, and his hat, etc., etc.  The fact that he is one of the only three Giants' players ever to be named a Super Bowl MVP apparently means nothing.

Let me tell you, I don't really give a rat's ass about either of the Manning brothers.  It's the underlying principle that's important to me.  So, I look the man in the eyes through his round glasses and say, "Many conservative men don't like Eli Manning, because he looks like a goofy high-schooler."  "Yes, and that stupid grin of his," says the man.  And I say, "But that look, and that grin, and that hat - they have nothing to do with his performance on the field."  The conversation ended right then and there.

More than a year ago, I finished my post "He Looks Like an Accountant..." by saying that young crowd at rock concerts don't believe that I am a career CFO.  The truth is that, unless I am introduced as one, nobody ever guesses it.  Moreover, there is always an element of surprise in people's reaction, when they learn about my profession.  It doesn't matter that I am very good at it and have a book on the subject coming out, I don't come off as "corporate finance," at least not by American standards.  I am not tall, not skinny; I don't have the fake gloss all over me.  And that crazy hair I could never tame!  I am acutely aware of this discrepancy with people's expectations.  That's why "CFO Techniques" doesn't have my picture on the back cover - I don't want to confuse people.

Trying to Impress by Talking Too Much? Ur Doin It Wrong.

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

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.

The Frustrated CFO Takes Lessons from Robert McKee

Human beings are like sponges - the second we are born we start acquiring general knowledge of things from everything around us.  It is a natural process. 

When it comes to intellectual knowledge, however, we tend to make our own choices.  Some people read Pynchon, others prefer Sports Illustrated.  Some go to see Black Swan, while others would never miss a new Transformers installment. 

It gets even more selective for specialized knowledge -  higher education, professional publications, technical books, etc.  Even with the subjects of human psychology, relationships, our understanding of the world around us (all frequently featured in The Frustrated CFO's posts), people are more likely to go for books written by "specialists." 

But the truth is that the nature of human interactions and the principles of emotional response to life do not change from industry to industry and from trade to trade. They are universal and I have learned long time ago that the knowledge of things pertaining to human experience can come to us from anywhere.  There is a reason I frequently present my topics by referring to books, TV programs and movies - the best examples of these art forms pursue the truth of life; that is why we can relate.

Those who have seen Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman's "Adaptation" may remember the screenwriting guru character played by Brian Cox.  Well, he is a real person - one of the best theoretician's of creative writing in the world Robert McKee.  After several decades of writing for theater and television, Mr. McKee found his true calling in formulating a set of fundamental principles for compelling storytelling, which became the framework of his world-touring STORY seminar.   He also compiled them into a bestselling book by the same name.

I happened to know a young screenwriter who attended McKee's seminar twice and described it as a life-changing experience - not just as a writer, but as a human being.  You see, Robert McKee teaches how movies should be written so that they penetrate straight into the audience's soul.  So, inevitably he touches on the subjects that reach far beyond cinematic matters.  That, together with the fact that his films recommendation list pretty much matches my own roster of favorites, persuaded me to buy his STORY book.

What can I tell you?  This is a very brilliant man.  Anyone who loves movies should read this book...  And everyone who considers himself a student of human nature should read this book.  It is impossible to convey all the wisdom Robert McKee generously shares, but his study of "the principle of antagonism" is particularly invaluable.  

He goes beyond the conventional knowledge that antagonistic conflicts are at the basis of existence (and a story, of course).  He concludes that there are three primary antagonistic forces for any positive value, progressing from contrary to contradictory to "the Negation of the Negation," which, unlike in math where two negatives make a positive, is "a force of antagonism that's doubly negative."  

He further constructs illustrative charts for such values as love, truth, consciousness, wealth, communication, success, bravery, loyalty,  justice, wisdom, and freedom.  I find the last three absolutely universal and applicable to many conflicts we encounter both in our professional and personal lives.  They are reproduced below.  It's mesmerizing: you look at them and it's like a reel of your life's events, fitting perfectly into these diagrams, unspools in front of your eyes.