The Frustrated CFO

HR Capitalist Believes That Operational Guidelines Are Optional

Last week (Wednesday, January 26th, to be exact), my fellow Typepad blogger HR Capitalist (www.hrcapitalist.com) posted a short musing on the subject of what he calls "Rules Orientation." Not a very clear term, it basically attempts to encompass the process of introducing new hires to the way the business is done in the company, i.e. operational guidelines. And the thesis is that it's not always necessary and the choice depends on the propensity of the candidate: if he wants the structure, give it to him; but if he doesn't like to be restrained by the rules, let him figure out his own way. The latter apparently is especially "good" for the companies that operate without rules in the first place - the mayhem kind of businesses.

(Side note: I cannot suppress my high cultural standards and must make a note about the inappropriateness of the "Fight Club" reference. I just cannot stand the pretentiousness of people who don't even understand what they are watching, but try to appear deep. Let me tell you, it took a lot of discipline, military organization, and RULES to properly run Project Mayhem. Remember? "The first rule of Fight Club is..." and so on - rules 1 to 8. Even The Narrator's psyche was protected from Tyler Durden within as long as the rules were followed. Once they were violated, the spell was broken.)

These kind of ideas and recommendations are somewhat surprising, coming from a career HR guru. How narrow is the employment niche of, what he calls, "low rules" candidates? In my opinion, minuscule - maybe some small haphazard consulting company with no supporting staff and a life expectancy of a couple of years, or a startup based on an IPhone App that will be hot for a few months and then lost in the sea of 300,000+ solutions.

In any other type of business, or even in the same kind but with a little bit of structural complexity, project deadlines, customer base, etc., operational guidelines guarantee faster immersion into daily duties. The only employees that should not be bound by protocol are the creative staff (designers, architects, artists, etc.); and even those need to abide by the rules of conduct, employment agreements, client-time billing, etc.

The biggest question is, who the hell can afford nowadays the unstructured learning curves of people not powered by certain procedural standardization? Especially if they are very good - you don't really want them to waste time on "figuring out" their personal ways of going about the job.

Moreover, I guarantee you that no small or midsize business, with its flat organizational structure and intense concentration of responsibilities, can let a no-rules screwball (or rather cannonball) into its already vulnerable system. Just imagine for a second someone like Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn) running around your workplace, releasing leopards, breaking all conventions, and eventually reducing the result of long-time effort to a pile of disconnected fossils.

But I shouldn't be really surprised that this post was written. This is a typical problem with many narrowly-focused specialists, including HR gurus. They lack the ability for systematic thinking, are not capable of viewing business as an integral organism, where everything contributes to the ultimate success, and, thus, rarely make good executive material.

I am all for matching employees abilities to their appropriately assigned tasks and specifically talk about it in the last section of "CFO Techniques", but I cannot imagine trying to fit into any organization those people who cannot follow any rules.

Strategic Planning vs. Crisis Management

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II" (written by Steve Kloves, based on a novel by J.K. Rowling's):

HARRY POTTER

We have to go there, now.

HERMIONE GRANGER

What? We can't do that! We've got to plan! We've got to figure out --

HARRY POTTER

Hermione! When have any of our plans ever worked? We plan, we get there, all hell breaks loose!

And that, my dear readers, in a nutshell, is the principal difference between the two action-plan extremists.

In the red corner, equipped by multipage projections with color graphs and tables, are those who believe that strategic planning is the only way of life and one must ponder and weigh every situational possibility before taking any step forward (or backward). In the blue corner, wearing their firefighting suits with confidence and valor, are those who are convinced that when the shit hits the fan they will be able to immediately assess the entire spectrum of life-threatening circumstances and successfully handle the crisis.

Any kind of extremism is bad, kids, m'kay? In religion, politics, personal views, and business management. Different situations require different approaches. Only a balanced combination of executive instruments, including long- and short-term plans as well as emergency-response methodology, can guarantee an enterprise's ability to efficiently evolve and weather any dangers that constantly arise in the volatile commercial environment.

In my book, "CFO Techniques", I have devoted an entire section (Part VIII) to strategies and planning as crucial components of CFOs' and controllers' functionality - the important responsibilities that change financial managers from bean-counters to CEOs' executive partners. Participating in analysis of opportunities and construction of well-devised action scenarios offers us a possibility to affect companies in the most significant way. Remember, that those executives who let companies run their course without looking into the future and carefully plotting their steps for further development, leave the businesses vulnerable in the face of the fast-advancing competition.

On the other hand, crisis management efforts applied in situations that present themselves without any warning are of extreme importance as well, particularly in small and midsize businesses, which are highly susceptible to the slightest deviations in market, financial, economic, and political environment. Moreover, these companies frequently have less than sufficient reserves to tide them over tough times. Implementation of a disaster-rescue mission requires high level of composure and rationalization. Those who've read my "About" note know that I consider my "fire-fighting" skills to be the most valuable to my employers and clients.

It is a mistake to think, though, that even a very experienced CFO can wing it without contemplating some sort of advance "what-if" scenarios. In fact, a crisis management policy is just another form of a strategic plan. On top of that, proper preparation for emergencies requires broader expertise and deeper knowledge of various commercial, marketing, technological, financial, legal, and organizational matters.

The truth is that a successful executive must be capable of devising a carefully-weighed and calculated strategic development plan with all visual bells and whistles her digital arsenal can afford, but in her special folder she always keeps a set of comprehensive tactical procedures for effective extinguishment of fires and post-disaster survival.

A CFO's Democratism Gets Tested

In most smaller companies, CFOs and controllers include general HR functions into their scopes of responsibilities - that's a given. The flat organizational structures, though, with their spatial and psychological proximity of top executives to the staff, play peculiar tricks on those in charge of the company's human relations.

Very frequently a CFO takes a role of a buffer between the owner/CEO and the rest of the company's employees. She feels obligated to soften the impact of the direct dealing with frequently harsh and hard attitudes of the boss.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more frequently than not entrepreneurs don't have an experience of ever being in a position of an employee and, therefore, they have very little understanding of the staff's mentality. On the other hand, a CFO maybe a right-hand person now, but she is still just a salaried employee, most likely grown into her current status by climbing through the ranks. If she is a decent human with a conscience, she is sensitive to the needs of valuable employees and cares about their well-being (if they are useless, let someone else care about them).

It's likely that an excellent CFO would enjoy a comparatively preferential treatment by a CEO: more disciplinary leniency, nicer attitude, better perks, general amiability, etc. When it comes to other employees, their efforts and achievements may be remarkable, but they are not as evident to the boss, and that reduces their value in his eyes. I've had one CEO openly tell me that if I want a certain benefit (let's say flexible spending account) for myself, he would be fine with obtaining it, but he did not care about the rest of the "worker-bees."

So, the CFO takes it upon herself to protect other employees from undue tyranny and act as their speaker when it comes to betterment of the employment conditions, whatever they are: raises, bonuses, vacations, benefits, etc. Sort of like a representative of the XYZ Company's employees union. And when she discusses this situation with her friends and family, she expresses her disdain for the undemocratic ways of her boss, taking pride in her efforts to right the wrongs.

Now imagine such a CFO taking a position with a new company - small, young, still pretty much in development stage. The owners are very liberal and treat everyone like equals. Moreover, the CFO is the last person being hired. Those few other employees have been there from the start. Nobody needs protection. Furthermore, there is one person who has been there the longest, starting as a CEO's assistant. Not that she gets any special perks or something like that, but she definitely feels very secure.

This should make the democratic CFO very happy. After all, wasn't she fighting for equality of other employees all the time before? Yes, it's nice; wonderful, really; exactly what she hoped to find... Except that... Being "the chosen one" was kind of a guilty pleasure too, an enjoyable self-esteem booster. And the gratitude of others for all that blow-cushioning effort was very rewarding as well. As important as the democratic principles were to this CFO, the old tyranny is somewhat missed.

That's how we, humans, are. For various reasons and purposes, mostly subconsciously and without any malice, we create these little lies that alter our self-image and other people's perception of us in one way or another.

It reminds me of my UK friend of many years, Gerald Hamer's, revelation concerning his constant bitching and moaning about endless international traveling he had to endure throughout many years of his impressive career as financial broker and adviser. "In truth," he said, "deep inside I love the goddamn airports; the sub-par plane food; the inevitable delays; god-forsaken Yakutsk, the coldest city on Earth, with its diamond mines one week, and unbearable humidity of Bahrain another. I wouldn't want it any other way."

So, all you, democratic CFOs out there, work as hard as you can and fight for your employees' well-being with all you've got, but be honest with yourself: you enjoy being special, the Most Valuable Player in the field.

Radiohead: A Case of Strategic Mismanagement

Speaking of Radiohead (I am referring to my last "Quote of the Week" post)... 

No, let me first say that I LOVE Radiohead.  They are one of my top 5.5 (it's complicated, ok?!) favorite bands.  I have been to their shows, with pit tickets, standing for over seven hours in line to be in the first row, in front of the stage with big Ed's shoes in my face, watching Jonny Greenwood perform his musical voodoo, observing Thom Yorke drooling all over the mike, while articulating "I salivate like with myxomatosis," as if he was actually afflicted.  I saw them perform "True Love Waits" for the first time ever.  Good times!

And even though I usually religiously adhere to my own rule of separating the Artist from the Man (otherwise you end up hating everything - people, including geniuses, are nasty creatures), I agreeably pay attention to some of Radiohead members' personal principles: anti-music-establishment, free distribution, less flying, and stuff like that.  At the same time, I am very objective.  I don't idolize anybody.  If something is stupid, I'll call it that, regardless of who did it.  Plus, this is a CFO's blog, so when it comes to executive decisions I am especially vigilant.

Soooooo, the latest incident involving Roseland Ballroom (NYC) concerts really irritated me as a blatant display of a gross strategic mismanagement.  Supposedly to make sure that real fans get them and not the scalpers, the release of tickets for September 28th and 29th concerts was held off until Monday, September 26th, 10 AM.  And what was the wonderfully unique channel of distribution?  The fucking Ticketmaster!!! 

How out of touch with reality these people and their support staff are???  Don't they know that the days of conventional scalping are long gone? Today, you can be sitting somewhere in Nebraska with your little reloading software, buy tickets and immediately start electronically scalping them as PDF attachments.  

I personally clicked "Find tickets" at 10:00 AM.  The fucking Ticketmaster advised that my waiting time was 5 minutes.  Nevertheless, in 3 minutes flat, I was informed that the tickets were not available anymore.  180 seconds - God bless the electronic age!  Obediently I went to the "resale" (read - scalping) TicketsNow site (owned by the fucking Ticketmaster) - the tickets were already listed with prices ranging from $650-$1,500 for GA.  The concerts turned out to be the exclusive events for people with money.  Most of them cared more about the status of attending than about the music.

Talking about a complete failure of a business action plan!  Is there anybody around Radiohead with a common sense to suggest a more intelligent strategy?  You want to deliver yourself to your true friends? You are a super-group.  Instead of going through Live Nation, you can rent your own venue and sell the tickets the old-fashion way: at the box office, with a limit of two tickets per person.  Your real fans will sleep on the street through the night for a chance to see you!  It's really not that complicated.  But I guess, like with everything, it's too much to ask for a logical reasoning nowadays.          

Essentially, a rock band is a small business - no different then, let's say an advertising agency.  The set up is the same - there is a core creative staff and a bunch of supporting functions around it: administration, financial management, legal services, etc.   My readers know how important small businesses are to me - I believe they need to be cultivated and nurtured as the only option for saving the world's economy.  But, again, I am very sensible about it.  It's not all businesses that need support - only the ones that are well organized and have smart leadership. 

Hey you music fans, don't get mad at me (I'm on your side), but it's possible that most rock bands, after riding the initial fandom wave, eventually end up sucking because they don't know how to run their business well.  There were only five really great songs on "In Rainbows" and this last album Radiohead finally squeezed out (I did say I was very objective) is really just so-so. 

From time to time Mr. Yorke says that it "didn't jive in the studio," and I keep worrying that, after 26 years together, they will go out of business.  I don't want that to happen, because I am sure many people, including me, would be happy to see them doing OK Computer, Kid A and Amnesiac stuff on stage for another 25 years, even if they don't write anything decent anymore.   But they really need to figure out a sound business model to be able to do that.  And, please guys, get some strategic management advice about that "tickets to real fans" program.  I promise you, this will make already eternally grateful fans happy.

 
Radiohead - 15 Step (Grammy 2009)

The Weakest Link in a Corporate Finance and Accounting System

Let’s say, as a CFO or Controller you have all policies outlined and procedures carefully designed.  Everything is properly documented and bound into books and manuals, which are readily available for orientation, training, and daily reference.  Through intensive internal audit program all components have been examined; everything have been tested in practice.  Whatever did not work well has been tweaked; cumbersome procedures were replaced with more straightforward ones; the inferior ones have been improved.

Finally it has been determined that the internal control system is both effective and efficient in accomplishing the company’s goals and the executive management’s objectives.  Is it reasonable at this point to expect that everything should be working like that expensive watch I keep mentioning as a model of a perfect mechanism?  Unfortunately, not. 

We don’t exist in the virtual world of The Matrix trilogy, where everyone is manipulated by the digital code.  In real life it is the other way around: our well designed systems and structures depend on being properly handled by people.  Their proficiency and diligence determine how well the policies and procedures are being performed.  The truth is that every task performed by an employee is vulnerable to occasional unintentional errors, consistent sloppiness, and even deliberate mishandling.

Any designer of functional systems, with frameworks that include people as key elements, knows that humans are the weakest links in the chain of actions.  Long time ago, when computers were so huge that a single unit occupied a hall the size of the New York Public Library’s Reading Room, all programs and data were coded on punch cards.  A punched out spot was read by the computer’s card reader as a character or a digit.  These cards were manually created by operators trained to use a keypunch machine.  Guess what?  Two separate people produced every card in duplicate.  No exceptions. If the cards did not match, they have to be re-punched.  Thus, the risk of human error was managed.

Such duplication of staff is unthinkable now.  Today, we rely on computer systems to reduce at least the most common of the risks.  The rest of flaws must be caught through vigorous and persistent scrutiny of performance quality.  Monitoring is the cornerstone of internal control and one of the most important responsibilities of a supervisor.  It brings the entire system together and assures that policies, procedures and people concur.  A series of timely and thoughtful tests should become a part of your, or your internal auditors’, routine.

Remember:   If not corrected, every mistake your employee makes will end up in financial data, documents and reports, for which you are ultimately responsible.  One erroneous entry may affect your bank’s collateral statement or a presentation to the board of directors.  Omissions will impair strategic decisions.  Communication mishaps can impact commercial relationships.  These flaws will most definitely be a poor reflection on your reputation as a financial leader.  You have to create filters that will catch the debris before they pollute the results of your hard work.

You can read about various practical techniques of reducing accounting and finance systems' vulnerability to human factor in my upcoming book "CFO Techniques" (Apress, 12/02/2011), now available for pre-order at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.    

My Book Is Now Available for Pre-Order

My book "CFO Techniques: A Hands-on Guide to Keeping Your Business Solvent and Successful" (Apress, December 2,2011) is now available for pre order at Amazon and Barnes & Noble:

• ISBN-10: 1430237562
• ISBN-13: 978-1430237563

New CFO's Essential Knowledge Prerequisites

When you start as a CFO, the first thing to do is to get your bearings - to assess your position relative to your surroundings.  As quickly as you can you must grasp general ideas about typical characteristics of your environment, your own role and purpose, expectations of others, as well as primary routes for channeling your talents and efforts.  But as soon as you are done with that, comes the time to get down to the level of firsthand details and study the specific aspects of the business.   You need to draw a detailed map that will help you on your journey as a financial leader.

This is a mandatory activity for a recently hired head of finance, new to the company.  It is a good idea for someone who has been with the company for a while in a lower position and just been promoted – new vantage point may provide you with the better vision of your company.  Even if you’ve held the top post for a few years, but never got around to do this and feel that incomplete picture prevents you from excelling, maybe now is a good time to go back to the drawing board.

This is your R&D stage, necessary for proper functional design.  Your research will help you to improve future performance.  Every CFO and controller must acquire an exhaustive understanding of his employer’s business. There is no doubt, that compilation of, what I call, the big picture is the key element in your strategic responsibilities. However, it is just as important for day-to-day hands-on management.  In the absence of thorough knowledge of all operational and organizational features, it is impossible to construct budgets, define tasks, or determine reporting requirements.

At the very least, your information-gathering activities should be focused in the following four areas:

Study of Corporate Structure

Economic complexity pushes businesses into multiple levels of diversification - wider product ranges, additional services, new geographical and demographic markets, related industries, outsourcing, foreign productions, etc, etc.  As companies pave new ways, their corporate structures adapt accordingly: branches are created, subsidiaries are formed, and satellite offices are opened.  Today, a $10 million service company may turned out to be a surprisingly complicated organism.  This affects nearly every accounting and financial function: local taxation, inter-company transactions, principles of consolidation, financial statements disclosures, banking facilities – just to name a few.

Study of Operational Flow and Value Chain

During your orientation stage this study has immediate practical applications.  It is a prerequisite to identifying accounting cycles, classifying assets and liabilities, pinpointing cost centers, determining analytical and financing needs, etc., etc.  There are transactions happening at every stage of the operational flow that give rise to accounting events.  Without full comprehension of the value chain you run a danger of oversights and errors.

Study of Organizational Chart and Functional Distribution

If the previous section is about processes, in this one we survey people and their positions.  I don’t have to convince anybody that it is important to figure out the chain of command and designation of responsibilities within your employer’s organization – you just need to know who’s who.  It goes beyond just knowing your peers with whom you discuss company-wide issues and inter-departmental relationships.  You have to know people along the value chain – those, who are in charge of cost and profit centers, have relationships with suppliers, vendors and customers, maintain your facilities and receive your mail.   

Study of Existing Policies and Procedures

If you became a CFO or a controller in a company that already has policies in writing and documented procedures in place, even if they are deficient, consider yourself very lucky.  You can study the existing papers, outline blind spots and pinpoint weak or erroneous steps. It is easier to enforce changes, if employees are already comfortable with an idea of adhering to a recorded set of rules.

On the other hand, you must be prepared to deal with a complete lack of anything in writing.  Important thing to remember is that it does not mean policies and procedures don’t exist.  They are there like an oral folklore of an ancient tribe, passed from generation to generation.  It would be a big mistake just to ignore the traditions and try to impose a new order.  You have to uncover and learn them first.   

Excerpted from my forthcoming book "CFO Techniques: A Hands-on Guide to Keeping Your Business Solvent and Successful" (Apress, December 2011)

The Frustrated CFO Attends a Panel on Risk, Probability, and Chance

Annual World Science Festival took place this week in New York City.  It is a wonderful fair with over 40 events and I try to catch at least two or three.  One of the discussions, I felt, was important for me to attend this time was The Illusion of Certainty: Risk, Probability, and Chance. 

Not only that I find practical application of mathematical, statistical and cognitive theories to business risks, economic uncertainty and commercial intuition to be imperative for strategically inclined CFOs and Controllers, but also my upcoming book on functionality of hands-on financial executives will have a chapter on Risks.  Besides, I've enjoyed books penned by two of the panelists - Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk: how randomness rules our lives and Gerd Gigerenzer's Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious (both are featured on by book list to the right).  And even though the distinguished panel, which also included mathematician Amir Aczel and MIT's professor of Computational Cognitive Science Josh Tenenbaum, ran out of time before they got anywhere near concepts of risks, they have touched on quite a few other fascinating concepts  that have direct application to our professional lives.

Here are few highlights.

I.  Self-confidence vs. probability and empirical evidence.  Our ambitions and drive to succeed mandates nurturing of confidence.  Business schools and work experiences show us that only assertive people who stick to their positions, even if they are based on guesses, achieve their goals.  Here comes, the Monty Hall Paradox - a logical statistical problem with an odd, but empirically demonstrable result. 

It is a probability puzzle based on the TV program Let's Make a Deal originally hosted by Monty Hall.  In the first round, the contestants on the show had to chose one out of three closed doors - two concealing goats and one hiding a car.  Then, the host would open one of the remaining doors revealing goats.  Now, that this door is eliminated, the following question is posted: do you want to switch or retain your original choice.  The confident, "believe-in-yourself" people like us most likely will stick to their guns.  Yet, years of replicating the experiment showed that changing your original choice doubles the probability of winning the car: from 1 in 3 to 2 in 3.  This maybe a good indication that there is nothing wrong with rethinking your position - it may actually be beneficial.

II.  Influence of visual presentation on interpretations of data.  Throughout our careers we have been using graphs, charts, dashboards, etc. in presentations of performance results and other information, because experience shows that it impresses the data recipients better than numbers in tables or narratives.  The reason it works so well is because our instinctive cognitive abilities are much better than conscious digestion of facts.  We are capable of processing visual data flowing at us without even thinking about it. 

Like in the chart below, which shows the relationship between marketing expenses (Y-axis, in thousands of dollars) and sales (volume represented by the bubbles, in millions of dollars).  Just by glancing at the chart anyone can see that the larger bubbles (sales) correspond with higher marketing expenses.  Biologically, it is not that much different from our ability to discern danger when we walk through the jungle.  So, when we design our graphic presentations, we should keep that in mind and try to create images that don't just look pretty, but actually transmit the most valuable messages.

III.  People's blind belief in numbers.  This is something that all financial professionals constantly use while communicating with lenders, investors, bosses, commercial partners, etc., without even thinking twice about underlying scientific theories.  Everybody knows, when you pitch a proposal, renew a credit line, or report on the business results, the more numbers you throw at "them," the better.  Presence of the numbers in a message on its own creates the illusion of certainty, regardless of their substance. 

Advertisers know that very well too.  When we hear in a commercial that 9 out of 10 users of this new cosmetic product saw an improvement in their appearance (or whatever), we automatically accept this as a proof of great achievement.  People forget that because these values are assigned by humans, they cannot be precise.   First of all, what is the definition of "improvement?"  And what if I tell you that the product was used on a group of 30 healthy, good-looking people, ages 20 to 25.  Will you still think that it will work on you as well?

CFO's Ode to Gross-Profit-Based Commissions

Commissions (in all possible forms, including percentage-base bonuses and even royalties) are curiously contradictory – they are revenue-driven expenses.  Unlike other costs in the value chain, they don’t precede, but follow commercial transactions of converting products and services into business returns.  These incentives are basically wages calculated as a percentage of one or another base.  And it is the selection of the base that, unfortunately, hurts most of the companies using this type of remuneration.

In many industries commissions are traditionally based on volume – sales, purchases, collections, etc.  Employing a system like that stimulates the race for big numbers – the more you sell (procure, collect), the higher are your commissions.  The sales force, or procurement team, runs down every single order without any concern for its contribution into the company’s bottom line.  Of course, returns, allowances, price discounts are all accounted for in the calculations, but otherwise volume-based payees don’t care whether the company looses or makes money on their deals.

This eats away profits of many organizations.  Even if a company consistently doing well, even if you have a system of pre-approving deals by projecting their profitability, there are always some transactions that will end up loosing money for one or another reason: the freight rates, for example, have a tendency of  suddenly going up all the time due to the spikes in oil prices.   Yet, the commissions on those sales will be paid anyway, further deteriorating the bottom line.

Of course, some good CFOs and controllers try to absorb the possibilities of losses into their calculations and fight for reduction of rates.  But the truth is that most of the time, especially in smaller businesses, the companies stick to industry standards and you need a revolution to change them.

The only way to avoid this multiplication of losses is switching your company to commissions paid based on the transactional gross profit.  The reason I use the term "transactional" here is because, unless you have one person receiving commissions for the entire volume, you will have to enter the world of segmenting your business into portions that correspond to all recipient's sectors: countries, regions, products, and even transactions.    

I will not deny the fact that it is a pain: there is a lot of work involved into all that, including the process of allocating shared expenses and overheads.  Moreover, I can guarantee you that your calculations will be severely scrutinized by all interested parties. 

Over the years of my career I was able to implement such systems in two companies.  The matters were further complicated by the fact that procurers and sales people cooperated on different transactions, in different combinations.  Can you imagine dividing all those shared credits?!  Both times I had a dedicated analyst assigned to the task and personally dealt with complaints from the traders.  But the benefits to the businesses were undeniable – no commissions were ever paid on loosing deals.   Think about it.        

Donna Ballman's Great Article on Workplace Rights

Those who visit my blog consistently probably remember my post The Distortion of Bill of Rights in Small Business and know that I frequently come back to the issues of an employee's freedoms and rights even in the pieces not related to to those topics directly.  I would like to draw the readers' attention to this great article by Donna Ballman written for AOL Jobs 10 Workplace Rights You Think You Have, But Don't. 

Ms. Ballman is an employment attorney, so unlike my insider's point of view, her perspective is independent and supported by legal expertise - really a must-read for everyone who confused their workplace for a democracy.