The Frustrated CFO

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. 

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.    

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.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Just Your Average Opportunistic Boss

Who can resist this?  The Governator has cheated and lied?  Noooo, you are kidding!!! I am sure millions of bloggers hit the keyboards running.

But wait a minute, I already wrote about this - just little over four months ago: CFO Folklore: When Your Boss's Secretary Becomes His Girlfriend.  Well, not about Arnie per se, but about bosses having affairs with their employees. 

Obviously, it was based on incidents I have witnessed in business, as a financial professional.  I wrote the piece from the inside perspective of frustrated CFOs and Controllers, who are forced to deal with that.  Yet, I used very generalized terms, because it is the most typical type of infidelity. 

I don't think I have to remind you about all political scandals with exactly the same premise.  I never thought that the only reason these incidents ignited public attention was people's relishing the dirt.  It is the relevance of these situations to every-day life that attracts people: "Oh, he is just like that dick I work for."  As the matter of fact, that January post is the third most popular item on this Blog - people relate.

There is always an enterprising (rarely smitten) young and ambitions intern/staffer/secretary/page (she or he) in the office of a powerful older man, who,  driven by desire to excel in life without too much effort, will pursue the boss with all her (his) youthful enthusiasm.  And of course, the older person is weakened: his male nature already has a propensity for imprudence; his morals are corrupted by power; he is ridden with temptation to taste something 20-25 years younger...  "What a poor man to do?"

As the matter of fact, small business owners have it better than more powerful public figures like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Clinton.  The latter risk public humiliation and popularity votes; the former have almost nothing to fear in their little absolute monarchies.  

The truth is, I liked Mr. Schwarzenegger up until he went into politics.  I admired his drive to rise above his muscles.  He actually always seemed liked a pretty decent man to me - someone who, if he fell out of love, would just come clean, divorce her and then go on making babies with another woman.  I should have known that as soon as "political reasoning" kicked in, lying would commence.  That they kept quiet, so he wouldn't loose his supporters - it's just disgusting.  

It is uncanny, but the former action star's news of an out-of-wedlock child, hit much closer to the real-life prototype of Boss and His Secretary story I wrote in January - I've just recently learned that the secretary in question is actually pregnant, while the boss is still legally married to his wife of twenty years.  

I would like to propose a little contest.  My readers, if you know of a single male business owner over 50 year old, with the staff of more than 20 people, who never had any indiscretions, please let me know.  I will sing praises to him in these virtual pages.

Language Barrier

I don't know why, people still single out the US as a country of immigrants.  Just because before Columbus "found" the "New" World, this land was vastly unpopulated, and after that Europeans started moving in?  Well, people,  all over the world, migrated from one place to another through the history of humanity.  And I can assure you that Americans who can trace their origins to Mayflower and beyond, don't consider themselves immigrants.    

Of course, we have an inflow of new immigrants, and we  do lead in absolute numbers, but per capita, Australia's and Canada's immigration rates are currently three times higher than America's.  Also, there is a question of concentration.  What we should be called is a country of uneven immigration. 

There are places where people have never seen an immigrant.  I have a Turkish friend who once stopped with his half-Swedish-half-French wife in a small Midwestern town for gas and the shop-keeper called a sheriff.  100% true story. Homogeneous regions and countries scare me - they are too easy to manipulate.

I enjoy the blessed places, where you can see different faces and hear different tongues every step you take.  And it is with a great reluctance, I have to recognize the fact that the language barrier problem sometimes affects the work environment.  Well, it's rather accent barrier.   

I myself have no such problem.  Over the years I worked with people from more than 20 countries.  I pay attention and my ears got accustomed to all sorts of accents and grammatical deviations.  Unfortunately, that cannot be said about everybody.  Many times I have encountered situations of stark misunderstanding between employees of different origin.  It results in  frustration, waste of time and even errors. 

Few years ago I had two employees in my analytics group - one was a woman from Ukraine and another was a man from China.  While I had no problem communicating with them, they could not understand each other.  The woman was very cautious about filling the gaps in information with her own assumptions and guesses.  Instead, she would drag him into my office, asking me to explain.  CFO, the Interpreter! 

Something needed to be done.  I thought of replacing one of them, but that's not my way of doing things.  Instead, I asked them to communicate in writing - every time they needed to say something to each other, they used IM.  Some people may think that it took away more time - not true.  They spent so much time trying to understand one another and getting me involved, my solution was actually a time-saver.  Actually, seeing the words has improved their verbal communication as well.    

I think problems like that are rooted in the lack of effort.  The two kept asking me why I didn't have problems understanding either of them.  I'd said,  "Just pay attention to expressions and emotions and it will be easier to understand."

Like in this video.  The great comedian speaks a cartoon language he invented himself.  Yet, people all over the world understand him.

 

    

    

   

We Are All "Up in the Air"

Back in the Fall of 2009, when "Up in the Air" was released, I didn't see it, but people told me I should have.  I watched it the other day.  Wow!  It is not just an excellent movie and the most realistic piece of American cinema I've seen since 2005.  It is also a gold mine of occupational themes that hit so close to home, it's unreal.  You know, the subtle truths about corporate existence, which are so familiar to those of us, who have been boiling in that soup their entire lives.  Thank you, Jason Reitman!

Our new economic reality of depressed businesses and desperate people serves as a recognizable background to the personal stories unfolding in front of us.  The uncertainty of survival in the contemporary corporate world is so pervasive, nobody knows what tomorrow shall bring.  "Living in the Now" is not a conscious choice of enlightened individuals anymore.  Whether a CFO or a receptionist, in companies large or small - every wage-dependent person lives one day at a time.

As the matter of fact, George Clooney's character, Ryan Bingham, is sent to large companies.  These companies can still afford to hire an outside firm to conduct the "separation" exercise for them, with fancy folders and severance packages. 

In small business environment, even during the best of times, you wouldn't think of spending money on protecting yourself from the brutal necessity of firing people with whom you worked side by side.  As a CFO/Controller, I've had my share of sitting across the table in a conference room, looking into a person's eyes and delivering the bad news.  I developed my own style as well: do it gently, make them feel better, give them hope...  Some even thank me at the end.  Just doing my job, like Ryan Bingham.

He, actually, works for a small company owned and managed by his boss (Jason Bateman), who (how typical!) changes his mind about the company's direction three times in a few depicted weeks.  Ingeniously, the filmmakers reduce smooth and dashing George Clooney to a powerless subordinate: his entire way of life is about to be changed by his boss's decision and there is nothing he can do about it.  "...Here's the boat?.. Do you want to be in the boat?"  You are either in or out.  You have no choice.  You swallow your pride and you go along.  Just doing your job.

What are we doing?  How do we go on and live with ourselves when we fire someone who is good at his job?  How do we sleep at night after dismissing hundreds of hopefuls' resumes?  And what happens when our own resumes get swept into trash?  Do people feel anything at all?  Those are our hopes that get dismantled.  Do we register the weight of what we do?  I don't know.

Everyone's life is up in the air, with no help coming.  Help ourselves? We can try to stay positive and continue struggling on - that's the best we can do.

 

The Most Annoying Coworker on TV

There are some quite popular workplace sitcoms on TV right now.  NBC seems to be leading the pack with 30 Rock, Parks and Recreations, and the subpar remake of Ricky Gervais's funny British import, The Office.  Also, pretty much all crime-fighting dramas, police and legal procedurals - all the Law & Order's, the CSI's, etc, use colleagues' dynamics as integral parts of their storytelling.  

Hence, the selection of TV coworkers with various annoying traits is vast.  Yet, it's the character created by a brilliant advertising firm Duncan/Channon,  who deserves the title of  The Most Annoying Coworker: Frank - the self-aggrandizing customer service rep of Esurance, who requests to be called The Saver.

This guy pushes credit-hogging into ridiculous territory by claiming Esurance's standard on-line quoting feature to be his personal achievement.  The insurance company's website states that Frank's "antics often produce groans from his coworkers."  Well, that's mildly put! He annoys the hell out of them!  I am sure the viewers exposed to people like that in their own workplace loath him as well. 

Drs. Brinkman and Kirschner (check out their book Dealing with People You Can't Stand on my list) would classify Frank as a "THINK-THEY-KNOW-IT-ALL" type.  He is  someone whose desire to be appreciated has degenerated into uncontrollable attention-seeking behavior.

It is one thing to deal with your own peers acting like that.  There are just a handful of C-level employees in a smaller company.  Exposing someone who is a phony is not that difficult as long as you can restrain yourself from hysterics and resist the temptation to rip his head off.  Let's say they take credit for your idea.  Don't argue, instead start asking detailed questions.  Even better - suggest that they should spearhead the further development. See what happens. 

It is far greater responsibility, my fellow CFOs and Controllers, to stop someone like that from demoralizing your staff.  You should be able to recognize such attitude in people who work for you.  Your ear should be able to detect exaggerations, lies and false claims of accomplishment.  When you do, you must act. 

Of course, the simplest way to deal with the problem is to fire the pest.  However, Esurance's Frank, for example, is a very good CSR and customers like him.  Instead of throwing him out, you need to TRY TO REFORM him:

1.  He seeks attention - give it to him.  If he is good enough for you to keep him, make sure that you praise him for his excellent work.

2.  At the same time, return stolen credits where they due and acknowledge other employees for their achievements without embarrassing the person in question.

3.  Have a one-on-one talk with him, explaining the impropriety and foolishness of what he is doing.

4.  If none of it works, you may be forced to expose him during, let's say your staff meeting.  If that's what you need to do, refrain from harshness.

Most importantly, don't forget to use your favorite method of frustration release.  Trust me, you'll need it.

CFO Folklore: Defensiveness and Excuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Angry Letters Is Therapeutic, Sending Them Out Is Foolish

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

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

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

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

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

Here are few preventive measures I can recommend:

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

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

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

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

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

Sloppy Accountant Steals From Lorne Michaels and Tina Fey

Well, technically he stole from NBC Universal who bankrolls the production of 30 Rock, but Lorne Michaels and Tina Fey helm the show.  I guess, if it has something to do with the creator of Saturday Night Live and the show's former Head Writer, even the embezzlement case must have a bizarre skit flavor.

The media-released facts of this "grand" scam, which yielded the schmuck, formerly employed as an "accountant" on the show, a $13.6K "fortune" in stolen funds, are sketchy (pun is always intended), so I will have to apply my financial forensic expertise and speculate about some of the details. 

The way I see it, he caught on the fact that when expense reports/envelopes are submitted for reimbursement, nobody checks the actual receipts inside.  It is also possible that he was the very person responsible for checking them.  Either way, there were obvious holes in this internal control plot.  So, he decided to pad a few envelopes with fictional expenses, personal use of the business credit card and even altered receipts.  On top of that, he did it stupidly and sloppily: used whiteout to falsify the receipts, faked the NBC Comptroller's initials.  He thought nobody would ever notice. As far as he could see, from his limited to one season and inexperienced point of view (how do these people get employed?), nobody was looking.

Nobody in accounting management did!  Judging by the timing of his employment and arrest, it seems the independent auditors were the ones who discovered the receipts with the whiteout!!!  In a business with big-shot executive producers charging all kinds of perks (limos, flowers and whatnot) to corporate credit cards, the reconciliation of expense accounts is a sensitive area.  That's where diligent auditors would look.  And the SLOPPY WHITEOUT - how can anyone possibly miss that?

So, now he is facing up to 7 years in jail.  That's a year for every $2,000 he stole.  Pretty severe.  However, The Frustrated CFO is the most curious about the consequences of this ordeal for the NBC's Comptroller.   In my book she is ultimately responsible for the lack of proper internal control procedures and the inadequacy of the budget variance analysis.  If those functions were correctly established and executed, this small-time offense, blown out-of-proportion by its show-biz relation, would never have occurred in the first place.  Both her and the arrested one are sorry excuses for accountants.        

What was the perp's self-justification?  Did he think that "it was not fair" for Tina Fey to spend $200 a day in limo charges?  IMDb Pro reports her current 30 Rock salary at $300,000 per episode.  That must've killed him.

However, we are accountants, so let's count.  The show reportedly has 6 million viewers.  That's only in the US and doesn't count reruns or DVD sales. So, on the evening of each episode's airing Tina Fey makes 6 million people laugh and forget their worries.  (Please, appreciate my objectivity here as I personally don't find Tina Fey's comedy funny, intelligent or entertaining.)  And for that she gets paid 5 cents per person.   I think that's reasonable.  Who did that "accountant" make happy?