The CFO As Your Ally

Photo by Chahat Sagar on Pexels.com

Perhaps one of the most important relationships, the head of any technology department can develop, is the one with the company’s CFO. (It is important to remember that in many organizations, the head of tech already reports to the CFO for several reasons, one of which I suppose, is that of control over the expenditures in technology). Often, these relationships are usually not as close or tight as they should be. That’s probably a result of decades of senior leadership always thinking of technology as a necessary evil or a cost center. We know now that technology is more than just a cost center or necessary evil, and in the 21st century, if the technology is not at the heart of your business, it will be whether you like it or not. Be it agriculture, a small business, or laundry service, technology will be a core component of your business, and your clientele will be demanding that you’re up to the latest technologies.

So, as a result, the business leaders making financial decisions around technology must understand and help define what the value proposition is that they’re looking for out of their technology investments and what outcomes they want to drive and for that they need to have a level of understanding of said technologies. Conversely, it is essential that whoever runs the tech Department — I’ll keep that as broad whoever– needs to build those relationships and understand the language that the business stakeholders and business leaders speak; specifically around finances, cost centers, and return on investments. These can’t be simple or anecdotal propositions of “people will be more productive.” Build strong arguments by building a good relationship with your CFO. In Redefining AI Leadership in the C-Suite, from MIT’s Sloan School of Management, the author addresses the importance of the relationship between the head of the technology department and the CFO.

The article goes a bit too deep down the finance vertical because they’re talking specifically around machine learning and artificial intelligence and all the values that could it can bring to that department. But overall, this article lays out a good case of how you, as a leader of your tech Department, should be thinking about how to engage in conversation with your CFO and making that relationship a tight and mutually beneficial relationship and not one that’s too contentious around costs and vision.

Posted on by George

On Stories

And, of course, people are only interested in themselves.  If a story is not about the hearer he will not listen.  And here I make a rule — a great and lasting story is about everyone or it will not last.  The strange and foreign is not interesting — only the deeply personal and familiar — John Steinbeck

Posted on by George Quote

Total War

AmGenEarly this summer, I read American General: The Life and Times of William Tecumseh Sherman by John S.D. Eisenhower and I found it a pleasant read. To this date, many in the south still hate Sherman, and in recent years the many on the left have labeled him a genocidal lunatic. The truth is that he was a man of his time, without which the history of the American Civil War might have been drastically different.

Sherman is remembered for his infamous march in which he destroyed everything in his path from Atlanta to Savanah. After taking Atlanta, Sherman realized that holding it would be too large a task. So he decided to march east toward the coast, feed his men with the spoils of the land on the way there, and once there – his supplies coming from the sea – supplying his men would be of no concern. While working his way there, he would break the Confederacy supporters’ will – and he did.

Sherman and Grant introduced the idea of total war in modern warfare. Taking the fight to civilians was something; both sides had not seriously considered at the start of the war, but by the end, it was what the north felt was necessary to bring the conflict to a resounding end.

The book is a well written and concise account of some of the major events in General Sherman’s life, particularly events during the civil war. 

Posted on by George

History’s Rhyme

When reading any history book that covers the rise of Nazi Germany it is often too tempting to find parallels with what happened in Germany with what is happening in the world today.  During the first Gulf War historians, journalist, and pundits all compared Hussain’s march into Kuwait to that of Hitler’s mark into the Rheinland and later Poland.  After 9/11 the Left in American and Europe considered the Bush administration and many of its actions to those of a neo-fascist movement and lots of comparisons to Nazi’s and Hitler were the norm.  And recently Trump and his wink, wink, nod, nod, to far right groups and his complete vomit-like handling of the Charlottesville incident have reassured many that we have a neo-fascist/Nazi sympathetic administration.  But history and the present are both a lot more complicated than simple brush strokes of comparisons and contrasting.

Ian Kershaw’s first volume (of two), Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, is the best book Ive read on the subject of Hitler and the Nazi party’s rise to power in the Weimar Germany.  While the first third of the book is focused on what is known about the despotic leader and his early life.  The rest of the book does a great job at weaving the personal side with his rise in the party and then as a politician.  What is most revealing about this take of history is all the side issues taking place in Germany, specifically the role the Communist, other  right wing groups, elected powers, and outside forces played in paving the way to Nazi rule.

Anyone sensitive to politics will see our times repeating Germany’s error from 90 years ago.  But this is the trap that gets us to repeat the same mistakes.  Its been said that history does not repeat itself, but that it does rhyme (this quote has been attributed to too many people to know who actually said it).  I agree with this observation.  I don’t think Trump even comes close to being a Hitler.  Trump has no convictions, while Hitler was all convictions.  Trump is a caricature of American society, while Hitler was a manifestation of a portion of German society that was at a boiling point…there were at least half dozen other men like him, spewing his hate, at that time.  (Traveling back in time and killing Hitler would only make way for another despot in waiting).  So if we are not repeating history, what is it that is rhyming?

The collapse of the Weimar Republic was made complete because the Nazis, along with the the Communist, managed to discredit the institutions of government.  Kershaw’s account is invaluable in making this case.  And the rhyming with our times comes by way of the complete and utter discreditation our institutions are having at the hands of this Administration.  But before we get too giddy about how Trump has been systematically destroying our countries institutions, lets remember there has been a regular discreditation of our institutions from administration to administration.  I will list a few examples:

  • FBI:  From the siege at Waco in the 90’s to the harassment of Richard Jewel.
  • CIA: the complete debacle of the weapons of mass destruction chapter.
  • The 2008 financial crisis where no one served a single day in jail for destroying the American economy – no, they got their bonuses thanks the Tim Geithner — paid for by the US tax payer.
  • The rollout of Obama care where after millions of dollars spent nothing worked.

To many of his supporters Trump was, in many ways, a response to the above, and many other moments of discreditation.  But while we have had many of these moments  throughout our history sitting presidents (and those coming after) have made an effort to correct matters because they understand the importance of the American people having confidence in their government and its institutions.  And this is where Trump fails miserably.

In Kershaw’s account the Nazi’s were working to discredit the institutions as part of their strategy to gain power.  Trump’s approach lacks any strategy, he’s simply incompetent.  As a result, he is not the one we need to fear.  The person we will need to fear is not on center stage yet — the setting is being prepared for him/her.  Much the way the setting for Hitler and his men was set by the incompetencies of the people that came before him.

Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris is a well thought and composed narrative of history that avoids the usual, simple minded, cliche’s of “Hitler was a jew,” or “Hitler was gay,” or “it was the treaty of versailles that led to Hitler.”  Instead, Kershaw outlines and explains all the forces at play that in some ways through chance, incompetence, or on purpose, created the perfect setting for one of the most disgusting periods in human history to come to life.

Posted on by George

Mars Or Bust

“It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don’t care.” Pablo Picasso on the moon landing of July 1969.

“Mars has been flown by, orbited, smacked into, radar examined, and rocketed onto, as well as bounced upon, rolled over, shoveled, drilled into, baked and even blasted. Still to come: Mars being stepped on.” Buzz Aldrin Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration (2013)

This Futurism article discusses a BBC documentary where Apollo 8 Astronaut Bill Anders says that its stupid for NASA to send a crewed mission to Mars. He goes on to say:

“What’s the imperative? What’s pushing us to go to Mars? I don’t think the public is that interested,”

I would agree that there is no imperative to do so and that if polled the majority of American’s would say, that is not a good use of taxpayer money. It begs to question then, using his logic – Anders – why did we go to the moon in the first place? Would he say that his and the several other trips to the moon were a waste of time and money? Additionally, there are a lot of things the public, if polled, would consider a waste of time and taxpayer money. I’m certain the internet and its predecessor would have been viewed as such by a considerable number of the US population back in the 70s and 80s.

I have always been a proponent of commercial initiatives for space exploration exactly because of arguments like Anders. Musk and Bezos SpaceX and Blue Origin’s respectively are programs that have taken such steps. What I cant understand is the hostility towards private enterprise and their objectives for space exploration. If the issue with public funding of space exploration is that its a waste of time and money to pursue Mars or asteroid mining, isn’t the private sector the perfect answer? Yet even in this BBC interview Anders expresses hostility towards the two companies plans for Mars exploration and colonization.

If private sector organizations develop a business model that allows them to support their initiatives they should be allowed to reap the benefits of their technological developments and exploration. They take the risk, they should reap the rewards. Why then hostility towards organizations pursuing, with their money, such goals? Even astronaut Frank Borman, a crew-mate of Anders Apollo 8 mission, who supports manned missions to explore the solar system has hostile words towards Space X and Blue Origins:

“I do think there’s a lot of hype about Mars that is nonsense…Musk and Bezos, they’re talking about putting colonies on Mars. That’s nonsense.”

If Musk and Bezos were talking about taxpayer dollars Borman’s argument would be valid. But if its their money, their technology, and their goals, why the hostility?

Time and again experts have failed to capture the potential of ideas because, well, they are experts. The narrow scope of their understanding and thinking inevitably generates blindsides. Thomas Watson, president of IBM in 1943 said, “I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers.” Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said in 1977, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”

Perhaps manned Mars missions are a fools errand and colonies on the red planet an utter fantasy. But the limited foresight of the masses and their experts should not get in the way of those who can finance and chase such dreams. To paraphrase the Buddhist proverb, the effort is the reward.

Posted on by George