Posts Tagged ‘players’

The last part of this series I wish to devote to what I regard as the most insidious and venal aspect of the Game –that being what I refer to as the ‘knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing’ syndrome. the gigantic marketing machine of the Game, pumps out an endless stream of images of the good life – beautiful, svelte, youngish people, bearing their teeth in the midst of orgasmic joy. They thank their Creator not for being alive, but for being who they are. All that is subtle or serene,; all that might ennoble or inspire us; is drowned out by all the noise.

The Game’s architects, not content to simply bombard our senses, go to great lengths to prove to us that our seeking something more than their fabricated reality they ram down our throats is sheer folly on our part. Polemicists like Richard Dawkins devote years of study and hundreds of pages of text to enlightening us, helping us to see that our faith in something innately good in our fellow man is completely misplaced. When one person gives another a helping hand, with no apparent benefit to themselves, we are not allowed to simply take it one face value as being a spontaneous act of kindness. They must somehow taint it the selfish impulse. The Selfish Gene, no less! It well may be that there is not an ounce of human kindness in Richard Dawkins, but why must he condemn us all to the same fate.

Such books are presented as breakthroughs, yet the main thrust of Dawkins argument was anticipated by Freud over 70 years before, Nietzsche before him, and Schopenhauer before him. This is precisely the kind of seductive logic employed by the snake in the Garden of Eden. In pulling God down from the heavens, they seek to ascend to the Heavens and take their place. In the 19th century, Gogol wrote a famous parody entitled The diary of a Madman. It is a first hand account of a day in the life of low level clerk in Saint Petersburg who wakes us up one morning believing himself to be the King of Spain. This would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that those around them show no inclination to share his delusion. Clinging to their own sense of reality, they fail to see him as anything more than a low level clerk. even when the clerk is taken away, and incarcerated in a mental asylum, he still clings fast to his delusion, feeling a kind of pity for those around them in a kind of ‘Forgive them Lord they know not what they do’ sort of way.

Maybe Dawkins has it all backwards; it is not we who are deluded, but they themselves. The only difference is that in our world the ‘Kings of Spain’, instead of being incarcerated, sit atop thrones!

At some point in the course of our journey through life, we all encounter those people who simply cannot think ill of others. So pure of heart are these folks, that even entertaining the notion that those who do harm to others should do so out of malevolence, rather than misguidedness, is simply unfathomable. These good Christians will steadfastly maintain that those who steal, those who lie, those who manipulate others, suffer from a distorted worldview – they basically mean well, but either through mental defect, or lack of education, are not able to fully think through the consequences of their actions. Ever since childhood I have been frustrated and intrigued by this particular quirk of the Anglo-Saxon culture. I have come to refer to it as the ‘see no evil’ syndrome.

Over the last few months I had the privilege of having lengthy discussions with two prominent members of the London Financial scene, one an international risk management specialist, the other the dean of a prestigious business school. Both men are acknowledged experts on corporate malfeasance, regularly invited to give keynote addresses on the topic.

In both cases the discussion was most enlightening and stimulating. However, when I broached the possibility that much of this malfeasance was the result of collusion at the highest levels, meticulously planned and choreographed, rather than the result of a few bad apples in a basically sound system – both men had a conspicuously similar reaction- finding the notion simply inconceivable, and the suggestion on my part tasteless and off-putting.

The position shared by both, delivered most eloquently, in exquisite prose, and Oxbridge accents, was that this was all the result of gross ineptitude at the highest levels. I, incredulous, argued that it would seem beyond the boundaries of plausibility to imagine that people educated in the finest academic institutions, with decades of experience behind them, could have, let all what has come to pass take place out of sheer oversight.

Looking back, in my naiveté, what I was failing to see was the positioning of those I was speaking with in relation to the big Game – the dean being a gatekeeper to, the consultant, a gray eminence for the very Players who perpetrated the 2008 Crash.

At the risk of coming off as a tad ‘negative’, I would suggest that this ‘see no evil’ attitude is far from benign. This brings to mind a memory from my time as a builder, when I had occasion to ask an architect (British, as it turns out) to explain the principles behind chimney constructions – specifically, how one ensured that the smoke from the fire went up the chimney instead of into the room. The architect’s response was the following: “Entire books have been written on the topic of chimneys”. He delivered this sentence with such profound solemnity, and with such self assurance, that I immediately aborted any further investigation, convinced that the knowledge I was seeking was the sacred domain of an elite sect of geniuses who guarded their secrets closely (lest this knowledge should fall into the wrong hands, and the world would be consumed by chaos).

The motivation behind this high minded stance, in fact the mandate of these esteemed experts, is to obfuscate the problem, rather than fix it. Experts at blinding us with science, generously spicing their rhetoric with the jargon of high finance, they wax poetic on the complexity of today’s financial world, and the difficulty of sorting all of this out.
All this posturing on the part of esteemed experts is meant to distract us from the ugly reality- that being that the system spawned by these poseurs is rotten to the core, and beyond redemption. No new set of regulations, no new investigative committee, no change of government, will ever set it right.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.[1]

Jack was an up and coming manager at an international accounting firm. As one of the bright stars he was earmarked for early partnership. Despite being an accountant, he was a free spirit who loved baseball, and hated three-piece suits.

An opportunity came up which required the talents of a very bright whiz kid to do a turnaround for a client who was suffering some setbacks. Jack, always up for a challenge, volunteered for the job. He was awarded the position and was seconded to the company as the acting VP of finance for the better part of a year.

The Toronto branch of the firm had a small, but very tightly knit group of British expatriates. I was a student in accounts at the time but as a former varsity squash player I was much in demand in the House League as a ringer for our team. After the squash matches they would usually go to the bar for drinks (which would often last well into the night). It seemed to me at the time that the squash was more of an opening act while the socializing was the main event. On one of these occasions I happened to strike up a conversation with one of the ex-pats, a Welshman, named Keith, and the subject of who among the managers was going to make partner came up.

I suggested Jack as an obvious choice, and much to my surprise Keith said that he wasn’t one of the ones who were going to be called up. I was incredulous, and asked why? Keith’s answer was that by taking the position with the client company, regardless of how well he might have performed, Jack had effectively taken himself out of the play for making partner that year. He then proceeded to list off a couple of names who would be “called up” as he described it.

Sure enough, a several months later when those who made partner were announced those names mentioned by Keith were all on the list, Jack’s was not!

Next year, Jack was a fixture in the office wearing suits which were conspicuously well tailored, but three-piece just the same. Jack was not himself. His cutting, iconoclastic wit was replaced by a certain stiffness. Before he was spontaneous and full of fun, now he was morose and nervous. Jack made partner that year.

Those who are really gifted at what they do tend to focus on their trade. Players, meanwhile, have no interest in the work itself; their entire focus is on furthering their own career. Over time, the best and the brightest are either pushed aside or have to stifle that what makes them stand out, that what makes them shine; and obediently take their place in line.

Ultimately, they may rise, but never will they reach the stature of the real players. Instead they become drones, high level albeit- loaded with status and perks- but it is the Players who are invariably the true beneficiaries of their brilliance.

“Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.”

Song of Solomon, Chapter 2, Verse 15

There are none among us who has not had personal experience with those smooth, slick, manipulators who insinuate themselves into our lives, take what they want, and then leave us to sweep up the mess. On a personal level they are toxic, but in business they can bring down entire corporations, and as we’ve seen on Wall Street recently, entire economies!

These players exist on all levels; they’re just more highly concentrated in the upper echelons of society. How does one free your company from this blight?

The direct approach is like attacking the bastion from the front gate- the defenders can see you coming from a mile off. With their well honed impression and perception management skills, they can easily ward off and deflect any of the arrow’s coming their way.

Attempts to introduce controls and overseeing committees only exacerbate the situation as these become infiltrated by the Players and only add yet another layer to their subterfuge.

What then is the best way to handle the problem? The approach must be indirect – it cannot be seen to target the Players overtly. Instead, it must be done obliquely. The ideal is a preventative approach which involves taking steps to make the environment inhospitable to the Players. It means dismantling the structure – the controls, the committees, the regulations – that protect them.

This goes completely against the grain for anyone with even the most basic business education. The reflexive reaction to such an outlandish suggestion is: “But, does that not leave the company fully exposed to threats – both internal and external?”

The greatest military leaders in history – Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan – always had a disdain for elaborate fortifications. They considered those who hid behind them to be cowards. They would protect those inside for a time, but eventually the inhabitants would become complacent, while in the interim the attackers were devising new ways to breach the rampart.

Similarly, in the short run rules and regulations do ensure a certain degree of consistency and reliability in the company’s performance. However, over time they foster a false sense of security, insulating those in senior management from the outside market environment. In the meantime the competition is busily seeking new ways and means with which to produce and market their products and services. With the passage of time the odds steadily climb in their favour, until the downfall of the company shifts from being a possibility to an inevitability. In a very real sense, the organization is already dead; those inside it just don’t know it yet!

Over the last few months we have been experiencing the after-shock from the 2008 crash. While the vast majority of the middle class is still reeling from the pain of the disaster, and trying to figure out new ways to sustain themselves in retirement, those who were the most culpable for the fiasco- the bankers- have returned to paying themselves outrageously extravagant bonuses.

When we look at what caused our present mess the obvious answer is deregulation. So if deregulation is the culprit, isn’t the evident solution to restore the regulations? Absolutely not! The only thing worse than too little too late, is too much too late. This is particularly true when it comes to regulation.

The real problem all along was not the regulations, nor the lack of them. It was the infiltration of manipulative social predators, with no objective other than to satisfy their own greed and entitlement, who then subverted the system, subtly altering it to serve their own ends. Once these Players took hold of the banks and the companys, those regulations and controls designed to protect the stakeholders were hijacked to secure their position at the top.

It would seem that this scale of scam would be very difficult to conceal. Not so! Firstly, the regulations are often hundreds of pages in length and the slightest alteration in the wording of only one phrase is sufficient to create a loophole. Secondly, when you add collusion between those on either side of the regulatory fence into the mix, it becomes a no-brainer to pull it off.

This also means the insiders have an extended honeymoon during which they can reap enormous profits with impunity, before the others catch on and the loophole is finally plugged. Of course, by that time they are already on to the next one. This type of collusion is not unlikely when there is a continuous exchange of high level decision makers between the administration and the banks and investment houses. The point being that the system is actually set up for this to happen- such events occur not by accident but by design!

The huge bonuses being paid out these dates to the bankers not only provide evidence to support this swindle, the blatant manner in which they are carried out, indicates a level of arrogance and contempt towards the public that is even more disturbing. It would seem that these days if you wish to rob a bank you don’t need a gun or a bandana, instead all you have to do is declare yourself a bonus!