Governance emergencies!

There are some people that you know, at the first moment you hear them speak, you can't click with them.

*

So this guy would tell you to run through the powerpoint from start to finish, but as soon as the 2nd slide comes on he starts commenting. So we'd pause to make changes and discuss what changes to make. Then as you are working, this same guy will say, "Look guys, why don't we run through the whole thing from start to finish."

Then you'd run from the start again. This time when the 3rd slide comes on he starts commenting again. So naturally, we paused again (because what needs to be done needs to get done, ain't that right?) But as soon as you're halfway done, he'd say again "Look guys, why don't we run through the whole thing from start to finish."

And the loop went on once more before I said, "Please write that down and keep it to yourself until we finish?"

*

Our case was about the compensation package of the CEO of Walt Disney Co. The case asked us whether we thought his package was reasonable or not, but enclosing a resignation letter from another director which expressed that the CEO didn't deserve his pay. BUT does that really mean it's not reasonable?

Took those guys some time to finally digest the fact that no, the CEO wasn't overpaid, because more than 80% of his salary came from a bonus which was tied systematically to net profit plus a chunk of stock options while his basic salary was pathetic. Looking at the numbers I crunched the guys were actually hiding their heads in their hands. What's so wrong about saying his pay was reasonable? That's something I don't get.

But what really upset me was, I tried to briefly explain to them his salary structure, which of course, included some numbers. This guy (same guy) just said, "OK, let's not dive into the numbers." WHAT?! If I hadn't been crunching all this stuff you guys would still be stupidly thinking that YES EISNER WAS DEFINITELY OVERPAID. WHY? BECAUSE STANLEY GOLD WHO RESIGNED SAID SO. And then feel good about yourself. Let's not dive into the numbers? Hold on, you're actually saying "Let's not look at the facts"!

Similarly, in the first meeting this guy (same guy) undertook the task of compiling a graph showing the revenue, net profit and share price of Disney during Eisner's regime. Second meeting, no information from him. Decision was: "Let's not put that in the slides, I don't think we should dive into the numbers anyway."

*

Don't dive into the numbers, but yes dive into the sea of 2x2 tables and frameworks. Some guy (same guy) said that those who already did their presentation seemed to just summarize what's in the case studies. That's not adding value and we should avoid it. And, doing it all by himself, he decided to summarize what's in the lecture notes instead. OK, according to him THAT'S adding value, flooding the slides with whatever framework he could find in the lecture notes no matter they're relevant or not. Don't waste our efforts scraping them away man! I don't even want to look at our slides anymore.

*

Then there was the issue of whether all of us should speak or should it be just 2 or 3. We have in total 30 minutes and 5 sections, so I thought all 5 should speak. But no, he said, it disrupts the continuity. Better have just 3. Do you want to present? I'm happy to present.

Wait. 3 people for 30 minutes? That's 10 for each and possibly 15 for some. No I don't think anyone wants to listen to one single bloke talking nonstop for 15 whole minutes. Now THAT'S disruptive.

Ugh. I'm getting a bit personal now.