Head of the documentation unit: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:22, 24 August 2017

See also the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the 1970s.

The head of the documentation unit is an accursed person in an investment bank, although he is usually the last one to recognise this. This poor sod is responsible for the performance of the sainted men and women who make contractual flesh the fantastical aspirations of the credit department, and one earns this Sisyphean task only to atone for a sin committed in a former life or as an act of spite, vengeance or perverse cruelty from someone else further up the organisation.

Running the doc unit is utterly thankless, not because of the negotiators — by and large perfectly pleasant, capable and long-suffering bunch — but, because of its cost, heft, and inevitably negative impact on the franchise. The doc unit is therefore an irresistible “cost centre” for change managers, management consultants,and chief operating officers to fiddle with.

Therefore any efforts the person notionally in charge should make to fix things, however wise, will fail. These bright ideas will be co-opted, misinterpreted, forced through a sieve of business administration dogma and systematically brutalised until they are unrecognizable, unworkable, inexcusable, and yet inextricably associated with the head of the documentation unit. He — or she — is generally regarded as a dead man walking.

Readers who sense that the author has experienced these sensations from close range would be absolutely right.

Seen through the different prisms of the self-perpetuating autocracy, this is what the documentation unit means:

Sales: WHERE'S MY GODDAMN ISDA?
Chief Operating Officer: Why does this department cost so much? Where are the economies of scale? Who the hell are these people?
General counsel: It pains me that these people are what the management committee has in mind when it thinks of the legal department.
Change manager: Here is an opportunity to right-shore and gain credit for delayering the organization!

In an investment bank, being a place of universal grasping fixation on advancement, it isn't hard to find a stooge to take the role: all you have to do is present it as a stretch assignment; an opportunity for advancement: managing three hundred people, in six centres across seven time zones, with a chance to overhaul and rock the house on a franchise-critical operational function. Who would not leap at that?

A person with a cautious or reflective nature. That’s who. When they come for you, ask yourself this:

Why are they asking me to do this and not someone already in or with some understanding of the documentation unit? These people know something you don’t. Do not fall for their lionisation of your people management skills. IT ISN'T ABOUT PEOPLE MANAGEMENT.
Is my present role really that bad?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-See also the [[Northern Ireland portfolio|Secretary of State for Northern Ireland]] in the nineteen seventies.
+''See also the [[Northern Ireland portfolio|Secretary of State for Northern Ireland]] in the 1970s.''
-One of the accursed people in an [[investment bank]], the poor sod who is responsible for the performance of the documentation unit — those sainted men and women who make contractual flesh the aspirations of the [[credit]] department — is only in the role to atone for a sin (possibly committed in a former life), or as act of spite, vengeance or perverse cruelty from someone else further up the organisation.
+The [[head of the documentation unit]] is an accursed person in an [[investment bank]], although {{sex|he}} is usually the last one to recognise this. This poor sod is responsible for the performance of the sainted men and women who make {{tag|contract}}ual flesh the fantastical aspirations of the [[credit]] department, and one earns this Sisyphean task only to atone for a sin committed in a former life or as an act of spite, vengeance or perverse cruelty from someone else further up the organisation.
-Running the negotiators is utterly thankless, not because of the negotiators — by and large perfectly pleasant, capable and long-suffering bunch — but, because of its cost, heft, and inevitably negative impact on the franchise, the docs team is an irresistible “cost centre” for [[change manager|change managers]], [[management consultant|management consultants]],and [[chief operating officer]]s to fiddle with.
+Running the [[doc unit]] is utterly thankless, not because of the negotiators — by and large perfectly pleasant, capable and long-suffering bunch — but, because of its cost, heft, and inevitably negative impact on the franchise. The doc unit is therefore an irresistible “cost centre” for [[change manager|change managers]], [[management consultant|management consultants]],and [[chief operating officer]]s to fiddle with.
-Therefore any efforts to fix things the person notionally in charge should make, however wise, are bound to fail. They will be co-opted, misinterpreted, forced into a business administration dogma and in a way that will be inextricably tied to the [[head of the documentation unit]]. He — or she — is generally regarded as a dead man walking.
+Therefore any efforts the person notionally in charge should make to fix things, however wise, will fail. These bright ideas will be co-opted, misinterpreted, forced through a sieve of business administration dogma and systematically brutalised until they are unrecognizable, unworkable, inexcusable, and yet inextricably associated with the [[head of the documentation unit]]. He — or she — is generally regarded as a dead man walking.
+Readers who sense that the author has experienced these sensations from close range would be absolutely right.
 Seen through the different prisms of the [[self-perpetuating autocracy]], this is what the documentation unit means:

Head of the documentation unit: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:22, 24 August 2017

Navigation menu

Search