Head of the documentation unit: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:18, 1 June 2017

See also the Northern Ireland portfolio in the nineteen seventies.

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 one committed in a former life), or as act of spite, vengeance or perverse cruelty from someone else further up the organisation.

Running the negotiators is a quite thankless role, which - because of the cost, heft, and inevitable negative impact on the franchise of the documentation unit, is irresistible fodder for change managers, management consultants, the chief operating officer’s department to fiddle with.

This means any well-meaning attempts the person in charge makes to fix things are bound to fail, in a way that is inextribably tied to that person. A dead man walking.

Because this is what the doc unit means:

To sales: WHERE'S MY GODDAMN ISDA?
To the chief operating officer: Why does this cost so much and who the hell are all these people?
To the general counsel: A PAIN IN THE ARSE.
To a change manager: OFFSHORE THAT SUCKER TO INDIA!

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.

Head of the documentation unit: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:18, 1 June 2017

Navigation menu

Search