APR 14

GUARD THE ROOM AND MAKE SURE THE PRINCE DOESN’T LEAVE

CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS

Now comes the tale of Sir Launcelot, except that, it being Launcelot, the tale takes place over 2 scenes and has 3 subplots. This is the set up scene where we learn that the King of Swamp Castle is about to marry off his son, Prince Herbert, to a princess who has huge tracts of land. The prince isn’t happy about this as he really doesn’t like the girl and would rather sing about finding his true love. (Cue music.) It turns out his father hates musical theater. It turns out it’s very possible the prince doesn’t like girls (wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)  The King will have none of this, being the King of Swamp Castle, he could really use those tracts.  But the real point of the scene is the dialogue amongst the King and the two guards. The King asks the guards to make sure the Prince doesn't leave his room until he comes to get him. In a nod to Abbott and Costello’s  “Who’s on first?”  the two inebriated guards misconstrue the instructions. Don’t let the prince leave even if the king comes to get him? No, the King needs to get the Prince to the wedding.  Don’t let the Prince enter the room? No, the Prince is already in the room. Don’t let him leave. But if he has to leave, can we go with him? If who has to leave? The guard? It doesn’t make much sense guarding a guard. No, it’s the Prince who has to leave. Should we let him?  

 Who would have thought such simple instructions could be misinterpreted so many ways?

CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS QUIZ

PLEASE INTERPRET WHAT WE ARE SAYING

Please read the following selection and answer the question pertaining to the passage. Do not guess because each wrong answer will be penalized with a deduction of 5 points. Good luck.

Question 1:  (25 points)

 

From:                      C

Sent:                      Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:35 AM

To:                          G

Subject:                Chart of Accounts

Importance:        High

G----,

I have discussed the chart of accounts question with John, Kevin, Regina, and Ray.  The overall conclusion is that utilizing the EFSS/Pfast Chart of Accounts (COA) "as is" while doable would represent a less than optimal approach. However, a complete Greenfield approach is also recognized as inappropriate because of the time and effort involved. The main concern is that the EFSS/Pfast COA was designed for the corporate business which is viewed as being a significantly different organization than "spinco," resulting in a COA which underemphasizes some aspects necessary for a pure play, agile global consumer business while containing potentially many unnecessary account structures relating to the corporate business.

The recommended approach to resolving this would be to identify the subject matter experts (SMEs) who with appropriate consulting support would finalize the COA. We can also identify where this activity will take place in our 30-60-90-120 day plans. The Team would have a hard-stop time limit to force decision making. The absolute worst case scenario would be to adopt the EFSS/Pfast COA.

Rather than engage in further analysis relating to the COA, I feel our efforts would be better spent in identifying and planning  the priority activities to take place in the first 30-60-90-120 days and the recommended make-up of the teams who will be charged with addressing the issues. This will enable us to determine the staffing needed who I imagine will be in short supply in the event of a spin.

Your thoughts?

Regards,

C

The central idea of the email above is:

A.    Using EFSS/PFAST COA for spinco is a 30-60-90-120 day activity.

B.     The writer can use lots of important-sounding buzzwords and catch phrases.

C.     Structuring everything in the passive voice is a good way to avoid accountability.

D.    The task you’ve assigned to me is a bone-headed idea, and I’ve asked other people, and they think it’s a bone-headed idea, too.

Posted by Karen Phelan. 32 comments. Filed under Templates. Tags: awesome, new.