If like many you were counting the days till your January pay cheque, having grossly overspent during the festive season, I have to tell you that in the spending stakes you are all amateurs.
A story which hit the headlines this week tells of a profligacy mere mortals can only dream of and puts all your dire financial straits into perspective. It concerns legendary Hollywood actor Johnny Depp, he of Pirates of the Caribbean, Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, Finding Neverland & Edward Scissorhands fame. Rumoured to be close to bankruptcy, his managing agents, a company called The Management Group or TMG, has filed suit against the star for unpaid loans and fees.
In response this mega star has counter-sued with a claim for $25 million (P275 million) against TMG for alleged mishandling of his finances, leading him to the brink of bankruptcy. The actions come just after Depp agreed a $7 million dollar out-of-court settlement to his ex-wife Amber Heard, after an ugly divorce with tales of ‘drunkenness and cruelty’, to quote from songwriter, Ray Davis.
According to a story appearing in Pakistan Today, Depp’s money troubles arise from his insisting on maintaining a lifestyle which even his film star millions could not bankroll. The paper writes thus:
“Johnny Depp’s lavish spending — including $3 million to blast author Hunter S. Thompson’s ashes from cannon — led him to the brink of financial ruin, according to an explosive lawsuit filed Tuesday. Over the best part of two decades, the 53-year-old actor has been spending $2 million a month, according to The Management Group (TMG), which is suing the star in Los Angeles for an unpaid loan.
The Pirates of the Caribbean actor is alleged to have forked out $75 million on 14 homes, including a 45-acre (18-hectare) French castle, a chain of Bahaman islands, several Hollywood homes, penthouse lofts in downtown LA and a horse farm in Kentucky. Since 2000, the Oscar-nominated actor has spent $18 million on a yacht, bought 45 luxury cars and shelled out almost $700,000 a month on wine, private planes and a staff of 40 people, according to the lawsuit.
Beverly Hills-based TMG says Depp has accrued more than 200 artworks by Warhol, Klimt and other masters, 70 collectable guitars and a Hollywood memorabilia collection so extensive it is stored in 12 locations.”
Breaking those figures down further, it is said that the star spends $30,000 (P33,000) per month on wine alone – that’s eleven thousand pula per day and we can only assume he is quaffing some very pricey grape juice to run up that sort of bill: add to that a $135,00 monthly account to pay for his travel, always on private planes and $170,000 on round-the-clock security and it’s clear that this is a man who doesn’t stint himself. According to TMG’s lawyers, the company repeatedly warned Depp of his over-spending but their pleas fell on deaf ears.
“Over 17 years, The Management Group did everything possible to protect the actor from himself,” TMG attorney Michael Kump said in a statement. “In fact, when Depp’s bank demanded repayment of a multimillion-dollar loan and Depp didn’t have the money, the company loaned it to him so that he would avoid a humiliating financial crisis.”
TMG says it repeatedly warned Depp over his “wanton” overspending, but he responded by rebuking his business managers, increasing his spending and demanding they find some way to pay for it. The firm, fired by Depp last year, says it is owed $4.2 million and was forced to launch foreclosure proceedings on the star’s property.
Now this page is not and never will be a show biz gossip column and the battle over who owes what to whom, as juicy a tale as it might be, is only related as an example to us all to try and balance our own budgets and live within our means, both personal and corporate. I’m sure you’ve all seen examples of individuals granted a CEDA loan and the first thing they do is spring for a new designer wardrobe and a luxury German saloon car or SUV out of the loan monies, funds which should have been ploughed into the start-up business.
It has been calculated that any new venture will take at least 6 months to bed down, before it can be assessed as to its future viability; and if, during this crucial growing phase, venture capital is redirected to cover the costs of desirable but unnecessary status symbols, the nascent business is liable to falter and fail. Purchasing such outward trappings of success can indeed be the very thing that makes future success impossible.
But ask these would-be entrepreneurs why they felt it was necessary to buy that bespoke suit or that showy motor and they will always have an answer. It’s necessary to look the part, they will tell you. It impresses future clients, they will insist. It will reap its own rewards, they will predict.
But in fact it does none of those things; what it does is make you look like you care more for yourself than taking care of business and looking after your clients; and pretty soon, when the CEDA money runs out, the bank forecloses on the vehicle loan and the landlord issues you with an eviction notice for non-payment of office rent, all you are left with is the clothes you stand up in and which you probably still owe more money on.
Renowned Victorian novelist Charles Dickens succinctly summed up the importance of balancing your budget in his novel David Copperfield when Mr. Micawber gives a young Copperfield this precautionary advice:
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." So heed Micawber’s wise words. It’s not too late to salvage the festive overspend situation; and though it might mean a period of some small self-denial , you can at least take comfort in the woes of Mr. J Depp, esq. As the saying goes, the bigger they come, the harder they fall.
Intelligence and Security Service Act, which is a law that establishes the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS), provides for establishment of a Parliamentary Committee. Recently, the President announced nine names of Members of Parliament he had appointed to the Committee.
This announcement was preceded by a meeting the President held with the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition. Following the announcement of Committee MPs by the President, the opposition, through its leader, made it clear that it will not participate in the Committee unless certain conditions that would ensure effective oversight are met. The opposition acted on the non-participation threat through resignation of its three MPs from the Committee.
The Act at Section 38 provides for the establishment of the Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Directorate. The law provides that the Parliamentary Committee shall have the same powers and privileges set out under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
On composition, the Committee shall consist of nine members who shall not be members of Cabinet and its quorum shall be five members. The MPs in the Committee elect a chairperson from among their number at their first meeting.
The Members of the Committee are appointed by the President after consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. It is the provision of the law that the Committee, relative to its size, reflect the numerical strengths of the political parties represented in the National Assembly.
The Act provides that that a member of the Committee holds office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is appointed. The Committee is mandated to make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the President and may at any time report to him or her on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.
The Minister responsible for intelligence and security is obliged to lay before the National Assembly a copy of each annual report made by the Committee together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of the provision of the Act.
If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Directorate, the Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the National Assembly.
So, what are the specific demands of the Opposition and why are they not participating in the Committee? What should happen as a way forward? The Opposition demanded that there be a forensic audit of the Directorate. The DIS has never been audited since it was set up in 2008, more than a decade ago.
The institution has been a law unto itself for a longtime, feared by all oversight bodies. The Auditor General, who had no security of tenure, could not audit the DIS. The Directorate’s personnel, especially at a high level, have been implicated in corruption. Some of its operatives are in courts of law defending corruption charges preferred against them. Some of the corruption cases which appeared in the media have not made it to the courts.
The DIS has been accused of non-accountability and unethical practices as well as of being a burden on the fiscus. So, the Opposition demanded, from the President, a forensic audit for the purpose of cleaning up the DIS. They demand a start from a clean slate.
The second demand by the Opposition is that the law be reviewed to ensure greater accountability of the DIS to Parliament. What are some of the issues that the opposition think should be reviewed? The contention is that the executive cannot appoint a Committee of Parliament to scrutinize an executive institution.
Already, it is argued, Parliament is less independent and it is dominated by the executive. It is contended that the Committee should be established by the Standing Orders and be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is also an argument that the Committee should report to Parliament and not to the President and that the Minister should not have any role in the Committee.
Democratic and Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence is relatively a new phenomenon across the World. Even developed democracies are still grappling with some of these issues. However, there are acceptable standards or what might be called international best practices which have evolved over the past two or so decades.
In the UK for instance, MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Houses of Parliament, having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is a good balancing exercise of involvement of both the executive and the legislature. Consultation is taken for granted in Botswana context in the sense that it has been reduced to just informing the Leader of Opposition without much regard to his or her ideas; they are never taken seriously.
Furthermore, the current Committee in the UK has four Members of the ruling party and five MPs from the opposition. It is a fairly balanced Committee in terms of Parliamentary representation. However, as said above, the President of Botswana appointed six ruling party MPs and three from the opposition.
The imbalance is preposterous and more pronounced with clear intentions of getting the executive way through the ruling party representatives in the Committee. The intention to avoid scrutiny is clear from the numbers of the ruling party MPs in the Committee.
There is also an international standard of removing sensitive parts which may harm national security from the report before it is tabled in the legislature. The previous and current reluctance of the executive arms to open up on Defence and Security matters emanate from this very reason of preserving and protecting national security.
But national security should be balanced with public interest and other democratic principles. The decision to expunge certain information which may be prejudicial to national security should not be an arbitrary and exclusive decision of the executive but a collective decision of a well fairly balanced Committee in consultation with the Speaker and the minister responsible.
There is no doubt that the DIS has been a rogue institution. The reluctance by the President to commit to democratic-parliamentary oversight reforms presupposes a lack of commitment to democratization. The President has no interest in seeing a reformed DIS with effective oversight of the agency.
He is insincere. This is because the President loathes the idea losing an iota of power and sharing it with any other democratic institution. He sees the agency as his power lever to sustain his stay in the high office. He thought he could sanitize himself with an ineffective DIS Committee that would dance to his tune.
The non-participation of the opposition MPs renders the Committee dysfunctional; it cannot function as this would be unlawful. Participation of the opposition is a legal requirement. Even if it can meet, it would lack legitimacy; it cannot be taken seriously. The President should therefore act on the oversight demands and reform the DIS if he is to be taken seriously.
For years I have trained people about paradigm shifts – those light-bulb-switch-on moments – where there is a seismic change from the usual way of thinking about something to a newer, better way.
I like to refer to them as ‘aha’ moments because of the sudden understanding of something which was previously incomprehensible. However, the topic of today’s article is the complete antithesis of ‘aha’. Though I’d love to tell you I’d had a ‘eureka ‘, ‘problem solved’ moment, I am faced with the complete opposite – an ‘oh-no’ moment or Lost Leader Syndrome.
No matter how well prepared or capable a leader is. they often find themselves facing perplexing events, confounding information, or puzzling situations. Confused by developments of which they can’t make sense and by challenges that they don’t know how to solve they become confused, sometimes lost and completely clueless about what to do.
I am told by Jentz and Murphy (JM) in ‘What leaders do when they don’t know what to do’ that this is normal, and that rapid change is making confusion a defining feature of management in the 21st century. Now doesn’t that sound like the story of 2020 summed up in a single sentence?
The basic premise of their writing is that “confusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership. By learning to embrace their confusion, managers are able to set in motion a constructive process for addressing baffling issues.
In fact, confusion turns out to be a fruitful environment in which the best managers thrive by using the instability around them to open up better lines of communication, test their old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.”
The problem with this ideology however is that it doesn’t help my overwhelming feelings of fear and panic which is exacerbated by a tape playing on a loop in my head saying ‘you’re supposed to know what to do, do something’. My angst is compounded by annoying motivational phrases also unhelpfully playing in my head like.
Nothing happens until something moves
The secret of getting ahead is getting started
Act or be acted upon
All these platitudes are urging me to pull something out of the bag, but I know that this is a trap. This need to forge ahead is nothing but a coping mechanism and disguise. Instead of owning the fact that I haven’t got a foggy about what to do, part of me worries that I’ll lose authority if I acknowledge that I can’t provide direction – I’m supposed to know the answers, I’m the MD! This feeling of not being in control is common for managers in ‘oh no’ situations and as a result they often start reflexively and unilaterally attempting to impose quick fixes to restore equilibrium because, lets be honest, sometimes we find it hard to resist hiding our confusion.
To admit that I am lost in an “Oh, No!” moment opens the door not only to the fear of losing authority but also to a plethora of other troubling emotions and thoughts: *Shame and loss of face: “You’ll look like a fool!” * Panic and loss of control: “You’ve let this get out of hand!” * Incompetence and incapacitation: “You don’t know what you’re doing!”
As if by saying “I’m at a loss here” is tantamount to declaring “I am not fit to lead.” Of course the real problem for me and any other leader is if they don’t admit when they are disoriented, it sends a signal to others in the organisation stating it’s not cool to be lost and that, by its very nature encourages them to hide. What’s the saying about ‘a real man never asks for direction. ..so they end up driving around in circles’.
As managers we need to embrace the confusion, show vulnerability (remember that’s not a bad word) and accept that leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover a solution.
JM point out that “being confused, however, does not mean being incapacitated. Indeed, one of the most liberating truths of leadership is that confusion is not quicksand from which to escape but rather the potter’s clay of leadership – the very stuff with which managers can work.”
2020 has certainly been a year to remember and all indications are that the confusion which has characterised this year will still follow us into the New Year, thereby making confusion a defining characteristic of the new normal and how managers need to manage. Our competence as leaders will then surely be measured not only by ‘what I know’ but increasingly by ‘how I behave when I accept, I don’t know, lose my sense of direction and become confused.
.I guess the message for all organizational cultures going forward is that sticking with the belief that we need all-knowing, omni-competent executives will cost them dearly and send a message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively.
Take comfort in these wise words ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order not yet understood’!