It is unlikely that a senior executive could manage to be so consistently de-motivating and utterly uninspiring by accident. MR BANKER
By Mr Banker
Returning from a presentation by a very senior executive, I formed the working hypothesis that he is in fact an impostor.
I’m sure you are familiar with the routine; those corporate comedians who adopt an elaborate cover story and convincing disguise, proffering sillier and sillier views until even the dimmest finally get the joke, at which point we all chuckle and explain to our neighbour that we twigged quite early but kept quiet so as not to spoil the gag for others.
Rather than speculating wildly as is my want, I decided to approach the question in a scientific fashion and consider both sides of the question, and set down the following:
Evidence against the hypothesis:
Such a practical joke would be quite expensive – running over a period now approaching four years.
However humourous the eventual unveiling of the comic masterpiece might appear to almost everyone else, it is doubtful that APRA will see it as such, and we are highly unlikely to do anything to attract their attention just now.
Surely people would have twigged by now?
Evidence in favour of the hypothesis:
Perhaps – but remember, we banks tend to only watch costs in areas impacting customer service.
APRA didn’t notice any issues with Lift, or Chartwell, or Opes. It’s unlikely they’d notice this unless it was tattooed on our CEO’s forehead.
Not at all. Your correspondent is the only banker of his acquaintance who actually listens to what senior management have to say.
It is unlikely that a senior executive could manage to be so consistently de-motivating and utterly uninspiring by accident – it would take considerable effort and energy to achieve such a standard.
Those primary arguments established, we now offer each side of the debate a right of rebuttal, consistent with best practice in structured debate:
Evidence against the hypothesis part II:
You’re kidding aren’t you? They do it without trying.
Evidence for the hypothesis part II:
Yes, good point.
From which scientific analysis we may conclude that your correspondent’s ability to sustain scientific analysis is limited. Never mind, I will continue to collect evidence, and report further.
For more Mr Banker blogs, click here.