The vanished grandeur of accounting (2014)(bostonglobe.com)
bostonglobe.com
The vanished grandeur of accounting (2014)
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/06/07/the-vanished-grandeur-accounting/3zcbRBoPDNIryWyNYNMvbO/story.html
38 comments
The line on immunity to boredom resonates with me. However I think boredom is a very healthy motivator.
There's a balance to strike. You want to be able to be bored (when I worked at a government elections office for 8 months). But you also want to have the drive to not be bored anymore (when I automated away my job and got in a lot of trouble).
There's a balance to strike. You want to be able to be bored (when I worked at a government elections office for 8 months). But you also want to have the drive to not be bored anymore (when I automated away my job and got in a lot of trouble).
Boredom I think is a prerequisite for successful automation. If you're not bored doing a thing, it is likely still too complicated, too poorly-understood, or too fun to automate.
Something changed when information technology became ubiquitous. In the world of the aforementioned DFW, successful automation requires a lot more than just getting bored enough to build something, it required more bureaucracy. More bored humans doing boring things.
Computers truly are magic.
Computers truly are magic.
And yet I still think that computer programming, and solving computer problems, requires a high tolerance for boring drudgery...
Imagine teaching coding skills to an impatient friend. “Okay, today we’re going to learn about Node package management and resolving merge conflicts!”
Imagine teaching coding skills to an impatient friend. “Okay, today we’re going to learn about Node package management and resolving merge conflicts!”
I've done it, the only thing that really works is giving them an big, stupid goal like making a video game or a crypto-currency or whatever and letting them fail over and over again. Once you see them getting a little frustrated give them a little direction but otherwise leave them alone.
Software companies simply use tooling chains instead of written bureaucracy. Sometimes it takes more time to manage the tooling than it does to solve the code problem. Good tooling is simple and gets out of the way of the real task, solving the damn problem.
That reminds me of blancing the power curve in a game. Players want to feel like they're getting more powerful, which essentially translates to making the game easier. But too easy and it's not fun anymore, it becomes boring. Even though the player has gotten everything they thought they wanted.
Bart: I thought you wanted a challenge?
Lisa: a challenge I could do!
Lisa: a challenge I could do!
I always tell people I am a good software engineer because I get bored, am "fundamentally lazy" and don't like to do things twice. Sounds to me like others have discovered this same key to their effectiveness.
This is the wrong venue for this opinion, but software engineering is the embodiment of boredom. We are glorified filing clerks, we spend all our time convincing computers to accept messy inputs from ourselves or other process.
Even when we "solve hard problems", they mostly come down to convincing a computer to process some mundane data faster.
At the end of the day, we spend all day in front of a monitor talking to the most pedantic bureaucracy ever made, one with no human leeway unless explicitly specified.
But we have so many tricks to convince ourselves we're not bored or boring! We "automate", "solve hard problems", and "optimize".
Even when we "solve hard problems", they mostly come down to convincing a computer to process some mundane data faster.
At the end of the day, we spend all day in front of a monitor talking to the most pedantic bureaucracy ever made, one with no human leeway unless explicitly specified.
But we have so many tricks to convince ourselves we're not bored or boring! We "automate", "solve hard problems", and "optimize".
"The underlying bureaucratic key is the ability to deal with boredom."
Absolutely beautiful. It so wonderfully captures the essence of modern day work life so well.
This is also pertinent to much of corporate america as well. Corporate office jobs are prone to magic of ennui and boredom.
I've often wondered how people dealt with office work or jobs before the internet? Did they play solitaire and minesweeper all day?
Absolutely beautiful. It so wonderfully captures the essence of modern day work life so well.
This is also pertinent to much of corporate america as well. Corporate office jobs are prone to magic of ennui and boredom.
I've often wondered how people dealt with office work or jobs before the internet? Did they play solitaire and minesweeper all day?
This is fascinating. Not only does it seem like a very apt take, it also tracks some of the personality-related research:
https://www.businessinsider.com/personality-conscientiousnes...
https://www.businessinsider.com/personality-conscientiousnes...
[deleted]
My wife is a Chief Accounting Officer and she loves accounting. She lives and breathes it. She loves puzzling over accounting issues and over the years, I’ve seen her debug spreadsheets the way I debug code. In another life she would have been a tremendous programmer. Even though she is the highest accounting person in her company, she still has her nose in the books, always getting into fights against the auditors over esoteric FASB edicts (and always winning).
As a programmer, I love watching her work because it’s so similar to programming on a higher level.
As a programmer, I love watching her work because it’s so similar to programming on a higher level.
Might be a long shot, but does she know of any blogs/articles/videos/books that get into the really dry detail of forensic accounting?
I'd love to follow along a case study of people tracking down where missing money has gone, even if not for nefarious purposes and just simply misallocated, but I'm having a hard time finding anything.
I have a weird, romantic, fascination with what others might find dreadfully boring bean-counting...
I have a weird, romantic, fascination with what others might find dreadfully boring bean-counting...
> it’s so similar to programming on a higher level.
Indeed it is. The logic of the `results` has to stand out relative to the result itself. A programmer can hide the logic without too much pushback; an accountant must not only unhide what is hidden, but explain every "trace route" behind what is hidden. In highly complex systems, this has to be done in a methodical way to ensure audit trails. A non-methodical audit trail is the sign of a bad accountant, or of fraud. One of the most insidious things in the accounting world today is the widening discrepancy between what companies are reporting to shareholders and what GAAP requires they report. Both GAAP and non-GAAP earnings must be reported together (for publicly-traded companies), but in a lot of tech companies, they are getting away with "selling" the non-FASB numbers to shareholders to deceive them that they are doing better than they are.
Another interesting comparison of the two: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmaCQ5rcvfwhVNmLWdWydKBFDwnVZzexKePMxiy...
There was once a programmer who was attached to the court of the warlord of Wu. The warlord asked the programmer: "Which is easier to design: an accounting package or an operating system?"
"An operating system," replied the programmer.
The warlord uttered an exclamation of disbelief. "Surely an accounting package is trivial next to the complexity of an operating system," he said.
"Not so," said the programmer, "When designing an accounting package, the programmer operates as a mediator between people having different ideas: how it must operate, how its reports must appear, and how it must conform to the tax laws. By contrast, an operating system is not limited by outside appearances. When designing an operating system, the programmer seeks the simplest harmony between machine and ideas. This is why an operating system is easier to design."
The warlord of Wu nodded and smiled. "That is all good and well, but which is easier to debug?"
The programmer made no reply.
Indeed it is. The logic of the `results` has to stand out relative to the result itself. A programmer can hide the logic without too much pushback; an accountant must not only unhide what is hidden, but explain every "trace route" behind what is hidden. In highly complex systems, this has to be done in a methodical way to ensure audit trails. A non-methodical audit trail is the sign of a bad accountant, or of fraud. One of the most insidious things in the accounting world today is the widening discrepancy between what companies are reporting to shareholders and what GAAP requires they report. Both GAAP and non-GAAP earnings must be reported together (for publicly-traded companies), but in a lot of tech companies, they are getting away with "selling" the non-FASB numbers to shareholders to deceive them that they are doing better than they are.
Another interesting comparison of the two: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmaCQ5rcvfwhVNmLWdWydKBFDwnVZzexKePMxiy...
There was once a programmer who was attached to the court of the warlord of Wu. The warlord asked the programmer: "Which is easier to design: an accounting package or an operating system?"
"An operating system," replied the programmer.
The warlord uttered an exclamation of disbelief. "Surely an accounting package is trivial next to the complexity of an operating system," he said.
"Not so," said the programmer, "When designing an accounting package, the programmer operates as a mediator between people having different ideas: how it must operate, how its reports must appear, and how it must conform to the tax laws. By contrast, an operating system is not limited by outside appearances. When designing an operating system, the programmer seeks the simplest harmony between machine and ideas. This is why an operating system is easier to design."
The warlord of Wu nodded and smiled. "That is all good and well, but which is easier to debug?"
The programmer made no reply.
Traditionally, shipping was a high-risk, high-return business. If the ship came in, the owners made lots of money. If it didn't... The hero was the bold captain.
The Dutch figured out how to make low-margin businesses work at scale. They built big, slow, stable ships with large cargo capacity to ship routine cargo. They were derided as "herring-tamers", because pickled herring was a profitable business. These low-margin businesses required cost control, or the whole operation could deliver the goods and still lose money. Thus the importance of accounting.
The Dutch figured out how to make low-margin businesses work at scale. They built big, slow, stable ships with large cargo capacity to ship routine cargo. They were derided as "herring-tamers", because pickled herring was a profitable business. These low-margin businesses required cost control, or the whole operation could deliver the goods and still lose money. Thus the importance of accounting.
Interesting that they seem to have completely lost the sector to the Belgians (Antwerp), greater China (COSCO, OOCL, Evergreen, Yang Ming, PIL, Wan Hai), the Danes (Maersk), French (CMA CGM), Germans (Hapag-Lloyd, Hamburg Süd), Japanese (Nippon Yusen, Mitsui, K Line), Koreans (Hyundai) and the Swiss (MSC). Perhaps they went wrong on their accounting at some point.
It is. I went looking for information and found several of the passages at this link persuasive towards the view that the reasons for decline were complex, but uncompetitive shipping played a role: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004271319/B9789004271...
Interesting looking article, thanks for sharing. I will definitely read it carefully when I get a chance.
Interesting! In the Soviet culture, accountants were seen just that way: as disgustingly boring losers. In part they indeed been, as not being workers (so not belonging to the 'hegemonic class' of Communist society according to Marxism, even working on the same factory), they were paid less, had a harder time joining the Party (and thus enjoy access to deficit consumer goods) etc.
Today, it is totally opposite. In provincial Russia today, only two professions that are guaranteed to make person a living are programmer (because these can work for Western customers so earn a lot) and an accountant (because these need to cook the books and be really inventive at that, as without it, any business will go bust, system works like that). They are just as respected as programmers are. And the job itself isn't as boring as it used to be because it require a lot of trickery because you usually need to be able to scam several parties at once, not just the government, but also the formal owners.
Today, it is totally opposite. In provincial Russia today, only two professions that are guaranteed to make person a living are programmer (because these can work for Western customers so earn a lot) and an accountant (because these need to cook the books and be really inventive at that, as without it, any business will go bust, system works like that). They are just as respected as programmers are. And the job itself isn't as boring as it used to be because it require a lot of trickery because you usually need to be able to scam several parties at once, not just the government, but also the formal owners.
Haha that is a quirk specific to Russia and similar countries. I've certainly never had to cook anything
Hah, throughout the article I kept thinking: this guy probably just read Jacob Solls book, it's basically a brief summary. Of course, he ends up signing the article haha.
I enjoyed his perspective but I can't help but wonder what his ultimate point is. For everyone to appreciate accounting in our culture and art? If anything I feel we have a healthy appreciation of accounting and auditing where it matters; in our institutional & governance frameworks. We have audits of auditors, schools, financial institutions, governments, agriculture and foodstuffs etc etc. It's far from perfect but the 1600s could only dream of the role and importance of accounting and auditing today, regardless of the cultural position.
I enjoyed his perspective but I can't help but wonder what his ultimate point is. For everyone to appreciate accounting in our culture and art? If anything I feel we have a healthy appreciation of accounting and auditing where it matters; in our institutional & governance frameworks. We have audits of auditors, schools, financial institutions, governments, agriculture and foodstuffs etc etc. It's far from perfect but the 1600s could only dream of the role and importance of accounting and auditing today, regardless of the cultural position.
Recognition of how certain roles are becoming extremely specialized, as Adam smith first set out in his division of labor thesis in the wealth of nations as a way to increase productivity, succinctly critiqued by Robert Heinlein: “specialization is for insects”
Accountants used to be merchants, businessmen, politicians, lenders, financiers, and insurers all rolled into one. Now they are (at entry level, or working for the state at least) seen as excel jockeys and bean counters enforcing some arcane business/legal code that nobody else wants to touch
And as much as I hate to bring in taleb, most accountants/auditors have no skin in the game, and therefore what they do is intriscally boring. If they stood to lose a pound of flesh as in the merchant of Venice when the businesses they oversee go bankrupt, perhaps they would be written about in Shakespearean terms today
Accountants used to be merchants, businessmen, politicians, lenders, financiers, and insurers all rolled into one. Now they are (at entry level, or working for the state at least) seen as excel jockeys and bean counters enforcing some arcane business/legal code that nobody else wants to touch
And as much as I hate to bring in taleb, most accountants/auditors have no skin in the game, and therefore what they do is intriscally boring. If they stood to lose a pound of flesh as in the merchant of Venice when the businesses they oversee go bankrupt, perhaps they would be written about in Shakespearean terms today
The same is happening in software. Each new specialization carries with it heavy penalties in tooling and domain knowledge (bureaucracy and arbitrary details). This, in my opinion, slows problem solving as a whole and leads to the need for bigger teams when a more lean approach could have achieved more with less. It's bloat, but in people and tools instead of law and process.
>most accountants/auditors have no skin in the game
Bit of an ironic comment given that almost all accounting/auditing firms are partnerships. The participants arguably have more skin in the game than any other corporate entity of comparable complexity.
Bit of an ironic comment given that almost all accounting/auditing firms are partnerships. The participants arguably have more skin in the game than any other corporate entity of comparable complexity.
Since those big firms are consulting firms, they have less a skin in the game, and more in the meta-game.
> Now they are (at entry level, or working for the state at least) seen as excel jockeys and bean counters
Few entry-level jobs are glamorous. An accountant at the top of their trade is a CFO or financial crimes prosecutor.
Few entry-level jobs are glamorous. An accountant at the top of their trade is a CFO or financial crimes prosecutor.
> most accountants/auditors have no skin in the game
Sarbanes-Oxley says otherwise
Sarbanes-Oxley says otherwise
> You're using a browser set to private or incognito mode. To continue reading articles in this mode, please log in to your Globe account.
http://archive.is/AvaqZ
http://archive.is/AvaqZ
I hit the same thing. Nuke Anything (a pretty awesome Firefox extension) let me kill the popover and access the article.
Translation error? I was able to locate an image of a Jan Provost painting called "Death and the Miser" [1] but none called "Death and the Merchant".
[1] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jan-provoost/death-and-the-miser
Having relatives that are accountants, I am interested in seeing more of the Dutch and English paintings of accountants described, but not named, in the article. If anyone knows any, please post.
[1] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jan-provoost/death-and-the-miser
Having relatives that are accountants, I am interested in seeing more of the Dutch and English paintings of accountants described, but not named, in the article. If anyone knows any, please post.
From the description I'm sure that is the correct painting. The title in the original language is "De Gierigaard en de Dood". A simple modern translation would be "The Greedy Man and Death", there is no reason to translate it as "merchant".
Apparently there is a book devoted to the subject of accountants in the arts from 1400 to 1900: "Art & Accounting" by Basil S. Yamey.
Edit: This article contains a list of such paintings, and there is a link to the PDF which contains images. https://www.accountant.nl/magazines/accountant-2016-q2/boekh...
Edit: This article contains a list of such paintings, and there is a link to the PDF which contains images. https://www.accountant.nl/magazines/accountant-2016-q2/boekh...
Rembrandt's Sampling Officials comes to mind[1] and several works by Jan de Baen[2] because he painted so many portraits. If you ever go to a Dutch Masters exhibit at a museum look for portraits titled along the lines of "Portrait of a Merchant" or "Portrait of a Banker." You'll notice they often include things like coins that are in the middle of being counted with one hand and writing instrument in the other to symbolize the accounting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndics_of_the_Drapers%27_Guil...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_de_Baen
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndics_of_the_Drapers%27_Guil...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_de_Baen
That's crazy - I was working on a chapter of my book and used not only that very portrait but was making much the same point - accountancy was a transformative control technology - but much less granular than software today.
I need to publish ... :-)
I need to publish ... :-)
You may enjoy this quote from http://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup ...
The current wave of reducing everything to a combination of 'data & algorithm' and tackling every problem with more data and better algorithms is the logical end-point of the control revolution that started in the 19th century. - Ashwin Parameswaran (2012)
The current wave of reducing everything to a combination of 'data & algorithm' and tackling every problem with more data and better algorithms is the logical end-point of the control revolution that started in the 19th century. - Ashwin Parameswaran (2012)
thank you:-)
“I learned that the world of men as it exists today is a bureaucracy. This is an obvious truth, of course, though it is also one the ignorance of which causes great suffering.
“But moreover, I discovered, in the only way that a man ever really learns anything important, the real skill that is required to succeed in a bureaucracy. I mean really succeed: do good, make a difference, serve. I discovered the key. This key is not efficiency, or probity, or insight, or wisdom. It is not political cunning, interpersonal skills, raw IQ, loyalty, vision, or any of the qualities that the bureaucratic world calls virtues, and tests for. The key is a certain capacity that underlies all these qualities, rather the way that an ability to breathe and pump blood underlies all thought and action.
“The underlying bureaucratic key is the ability to deal with boredom. To function effectively in an environment that precludes everything vital and human. To breathe, so to speak, without air.
“The key is the ability, whether innate or conditioned, to find the other side of the rote, the picayune, the meaningless, the repetitive, the pointlessly complex. To be, in a word, unborable.
“It is the key to modern life. If you are immune to boredom, there is literally nothing you cannot accomplish.”