It is a truth universally acknowledged that an uncomfortable fact, in possession of evidence, must be in want of a convenient lie
Ladies and gentlemen, readers and subscribers, students, thus we uncover Charlotte Kok’s modus operandi.
Not persuasion.
Not leadership.
But selection... of the “facts”.
For Charlattan Charlotte understands a principle long recognised by philosophers, historians and corporate management alike: when offered a choice between an uncomfortable fact and a convenient lie, many require remarkably little encouragement.
To students of Charlotte Kok’s Wicked Winning Ways, we have repeatedly stressed the importance of the performance improvement journey, storycrafting and documentation.
We have even discovered that… after the hoopla… Charlotte has in fact, documented nothing.
That is to say, none of the claims she has made – and is likely to make in future – have been documented. BUT, ironically, the existing documentation that she has – unwittingly – made, actually contradicts her claims, and allegations against her marks/payback victims/vendetta targets subordinates/enemies/naysayers.
Charlotte addresses her students
Students, many people mistakenly believe that truth is a fixed and objective phenomenon.
This misconception has caused considerable career damage.
Reality, properly understood, is not a destination but a negotiation.
Consider the amateur: presented with ten facts, he feels compelled to acknowledge all ten.
Presented with ten documents, he reads all ten.
Presented with contradictory evidence, he experiences discomfort.
Observe the inefficiency.
The accomplished practitioner understands that facts, like employees, require management: some facts are supportive; others are unhelpful; a select few are actively hostile to organisational objectives.
Your task is therefore not to discover the truth.
Your task is to identify which truths are useful. And never forget, there are truths and there are… truths.
Take documentation: many novice managers labour under the delusion that documentation exists to record events accurately.
This is backward thinking.
Documentation exists to support conclusions: if a document supports your position, it is evidence; if it contradicts your position, it lacks context.
Should the contradiction persist, the document itself may be reviewed.
Always remember:
The presence of evidence is not nearly as important as confidence in its interpretation.
This principle has served me faithfully throughout my long and distinguished career.
Particularly on those rare occasions when the evidence proved regrettably inconvenient.
Editor’s note
Readers may notice that Charlotte has quietly abandoned the concept of objective reality altogether.
This is not an oversight.
It is the cornerstone of the method.
For once facts cease to be discovered and become merely selected, the distinction between investigation and storycraft begins to disappear.
Our longer-term readers will remember the hapless Bids and Tenders Manager. The documentation that actually exists is the polar opposite of
Charlotte’s claims.
In fact, the events themselves, feedback from partners and clients, and even… communications from Charlotte herself are very positive and even complimentary of his performance!
How is this possible, you ask?
Charlotte resumes the lesson
Almost nobody (that counts, at least) in Findex-Crowe is aware that the little shit my 5-week Bids and Tenders Manager won his very first tender. The feedback from the client’s Chief Financial Officer was high praise indeed, claiming that the Findex-Crowe response “stood out from the rest of the field”. I even sent the little shit him a congratulatory email, with words like, “Great work!”
Certain partners preferred to work with him instead of my appalling and completely abysmal Tender Writer, expressing confidence in his writing and approach, which I passed onto the little crap B&T Manager.
I deeply regret my letter of congratulations on his win. Likewise, I deeply lament passing on the votes of confidence of certain partners who, at the time, appeared – inexplicably – impressed by his work.
There were, admittedly, other warning signs I may have overlooked.
The little shit former B&T Manager passed a writing assessment I personally set for him.
More troubling still, he prepared a detailed 90-day plan outlining how he intended to contribute during his first three months at Findex-Crowe. The interview panel, including myself, was sufficiently persuaded by this display of competence to offer him the position.
In hindsight, this was clearly an error.
The little shit former B&T Manager would also have been the only individual within Findex-Crowe holding APMP (Association of Proposal Management Professionals) accreditation.
Again, a detail of no practical significance.
Students occasionally ask whether these facts create difficulties for my subsequent allegations.
The answer is no.
Facts are snapshots. Narratives are journeys. The fact that I once congratulated him merely reflects what I believed at the time.
What I believe now is considerably more important.
And therefore, in a very real sense, more true.
I also hadn’t realised – at the time – what a threat lame manager he would turn out to be: correcting my grammar (privately) and then making that unfortunate discovery of the redundant subscriptions.
As you all know by now, I do not suffer fools who challenge my authority and projection of competence. I also had to act fast. Very fast. After the unfortunate discovery and the termination of the superfluous subscription, the B&T Manager was scheduled for a meeting with the Managing Partner of Audit, David Munday only two weeks away!
Loyal students will remember my Wicked Winning Way #1 – Weaponising the Performance Improvement Journey and post, Retribution Dressed as Corporate Alignment, where I introduce “Every incompetence under the sun… and also where the sun don’t shine”, a technique I pioneered where you throw everything at the subject of your personal vendetta employee requiring guidance. That includes the kitchen sink.
Its purpose is to paint such a vivid and alarming picture of incompetence, unsuitability and organisational peril that no reasonable person could possibly conclude that this little shit strategically under-victorious B&T Manager should remain employed.
The beauty of the technique lies in its efficiency.
For once every incompetence under the sun has been assembled in a single document, the conclusion writes itself. Where the sun don’t shine.
Ideally within two weeks.
Initially, I had some concerns that someone in Findex-Crowe may challenge my allegations of incompetence – so broad and encompassing were they – against the dipshit insufferable man. But no! No one did! This is already explained in one of my earlier posts, The Peter Principle.
Editor’s note
Let’s have a look at Charlotte’s allegations against the B&T Manager, shall we? Here is Charlotte’s letter to the little shit B&T Manager verbatim:
You little shit!
I refer to the ongoing discussions during the ABC tender process and daily meetings held with you from 28 July 2025 to review the Widget proposal along with other ongoing work. During these conversations we have discussed concerns regarding your performance and behaviour, specifically:
- You have been unable to demonstrate an uplift in key areas of the role including time management, writing adaptability, formatting skills and editing skills, and despite the provision of coaching and support activities including:
a. Regular and specific feedback being provided to you. - You have been unable to respond and adapt to shifting priorities and demonstrate a sense of urgency to tasks despite coaching and direction from others to prioritise activities.
- You have demonstrated behaviours that are inconsistent with our values including:
a. Not following reasonable instructions provided from your direct manager.
b. Implementing changes prematurely without understanding the rationale for existing processes.
c. Not consistently taking feedback from senior team members, resulting in misaligned deliverables. - You have demonstrated an inability to perform the requirements of a Bids & Tender Manager role to the expected level, there has been an inconsistent application of the feedback provided, and coaching strategies suggested which has resulted in inconsistent performance.
As outlined in your employment contract, your ongoing employment at Findex is subject to the successful completion of a probationary period.
After considering all available information, a decision has been made not to continue your employment beyond the probationary period. Accordingly, your employment will be terminated with immediate effect.
Details regarding your final entitlements will be advised to you shortly. This will include one week’s pay in lieu of notice.
I would like to remind you of Findex’s Employee Assistance Program (Acacia Connection). Acacia is a confidential counselling service available to all Findex employees and their family members. Acacia can be contacted on 1300 364 273. This will remain available for 3 months post-employment.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Kok
Client Success Executive
Notice the technique: the little shit B&T Manager has no sense of urgency but implements changes prematurely (too much sense of urgency perhaps?); lacks formatting and editing skills; is unable to adapt or take feedback (all positive according to existing records)… yada yada
How do these allegations reconcile with reality? The answer is, they need not.
The purpose of a probation letter is not necessarily to describe events as they occurred. It is merely to ensure that events occurred as described.
A convenient distinction.
Particularly when the records say otherwise.
Charlotte picks up the theme
Notice the technique.
A common novice error is to believe allegations should be logically consistent.
This is incorrect.
The purpose of allegations is not to describe reality. It is to occupy it.
Consider our example.
The employee lacks urgency. The employee acts prematurely. The employee fails to adapt. The employee implements changes without sufficient consultation. The employee does not take feedback. The employee is unable to act independently.
Observe the artistry.
Each allegation points in a different direction. Together they surround the target completely.
There is no requirement that every criticism be true. Only that one of them might be.
And if none of them are?
Students, please. We are not discussing ethics.
We are discussing performance management.
Editor’s observation
The Editor confesses to a degree of puzzlement.
The allegations, taken collectively, describe an individual possessed of diametrically opposed tendencies, attitude deficiencies, selective hearing and apparently irreconcilable gaps in knowledge, ability and execution.
An individual of almost breathtaking incompetence.
Yet the chronology appears to present certain difficulties.
Prior to his appointment, the little shit B&T Manager passed a writing assessment set by Charlotte herself and produced a 90-day plan that evidently impressed the interview panel sufficiently to secure him the role.
Shortly thereafter, he became the only known holder of APMP accreditation within Findex-Crowe. He then won his first tender, attracted favourable feedback from the client’s Chief Financial Officer, received Charlotte’s personal congratulations, and earned the confidence of certain partners.
The Editor does not suggest these accomplishments render a person infallible.
He merely notes that they appear somewhat at odds with the subsequent discovery of every incompetence under the sun. And also where the sun don’t shine.
The decline, if decline there was, appears to have been both swift and comprehensive.
A remarkable case study.
Leave a comment