In hindsight, how could our VP have prevented this situation from becoming career-derailing? Here are my suggestions:

1. He should never have placed so much emphasis on one single model, but instead assembled evidence from a variety of sources and tracked multiple metrics to assemble and analyze marketing payback more objectively.

2. He should have been advised by his analytics consultants of the model's inherent weaknesses, given the discontinuity of the macro-economy. This is a cardinal sin among technical model developers and business people who don't ever actually comprehend the limits of the tools.

3. He should have recognized that when new people are first exposed to "predictive" numbers, they challenge them instinctively based on their own experience, regardless of the relevance of that experience.

4. He should have taken the step of walking the new CFO through the LOGIC of the model and the relationships between the assumptions and the facts BEFORE he ever showed the numbers -- admitting what was known and what was unknown, as well as how the unknowns were being estimated. It would have been even better to do this in the presence of the outgoing CFO if possible, for continuity of support and to reduce any perceptions of bias.

5. He should have offered the new CFO the chance to throw the entire model out and start over IF they could agree on a reasonable standard for measuring marketing payback that reflected the realities of the business. This gesture of independence and objectivity might very well have saved the model and transformed the relationship into a collaborative one.

Some may think me naïve for believing that such an approach would be effective in the face of divergent world views between a CFO and VP marketing. However, these seemingly insurmountable differences are almost always simple misperceptions exacerbated by some political posturing. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are overcome by separating fact from opinion, and then finding objective ways to interpret evidence and transform it into workable hypotheses.

So, when you feel the heat of the battle building, think STOP, DROP and ALIGN.

STOP the argument and focus on the points the other person is making. Worst case, you'll better understand the limits of his/her expertise and be able to better communicate your points. Best case, she may actually make good points.

DROP your pretense of "knowing" things and admit the limits of your facts. If you doubt whether something is fact or opinion, it's opinion. Calling it such will increase your credibility.

ALIGN on a process for making the decision collaboratively. It may be inefficient in the short run, and you may have to give up some budget or headcount for a while, but in the long run it's the only viable approach.

Surprised that it's not about the model? Don't be. In times of great fluctuation, complexity rises exponentially. The models need to serve the people making the decisions. Fix the models, yes. But fix the people dynamics first.

This commentary is insightful. I recommend it to others.