I am reading the New York Times (Come Back, Mary Poppins November 22, 2015) about the phenomena that a big number of movie actors divorced their wives for the nanny. This reminded me of a phenomena I noticed with founders of companies.
My experience with founders of companies is that the company is not a mistress that takes them away from home and the family. The company is a child they have given birth to.
They had a period of "pregnancy" when they were dreaming about what they will do. Then they took the plunge, quit their job, took a loan, and started a company.
In my lectures and my book, Managing Corporate Lifecycles, I compare that to a woman who has given birth. The baby takes all the energy: feed, rock, change diapers, rock to sleep... the mother gets exhausted. Some have postpartum depression. The not-so-smart husband comes home and wants to have fun. The wife is exhausted and that annoys the hell of him. "Since you have the baby, I do not exist anymore. You are paying attention only to the baby, etc. etc. etc."
All over the world I ask the same question: if the pressures of the husband persist and the wife has had enough of it, whom does she give up, the husband or the baby?
I get the same answer any country I have lectured to, so far fifty-two. She gives up the husband and keeps the baby and that is what happens with a founder of a company too.
He just "gave birth to his company." Problems galore for a start-up. Cash flow problems, inventory problems, quality problems... when he comes home exhausted and the wife wants to have fun he is not able to respond. Then she starts to complain that since he started the company he has no family life anymore, etc. etc. etc.
She sees the company as a mistress, not as a child he has given birth to.
If she puts ongoing pressure and he has a choice: the wife or the company, whom does he chose?
The company, his baby, and he divorces the wife and marries...the secretary.
Why the secretary? Because she is raising his "baby."
Maybe that is what is happening in Hollywood? Gavin Rossdale is getting divorced from Gwen Stefani, or she is divorcing him, for having an affair with the nanny. Ben Affleck, the rumors are, had an affair with their nanny. Robin Williams did the same. Ethan Hawke divorced Uma Thurman and Jude Law divorced Sienna Miller to have an affair with the nanny. Not to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger's very known affair?
Are the nannies so much better looking or younger in comparison to the actress wives? Is that the reason?
I do not think so. I think that the phenomena of the founders marrying the secretary is what is happening here.
The movie actors are probably as narcissistic as founders of companies. They want someone to cater to them and the nanny is there to serve. The movie actress wife, on the other hand, probably has a career to take care of, otherwise why does she have the nanny?
And men probably still have the need to see their bloodline being taken care of, and who does that but the nanny.
So when the push comes to shove, whom do they chose? The one who takes care of the children or the glamorous beautiful famous movie actress wife??
Like the founder of a company, they fall in love with the person who takes care of their children.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.