By Ayo Taiwo
Much of Oluwatobiloba Mide-Ibrahim’s management work comes down to two things: reviewing financial work and helping people understand the decisions behind the figures. At the Association for Diagnostic and Laboratory Medicine, she oversees the close, the financial statements and the records behind them. At FinServe Pro, where she is Chief Operating Officer, she mentors staff and coordinates work across departments.
Those roles put technical review and people management in the same conversation. A preparer has to be able to explain a reconciliation. A supervisor has to spot where more investigation is needed. And when several departments contribute to one service, someone has to own the handoffs and the open questions.
In this interview, she talked about how she organizes her teams, what she asks in a review and how leaders should respond when someone raises a problem, along with one practical limit of supervision: keeping people accountable without making the whole team depend on one reviewer.
How do you organize your team around close deadlines?
I make the work and the review responsibilities clear before the deadline arrives. Staff need to know which schedules depend on other teams and when to flag an exception. In review, I focus on significant judgments and open items, beyond whether a task is marked complete. A realistic schedule leaves time to investigate and correct. The final report should reflect the work that was actually done.
What do you focus on in a review conversation?
One specific task and the thinking behind it. What result did you expect? What information supported your decision? Where did it get difficult? The conversation should end with a practical next step, like clearer documentation, an extra review or a better explanation of the task. Then I follow up, because people need a chance to apply the feedback in their everyday work.
Your COO role spans departments. How do you create accountability when several teams contribute to one service?
I define who’s responsible at each handoff and the point at which the next team accepts the work. Staff need to know what information should travel with a request and who resolves an exception. When work stalls, the teams involved should identify the missing decision or information and agree who will fix it.
You want staff to raise concerns early. Doesn’t that weaken accountability?
Raising a concern is part of being accountable. The person still needs to investigate within their own area and help solve the problem. I separate an honest mistake made while following the process from repeatedly ignoring clear instructions, and I respond to the facts. People need to know what good work looks like, where to get help and which decisions need a second look.
How do you avoid redoing everyone’s work in review?
I make the preparation standard clear and ask people to explain the significant balances and exceptions. Then my review can focus on judgment calls, changes and open questions. If I keep rebuilding someone’s schedule, I need to ask why. Maybe it’s training, maybe the instructions, maybe the task itself. Leading the close means organizing responsibility and review. If I did all the work myself, the team would depend on one person.
Finance can feel remote to the rest of an organization. How do you change that?
Start with the activity the department recognizes. Explain which cost changed, why, and what decision follows. Budget and forecast conversations need a shared understanding of the work behind the numbers. If a manager questions a charge, show the calculation and listen to what they bring. The goal is a report clear enough that the manager can take part in the decision.
What should managers do when deadlines keep requiring overtime?
Look at the recurring workload and what it depends on. Is information arriving late? Is one person doing a task nobody else understands? Is the team fixing the same errors every month? I want the cause before I accept overtime as normal. The team needs enough time for proper review. A deadline that’s only met through constant exhaustion tells you the process isn’t reliable.
How do you know whether mentoring is working?
Look at the work that comes afterwards. Are reconciliations better supported? Are explanations clearer? Does the person spot an exception and ask for review at the right moment? A finished task tells you more than attendance at a training session. We agree on a starting standard and assess progress over a set period. The supervisor also has to create chances to apply what was learned, because development happens in real work.
How has your education shaped the way you lead?
My business administration degree gave me a foundation in how organizations work. The MBA added a management perspective, and the Business Analytics Certificate sharpened my focus on data and interpretation. I draw on all three when I review a workflow or explain a financial movement. But a technical answer still has to work for the people using it. Education earns its keep when it helps you define the problem, weigh the evidence and explain the right course of action.
How do you help staff see the consequences of a routine error?
I connect the entry to the report someone relies on. A coding error can change the explanation a department receives. An entry in the wrong period can distort a budget comparison. I go through the records with the person and show how the error travels to the final report. When people understand the consequence, they recognize a similar problem next time, instead of just learning how to correct one entry.
What would you do if a capable employee kept submitting work late?
Talk with them about why. Which information arrives late? What’s competing for their time? Where are they waiting on a review or a decision from someone else? A capable person still needs a manageable workload and clear priorities, so I look at the process as well as the individual. We agree on an action and I follow up. If the issue is within their control, I make the expectation clear. If the delay comes from a dependency, someone needs to own fixing it.
How do you make a team less dependent on the one person who knows every detail?
Document the steps and the reasoning, then let a colleague perform the task with review. The instructions should cover the source records, the decisions and how to handle exceptions. A written procedure alone doesn’t prove someone else understands the work, so I ask the colleague to explain the output and investigate a question. The organization gains continuity, and the original expert gets time back for work that truly needs their judgment.
What professional habit do you hope your colleagues take into their own leadership roles?
Being ready to explain why. If a balance is reliable, show the evidence. If a process needs to change, describe what failed and how you’d fix it. If the information is incomplete, say what work remains, and be willing to admit it. That habit improves technical review and conversations with management alike. I want colleagues to build confidence by understanding their work, and to know how to ask for review, explain the question and come back with a supported recommendation.
The post ‘Raising concerns early part of accountability in workplace’ — Mide-Ibrahim appeared first on Vanguard News.