The Frustrated CFO

Legal Expert's Rundown on Employers' Rights to Discriminate

I frequently write (and talk) about the distortion of bill of rights in the workplace and other similar perks of employees' existence.  Hell, I even have a separate category for posts devoted to nepotism. I always stress out that small-business employers can pretty much define their own rules, as long as they put them in writing and notify new hires of how things are done in their domain.  Not only that labor authorities don't look into employment conditions of companies with less than 50 employees, but, even if one or another wrong-doing is brought to their attention, they will take the corporate side as long as there is a correspondent written policy in place.  And think a hundred times before suing your former employer - you may end up staring at a defamation law suit filed against you. 

Now, I have an opportunity to direct my readers to an expert's list of legally permissible ways employers can discriminated both existing employees and job applicants in a business of any size - big or small.  I have previously quoted a veteran employment law specialist and award-winning writer Donna Ballman on the issues of workers' rights.  And, as you can see, her popular blog Screw You Guys, I Am Going Home is a single proud member of my Blog Roll.  I highly recommend for everyone to follow the link below and read her latest contribution to AOL Jobs - the characteristically concise summary of legitimized discriminatory practices.  I guarantee that at least some of them will surprise you.

8 Ways Employers Can Discriminate Against Workers - Legally by Donna Ballman         

The Clueless Boss of a Frustrated Downshifter

The economy and the resulting miserable state of the job market forced many financial executives to downshift, i.e. take jobs way below their levels of expertise, authority, and adequate compensation.  It's been almost a year since I wrote about the heartbreaking reality of first finding such a position and then accepting it for the sake of having food on the table and keeping the roof over your family's head.  Yet, the painful topic is still relevant.

But let's look a little further.  We have an opportunity to examine an interesting situation brought to my attention by an actual downshifter - a former CFO of a, now defunct, $500-million-dollar firm.  After a year of a futile job-hunting he accepted, at 50% of his former compensation, a Controller's position in a young and small ($30 million) company, ran by two owners - a female CEO and her partner with a COO title.  

How many times did I write about accidental bosses?  And here we go again: this business has started because the two partners got lucky. They were in the right place at the right time with extensive connections and sufficient funding at hand.  Neither of them actually needed it to survive, but the opportunity were too exciting to pass up. 

Guess what?  The CEO never led a company before.  She never even worked in a commercial enterprise.  Her partner has an MBA from an Ivy League school, but he only worked overseas.  Neither have the chops to make good executives, yet both have undeniable talents and a lot of enthusiasm.  She is a sales ace and the toughest negotiator you can find.  He is incredibly detailed-oriented.

Not only that they managed to get the company off the ground eight years ago, they kept it growing with minimal labor resources, including  a single bookkeeper.  Hiring a senior financial person was definitely not among their priorities. Until...  Some people are just born lucky.  An even bigger  opportunity presented itself.  To implement it they needed more capital.  The dogged COO wore down one of the major banks into providing them with a substantial trade finance line.  Among bank's mandates was hiring a proper Controller. 

Enter our former CFO.

Because both execs are not very clear on the leadership functions, the division of responsibilities is blurred.  The COO was in charge of the Controller's hiring.  The CEO never even saw the candidate's resume or salary history.  When COO decided that this is their guy, the CEO was called in for a minute to shake the future Controller's hand.  

Yet, once our downshifter started working there, he realized that the woman's word was the final authority on pretty much all other issues.  Now, because she lacks corporate experience, she is not capable of assessing the Controller's performance.  In her mind, any other accountant would provide the same input as this guy, who managed in the first three months to correct more procedural, systematic, recording, and administrative errors than he did in 25 years before this job. Moreover, he contributes into the company's strategic decisions.  All that for a price of a low-brow peripheral Controller.  The CEO has no clue that what she's got was a gift; that she got very lucky again and obtained an Hermes bag for the price of a Coach.

This is a big problem.  If your boss doesn't understand your value, she cannot appreciate your contribution. The fact that someone with lower qualifications and less experience would not be able to attend to the sophisticated tasks you accomplish remains unnoticed.  As a result, you are helping to better the company without a chance for a fair reward. 

What to do in this situation?  You are not the type to brag every time you do something extraordinary.  The first thought comes to mind is to re-introduce yourself.  The guy who hired you didn't share your resume with his partner, so give her one together with your salary history.  You can say, "I understand you've never had a chance to look at it before and I think it's not fair for either of us."   I know some people will say it's tasteless, but the options here are limited.

Secondly, you must propose a proper evaluation system for all staff members.  Because these people have no idea how to go about it, they will turn to you.  This is your chance!  Provide them with the format that allows employees to list their own accomplishments.  Then, make sure that reviews are actually conducted.

Finally, if you don't get satisfactory acknowledgement anyway, start looking for another job.  Maybe you will be luckier this time around.  It's like I always say, employment at will works both ways: they can separate from you at any time, but so can you.

HR Capitalist Believes That Operational Guidelines Are Optional

Last week (Wednesday, January 26th, to be exact), my fellow Typepad blogger HR Capitalist (www.hrcapitalist.com) posted a short musing on the subject of what he calls "Rules Orientation." Not a very clear term, it basically attempts to encompass the process of introducing new hires to the way the business is done in the company, i.e. operational guidelines. And the thesis is that it's not always necessary and the choice depends on the propensity of the candidate: if he wants the structure, give it to him; but if he doesn't like to be restrained by the rules, let him figure out his own way. The latter apparently is especially "good" for the companies that operate without rules in the first place - the mayhem kind of businesses.

(Side note: I cannot suppress my high cultural standards and must make a note about the inappropriateness of the "Fight Club" reference. I just cannot stand the pretentiousness of people who don't even understand what they are watching, but try to appear deep. Let me tell you, it took a lot of discipline, military organization, and RULES to properly run Project Mayhem. Remember? "The first rule of Fight Club is..." and so on - rules 1 to 8. Even The Narrator's psyche was protected from Tyler Durden within as long as the rules were followed. Once they were violated, the spell was broken.)

These kind of ideas and recommendations are somewhat surprising, coming from a career HR guru. How narrow is the employment niche of, what he calls, "low rules" candidates? In my opinion, minuscule - maybe some small haphazard consulting company with no supporting staff and a life expectancy of a couple of years, or a startup based on an IPhone App that will be hot for a few months and then lost in the sea of 300,000+ solutions.

In any other type of business, or even in the same kind but with a little bit of structural complexity, project deadlines, customer base, etc., operational guidelines guarantee faster immersion into daily duties. The only employees that should not be bound by protocol are the creative staff (designers, architects, artists, etc.); and even those need to abide by the rules of conduct, employment agreements, client-time billing, etc.

The biggest question is, who the hell can afford nowadays the unstructured learning curves of people not powered by certain procedural standardization? Especially if they are very good - you don't really want them to waste time on "figuring out" their personal ways of going about the job.

Moreover, I guarantee you that no small or midsize business, with its flat organizational structure and intense concentration of responsibilities, can let a no-rules screwball (or rather cannonball) into its already vulnerable system. Just imagine for a second someone like Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn) running around your workplace, releasing leopards, breaking all conventions, and eventually reducing the result of long-time effort to a pile of disconnected fossils.

But I shouldn't be really surprised that this post was written. This is a typical problem with many narrowly-focused specialists, including HR gurus. They lack the ability for systematic thinking, are not capable of viewing business as an integral organism, where everything contributes to the ultimate success, and, thus, rarely make good executive material.

I am all for matching employees abilities to their appropriately assigned tasks and specifically talk about it in the last section of "CFO Techniques", but I cannot imagine trying to fit into any organization those people who cannot follow any rules.

A CFO's Democratism Gets Tested

In most smaller companies, CFOs and controllers include general HR functions into their scopes of responsibilities - that's a given. The flat organizational structures, though, with their spatial and psychological proximity of top executives to the staff, play peculiar tricks on those in charge of the company's human relations.

Very frequently a CFO takes a role of a buffer between the owner/CEO and the rest of the company's employees. She feels obligated to soften the impact of the direct dealing with frequently harsh and hard attitudes of the boss.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more frequently than not entrepreneurs don't have an experience of ever being in a position of an employee and, therefore, they have very little understanding of the staff's mentality. On the other hand, a CFO maybe a right-hand person now, but she is still just a salaried employee, most likely grown into her current status by climbing through the ranks. If she is a decent human with a conscience, she is sensitive to the needs of valuable employees and cares about their well-being (if they are useless, let someone else care about them).

It's likely that an excellent CFO would enjoy a comparatively preferential treatment by a CEO: more disciplinary leniency, nicer attitude, better perks, general amiability, etc. When it comes to other employees, their efforts and achievements may be remarkable, but they are not as evident to the boss, and that reduces their value in his eyes. I've had one CEO openly tell me that if I want a certain benefit (let's say flexible spending account) for myself, he would be fine with obtaining it, but he did not care about the rest of the "worker-bees."

So, the CFO takes it upon herself to protect other employees from undue tyranny and act as their speaker when it comes to betterment of the employment conditions, whatever they are: raises, bonuses, vacations, benefits, etc. Sort of like a representative of the XYZ Company's employees union. And when she discusses this situation with her friends and family, she expresses her disdain for the undemocratic ways of her boss, taking pride in her efforts to right the wrongs.

Now imagine such a CFO taking a position with a new company - small, young, still pretty much in development stage. The owners are very liberal and treat everyone like equals. Moreover, the CFO is the last person being hired. Those few other employees have been there from the start. Nobody needs protection. Furthermore, there is one person who has been there the longest, starting as a CEO's assistant. Not that she gets any special perks or something like that, but she definitely feels very secure.

This should make the democratic CFO very happy. After all, wasn't she fighting for equality of other employees all the time before? Yes, it's nice; wonderful, really; exactly what she hoped to find... Except that... Being "the chosen one" was kind of a guilty pleasure too, an enjoyable self-esteem booster. And the gratitude of others for all that blow-cushioning effort was very rewarding as well. As important as the democratic principles were to this CFO, the old tyranny is somewhat missed.

That's how we, humans, are. For various reasons and purposes, mostly subconsciously and without any malice, we create these little lies that alter our self-image and other people's perception of us in one way or another.

It reminds me of my UK friend of many years, Gerald Hamer's, revelation concerning his constant bitching and moaning about endless international traveling he had to endure throughout many years of his impressive career as financial broker and adviser. "In truth," he said, "deep inside I love the goddamn airports; the sub-par plane food; the inevitable delays; god-forsaken Yakutsk, the coldest city on Earth, with its diamond mines one week, and unbearable humidity of Bahrain another. I wouldn't want it any other way."

So, all you, democratic CFOs out there, work as hard as you can and fight for your employees' well-being with all you've got, but be honest with yourself: you enjoy being special, the Most Valuable Player in the field.

Job Search: Altogether Now! Say, "Bye-Bye, Ladders!"

As some smart people predicted, TheLadders are not for $100K+ job seekers anymore.  In his newsletter last Monday (presented in its entirety at the bottom), Marc Cenedella announced that now his job board "takes all salary levels" (for shame, Marc - subpar writing!)  Well, he definitely can say, "Bye-bye" to many premium members who are paying annual fees on the premise that they belong to an "exclusive club" of six-figure-salaried people (Dear reader, I agree, it's absolutely pathetic, but people are people). 

But I am more interested in the speculative assertions we can deduce from this:

1. Marc Cendella thought that some investor would come along and he would be bought out by now and retire in the..., where he wanted to retire.  I understand very well the whole thing with the book's publication, etc.  There is no fame or fortune in writing the books (trust me on this one, I should know), because nobody buys or reads them.  You invest your precious time into writing endeavor for other reasons.  In his case - self-marketing.
   
2. The job market is so bad that there are not enough 100K+ postings to cover their expenses.
3. He needs more revenue both to boost the dwindling cash flow, and attract investors.  For that he needs contracts with large employers and recruiting agencies, who don't have too many six-figure positions anymore either.  So, the only way they will deal with him is if he opens the doors to all salary levels.
4. Now, even the premium members will start receiving laundry lists with salaries all over the place - it's not like there are no $40K a year controller positions out there.  Who wants to pay for that kind of service?
   
5. I am not an oracle: it's possible that Cendella is a lucky person and it will all work out his way, but it's my opinion that the near-future probability of TheLadders saying bye-bye altogether is very high.

"Bye-bye!

September 19, 2011

From MARC CENEDELLA

We're expanding, and today we say "bye-bye" to helping only those over $100,000 and "hello" to helping all career-minded professionals. TheLadders now takes all salary levels and shows the right jobs to the right person. So while we're saying goodbye to our narrower segmentation, we are not saying "goodbye" to keeping your job search on TheLadders relevant, focused, and targeted.

So, for example, you won't see jobs that pay half (or double) what you're currently making. You won't see jobs outside of your field — we still won't show sales jobs to finance professionals, or marketing jobs to technologists. And we won't be letting in scammy jobs, work-from-home schemes, or commission-only opportunities — we'll still be vetting every job and every recruiter before we allow them into our community.

So what's the big change for you? Should be not too much… on the surface.

You'll still be seeing great $100K+ jobs, and the recruiters who post them.

Behind the scenes, though, by making it easier for companies and recruiters to fill all of their professional jobs at TheLadders, you'll find that we're getting more, and an even wider variety of, jobs at the right level for you.

We've been out talking to our friends in HR departments and recruiting shops across the country these past few months talking about our expansion and we've found widespread enthusiasm and support. The standard ways of doing things are too expensive, too time-consuming, and too frustrating for them, too.

This expansion has been a long time in the making. From the beginning in 2003, when we set out to become the "Society of the Nation's Top Talent" to our first appearance in the New York Times in 2007, we've talked about preparing for the day when we would expand to cover all professional jobs.

We've worked hard at becoming experts at modern recruiting. We've underwritten research at universities. We've spent over a million dollars re-writing the playbook for job search advice. We published our Amazon Top 100 best-seller: "You're Better Than Your Job Search". And we've studied the history of the job search through the past two centuries.

We also launched Signature, our historically unprecedented program that guarantees you a job offer — or your money back — when you follow our program of weekly or bi-weekly calls over six months.

And based on our expertise in understanding what employers want, we've built the largest resume writing service in the country.

It's that excellence in helping job-seekers like you that has propelled us to become leaders in the business, and it's one of the reasons why we've tripled the number of recruiters and HR professionals in our community this year alone.

And so now that we've grown to almost five million members in the United States and 43% of high-end professionals used TheLadders in their job search last year, we're expanding to serve all career-minded professionals and all professional jobs in the country.

I thank you for your support these last eight years and look forward to eight, or eighteen, or eighty more years helping you succeed in the job hunt!

I'll always be rooting for you,


Marc Cenedella, CEO & Founder"

Job Search: The Reality and Heartaches of Downshifting

Here is the testimony to the current job market condition: the necessity-driven "downshifting" (taking a position below your lever of qualifications) has become so prevalent that HR consultants start addressing the issue as a separate subject with specific advices on how to do it successfully.  There used to be times when some over-50 empty-nesters wanted to lighten their workload and spend more time at leisure, so CFO's switched to consulting, and stuff like that.  Now, we are talking about highly-experienced middle-aged financial executives unsuccessfully trying to get whatever jobs they can in order to put food on the table and continue to support their post-college children, who have no chance of getting a good job either.  It's heartbreaking!!!

I always had a problem with the concept of "overqualified" candidates.  It goes against all commercial, practical, and common sense - why would anybody say "No" to buying a diamond ring for a price of a cubic zirconia?  Why wouldn't employers want to benefit from high-level expert if he is willing (moreoever, eager) to take a much lower position and pay than the ones he used to have?

The official explanation (especially, if you talk to recruiters at Robert Half, or ExecuSearch, etc.) is always (it's like everything changes around us except for the stupid banalities) that employers don't want to take the risk of hiring someone, who will be immediately looking to leave for a better opportunity.  This outdated explanation begs three responses. 

First of all, nowadays the process of looking for a job is unbearably excruciating.  Anyone who finally finds one is so relieved and enthused, he wouldn't want to continue that struggle for sometime (especially, if his attempts may leak through the Internet and jeopardize the position he already got). 

Secondly,  where are those better opportunities? The whole point is that there are no opportunities.  I remember after the Internet bubble burst, let's say 2001-2002, an opening for a controller position could generate 300-350 good (not garbage) responses.  It was terrifying.  Today, there is a thousand of unemployed financial pros for every CFO, controller, director or VP ad. 

Finally (and most importantly), even if the person leaves soon, what about the cost/benefit analysis of the time he does spend in the company?  Why wouldn't an employer want to sponge a superior knowledge off of him at a lower price?  Is it because the company still uses the outrageously expensive recruiting services?  Well, then the agreement should be negotiated in such a way that no fees are paid until the break-even grace period passes.  And anyway, people should stop wasting their money on recruiters altogether.

But we know that this explanation is bullshit.  In reality, no matter how beneficial it is for the company, CEOs and existing CFO don't really want the brightest and the most knowledgeable person in the position.  They want the non-threatening and obedient, know-your-place employee.  Especially the CFO - what if the newcomer turns out to be better than the present loser (only losers feel threatened by someone strong; winners have nothing to fear).

Anyway, this issue is so prominent that on August 26 Finance Ladder published not one, but two career advice articles on the subject: Getting the Job When You're Overqualified and Packaging Yourself for a Smaller Role, both by Sean Gallagher.  Here is the best quote:

"...Finding a job – even one that pays significantly less, with less responsibility — is still a challenge."

There are some interesting observations and advices as well.  Nothing groundbreaking - most of it you can figure out yourself, but still it may be a useful reading not only for those who are looking now.  Because it is not going to get any better.  If you are employed now, it does not mean you will have a job tomorrow.

         

Job Search: Unemployment & Depression

At the end of February, The Ladders featured Debra Donston-Miller's article Depression is Making Unemployment Longer, which reiterated the well-known fact that unemployment walks hand in hand with depression and anxiety, and that, in turn, diminishes your ability to get employed. 

It's a vicious circle, you know.   A person looses his job - that's on its own is a hard blow to his ego.  Nevertheless, he gets right on all job boards - Monster, CareerBuilder, etc.  - posts his resume and applies to every single opening that matches his qualifications.  As time goes by, he keeps lowering his expectations - now applications go out to jobs with smaller titles and lower salaries.  Still, the response is not too hot.  

Nowadays, the statistical probability of converting applications into a recruiter's or hiring manager's interest is around 2% for high-level financial professionals - CFOs, Controllers, Financial Directors, etc.  The national numbers of people not being able to find employment in one, sometimes two, and more years are scary. 

While you are waiting for the sparks in the dark, your spirits get lower and lower.  You become listless, loose interest in everything - depression really kicks in.  The anxiety of not being able to support yourself when the savings and unemployment compensation run out gets overwhelming.  You swing between over-hype of appraising your possession for possible liquidation and inability to move a muscle.

Still, you force yourself to apply every day, you do your networking, ask people around.  Finally, quantity turns into quality: you've sent out 100 resumes and someone finally called you.   You've had a positive response after the phone interview and now you are going for a face-to-face appointment.  Anxiety floods you - the workspace environment, which you have not experienced for several months, seems so alien to you. 

You are prepared, though - you are a seasoned executive with superior qualifications, a likable person, well-spoken, know how to handle yourself.  The interview seems to go well, but there are so many candidates, and you might have said something wrong just because the depression and anxiety ate some of your confidence away.  Every day you wait for a call back, but nobody ever does; nobody even sends an email to let you know that you did not qualify - people don't do those sort of polite things anymore.

Now, you are loosing hope altogether: it is more and more difficult to make yourself even to look at the job listings.  It seems like staring at the television screen all day without seeing what's on is a better option...

You know what?  I am not going to tell you that it will get better.  I am not a fortune teller.  I don't know it, but neither do you.  Yes, it's fucking tough out there!  As I always say,  we live in a new economic reality.  The truth is that you may need to rethink your entire life.  But you cannot let the depression eating away your time.  FIGHT IT!  Do you know what happens with every single day you waste on giving in to nothingness? It disappears and you will never get it back. 

The Ladders' article quoted cognitive behavioral psychologist Deb Brown, who suggests creating a routine for yourself as one of the helpful tools.  My readers know how big I am on time-management and routines.  Whether you are fighting the unemployment depression or job frustration, scheduling your time and filling your day with meaningful tasks always helps.   And when you are unemployed, you have an opportunity to do things that you never had time for before: study Spanish with that Rosetta Stone pack you've got for your birthday two years ago; transfer all those home videos onto DVDs, get yourself fit.  

You don't really need more than two-three hours a day to look for new openings and apply.  Spend the rest of your free time (FREE TIME - when do we have it otherwise?) catching up on your life.  And don't be a prisoner of your schedule either - let go of it for a day, when you feel frustrated.

And listen, even if things with employment never get better and some drastic decisions will need to be made, at least you will not need to look back at the long stretch of a complete misery right before that.       

Futurenomics of Higher Education

People laugh at me when I talk about higher education in negative terms.  And I understand - it sounds hypocritical coming from someone with multiple academic degrees.  But times and environments change.  For my generation, higher education was far less expensive, more intellectually challenging and somewhat more rewarding than it is for young people today. 

Now colleges lower their educational values, so that the degrees seem more intellectually accessible.  The individual thinking is not cultivated anymore and slowly disappears together with independent studies.  It became all about mechanistic skills of test-taking instead of true intellectualism.   

Except for a few institutions still adhering to their academic values, most colleges' coursework does not require any reading beyond the textbooks.  This is how we end up with scores of degreed "professionals" who never read.  My famous pet peeve is having young subordinates with accounting degrees who don't understand the fundamental principles of double-entry bookkeeping. 

So, for $200,000 you get a low-grade minimal intellectual input and the promise of... What?  Nowadays, nothing.  Ok, so wealthy parents may be willing to pay this kind of money in order to delay their children's exposure to the doldrums of the adult life - as far as I am concerned, not a bad idea if you love your children and can afford to do so.  But other than that - it's really just nothing but a bad investment.  

Yet, more and more children continue entering colleges, ending up with unbearable debts.  Some are locked forever in terrible jobs, others are not capable of getting a job at all.   And people still insist that the degrees open some highly desirable doors?  Why is that? 

Because, of that stupid club mentality that pollutes every aspect of our lives.  Hiring managers and recruiters, themselves college graduates, will look down on those without the degrees, regardless of their abilities and knowledge.  This idiotic pattern has to change.  Not to boast or anything, but I always look for a spark of an intellect in a candidate's eyes before I look at the Education section on his resume.     

At the same time, we cannot deny the fact that having graduate and post-graduate degrees inhibits entrepreneurial potential of many bright and capable people.  I have been saying for years that the possibility of being paid good wages prevents people from entering the entrepreneurial route.  It's too scary to gamble on your business success if you have a steady job.   Thus, instead of building small and midsize businesses that could revive our economy, kids "all go to the university, and they all get put in boxes, little boxes, all the same." 

But this point becomes even less relevant now: those highly paid jobs opportunities will not be there in the near future.  Young people, please, you don't have to follow the rest of the sheep.  Think for yourself; let your creativity take you on the self-fulfilling journey.  And you don't have to strive to be rich and famous overnight either - not everyone is meant to be Gates or Zuckerman.  There is nothing wrong with building your own small business that will provide you with middle-class living, while creating jobs for other people on top of that. 

 

 

Job Search: A Sad Tale of a Misdialed Area Code

Posts related to job search issues have become more frequent.  I guess, it is unavoidable with such a persistent problem - a lot of people are unemployed and the jobs availability diminishes every day, no matter what the big-time economists and government statisticians are saying. 

This story was related to me just last week and I felt compelled to share it here.  A fellow financial exec has been contacted by a recruiter with an opportunity for a CFO position with a service company.  The recruiter does not work for an employment agency.  He is with a consulting company that specializes in hedge fund and private equity brokerage.  They offer a broad range of assistance: from finding companies suitable for takeover or merging to post-closing transitioning.

Excellent!  Recruiters working for such consulting firms are less constricted than conventional headhunters from Robert Half et al.  Because they are immersed into an entrepreneurial world, they actually try to find talented people instead of counting the check marks they drew on a resume.

So, the two have an extensive phone interview, going over the financial exec's experience with various functions crucial for this job.  At the end, the recruiter is very positive and tells her he would make a presentation to his boss, the consulting firm's Managing Director.  A couple of days later he calls to inform her that he got a favorable feedback and wants to make an appointment for a telephone interview with the boss.  They set the day and time.  

Now (this is an important bit of information), the consulting firm is in Philadelphia, where predominant area code is 215.  The candidate is in New York City - 212 area code there.

Appointment time comes - the interviewee sits and waits by the phone.  An hour later - nothing happened.  She writes an email to the recruiter advising that the Managing Director did not call.  He writes back immediately saying that she did call, nobody picked up and she left a message.  How is it possible?  The woman in New York was by her phone all the time.  Well, we, CFOs, are quick like that - our job seeker realized right away that the Philadelphia woman, out of habit, must have punched 215, instead of 212.  

The recruiter and his boss probably looked at the call log and saw the wrong number too.  The interview was rescheduled.  But now, there is a subconscious resistance in the interviewer's mind - she is human, and we don't like admitting to embarrassing errors like that.  She re-schedules again, then again, then never calls. 

And just like that, the opportunity was gone.  What always bothers me when things like that happen, is that it is quite possible that this woman could have been the best thing that ever happened to the company.  She might have impacted the future of the enterprise in the most positive way.  It seems so unfair that stupid little things like this misdialed area code have such a big role in this Comedy of Errors we call life.  

Job Search: Sales Pitch Behavioral Breakdown

In "The History Boys," a play by Alan Bennett, Douglas Hector explains to his student how, once in a while, you read something that is so close to your own thinking, it makes you feel as if a friend extended a hand towards you.  Beautiful! 

Sometimes, it happens with online reading as well.

Like this article, written for The Ladders by Dan Coughlin, Understand the Mind of the Interviewer.  I really appreciated his applying fundamental concepts to a particular issue.  It targets the job search process, yet it addresses business behavior topics I frequently discuss, namely the importance of:

• understanding people's motivations,
• treating everyone you meet with equal respect,
• keeping professional demeanor at all times.
  

Mr. Coughlin's  assessment of the interviewing process is applicable to any form of "bargaining."  Whether you are selling your professional skills and qualifications for a job position, or pitching a TV series idea, or promoting an improvement in your organization - the behavioral principles are the same.  And there are important conditions to keep in mind:  

• you are on somebody else's turf,
  
• you may interact with people who are not directly involved in the selection,
  
• in the first rounds you encounter people who decide whether you can go on the next stage or not,
• if you get recommended, you meet the final decision-makers.

Because you are on somebody else's territory, you don't know who can observe you.  When you drive through the security gate on the way in or out, you may be seen on a camera, for example. So you'd better keep your professional armor on at all times.  Don't miss that garbage can in front the building, when you throw the soda bottle on your way in - the woman having a smoke nearby might be the HR Manager. 

Many people loose their creditability by saying or doing something in the reception area.  Doormen, assistants, secretaries may have their own impact on your case.  Once, I interviewed someone: by the time he walked into my office, I already knew that he was snappy and rude with the receptionist.   Did I hire him?

The actual decision-makers who have the power to either recommend you for the next round or to hire you (buy from you, option your script, adapt your improvement proposal) are motivated to make the choice by their own sets of reasons.  Your task is to understand what those motivations are and to try to accommodate them.

The two most important stimuli are the interviewer's reputation and professional advancement.  If there is a possibility that an HR manager will look foolish for passing your candidature to a CFO, she will never do it.  On the other hand, if a creative exec reading a script thinks that showing it to the executive producer will boost his status, he will be running to his boss like an olympic athlete. 

Understand what the person sitting opposite from you wants and bring the ability to fulfill that need forward.  That's the trick.