The Frustrated CFO

Job Search: Lessons from AOL Resume Contest

Not that my stories are usually bright and sunny, but in this case I feel obligated to apologize in advance for the accentuated feeling of gloominess the visitors may experience reading this post.   This particular topic is depressing on three levels. 

First of all, it deals with the fact that there are millions of well-qualified people out there, who are classified as "long-term unemployed." 

Secondly, it highlights the problem of plunging work quality we can see everywhere.  I am not saying everyone, but it seems like the majority of people  just don't want to try hard anymore.  

Thirdly, it disparages our illusions about the impact of "internet exposure."  Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and web-powered Social Networking are even more popular mantras nowadays, than Dashboards.  Everybody and their mothers are writing about it.  People believe that if they get their name on a high-traffic site, they are going to be noticed.  The reality is that unless you write about sex, celebrities or electronic chachkis, nobody will care.  And before you bring up Huffington Post, let me tell you - Arianna Huffington was a political powerhouse and a decent memoirist way before she went on the net. 

So, here is the story.  In January AOL Jobs announced a Resume Contest and offered job seekers to submit their CVs and photos.  The winners were "to be selected by AOL Jobs career experts."  The incentive to participate was boldly formulated:

"Each winner will have their resume featured on AOL.com for millions of prospective employers to see..."  

AOL Jobs never revealed their traffic information to support this claim of tremendous exposure.  But of course, people are desperately unemployed and ready to grasp at straws; plus, the internet exposure illusion...  Resumes were entered into the contest.

Here comes the funny part.  Afterwards, the organizers did not even bother to announce how many resumes were submitted.  Like, it did not even matter.  However, in addition to the original 12 winners,  AOL Jobs announced 24 runner-ups, claiming that "there were so many amazing... entrants" (no actual numbers).

I happened to know personally one of these runner-ups.  Guess when these poor saps were featured on AOL Jobs...  The first group on Saturday, January 29th, at 7:57 AM, and the second group on Sunday, January 30th, at 4:42 PM.  Who was looking?  Recruiters?  Employers?  None of these 36 winners got any job offers through this "wonderful" campaign.

The personally -known-to-me winner did not receive a single phone call or an email.  Well, that did not really surprise me.  What shocked me was that nobody from AOL cared to follow up with her.  There were no emails asking if she got any leads, nothing...  Weren't organizers interested at all in the results?  As I say - low quality of work everywhere.   

So, I have a constructive suggestion, which at the very least will have a quality-improving effect.   How about, AOL Job's management actually pursues their "Employing America" mission and replaces the incapable staff, who developed this failed contest, with some excellent winners of the Resume Contest?

Executive Recruiter aka Thoughtless Pest

   Let me explain right away that this is not an attack on the entire human resources profession.  There are many thoughtful in-house HR Managers and freelance consultants with whom I worked.  I have no problems with them. 

This is about scores and scores of functionaries buzzing around in international headhunting factories that pretty much monopolize the executive search field - Robert Half, Michael Page, Execu|Search, Ajilon and their lesser competitors.  I kind of hoped that they would be extinct by now.

These pests have neither time nor dedication to understand the actual specifics of positions they are paid to fill.  Even in the pre-internet times, all they ever did was looking for matching items between some laundry lists of requirements and applicants' resumes.  Did you actually think they read them?  Nope!  It's a matching game.  Nowadays, they don't even do that, they don't even look at CVs.  Now, they've got a "cool" software known as  Applicant Tracking System (ATS).  The computer plays the game and just reports the score.    

This insults my intelligence.  It used to devastate me as a job seeker.  It offends me as a hiring executive who goes out of her way looking beyond the resume phraseology for the spark of brightness.  For me hiring was never about check marks.  Recruiting, especially on the senior executive level, is about real jobs and real abilities.     

What I don't understand is why there is still demand for their services?  Why people are still willing to pay $30K-$100K for a "good enough match"  that rarely produces satisfactory results?  People tell me that they see the same job postings for six, sometimes even 12 months.  Are you kidding me?

Don't employers know that for a very reasonable fee they can post their ads on job boards such as Monster, CareerBuilder, The Ladders, where all job seekers look?  They can be even more effective (still for a very reasonable fee) and use those boards' search engines to access thousands of resumes.  It may be time-consuming, but trust me, it has higher value/cost ratio.

Eliminating recruiters from the market would make the job boards' fees even more competitive.  Meanwhile, they are polluted by big-name ads.  With this post in mind, I took a quick look.   It seems that nearly 80% of postings are coming from just four players.  And the "Requirements" are so similar - they must be copied from the same template.  I am sure they enjoy big discounts too by getting the bulk deals.

With so many people presently out of work, the stories of headhunter encounters just pouring in.  Some of them are so fascinating, they can warrant their own feature posts.  However, there is a striking similarity in all of them - the notion of mindless attitudes and inconsiderate actions.  It appears that like doctors, who have seen so much pain and devastation, they became absolutely insensitive to other people's anxieties and worries, the recruiters also forgot that they deal with live human beings.  

Well, I am not dealing with them.  How about you?

We Are All "Up in the Air"

Back in the Fall of 2009, when "Up in the Air" was released, I didn't see it, but people told me I should have.  I watched it the other day.  Wow!  It is not just an excellent movie and the most realistic piece of American cinema I've seen since 2005.  It is also a gold mine of occupational themes that hit so close to home, it's unreal.  You know, the subtle truths about corporate existence, which are so familiar to those of us, who have been boiling in that soup their entire lives.  Thank you, Jason Reitman!

Our new economic reality of depressed businesses and desperate people serves as a recognizable background to the personal stories unfolding in front of us.  The uncertainty of survival in the contemporary corporate world is so pervasive, nobody knows what tomorrow shall bring.  "Living in the Now" is not a conscious choice of enlightened individuals anymore.  Whether a CFO or a receptionist, in companies large or small - every wage-dependent person lives one day at a time.

As the matter of fact, George Clooney's character, Ryan Bingham, is sent to large companies.  These companies can still afford to hire an outside firm to conduct the "separation" exercise for them, with fancy folders and severance packages. 

In small business environment, even during the best of times, you wouldn't think of spending money on protecting yourself from the brutal necessity of firing people with whom you worked side by side.  As a CFO/Controller, I've had my share of sitting across the table in a conference room, looking into a person's eyes and delivering the bad news.  I developed my own style as well: do it gently, make them feel better, give them hope...  Some even thank me at the end.  Just doing my job, like Ryan Bingham.

He, actually, works for a small company owned and managed by his boss (Jason Bateman), who (how typical!) changes his mind about the company's direction three times in a few depicted weeks.  Ingeniously, the filmmakers reduce smooth and dashing George Clooney to a powerless subordinate: his entire way of life is about to be changed by his boss's decision and there is nothing he can do about it.  "...Here's the boat?.. Do you want to be in the boat?"  You are either in or out.  You have no choice.  You swallow your pride and you go along.  Just doing your job.

What are we doing?  How do we go on and live with ourselves when we fire someone who is good at his job?  How do we sleep at night after dismissing hundreds of hopefuls' resumes?  And what happens when our own resumes get swept into trash?  Do people feel anything at all?  Those are our hopes that get dismantled.  Do we register the weight of what we do?  I don't know.

Everyone's life is up in the air, with no help coming.  Help ourselves? We can try to stay positive and continue struggling on - that's the best we can do.

 

Job Search: CFO's References Trap

I have no clue how those big-time CFOs, with seven-figure salaries, manage to get fired for screwing up and immediately land new jobs.  It's like, their skins are coated with teflon and nothing sticks.  And that's fine.  May be they deserve such recognition.   Most definitely, the companies who hire them deserve what they get.

Those CFOs and Controllers who toil in smaller companies, rarely get fired for poor performance.  If they are knowledgeable, diligent and hands-on, they don't screw up.   Yet, no matter how hard they work, they can loose their jobs.  The owner retires; or someone makes him an offer he cannot refuse; or, despite everyone's best efforts, the business goes under.  Very rarely one of us gets fed up with the abuse and quits on his own - I know a few  brave people.

Well, nobody waits for the unemployed small business CFO or Controller with a new position.  Nobody knows who he is.  There are nearly 6 million companies with less than 100 employees in this country.  Recruiters have never heard of them.  So, this erudite, experienced, smart and loyal professional is thrown into the grinding machine of job searching, where every CFO/Controller listing generates thousands of responses. 

It turns out, the trickiest part of the small business CFO's job search is the references list.  Of course, you've got your connections - bankers, auditors, attorneys.  There are former coworkers and subordinates who will be happy to speak about you.  You compiled a two-page long list of excellent professional references.  But... it fails. 

Why?  Because there are no "supervisors" on the list.  Well, technically, if you are a real CFO, no one supervises you.  The only person (sometimes, there are two)  between you and the higher powers of the Universe is the Owner/CEO.   And how many of them did you have in the past 15 years anyway? Two?  Three?

In some instances, they are still reachable and you have permission to use them as references.  However, most of the time...  Who are you going to use?  The one, who sold the company and went back to Thailand?  Or the guy who has  been hiding from creditors and changed all his contacts?

Now you have this prospective employer - another privately-held company.  You passed all interview levels, including the owner.  He seems to like what he is hearing from you very much.  At the end, he asks,"May I have your last boss's number?"  Didn't you just tell this guy that you were cheated out of your annual bonus at that job?

Here is my advice: 

• ALWAYS expect that someone will want to speak with at least one of your old bosses. 
  
• During the interview process, never reveal anything that may come back to haunt you. 
  
• If your wonderful reference list is not enough, never show any resistance to providing the former bosses' contacts.  It's very suspicious and will end your chances right then and there. 
  
• Give them whatever info you have. Who knows what's going to happen?
  

This is the best you can do. 

Job Search: Napoleon Bonaparte Is Hiring

This is a story my friend MJZ shared with me.  It just happened.

A headhunter, with whom she worked in the past, has contacted her.  He has a client looking for someone with her qualifications.   She is always interested to hear about new opportunities, especially those with potential to expand her CFO expertise.

Surprisingly, the urgency in the headhunter's voice was incredible.  He sounded like a 911 caller witnessing an explosion.  He rushed through the sentences, jumped from one point to another like a mad frog, even forgot to tell her what was the client's business .  Somewhere in the middle of it,  my friend has realized that she was somewhat overqualified for the job.  Moreover,  the title and the compensation weren't defined.  That should have alarmed her.  Yet in her vanity, and she knows it, she decided that all the hurriedness was fueled by the headhunter's worries of her not being interested.

Actually, there were a few aspects of the job that sparked her interest.  MJZ relayed this to the headhunter.   He was very excited and went about contacting the client on the next step. 

Oh, my God!  Within a couple of hours, he called her eleven times: "Setting up a phone interview; no, they are foregoing the phone interview and want to meet you in person straight away; you will meet four different people; no, just two; no, it will be two separate interviews back to back - first with the HR Manager and then with the Owner.  Please, pleeeeese, can we do it tomorrow?" 

And so, the next day MJZ went to the company's offices and met with the HR Manager.  Talking to him, she was wondering if he would be able to make it through the meeting without falling into a panic attack.  Eventually,  he led her through the hallway to meet with the Owner/CEO.   His agitation escalated in alarming stages.  It was like playing a Liszt's Etude, which calls for "fast" on the first page, then for "faster" on the second, "as fast as possible" on the third, and still "faster" on the next.

At the very moment she got to shake the hand of the tiny man behind the huge desk, it finally donned on her.  It had nothing to do with MJZ and her, even though impressively outstanding, but not fear-inducing, qualifications.  This miniature boss of an interesting, but relatively tiny company ($30M) exuded a sense of grandeur of Napoleonic proportions.  He had everyone scurrying like scared mice.  Even those who were not employed by him; including the headhunter, who works for one of the top 3 international recruitment houses.

The first thing he told her was, "I need a second in command who can keep the troops under control.  There were two before you, who were dismissed."  Funny guy!

Job Search: Ageism

Age discrimination is an undeniable fact of our lives.  Young people are never taken seriously as customers, clients, health patients, philosophers, business developers, etc.  On the other hand, media, entertainment, advertising and marketing adore youth.  And one thing is sure: their "young" status is going to change.   Discrimination of older people even more pervasive and they don't even have a benefit of hoping for improvements. 

The problem is particularly acute in human resources.  The age discrimination is at its worst when you are searching for a job, or expecting layoffs, or know you may be deemed too expensive.  

 According to a research quoted in The Gale Group's  Small Business Encyclopedia, over 52% of surveyed executives admitted that age is one of the key factors in job searches for people 47 years old and up.  What do I think about that number?  The other 48% lied.  Age is ALWAYS a factor. For one or another reason, when we hire people we take their age into consideration.  So, we should accept that, when the tables are turned, we will be treated the same way.

I have to own up to the fact that while wearing the CFO's hiring hat, I automatically estimate the age of applicants.   I don't care about their age per se.  I do it to quantify their accomplishments against the length of their careers.  It helps with assessing their work ethics and personal ambitions.  

Other hiring managers and recruiters don't even have a justification like that.  They just go, "Too old," and send the resume into Trash.  With the job security becoming a myth of long-forgotten times, more and more middle aged people will be forced to enter the circles of job search hell.  This possibility practically hangs over everyone's head in the world of vulnerable small-size businesses.

Having that in mind, I would like to share with you an extremely useful The Ladders' article on adapting your job search, your professional "brand" and your resume to your age: Job Search in Your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.

By the way, is it just me, or have you also noticed the funniest thing (I am not laughing) that's happening in our media?  The "official"economists, major newspaper analysts and politicians are trying to convince us that the recession has ended months ago and we are "recovering".  Yet, every article or post related to job search and HR issues contains a phrase "especially in this economy" and you can almost hear the author's sad sigh.  

I think the old terminology of recession, recovery, economic conditions have lost their meaning.  People just don't want to admit it to themselves, because, as I frequently say, they are afraid of changes, especially changes for the worse.    The phrase "this economy" gives a false hope of a better future.  The truth is - we live in a NEW REALITY.  This is the "recovered" state.  Things are only going to get more difficult.  Everyone should be prepared to face job search ordeals in their 50s, 60s, and beyond.

Hard-Working CFO Is Not a Don Quixote

As we already discussed, people like me (not only CFOs and Controllers, but anyone of the same makeup) work hard because they cannot operate any other way.  We do it out of self-respect. If we undertake a job with its multitude of functions we try our best to adhere to our own high standards of work ethics.

Does this mean that we are idealists of the Don Quixote persuasion?  Will we sacrifice merit-based rewards for the sake of doing the job that makes us proud?  Will we let our bosses to take advantage of our self-drive and pay us peanuts?

No, no and no.  If that what you gathered from Why Do I Work So Hard?, you grossly misunderstood me.  Don't forget that we first accept a job, but once we do, we start working hard.  And the compensation should be adequate.

The thing is, though, we know this about ourselves.  We know that we will do our best for the employer and we know that, unless something we cannot control ourselves happens, the company will benefit from our efforts tremendously.  So, don't forget that: reflect it in your resumes, your cover letters, your conversations with hiring managers.

And if you made a conscious choice of working in a privately owned business, you actually have an opportunity to present yourself to the people who care about the company's well-being the most - the owners.  Let them know that you adhere to high level of work ethics.  It will make a difference and it can be used as a negotiating point.

{Side note: my experience shows that stressing these points with recruiters or HR managers will be wasteful and frequently detrimental to your ability to move to the next level of interviewing process.  These people are employees, you don't know their attitudes towards the job and they may feel threatened.}

 A quick word of warning: never say, "I am the best thing that will ever happen to your company."  First of all, you cannot guarantee that because there are a lot of circumstances that can negate your diligent efforts.  Secondly, I was told by many a psychologists that these types of statements are classified as "over-compensating" and usually signal lack of confidence.  Instead, present your case based on your prior achievements and relate them to your dedication. 

Of course, the salary negotiations are tricky and influenced by many circumstances: the job market conditions, whether you are currently employed, whether this job is a real stepping stone in your career, etc.   Nevertheless, that would be true for all applicants, but if you are indeed a naturally hard-working person like me, you have an edge.

Hopefully, by the time a raise and/or a bonus discussion comes up, your reputation will be solidified and you will be rewarded for your efforts.  If you still need to negotiate, you will have a chance to talk about your present, not past, achievements.

And here I would like to refer you to the following The Ladders article, which directly addresses the issue of Salary Negotiation.

 

Job Search: Cover Letter Advice

Many of my peers make an inexcusable mistake of thinking that a Cover Letter is an artifact: in old times of applying to jobs via mail or fax, it made sense to include one with your resume, but now, when you either click "Apply" button in the job board ad or send an email, it's not needed.  Lazy and wrong!   It is true that the cover letter most likely will not make a difference in the first resume screening.  However, if your resume gets into the second round, a good cover letter will compliment it and make you stand out.

Here is a link to AOL original online article.  It is written by a recruitment professional and has the most concise and comprehensive outline of what must be included in a contemporary cover letter.  You will still need all your talent to find the right words and present yourself in the most impressive way, but it is a good start.

Cover Letter Checklist

Job Search: Out of Work for a Long Time

The media, politicians and economists are trying to convince everyone that recession has ended many months ago.  Well, good for recession, but from what I observe, a lot of folks are out of work.  There have to be a reason why unemployment benefits are extended up to 72 weeks in most states. 

Let's face it, the "employment gaps" are far longer now than they have been in many years.  It is especially true for CFO's and Controllers whose small and mid-size employers went out of business or contracted to the level of not being able to afford senior management.  Even though I never believed the old recruitment fable that every $10K of your desired compensation translates into one month of job hunting, the basic rules of statistics prove that it takes longer to find a high level position simply because there are less of them.  Now the available openings are further reduced by the economic contraction.  There are government aid packages designed specifically to stimulate hiring by small businesses, but it will take long time before we will see significant impact.

Knowing all that, nevertheless, does not prevent recruiters and HR managers from asking you point blank, "Why you have been out of work for such a long time?"  They know why.  They ask because they want to see how you handle the question.  Your ability to present yourself in the best light during an interview and explain the employment gap on your resume in the most appealing way is a very sensitive issue.

That is why I highly recommend that everyone, even those who are not actively looking at the moment, read The Ladders' article Why Have You Been out of Work So Long?

I don't always agree with their material, but what I like about The Ladders' advice pieces is that they give us the point of view of the hiring professionals, the very people on the other side of the table.   Those on the job market need to cater to their expectations and their mind-set.  This particular article has the most straight-forward advice on the employment gap issue I have ever seen.

I have to say, however, that almost until the end they got me worried because it seemed that the article practically recommended to make up a story to fill the gap: say whatever,  except that you were just looking for a job.  Only in the last paragraph the actual activities are implied.

And I would like to elaborate on that.  Please, don't make up stories - you never know where that may lead you.  Nobody looks for a job for 12 hours every day.  So, use your spare time to occupy yourself with one of those recommended activities, and then you can tell people about them.  Even if you buy a SOX manual and study it on your own, you can say that you have significantly expanded your internal control compliance horizons.

              

First Impression Is the Most Lasting Indeed

They say that the first impression is the most lasting one.  And it is true even for those people who try very  hard to be fair and give people a chance to show their true qualities. 

I myself is one of those people who make themselves look past the appearance of a job applicant.  Few years ago I have interviewed a woman who was grossly obese and needed a cane to assist her in moving her body.  I knew right away that aside from possible health issues, there could be multitude of other problems: we would need to order her a special X-large chair, my CEO may not like someone like that to be prominently installed in the Operations Department, visiting business relations may be destructed by the sight, etc. etc. 

Nevertheless, I gave her a full interview, which she passed with flying colors, and ended up hiring her.  It never even occurred to me not to offer her the salary attached to the position.  She got paid the same wages anyone in her place would.

Turns out, I am a rare exception.  Please, read this post from Vault's Career Blog Does your weight determine your salary?  The statistical data reported in the article are appalling.

Weight issue aside, my opinion is that when it comes to hiring process the entire "first impression" concept is very unprofessional.  Time after time, hiring execs, recruiters and variety of HR professionals yield to their contrived, closed-minded, self-centered views of other people instead of thinking of what's best for their companies.

Two weeks ago my good friend MJZ, also a career CFO, went for a job interview to a company that provides services to children with learning disabilities and autism under the contracts with various government health agencies.  Since such programs usually become first victims of states and counties budget cuts, the company desperately needs someone who can strategize their way into more diversified revenue models.   MJZ has a vast experience of building such strategies and facilitating companies' growth. 

She has previously had a phone interview and communications with the CEO's personal assistant.  So when in-person interview invitation was received, she assumed it would be with the CEO herself.  However, she was interviewed by a middle-rank HR Manager.  

When she told me that she did not even make it to the next round - the actual interview with the CEO (the HR Manager sent her an email), I've asked for the entire meeting description.  Now, knowing all details, I am confident that the HR Manager's rejection had nothing to do with MJZ's professional qualifications.  It had to do with the fact that she was dressed for an interview with the CEO and instead was assessed by a sweater-and-tights-clad middle-manager. 

The sad result is that the company had missed an opportunity to hire somebody who could have brought them to the next level of development.  Their loss, of course, but nevertheless a disappointing experience for my friend.