The Frustrated CFO

Quote of the Week

"By the time we've made it, we've had it."

                                              Malcolm Forbes

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"

Follow-Up to Dealing with Lawyers Post

Every empirical truth, even though is proven correct in most cases, has an exception.  Not all super-rich people are intellectual sadists, some celebrity children are actually incredibly talented and deserve to be where they are, some family businesses do not get ruined by subsequent generations, not all entrepreneurs are control freaks, not everything that Karl Pilkington says is innocent's wisdom, not all small businesses must be nurtured into survival, and for some young people the post-graduate degrees still may be the best alternative (those who consistently read my blog will know in which posts I've covered these issues, others may want to check them out in the archives).

And not all lawyers are made from the same dough.  There is a law firm that I've known for 15 years now that I really-really like.  Moreover, I try to work with them every chance I get.  I wanted to mention them as an exception that proves the rule in the original post on lawyers, but it came out too long and I don't like hurting the readers with oversize entries.  So, now they get their own separate honor post.

Zukerman Gore Brandeis & Crossman LLP was established in 1988.  In 1996 my CEO of the time and I were working on a $350-million annual contract with our largest supplier.  This was a young fast-growing entrepreneurial organization that did not have much of professional support prior to my arrival.  I wanted to bring into this deal sharp and hungry corporate attorneys to match our own hard-working ethics. 

When one of my networking contacts put me in touch with Nat Gore, I was instantly impressed (and that's a feat!) by his ability to cut straight into the heart of the matter.  It was like we were on the same intellectual wave.  Moreover, there were never any hints of arrogancy or disrespect.  This was especially impressive, considering that my boss was a suddenly very rich immigrant with terrible English.  Truth be told, even in New York City, there are plenty of xenophobes, but not these people.

As I always say, it's all about the quality of upbringing.  And these are cultured, well-mannered, smart as hell guys.  I never asked, but they probably got together because they had similar work ethics and attitudes.  But the most important thing is that they possess the quality that I highly treasure - they are experts.  Whatever I threw at them over the years - corporate agreements, venture capital investments, SEC inquiries, disputes with insurance companies, international taxation, foreign court testimonies, depositions - their handling of the matter was always superior and expedient.

Let me tell you, these are the only attorneys that I can rely on 100% and don't try to write documents for them.  Even though they are very fair: they are the only ones who will acknowledge that you wrote a good letter and there is nothing to add or subtract.

I am very happy that over the years they grew bigger and stronger: there is a total of 11 partners now, 3 attorneys of counsel, and 8 associates.  This Friday they are moving to brand new offices in that beautiful Eleven Times Square building.

Good luck to you at your new home, guys! 

Quote of the Day: Unemployment Crisis

The Frustrated CFO:

This was delivered into my inbox by CNN.  Speaks for itself.

Trying to Impress by Talking Too Much? Ur Doin It Wrong.

Life screws with people: neglectful parents, inconsiderate spouses and partners, selfish children, boorish bosses, and disdainful co-workers create scores and scores of attention-deprived people desperately seeking approval.  Most frequent manifestation of this subconscious desire is excessive, out-of-place talking - lengthy stories with self-boosting subtext. 

This type of behavior is usually classified as social awkwardness.  I don't know a single person capable of keeping a grip on himself under any circumstances.  Once in a while certain conditions come together and something activates the stupid switch even in the most brilliant people.  I've seen some pretty impressive humans falling into this mode during lectures, important meetings, fundrasing parties, and social gatherings. 

During 2010 New York's World Science Fair, I attended a panel Consciousness: Explored and Explained with the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation) and the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi.  It was monitored by the actor and director Alan Alda (better known as Hawkeye Pierce of M*A*S*H) - a fairly smart guy who got close to popular science by hosting PBS's Scientific American Frontiers.  One concept that Giulio Tononi has described was too much for Mr. Alda to grasp.  He restated the scientist's words once, was corrected, then again, and again.  Finally, he realized that he wasn't getting it, but he couldn't help himself - he kept talking, and talking, and talking...  

Hey, sometimes I catch myself doing it and thinking, "What's going on?  Why am I relating my interpretation of A Streetcar Named Desire to this uninterested person?" But only very self-aware people are capable to recognize the symptoms and stop themselves.

Consequently, the degree of this affliction widely varies.  In some people it gets triggered by a selected audience (sometimes even one particular individual), or specific circumstances.  I had a sort of a paralyzing effect on my boss of two years ago.  He would be acting his aloof self around everybody else, but every time he would come to my office, he ended up ranting.  Eventually, I became wary of starting even super-important discussions with him.  It was always, "Let me tell you,.." and we would be off on an absolutely irrelevant tangent.  At one point he was telling me that he shares a surfing coach in East Hampton with Gwenyth Paltrow and Chris Martin.  I kept thinking to myself, "I am not impressed, dammit!"         

In many people this trait blows up to extreme proportions: people simply cannot stop themselves.  They don't need any special circumstances or triggers - they grab every chance they get to talk, even if they have nothing to say.  In public these people are usually extroverted, talking non-stop.   The overwhelming popularity of Facebook and Twitter is the testimony to the pandemic proportions of verbal diarrhea.

In social situations you can simply walk away, or turn your phone off to stop seeing three tweets per minute.  However, you cannot do the same at work.  You have to deal with it one way or another.  Ok, so not everyone can find the right way to tell their bosses to shut up.  And my advice - don't do it.  Even if it seems that you've done it in the mildest way possible, they never forget it.  And, as we all know, no one can hold the grudge as long as bosses do.  On the other hand, when it comes to your peers or subordinates, the issue must be addressed if it interferes (and it does) with the normal course of a meeting, an assignment, or a working day.

The best way to approach it is with a friendly private talk.  Most likely the person is not aware that what he is doing is an obvious display of insecurity, and that people recognize it as such.  Explain to the person that he achieves the exactly opposite results: while trying to impress and seeking approval, he gets co-workers and supervisors annoyed.  To earn this person's trust, you can share your own experience in similar situations (just like I did here).  Most importantly, tell them that the best way to make a difference and get appreciated is by doing the best job they can. 

... And the Economy News

More Americans fell below the poverty line last year, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday.

The nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.

Last year marked the third year in a row the rate increased. All told, 46.2 million people are considered in need. In addition, real median household income last year was $49,445, a 2.3% decline, the Census Bureau reported.

Quote of the Day

"When ideas fail, words come in very handy."

                                                    Goethe

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.

         

CFO Folklore: Dealing with F@&ing Lawyers

As CFOs and controllers, we are constantly exposed to a variety of legal documents: security and financing agreements, leases, employment contracts, NDAs, new ventures formation, demand letters, term sheets, etc., etc.  And even though most of the financial professionals I know, including myself, are well-versed in these matters and can write a decent legal document themselves (hey, you cannot even get an MBA without taking Contractual Law), or at the very least can fully understand them, we are forced to deal with attorneys: a CEO feels more comfortable if he gets a bill. 

Hello!  This is business law.  We are not talking about defending anybody in court on murder or ponzi scheme charges, or suing somebody for fraud!  So, here is what usually happens.

Scenario 1:  I compose a document or construct an agreement outline addressing all necessary points, and send it to the corporate attorney.  He comes back with either, "This looks good," or he takes my points and, without changing anything, puts it into the format that he didn't even create himself - nowadays they all download templates from Blumberg's Law Products, which anyone can do.  A couple of weeks later I get a $2,000 bill.

Scenario 2: We receive a contract (let's say a Credit Line Agreement), I read it, make a long list of all the points that I believe need to be further negotiated with the bank, and send the contract with my list to the corporate attorney.  He comes back with, "I agree.  Let me know when it's ready for my final approval."  A couple of weeks later I get a $2,000 bill.

Ahhhhhh! 

Of course, there are special occasions when the intricacy of legalese needs to be explored and attorneys must be involved.  But, why the hell it's so intricate, anyway?  Doesn't it seem like a conspiracy to justify $450+/hour rates?  In organizational management we are always taught that some employees deliberately confuse their records to make themselves indispensable: nobody else can figure out what's going on.  Sounds familiar?

And the arrogance!  I can only think of one other profession that can compete with lawyers on the level of insolence - doctors.  They have no respect for anyone expect themselves.  Well, I am willing to forgive a cardiologist who has a courage to hold a human heart in his hands, or a neurosurgeon who may need to drill into my brain one day. 

But these legal MoFos?  The complex of knowledge I possess is far greater than that of any specialized attorney I know.  I ask, for example, if there are grounds for fiduciary violation in a case, and he ($550/hour) responds, "I have to look it up."  Yet, they dare to be condescending nevertheless!  Just last week a lawyer sent me a retainer agreement and wrote in the cover note, "It's a bit formal, but I hope you will understand it."  Are you fucking kidding me?!  I have four academic degrees and 20 years of executive experience (and he knows), and my own retainer agreement for consulting services, which I wrote myself, has more substance than your copied bullshit.

The worst thing about them, though, is that fucking professional camaraderie.  Try to talk to an attorney about a harm caused to you by another lawyer.  You think you are going to see fairness so wonderfully shown on "The Good Wife", or any other of those TV court dramas?  Nope!  They stop listening - THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT IT!  That's why ABA had to create grievance committees and appoint people who are obligated to review the complains, because otherwise there wouldn't be anybody you could tell about lawyers' violations.  Why do you think legal profession is not regulated by any government agency?  Because the legislature consists mostly of legal professionals.  They will never do anything against one another.

In "Philadelphia", just before dying, Tom Hanks (a gay attorney) tells Denzel Washington (another attorney who just won a discrimination case for him) an old joke: "What do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start."  They both like the joke.  Denzel's character even repeats it to someone else right away.  A very hopeful movie in many respects: the case is won, a formerly homophobic Mr. Washington's character finds in himself to defend a gay guy, AIDS-ridden Mr. Hank's character dies knowing he won, and his partner (played by Antonio Banderas) is somehow is not infected.  And the lawyers like the joke!!!  Very hopeful, very far from reality.            

Quote of the Day (House M.D.)

Girl:        "Time changes everything."

House:    "That's what people say.  It's not true.  Doing changes things.  Not doing leaves them as is."