The Frustrated CFO

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.

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.