Month: March 2011

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.

Quote of the Day


"I don't have a warm personal enemy left.  They've all died off.  I miss them terribly because they helped define me."

                                                                                Clare Boothe Luce

Female CFOs and Controllers: Are We Equal?


March 8th, 2011 marked the 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day.  

I have to confess my aversion to such holidays.  Why do we need designated days to appreciate mothers, fathers, love, Earth, women?  It's like we treat them badly all year long and then try to make up for it in a single day. 

The Women's Day also troubles me because of its Socialist origins.  However, it provides an opportunity to raise issues of social and professional inequality.  If we have to choose between one day of awareness vs. none, of course, one is a better choice. 

Especially, if A-list stars like Daniel Craig and Judi Dench commemorate it with a video for Equals? partnership.  Watch it: Dame Judi spends two minutes reciting statistics of global-scale injustice.  It's important, but may create an illusion of remoteness.  When she says that women perform 2/3 of work, but earn only 10% of income and own 1% of property, surely, it accounts for all those "other" countries. 

Well, are we equal to our male counterparts here, in corporate America? 

Let's see.  The pay gap is still 19%.  Let me spell it out: a female CFO or Controller will make 81 cents against a dollar earned by a man in the same position.  Among the Fortune 500 companies,  only 9% of CFOs are female.  The same goes for Midcap 1500…  Enough of this lifeless statistical data.  Let me pull few examples out of my personal experience folder.

The brightest auditor I've known was assigned to my books by the CPA firm I've engaged about eight years ago.  Every time I praise her to the senior partner, he tells me that she knows ten times more than he does.  At one point I asked, when she was going to make a partner?  The answer was, "Well, the company never had a female partner before…"    

For many years I've been invited to participate in executive focus groups.  Banks are particularly interested in researching opinions of CFOs, Controllers and Treasurers.  There is never more than 25% of women in a group.  Once, when the subject was Board of Directors' accounting awareness, I was the only female participant.

Speaking of BODs, during internet bubble I worked for a high-tech start-up backed by venture capital.  The investors had their hands in a lot of businesses, which forced them onto a merry-go-round of board meetings.  They were freshly surprised every time I presented monthly results.  All other investees had male CFOs.

Five years ago I was asked by my boss to give up my CFO office for a newly hired COO.  What made this person more important than me?  Nothing at all, except for his gender.  The boss said, "I just cannot put him into a smaller office."  Really?  This big shot spent most of his time just staring out of the window.

Notice how cleverly the Equals? video is set up: even though M is 007's boss, she would never get away with shenanigans that make James Bond so endearing to the world.  So, no, we are not equal. 



 

The Bottomless Well of Nepotism and the Issue of Business Survival


My dear readers, I wish I could stop writing about it, but it never ends – there are always more examples to share. I already wrote The Curse of Private Business: Nepotism and then More on Nepotism, but I cannot resist the urge of giving a space to yet another example. And even though it concerns the entertainment industry, it is an important financial issue as well.

You see, in the deteriorating economic environment (and it will continue deteriorating), there is only a handful of industries that have a chance of surviving. Filmmaking is one of them. Not the whole of entertainment, but cinema in particular. People already pretty much stopped reading books, and who knows what's going on with the music industry. Only a small percentage of population can afford to go to the concerts, sporting events, or theater.

But no matter what happens, people will continue seeking an escape from their dreary lives in the darkness of movie theaters or in front of their TV screens. So, whether we like it or not, it is socially important that Hollywood spreads their financial resources wisely and survives. It would be even better if the production funds were also distributed with artistic responsibilities in mind, but that's a subject for another post (or, perhaps, even another blog).

From a strictly financial point of view, I cannot even complain about the stupid Michael Bay's movies – at least they make money. But I have a problem with irrelevant films that get pushed through studios and independent production companies with the help of connections and familial relationships. Some of them are not able to cover even 10% of their budgets. And not because they are complicated intellectual creations (I don't mind money being spent on actual masterpieces), but because they are simply crap. And it is not about the nepotism per se, as I previously wrote. It is about mediocrity and losses caused by nepotism. In any business, not just filmmaking, if nepotism results in success and profits, objectively it can be tolerated.

So, how is it done? The August 29th issue of New York Magazine had a little interview with Zoe Kazan – Zoe Kazan Needs Coffee, conducted by one of my favorite magazine writers, Jada Yuan. It is actually in the theater section, because on top of having her screenplay being made into a movie (He Loves Me), in which she also stars together with her boyfriend Paul Dano, this 28-year-old has a play, commissioned by Manhattan Theater Club, opening this fall in New York (!).

Of course, Ms. Yuan shines the light on the grounds of this first-time screenwriter's ability to penetrate Hollywood's entry barriers. She starts by defining the interviewee as Elia Kazan's granddaughter. Then she goes on to point out the connection between the directors spearheading He Loves Me – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, and the boyfriend (they directed Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine). Finally, in her last question she names Zoe Kazan's parents – both screenwriters: Nicholas Kazan (who co-wrote Frances, adapted Alan Dershowitz's Reversal of Fortune, and penned excellent, but underrated Fallen) and Robin Swicord, who has a good knack for adapting highbrow sentimental literature (Little Women, Practical Magic, Memoirs of Geisha, The Jane Austin Book Club).

And again, the nepotism would be okay (after all, we know how lazy people are – nobody wants to work hard and look for new talents), if writing was Ms. Kazan's genuine calling and her ideas were original. But He Loves Me is just another rehashing of the Greek legend of Pygmalion. And here is how she answers Jada Yuan's question, why did she start writing:

"Because when I was first trying to get acting jobs, there would be these huge slots of time, where I wouldn't have work…"

Soooo, she started writing because she had free time? Are you joking me? True writers write because they cannot live any other way. Not, because they need to kill some time or as a form of "self-actualization." The saddest thing is that I happen to know incredibly talented young writers with original ideas, who try and try again, querying agents and production companies just for a chance to get their excellent scripts read. Robert McKee says that one of the main concerns of the screenwriting professors is preventing their best students from killing themselves.

But Ms. Kazan? Whatever she is going to write, will be read by someone with a finger on the green-light button. And then, money and resources will be invested on something that only a small group of people (most of them also connected) will be interested to see.

CFO Folklore: “The Servant of Two Masters”


440940251img1_mediumTwo-headed bosses are common when people work for businesses founded by relatives, which, I am sure, can be a source of fascinating undercurrents and rivalries.  I invite my readers to share relevant stories.

I, on the other hand, worked (more than once) for equal partners who were not related.  Each of the duos consisted of individuals so different, it was a miracle they stayed in business together.  As a CFO, forced into the middle of the co-owners dynamics, I was able to observe common behavioral tendencies in the bosses themselves and people around them.

Business partners' alliances are usually symbiotic.  One is an idea generator, the other is an implementer.  One is brains, the other is money.  One can close a deal in seconds, the other makes sure the company performs.  They always complement each other, or they wouldn't be in the trenches together. 

Either will squeeze all juices out of you, and yet their personalities differ just as much as their abilities.  One is usually more diplomatic, better with people, logical, frugal.  The other is brash, careless, erratic, a lavish spender.  They don't see eye to eye about the majority of business issues and frequently talk to their CFO or Controller separately, presenting contradictory positions.

260 years ago, in "The Servant of Two Masters," Carlo Goldoni depicted the delirium of working for two employers who try to find each other without knowing they live in the same hotel.  Sounds familiar?  Poor Truffaldino is so anxious, he develops a stutter.  Imagine the hilarity!  Well, at least he got double wages.  When your single-salary job depends on maneuvering two conflicting bosses, you don't feel like laughing. 

Most people end up aligning themselves with one of them.  Sometimes, it works out in a natural way: if one owner oversees Production, while another spearheads Sales and Marketing, it is obvious where VP of Ops and VP of Sales allegiances will lie.  

Even when it's not clear-cut, people have a tendency to navigate with their issues toward the boss who is perceived to be "nicer," regardless of his preparedness to make relevant decisions.  As the result, you may end up with a wrong solution, or the issue is brought to the other owner's attention anyway; only now he knows that you tried to bypass him.   Either way, you are screwed.

CFOs and Controllers should not form any alliances when they work for two partners.  When monetary matters are concerned, both must be kept in the loop.  In super-important cases, get them into the same room, whether they like it or not.  I am known for bringing bosses into the office from their summer residencies in the middle of July, when I had to.

Of course, you have to earn your right to do so with hard work and authoritative success.  You also need to be very diplomatic with both of them – either must think you prefer deal with him and inform the other out of courtesy.  It takes Machiavellian skills to boss the bosses.  Otherwise, you will end up stuttering, like poor Truffaldino.