Category: External Network

Marc Cenedella Freaks Out: “Privacy is for old people says LinkedIn founder”


Linkedin_2-300x206Marc Cenedella is upset! He is so upset he is lashing out at something Reid Hoffman said nearly a year ago at World Economic Forum in December 2010 (the Ladders' researchers must have been working on digging something up on him for months):

Privacy for Old People Says LinkedIn Founder

And I understand – LinkedIn went public and made X amount of millions in cash for Mr. Hoffman (I hope my readers understand that, like the rest of the public-stocks billionaires, he cannot really turn the $1.6 billion of his shares into liquid assets overnight). Mr. Cenedella, who started The Ladders barely two months after LinkedIn was launched in 2003, had wet dreams about being exactly in Mr. Hoffman's position by now.

I have no fucking clue why would he be dreaming those dreams. It's not that he created anything original. There were already other job boards with premium memberships and listing fees before The Ladders. The only differential he had was the $100K+ executive appeal (which, as you know, they just dropped – see my September 24th post). Did he think that those minute bells and whistles would be sufficient to build his value as an attractive investee?

You didn't really think that Marc was upset about your personal privacy, did you? Well, he did at some point – he was a man of ideals. When he started his company he did the right thing – he declared in the Terms & Conditions that he will not share, sell, etc. members' information. And indeed, I don't know anybody who gets spammed because of their usage of The Ladders. It's the other job boards that got their emails too: Monster, CareerBuilder, HotJobs, etc.

But big bucks are big bucks – they manage to bend out of shape the purest of idealists. And now, when Marc is alone in his office or his kitchen writing his blog, he is jealous, devastated, and desperate to kick himself in the nuts for not doing what all other amoral Internet moguls do, namely selling every single shred of your privacy in exchange for a golden bonanza Hoffman experienced on May 19th this year, when LinkedIn's IPO closed at the double of the entering price. (By the way, now it's at four times of the initial offer.)

So, he is upset and the post linked above is his way of letting the buildup of negativity out. Well, Mr. Cenedella's motivations aside, Hoffman's remarks in Davos are wrong on so many levels, it would take me several more posts to break it all down( don't worry, I am not going to). This is exactly what I would expect from someone who "made it" in the way Mr. Hoffman did, though. What's the implication here? Even if you are 18, but is concerned with your constitutional rights for privacy, you are "old" and square? And if you want to be perceived as young and hip, you should disregard all privacy concerns?

Statements like that don't upset me because they are "politically incorrect," as Marc Cenedella claims – I don't care about that shit! They upset me because they are politically dangerous and stupid. How intellectually limited one should be to mix up the teenagers' exhibitionism with privacy issues? Are you that confused? You don't see the difference between people, on their own accord, making decisions to disclose information about themselves and your selling their connectivity and interests profiles to third-party predators for an enormous gain? This proves once again that nowadays success, even in business, has nothing to do with intellect.

Follow-Up to Dealing with Lawyers Post


11times_sq_03_2 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! 

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.


              

CFO Folklore: Dealing with F@&ing Lawyers


Blog image 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.            

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?