My best comments on CFO roles at LinkIn

1. Are hard skills or soft skills more important to a leader’s success? Executive Suite 25 March 2012

To begin, the confusion in some comments in between hard skills and soft skills need straighten out for continuing discussion to be meaningful.

Laconically, the consensus definition about hard skills is occupational to perform certain type of task or activities. Hard skills are easy to observe, specific, and trainable such as job skills like accounting, finance, programing etc. To be good at hard skills needs IQ, the left brain logical center. Hard skills can be learnt by attending educational institution or book reading. In hard skills, rules always stay the same regardless of which company, circumstance or people you work with.

Soft skills are people skills, behavioral. The outcome of which relates to a person ability to interact effectively. Soft skills are personality driven. It usually associates with EQ, the cluster of personal traits, social graces, communication, language, personal habits, friendliness, and optimism that characterize relationships with other people. In soft skills, rules changes depending on the company culture and people you work with.

Which is important to a leader’s success? My view is it is circumstantial. At times, hard skills rank primary, and soft skills are secondary. Other times, soft skills are primary and hard skills secondary. Let me illustrate by a real life example, how a highly paid CEO lacking the essential hard skill was reviled by the public, ousted from power and fell from grace.

A public transport’s CEO, who is ignorant of risk management, encountered her greatest test in her business career. One of the trains broke down without light and air in the cabin; passengers were hemmed in excruciating situation. A pregnant woman was frail and had difficulty in breathing; one passenger took the initiative to break the glass to let air flowing into the cabin from tunnel. The company did not realize how severe the situation was that reverberated and piqued the public, the public’s opprobrium heaped on her requesting the CEO to step-down. The CEO apologized and resigned.

What this relates to our discussion? The problem is there were no risk management procedures in place. The company did not have all round enterprise risk management evaluation. Such train breakdown is an operation risk bound to occur, there must be procedures detailing how employee should respond when situation exacerbates into a convulsive crisis. At what circumstances, the crisis mode must be activated; for example, if the electricity cut-off for more than ten minutes, that will trigger safety measures to evacuate passengers to emergency exit. It is a painful hard skill she did not learn, that cost her millions dollar job. If she had the risk management skill, she would have trained her staff this hard skill to respond to the crisis. This is where hard skills were primary and soft skills were secondary.

During the crisis, incessant communication with the passengers came to the fore. If hard skills were absent, soft skills ascended to primary. However, the train driver’s ineptitude lacked the EQ and communication skills that was the bereft of hope.

Skillset is a lifelong learning process, whether it is hard or soft. When I graduated many years back, I had ample hard skill competency, but my communication skill and conflict resolving skills were rudimentary, that cost me a job when I was in direct conflict with my director due to ethical issue. Someone enlightened me in the job interview. I started to read self-improvement books and observed best practices. My soft skills deficit improved markedly. I am still learning and improving as I grow older.

Some say senior leader does not need to horn their hard skills because they have exceptional soft skills, their wisdom to maneuver political landscape in an organization bestrides the company. That is half true. The vicissitude of business world demands business leader to be equally good at both. For example change management which requires business leader to galvanize the support from various factions of different interests in the course of change process. That draws on soft skills. Business leader needs to keep up to technology progress, such as leveraging social media as a marketing tool to facilitate sales growth, which is a hard skill. When times come, you are equipped with the right skills to tackle different new problems at different circumstances.

Why some SME business leaders cannot cut the mustard by achieving business breakthrough, partly because they do not brush up both skills. Their soft skills may be better than their hard skills, but never go anywhere, because their learning progress in the cycle for both skills is low and flat. Human being needs continue learning to augment better performance. And the learning process is interactive and sometimes complementary; you can sharpen your soft skills by attending seminar, reading books, learning by practicing (hard skills) rather than fumble on your own.

So, it is a non-issue as to which is more important, uplift, sharpen and muster of both for readiness is the key.


2. From Controller to CFO: Do I have what it takes? CFO network 20-2-2012
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-vo80fz-gz60cgfo-5h/vaq/95873349/51826/70373707/view_disc/?hs=false&tok=0bpm7FIs4sll81

There is no hard and fast rule as to how best to move up from controller to CFO. The quicker way probably is by dint of joining smaller companies where you can gain errands of good exposure easily; unlike in large firms where accountant has to follow a rigid hierarchical upward path and a predefined mantle.

Another contributory factor is relating to the industry you join, one characteristic example is to join a company of fast changing industry landscape. You need to muster the necessary skills to facilitate the variegated change process; you progress together with the company in the change process.

I think luck play a substantial role which determines firm you join; and where your career lead to is somewhat circumstantial.

Most bosses treasure CFO to have good analytical skills to complement their weaknesses due largely to senior management works as a team. Of course, you need to be at your top of your technical competency in your field. My reminiscence of my previous job evokes I reported a foreign currency translation loss in my accounts. My boss was an electrical engineer and was in vexation of the accounting treatment. I needed to be able to explicate the accounting standard in layman term how it had happened.

Most bosses like their CFO to have business acumen. When you speak to him in business terms, you find your relationship draws closer.

It is rather the Holy Grail to have a shortcut. Rome was not built in one day. It is a life-long learning process and you be perseverant come hell or high water in order to elevate to the singularly prominent position.


3. An Accountant or a Leader - but rarely both Proactive accountants

In Management lexicon, it is whether you are an administrator (a manager) or a leader?

The niceties are: a transformation leader is proverbial, has the prowess to establish direction through vision and hunker down, be authentic with a sense of purpose, brings about change, inspires, motivates and empowers others to achieve the mission, encourages commitment to the purpose in followers by aligning people, an apostle tenaciously builds team and fosters collaboration, phlegmatically resolves conflicts, takes up the cudgels to render feedbacks and rewards.

Accountant is by far seen as backroom guy, hardly required to lead forward for all and sundry, though the role of accountant is evolving. In my past more than twenty years in the field, it is immanent in my experience to have more administrators (managers) than leaders. In my own context, many want stable, not messy job process, and are contented with managing the process cycle proficiently. Many hate challenging job require them more than just processing accounting transactions, shy away giving feedback to subordinates, and hardly reward good deeds. They are more an administrator than a leader.

It is not ballyhoo, my leadership quality is partly inborn, and partly learning by immersing myself in Management studies. I recall my earlier years of my accounting career. In an acquired subsidiary, I took over mucking up accounting records, key persons left Accounting Department. I was between a rock and a hard place, was foisted to start everything afresh. The company was secluded; public transport was far away beyond reach. I personally visited the neighboring companies to check how they solved their transport problem, looking for opportunity to share transport for my staff. I went beyond what was called for in my job to go extra mile, which seemed beyond the ken that astonished my neighboring managers, my directors and my staff.

In another company, the key positions left due to lack of necessary technical skills to handle business changes. I moved in to exemplify my technical competence to win the trust of my staff. I reorganized and streamlined the Department. I delegated some important tasks to the middle level. They felt job satisfaction due to task significance. I inspired my staff to attend professional course. I built team spirit and praised good work. The pronounced effects boosted morale and spirit.

Everything came natural to me if you ask me whether I had under someone tutelage. I would say yes. I am aficionados of management books, articles and go the full hog to put learning into practice. The upshot is inner satisfaction.


4.Are you a partner or a number cruncher? Proactive accountants

Sad to say that I am no longer a CIMA member. As to this discussion, I offer my two cents of worth.

While the role of CFO has changed a lot, I don’t see there is a major shift towards business partner like involve in championing strategy and innovation. It all depends on size, industry and culture.

I personally agree to CFO role to exalt to a significant business partner, add value by contributing to company’s strategy and innovation.

If you check the job descriptions of many CFO openings, few companies set strategy and innovation as the major recruitment criteria. Though number crunching is delegated to subordinates, it is still part and parcel of CFO’s responsibity, a fait accompli.

Last month, I came across a posting in another group; A CFO asked member for help, for a question read “One customer is very late in paying. I have reserved for the late receivable and the overdue, built-up interest in the A/R reserve. An agreement was reached with the customer to get their account in order and to go-forward according to agreed terms. As part of that agreement, the delinquent interest will be written off. The credit goes to the receivable. Where does the debit go? Interest Expense or the Receivable Reserve?” It is not a laughing matter; it shows CFO is still buried in the number.

I bought a book fifteen years ago, titled “Reinventing the CFO” by Cooper & Lybrand, the book stresses CFO role to move from Financial management to strategic management in a business partnership. Time passes; this change is still not in every nook and cranny. Those reported changes are more forward looking large companies with different culture at length require CFO to assume and participate in value creation, that shifts the role from hemmed in by commodity like litany backroom transaction processing duty to a nifty high end value creation one, making CFO’s a kingpin in business.

I would say business partnership more happens in technology companies than in bricks and mortar main street companies, which is what I mean by size, industry and culture determine what roles a CFO plays.


5. CFO as strategic business partner CFO network

While the role of CFO has changed a lot, I don’t see there is a major shift towards strategy and innovation. It depends on size, industry and culture.

I agree be a change agent, contribute to strategy and innovation are all value-added.

But if you check the job descriptions of usual CFO openings, few companies set strategy and innovation as the major criteria. Though number crunching is delegated to subordinates, is still part and parcel of CFO’s responsibility, a fait accompli.

More forward looking companies at length require CFO to assume and participate in value creation that shifts the role from hemmed in by commodity like litany backroom transaction processing duty to a nifty high end value creation one, making CFO’s a kingpin in business.

This change is still not in every nook and cranny. I would say it happens in technology companies more often than in bricks and mortar main street companies, that is what I mean by size, industry and culture determine what roles a CFO plays.



6 Does small company requires a CFO CFO network

I wish to offer my two cents of worth from different perspective.

First, the title CFO itself is arbitrary, ostensibly means Head of Finance. There are similar Head of Finance positions, but named as Financial Controller, Finance Director, VP Finance, some even Finance Manager. I came across CFO report to Group CFO.

The raison d’être of a Head of Finance is a definite “yes”. In my consulting experience, many small business owners’ Achilles heel is run into working capital problems due to their paucity of financial knowledge. They are too ambitious to grow rapidly and fall into the trap of overtrade. The outcome is deleterious. The cogent reason to have someone with the knowledge will help them to juggle in between growth and working capital management. The risk detrimental to their business will be substantially reduced.

A Head of Finance can be versatile to offer much expertise essential for the existence of a small business, such as internal control, risk management, cost containment, and establish a credible framework for bank borrowing etc.

Better information does not measurably lead to better decision. Too much information falls prey to what management lexicon so-called as analysis paralysis which exacerbates bad decision making. Many small company owners do not have time to analyze information in their day to day running of business. Decision making process does not rely on information alone and financial expertise does not build in one day.


7. Convergence of FASB to IAS

The Accounting World is predominant with the view that principle-based accounting is superior. And FASB is working towards that goal. In the real world, there is no hard and fast rule to determine which is better.

As the business world is increasingly growing in complexity, litigations mount, users wont to explicit rules to tell them what is right and wrong rather than ambiguous principle-based, that is paltry, can be construed in various possibilities. As complications develop, you need more and more rules that make interconnection intractable, to make the standards relevant, you develop a thick Accounting Bible which is more of a labyrinth, you become not see the forest for the trees. This is a real problem.

Therefore, standards setter needs to thread a fine line between the two. It is arduous but achievable. I wrote an article several years back when the issue was in a rash of hot debate. The title is “standards setting process, principled based? Rule based?” in my blog http://www.minfeng.blogspot.com/


8. Why number crunching obsolete fast?

Glorified book-keepers and old fashioned number crunchers are obsolete fast. In my country, in the arena of accounting, any non-qualified or partly-qualified accountants are eligible to handle full set of bookkeeping job. So, where can you add-value to the business if employer can find someone cheaper. You find your position is precarious.

The nuance is: what employer most keen of you is you talk to her in business terms, galvanize her business to exponential growth rather than the stupefying debit and credit or obfuscate accounting standards that creating snafus. If you can make yourself indispensable to her, the better. And when economy is in precipitous decline, you are sure the last one to let go.

My best comments regarding job search at LinkedIn

1. What can we do about discrimination against the long-term unemployed? CFO network finance plus 4 March 2012 http://www.linkedin.com/e/-vo80fz-gzixmugn-5x/vaq/98686829/39259/71753899/view_disc/?hs=false&tok=0KSELDbFLZxR81

Employment is an interactive two party process whereby you can’t ignore the expectation of both party and their underlying assumptions in the hiring decision process, some of the canonical unfounded accusations from assailants against long –term unemployed, like: You can’t take poor hiring climate as an excuse; for those over ten months unemployed are labeled “hopeless”; Your skills are not up-to-date; there is a confidence crisis in your ability unless you demonstrate otherwise etc.

It is more than a grain of truth and unimpeachable that discrimination is rampant put long-term job seekers in dire straits. I share some of my sobering experience with you.

I left my previous employment twelve years ago and till now still can't embark on a permanent job and in exasperation. The biggest hurdles and fissures to succumb are: competing with those switching jobs and age discrimination. I update my professional knowledge, so that prospective employer will not feel short change but this doesn’t serve as vantage point for me to get back to work force.

The reality works against me is: most employers shun people who are unemployed for various reasons. One is there is a big pool of candidate to choose from, they prefer to give opportunity to those are still working, second, they are not sure whether your skills are up-to-date. Third, whether you are still vigorous and active and ready to adapt to life change? in time, it becomes a paradigm to reject unemployed right away.

For executive search firm even worse, they basically work for client rather than candidate. It is downright hard if not impossible to table to their client an unemployed for the position. The exceptions are: when they seek candidate with unique industry experience, or client lays down very harsh searching requirements, hard to find candidates or taking advantage of you by denigrating you to a more junior position to show their client they got them cheap and good candidate. Of course, I declined because I deliver value and not a commodity.

I know the mindset of discrimination is rife and engrained and changes cannot be any time soon. Enactment and public education go to the full hog are the most essential remedies. Enactment may not impinge on stopping recruiters continue doing so, or tackling its root cause, but you can’t ignore it blithely, it serves as a forceful message to correct some of the inequity in job search that the job seekers suffer travails have no fault of their own.Continue on 9 March 2012
In my opinion, enactment coupled with public education will upend the problem eventually. Enactment is setting a moral high ground to distinguish right from wrong. Public education in the long haul is to disseminate the message that discrimination is a repugnant act, and will perpetuate into long-term unemployed. There will be two camps, one is employed and looking for the next job, the other is tantalizing, always being stuck in making the next move and feels exasperated, the vile effects will persist and are pernicious until people change their mindset. The upshot is to become ubiquitous as best practice.

I read a great article today from Recruiter.com which is relevant to this discussion. I wish to share with the members of the group. http://www.blogger.com/www.recruiter.com/.../unemployment-its-your-problem%20 by Maren Hogen

In the previous posts, I enunciated how enactment and public education can tackle the pickle of rigid mindset against long-term unemployed in the course of time. In this comment, I will add action plan in this regard.

To amplify incentive to be more effective, it must fulfill several requirements: First, it must be visible Second, it must have immediate benefits; third, it must serve the purpose of the recipient. Let me elaborate further, you must not defer the benefits to the future period, so that the benefit is within the vision horizon to incite motivation. Most people will not dither to participate in the incentive scheme, if they can see the immediate advantage.

In my country, our million dollar minister proposed tax incentive to induce employer to hire older workers, I think the effectiveness of the incentive will be limited despite their endeavor; besides there is no ground work on enactment and public education. The tax benefit is far-flung and is not visible, so I don’t see there will be a boom in take-up rate.

The US economy is chugging-up again, the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%, unemployment is still hither and thither, and to get the unemployment to fall further will be increasingly difficult, because there are many factors resulting high unemployment. The imminent one for long-term unemployed problem, a nifty idea in my view, instead of using tax incentive is to set up a rehiring long-term unemployed scheme.

Under this scheme, a fund is setting up to pay the unemployed salary in lieu 100% for the first three months and 50% for the subsequent three months. The logic is to set up a trial period for hiring the unemployed to prove to the employer that there is not much difference in between people in employment and the unemployed, the flimsy ideology is the culprit. You can’t foist but coax employer to canvass their support to go along this line. This is the same analogy as for any manufacturer to marketing their new product, a trial period at very low price is set for a period of time until you are addicted. I believe after six months, the unemployed new recruit is wired into the operation system. The government can recoup some costs from saving unemployment benefit handout, in US stance.

The implementation is susceptible to frauds, the first kind of fraud is to spike the employee record with dummy newly hired unemployed, the fraudster claims under the scheme for employee non-existence, to scotch this fraud, money must deposit directly to the new employee’s bank account, and this also accentuates the notion of "working for free". Another fraud is employer fires the unemployed every three months to gain advantage of free worker service at the expense of tax payer's money. The government must keep track of the employment record to blunt its vile effects.

I hope this might help.


2. Why (Most) Recruiters Are Bad People The Recruiter network 21 March 2012

The phenomenon mentioned by Ben are not uncommon to me. Recruiter is not the savior to your excruciating hitch in between a rock and a hard place, but is acting according to self-interest. I think it is too sweeping a statement and certainly a bad rap to say they are bad people. I just quote you some real life examples

1. I involved in a group discussion about the unemployed predicament. An executive recruiter involved in the discussion mentioned he would not be blinkered to reject unemployed applicants. He shortlisted the best for his client, whether she was employed or not, did not matter to him.

2. I received a personal reply yesterday from an executive search firm telling me that there were other candidates whose background fitter to the job, and this round I was not successful. I trust the mail was not a cookie-cutter template send to all unsuccessful candidates. The sincerity is unimpeachable.

3. This morning I went for an interview for a CFO position. The CEO got my résumé in front of her, but asking me whether I brought along a spare résumé. After five minutes of exchange of job requirements and what I could contribute to the company. She blurted I was too high-power, and hers was a small company and she had several other candidates to see. I was disillusioned the interview was fallen through the crack. Why she acted inscrutably or just scrabbled? She must have read my résumé before calling me for an interview. Why teased candidates to show face? A travesty and veneer of their sincerity and professionalism. I encountered several these kinds of bad interviews(Just to show face and quickly demur you to save their time)

Recruiters not all are well-trained and acting professionally. Unlike in the US, some recruiters are certified. In my country, any Tom, Dick and Harry can become a recruiter, therefore the professional standard varies. But I reiterate, any good recruiter still act according to self-interest.3.Job seekers are not proactive enough.

Yes, it is probably true that people, I am also one, like to rest on our laurels rather than taking risks to seek for new opportunities.

On deep reflection, I do have motivation to get out of current career stagnation. That was why I wanted to expand my social network. I joined LinkedIn. I reached out to new contact in earnest, to my chagrin, none responded. I soon became disillusioned. I want to take risk and am anxious for new opportunities. But opportunities do not knock my door.

I do have what the article mentioned “prevention motivation” such as obtaining security, avoiding mistakes and hang on to what we have already got mentality. But I think it is human nature to cling on to something that people feel safe and secure. I think working for others is still my best option, but I have to fight against prejudice against not in employment for sometimes, age discriminaation, and glutted labor market. If I run my own business, I do not have capital to take the risk. So, nothing is moving…..

I was curious at first; wanted to know what answer this article would be provided. Not very disappointed, the answers are quite logical. But after all these years of job search, my attitude towards not getting a job as proactive as the article suggested is: you must take life as it is, don't take things too hard that there is something beyond your control.

Even you pose questions try to address the interviewer's concerns , most interviewers rather dither, prevaricated and discreetly decline to comment on your foibles. He is not obliged to give you the necessary feedback. He doesn’t benefit from doing that, save the troubles of arguing with you that you are not fit, but deep in his mind, you are eliminated.

Sometimes, they just want to see all the candidates to make a comparison, and cannot immediately offer an answer. Some interviewers like to keep silent, if your last drawn is above their budget, they just strike you out. Interview is truly a blackbox. Even you are well-prepared (I experienced that); actual situation happens otherwise that you and the interviewer’s chemistry just doesn’t click. So don’t be exasperated if you do not succeed.


3.CFO is a high risk position

I construe what you mean "high risk position" as precarious in holding to the job. That is probably true, “unstable at the top”. CFO brooks the least top management pressure of accounting chicanery when blistering growth derails, CEO wants you to cook-up the book or you being ousted out. Or, the risk might be: you are bedeviled when the company’s performance deteriorates, you struggle to get ends meet every month and many others that are downright amorphous in your everyday job routine You need to evaluate whether you have an overarching team which will help you trudge up the hill and iron out the problems or you decide to change course .


4. Unemployed is not given a chance

I see from different perspective. Having unemployed all these years, I found the real problems are how executive search companies and employers see those unemployed? Will the unemployed be given the second chance to get back to the work force, or making selection from those already in employment and leaving those unemployed becomes long-term and underemployed? Don't panic if certain skills don't fit, those unemployed, I think, are keen to pick up the necessary skills to keep the ball rolling, No one is born to know certain skills, they must have come through training from class room or on the job, the keys are spirit and passion towards the job. If this problem not solved, not only unemployment is rising also becomes stickily entrenched.

I think the crux of the problem is not skimpy of job opportunities in my area of expertise. It is the prejudice that matters. I don't see as Certified Accountants for twenty years, I have to switch to another field to learn new skill, meaning I forgo my competency to start everything anew with rudimentary job, do you think it is a wise move?

My point in my suggestion is to stress the ingrained attitude downright bias towards unemployed. How you prove that my expertise and knowledge have obsolete? Yet the employers and Executive search companies have never given us a chance to prove ourselves, simply bypass us. This could happen also to any employment agencies in UK, making re-employed an uphill task.

Thank you. Michael that you admitted prejudice against unemployed did exist as illustrated by your example. If you want to bring the unemployment rate down, you simply cannot ignore them. You can’t on the one hand lamenting unemployment rate going up as the discussion paper, and on the other hand do the other way.

If this phenomenon persists, in no small part, there will just be two camps become perpetual. One camp is the employed always get the next job, and the other camp is the unemployed permanently stuck. Deep inside our mind is the faulty ideology and assumptions that many people follow. Just like Mr. bhatt said “a skill / precocious talent that is not honed up with proper employment may also turn out so.” If there is no chance to give an unemployed return to work, how is she going to horn up? It boils down to this ingrained hidebound ideologue that is the root of the problem. I would recommend you to read a discussion New comment on "Why is it that many employers prefer to hire people who are employed rather than unemployed?" in another LinkedIn group which I followed and the response is overwhelming because there are too many unemployed in the US and you can hear their voice. http://www.linkedin.com/e/-vo80fz-gp0ei6q7-14/vaq/50498251/1976445/42397124/view_disc/

I am not working in the UK. I just put in my two penny worth. First and foremost, recruitment consultant is working for their client. Their client's interest comes prior to the candidate. When the candidate is most in need of them, for example, if she is an unemployed, the consultant gives her the cold shoulder. When the candidate is employed and happy with the job, the recruitment consultant tries to poach them for a new job. It can't say is a help or a hassle. Life is a bewildering chasing game.


5. New era of value added accountant

Glorified book-keepers and old fashioned number crunchers are obsolete fast. In my country, in the arena of accounting, any non-qualified or partly-qualified accountants are eligible to handle full set of bookkeeping job. So, where can you add-value to the business if employer can find someone cheaper. You find your position is precarious. The nuance is: what employer most keen of you is you talk to her in business terms, galvanize her business to exponential growth rather than the stupefying debit and credit or obfuscate accounting standards that creating snafus. If you can make yourself indispensible to her, the better. And when economy is in precipitous decline, you are sure to be the last one to let go. If you have the passion for the job, a bad job can be meaningful, enamored. If you have a wrong attitude, a good job can be bad, you simply fudge.


6. Age discrimination is ubiquitous

I had two telephone screening interviews in the last two weeks. The search consultants asked my date of birth that put my chance in rickety. In this part of the world, there are no rules prohibit recruiters to screen candidates by age making senior applicant even flakier, and it is so rampant for executive search consultants avowedly predisposed screening by age. The authority is acutely aware of age discrimination, but prefers to keep mum in the hope that by gradual persuasion, employer will change their mindset, and it is somewhat naïve. In my view, not only the need to stop by legislation ( the hard way), but to form a choir to disparage age discrimination, and sing the song of how seniority will bring benefits of manpower planning stability, a well of experience, loyalty, and maturity to the business (the soft way). Once there are more and more people endorse aging is a human nature,a fact of life and not undeserving drossed and there are genuine benefits by hiring senior people. The paradigm shifts.

I want to elaborate some more thoughts in my discussion. I am quite puzzled that some posts played down the severity of age discrimination in the selection process. Probably we are living in different part of the world. Age discrimination is not as severe as it looks in the US.

Selection is a complex process that involves many factors. Senior age to many employers is certainly a negative factor for elimination. The search consultants if not have clear instruction from their client; they will hold blinkered assumption to eliminate this group of candidates first. Of course there are exceptions; I had one interview last month, the interviewer told me the reason I was shortlisted was because younger candidates might have language problem handling the job.

I want to reinforce my view in my last post. Legislation (the hard way) sends an explicit message by the policy maker to the employer the government’s stand on the issue. It is not only as humanity to protect the vulnerable group, because employer has the upperhand; but also helps not to exacerbate social problems. Imagine if employer writes off staff after the age of 40. That means employees need to save much more before the rainy days arrive, that will push up wages, contradict to business logic and is unsustainable in the long-term.

The soft way is to exert pressure to the recruiters to face the problem squarely. Retain or employ older workers not only keep intact organization memory; A good team formation needs age diversity, so that ideas of different perspectives and maturity are brought to light. I read an interesting book last year, titled “Managing the older workers” published by Harvard Business School Press. In the author’s view, older worker brings many benefits to the employers, the following serves as apocalypse I quote verbatim from the book:

(1) Employers are complaining about not being able to get workers with the skills and competencies they needs, especially strong work ethics and good interpersonal skills. These are exactly the competencies that older workers offer

(2) Older workers are not necessary expensive than their younger colleagues, and they perform better on virtually every relevant aspect of job performance

(3) Transfer of knowledge, older workers have a lot of tacit knowledge that their younger peers have yet to acquire

(4) Solidifying culture; Experience workers know the norms and values of the organizations and are able to pass them along to the new hires.

(5) Mentoring: serve as mentors for younger employees due to they know a lot about the organization. They make excellent coaches.

(6) Serve as “Just in time” work force, saves the organization all the “on boarding” costs of a new hire, they know the culture and operating procedures of the organization. Organization can scale down during recession and then scale up quickly when circumstances change.

Older workers provide that flexibility. We need to sing the song of the benefits older workers provide, that will directly touch the chord of the employers, and slowly the paradigm will change.


7. Why recruiters can't find good candidates in LinkedIn? The recruiter.com

I can comprehend your frustration. The veracity is you know better than others why you are hell-bent to reject many jobseekers with LinkedIn. There are many LinkedIn members like me tried other avenues before, such as newspaper, job board before joining LinkedIn. So you are wading through the same profile in the hodgepodge always. It happens to you and also many others search firm recruiters. Jobseekers are in every nook and cranny, LinkedIn is only one avenue in the same job pool.

Another possibility is you don’t look from different perspective when you separate wheat from the chaff. Your blindsided perspective restrains your chance to miss some possible good candidates that you labeled them “not match”. If you give a chance to the candidate contrary to your perception is tantamount to also giving you a chance and it doesn’t spend you much time.


8.Is it true that employer likes to hire someone who is employed rather than the unemployed? The recruiter.com

It is more than a grain of truth and unimpeachable. I share some of my sobering experience with you.

I left my previous employment twelve years ago and till now still can't embark on a permanent job and in exasperation. The biggest hurdles to succumb are: competing with those switching jobs and age discrimination. I update my professional knowledge, so that prospective employer will not feel short change but this doesn’t serve as vantage point for me to get back to work force.

The reality works against me is: most employers shun people who are unemployed for various reasons. One is there is a big pool of candidate to choose from, they prefer to give opportunity to those are still working, second, they are not sure whether your skills are up-to-date. Third, whether you are still vigorous and active and ready to adapt to life change? And as time passed, it becomes a paradigm to reject unemployed right away.

For executive search firm even worse, they basically work for client rather than candidate. It is hard if not impossible to table to their client an unemployed for the position. The exceptions are: when they seek candidate with unique industry experience, or client lays down very harsh searching requirements, hard to find candidates or taking advantage of you by denigrating you to a more junior position to show to their client they got them cheap and good candidate. Of course, I declined because I deliver value and am not a commodity.

I know the mindset is rife and engrained and changes cannot be any time soon. Enactment and public education are remedies. Enactment may not impinge on stopping recruiter continue doing so, or tackling its root cause, but you can’t ignore it blithely, it serves as a forceful message to correct some of the inequity in job search that the job seekers suffer travails have no fault of their own.

Last but not least, is the comment to an article at the recruiter.com about the Japanese long-term employment, the following was my comment:
I recently read a book enumerating how Toyota grappled with bandies about their incendiary quality lapse in 2010.

The author debunked profusion of unfounded accusations that Toyota compromised their quality standards for business growth. One interesting notion in the book is Toyota did not retrench their US office employees during 2008 financial crisis. Rather, they spent money on training.

Toyota views employee as an asset rather than minnow, it takes many training hours to enrich their technical knowledge and establish deeper interrelationship among employees to keep the operation running smoothly, which propel the company through thick and thin. Toyota envisions this bedrock belief of long term commitment with the employee as their company philosophy rather than a contractual relationship waiting to be retrenched during bad times.(The recruiter)

Unencumbered by pecuniary goal is something we must up the ante to put into serious thought.