I have been using LinkedIn pretty heavily for the last few weeks.  So heavy, that that LinkedIn has locked me out for 12 hours at a time for exceeding whatever limits they have for accessing LinkedIn.

Therefore after looking at thousands of profiles I have to ask this question:

Why do people join LinkedIn?

1. Is it to meet people (socially)?
2. Is it to find business?
3. Is it to market oneself or business?
4. Is it to seek new opportunities, be they employment or new ventures?
5. Or is it because I need to have a “profile”, it is expected today?

If you have said yes to one or more of the first four choices then I have two questions for you:

•  Why don’t you list an e-mail address?  You have several choices, your business (that may be transient), your personal or as many people do, a special Social Network/LinkedIn address.  In addition, if you are going to list an e-mail address, why not in the opening Summary so people don’t have to go crazy searching?
• If you list an address, does it work? I can’t tell you how many e-mail address are either (unintentionally) mis-formed, or just plain wrong (as in no longer works).  Bad addresses don’t meet your need, which is being contacted.

So why don’t you take a few moments to review your profile and adjust it.

SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting LTD Wayne Spivak 

I must admit I am completely baffled.  Baffled you say?  Yes baffled.  I am unable to connect the logic that I see being used these days as it relates to hiring in the C-Suite.  Those proverbial dots from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ are being hijacked.

We’re talking now about changes in the interpretation of how the going concern principle is being inculcated. The going concern principle is defined as a business will stay in business which is similar to Newton’s first law of physics.

Who’s the Boss?

How does a business stay in business?  By hiring the best management, who then in turns creates the business, its products or services and hires the supporting employees to implement the strategies and plans to make success a reality.

But there has been a constant erosion of responsibility in the hallowed halls of both the Board Room and with the CEO and President.  The erosion is real life and it’s extremely dangerous to the life; not “human being life” dangerous, but the life of the going concern.

It is an abrogation of authority by the Board and CEO/President; a demurring to a constituency that “claims” knowledge in areas that they have absolutely no basis and can provide no validation besides self-serving certifications by associations that use these same certifications as profit centers.

Then, these same individuals, in order to raise the bar to their alleged knowledge use the old flim-flam.  Purposely gumming the works, giving many the bum rap and have the merve to say not only does their plan work, but they know best.

What is the issue?

The Board, the CEO or the President are allowing the HR departments to not only set the requirements for C-Level individuals, but interview and select those they “think” are qualified?  We’re not talking about the executive recruitment industry (the have their own issues), we’re only and specifically talking HR here. boss

Let’s be clear, I am not anti-HR.  HR is an important aspect to any business, but HR needs split into a tripartite organization. boss

1. Administrative (handles all those pesky Federal/State/Local issues which keep growing logarithmically year in and year out).
2. Benefits and compensation – they advise on salary ranges for banding of like-kind jobs as well as handling the mind numbing paperwork involved in the benefit programs.
3. Human Asset Strategy – this is a very small unit which does not create job specs or actually do the acquisition, they assist and provide consultation to the individual hiring managers, again with consultation with the Benefits and Compensation division as well as the Finance department (budget), and help the acquisition process along. The manager of the X department should have a clear cut idea about what type of person is needed and what the job spec should be; how can the traditional HR practitioner know what is really needed, especially since many never worked outside that department or haven’t worked in many years outside that department and most certainly probably never did that job.

On the other hand, the hiring manager either did work at that level or is working day to day with those employees to know what is and isn’t needed.

Talk with C-level professionals and other senior management and you’ll likely hear similar complaints about talent acquisition.  You’ll probably hear more complaints from accounting and finance departments due to turf battles having to do with payroll, but the talent acquisition issue seems to broad based.

If so, why is the Board and CEO delegating such important decisions away and down the chain?  Could it be plausible deniability so when the C-Suite occupants fail or turnover is high they can say it was HR?  What advantage in the long term does that serve?

If you have a point of view, even if it’s contrary to mine, I’d like to open a dialogue.

The marketplace as it is, the search for new employment should never cease.  While the activity waxes and wanes, one’s resume should always be sharp.  One example is LinkedIn, which many consider one of the premier networking sites and thus employment sites.

So, as we post our resumes on-line we do open ourselves to unwanted e-mail.  It is unavoidable.  Just as e-commerce websites sell our e-mail address to third parties, unless we explicitly request (assuming they even ask that we care) many of the resume or job posting sites do the same.

The other day I received this e-mail:

Friday, July 10, 2015
From: Jeff Marcakis
To: me
Hello Wayne,

PDS Tech is seeking a High Value Associate in the Farmingdale, NY area. This is a 12 month contract assignment. The pay rate ranges from $13.05-$18.15hr, depending upon experience.

Duties include:

Auditing high value claim shippers, locating high value packages in the center or hub and ensuring proper handling. May also contact destination hubs or centers to notify them of the status of high value packages. Additional duties may include performing loss prevention activities related to center or operation physical security.

Hours: 4:30am to 9:30am, Monday – Friday

To be considered for this assignment, please forward an updated resume to:

jmarcakis@xxxx.com

Letter Value: AE73D3-31C93E7

So where did Jack and his company go wrong?

• Let’s start by clearly telling me that I’m not important enough to get a letter that isn’t a form letter (even though I know it is, perception is reality).
• Then, did Jack ever bother to read any part of my resume? Where does it say that I’m a warehouseman/customer service representative on my resume?
• Then the pay range he mentions, that clearly meshes with my resume – not.
• Lastly he wants a copy of my resume again, why? He didn’t bother to read it the first time!

I must admit the only thing he got right was that I do live in the vicinity of Farmingdale, NY. One out of five aspects isn’t bad, if he played baseball…. But not in business!

Now I tried to reach out to the president at PDS Tech, but they didn’t care, which is evidenced by their HR manager calling  back; and they really should have cared and have the president or an operational VP call back.  I missed the HR Manager and reached out again.  They never bothered to get back to me.

They should care that I, and probably many other potential hiring/decision making managers will now remember a) this companies name, b) how unprofessional they are and in my case that they wouldn’t take constructive criticism from a potential (customer/employee/temporary worker).

Why would I ever bother doing business with this company?  Why would you after reading this want to either?

Companies spend 3-10% of their budget on advertising and marketing which includes brand development and  recognition.  All it takes is one misguided individual and then a lack of response from management to take those dollars spent and flush them.

What do you think?

Turnaround

One would think that the term “Turnaround” is analogous with failing company.  In today’s environment you’d probably be correct, but it doesn’t need to be a company that’s failing.  In fact smarter managed companies are in or should be in a constant state of flux; terminal turnaround.

A friend of my Regis Quirin, the Director of Finance at Gibney Anthony & Flaherty LLP said about the causes of turnarounds:

Simply stated, when business is good, it is very easy to overlook inefficiency and waste.  But the macroeconomic weakness that is affecting the US is resulting in sales declines; while at the same time costs continue to rise. As a result, profits decline.

It is just this definition that a turnaround or restructuring or change management (or a dozen different management speak terms that essentially mean the same thing) needs to be implemented and run as an on-going project.  As part of the management team or a Board member, you can’t wait for that sales decline, because the longer you wait, the harder it is to succeed in bringing about the change and preserving employee and customer/vendor value (I will ignore shareholder value as a valid contrary to B-school dogma, since investing in keeping or increasing employee and customer/vendor value will bring shareholder value as a result).

Change is good

To further examine the concept of waiting for a sales decline, most of us live in a bubble of NIMBY (not in my backyard).  While this term is usually used as a reason for not allowing some type of entity to establish a foothold in a community, it is equally true in management.  Management fails to realize that there is a problem.  The entity is sound, we are the best of the best, and the unthinkable is just that, unthinkable.

This silo thinking is the beginning of the end for a business entity for the world is dynamic and as such, markets change, industry changes and the economy changes daily.  Just as your marketing department is always fine-tuning the value proposition, management needs to fine-tune the rest of the organization (which includes that value proposition).

Too often I have seen management realize their market has changed; try to implement some new or novel changes to the company, be they joint ventures, mergers or acquisitions, encounter the unavoidable misfires, failures and then get further dragged down by doubt and hesitance to react.  Failing to pull on the trigger due to self-doubt further forces the company down the rabbit hole to the never regions of survival.

What to look for…

Sure, companies should be looking for new products or services, but they are usually in their core business segment. The smart company has budgeted funds to research the industry and examine what the competition and parallel businesses are doing.  They are positioning themselves for diversity, mergers and acquisitions where time, at least on their side, is not of the essence.

They are looking at their systems, processes, infrastructure, and human assets.  Re-assessing whether or not they are sufficient not only for today, but tomorrow.  Can the company handle a change in its core mission?  What are the gaps between now and what needs to be accomplished?

Let us be realistic.  Turnarounds, restructuring or change management (or whatever your term de jure might be) is costly.  It has actual and unrealized costs associated with changing your organization.  Real costs in time, energy and acquisition of new systems.  Real unrealized costs in uncertainty of employees, customers and vendors.

To manage both you need a strategic plan, a tactical plan and most importantly a communications plan.  As in any project, communications is the absolute key and in a turnaround you must communicate with your stakeholders.

So when?

So when is the best time to start the process?  That time is today, not tomorrow or next week.

I just went several rounds with a potential client.  After talking with four people, two at the corporate level, two at the national/subsidiary level, they all voiced similar issues; some more vocal or more alarmed than others.  Actually, the corporate people were more alarmed then the national/subsidiary people.

Some major areas of the business were in distress: growth, economics, operational and data.  Areas where a person at the C-level not only can address, but has the experience to improve.

As one would surmise, these four major pain points are all inter-connected.  There isn’t a single magic pill that will fix the woes, but a steady re-think (GAP analysis), plan, implementation, test, evaluation and repeat process would.

Growth was being hampered by issues with the infrastructure, global FX  fluctuations (they were a global company), operational factors and bad data.

The economics of the company were being effected the aforementioned FX fluctuations, which was causing losses based on the needs to shift money to the national entity actually providing the service.  In addition, this was hampering growth, since certain previously profitable markets had fallen off.

Operationally, they had so many issues, one couldn’t begin to know where to start.  From poor management and loss of staffing to systems, procedures and culture causing not only bad data, but bad performance (both accounting, financial and customer service) further deteriorating their brand.

Lastly, there was a feeling that the data being captured was not even close to pristine, much of it due to lack of controls and process.  So the old adage garbage in is garbage out was clearly in the cross-hairs.

Quite a challenge for anyone to solve the myriad of problems.  Quite exciting to be part of the solution, I had hoped.

I didn’t’ get the gig.  Not because someone else had better qualifications or made a better pitch (either from an economic or marketing standpoint), but because someone at the national/subsidiary level felt that hiring two individuals experienced in Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A) would be better.

We have now entered the twilight zone, where square pegs and round holes somehow morph into a single objects.

FP&A individuals are two or three levels down on the accounting/finance job hierarchy.  Those who are involved in this side of accounting/finance are highly trained, but are not trained and probably don’t have the work experience to fix the woes that I have described.

[The following paragraph is a generalization, because there is always exceptions and exceptional people.]

FP&A people aren’t involved in operational matters or strategy.  They for the most part are not supervisors or managers.  They see from their unique position only one segment of the accounting/finance pie at  their companies, whereas the Controller and most definitely the CFO has the larger more complete picture.  I can continue with differences between the CFO and Controller compared and contrasted to the FP&A person, but clearly an FP&A person is not the right choice for this client, at this time, with their myriad of complex issues.

Protestations about this strategic misstep fell on deaf ears. Sure I was trying to salvage the deal, or at the very least hire another CFO, but in any event they were making a major error here!

What will happen next, at least from my perspective, is that they will expend a lot of money.  They probably will get some good reports based on the faulty data, and end up not solving any of their issues.

Time is money, and when your house is dysfunctional it adds to cash burn which eats into working capital and hampers the going concern.  I hope someone realizes the mistake sooner than later.

What is the lesson learned from this scenario?

Analyze your problem(s).  Prioritize those issues.  Determine the skill sets/solutions necessary to fix those issues and hire/purchase the correct people/solutions to implement and fix the problems.

Going cheap or doing a quick fix, especially when you know that is not the answer, is foolish in the long run.

What do you think?