In today's market, it is getting harder to find job opportunities in both the finance and
"You have too many years of experience and you can't teach a dog new tricks"
Answers
Andrew:
This is a very interesting topic, especially these days. I think companies stay away from longer-tenured professionals in general when they are most "price sensitive". It may be wrong and it may be short-sighted, but I think many hiring managers just assume that people who have been around long will a)cost them more - b/c more years means higher salary expectations, and b)because they think they can higher the best and brightest and mold that person into the superstar they want them to be, rather than hiring someone who "has peaked" and who may be difficult to change.
Now before anyone gets excited, I am saying I think these may be common perceptions, they are certainly not my perception. Although there is more than a grain of truth about people who have been in the workforce longer costing more. I mean, they have been through more years of raises and maybe have a broader skillset, so it could be understood that some would think they are more expensive to hire and would demand pay commensurate with their experience. And to my second point, I think many people do want to hire and train in their image - even if they are giving on hiring someone who already has the requisite skills. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens.
Why pay for skills you don't need? Another consideration, especially in this economy, is people not wanting to pay for skills they "don't need". This may be fallacious b/c they may very well benefit from the broader experience of a someone who has been around longer, but job descriptions tend to be very narrowly focused documents and people focus on particular skills, forgetting that employees are made up of hundreds of skills and experiences, not just the dozen or so in your typical job description.
Okay, so those are just a few possible causes for what you are reporting on. But you asked the money question at the end: "what can be done?" I wish I had a simple answer but there is not one. I think a lot of this actually boils down to how people recruit. They use narrow job descriptions and most recruiters wouldn't know a Corporate
Another factor we can't manage is how companies are reacting to this economic environment. Most people equate less experience with cheaper and for the few companies that are hiring right now, cheap is the top goal. I don't see many folks hiring with "TCO" in mind, they are hiring with lowest salary in mind. I don't see this changing until some of the fear of this economy subsides and companies can focus on the long-term again.
3
Without "interning" for them to see your worth, how do we approach companies these days for that golden egg. We are told not to go back any longer than 15 years on your resume and if soeone is "quick" they goign to say how did he/she start off as a CFO, what are they hiding or "how old are they"? I have not found any sure fire way of heping in these situations as John stated above I can compare it to" the older the wine the finer it is and the more costly it gets". I am not only trying to help several colleagues out here in California but also myself. I personally do not think California is the place to be so I am searching outside the state. But it seems that even in other states the same concept holds true. What are we as executives, that help guide and build companies convince
I hate it when people don't provide me a full resume. The resume is your professional life story and you are either looking for someone with "seasoning" because it is right for the position or you are not.
I have heard what you note above many times: people are telling people to hide their early
Okay, that was a rant :), but my advice is to be proud and confident in who you are and the people who know to value your background will do so and you will go farther with them than if you had hidden your history. Those who don't get it won't be hiring you anyway.
CFO in Kolkata India
Andrew this is not only in the US but has also trickled down to India - maybe some management technique we Indian are trying to imbibe from the West.I am facing problems in looking for new openings. Don't want to brag if I am good or nor because of the above criteria but I do feel that a handful appreciate what I have learnt over the years. As the saying in India goes - you have not lost the hair (or turned white) just by being in the sun!
I am one of the unemployed, my last position was with a small company where I wore many hats and provided the services of a CFO/Controller. Our sales plummeted as did a lot of jobs, mine too. I have a good skillset and background but I am 61.
What is the value of an employee like me, let me give you an example. I took a two month assignment with Accountemps for a large company that needed help while they battled with the budgets and internal audit.
My first day on board the Controller gave me a budget
To prepare for internal audit I reviewed the balance sheet reconciliations and gave him a list of recommendations.
The controller gave me three Capital Authorization Requests to review. I completed the requests, had discussions with the request writers and completed the ROI in company format. This saved the controller hours of work.
I have always liked to have an employee I could give a job to and know that they will run with it and get it done. That is exactly what the controller had in me, he said I was a bargain. I had the experience; I knew how to talk with the CAR writers without ruffling any feathers. Between you and me I did for him just what I would want done.
This old seasoned worked added a lot of value on that assignment from the day I walked in the door. I/We have a lot to offer employers as this example points out.
Tom Thalmann CMA CFM
1
I really loved Tom's latest comments on this subject. It shows the positive side of the value add by an experienced professional getting due recognition. I believe that the value proposition is what matters in the end. It is true that some short sighted organizations may not see the value generated but only the cost when hiring senior leaders. However, my experience with large professional organizations is that they always do the cost-benefit analysis while hiring a person in any capacity and age is only a secondary factor in the selection process. One reason they may not employ seasoned people from outside is because they believe the relative value of an internally experienced resource is much higher. I believe there is a lot of hope and Tom's story is just the right boost.
I also like Tom's reality show, it shows in today's economic times what people really want and need. They are seeking value at lowest cost. After all when the economy does turn around and companies are reaping once again don't you better believe that leaders like Tom who may or may not be under pay will be rewarded. In today's world hiring managers want the job done at the lowest cost without a supervised watch. After each successful project and piece of work Tom performs sooner or later his efforts will be rewarded whether with current boss or another.
In my personnel job search I have scaled back by salary and sought to show real value and real results that count. I may have to work longer days but heck I did that in good times as well. Now when I get another p/t position or consulting I get paid for it even if it is less dollars.
Let's Roll and show our bosses (even if younger) that we can react faster, show greater accuracy, be relied on and measure up to younger professionals.
Bob Holland (Financial Systems Consultant)
I'm going to open a can of worms here by suggesting that a lot of the problem may be on the recruiter/
And here I potentially go off the rails by pointing out that almost 0% of recruiters/HR have any meaningful functional or business experience that would enable them to determine a good candidate from a bad one. Most recruiters come from HR or other non-finance/accounting fields and are lower-level generalists with no functional, management or executive experience. Even the boutique firms and the "high-end" recruiting firms are filled with people like this - not the finance and accounting specialists they would have you believe. Really. You CFOs out there controlling who recruits for your company should check this out before engaging.
The sad truth is that these people who so clearly have their company's/client's future in their hands have no qualifications for separating the wheat from the chaff aside from the most basic pattern matching. Is one candidate really better than another because they have a particular keyword on their resume three times instead of once? Is the best person for a job really the one who has done it over and over for the last decade? How would they know? Most recruiters have zero finance and accounting experience and have never hired for themselves, never had to live and learn from their mistakes. They just don't know.
And yet most hiring managers have their recruiter/HR person do all of the early vetting for them, separating the winners and losers by guesswork. "Real", quality vetting doesn't happen until the hiring manager or their team starts to weigh in and that is often way down the line in the recruiting process. So while the comments above are both varied and valid, they miss some of the point which is that until companies change the way they hire, they will never escape the problem of finding great candidates. The problem is, they have the wrong people doing the looking.
1
Well..can I dump the whole can of worms on the table?
Let's face it, many companies are ageists. Period. And the recruiters (whether internal or external) are advised to hire only a certain age group, regardless of experience.
Why are company ageists?
(Here are some of the excuses I have received in the past, and/or experienced).
1. Their culture is "young and vibrant" and that is what they want to keep. Irregardless of knowledge or experience or professionalism.
2. To keep their health insurance costs down.
3. Because older people can't change, don't listen, and it's hard to train them.
4. "I don't want someone coming in here, knowing more than I know and telling me what to do. I own the company".
5. "I want a young, pretty thing at the front desk".
6. "He can't change -- he was a controller at a [any industry name] and wouldn't be able to understand our business."
7. They will want too much money.
This attitude permeates the entire culture of that business...no matter the position.
I worked at both large and small businesses. I even worked at one of the "big 8"--or whatever it is now (oops, I'm aging myself), and even there they did not want to hire older graduates because they might not be as "trainable".
As for outside recruiters, I would have to agree with Bryan. I have been very fortunate to work (on both ends) with some really great ones that looked for best fit, and not because they "liked" or "disliked" a person. However, many are inexperienced and young and because they are so young and inexperienced, what qualifications do they have to determine best fit? There is one recruiting agency in town I refuse to use here because they do not try to match skillset, but only their (her) own personal belief system -- which happens to be certain things, including age. And so she just "re-places" her favorites. I have seen this sort of thing far too common, unfortunately.
I appreciate and can absolutely relate to the posted comments. However, the ownership for bending the perception is on us "old dogs". We hold the responsibility and the opportunity to establish, despite all obstacles, our continued relevance in the ever changing world, and not only in business. We have worked hard, been successful, and are committed to staying that course to the benefit of ourselves and the organizations we hope to work with. We need to project ourselves and our experience into today's problems and remain committed to solving these problems with robust solutions. For me, this means passing on opportunities I may have pursued in the past and scratching well below the surface in understanding a potential position or company. I am only 4 months into my search; clearly the longer one is looking the more difficult o be selective. But I keep trying. We need to invest some time in
I agree with Bryan's points. With one exception, I have yet to work with an HR department that has the broad business background to really understand business needs -- not just accounting, but almost any department. (The one exception was when I hired the VP of HR.) Most HR departments have skill sets focused on benefits and employee relations, not evaluation. I solved this problem early on by simply mandating that I see all responses to any open positions I was trying to fill. It meant many extra hours of reading resumes and cover letters, but since ultimately I am trying to find someone that I are going to spend 8-10 hours a day working with and relying on, why would I let an un-accountable person filter the candidates? (Let's face it when was the last time HR was held accountable for employee failures or turnover?) I also required my managers and supervisors to do the same for openings that would report to them.
The bottom line is that if you are going to be responsible for a person's performance, should'nt you take the time to at least skim all the potentials? Same thing if you are on the outside trying to get in; try to find out who is the actual reporting manager and let him/her know of your interest and qualifications too.
One other comment on the "You can't teach an old dog new tricks...", as Tom pointed out so well, once we get in the door, old dogs tend to blow away expectations. Business and human relations really haven't changed that much, just some of the tools we use. Sometimes you need to lead with your knowledge of the new tools and follow with your experience.
How do we get the HR to realize the value of experience, loyality and stability has value? Most HR presonnel I have worked with, are themselves young and inexperienced, without understand of how an organization really works. But what are the C-class execs doing to change them? Very little.
1
Asbjorn:
You can't "teach" experience very well. I think they inherently understand that experience has some value. But understanding it from an "academic" standpoint is completely different than knowing it because you have lived it. And the fact is that most people in the recruiting functions of HR do not have experience outside of HR and have never hired people for themselves so they would not know what to look for either from a functional or management/executive viewpoint.
I admit that I long ago gave up trying to teach recruiters what to look for because it is so varied and depends so much upon years or decades of experience that it seemed rather hopeless. I'm not suggesting we give up, but it won't be easy.
I think the pendulum will swing back to experience and stability. In this age when financial folks seem to move every few years in search of greener pastures, by the time companies bring someone on board and they really get tuned in to the company, people are more than willing to split and take their new found skills and experience elsewhere for bigger $$. At some point, the revolving door in the financial leadership of companies will cause problems that employee retention will solve (such as a consistent culture and direction, succession planning, consistent policy and leadership). Turnover is expensive at all levels in a company both economically and culturally. The well respected, large to midsize companies I've worked in and seen have all had seasoned senior management teams in place for more than a few years. The downside is a stale, status quo, no fresh ideas or blood environment. Any ideas out there about how hit the happy medium?
To combat the lack of recognition by an HR recruiter of your experience and skillset, one method is to research the company where practical and target the hiring manager or higher senior level management team the old fashioned way...via a personal and confidential addressed, first class mailed resume' with cover letter. I have been employing this method over the last 2 months into my 3 month search and although not yet successful, this is one of the methods some professional marketing companies have suggested.In this internet age of overwhelming information, it is not too difficult to obtain the names of key senior managers from company websites, annual report filings, news reports, etc. Grabbing the attention of a senior manager via a well written cover letter (and you have about 20 seconds to make that impression) may land you that interview. I am certainly counting on it because once I get in that door, I can present my value propisition tailored to that company's needs.
I switched from a career in engineering (Ph.D, 11+ years in my field) into finance about 8 years ago. No one would hire me based on the career change (this was after the bloodbath of 2000 when i was an investment banker). What seemed to work for me was when I indicated that i was "hands on" and would start each position as though I was an analyst, understand the details completely before starting on the role for which I was hired. Having survived the change, I will say that I have a soft corner for the mavericks and those who do not get a second chance from HR>
A great discussion, with some wonderful insights, on a very stressful topic.
A few things jumped out at me ... first, kudos to Jeffrey and Kevin. They point to the importance of a multi-faceted search strategy to get around HR. Most times, an executive gets stuck dealing with HR when responding to posted positions. That is an ineffective strategy at best and even less so for executives.
Companies are still hiring executives and for good money. The secret is to 1) move away from the job boards, 2) be clear about what you have that a company is willing to pay to get and then, 3) make sure you are on the radar screen of those companies who need what you have. Whether or not they have a position posted is irrelevant.
I agree with Mark about a resume showcasing a complete career progression. I think any senior executive does himself an injustice when trying to disguise age through an incomplete history. And the recruiters I talk with agree with me. The Blackberry principle has eliminated the need for details going back past 12-15 or so years, but the progression is critical to most reviewers.
I think age becomes a sticking point when there is no compelling value proposition. When there is value ... you can either make a company money, save a company money, take away their pain, or get them unstuck ... how old you are matters much less. Of course there are some companies who discriminate and there is nothing you can do about it ... except move on. A company in pain is ripe for the picking by a candidate who has evidence that he knows how to take away that pain.
Web 2.0
Just as in any industry, there are good recruiters and bad recruiters ... and the bad ones certainly are rearing their ugly heads and giving the whole industry a bad name. But it points up the importance of establishing recruiter relationships long before you need them. Since recruiters work for the company, not the candidate ... the don't find jobs, they fill them ... spending time with unemployed candidates doesn't make them any money. So, most don't. However, recruiters will stay in touch with and communicate opportunities with those A-players with whom they have a long-standing relationship.
I would like to hear your thoughts. I have a pretty good resume, professionally written. I have worked for 24 years in national banks(2), last 11 as CFO. No CPA. I was let go for a "false reason". Since then they have hired a much younger worker. I'm 49.
I have applied to MANY bank CFO jobs where Robert Half is the recruiter. I have yet to receive a call from them.
The problem is Robert Half is dominates the bank CFO recruitment by far. Please share thoughts.
1
RH has to check its boxes, so, if it is specified, they will meet the client's specs. See if you can get to know someone in the local office so they can gauge and appreciate your competency from all sides. Then, perhaps, they will go out on a limb and present you.
As you know, the banking industry is in the midst of issues. Depending on the size and nature of your prior bank experience, private equity or bank consulting firms might be a place to look.
We work with such in soCal and it seems all are busy.
God bless your efforts!
I have applied to MANY bank CFO jobs via Robert Half. I have yet to receive a call. I am wondering one of three things.
No CPA?
In between jobs?
Age-49: 24 years in banking
Female?
Any thoughts-please be honest. It can only help.
Dana,
Assuming you do have a value-oriented resume, then perhaps it's your strategy. Anytime you "play the posted position game," you spend a lot of time throwing resumes at anything that looks like a fit but most likely isn't. The result is ... crickets ... and a lot of frustration.
If a company requires a CPA, then RH will only be reaching out to those who have a CPA. If a CPA is not required, then it should not be an impediment to a recruiter contacting you for something that is a good fit.
With regard to your "in between jobs" question, that's a real possibility. Passive candidates (those who are employed) are infinitely more valuable and attractive as potential candidates than those who are unemployed. Certainly not fair, but absolutely true.
If you are in a job search where you are always hunting recruiters but recruiters are NOT hunting you, there's a problem somewhere ... and it probably isn't with the recruiter. You have to know the rules in order to get in the game and win at it!
Warmly,
Cindy
To what extent does the age of the hiring manager influence the way that recruiters will screen candidates and/or the way that final hiring decisions are made? Does a 30 something manager feel comfortable having a 50+ person with perhaps 20 more years experience working for them? Do they feel threatened because that "seasoned professional" could show them up?
How do you as a "seasoned professional" convey your intention to help rather than to expose; that you are not looking to be promoted each year but to provide continuing value?
Let's hear from some "younger" managers who have interviewed/hired older employees!
Companies will often find a way to get to the answer they seek. Old dogs learn new tricks every day, often more easily than youg dogs with less experience to build on. Older workers may, or may not, appear to cost more [invoice price], but are often much less costly in operation [output without errors], a reminder once again that price is not cost.
For those seeking a position, I do not recommend omitting either your year of college graduation or other indicators of your age. Senior managment recruiters ignore resumes without year of graduation as they do not want to have to call to get that data. A more experienced candidate's most valuable asset should be his or her age...the basis for their ability to solve problems. Sell it with confidence! Consider emphasizing searching for consulting opportunities rathe than "job hunting", while remaining open to any discussion of permanent or temporary assignments. This can work...I have done it way past 50.
I work in a different environment than most, a California State employee in higher education, but I think some of what I am seeing while serving on hiring committees may still apply.
1. Eliminating and combining mid-level and senior positions
Due to budget cuts, higher paid positions have been combined with current positions already filled, for instance in the last two years I saw to amazing VP’s get laid off and now the VP of another division is running two divisions. The next action has been to use a fraction of the previous budget to create an entry level position or a temporary entry level position for an additional support coordinator for the person now doing two jobs.
2. Assumptions based on application factors that relate to salary expectations
Due to a set salary budget, the enormous amount of applicants we are getting even for positions that are $28-35,000.00 a year most recruiters and hiring committees are not even thinking about age. They don’t even consider applicants whose previous salaries are not in Ball Park, the next group overlooked is applicants with education beyond a BA and it’s all about affordability and not wasting everyone’s time when there is no room to negotiate. This isn’t official MO, anyone on the hiring committee can bring one of those applicants to the prospects meeting, but then the third question comes up, how long will this person stay in this position once the economy improves? This brings to mind something my father always said…. spell AssUMe out loud please!
3. Upper management and higher paid positions being filled from within
In my environment the key is just getting through the doors and working a lower paid position while establishing a reputation. This doesn’t take long, I have seen many people going for and getting the position they are really qualified for after just 3-6 months, obviously the position has to be available. This is why my next point may be useful.
4. How experienced even formally retired applicants are getting through the door……
I don’t know how well known it is to those outside of my environment, but the best way in the door without a bunch of summary judgments locking you out, is what I call using the side door. State entities have contracts with specific temp agencies, we have to use the agency the State contracts with, for us Manpower. Due to the time and paperwork required to fill a staff position in the CSU system, most managers can get a Manpower temp within two weeks. The upside is that especially in the Finance and Business operations area’s is that if the temp does a good job and fits in, the Manpower temp has been hired almost every time once the position is officially opened for recruitment (2-3 month process most of the time). As I have said, when higher paid positions are available, we promote from within first. I should point out that unlike most sectors you are probably going to apply within, we are not allowed to just cycle through temp workers and keep the position from needing to be filled, so the position will open, someone will be hired as permanent. If you have a hard working temp, it makes the most sense to keep them.
Due to many retired business and finance professionals coming to us through the temp agency and then getting hired, I have gained so much more knowledge, received guidance and gained a political savvy necessary to survive in the current environment.
I am at a stage in my career where I have been the CFO, VP of Finance, etc, but do not want to continue 12 hour days and out of state travel. I am not trying to work less. I just want to find a job that is closer to home (no more 3+ hour daily commutes). I am willing and financially able to take less money because my children are grown and the house is paid off. However when I apply for controller opportunities, I have been told that my experience level is beyond what they can afford. They seem to ignore my cover letter which explains that I am seeking a better quality of life. How can I effectively convey this? It seems like recruiters and HR people can not understand that at a point in one's career there comes a time when you no longer have to chase the $$ or get the to the next step on the ladder. It's like everyone MUST be a type A constantly looking to advance or you have something wrong with you. It is very frustrating!
Thomas,
It "sounds" from your comment as though you are playing the posted position game in seeking that quality of life position. That strategy will most likely NEVER work. My suggestions: networking with third party power players in your target market - and - a clear, compelling value proposition as part of your communication message.
The posted position game is one of exclusion, not inclusion. If you don't have the requisite skills that ensure the boxes are all neatly checked, you're disqualified ... immediately. And taking a step back in your career will clearly disqualify you from consideration in a process that is nothing short of a train wreck.
Has underemployment been raised as an issue in this thread. Over hiring (or underemployment) leads to under utilized resources which are hard to retain and end up costing the company money. ROI in this type of hire is low (or perhaps negative).
Filed Under:
Human Capital