The information contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not legal, tax, financial nor other professional advice or counsel. For more information please see the website’s User Agreement and Disclaimer. By participating in the discussion boards or using the services provided on this Site, you are confirming that you have read and agreed to the terms of the User Agreement and Disclaimer, as well as Proformative's Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy.
"You have too many years of experience and you can't teach a dog new tricks"
Posted Sun, 10/18/2009 - 6:58am by (Business Strategist/Consultant)
Details
- Accounting
- Finance
- CFO
- MBA
- Risk Management
- 2999 reads
Comments
Right or wrong, I think companies believe they are saving $
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 experienc...
Right or Wrong;how to navigate?
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 management and ourselves that we ought to look at the qualifications first and see the fit. If it fits then move on from there but don't get hung up in your shorts about age.
If they care about age, you don't want to work there!
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 career if they have been out in the workforce more than X years. I just can't imagine worse advice and when I have asked who they got that advice from it most often is coming from recruiters. That figures because most recruiters don't know jack about working in the real corporate world and know even less about managing corporate professionals or being an executive. The vast, vast majority of recruiters have never held a corporate post of note and yet too often they hold the fate of real, even senior, businesspeople in their hands b/c those people are desperate and want to get that next job.
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.
Over 25 years experience and over 50
Value of seasoned job seaker
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 excel project. Previously the company allocated their overhead both indirect and direct through a very complex step down worksheet. This year he wanted change the allocation, but was worried that the change by itself might cause large swings in overhead rates, a valid worry for any controller. A few days later I gave him a new worksheet showing last year’s overhead spread the original way compared to using the new method. The comparison looked good, when the new overhead was placed in the worksheet it worked first time through. The controller’s involvement with the new spreadsheet was less than an hour.
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...
"You have too many years of experience and you can't teach a dog
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.
Show the value proposition
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)
Maybe it's the recruiters...
I'm going to open a can of worms here by suggesting that a lot of the problem may be on the recruiter/HR person managing the search. When I look at the comments above they tend to argue the merits (or lack) of hiring people with experience. The unfortunate reality is that most recruiting (not all, but the vast majority) is controlled not by the hiring manager, the CFO or CEO in many of our cases, but rather by a recruiter (internal or external) or someone in HR.
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...
Perhaps it's the recruiters...or maybe the company culture?
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,...
Context and relevance are key
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 marketing directly to a specific customer, that hiring manager.
Maybe it's the recruiters...
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, jus...
HR and the screening.
I think b/c we've given up
Age
Go around the Recruiters
Strategic vs Hands On
Old Dogs Can be Taught New Tricks
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. ...