career

Job Outlook: Better!

March 2, 2011

Following a salary survey that gave accounting students something to cheer about, the National Association of Colleges and Employers has some good news for the rest of the class of 2011 — February data shows that entry-level hiring is on the rise. NACE’s college hiring index — scaled from 0 to 200, with 100 as a base indicating no change from the previous month — revealed that from January to December 112 employer organizations reported what amounted to a jump in entry-level hiring from 120.9 to 126.3. This is the largest increase the NACE index has reported so far. NACE further notes that 53.3 percent of survey respondents said they plan on hiring more college grads than they did last year, and that students should expect more aggressive on-campus recruiting. And Beyond.com ‘s Fourth Quarter 2010 Career Trend Analysis Report found that 78 percent of online classifieds are for positions that require less than one year of experience — which, according to Bnet.com , might make entry-level jobs positions an area of growth following the 2008 recession. The NACE index shows, however, that the 126.3 February figure still falls short of November 2010s reported hiring index, which weighed in at 127.7. Are you optimistic about job prospects? Let us know how you feel in the comments section.

Read the full article →

Ariela M. Migdal: Women: Do You Work Just for the Sake of Working?

March 1, 2011

Detrix Young, a Wal-Mart employee in Aiken, South Carolina, reports that she sat in a store-wide meeting where one of her female co-workers asked why the men in the store earned more than the women. One of the male managers answered that “men are working as the heads of their households, while women are just working for the sake of working.” Another male manager laughed, even though several of the women were single mothers trying to make ends meet on a Wal-Mart paycheck. Young is one of more than a hundred current and former Wal-Mart employees who submitted declarations to a federal court in support of their joint claim that Wal-Mart ― the nation’s largest private employer ― discriminated against women in stores around the country, paying them less than male workers and promoting them less frequently. Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear the case to decide whether the women may bring their claims as a class action, or must bring their cases one at a time. The ACLU, along with the National Women’s Law Center and joined by 32 other civil rights organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief today supporting the women. In order to go forward as a class action, the women have to show that the discrimination they experienced has common elements ― that the sexist comments and pay inequity reported by Detrix Young in Aiken, South Carolina had enough in common with women’s experiences in Wal-Mart stores around the country to justify hearing the cases together as one. The evidence presented in the early stages of the case ― including the women’s declarations ― shows that the archaic stereotype about women workers that Young described is also reflected in other women’s accounts of how managers at Wal-Mart justified women’s lower pay. In St. Petersburg, Florida, Ramona Scott reports that her store manager explained that men at Wal-Mart made more than women because “Men are here to make a career and women aren’t. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money.” In Riverside, California, Stephanie Odle testified that her District Director of Operations explained an apparent gender-based pay inequality by saying that the man in question “supports his wife and his two kids;” her store manager in a Sacramento Sam’s Club (a division of Wal-Mart) explained women’s unequal pay by saying “Those girls don’t need any more money; they make enough as it is.” And the list goes on. As infuriating as they are, these explanations by Wal-Mart managers for unequal pay aren’t just the isolated opinions of a few sexists. On the contrary: the stereotype that men are their families’ breadwinners, while women work for “pin money” is deeply entrenched, and has long been used by discriminatory employers to justify paying women less. The stereotype is not only insidious, it’s increasingly untrue ― the number of women who are also the primary breadwinners for their families has risen dramatically in the past few decades, and is now about 4 in 10 mothers . The other declarations submitted by Wal-Mart employees also reveal that outdated stereotypes were present at Wal-Mart and were used to justify inequality. One of the most common is the belief that, as Tammy Hall says her male store manager explained to another male manager in Alabama, all women should be “at home with a bun in the oven” and “barefoot and pregnant.” Courts have recognized that, when this attitude is used to deny women equal opportunities for advancement, it violates the civil rights laws. Yet when Julie Donovan, who worked in Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, complained to her supervisor, a senior manager, after she says another senior manager told her that she “should raise a family and stay in the kitchen” instead of advancing her career, she was told to shrug it off and have a thick skin. Even women who didn’t have families report being subjected to this stereotype, like Karla Rojas of Dallas, Texas, who attests that her District Manager suggested that she resign from her job as an assistant manager and “find a husband to settle down with and have children to relieve” her “work-related stress.” And women including Geanette Bell of Pontotoc, Mississippi, report that managers assumed they wouldn’t “want to be in the Management Training Program” (despite her inquiries) because they would not want to relocate their children. Discrimination against women based on the assumption that they will not be able to perform in supervisory positions because of their presumed parenting duties is called “family responsibility discrimination,” and courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recognize it as illegal sex discrimination. Finally, many of the women report being denied opportunities to do work considered the province of men. Sheila Hall of Conway, Arkansas, states that when she asked to work in hardware, her manager said, “you’re a girl, why do you want to work in hardware?” Alix McKenna declares that she was told by a manager in Lawrence, Kansas, that she could not be promoted to manage sporting goods because she wouldn’t “want to work with guns.” And Joanne Jaso, a single mother in Bakersfield, California, reports that her store manager refused to consider her for a promotion to a job in electronics because the job was “a man’s job” that required “a lot of heavy lifting.” Perhaps it goes without saying that all of these accounts reflect the belief that women are less valuable workers than men and have no business competing for certain kinds of jobs. The courts should allow the women of Wal-Mart to establish the link between managers’ stereotyped beliefs and the statistical evidence of pay and promotion disparities at Wal-Mart stores around the country by proceeding as a class action.

Read the full article →

Caroline Dowd-Higgins: Marketing Overqualified to Your Advantage in the Job Search

March 1, 2011

If you are lucky enough to land a job interview in this difficult market, make sure you are in control of your message. This is especially important for seasoned candidates who often hear that they are overqualified for a position. With a generation of experienced individuals that were laid off in the recession, organizations are seeing a lot of senior candidates apply for roles below their typical pay grade. It’s up to the veteran candidates to prove their value-add more than ever since many companies are fearful of flight risk and resist taking on individuals whom they believe will only be around until they find a better opportunity. Age discrimination in the employment arena is still rampant and often veiled with the overqualified term. If you find yourself fighting to prove your worth as an experienced professional, here are some selling points to consider when marketing yourself for a new opportunity. Think like the hiring manager. Assuage the company fear factor right off the bat and address flight risk and high salary expectations. If you have done your research, you will know the expected salary range for the position and let your employer know you are realistic about what the position pays. If you have a history of longevity or loyalty to a company, share that so the employer understands you won’t leave the first chance you get a better gig. Enthusiasm works — desperation doesn’t. Explain why you are genuinely interested in the position and why you are a value-add to the organization. Be authentic and sell your skills, competencies, and experiences as a return on investment for the employer. Recruiters can smell desperation in all candidates so focus on opportunities that are really a good fit. It will be better for you and the employer in the long run. Life experience is a good thing. In addition to your education and professional posts, wisdom and life experience are priceless. Develop a compelling story about how your time in the work saddle has empowered you with communication skills and team work abilities that taught you how to play well in the company sandbox and your ability to respond well to constructive criticism. With age comes wisdom . While newbie hires may be shiny and bright with the ink barely dry on their diplomas, a more seasoned professional is more likely to choose an organization based on the company values that match their own. A recent Harvard Business Review discussed how overqualified employees tend to perform better and don’t quit any sooner than other employees. For an experienced hire — it’s more about job satisfaction and fit than merely just finding work. Ability to handle change. A practiced candidate often brings depth to a position and has experience handling challenge and change in the work environment. Showcase your resiliency and flexibility and your willingness to solve problems outside of the box. Show examples of the positive effect you can bring to the workplace. A values re-assessment. The corporate sector was hit hard with lay-offs and down-sizing in the recession and many driven 80+ hour/week careerists have re-evaluated their personal and professional values. Often they are looking for more balance and jobs that are not as high on the company ladder, on purpose. The older worker may be happier in a more middle-rung role because it reflects a values shift that better meets their lifestyle. Be seen before you apply. The power of the informational interview is more important than ever. Most positions aren’t even posted and being overqualified might get your CV weeded out by an HR professional or skill scanning software program before you are ever seriously considered. Reach out to company prospects and request a brief meeting to learn more about the culture and company mission. Be on your best and most approachable behavior in these non threatening sessions and wow them with your personality and know-how. Even if no positions are currently posted, these in-person meetings allow you to be seen and heard so when something does become available you will be well remembered and your over-qualification will not be a threat. The hiring manager may be your daughter’s age. Since the person with the hiring authority may be much younger, it’s important not to scare them when you do land the interview. Be gentle and use humble confidence to tout your professional accomplishments. Put their fears to rest by illustrating how you are successful at relationship building and maintenance in organizations. Mirror the behavior of your hiring manager and make them feel at ease and most importantly, in control! In the best case scenario companies should hire for fit, train for skill, and always hire the best talent available, even if they are more seasoned than the hiring manager and other colleagues. It’s up to the candidate to sell yourself as the ultimate value-add. Be well prepared the next time someone throws the overqualified term in your direction and spin this into a positive return on investment for the company. In the end, no company has control over who stays and who leaves so seriously considering experienced talent should be a no brainer. Caroline Dowd-Higgins authored the book “This Is Not the Career I Ordered” and maintains the career reinvention blog of the same name ( www.carolinedowdhiggins.com ) She is also the Director of Career & Professional Development at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Read the full article →

DFMSim Names Veteran Electronics Executive, Jim Healy as Executive Chairman

February 8, 2011

PALO ALTO, CA–(Marketwire – February 8, 2011) – DFMSim today announced that it has appointed James T. Healy (Jim) to serve as Executive Chairman of the company’s Board of Directors. A veteran electronics industry executive, Healy has spent much of his career building success for US-based and international companies in the semiconductor space. He joins a Board that also includes: DFMSim CEO, Anantha Sethuraman; Raj K. Raheja, Founder of DFMSim; Stephen T. McGrath, CEO of Spencer Trask Emerging Technologies Group; Amiel M. Kornel, senior managing director of Spencer Trask Emerging Technologies Group; and Tom Caulfield, CEO of Caitin, Inc.

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Dire Warnings From a Bear and His Top Stinkers

February 5, 2011

If anything, the latest bummer of an employment report, last month’s creation of just 36,000 jobs, versus a widely anticipated gain of 130,000 to 150,000 jobs, is a renewed S.O.S. that the wave of euphoria engulfing Wall Street may be way overdone. Apparently investors don’t want to hear — or they don’t believe — any dissent. Indicative of this, with the sizzling 12,000 Dow already up about 84% from its March 2009 low of around 6,500 and 20% since late August, investors are once again scurrying to the stock market on the heels of a peppier economy. Last month, for example, they snapped up an estimated $8.3 billion worth of U.S. equity mutual funds, the biggest such buying outburst since May of 2009. But where there’s assent, there’s always dissent just around the corner. One dissenter is Dallas portfolio manager John Del Vecchio, who believes the recent buyers are waking on thin ice, are way too late to the party and predicts a 9,000 Dow later this year, which reminded me — if he’s right — of a noteworthy comment by Robert Louis Stevenson: “Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.” He’s right. Just ask Egyptian president Hosni Mabarak; he can tell you all about it first hand. On a very different scale — call it a financial scale — Del Vecchio believes America’s more than 80 million stock owners should also prepare for their 2011 banquet of consequences. “I wouldn’t buy a stock now with counterfeit money,” he says. That’s highly contrary stuff, given the widespread bullish sentiment sweeping Wall Street. Del Vecchio is practically a lone voice in the wilderness. Still, give the man his due because the 35-year-old portfolio manager is gutsy enough to bet his career he’s right. In effect, he’s essentially attempting to do what not even the bravest matador would do — basically enter a bull ring armed with little more than a ball point pen. Essentially, that’s what our bold market matador did January 27 by launching, in what appeared to be an act of atrocious timing, given the vigor of the market, an exchange-traded short fund — AdvisorShares Active Bear. The Dallas-based fund which manages assets of more than $25 million, is traded on the Big Board under the symbol HDGE. Its thrust: to short equities of companies that it concludes has low earnings quality, aggressive accounting and which may also be understating expenses. Del Vecchio, a forensic accountant and a former hedge fund manager the past 2.5 years at the Ranger Capital Group in Dallas where he averaged a 16.5% gain during that period, singled out the government’s inability to create jobs as one of the key reasons for his bearish outlook. He also spotlighted a number of his top stinkers, stocks he’s short and sees underperforming the market this year by about 20%. These include such well known names as Bank of America, Amazon.Com, Juniper Networks, Avon Products, Kohl’s Corp., Abercrombie & Fitch, Yahoo, Salesforce.Com, Visa, Broadcom Corp. and Stanley Black & Decker. As far as the economy goes, Del Vecchio is convinced it won’t really come back until jobs come back. And QE2 (quantitative easing) is not creating jobs, he says. In conjunction with this, he sees the economy continuing to suffer from shrinking incomes, people dipping into savings to pay their bills, inflation (namely higher food and gas prices) and deepening housing woes. As such, in contrast to most economists, he expects very little economic growth year, with the likelihood of a double-dip recession starting some time in the second half. The economy aside, Del Vecchio also believes the market is foolishly brushing off the Egyptian mess, In particular, he points to the danger of extremists infiltrating any new leadership. “The market has now added a new element of uncertainty,” he says. The manager is also worried about the overwhelming amount of bullish sentiment pervading Wall Street, noting there are three bullish investment advisers for every bearish adviser, that 93% of stocks are trading above their 200-day moving average and that 80% of equities are trading above their 50-day moving average. The risk here, says Del Vecchio, is there’s so much complacency, with too many investors following the herd. The added danger, he notes, is that “investors could follow the herd off the roof.” An obvious question: With the market as strong as it is, what is the trigger that could drive the Dow down to 9,000? Del Vecchio offers two of them: debt rollovers involving Europe or U.S. municipalities. Running out his current list of his stinkers, our bear points to such additional shorts as Hasbro, Digital River, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Herbalife, Netapp, Citrix Systems, Paccar, Netgear, Foot Locker, Trinity Industries, QLogic, Sandisk Corp., WMS Industries, Rackspace Hosting, Expeditors International, Asiainfo-Linkage and Pegasystems. A golf lover, Del Vecchio shoots in the high 70s and low 80s, he tells me. That’s impressive. The $64,000 question, of course, is whether a bear can tee off as well in a bull market? What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Where Will You Be A Month From Now?

February 4, 2011

You’re a month into your New Year’s Resolution, everything is going great and you’re putting your friends to shame. Good for you. Your “no excuses” strategy has paid off and if you keep this up you’ll reach your goal by the end of the year. Problem is you have a last minute business trip this week and an unexpected house guest next week which is going to throw you off. Still it’s only a couple of weeks and you can get back on track by mid-February. Riiiiiight. Think of what plagued you the last time you couldn’t achieve a goal. No matter what the reason was, you didn’t accomplish it because you stopped taking action towards it. Things may have started like this time. You had a good month, and then a couple of things got in the way and you lost all of your momentum. Unfortunately, you never regained it. It’s okay to get temporarily derailed. The key is to keep temporary from becoming permanent. This sort of thing happens all the time at work. You have a project with a corresponding deadline and something urgent comes up. You either work around the clock to get both done or negotiate for an extended deadline on the project. The project gets done, it doesn’t get dropped. CEO’s know that unexpected things will occur – everything from product recalls to a key executive leaving. Things might get delayed but they’re not given up on. Part of succeeding in business is overcoming the hurdles, dealing with the unexpected and getting the thing done. While you can do that for work, it’s sometimes harder to do that for your own personal goals. One reason is that it’s easy to slough off if you’re only accountable to yourself. Why do we let ourselves off the hook so easily? Mainly because we’re only letting ourselves down. Too bad there can’t be a project meeting about your personal goal. Since being accountable to yourself is more difficult, the best way to get back on track is to think about your motivation around the goal. Tap into the desire that you had at the outset – the reason you wanted to be promoted, lose10 pounds or write that book. Here’s how to reignite your motivation: look at a picture of your end goal every day. Keep it fresh by getting a new visual every month; keep taking steps towards your goal. Even if the steps are small, each step has you moving forward and puts you in a rhythm. People who consistently reach goals aren’t necessarily smarter or more energetic. What they are is persistent and everybody has that ability. So, the next time you have the flu or a holiday intervenes – like Presidents Day :) – use the suggestions above to get back into the rhythm. Then you’ll know where you’ll be a month from now – tracking towards your goal! “Vitality shows in not only the ability to persist but the ability to start over.” ~F. Scott Fitzgerald Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Learning To Walk: Fear, Shame And Your Underwater Mortgage

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Nearly one in every four homeowners across the country owe more on their home than it’s worth. Once a month, those 10.8 million are faced with a question that cuts to the core of the American Dream and offers a confusing collision between a deep-seated sense of personal obligation and a cold, simple business calculation: Should I pay my mortgage? For decades, there was only one answer for most people: Of course I should keep paying, it’s the right thing to do. Besides, the argument went, a home is a great investment. Today, in the wake of the most seismic housing collapse in the nation’s history, that logic has increasingly been challenged by homeowners despondent about their lack of options. Although researchers find that some underwater borrowers who could continue paying their mortgages strategically default anyway, the vast majority continue to pay. Many homeowners, out of a combined sense of fear, shame, courage and morality, resist making what is otherwise a logical financial decision. Walking away from a home, however, is more than the sum of a few business decisions. For many homeowners, it’s either an act of civic defiance against a system they no longer buy into or the end result of being shuffled around by institutions that don’t help them solve their financial problems. While walking away is a frightening and dangerous step into the unknown, millions have beaten the path in the past few years. To find out what it’s like to walk away, The Huffington Post asked readers who were considering making the move, or who had already done so, to write in and share their stories. That was in January 2010. A year later, we followed up with them to see how they reflected on the experience. We initially heard from 58 people from all over the country who fit the criteria. Ten of them have become unreachable over the past year, but the remaining 48 were eager to share their stories. A year later, only eight of them are still paying their mortgage. Some requested anonymity because of the shame associated with foreclosure; others requested it because they don’t want to draw retribution from the banks. But there were those who were happy to share their tales on the record. Almost universally, the homeowners we spoke with took personal responsibility for their situations, declining to blame the banks or politicians. Yet nearly all of them faced similar struggles in their attempts to work with their banks: lost paperwork and little interest in finding a financial compromise. The hostility people felt from their banks made the decision to walk away easier for many, and some now even revel in it, celebrating a break from a system they see as rigged against them. “We get daily calls from creditors and banks that threaten this and that, and I just laugh knowing I am helping to bring down the system that has brought us all down and continues to reap giant profits at the expense of the little guy,” said one. Others are still haunted with shame by the decision. Most said they felt a mix of both. Many of the homeowners said they felt alone and powerless in their interactions with the banks and were curious to hear what other people in similar situations had to say. “There should be support groups for people who have to deal with these banks,” said Richmond Burton, 50, a soon-to-be-former resident of Long Island’s East Hampton. “It can drive you crazy. I’m very good at dealing with pressure, and they made it feel like you’re at their mercy.” Following Burton’s suggestion, HuffPost contacted Meetup.com and set up the infrastructure for underwater homeowners to do just that. This coming Tuesday, homeowners across the country can use Meetup’s tool to organize small gatherings of homeowners who have walked away or who have considered doing it. Often, the best advice comes from a neighbor. Burton’s effort to get out from under his home became a second job, he said. “I never would have thought that the American Dream was to not own a home, but that’s what mine became. I’m not ever going to take another mortgage. If I can avoid it, I’m not ever going to borrow money again,” said Burton. After years of failing to get approval for a “short sale” of his home, or even a decent mortgage modification, Burton said he stopped paying in August 2009 to help himself financially and to get his bank’s attention. (A short sale occurs when lenders accept a sum less than the outstanding value than a mortgage loan, in lieu of forcing a borrower into foreclosure.) He contacted HuffPost several months later and said he was still trying to get a short sale approved or persuade the bank to take the house in exchange for simply letting him walk away. The bank was refusing. When we reconnected a year later, he said he had just signed documents that would let him walk away without a penalty, but he was forfeiting his $120,000 down payment. What did it feel like to walk away from that much money? “It feels great,” Burton said without hesitation. “I’m starting again. I’ve still got my talent, I’ve got my intelligence. I’ve got my health. At least I’m free of the enormous amount of stress that I had and the frustration of doing the best I could and it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t working. Ultimately, I made a decision that my physical and mental health was more valuable than this house and my investment in it.” Burton went more than a year without paying his mortgage before persuading the bank to accept a short sale. “The mortgage company was not wiling to work with me. The businesses that we have created to serve us are enslaving us. They’re not listening to us, they don’t even pretend to care about us. Really, our only option is to do what I’m doing, which is to fire them all. I’m doing everything I can to remove them from my life,” he said. Lenders and servicers say such decisions will destroy borrowers’ credit record and render them non-entities in the U.S. economy. Burton said that when he bought his Long Island home in 2000, his credit score had been somewhere in the 600s, an average figure. He allowed HuffPost to run his credit score through Equifax, one of three major credit-monitoring bureaus. As of Tuesday, after his ordeal of three years, his score is 614 — below average, but not savaged. A few months ago, he had no trouble buying an iPhone. He ignores the many credit card solicitations that come his way. The purpose of HuffPost’s investigation was not to determine who or what was to blame for the predicament that the homeowners found themselves in or whether they are deserving of sympathy — twin concerns that dominate the foreclosure discussion and will no doubt continue with ferocity in the comment section below this story. Our question was more direct: What are the costs and benefits of walking away from an underwater mortgage — not for the banks or the neighborhood or for society as a whole, but for the real people making the decision? MORAL STRUGGLE When Ernie Soto first wrote HuffPost, his mechanic business was falling apart and he was behind on his mortgage. Efforts to modify his loan had gone nowhere and he was considering filing for bankruptcy, walking away and buying a mobile trailer for his family to live in. “We laugh about it now, but we went through hell and back and back to hell,” he said a year later, after filing for bankruptcy and telling the bank it could have the house. Rock bottom came when he drove to the local vet to have his dog put to sleep. The repo man was in the parking lot. “I can’t leave until I take your truck,” he told Soto, 47. “It was just another low moment in our lives,” Soto said. Soto drained his savings paying the mortgage so he could keep his credit score high and maintain hope that a loan would come through for his small business. But it never did. Shortly after writing to HuffPost at the beginning of 2010, he and his family walked away. “We’d had enough. We moved to a trailer park, a mobile home. We bought my dad’s RV, figured we’ve gotta live somewhere.” Technically, Soto still owns his home and he routinely finds gigantic bills in his mail. At this point, he says, he can only chuckle darkly at the letters. The bank doesn’t seem to understand that he has walked away, that he’s done with them. Had he realized it would take his bank so long to foreclose, he said, he could have stayed in his house for free, but he was afraid that his bank would move faster than the guy who repossessed his truck. And didn’t want to put his family through the trauma of an eviction. “I was in unfamiliar territory. I don’t lose houses every so often,” he said. “I was thinking it’d be like the car, they’d come throw me out in three months.” Soto, a conservative Republican, said he has come to terms with his choice. “It was a tough decision. We thought about it and thought about it. I want to do the honorable thing, but wait a minute here — I didn’t get respect from the mortgage companies when I was asking for help. I didn’t get respect from the banks when I was asking for help. Now here we are, we bailed everybody out,” he said. “Am I just supposed to be the good Samaritan and just stay there? I asked the mortgage company, ‘What’s gonna keep me from giving you the keys?’” Banks are responding to that question by using their power in Washington — influence purchased with the checks people send to their banks each month — to make it financially tougher to liberate oneself from an underwater mortgage, just as millions are on the brink of making their break. ‘THERE IS SUCH A THING IN THE BIBLE’ Shelley Kluz said she saw a house in her neighborhood just like her own selling for $90,000. “It made me sick to my stomach, because we were already house-poor,” she said of the place she and her husband paid $325,000 for in 2004. Her husband, she said, wanted to cling to the house, but she wanted out, with three kids in a 960-square-foot home in Vacaville, Calif. “It was a big moral decision for us. We talked to our pastor, talked to our parents and had a really hard time coming to grips with the idea that we might not pay our mortgage, because we were always the people who paid their bills,” she said. The pastor said that if making the payments was harming the family, it was okay to walk away. “There is such a thing in the Bible as debt forgiveness,” she said. “We didn’t want to get in bad with God, doing something morally He thinks is awful.” In July 2009, on the informal advice of a bank representative, the Kluzes stopped paying their mortgage to encourage their bank to approve a short sale. The bank initially accepted a short sale offer, but the couple was told that investors had later rejected it. The bank suggested Shelley Kluz apply for a modification, apparently unaware she’d been trying for the past year. She did so anyway and was rejected. The family was still in the house when she wrote to HuffPost in early 2010. “We are in a weird limbo state of waiting. So, long story short, we are walking away. We are so fed up with this whole process,” she wrote at the time. Six months later, she and her family moved out, a year after they stopped paying. For $1,550, she said, they now rent a three-bedroom, two-bath home with a yard in the front and back — a feature their first home, with a monthly mortgage payment of $2,250, did not have. The new home is twice the size of the old one with twice as many bathrooms. Their old home was foreclosed upon a month after they left and, Shelley Kluz said, is still on the market for $142,000. They only moved five minutes away, she said, and she still drives by it occasionally. Her 7-year-old has taken it the hardest, having known no other home, she said, followed by her husband. “I think that’s just a guy thing,” she said. “I think he was more emotionally invested in the house because he spent a lot of his free time fixing it up. And then there was the whole stigma of being part of the foreclosure crisis.” “The American Dream, I don’t think that that’s really something that everyone should aspire to. There’s more to life than owning a home,” said the 37-year-old mother of three children. “This teaches you, what do you place value on? A piece of property? What things are really important?” Her family, she said, felt guilty about not upholding their end of the contract. “But that said, it was the best thing we could have done. Since we walked away, our house has only dropped further and we had no hope of getting out from under it,” she said. Now, “We actually have available spending money to do fun things with our family, we pay less money for a completely finished house, my kids have a backyard with grass, and best of all, we can breathe.” ‘PEOPLE SHOULDN’T FEEL ASHAMED’ Del Phillips stopped paying on his Chicago condo in November 2009, two months before he contacted HuffPost and 10 months after he lost his job. His short sale efforts were rejected and he was denied a modification because, according to a letter sent to him by his bank, his “unemployment is not of a permanent nature.” He was also rejected by Obama’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program, he said. He took his story to the local press and was stunned at the vicious response from readers. “We encourage people to work hard, get an education and strive for things. But, when there’s a bump along the way and we need a helping hand for a short time, we’re spit at without any support,” he said. “For a country that touts its devout following of Christianity — which is rooted in the teachings of a Jesus who said to love thy neighbor and help thy brother and sister — it was really a fun lesson in hypocrisy.” And the reality was that every institution Philips dealt with — from the government to his bank — offered him no choice but to walk away. Phillips filed for bankruptcy and plans to move out in March, knowing he could be foreclosed on any moment. More than 15 months of paying only the condo association fees helped him get by during his jobless stretch. And the bank was right: his unemployment was not permanent. He found a job in October that will pay enough for him to afford to rent when he moves — this coming Saturday, 16 months after he stopped paying his mortgage. “I feel like we have a stigma on things like bankruptcy, but those people shouldn’t feel ashamed,” Phillips said. “Yes, some people abuse, like Teresa on ‘Real Housewives,’ but I’m hoping everyday people who are going through this can find some strength in what I’ve done and ask, ‘Why should I care about the bank if the bank doesn’t care about me?’” Despite his bankruptcy, he said, he has more offers for credit cards than he can handle. HAPPIER, BUT NOT PROUD Andrea of Oakland, Calif., who let her property go into foreclosure last year, says it was “clearly financially the thing to do.” After buying her first condo in the Oakland foothills, her property’s value dropped from $440,000 to $250,000 in just three years, and her marriage fell apart. “In terms of quality of life and emotional pressure, I’m much happier now,” said the 38-year-old Andrea, who didn’t want her last name used in this story. Now she pays $1,500 a month for an apartment in Rockridge, one of the East Bay’s most coveted areas. Its leafy streets and atmospheric cafes make it a particularly desirable neighborhood for singles. In some cases, the mortgage money not going to banks finds its way into the local economy and gives walk-aways an ability to breathe easier. “I bought groceries and not just a few bags, but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change,” says Zannah Becker, who stopped paying her mortgage in Seattle. “I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter.” Having worked as a loan assistant, Andrea told HuffPost she initially thought she’d be able to navigate the system. “I figured I would be well-equipped in my knowledge from my previous job about how to figure it out,” she said, “and I was shocked honestly at their level of disinterest — it was either disinterest on their part in working it out, or lack a of just being organized. But to me, them not being organized to work it out was a symptom of there not being a financial incentive for them to work it out.” When the bank finally foreclosed on her, Andrea said she just let it happen — she felt there was nothing else she could do. “I had gotten in over my head, and I had gone through a divorce, and I was struggling to re-balance my life financially,” she said. When asked if she had advice for homeowners in similar situations, she said people shouldn’t be afraid of walking away. “I think if someone is being responsible and trying to work it out, and they give it everything they can, then it’s okay to do what you have to do, like a business would,” she said. “A lot a lot of people are going through it right now, so maybe five or 10 years down the road, there won’t be so much stigma.” Still, she asked HuffPost to keep her full name a secret. “To be honest, it’s just embarrassing and not something I’m proud of,” she said. Shaming homeowners is one option for a bank dealing with someone who has made the calculation that they are better off walking, and that’s part of the pressure to stay that homeowners we spoke to felt. Homeowners also say they’ve felt little support from the federal government, particularly through its highly-touted, and largely ineffective, Home Affordable Mortgage Program, or HAMP. The Obama administration set up the program to help homeowners modify their mortgages but very little modification has occurred. In fact, HAMP may have been more helpful to banks than to homeowners A group of senior Treasury officials, which included Secretary Tim Geithner, admitted as much to financial bloggers at a meeting this summer. “Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole,” wrote one blogger of the meeting. “Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least…The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks.” Politicians and the media tag-teamed homeowners thinking of walking away last summer. Republicans cited the Wall Street Journal in successfully pushing language through the House that would punish strategic defaulters. “The Wall Street Journal has reported on families that have chosen to stop paying their mortgage and instead use the extra money they are saving each month to ‘buy season tickets to Disneyland…take a Carnival cruise to Mexico…’ and go out to dinner more often,” reads an email from a top House floor staffer GOP offices. House Republican leadership in an e-mail to colleagues explaining the anti-strategic-default effort. The legislation didn’t become law, but it sent a signal. Fannie Mae, the government-owned titan of the mortgage industry, has also been ready to warn homeowners about their financial duties. “Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting,” Terence Edwards, a Fannie executive, said in a June statement . Edwards said homeowners who strategically default or fail to work “in good faith” to avert foreclosure would be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. Freddie Mac, Fannie’s government-owned counterpart, has adopted the same policy. Fannie, in its statement, also warned it would pursue “deficiency judgments” in court that would allow it to recoup from borrowers the difference between the value of a home in foreclosure and the outstanding loan a bank still has on its books. After inflating the bubble until it burst, banks essentially now want to be insulated from their mistakes by dunning borrowers for every last penny. Deficiency judgments are allowed in 39 states and were a nagging concern to many of the homeowners we spoke to. The IRS may also loom over homeowners who walk away. Under current law, thanks to a measure spearheaded by Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) in 2007, the IRS cannot come after homeowners after they walk away. Before that law took effect, if a bank took, say, a $200,000 hit on a foreclosed home and “forgave” the debt, that forgiveness would be counted as taxable income for the former homeowner. A note to the fence-sitters: Miller’s law expires at the end of 2012. FAMILY VALUES Ray Scott, 45, lives with his wife and two kids in Ferndale, Mich., a suburb of Detroit, where the house he bought for $140,000 five years ago is now worth $90,000. “Last year we were trying to figure out whether it would make sense to walk away from the house or not, considering we’re never going to make it back — at least not in my lifetime — the equity that we already lost,” he said. Scott mulled many options, including foreclosure and a short sale, but the bank wouldn’t approve a short sale and he feared walking away would ruin his credit. Scott said he ultimately decided it was in the family’s best interest to stay. With his wife in nursing school, she needed a good credit rating to qualify for student loans. “If we’d decided to let the home go into foreclosure, or tried to go through with a short sale, that would have had an immediate negative impact on her credit rating, and it would have made it really difficult for her to qualify for student loans,” Scott said. “I didn’t want her to be in that position, where she wouldn’t be able to finance her education.” Further, with both his sons recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Scott felt staying put and having a stable place for his kids was important. “We live in a good community,” he said. “There are good schools, good people, we know all our neighbors. People look out for each other here.” If not for the family concerns, Scott said he would have walked away in a heartbeat. “If it had just been myself and my wife, if the kids hadn’t been involved and she’d been all done with school, it would have been a really easy decision to make to walk away,” Scott said. “We’re so far under, we’re never going to recover the amount of money that we’ve already lost.” HOME IS HOME Kirk Arthur, a 43-year-old software sales manager from Miami, bought his house for $285,000 in 2008. At the time, he thought it was a steal: the house had been on the market for $450,000 only a year earlier. Now he estimates it’s worth just $150,000. “We figured the price couldn’t drop much lower,” Arthur told HuffPost. “Now we can’t foresee our condo appreciating even close to the $285,000 we paid for it two years ago.” Fortunately, Arthur said, he and his husband were able to negotiate with the bank to refinance their mortgage loan to a 4 percent interest rate, reducing their payments by $500 per month. He feels like things have turned out all right. “At the end of the day we were never in any danger of being homeless or even losing our home,” Arthur said in an email. “Yes, one of us lost our job during the hard times (me), but we managed through … I found a job within two weeks of getting laid off — twice. The job I have now is in line with my salary requirements. It’s sort of a happy ending.” Though the value of his home continues to drop, Arthur says he’s not interested in moving. It was hard to find a home that fit his needs and budget in an area where he wanted to live, Arthur said, and moving again would be expensive. “I’m not 25 years old, I’m 43,” he said, “I’ve got stuff.” What’s more, Arthur says that while property values in the area have dropped, the price of rentals has risen, minimizing any potential walkaway savings. But more than anything, it’s the idea of home that Arthur is unwilling to relinquish. “It comes from my parents,” he said of his desire to own. “Your home, your house is such a symbol of status, an important indication of where you are in life,” he added. “You can paint it, express yourself, make it your own … We’re happy in Miami.” FORECLOSURE AS THE NEW DIVORCE Jon Maddux is CEO of You Walk Away, a California-based company that helps homeowners navigate foreclosure. Founded in 2007, the company has assisted more than 4,000 people navigate foreclosure, according to its website. Maddux told HuffPost that fewer and fewer people are sobbing when they call for help. He said that’s because of growing cracks in the old chestnut that foreclosure victims are “financially irresponsible” or “deadbeats.” Same as what happened with divorce, he said. “People thought of it as horrific if someone was to get a divorce,” said Maddux. “And then, over the years, it was like, well, okay, they got divorced. It’s understandable because that’s what a lot of people do.” Some 60 to 70 percent of You Walk Away’s clients actually can afford their mortgage payments, Maddux says; most people just need assistance in handling an exceptionally-bad property investment. Maddux thinks renting is the future; statistics bear that out. According to U.S. Census data released this week, homeownership rates have dipped to their lowest level since 1998. “You can do whatever you need to do,” said Maddux of renting. “It’s important to be able to move if you find a job … in another city.” TRAPPED ON AN ISLAND Brian Shiro, 32, lives with his wife and 3-year-old son in Ewa Beach on Oahu, where he said the house he bought for $411,000 in October 2005 is now worth only around $250,000. Shiro, who said he earns a six-figure salary working as a geophysicist, says he can afford his mortgage, but half of his income goes to making the monthly payments. The bigger problem though, is the lack of freedom. He’d like to pursue other career opportunities, he says, but stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if he moves now. Shiro bets that in 10 or 15 years, his home will recover its value, but even that assumption is a gamble. In the meantime, he’s unhappy being trapped on the island. “I’ve had to turn down some job offers, I’ve had to reconsider educational opportunities,” says Shiro, who recently applied to a doctoral program in civil and environmental engineering in the San Francisco Bay Area. “All sorts of things that would advance my career would require relocation,” he said. What’s more, his wife is pregnant with their second child, and Shiro feels his family has outgrown the space. “A four-member family in a small town home is a little cramped,” he said. “It’s an aspect you don’t hear talked a lot about too is people who are playing by the rules, making the payments, but for whatever reason just want to try to get on with their lives and can’t because they’re stuck in a holding pattern.” PEER PRESSURE When he contacted HuffPost last year, Wayne King said he was trying to do a short sale on his house in Columbus, Ohio, which he’d bought in 2002 for $128,000. Six years later, in 2008, he left his job as a professor at Ohio State University for a new gig at a software company outside of Boston. The short-sale process hadn’t been going well, despite the new floors and carpets King said he and his wife had installed. “When I owe $107,000, I can’t afford to take $80,000,” he wrote, referring to the lowball offers he’d received. “I am up-to-date on my mortgage, but I don’t know how long I can afford to keep paying the mortgage along with utilities and upkeep in one state and rent in another state.” By then, King had already soured on the folk wisdom about homeownership. “People are fed this storyline that buying a home is the best investment you can make,” he wrote. “Something that will always appreciate and never lose value, but buying a home has been the worse investment I have ever made.” His attempts at a short sale didn’t pan out. King said this year that his lender appraised the home at a level nobody would pay. He said he looked into renting the place out, but discovered that at the going rate for rents, he’d still be losing money. He can afford to continue paying the mortgage, but doing so would squeeze the family finances — he said he and his wife just had a baby — so now he’s ready to walk away. King is trying to do a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, which is a process similar to a formal foreclosure but widely believed to be less damaging to a homeowner’s credit. His understanding, after speaking to his bank and to counselors from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is that he needs to be delinquent by at least one month for this to work. Then, he said, his bank told him it will take five months or more for the process to finish up. (HUD’s guidelines say a DIL should not take more than 90 days and that current borrowers can still be eligible.) “It’s this hopeless situation where there’s nothing I can do except sit on my hands while these four or five late payments end up on my credit report,” he said. Every month the deed-in-lieu process continues, the Big Three credit-monitoring bureaus will hear from the bank that King is delinquent, and they’ll plug that info into their proprietary algorithms for determining his credit score, which will sink lower and lower. King, a mathematician who works for a company that creates algorithms, is frustrated that his credit score is calculated in a secret way and that it’s impossible for him to know exactly how much lower the score will go. King’s algorithmic background makes him particularly sensitive to the vicissitudes of his credit score, but everyone else in the pack also spoke either with concern about their score or relief that they had been able to let go of it — like a Taoist on the path to a higher state of being. There’s a practical reason for that: a low score makes credit harder to access and life harder to live. But it’s also part of the reality that a low score will destroy someone’s personal finances. A spokeswoman for Experian, one of the Big Three credit reporting bureaus, said there’s no way to know exactly how badly any given financial decision will hurt a person’s credit score, or even if a deed-in-lieu will be better than a foreclosure. “There are hundreds of different credit scores out there in the marketplace,” the spokeswoman said. “Credit scores analyze the information from an individual’s credit report, and no single factor can be considered in isolation. For that reason, any given item can have a different point impact for each individual, even when the scoring system used is exactly the same. It’s not a formula, such as ‘Two delinquencies plus a foreclosure plus seven accounts all in good standing equal this score.’ It’s much more complex, and that’s why we really can’t provide an exact point value for a deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure, a short sale, foreclosure or a bankruptcy.” Meanwhile, King’s ongoing mortgage mess is an occasional topic of water cooler discussion at the office. “It’s embarrassing for me because I have to work in a very educated, more well-off environment, because most of the people I work with have Ph.D.s and probably make far above the median income,” he said. “So to be in the position where you’re — they’re constantly asking about the house. They all knew I had a house I was trying to sell.” While concerned about his credit score, King doesn’t want to feel like a deadbeat, either. “I’ve always paid my debts. It’s something that’s instilled in you,” he said. “You get it from the media. I was just watching Kudlow not that long ago and he was harping on the obligation to pay your debts. It just kind of permeates.” LET THEM EAT CAT FOOD CNBC anchor and noted oligarch Larry Kudlow articulated the mainstream position against strategic defaulters in a May column on CNBC.com. “[J]ust because a home loan is ‘underwater’ — meaning its value is lower than today’s current market price — why should a responsible person whine about it and walk away?” Kudlow wrote. “Why not service this loan for the longer term and wait for prices to improve? That’s called personal responsibility.” This is in keeping with received wisdom about the evils of foreclosure. As Brent White of the University of Arizona’s law school noted in an October paper, “the predominant message of political, social, and economic institutions in the United States has functioned to cultivate fear, shame, and guilt in those who might contemplate foreclosure.” One can think of keeping the strategic default rate low — White’s paper put it between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent — as a slow-drip bank bailout. With rescued banks now profitable yet refusing to modify underwater mortgages, the widespread fear that prevents more strategic defaults “has led to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate financial burden from the housing collapse,” White wrote. In other words, homeowners who shy from strategic default are collectively doing Wall Street and the banking system another favor — beyond just footing the bank-bailout bill as taxpayers. Yet the moral argument is out of sync with some basic financial logic. As White sees it, plummeting home prices mean: “Millions of U.S. homeowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by strategically defaulting on their mortgages.” Data suggest that wealthier Americans, not those with lower or mid-range incomes, have a greater proclivity for punting their mortgage obligations by embracing strategic defaults. The New York Times reported in July that more than one in seven homeowners with loans of more than $1 million are seriously delinquent, compared with one in 12 homeowners who owe less than $1 million. It’s a stat analysts chalk up to strategic default. “The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist, told the Times. So are some big, well-heeled corporations. For example, investment bank and bailout recipient Morgan Stanley walked away from five San Francisco office buildings at the end of 2009. Real-estate company Tishman Speyer — which also leases space to HuffPost for its Washington, D.C. office — strategically defaulted on the biggest residential property deal ever in January 2010, around the same time Wayne King and others were pulling their hair out over whether they should do the same. And the Mortgage Bankers Association, lobbyists for mortgage lenders, walked away from their own headquarters in Washington, D.C. in February 2010. (The MBA did not respond to requests for comment for this story.) Peter Fredman, a foreclosure defense attorney in California, said he was getting so many calls from people who wanted to sue over their exploding interest-only mortgages that he decided to set up a “strategic default” calculator online as a public service. Instead of suing some penniless broker, he kept having to suggest, why not just walk away? “Ironically, a lot of people who feel that special obligation [to pay a mortgage] are the people in the worst position,” Fredman said. “Upper-class people, they have no problem with what’s going on. They have bigger considerations.” Fredman’s website puts it like this: “From the institutional lenders’ point of view, you should eat cat food and take your kids out of school before you stop making your mortgage payment. But that is because institutional lenders don’t eat or have kids. They are fictitious entities, constitutionally dedicated solely to the pursuit of money. Repaying your debts may be a matter of personal integrity that you may or may not be able to afford. But you have no moral obligation [to] the financial institutions because they do not operate in a moral universe.” ‘WE KNEW THESE PEOPLE’ Howell Ellerman teaches real-estate classes at Folsom Lake College in Folsom, Calif. Last fall, a student in his thirties asked Ellerman about the meaning of financial responsibility and the hard realities of home ownership in the wake of the housing meltdown. “He’s in a house that is $500,000 underwater. I think they bought it for $1 million,” recalled Ellerman, 51. “He asked me in front of the whole class, ‘Should I walk away from my house?’” “I can’t give you advice,” Ellerman said he told his student, “but in the world we live in, there isn’t a better time to walk away. You shouldn’t feel any compunction.” Ellerman himself had been prepared to walk away from the home where he and his wife and kids had lived for 12 years. They wanted to buy a bigger house 10 miles away asking $595,000 as a short sale after initially listing at $1.5 million. “We made an above-asking price offer and are now in contract to buy the house and move with our five kids there,” Ellerman wrote. “The question is what do we do with our current house, which we love and have taken great care of.” He wrote that they wanted to sell or rent out the previous house but were willing to walk away and take the credit hit if the bank wouldn’t cooperate. It didn’t — Ellerman said the bank initially approved them on a loan for the new house but then decided to foreclose on it instead, so they’re still in their old house. It sits on a cul-de-sac with 10 others. Ellerman said four emptied in the past few years. He’s certain two are foreclosures. He has no idea where any of the families went; he figures they couldn’t handle the shame. “Seriously, we knew these people. They’d been over for Christmas, and then all of a sudden we see the U-Haul truck pull up,” he said. “When people leave their houses they don’t even say goodbye. They leave like in the cloak of darkness in a U-Haul truck and you don’t even know where they go.” THE AMERICAN DREAM When Bob Balint of Sarasota, Fla., wrote to HuffPost last year, he was asking for advice rather than looking to tell his story. We told him to consult with a lawyer — good advice to anybody thinking of walking away — and he did. Balint, 55, a father of two, is a dispatcher for the local transit system, and his wife teaches young children. He said their combined income of $51,000, boosted by occasional overtime, was enough to make their mortgage payments. But overtime has given way to furloughs and their house, which they owe $225,000 on, is falling apart. Balint lives in a part of the country particularly ravaged by the housing collapse and similar houses nearby are going for as little as $40,000, he said. “It’s like buying a Lexus,” he said. “You can almost come up with that in cash. Gimme two years without paying every Tom, Dick and Harry that I owe and I’ll have it.” The Balints were late on a few payments through 2010 but made them up each time. “We’re hanging in there by hook and crook,” he said. After a year of wrestling with the decision, however, the Balints are finally pulling the ripcord. This January, they made their last mortgage payment. They’re walking away from the home they’ve lived in since 1994 to rent a better, cheaper place. He’s looking forward to the freedom that will come with renting. “You’re almost better off not owning. If you’re company buckles up, you’re stuck, you can’t move to the jobs,” Balint said. “The American Dream is for shit.”

Read the full article →

For-Profit Colleges Selling Students On High-Risk Loans, Consumer Group Says

February 1, 2011

Many of the large corporations that own for-profit colleges are increasingly issuing their own in-house private loans to students — even though some schools expect more than 50 percent of such loans to go into default, according to a report released this week by the National Consumer Law Center. Through the eyes of those who run for-profit schools, the risky sideline lending business enables them to satisfy a federal law that requires at least 10 percent of a school’s revenue to come from sources other than federal financial aid. By complying with the 10-percent requirement, schools can then access the lucrative 90 percent of revenue that comes from the federal government. Federal student-aid dollars have been the lifeblood of the for-profit education sector, allowing the industry to more than triple the number of student enrollments over the past decade — far outpacing the growth of private and public traditional universities. That growth has come amid questionable outcomes for its students, who default on student loans at twice the rate of their counterparts at public universities. Several of the schools in the for-profit sector derive more than 85 percent of their revenues from federal student aid, putting them perilously close to the 90-percent threshold and placing schools at risk of losing access to the wellspring of federal aid. Executives at for-profit colleges are often quizzed about compliance with the rule during conference calls with investors, and schools take great pains to satisfy the 10-percent requirement. Private loans have traditionally offered a way for schools to beef up the 10 percent of revenue in the non-federal category, according to the report. But since the credit crisis began in 2007 and ’08, third-party lenders such as traditional banks and student lending giants like Sallie Mae have been largely unwilling to lend to for-profit school students, citing the high default rates and bad credit scores for the typically lower-income students who attend such institutions. So several schools have stepped in with their own loan programs, many of which lack the fixed-interest rates and more flexible repayment options that come with federal student loans, according to the report. “School executives could have viewed the pull-out of the third-party creditors as a warning sign that lending without regard to repayment caused significant harm to their students,” reads the report by the National Consumer Law Center, an advocacy group that works with low-income populations. “Instead, many proprietary school executives chose to create or expand institutional loan products … even though their students were already struggling with student loan debt.” Most federal student loans are capped at rates of 6.8 percent or lower. For a newly created private loan program at ITT Technical Institute, rates can range anywhere from 4.75 percent to 14.75 percent interest, depending on a student’s credit score. Interest rates can adjust over time, and can range as high as 25 percent, according to ITT documents in the report. DeVry offers loans with 12 percent annual interest that require students to make payments while they are enrolled, according to the company’s loan documents. The remainder of the balance is due within a year after graduation, and cannot be deferred. Supporters of the for-profit sector don’t dispute that internal lending has increased since the credit crisis. But they argue that such loans are necessary to fill in the financial gap for students who cannot afford the cost of school on their own. “We believe that students should have an option to go to school,” said Harris Miller, president and chief executive of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, a lobbying group for the industry. “We’re willing to take a chance on students. Unfortunately, many private lenders are not willing to do that today, unless you’re already upper-middle-class, which is not where most of our students are.” The so-called “90/10 rule” has been a flashpoint in the debate on the for-profit education sector. Critics of the industry argue that the regulation creates incentives for schools to game the system by increasing tuition to a point where students will have to come up with out-of-pocket expenses to satisfy the 10-percent category. The Consumer Law Center report asserts that schools are satisfying the non-federal income by increasing such institutional loans, even though some institutions expect more than 50 percent of the loans to eventually default. “The schools seem to view these loans more as ‘loss leaders’ to keep the federal dollars flowing,” the report states. “However, the view from the student perspective is much different. Students do not care if the high default rates help the companies maintain high tuitions and present a more attractive front to investors. Each charge-off represents an individual who cannot repay a debt and who may be facing aggressive collection tactics.” Scrutiny of the for-profit education sector has increased in recent years, as evidence mounts that many institutions are leaving students with debts they cannot afford to pay, given the low-wage jobs they tend to attain after graduation. For-profit schools enroll about 12 percent of students nationwide, yet the sector takes in nearly 25 percent of all student aid dollars and is responsible for 43 percent of student loan defaults. Average tuition at for-profit schools is nearly twice that of the in-state tuition at four-year public colleges, and more than five times the average tuition at community colleges, according to a Senate report released last year. For-profit schools have argued that the higher proportion of student loan defaults is an outgrowth of the students they tend to attract: a lower-income population that, according to the industry, is often overlooked by traditional nonprofit colleges. Critics point to the extraordinary growth of the industry, largely at the expense of taxpayers, despite the questionable outcomes and high debt loads for students. Average annual profits for the for-profit sector grew 81 percent between 2005 and 2009, according to a report last year by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Schools in the for-profit sector run the gamut from specialized course offerings such as Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts, run by the publicly traded Career Education Corp., to the mostly online University of Phoenix, owned by the Apollo Group. Deanne Loonin, the staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center who wrote the report, noted that much of the information on private loans to students granted by colleges was difficult to obtain. Most of the data was limited to what was disclosed in quarterly reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in earnings calls with investors. The report mentioned Corinthian Colleges Inc., which runs Everest College, which has more than 100 campuses across the U.S. and Canada. In 2007, the company took in 13 percent of its revenues from private loans – mostly from Sallie Mae, one of the nation’s largest student lenders. But Sallie Mae shut down lending to students at Corinthian and many other for-profit schools in 2008, because most of the potential borrowers did not represent good bets. So the school has ramped up internal student lending ever since, even though executives at the company in 2009 told investors on an earnings conference call that they expected default rates of more than 50 percent on such loans. Despite the anticipated high default rates, schools are still able to count some revenues from internal loans toward the 10 percent category to comply with federal rules. Congress passed a temporary measure in 2008 that allowed schools to count a portion of such loans as non-federal revenues through July 2012. Corinthian executives have also mentioned the possibility of increasing tuition to comply with the 90/10 rule. The idea is that increasing tuition would create a larger gap between the total cost of the program and what students are eligible for from federal financial aid programs — thus driving students toward the college’s in-house loans. In a November conference call, former chief executive Peter Waller said the company was “calmly evaluating whether to institute a substantial price increase in the third quarter of fiscal 2011.” He noted that “we do not believe such a price increase is in the best interest of our students,” according to a transcript of the call. Waller resigned later in November as chief executive. A spokesman for Corinthian, Kent Jenkins, said the loans offered by the company have the same interest rates as federal student loans – a maximum of 6.8 percent interest – and are intended to allow low-income students with very few other borrowing options to attend school. He called the report from the National Consumer Law Center “an advocacy document” and noted that the group has supported tighter regulations on for-profit colleges. Jenkins also noted that the 90/10 rule created a “catch-22″ for for-profit schools, discouraging schools from lowering tuition in order to comply with the 10 percent requirement. “We can’t lower tuitions because we would simply be in further violation of the requirement,” Jenkins said. “We’re in a position where our program may be about the cost of a year’s worth of financial aid for some students. So in fact, the amount of student loans may be 100 percent of the cost of the program.” A spokesman for DeVry, which was also mentioned in the report, said the company’s loan programs are a “valuable service” for students, and that less than a third of DeVry’s students carried a balance after the first year. Miller, who heads the lobbying group for the for-profit sector, said he agreed that the 90-percent regulation often created “perverse incentives” for schools to raise tuition in order comply with the rule. “It’s creating a disincentive to control costs,” Miller said. “You’re incentivizing a school to raise tuition, not because they actually need to raise tuition but because they need to create a gap between the maximum student aid a student is eligible for, and the tuition.”

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Didn’t Get the Promotion? Get Over It Or Keep Losing

January 21, 2011

Getting passed over for a promotion can be painful. It certainly was in Cindy’s case. She had been working on a project for several years and every indication was that she was doing a great job. As the project scaled the company decided they needed another layer of management. Cindy believed she would be the logical choice for this promotion. She was stunned when the job went to someone from the outside. Cindy met with her boss to find out why she wasn’t given a shot at the position. Her boss simply said it wasn’t up to him and the decision had already been made. She was extremely disappointed and this was heightened by the fact that she never got a clear answer as to what she was lacking. As months went by, she continued to seethe and her resentment played out in many ways. One example was when her original boss approached her with questions on the project, she replied, “Why don’t you ask the person you hired instead of me?” This probably confirmed in her boss’s mind that he had made the right decision. Months later, after a restructuring, Cindy was part of a company-wide layoff. This company, and many others like it, frequently offers laid-off employees the opportunity to interview for another position within the organization. Cindy was actively pursuing a job and things were going well. She made it all the way to the final round and was getting feedback along the way that she was a good fit. However, things changed in the final round when the hiring manager went to Cindy’s old boss for a reference. Her old boss said she didn’t handle frustration well. This was a concern to the hiring manager, who brought it up to Cindy. Cindy explained her plight and the hiring manager nodded in what appeared to be understanding. In addition, the hiring manager acknowledged that Cindy’s former boss was a difficult person to work for. Whew. Cindy thought she had dodged a bullet. Unfortunately, she didn’t get the job and was surprised to learn that they were continuing to interview new candidates. Since she was well qualified for this job and hadn’t lost it to someone else already in the mix, it was obvious to her that the negative feedback from her old boss ruined her chances. Frustration in the workplace is a natural part of business. How you handle it separates leaders from the rest of the pack. We can all sympathize with Cindy’s situation. Anyone would have felt slighted. What she could have done at the time to make the situation better was acknowledge to her boss that she hadn’t handled things well and that she was now ready to accept the decision and support the new person. This would have shown the level of maturity companies seek in people they are considering for promotion. In addition, she had another opportunity to diffuse the situation with the hiring manager during the interview. Instead of complaining about what had happened, she could have explained what she learned and how going forward she would better handle similar situations. Even if your boss has a reputation of being difficult to work for, their opinion of you carries weight. Stewing in frustration won’t improve your situation and can make it worse. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Delia Lloyd: 5 Concrete Steps Toward Career Change

January 16, 2011

“I don’t want to end my life,” a friend told me recently. “I just want to exit it. Sneak out the back door when no one’s looking.” She was talking about her job, which she hates, and her career more generally, which she’s (clearly) ready to leave. But undertaking a major career shift can be daunting — and terrifying. And many of us, faced with the sheer enormity of it all, opt to remain where we are rather than embarking on a project of this magnitude. If you’d like to shift gears professionally but can’t quite summon the energy to begin that process, here are five concrete steps to launch that process: Normalize it LifeTwo , a leading career counseling organization, reports that their prior estimate that each person has an average of three careers in a lifetime is now in the process of increasing to as many as seven careers. Moreover, here are some additional statistics that should make you feel at home: According to a Gallup poll, over 60 percent of workers are not truly engaged in what they do, and the same percentage would change careers if they could. Finally, changing jobs frequently may even be an advantage . According to career blogger Penelope Trunk, it also keeps you fresh and passionate about your career. Reconceptualize It I got a holiday card from an old friend telling me about his new career as a psychotherapist. Prior to that, he’d been in the arts and construction industries. As he put it, “I am becoming increasingly comfortable with seeing my professional life as a series of explorations rather than Wall Street Journal -worthy profiles.” I’ve written before about the concept of kaleidoscope careers , a byproduct of both the dot-com economy, which threw traditional career trajectories out the window, and the reality of women returning to the workforce after having children. Under the kaleidoscope model, having a rich, diverse professional background may be a positive in today’s economy. Read a Self-Help Book If you have the resources with which to consult a professional career counsellor, by all means, do it. But if you can’t afford that, I’m a big (converted!) believer in self-help books for career change. When I moved out of academia into journalism (and beyond), I read two books that were not just useful, but essential, for my professional reinvention . And the nice thing about those transitions was that they cost me less than $20 — not bad, eh? Apply for a Job This may sound counterintuitive, as most people (including me) would counsel you to first figure out what you like and what you’re good at before thinking concretely about career categories broadly defined, let alone jobs. But once you’ve given it some thought and have narrowed down your potential career trajectories to a handful of possibilities, take a whirl at applying for a job that sounds like it might be right for you. The chances are almost zero that you’ll get it. But in putting yourself down on paper — and providing a narrative of yourself for this particular job — you’ll gain some insight into who you are professionally. Reimagining yourself in this way will also give you more self-confidence going forward. Look at Job Boards One way to spark your imagination about the kinds of things you might do with your particular skill set and area of substantive interest is to skim job boards in your chosen field. You should of course do this once you’re actually doing a proper “job hunt” (as opposed to a “career hunt”). But it’s also useful to do this on occasion early on in the process. You’ll be amazed at the kinds of real-life jobs that pop up that you’ve never even thought about but which might suit you perfectly. Two sites I’m particularly fond of are Idealist (for the non-profit sector) and Journalism Jobs . But it’s a big, wide world out there, and job boards abound in all sorts of professions. Go get ‘em!

Read the full article →

Kathleen E. Christensen: But What About Me? The Workplace Flexibility Gap

January 12, 2011

The Huffington Post recently named the growth of workplace flexibility at Fortune 500 companies as one of the top stories of the last decade . That’s no surprise if you look at corporate data. A recent survey of CEOs found that the #1 investment challenge facing business in the next decade is “obtaining human capital and optimizing human capital investments,” and that the #1 driver for attracting and keeping this talent is “providing flexibility to balance life and work .” Firms of all sizes now promote creative options like telecommuting, paid leave and career breaks . It seems every day we read about a new company or industry that embraces workplace flexibility. This isn’t because these companies are run by nice people. It’s because study after study has shown that giving employees flexibility in where, when and how they work is good for a business’s bottom line. Yet whenever we talk about workplace flexibility, the majority of American employees still ask, but what about me? Whenever there is a story in the papers about workplace flexibility, most people read it and say, “that sounds great — but how come I don’t have it?” This weekend The New York Times looked at t he growth of workplace flexibility in the notoriously grueling accounting industry . The article cited many real-world examples of accounting firms that have come to realize it helps — not hurts — the company’s productivity levels to give employees options like part-time careers, unpaid summers off, or the ability to plateau or dial down their career for a finite period, without jeopardy or stigma. Yet almost all of the comments on The New York Times Web site read like this: “This has got to be an April Fools joke. There is no flexibility at big 4 accounting firms. They advertise flexibility, they don’t practice it…. When I worked at a big 4 accounting firm, you’d get dirty looks if you were to dare leave the office before 6pm. That is not flexibility” “I can tell you, it’s not really like this. Many audit teams have mandatory 60+ hour weeks plus weekends. And if you’re productive and get your work done quickly, they will reward you with someone else’s work.” “I know they talk the talk but I agree with a couple of other posters here, it’s just that, talk, at least for the vast majority of employees. I worked at a Big Four for 7.5 years (until 2005, still pretty recent) and it was all about face time and having your posterior in the chair. They certainly like to make examples of some people who get those flex benefits, etc. without repercussions, but the reality for the rank and file is quite different.” There is apparently a big flexibility gap this industry, with a lot of people saying “hey, why not me? Where’s my flex?” But the gap is not limited to the accounting industry. Recent research shows that while 80 percent of workers want flexibility, only about a third have it. So if employees want flexibility and employers know that it works, then where is this flexibility gap and resulting unevenness coming from? In large part it is coming from the fact that firms are not putting their money where their mouth is. We know that a major barrier to implementing flexibility stems from the behaviors of middle managers or supervisors who may not be aware of flexibility policies, or may feel that they are stretched thin and cannot see how to provide flexibility without it being a zero sum game. Educating and training supervisors on how to implement flexibility is important. But if corporate efforts with diversity are any guide, training will go only so far. What most effectively brings about change is accountability: when managers and supervisors are held accountable for results. If managers are held accountable during their annual reviews for how well and how fairly they implement flexibility to achieve business ends, we will then see unevenness dissipating and the flexibility gap closing. Companies that want to say they are truly walking the walk on workplace flexibility (and reap the business benefits) can’t just offer flexibility to some workers — they need to set up a system of accountability so that everyone is able to find some flexibility.

Read the full article →

Dorie Clark: Four New Year’s Resolutions to Fast Track Your Career

December 30, 2010

It’s that time of year — when family members, morning talk show hosts and co-workers grill you with impunity about how, precisely, you’re going to fix yourself. There are plenty of contenders for your New Year’s Resolution list — perhaps some you attempted last year but abandoned. How do you prioritize? And which ones will actually make you money and advance your career this year? Here are four ideas. 1. Upgrade your autonomy . Specialists in the uber-trendy field of positive psychology have identified the #1 barrier to your happiness (the cultivation of which is surely a worthy New Year’s goal). The culprit? Lack of autonomy (as anyone with a micromanaging boss can tell you). This year, find ways to flex your mojo by choosing, to the extent possible, when and how to do your work. Two good strategies are lobbying for more flexibility in your schedule (as with Best Buy’s ” Results Only Work Environment “), or, at minimum, aiming to reduce the number of soul-sucking meetings you’re subjected to (check out these tips for reasons to cancel meetings and some positive alternatives you can suggest). 2. Take more lunches . Networking maven Keith Ferrazzi famously instructed us to ” Never Eat Alone ” (the title of his excellent 2005 book) as a way to build connections. The advice becomes even more urgent, however, when coupled with research from Stanford University business school professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, who investigates how executives cultivate power. As he notes in a recent Harvard Business Review blog , “If you’re in a position to bring together unrelated groups of individuals who benefit from being in contact with each other, that’s a form of power.” In short, the path to success is becoming a “broker” who fills holes, transmits information and cultivates connections. 3. Lose weight . You didn’t think I’d leave off this perennial favorite, did you? Unfortunately, this advice applies only to the ladies out there, as you’ll see in this Wall Street Journal piece . For male execs, corpulence correlates with high pay — up to the point of obesity, when their salaries start getting docked. For women, shedding pounds can be lucrative: if you weigh 25 pounds below average, you’ll bring in over $15,500 more than your “normal” peers and nearly $30,000 more than overweight women. (I’m officially noting my socio-political revulsion, but I’m sure the researchers are right.) 4. Spend more time with your family . And alas, this one’s just for the gents. This interesting Harvard Magazine profile of Harvard Business School professor Amy Cuddy discusses her research into perceived warmth and competence on the job. Mothers, it turns out, are seen as nicer and less competent in the workplace, Cuddy reports, while “fathers experience the ‘fatherhood bonus.’ They’re viewed as nicer than men without kids, but equally, if not more, competent. They’re seen as heroic: a breadwinner who goes to his kid’s soccer game once in a while.” So dads: time to hit the stands and start cheering. And moms: even if you’re not supposed to see your family, there’s always the gym (see #3 and my mortification at our sexist society). Want to turbocharge your adherence to these simple (but hard to maintain) resolutions? You can always try stickk.com , a website created with the principles of behavioral economics in mind. Since people hate losing money even more than they hate exercising/quitting smoking/you name it, they can make a public pledge (often backed with cash) to keep up their resolutions. Fail at your tasks? The bucks head to your choice of a snide friend, your favorite charity, or an “anti-charity” – i.e., a cause you despise. Whatever it takes this year, think carefully about your resolutions and how you can leverage them to improve your life and your career in 2011. What’s on your list of goals? Dorie Clark is a marketing strategy consultant who has worked with clients including Google, Yale University, and the National Park Service. Read her blog , listen to her podcasts or follow her on Twitter .

Read the full article →

The 14th Banker: Year-End Perspective on Corruption

December 27, 2010

Perhaps it is time to explain the tone of my holiday greeting, in which I expressed optimism. Happy Holidays to all. It has been an eventful year. This is the season of hope and, despite all the matters that we have criticized over this past year, I am full of hope. There are well-meaning people all around us. Those that are not well-meaning, are generally uninformed, misinformed, or unskillful in their thinking. All of these things can change. We are in an evolutionary process. At times it will seem like we are stepping back. Yet we are moving forward. While I have been enjoying the presence of friends and family and relaxing in the spirit and ambiance of the season, the media and blogosphere have continued to do heavy lifting.  We will get to that in a minute.  But first, my reason for optimism. Given the religious nature of Christmas itself, it is entirely appropriate to look to our spiritual traditions to consider the circumstances of our present day. The trend that encourages me has been a theme of all major spiritual traditions, which emphasize the ideas of “light” and “truth” as essentially redemptive. They are redemptive in our present day lives in two ways. The first is that the realization of truth is essentially healing inwardly (spiritual world). The second is that the truth moves us to action and provides impetus to heal ourselves and others outwardly (material world). And these two are synergistic. Inward strength enables outward action. (As an aside, I would invite readers to share along these lines from their spiritual traditions or personal reflections) So while I have rested, others have reported. The steady exposure of corruption in our system, the light that shines unwavering on the regimes of corruption, will have its effect. There is developing a common understanding that the system we have today is broken and that we must find the means to make it constructive.  Here are some of the worthy stories of the last 10 days. First off, on the theme of corruption, it would be silly to assume that the corruption we see in the financial system is anything other than a reflection of the corruption of power more generally. Here are two examples. In this first, it is reported that the revolving door between government and industry is as active in the realm of the military as in the financial realm. The Boston Globe highlights that the normal path for retiring senior military officers, whose pensions are already generous, is to go to work in influential and non-transparent ways for defense contractors. The Globe analyzed the career paths of 750 of the highest ranking generals and admirals who retired during the last two decades and found that, for most, moving into what many in Washington call the “rent-a-general” business is all but irresistible. From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according to the Globe analysis. The article goes on to illustrate how these retiring officers have inside tracks into the Pentagon and wield influence without disclosure of their financial conflicts of interests. This does remind me of one aspect of the banking business, which is that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is much more than a policy regarding gays in the military. It is the practice of people who know that there are ethical issues or conflicts of interest and consciously choose to do nothing about them because of mutual benefit. A second example of corruption generally is in relation to academia and industry.   This is a video interview so I can’t quote it here, but the gist is that economists that opine on regulatory matters, have undisclosed financial conflicts of interest with the companies that would be affected by regulation. Another outstanding piece from recent days is this written interview with Bill Black , from Parker and Spitzer. It is succinct and readable. The emergence of Black as a very articulate and visible critic of the culture of fraud is significant. One feature of our system of media is that for messages to get out, they have to be repeated over and over. Many academics do their research, publish a paper, perhaps write a book, and then their voice fades. Black is showing an endurance that provides hope that he can move the needle of perception. What is different about Black’s approach is that he is very clear and specific in his charges. He does not generalize. He is very specific about how certain frauds work. This will make general denials less effective. There was also a meaningful judicial ruling against Wells Fargo . Hat tip Naked Capitalism . What makes this ruling interesting is that although it set aside a minor part of the jury award, a $1.6 million issue, to be subject to a new trial, is that it was punitive as a result of the judge’s determination that the fraud was systematic. It is unusual to award the payment of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, or to order disgorgement of fees paid for services (the other component of the additional $15 million plus is interest on the $29.9 million). The basis for awarding attorneys’ fees? The bank is such a menace to society that having counsel root it out is a public service. From the  Minneapolis Star Tribune (hat tip reader Ted L): The judge said that the nonprofits’ lawyers, led by Minneapolis litigator Mike Ciresi, provided a “public benefit” by bringing the bank’s wrongdoing to light. Thus, Monahan said, the bank must pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs, which Ciresi’s firm estimated at more than $15 million… Terry Fruth, a Minneapolis attorney who has been watching the case closely on behalf of his clients, said Monahan’s post-trial order could help other investors prove similar claims against the bank. “The judge didn’t just find that Wells Fargo acted with disregard to the rights and interests of the particular plaintiffs,” Fruth said of Monahan. “He said the way it ran the program was with disregard to the rights of the customers. … He has made a finding that is going to bind Wells Fargo in other cases.” The judge made very astute observations about how business works these days. Executives create the environment in which unethical business practices can flourish, but want to keep a level of plausible deniability. That is a pretense. Finally for today, this article about how the FinReg was effectively diluted. The source is a Barron’s article but Yves Smith provides the commentary. Here’s a quote to whet your appetite. But since there has been a singular lack of appetite to do adequate forensics into what caused the crisis, since it might prove to be embarrassing to people still in powerful positions, regulators can follow the inertial course of listening to the palaver that the financial services industry puts forward to allow it to continue looting. So back to my original premise, all this bad news is reason for hope, in that it shines light in dark, hidden places. This light will shape the common understanding, and the common understanding will shape future choices. However, it will be up to us to make those choices. If there is any unifying theme to these articles, it is that those in positions of power are not the ones that will support change in the system. Rather change in the system can only come through action on the part of the vast majority of citizens who do not have a stake in the status quo.

Read the full article →

Cenk Uygur: The Hidden Cost of Capitulation

December 8, 2010

Now that the president has signaled yet another collapse in agreeing to tax cuts for the rich, there is a hidden cost to this capitulation. He is now stuck defending this deal for the rest of his term. I predicted this on the show yesterday and today it’s playing out exactly the way I imagined, with the president sending out advisers to talk about what a great idea it is to give tax cuts to the rich . Once you sign off on a political position, you own it. This could be a corollary to Colin Powell’s doctrine on foreign policy. Powell said if you break it, you own it. In this case, if you make it, you own it. The president claims he will fight hard against these same tax cuts two years from now. It’s hard to stop laughing long enough to make a point against that, but I will try. If you are sending out your people to talk up polls about how the right the Republicans were on the tax cuts for the rich now, how are you going to send out the same people to talk about how wrong they were – and how wrong you were – two years from now? These are the things that make me wonder if President Obama has a firm grasp on basic political fundamentals. Yesterday he said that the political reality is that he just didn’t have the votes in the Senate (by far his favorite excuse). He even said “I can’t win” in the Senate. That’s a damning reversal for a man who ran on “Yes we can.” But more importantly, he doesn’t seem to understand Politics 101. You don’t just count the votes based on how the other side says they’re going to vote. From time to time, you call their bluff. Which means you go to the home states of swing senators like Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Olympia Snowe in Maine and you campaign on this winning issue there until you make them feel the political pain. Then you put them to a decision — do you want to risk your career voting against me on this issue where I have huge popular support or do you want to vote with me? Then you take the vote and they will bend. If he doesn’t understand that, boy did we elect the wrong guy. Of course, the alternative is that he does understand that but doesn’t ever have the stomach for a real fight . Or even worse yet, secretly likes this deal and will always find an excuse to get more tax cuts and sweet deals for the rich and powerful. In which case, boy did we elect the wrong guy. Watch The Young Turks Here

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Miles to Go Before the PMC Industry Rests

December 7, 2010

When reading about private military contractors there are two pieces of supposed conventional wisdom to keep in mind. The first, which is especially touted by PMC advocates, is that media coverage of their sector is frequently shallow, inaccurate, incomplete, out of context or wildly sensationalistic. The second is that while there may be problems things are a lot better than they used to be and are getting better yet. Those assertions are, at least partly, true. For example, the tired old canard that private security contractors are just mercenaries in drag is scurrilous and should have been laid to rest many years ago. And yes, thanks to the efforts of legislators, non-governmental organizations, reporters, academicians, lawyers, groups like the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the Commission on Wartime Contracting and even some executive branch officials the overall environment, from an oversight and accountability perspective, is somewhat better. But that is not the entire truth. To paraphrase Robert Frost’s famous poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” the PMC industry has promises to keep and miles to go before it rests. As a case in point, consider the remarks made last week by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), He is Chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC). He is retiring after 30 years in Congress. On December 2 he addressed the Senate and reviewed the 21 hearings the DPC has conducted on contracting waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. You can see a listing of past DPC hearings here . Sadly, none of the media seems to have covered Dorgan’s remarks. Here is a case where PMC advocates are right; media coverage is lacking. As far as I know I am the first to write on this. But his remarks merit careful reading as they illustrate how far the government has to go before it reaches a level of reasonably effective oversight of PMC. Note that I wrote reasonably effective, not perfect. You can find Dorgan’s remarks in the Congressional Record for December 2, 2010 (Senate)] [Page S8377-S8380]. I recommend you read the whole thing as it is not very long. Here are a few excerpts. I believe I have held 21 hearings as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee over recent years–21 separate hearings on the subject of waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of it still goes on in terms of the work with the Pentagon on this contracting issue. I have just received a letter from the inspector general at the Pentagon, who is looking into one of the issues of the last hearings– the issue of soldiers and contractors who were exposed to sodium dichromate, a chemical that was the subject of the movie “Erin Brockovich,” soldiers who were exposed and not told they were exposed to that deadly carcinogen and some of whom have already died. They were both National Guard and Regular Army soldiers. In the context of doing a lot of these hearings, I have discovered and I believe that throughout the last decade, we have seen the greatest waste and fraud and abuse in the history of this country. It has contributed immeasurably to this overspending and deficits and debt. I wanted to talk about that work we did, myself and my colleagues, over 21 separate hearings. At one of the hearings we held, we had testimony from a man who, in Iraq, was responsible for rooting out corruption in the Iraqi Government. His name was Judge al-Radhi. I have a photograph of Judge al-Radhi. He testified in this country. He testified that in his work as head of the anticorruption unit in Iraq, he found that $18 billion was missing, most of it American money, most of it coming from the American taxpayer. Just missing. Now, why was he here in the country testifying at a hearing I held? Because he got booted out of Iraq, and he got no support from the U.S. Government as he was booted out of Iraq, and he ended up in this country. But he is the person who was supposed to be rooting out and investigating and prosecuting waste and fraud and abuse. His investigations and the investigations of his staff–some of whom were assassinated, some of whose families were killed–show there was $18 billion–$18 billion–missing, and most of it was American money. Well, that is the story about Judge al-Radhi. We had a hearing early on in this process and talked about the issue of contractors and contracting. As you know, in the early part of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, money was just shoved out the back door of the Pentagon, hiring contractors, very large contracts, in most cases no-bid, sole-source contracts. A very courageous woman came to testify before our committee. Her name was Bunnatine Greenhouse . She was the highest civilian official at the Army Corps of Engineers, the highest civilian official in the Pentagon in charge of contracting. Here is what she said. She objected to the way the Pentagon was doing these contracts, massive contracts, sole-source, a massive amount of money, and she watched as the normal processes were avoided and ignored. She testified in public: I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career. This is an extraordinary woman, the highest civilian person in the Army Corps of Engineers. She was in charge of contracting. Two master’s degrees, came from a family in Louisiana. All three kids have advanced degrees. Her brother, by the way, was one of the 50 top professional basketball players in the last century, Elvin Hayes. Bunnatine Greenhouse. Remember that name. A very courageous woman, she saw abuses, spoke about it publicly, and for that she lost her career. She gave up her career. She was told: Resign or be fired. Let me talk about what she meant when she said the most unbelievable abuses she had seen in contracting. I want to do it starting small because then I am going to talk about billions of dollars. But at one of our hearings, we had a man who kind of looked like a bookkeeper at a John Deere dealership in a small town. He was kind of a good old guy with glasses, and he had been in charge of purchasing for Kellogg, Brown & Root or Halliburton over in Kuwait, purchasing the things our troops needed in Iraq. He came and testified, and he said: You know, as I was purchasing things, I was told by my employer, Halliburton: Don’t worry what the cost is, the taxpayer pays for this. This is cost-plus. So he told us a number of examples, big examples, but he brought a small one that I thought reflected the entire attitude. This is a towel. I ask unanimous consent to show the towel on the floor of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. This is a towel. Halliburton was to purchase towels for the troops, hand towels. You know, they were purchasing hand towels to be awarded to the troops. So he ordered some white hand towels for the troops, and his boss said: Well, you can’t order those white hand towels. You have to order the hand towels that have the logo of our company, “Kellogg, Brown & Root,” on the hand towel. Mr. Bunting said: Yes, but that would quadruple the cost. His boss said: That doesn’t matter. This is a cost-plus contract. Order the towels. Put our company name on them. I mean, this is such a small but important symbol of the behavior that went on for most of the decade that fleeced the American taxpayers. … We heard from witnesses about the Parsons Corporation, which got a $243 million contract to build or repair 150 health clinics in Iraq. Two years later, the money was all gone, and there weren’t 150 health clinics, there were 20. I had a doctor, a very brave, courageous physician, come to this country to testify to what he saw of the ones that were completed. Unbelievable. So what happened to the money? The American taxpayers lost the money. Did this improve the health of the Iraqis? The physician who came to testify said he went to the Minister of Health in Iraq and said to the Minister of Health: Where are those clinics, because I am told the Americans have spent $243 million to build health clinics. Where are the clinics? The Iraqi Health Minister said: Well, most of them are imaginary clinics. Yes, but the money was not imaginary. The American taxpayers’ money is gone. We had several hearings on the issue of Kellogg, Brown & Root. And I mention them because they got the biggest contract, sole-source contract. That is why they are the ones that are mentioned the most. They were providing water treatment to the military facilities in Iraq. So our solders are in military camps in Iraq, and KBR gets the water treatment contract. It turns out that the nonpotable water they were providing to soldiers in the camps that we had a hearing on was more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River. We actually had, from a whistleblower, the internal memorandum from Kellogg, Brown & Root, by the guy who was in charge of the water contract in Iraq, and in his memorandum, he said this was a near miss. It could have caused mass sickness or death. But publicly, they said it didn’t happen. The Defense Department said it did not happen. But it did happen, and I asked the inspector general to investigate it. He did. He did a report and said that both the Defense Department and Kellogg, Brown & Root were wrong. It did happen, in fact. That kind of contaminated water was being served to the troops because the contract was a contract that was not provided for appropriately by the company. The company was taking the money and not doing what it was supposed to do with the water. By the way, in the middle of these hearings, while the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, as well as Kellogg, Brown & Root were denying it all, I got an e-mail here in the Senate from an Army doctor, a captain, and she wrote to me and said: I am a physician in the camp. I had my lieutenant follow the water line to find out what was happening because I had patients here who showed that they were suffering diseases and suffering problems as a result of contaminated water. So that came from the physician who was in Iraq on the ground. So despite all of the denials, the inspector general finally issued a report saying: No, no, the Defense Department was wrong, as was Kellogg, Brown & Root. A contract to provide water to these soldiers across Iraq at the Army camps was not being appropriately handled, and very contaminated water was going to those camps. The list is almost endless. I know there is a photograph I have shown on the floor previously because it is another contract to provide electrical capabilities to the Army camps. When you put up an Army camp, you have the need to provide electricity. And I held two hearings on this subject. This is a photograph of SGT Ryan Maseth–quite a remarkable young man, a Green Beret from Pennsylvania. He is shown there with his mother, who is a very courageous woman as well. He was killed in Iraq, but Sergeant Maseth wasn’t killed by a bullet from an enemy gun; Sergeant Maseth was killed taking a shower. He was electrocuted in a shower. And it wasn’t just Sergeant Maseth; others lost their lives as well–electrocuted in a shower, power-washing a Jeep. The fact is, what we discovered when we held the hearings was that the work that was done to provide electricity and to wire these camps was done in some cases by people who didn’t have the foggiest idea what they were doing. Third-country nationals who couldn’t speak English and didn’t know the first thing about electricity were working on these issues. The Army originally told Mrs. Maseth that her son died, they thought, because he took an electrical appliance into the shower. No, he didn’t. He was killed because shoddy electrical work was done that ended up killing this soldier. Now, Kellogg, Brown & Root denied that, as did the Defense Department. The inspector general did the report and said: Oh, yeah. Yeah, that sure did happen. In fact, let me show you what the inspector general has said. This is from Jim Childs, master electrician hired by the Army Corps of Engineers, to inspect this electrical work for which the American taxpayer paid a bundle. Jim Childs, master electrician, went in after I held the hearings. He said: [T]he electrical work performed by KBR in Iraq was some of the most hazardous, worst quality work I have ever inspected. Let me show what Kellogg, Brown & Root said: The assertion that KBR has a track record of shoddy electrical work is simply unfounded. The inspector general did the inspection. We had to redo much of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, inspect it all and redo much of it. In the meantime, people died. We have demonstrated that there is evidence of shoddy work in a range of areas. Yet the contractors continue to be given additional contracts. For the shoddy electrical work for which some soldiers gave their lives, this contractor was not only given the money from the contract but bonus awards for excellent work. I have tried very hard to get the Pentagon to take back those bonuses, unsuccessfully. But the reason I am going through this is to point out that we have for a decade now been shoveling money out the door at a time when we are deep in debt, spending a great deal of money on the defense of this country, on the Defense Department, on the war effort, and so on. A substantial portion of that which goes out the back of the Pentagon in the form of contracts has represented the most egregious waste in the history of the country. … I started by talking about the issue of sodium dichromate. We think about 1,000 soldiers were at risk at a place in Iraq that is called Qarmat Ali. Some have died. Those soldiers who were at Qarmat Ali told of seeing something like sand blowing all over the place. It was red, however. That was the sodium diechromate, a deadly carcinogen. It is the subject over which a movie was made called “Erin Brockovich.” We have tried for a long time to get the Pentagon to be as active and involved as they should be with respect to the health and safety of those 1,000 soldiers who were potentially exposed. Like most of these issues, they have been very slow to respond. My point is twofold. One is about supporting America’s fighting men and women, doing what is right for them. There have been a number of people in the Pentagon–one of whom testified before the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and who I strongly believe knew he was not telling the truth. He was a general, as a matter of fact. There have been a number who have denied virtually all of these circumstances. Yet inspectors general have investigated and said they are wrong. Obviously, the contractor denies these things. The contractors have gotten wealthy doing this. We have had whistleblowers come in. A woman came in and told us she was working at a recreational facility in the war theater, and that is at the base. There is a facility where you can play pool and ping-pong and do various things. It was a facility with many different rooms. She worked for Kellogg, Brown & Root and she was to keep track of how many people came in because they got paid based on how many people came in. She said: What they told me to do was to keep track of how many people came in to each room, and that is what we billed the government for. If somebody came in and went through three rooms, the government was billed for three visits. I went to the people in charge and said: This is fraud. We can’t do this. We are defrauding the government. They immediately put me in detention in a room under guard and sent me out of the country the next day. It is the story of virtually all the hearings we have held. … This has been an abysmal record. In this decade, the amount of money spent on contractors–in many cases with no-bid, sole-source contracts that were negotiated under the most abusive conditions and in violation, in many cases, of rules, according to the highest civilian official in charge of contracting–has been a disgrace. This country needs to do much better. The work I and a number of my colleagues did holding these hearings has in many ways held up a spotlight and tried to shine it on the same spot. We have cajoled, embarrassed, and pushed, and I think we have made some progress. But so much more needs to be done and can be done.

Read the full article →

Maynard Webb: The Next Killer App: Work

November 24, 2010

As a technologist, I’m obsessed with searching for the next killer app. Today, there are many companies that are offering amazing services and products that some may deem “killer apps.” What I find interesting is that many of these are aimed at improving our virtual world–becoming a mayor on a social networking site, getting a hole in one or building an empire on a gaming site. It seems so simple when we escape for a few minutes (or hours) from our real world commitments to the fantastic online world we have created! But what about improving our offline “real” world? To me, the billion-dollar question on the quest to create the next killer app is this: How can we harness the same spirit and imagination we are applying to make our virtual worlds fulfilling to solve our biggest and ugliest problems? How do we tap the innovation and apply the energy around these games and virtual worlds to education, health care, reducing poverty? Of course, another area ripe for revolution is work, which is my passion and focus. What if we didn’t have to look to online communities and games for self-fulfillment? What if we could harness these online technologies in a way that will make our companies more profitable, our country more competitive, our environment better off, and allow people to become more productive at work and also spend more time with their families at home? What if the next killer app is work? This is a timely topic. Unemployment is 9.6% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and every politician is talking about work, with many politicians making job creation their number one priority. And while this is pressing now, it would have been appropriate five years ago and it will be as important again in five years from now. Jobs will come back when the economy recovers, but they will never be the same. People today are looking for something different than work as we’ve known it historically. Generation Y values flexibility more than Generation X, or any other generation. And this is a global phenomenon. As recently reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (September 2, 2010) , “The concept of working from anywhere at any time is second nature to Generation Y, something they never even question. It’s an option previous generations never had, when laptops, Wi-Fi and broadband were scarce.” And whereas most people once wanted to work for corporations, young people today — some 80% — want to be entrepreneurs. In Michael Malone’s fantastic book The Future Arrived Yesterday , he notes that high school children are telling pollsters they never plan on working in a real corporate environment ever in their lives! They want to be CEOs of their own companies. And really, having witnessed the collapse of business institutions we had viewed as “built to last” — Circuit City, Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers to name just a few, who can blame them? The safety net they can count on is themselves: their experience, their skills, and their values. Interestingly, research by Deloitte’s Center for the Edge found that self-employed people are more than twice as likely to be passionate about their work as those who work for firms. Meanwhile, as we see more desire for independence with workers, companies are trying to find qualified workers. According to CareerBuilder’s 2010 Mid-Year Job Forecast, 22% of employers reported that despite an abundant labor pool, they still have positions for which they can’t find qualified candidates. Some 48% of human resources managers reported that there was an area of their organization in which they lacked qualified workers. We have a serious problem with making work work. We are living in an entirely new era of computing, with entirely new tools and possibilities, but we are viewing work the same way we always have — even applying the same rules and guidelines developed pre-Information Age. I believe if we want our real world to catch up with our virtual world, it is time to stop ignoring the trends and start finding ways to leverage the technology and innovation that is within our grasp. There are lots of jobs in search of talent. And there’s lots of talent in search of meaningful work. It’s time to let the elephant loose about work. If we do it right, the herd will move faster than we ever imagined. How do we start? First, businesses and individuals need to examine what changes can be made to leverage new technologies and communications services available to improve the opportunities for work and the ways in which we go about it. There is not a quick fix for shifting the way we work; it will take innovation, collaboration and dedication to change. I ask you to join in the dialog, share your ideas and change the way we work. It will certainly take the power of a crowd to shift ideals that for some have been deeply rooted in the way we have worked for decades. Care to join my crowd?

Read the full article →

Christopher Hytry Derrington: 10 Most Common Startup Mistakes (PHOTOS)

November 18, 2010

Starting and running a small business is hard, risky work. According to the SBA, approximately 550,000 new businesses were started in the United States in 2009. Within two years, 30 percent will have failed. Half will be gone within five years. Only one in three will survive to celebrate their 10 year anniversary. In this Internet era, the speed of business is accelerating, the competition is global, and customers demand more than ever. As a result, business owners have a smaller margin for error. During my career as a serial entrepreneur, I’ve made my share of stupid mistakes (and will probably continue to do so). In spite of the inevitability of screw-ups, I take the time to analyze each one and figure out what I should have done differently. The introspection is much more painful and not nearly as fun as celebrating a success. But the old clich

Read the full article →

Creative Minds 2011: Submit Your Questions For Joey Wolffer!

November 17, 2010

As we we reach the end of the year, you’ll no doubt be inundated with “best of 2010″ lists on every topic imaginable. But we also want to look ahead to 2011–to the creative minds we’re expecting great things from. These people have wowed us in many ways, but are nowhere near done. Submit your questions for all our creative minds and watch the interviews to see if we ask your question live! Joey Wolffer began her career designing jewelry. She provided accessories for Top Shop and Jigsaw in London before becoming the senior jewelry designer for the Accessory Network. She eventually moved on to become the Senior Jewelry Designer for Nine West as well as Trend Director scouting trends for all Jones’ brands. There she learned the thrill of the hunt and honed her unique style. This all lead her to launch her first business–The StyleLiner–a truck filled with awesome accessories. She gathers her inventory from around the world, from places most people can’t easily access, and stuffs it all into her 20-foot refurbished truck. The items you’ll find there are limited edition and cost anywhere from $30 to $1,800. Submit your questions for Joey below and click here to see our other Creative Minds to watch in 2011.

Read the full article →

Melanie Benjamin: For the Love of Writing — Not Publication

November 16, 2010

The other day, a friend of a friend emailed asking for some publishing advice. I sighed, muttered something under my breath about deadlines that have to be met, but finally replied that I’d be happy to help. (It was one of those days when I was looking for any excuse not to actually write.) So I composed a lengthy reply, going through the whole drill, including my own rather uneven road to publication — all the books written before I found an agent, the books then written that didn’t sell, the books that did sell but not very well, the option dropped, more books written that didn’t sell, finally ending up where I am now. Which is, I am the first to admit, in a very good, very unbelievably lucky, place. I emphasized the hardships; I emphasized how important it is to learn the business end of publishing. I detailed what a query letter is, how to write it, how to research agents, the amount of time it usually takes — all that. Above all, I emphasized the rejection. I shared how important it is to understand that the ability to absorb rejection and somehow soldier on is a job description, really; I pointed out how much rejection I had received in my career, even after my first book was published. (And when I looked back at it all, I had to tell my husband it was a wonder I hadn’t been on medication. He then confessed there were times he thought I should have been.) I was about to hit “send” when suddenly I took another look at the original email. It was only then that I realized this advice was being sought by a mother of a 14-year-old girl who had written a book that she, her mother, just knew should be published. Well. Suddenly all my advice seemed pointless. Not only because it was unlikely this 14-year-old, no matter how talented, had really written a book that should be published. But I was reluctant to send my rather lengthy piece on the perils of publishing for one major reason. And that was because at 14, this girl should still be experiencing the pure joy of writing. Without any thought to publication. Why are we all in such a rush to be published? With NaNoWriMo currently going on, it’s a question I ask myself a lot. Just when did writing for the pure pleasure of it fade away? Does every artist sit down to paint a beautiful sunset thinking, “Oh, boy, I just can’t wait until this thing sells and is hanging on some cafeteria wall”? Somehow, I don’t think so — although perhaps I’m being naïve. Yet so many writers these days, it seems to me, write joylessly; they join writers groups, participate in NaNoWriMo, all with the goal of writing quickly . Finishing that book ASAP so it can be published. Publication is the goal, the one and only point when a writer can sit back and allow himself a sense of accomplishment. But is that necessary? Is that even right? I finally told the mother of this girl the plain truth: That at 14, she needs much more time to write, to learn, and most of all — to experience the pure pleasure of creativity. To learn to love her craft. Because it’s that love that’s going to see her through the inevitable rejection. And at 14, she doesn’t need to start experiencing that rejection yet. She needs simply to enjoy herself. As a writer, as a story teller, as a creative person. I love writing; I love writing now, when I know I have a contract and a deadline and people eager to read what I write next. I loved writing before, when I didn’t know that. But it was harder then, that’s for sure; it was difficult to separate the business part — the buying and selling and being told that there wasn’t a market for what I was writing — from the creative, pleasurable part. I did separate the two, but it wasn’t always easy. The truth is, once you send off your first query letter to an agent or publisher, you’ll never experience the pure joy of writing for yourself, ever again. I sometimes look back on the first novel I ever wrote. It was terrible, of course. But I didn’t know that then; I wrote because I was excited to do it, it was new and wonderful and I was understanding this was what I had been missing in my life. I didn’t write because someone told me to; I wrote because I wanted to — only blue skies ahead, happiness, a feeling of belonging. I didn’t know, then, the many frustrations of publishing that awaited me. And I miss that. A 14-year-old should hang on to that for as long as she can. We all should. I worry about all those NaNoWriMo writers out there; are they really, truly, loving the writing? Are they luxuriating in it, deliciously weighing word choices, reading out loud passages that delight them? Or are they simply spilling out words like joyless automatons, publication, publication, publication the only thought in their heads? I don’t know the answer, of course. All I know is that perhaps I allowed one teenager, hopefully, to hang on to the pure joy of writing without thinking of publication. At least, for a little while longer.

Read the full article →

Donna Flagg: When a Bad Boss Becomes a Creature Feature

November 16, 2010

I’ve long been befuddled by Jekyll and Hyde routines of people, especially at work. But my all-time worst experience was with a boss I had early in my career who made the Tasmanian devil look like a tame soul. She was pretty in a scary way, kind of like Elvira. She was also cunning, witty and mean. I, in the meantime, was confused. The fact that she didn’t realize how she siphoned the life from the people who worked for her utterly escaped me. Initially I was her favorite, a position that brought with it special attention and favors like taking time to teach me the same things that she fired my coworkers for not knowing. Her behavior was blatantly contradictory, yet she considered herself fair. I should have seen through her bias and anticipated her about-face much like Dorothy heeded the warning from the Wicked Witch of the West who screeched, ” Just you wait my pretty. ” Yup, you guessed it. She loved me one day and hated me the next. My coworkers and I were mystified that no one seemed to notice or care that a crazy woman worked for the same company we did. So when the CEO shipped us off to some high-end commune in the Catskills for a sales meeting, we thought wishfully that someone had caught on. It was late one Sunday evening when we boarded the kind of dark chartered bus that childhood field trips are made of. The next morning two consultants stood before us on either side of a flip chart; an upbeat school teacher with a strawberry blond bun secured at the nape of her neck, and an overly tanned, hairy-chested psychiatrist sporting a loud button-down shirt that, by the way, should have buttoned up. In my professional opinion it was one or two shy of necessarily concealing his nipples. We spent two days doing team building and problem solving exercises. We had ropes and mazes and bricks. Everyone seemed equally as effected and responded with the same enthusiasm I did. Even my barbarian boss seemed transformed. So naturally, we headed home expecting some sane and civilized behavior from our superiors once we were back in the trenches. But instead of going from good to better, things went from bad to worse. It took only about a week for my boss to turn inside out again in a fit of rage. What happened? What could have gone so wrong? What had been the point to take us from our jobs and spend all that money? Was it not to make us a better team, more productive and profitable as a company? Apparently not. Later, when my boss asked me to write up a report while my father was in intensive care AND I was on vacation, stressing that neither of those would be acceptable reasons to say, “No can do,” I quit. Remarkably, she insisted that she was not administering a multiple choice test and that quitting was not an option either. I quickly realized that her tyranny was slightly more complicated than a mere matter of her being bonkers. But having that experience left me with the distinct conviction that a paycheck is neither synonymous with a license to bully people, nor should a title permit someone to exhibit a total lack of alignment between his or her words and actions. That was many years ago. I often think about what I could have done differently as my mother’s words ring true in my ears. “You can’t rationalize with a crazy person.” Now, I know I did all I could — which was nothing. Find Donna on Facebook

Read the full article →

Alexandra Levit: The Corporate Freshman: If Something Is Needed, Create It

November 10, 2010

Some of you may recall that I was a complete dud in my first corporate PR job. My boss despised me, my colleagues thought I was overeager, and it took me two years to get a promotion that people with half my work ethic achieved in six months. The second company that employed me kindly spent a few thousand dollars sending me to a professional development course that changed my career and my life. I like to think that everything that the course taught me about developing a strong reputation at work, being diplomatic with colleagues, and driving my career forward was a good investment, because I was much more effective after that. The truth is, though, that not every college graduate has access to training like I had, and some really gifted people spend their post-college careers floundering because they aren’t given the chance to learn the skills and strategies that will meet with success. I got tired of waiting for someone else to fix this problem, so I worked with the Business Roundtable , the HR Policy Association , and Accenture to create JobSTART 101 , a free online course that prepares college students to meet and exceed employer expectations when they enter the workforce. It includes video and workbook components covering topics like how to establish your e-brand and how to problem-solve on the job — basically, all the information I wish I’d had in my back pocket when I was just starting out. If you’re a student or recent grad, I hope you’ll check it out for some decent advice, but more importantly, I hope each of you goes into work today and thinks about what’s sorely needed in your company and industry. And then if you can create it, go for it. The world — and your career – will thank you for it.

Read the full article →

Excel Maritime Announces Management Change in Operations

November 5, 2010

ATHENS, GREECE–(Marketwire – November 5, 2010) –  Excel Maritime Carriers Ltd ( NYSE : EXM ), an owner and operator of dry bulk carriers and a leading international provider of worldwide seaborne transportation services for dry bulk cargoes, today announced that Mr. Charalampos Mazarakis, COO will be leaving the Company to pursue his career interests outside the shipping industry, joining National Bank of Greece, the leading Greek banking institution at a senior management role.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Condoleezza Rice – What a Procrastinator!

November 5, 2010

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveals in her new book, “A Memoir of My Extraordinary, Ordinary Family and Me” that she has battled with procrastination for most of her life. She says in her book, “Procrastination remains a problem for me to this day.” The obvious question is: How can someone so successful be a procrastinator? Successful people aren’t perfect; they almost always have some part of their makeup that needs work. Some people are charismatic in front of a live audience, yet struggle with speech writing. Others are amazingly productive despite their lack of organization. What many of these people do is find ways to compensate for the areas where they are weakest. For example, CEO’s who are habitually late and who counteract this by setting their watches ahead. Procrastination is another area that plagues a lot of accomplished people, yet they are able to pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat and complete the project every time. They do this by building in an adequate buffer to meet the deadline. Similar to “cramming” the night before a big exam, except they don’t cut it that close. There’s the “should due-date” and the “gotta due-date” and they don’t go beyond the latter. Their crunch time doesn’t ever put them in jeopardy of missing the deadline. Charles Schwab , John Chambers and Richard Branson all have dyslexia. None of them have let this hold them back evidenced by the fact that each has been a CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. Prominent attorney, David Boies , known for being a star litigator (represented the Government in Microsoft anti-trust case) also has dyslexia. Because of this, he has to commit more to memory than most lawyers because his dyslexia hinders him for glancing at note cards in the courtroom. The comedian and star of “Deal or No Deal,” Howie Mandel , has obsessive compulsive disorder and avoids at all costs shaking hands for fear of picking up germs. On his TV show he compensates for this by doing a fist bump with the contestants. David Neeleman , founder of JetBlue Airways, has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Unfortunately, ADHD prevents him from being detail-oriented and completing daily tasks, “I have an easier time planning a 20-aircraft fleet than I do paying the light bill.” Neeleman looks at the glass as “half-full”, saying that with his disorder comes greater creativity and he credits the success of his airline with his ability to think outside the box. Whatever you are personally struggling with in your life and career, there are ways to overcome it by working around it. Some people make the mistake of using these issues as a crutch, “I’ve never been a good writer” or “My organizational skills are bad,” or “I have don’t have the ability to focus,” and give themselves permission to be held back. Successful people have a mindset geared towards getting the results they want despite the obstacles. We look up to them and appreciate what they have achieved without realizing what they have to overcome on a daily basis. These people can give us the motivation to deal with whatever is currently holding us back and unleash our full potential. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

For-Profit College Shares Tumble

November 4, 2010

NEW YORK — Shares of for-profit schools dove Thursday after a seemingly routine program review by the Department of Education reawakened fears of greater oversight – and lower profits – in the sector. Several analysts also sounded warnings, concerned about their ability to sign up new students and access government-backed financial aid due to increased scrutiny. Apollo Group Inc., which owns the University of Phoenix, the country’s largest for-profit higher education chain, said on Thursday that the DOE is launching a review of how Phoenix administers federal financial aid. The announcement comes not even five months after the conclusion of another review which cost the school $1.8 million in repayments. The new review will cover the period from the 2009-2010 aid year up to the present. Program reviews are fairly common, and the launch of a review doesn’t mean a school has violated financial aid rules. Yet back-to-back reviews in the past would have unusual, said UBS analyst Ariel Sokol. “The perception perhaps has been that the DOE.has been asleep at the wheel” regarding oversight of the schools, he said. “In that context, it’s not surprising.” A Government Accountability Office report in August found misleading recruitment practices at 15 schools, which the DOE said it could use to act upon. Such reviews could result in fines or restricted access to government-backed financial aid, which makes up the bulk of the schools’ revenues. The University of Phoenix program review “is the initial evidence of an increased enforcement regime” at the Education Department, said Signal Hill analyst Trace Urdan in a research note. Critics claim the schools are not helping students find better jobs and say enrollment counselors sign up many who are unprepared for higher education. When students drop out, they are still stuck paying back their student loans – unless they default, and then the bill goes to the taxpayers. Defaults on student loans, most of which are supplied by the government, have been rising throughout the recession. One DOE proposal is called a “gainful employment” rule that could limit schools’ access to federal financial aid if graduates’ debt levels are too high or too few students repay loans. It was supposed to be announced by Nov. 1, but intense lobbying from the for-profit sector helped delay finalization until 2011. The DOE held a public hearing on the rule Thursday. School chains, including Apollo, have been warning investors that they expect student enrollments to drop as they accommodate new rules. Apollo shares tumbled $2.91, or 7.6 percent, to $35.56 in afternoon trading. Shares of Corinthian Colleges Inc. fell more than 11 percent, hitting a new 52-week low, after a downgrade from UBS. The company said that it may have to raise tuition or risk violating government rules on how much of its revenue can come federal financial aid. It also expects a big drop in new student enrollments. DeVry Inc. shares dropped 4 percent, while Grand Canyon Education Inc., which was downgraded by Baird, fell nearly 6 percent. ITT Educational Services Inc. fell more than 3 percent, as did American Public Education Inc. Bridgepoint Education Inc., Capella Education Co., Strayer Education Inc., Career Education Corp. and the Washington Post Co., which owns the Kaplan school chain, all had share declines of 2 percent to 3 percent. Education Management Corp. shares bucked the trend after a better-than-expected earnings report, rising $1.22, or 10.5 percent, to $12.95. (This version corrects misspelling of analyst name.)

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: When Is Your Midterm Election?

October 27, 2010

Cross-posted from Harvard Business Online Triggered by the upcoming mid-term elections , President Obama is assessing his change strategy, shuffling his leadership team, and getting ready for the next two years of his administration. If we put aside the political cacophony that accompanies this process, and view it strictly through an organizational lens , it’s a constructive set of activities: taking stock of what’s working and what’s not; reading the pulse of customers (citizens) and partners; resetting priorities; injecting new talent; and re-energizing the organization for the work ahead. Most companies are not forced by an election to push the reset button every two years — but imagine if they did. What if all managers had fixed terms and needed to be reappointed based on their performance? Would it lead to more honest feedback from customers and subordinates, and more frequent strategic reviews? Would it make managers more accountable for results and more willing to build strong teams? Or would it encourage managers to play it safe rather than taking risks that might reduce their chances of reappointment? Although not all managers are elected officials, organizations do have electoral rhythms. There are cycles for financial reporting, planning, and budgeting; as well as specific times for capital investment, information technology, and talent decisions. To some extent these activities function much like elections — they give us pause and force thoughtful assessment and planning. Unfortunately in many organizations, the rhythms keep shifting: cycles (such as budgeting) get elongated, different reviews are not well integrated, etc. What was intended to be reflective reevaluation becomes constant background noise, and as a result many managers treat these reviews as “exercises” to fulfill corporate requirements. So how can organizations and individual managers get more payoffs from their assessment rhythms, and accrue the benefits of an election cycle (without the costs of a campaign )? Let me suggest two steps — one for the executive team and one for every manager. If you are part of an executive team, take a holistic look at the various review processes that constitute the rhythm of the company. Can they be better integrated? Does the timing need to be changed? Are they really creating the value that is intended? For example, a few years ago, GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt realized that the company’s strategic planning process was becoming redundant with the budgeting process. The two were calling for much the same data, but during different time frames. To prevent unnecessary and repetitive work (which cascades to thousands of people in such a huge company), Immelt reframed the strategic planning process so that it was squarely focused on growth. He renamed it the Growth Playbook and made sure it came with straightforward instructions about what needed to be included (and what did not). The budgeting process then flowed naturally out of the growth plans with far less confusion. At the same time, the message that growth was the primary focus for strategic planning was hammered home. If you are a manager, take a look at your own personal rhythm. We all start careers, jobs, and assignments at different times — but if we don’t establish personal checkpoints , it’s easy to drift. Then one day you wake up and realize that your career is not progressing, or that you haven’t accomplished some key personal or professional goals. To avoid that kind of disappointment, set up your own rhythm — in advance. Pick a date (your work anniversary or birthday, for example) and use it as an opportunity for self-reflection. Do I need to reset priorities? Am I getting the experiences I need? What do I need to do differently to reach my objectives? Like an electoral cycle, corporate rhythms are important for the organization to periodically and regularly push the reset button ; these need to be made as effective and efficient as possible. However the corporate calendar shouldn’t determine your own reset timing and agenda. Only you can do that.

Read the full article →

Ifbyphone Names Jason Ferrara Vice President of Marketing

October 26, 2010

CHICAGO, IL–(Marketwire – October 26, 2010) –   Ifbyphone , an industry leading customer interaction company, today announced a key addition to its executive team with the hire of Jason Ferrara as Vice President of Marketing. Ferrara comes to his new role from another rapidly growing Chicago company, the nation’s largest online job site CareerBuilder.com. As Vice President Corporate Marketing at CareerBuilder.com Ferrara was responsible for business-to-business strategy, including communications, advertising, promotions, product marketing, e-commerce management, customer lifecycle and loyalty, and sales support. 

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: How to Get Out of Consulting and Into a Steady Paycheck

October 20, 2010

Many people who were laid off and couldn’t find another position turned to consulting. For some of these people, what they thought would be an interim situation has turned into years of consulting as a sole proprietor. Because of this, it’s been harder for them to get a full-time job. The perception by many employers is that if someone has been self-employed for many years, they’ve lost touch with the demands of what happens day-to-day inside a company. For example, when you are working alone, you typically don’t have to respond to crisis situations, have fast-turnaround deadlines and often do more strategy than executing. In addition, you may not have managed people in a while and the landscape has changed. We spoke with a consultant who hadn’t managed a team since 2000 and was trying to sell himself for a management position. We told him we needed recent management experience and he said, “But managing is in my DNA.” While this may be the case, employers are always looking to reduce risk and it’s safer to find someone who has recent management experience. So what do you do if you’ve been a consultant for a few years and want to get back into a fulltime position? Try Consulting Firms — There are many employment firms that specialize in placing consultants in companies for interim projects. Many of these are project management positions which can help update your management skills. There are large consulting firms like Resources Global and M Squared which service every functional area and smaller ones like Sage Consulting Associates which focuses primarily on marketing. What these firms have in common is they offer consultants an opportunity to have long engagements (e.g., 12 months) in blue chip companies. Longer term assignments provide you with a steady income and an opportunity to “try before you buy”, as many of these turn into fulltime jobs. Also, consulting firms generally have Fortune 1000 companies as their clients. These companies have state of the art technology, cutting edge business processes and best practices which will augment your skills and experience. In this competitive marketplace, this option might be one of the easiest ways to get back into a full-time position. Work On-site — If you don’t want to go the consulting firm route, the best way you can leverage your consulting business is by working at the client’s site whenever possible. Many consultants make the mistake of working almost exclusively from their own office and miss a terrific opportunity to more fully engage with a client by working from that client’s offices. When you establish an office at the client’s location, you’ll be more of a “go to person” by virtue of the fact that you are physically there and that client could hire you for additional projects for his/her area. You’ll also meet more people and automatically engage in “off-line” discussions and will appear to be part of the team already. Working at the client’s office also enables you to see what the culture of that company is like and, likewise for the client to see first hand how you interact with their employees. All these things grease the skids for a potential transition from consultant to full-time employee. Attend Meetings – If working on-site is not a possibility, ask to be included in meetings which involve your assignment. No matter how small your piece of the pie is, attending meetings is a great way to showcase your talents beyond that project and get better perspective on what the company’s other needs are. The more people you interact with at the senior management level, the better your chances of migrating to a full-time employee. Many people see themselves as a consultant for life, but if you’re a consultant with designs on returning to full-time employment, apply the same strategic thinking to your re-entry as you do to each of your consulting assignments. We’ve seen firsthand how consultants have applied the guidelines above to land a great full-time job in the company of their choice. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: John Elway’s Tackle Masks a Bigger Scandal

October 20, 2010

John Elway escaped many tackles during his career as a quarterback for the Denver Broncos, but he was no match for the lure of a hedge fund manager. The Colorado District Attorney alleges a massive Ponzi scheme by Sean Mueller, who ran a hedge fund. Elway and his business manager reportedly invested $15 million in the fund. The alleged scheme was a garden variety fraud. New funds were used to pay existing investors and phony account statements were sent to hapless “investors”. We are all too familiar with this scenario. These high profile cases involving celebrities garner the headlines. The steady erosion of hard earned money by brokers from average investors escapes scrutiny, even though the consequences of this conduct are far more pervasive. Over at CNBC, Cramer “educates” investors with his “lightening round”. According to the network, “you say the name of a stock, and Mad Money’s Jim Cramer tells you whether to buy or sell.” While hard data on Cramer is hard to come by, an article in Barron’s concluded “…his Mad Money stock picks have underperformed the market over the past two years.” Cramer takes his antics to colleges and universities, where the next generation of business leaders can be exposed to his brand of “investing education”, which glorifies discredited notions of stock picking, manager picking and market timing. Tulane University proudly announced that Cramer will broadcast live from its A.B. Freeman School of Business on October 19, 2010 as part of the show’s “Back to School Tour.” I don’t know Mr. Freeman for whom this distinguished business school is named, but he should be sickened by this event. You can be assured that the University of Chicago Booth School of Business would decline the opportunity to showcase Mr. Cramer’s vaudeville show. The notion that there is a guru out there who can pick stocks or time the market has cost Americans trillions of dollars. The charade continues every day in brokerage offices across the country. Here are some examples of how difficult it is to predict which sectors of the economy will be the next winner. In 1997, financial stocks were up 52%. Did you buy? Too bad. In 1998 they lost 5%. You can’t lose with heath care stocks, right? In 1990 and 1991, they were up 16% and a whopping 62%. So what happened in 1992? They lost 15%. I could go on, but you get my point. Industrial sectors and individual stocks move in random patterns, affected by tomorrow’s news. A huge industry, fueled by the media, encourages you to ignore this fact. They have done a great job and you have suffered as a consequence. The nail in your coffin is the arbitration system run by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). No matter how badly your broker treats you, you will have to submit to arbitration run by this industry organization. Your chances of any meaningful recovery are not good. A comprehensive study found most customers who participated in these arbitrations were not satisfied with the outcome and did not believe the process was fair. The North American Securities Administrators Association supports a ban on mandatory arbitration, noting it is “inherently unfair to investors”. This group includes securities administrators in all 50 states. Until the SEC (run by the former head of FINRA!), concludes its study of this shameful process, investors can expect no meaningful redress, regardless of the misconduct of their brokers or the harm done to them. It’s a really nifty system. For everyone but you! The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog. Here is the trailer for my new book, Timeless Investment Advice .

Read the full article →

National Bankshares, Inc.’s Secretary and Counsel to Retire

October 18, 2010

BLACKSBURG, VA–(Marketwire – October 18, 2010) –  James G. Rakes, Chairman, President and CEO of National Bankshares, Inc. ( NASDAQ : NKSH ) today announced that Marilyn B. Buhyoff, the Company’s Secretary and Counsel, will retire effective July 1, 2011. Mrs. Buhyoff, who will soon turn 62 years old, joined the National Bank of Blacksburg in 1987 and was named Secretary and Counsel of National Bankshares, Inc. in 1988. Mr. Rakes said, “We have been fortunate to have counted Marilyn as a part of our senior management team for over 23 years. We appreciate that she has given us sufficient time to plan for her departure by reassigning certain oversight responsibilities and to conduct a deliberate search for her replacement.” Mrs. Buhyoff commented, “It has been an honor to have spent a significant part of my career at National Bankshares under Jim Rakes’ leadership. Not only have

Read the full article →

David Callahan: Crime Pays: The SEC’s Slap on the Wrist for Angelo Mozilo

October 17, 2010

Let’s say a business leader makes hundreds of millions of dollars through criminal practices that end up wiping out the wealth of myriad homeowners and contributing to the biggest economic crisis in 70 years. Then, as punishment, he is forced to fork over $67.5 million — and yet faces no prison time. Has justice been done? Well, if you listen to the SEC — and plenty of media commentators, too — the settlement just reached with former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo was tough stuff. It was reportedly among the largest fines ever imposed on an individual by the SEC. To be sure, $67.5 million is big money. Except in comparison to the fortune that Mozilo made presiding over one of the shadiest mortgage firms of all time — reportedly a half billion dollars. Time magazine didn’t just name Mozilo one of the “25 people to blame for the financial crisis,” it put him on the top of the list. Countrywide has been sued by nearly a dozen state attorney generals for its predatory lending practices. The company, now owned by Bank of America, has also been hit by a blizzard of other suits. One reason that Mozilo got away with so much is that he effectively bribed numerous regulators and lawmakers, of both parties, with dirt cheap mortgages through his so-called “Friends of Angelo” program. Ultimately, Mozilo wasn’t even nailed for his mortgage practices. They SEC got him for insider trading and securities fraud, alleging that Mozilo unloaded Countrywide’s stock on unwitting investors as the company began to tank — all the while saying that everything was fine. As is common in these cases, Mozilo did not acknowledge any wrongdoing as part his settlement with the government. That outcome is reminiscent of how the corrupt financial analysts, Jack Grubman and Henry Blodget, were let off the hook. Both settled with regulators after playing key roles in the dotcom scandals of the 1990s. When those settlements were reached, many observers predicted — myself included — that the absence of any personal punishment for the analysts would encourage future greed and lawlessness. Now the cycle is being repeated. It is hard to see how the Mozilo settlement will deter future wrongdoing. Indeed, it could have the contrary effect. If you can make a great fortune behaving badly, get busted, and still end up with most of that future, then you’ve come out way ahead. At least in financial terms. In defense of the SEC, complex white-collar cases can be difficult to win at trial. Especially when the defendant can spend limitless amounts of money on the best legal team. And that truth, too, is well known among well-heeled criminals. So in the end, here’s the calculus that might run through the mind of an executive considering breaking the law in order to make a huge fortune: First, they probably will never get investigated. But if they do get investigated, they probably will never go to trial. But if their case does come to court, they stand a decent chance of winning by hiring superior legal firepower. And even if they lose in court, their sentence may be short and they may still end up very wealthy. (See: Michael Milken). None of this is to say that Angelo Mozilo doesn’t have regrets. Like many central figures in big financial scandals, he doesn’t seem like an especially bad guy. He grew up the son of a butcher and worked his way to the top of the mortgage business over many years. His intentions seemed noble at earlier points in his career, as he talked about making homes more affordable to low-income Americans. Mozilo also raised questions about Countrywide’s practices. As the New York Times describes, In its complaint, the S.E.C. cited a series of e-mails written by Mr. Mozilo starting in 2006 that decried some of Countrywide’s lending practices even as the company’s executives publicly boasted about its high-quality loans. “In all my years in the business, I have never seen a more toxic product,” Mr. Mozilo wrote in an April 17, 2006, e-mail to Mr. Sambol [his chief financial officer], referring to loans that allowed borrowers with poor credit histories to buy homes without putting any money down. Mr. Mozilo also warned his colleagues about the dangers of a popular type of adjustable-rate mortgage that let borrowers pay a fraction of the typical monthly charge. In an April 2006 e-mail, Mr. Mozilo wrote that he had “personally observed a serious lack of compliance within our origination system as it relates to documentation and generally a deterioration in the quality of loans originated.” And yet Mozilo let Countrywide’s subprime mortgage machine march on — ultimately to disaster. Mozilo’s story is yet more testimony to the seductive power of big money in an age of lax regulation. It would be nice to think that this age has come to a close. But Mozilo’s light punishment, with the clear message that crime pays, will help ensure that is not the case.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Wilson Delivered for the Giants. Do You Deliver When It’s the Bottom Of the 9th?

October 13, 2010

If you’re not a baseball fan you may not know who Brian Wilson is. He is a relief pitcher for the San Francisco Giants and, as a “closer”, his job is to do what few people can do – deliver under extreme pressure. Wilson only comes in at the end of the game (usually the 9th inning) when the game is close. Last night, he played in Atlanta where 50,000 Brave fans where rooting against him. A lot was riding on this game as this would have tied up the series for Atlanta. Instead the Giants won, vaulting them into the National League Championship Series. Wilson delivered the win. To a certain degree all of us are “closers” at various points in our careers. Whether it’s an important meeting, presentation or some other high profile event, it can be a “do or die” situation. And like the game last night, there are no “do-overs”. What does it take to operate at your peak level when so much is at stake? Prepare – Whatever the situation is, if you want to excel, this will require preparation. The more and the better you prepare the finer the result will be. If it’s a presentation you’re giving, that means doing the necessary research, development of the material and rehearsing your delivery. Try and simulate the exact conditions – practice in the facility using the equipment you’ll need for the actual presentation. If it’s a meeting, research the subject matter, get “buy-in” from the attendees beforehand, etc. Don’t leave anything to chance. Many people incorrectly believe that Abraham Lincoln scribbled the “Gettysburg Address” on the back of an envelope on his way to the cemetery. That’s a myth. He actually spent a couple of weeks writing, revising and perfecting what turned out to be a two minute speech and a timeless classic. Focus – When Brian Wilson takes the mound, he’s not thinking about last night’s game or the one to follow. He’s not thinking about the screaming fans or anything other than the batter he faces. His focus is on getting that batter out. This ability to focus on the most important thing is what differentiates him from his peers. Use this principle in your career. For example, say you have a sales call with what could be a major customer. You’ve worked hard to get this meeting on the calendar and know that you have one opportunity to impress them. Rather than thinking about the commission you’ll make on the sale or the negative consequences if you don’t close them, focus on your reason for being there – to win the business. Communicate how your product will solve their biggest problem. Perform – Wilson takes the field knowing what’s at stake, and doesn’t let it negatively affect his performance. He takes the energy that is created from the stress and uses it to his advantage. Channel all your energies into your event – don’t leave anything on the table. Perform at your optimum level for whatever time is necessary. After that you can let down, but being “on” means putting 100% of yourself into the effort. The average career has several defining moments in which you must deliver your absolute best. For virtually all of these, you will have advance notice, so take that time to prepare. On the day of, focus on your objective and block out all distractions. Deliver with the mindset that you will be great. Be like the athlete who holds nothing back when the game is being played and you’ll thrive. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Christopher Hytry Derrington: Building A Bulwark Against Job Loss In America

October 7, 2010

Entrepreneurs thrive in an environment of high risk. Face it, failure rates are high. Half of new technology-oriented firms die within five years. Launching a company capable of meeting a market need is an ongoing process of observation, inspiration, aspiration, determination, glued together with lots and lots of perspiration. I would know. I love building startups; it’s a constant learning thrill ride adventure. As a serial entrepreneur currently co-located in Cincinnati, OH and Two Rivers, WI, I’ve been involved with 13 startups/turnarounds during the past 18 years. I’ve had wonderful successes and crushing setbacks. Such is the nature of my career choice. My current endeavor is Rural America Onshore Outsourcing . The idea behind Rural America did not come to me overnight. As a matter of fact, my business partner Sunny Dronawat and I bounced the idea back and forth for ten months before we opened our doors. During 2006 through 2007, I was building a company that created online charitable mutual fund software to be used by nonprofits. Development costs were triple the projected budget. Thus, I was forced to try outsourcing development work to India. I stupidly had fallen in love with the lure of having IT work performed at $13.57/hour instead of the normal urban USA $75/hour. Trust me, if you are a small- or medium-sized company, offshoring your projects usually will not turn out well. Ours was not a unique story: dismal results … poor quality, missed deadlines, cost overruns, etc. On a personal trip to rural Wisconsin, I discovered that I could hire rural American programmers beginning at $17/hour. I returned to Cincinnati convinced that I should hire this rural talent for my software company — but I was thinking too small. The decision to launch Rural America finally occurred when Sunny convinced me that we could offer services to urban customers worldwide by utilizing these rural professionals at rates that were competitive with offshoring. We opened our doors in August, 2008 and quickly obtained our first customer: a British firm who found us on LinkedIn. (LinkedIn is a great marketing tool!) Two years later, business is booming. This is by far the “funnest” startup I’ve ever been involved with. We are providing a great service to our happy customers; our shareholders are pleased with the results, and best of all, we are making an impact on people’s lives by enabling rural Americans to live where they want to live rather having to move to urban areas to find employment. Yes, we’ve had to zigzag various aspects of our business model to better meet customer needs. But that is an essential part of making a startup stick around. Rural America is not only bringing work back to rural USA (our menu of services includes IT, BPO, Creative Design, Marketing and the list is growing daily), but using technology (both off-the-shelf and proprietary tools and processes) to allow over 90 percent of our workforce to work from home and to connect seamlessly with others located elsewhere. We form effective and smoothly-run virtual teams. Thanks to technology, we are able to give each of our clients the people best suited for the job at hand, regardless of where they are based. Currently, we are recruiting Talent in 45 states with plans to expand to all 50 by the end of 2010. Every time my wonderful wife, a senior executive at a large corporation, asks me how my day went, I almost always give the same two answers: “Good and Bad” or “The Dragons won today” (very rarely does everything go perfectly.) She admits she doesn’t understand why entrepreneurs enjoy taking the risks, headaches, setbacks, and failures. I’ve shared with her that we entrepreneurs want to control our own destinies. We have to create and build, so that others may follow. Such is the life of an entrepreneur. If you have dreams of being one, come join our ranks. If you are one, keep fighting the Dragons. You’ll eventually win.

Read the full article →

Video: SAP’s McDermott Says Apotheker Can `Really Help’ HP: Video

October 5, 2010

Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) — Bill McDermott, co-chief executive officer of SAP AG, discusses the appointment of Leo Apotheker as CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. Apotheker spent most of his career at SAP, the biggest maker of business-management software. McDermott speaks with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” at the World Business Forum in New York. (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: Citigroup: Too Big to Manage

October 5, 2010

Okay, so Mike Mayo finally got his meeting with Vikram Pandit and the rest of Citigroup’s senior management, and he even had some nice things to say about the people who run the place, while upping his price target for the bank’s stock 50 cents to $4 a share. So we all can feel happy that the big lumbering Citigroup, which required more bailout money and protection than any other bank during the financial crisis, is finally on the straight and narrow, with management that has the wherewithal to avoid the same mistakes that plunged the bank into despair during the darkest days of the financial crisis two years ago. Don’t bet on it. I’m not saying that Citigroup is about to fail anytime soon, but make no mistake about it, Citi is a fucked up place. Despite efforts to downsize, it’s still way too big, and its management way too feeble to be running a bank of its size, particularly given the competitive pressure Pandit, the CEO since 2007, and his team will face from investors who are pretty tired of holding onto a $4 stock (it closed Monday at $4.03). That means possibly the most underwhelming group of managers in banking will now be embarking on a “growth strategy” — to coin a Wall Street cliché — during a time of incredible uncertainty in the financial business. And you wonder why I’m worried. It’s not that I have anything against Pandit; I’ve met him exactly once in my career and he seems like a nice enough fellow. He’s supposed to be smart. He has a PhD., taught finance, and is said to understand complex investments, like the ones he inherited and which led to Citi’s near demise in 2008. But for all Pandit’s smarts, he never quite got the reality that the business model of Citigroup — known as the universal banking model where individuals and institutions can find all their financial needs taken care of at one place — could never work. Citi reminds me of the old Soviet Union, a massive bureaucracy run by people who thought they were smarter than the free markets. Citigroup imploded in 2008; but for years it was failing, unable to meet even the barest definition of a integrated universal bank, and falling behind in profit margins. But like the Soviet Union, Citi was doomed for failure. For the bank to have succeeded, former CEO Chuck Prince and later Pandit and his team would have had to become experts in commercial banking, investment banking, ATMs, and mortgage lending, to name just a few businesses. They would have to know a lot about risk management in all these areas, and how to integrate the entire massive conglomeration, so products can be “cross sold” — meaning stock deals underwritten by the investment banks could be sold to small investors as they deposit money into their checking account. It never happened and never would, yet in early 2008, Pandit held out the dream that he could make it work and keep Citigroup intact, despite calls from analysts that it needed to be broken up and fast. It was lunacy of the highest order, yet no one stopped him; not the great Bob Rubin, the former US Treasury Secretary, then a leading board member; or another board member and ultimately company chairman Dick Parsons, whose name inexplicably has been leaked by the White House as a possible replacement for its chief economist Larry Summers. And in the end the country paid dearly when Citi went down in flames. Rubin, of course, has left Citigroup, but Parson’s remains as chairman of the board, which should scare the daylights out of investors and regulators worried that Citigroup might once again implode. Pandit, and Parsons, of course, will tell you that the 2010 version of Citigroup is much different than the bank that imploded in 2008. There are more safeguards in place. Management is engaged in downsizing the bank. It’s in the process, for example, of handing Morgan Stanley its massive sales force of retail brokers. Maybe so, but Citigroup is still big and unwieldy, and based on past precedent, too big for the current team of managers to manage. There are, of course, many reasons why Citigroup was the largest casualty of the 2008 financial collapse: Too much risk taking being at the top of the list. But even higher on that list was management, or lack of management. Pandits’ predecessor, Chuck Prince, appeared clueless to the amount of leverage and investing in toxic assets his managers had engaged in, not because he didn’t work hard (all the evidence points to the contrary) but because he was working hard on other matters and didn’t have time to deal with risk management the way he should have. To be sure, Pandit came in and inherited this mess. But back in early 2008, he didn’t see Citigroup as a mess at all. Rather, he saw a shining Citi on the hill with the capacity to grow its way out of the financial crisis, and achieve the greatness envisioned by the company’s founder, Sandy Weill, back in 1998 when the big bank was created through the merger of the Travelers Group brokerage and investment bank with Citicorp. Remember, this is the same guy running the 2010 version of Citi, which may now be marginally profitable, but it is also still big and lumbering much as it was back in 2008. It is still burdened with businesses its management shows no real expertise in running, and still capable to do something stupid when no one is looking. After his meeting with Pandit last Friday, Mayo issued a report which, among other things, took issue with Citigroup ATM machines. Apparently they’re outdated, Mayo wrote. For my money so is the rest of the place.

Read the full article →

William Tierney and Guilbert Hentschke: Nobody Wins When We Regulate Out of Ignorance

September 30, 2010

For-profit higher education has become a political piñata. Three Senate hearings have produced evidence of deceitful recruitment practices, unsustainable student-debt burdens, fraudulent promises of future jobs and high dropout rates at for-profit colleges. In response, Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, plans to propose legislation after the mid-term elections to curb industry abuses. Some for-profit critics would even like the schools to go away. Like it or not, we’re stuck with for-profit colleges. The roughly 3,000 for-profit colleges and universities now account for 12% of all post-secondary students, and they are closing in on serving 2 million students. Financially strapped public colleges and universities are in no position to absorb a rush of new students should for-profits start closing because of tougher regulation. The problem, lost amid the heated charges of widespread fraud in the industry, is that we too little about for-profit colleges to devise a proper regulatory framework for them. Leaders of traditional and for-profit colleges, locked in a cold war atmosphere for years, have stymied comparative research because they feared that objective data would either illuminate the strengths or demonstrate the weaknesses of for-profit colleges. That has produced some yawning gaps in our knowledge of the fastest-growing sector in higher education. Consider: We have no reliable industry-wide data on how many of the nearly 2 million students who begin classes actually complete a degree or certificate program. What exists, at best, are scattered reports issued by various colleges or sweeping analyses of the entire sector, none of which yield reliable information. More important, there is virtually no research that tells us how for-profits compare in terms of graduation rates with their public- and private-school peers. A 2010 study by the Parthenon Group, an independent research organization, is one of the few that examines this question. Using U.S. Department of Education data from 1996-2001 to look at students seeking two-year degrees or certificates, it found that 65% of the students attending for-profit colleges earned the associate degrees or certificates, compared to 44% at community colleges. Even that data, while encouraging, is hardly sufficient to serve as the foundation of a new regulatory schema. There is no systematic data on how effective for-profit colleges are in helping their graduates land meaningful jobs and on how well they are prepared for them. This question goes to the heart of the proposed “gainful-employment” standard, currently under review by the Department of Education, that would cut federal aid to for-profit schools – a major source of their profits — if student-loan repayment rates fell below a certain level. Draconian rules would no doubt put many for-profit colleges out of business. But the best information we have on the jobs/debt questions is no better than back-of-the-envelope projections. We just don’t know how successful for-profit colleges are in overcoming the educational obstacles posed by students who need remedial classes in, say, math and English. If students are unable to correct their academic deficiencies, they will be unlikely to complete their studies. This is not only a problem in for-profit schools. More than two-thirds of all students in higher education require some remedial classes, but they are disproportionately represented in for-profit colleges, as well as community colleges. It is these students – older and poorer than their four-year public and private school counterparts – who overwhelmingly make up the new populations that must be tapped if we are to turn out more college graduates. They are also the same students most at risk of dropping out and defaulting on their loans. There are some promising signs that the for-profit industry is opening its doors to research that will help fill in our knowledge gaps. Corinthian Colleges and the University of Phoenix have recently agreed to participate in research projects comparing their effectiveness against that of selected public institutions. The Career College Association, which represents 1,500 mostly for-profit colleges and universities, will host a major panel on comparative research at its annual convention next summer. And Kaplan University will share data on student performance with the chancellor’s office of the California Community Colleges. Still, a plea for more research at a time when some critics have likened for-profits to subprime mortgage lenders and called for their extinction might seem quixotic. Yes, protect students from the industry’s worst abuses. But before we construct an ambitious regulatory framework, let’s see if the budding cooperative spirit between traditional colleges and for-profits produces research that could help us devise one based in reality. It is not simply to the benefit of for-profit colleges that they succeed. By some estimates, we need to produce 22 million new degree-holders over the next eight years to meet the demands of our information-based economy. We cannot meet that goal if we over-regulate an industry out of ignorance. William Tierney and Guilbert Hentschke, professors of education at the University of Southern California, are the co-authors of “New Players, Different Games: Understanding the Rise of For-Profit Colleges and Universities.”

Read the full article →

Jodi R. R. Smith: Back to School, Moving Up

September 30, 2010

September means back to school for many families, but for those of you in the working world I have a quick quiz. Think fast, True or False: _____ Working hard and doing your job are the best ways to get ahead. In our Mannersmith Professional Protocol seminars we always catch participants who believe this statement to be true. But it is not… This statement is completely false. Working hard and doing your job are why you receive your paycheck. To be eligible for promotion, you need to position yourself properly. Not sure what this means? Here are our top ten tips: 1. Create Perception ~ Make sure you look the part. Dress for the job you want. Keep your work area neat and clean. Arrive early, stay late. Respond in a timely manner. Deliver on promises. 2. Behave Better ~ Everything you say and do reflects on your professional persona. Be sure your actions communicate “polished professional.” Imagine your every interaction being captured on video. Act accordingly. 3. Read Cultural Landscapes ~ Understand what is valued in your office. Who are the stars, who is being promoted, who has the VP’s ear? Know the organizational chart as well as those who have personal power in your office. 4. Be the Answer ~ Look for issues at work that need resolution. From the kitchen fridge than needs emptying to the giant software conversion, helping to make things better identifies you as a problem solver. 5. Move Beyond the Safety of Your Desk ~ While you need not be friends with everyone in the office, you should understand the importance of being friendly. Ask about weekends, hobbies, interests. This way, when you do need to work together, the relationship will be there and the interaction will be comfortable. 6. Cross Boundaries ~ Take the time to know people from other departments. Understand how your job impacts them. 7. Follow in Footsteps ~ Look for mentors and ask about their career paths. Know what options you have for promotion based upon your current position. Know your next steps. 8. Replace Yourself ~ Be sure to train a potential replacement. There are times when managers do not promote great employees due to the time, hassle and stress of having to train a replacement. Being “irreplaceable” can hold you back. 9. Next Stop, Knowledge ~ There is always something new to learn in your field. Take the time to take classes and attend conferences so that your skills remain up to date. 10. Build Professional Networks ~ Know others in your field. Look for mentors, make connections, take on leadership roles. Your next stop may be in another organization before returning to your original company. Still not sure what it takes to be promoted? Then you had better ask. From your manager, to human resources, to those in the position you target, to mentors, there is always someone with knowledge and information to share. Lesson One: You are responsible for your own career path, start by playing an active role!

Read the full article →

Shaila Misri, M.D. and Shari Lusskin, M.D., Pioneers of Women’s Mental Health, Join AbilTo’s Board of Advisors

September 30, 2010

Recognized Experts Advise on Continued Development of Momentum — an Employer Supported Program to Assist New Parents Transition From Family Leave Back to Career

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Putting the Lawyers in Lawyers, Guns and Money

September 28, 2010

Doubtlessly, Warren Zevon and writer of the legendary song, Lawyers, Guns and Money, would appreciate this, if he were still alive. By now you may have noted that I like writing about law journal articles on private military and security contractors. Perhaps it is just because reading them put me to sleep quicker than taking Sominex. Nevertheless once you get past the deadly eye glazing prose, at least to those of who aren’t lawyers, they do have interesting things to say. The latest to attract my attention is Military Lawyers, Private Contractors, and the Problem of International Law Compliance by Laura A. Dickinson , published earlier this year in the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. Dickinson is Professor of Law, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and author of the forthcoming book, ” Outsourcing War and Peace: Preserving Public Values in a World of Privatized Foreign Affairs . She accepts that private contractors are likely to become a permanent part of the military landscape. Her concern is how can we make it more likely that contractors will respect core human rights norms? She writes it will not be sufficient merely to focus on the degree to which these contractors are formally governed by international and domestic law. In her view, “the problem is much less about the formal legal framework and much more about the subtle ways in which norm compliance actually operates on the ground. After all, legal rules are often followed not because of the formal existence of a norm, but because of more inchoate processes involving how much the legal norm is internalized by relevant actors.” Specifically she seeks to understand how international legal norms are currently inculcated within the uniformed military, and then see whether those institutional structures are less present (or indeed are undermined entirely) in the private military context. To do so she summarizes conclusions drawn from a series of interviews she conducted with U.S. military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps. She says these lawyers, embedded with troops in combat and consulting daily with commanders, have, to a large degree, internalized the core values inscribed in international law–respect for human rights and the imposition of limits on the use of force–and seek to operationalize those values. In her view their stories strongly indicate that the presence of lawyers on the battlefield can help produce military decisions that are more likely to comply with international legal norms. Dickinson believes that: Differences in organizational structure and institutional culture (and not just differences in the applicable legal regime) may be principal reasons that the rise of private military firms threatens core rule of law values. In particular, the use of contractors may jeopardize certain aspects of military culture, both because the intermingling of contractors and uniformed troops on the battlefield may weaken public values within the military, and because contractors operating outside the military chain of command may themselves develop a different organizational culture and set of values that come to predominate in conflict and post-conflict situations as contractors assume ever-greater responsibilities. Thus, if we are to address how to maintain public law values in an era of privatization, we must take seriously the question of organizational structure and culture, its importance, and the ways it might be shaped. Organizational theory have long recognized that group norms and internal organizational structures can further (or hinder) an organization’s goals, as well as the goals of individuals within organizations. The central question is how best to ensure that compliance agents within an organization–such as lawyers– can most effectively bring about compliance with central rules and values of the firm as well as various public norms. Theory suggests such agents will tend to be most effective under the right conditions: (1) the accountability agents must be integrated with other, operational employees; (2) the agents must have a strong understanding of, and sense of commitment to, the rules and values being enforced; (3) they must be operating within an independent hierarchy; and (4) they must be able to confer benefits or impose penalties on employees based on compliance. Uniformed military lawyers–the career judge advocates–are essentially the compliance unit within the military. These lawyers work to ensure that commanders and troops obey the rules of engagement, which are the rules that operationalize the law of armed conflict in a particular war or occupation. Dickinson spends several pages describing in exacting detail how JAGs do this so I will spare you the details. But, and I’m sure you see this coming, in contrast, her interviews reveal that contractors largely fall outside this organizational accountability framework. While they may receive some training in the rules regarding the use of force, that training does not typically include updated advice on the battlefield about how the rules apply in specific scenarios likely to arise on that battlefield. Contractors also do not receive ongoing situational advice from military lawyers or even from private lawyers employed by the firm itself. Indeed, although the contract firms do employ lawyers, these lawyers do not typically spend time on the battlefield and do not have the same independent chain of command that is available to uniformed military lawyers. Finally, the accountability system that has applied to troops has not, at least until recently, been extended to contractors. Thus, the interviews suggest that many crucial, though subtle, mechanisms of compliance with public values are significantly weakened in the privatization process. I should take a moment here to note that many PMC advocates often argue that the discipline and accountability that former military personnel experienced on active duty somehow carries over automatically when they work as private security contractors. It’s as if a Good PSC Fairy waves her wand and these qualities are transferred over by some sort of magical osmosis. Of course, only those who have never served on active military duty could say this with a straight face. Anyone who has ever been in the military understands that due to the stakes the military invests enormous resources into processes like chain of command, command responsibility, and individual accountability. In terms of its scope and breadth the private sector simply has no equivalent. To understand why this is a real problem, consider the following excerpts from the JAG interviews: Judge advocates described a somewhat uneasy relationship between contractors and troops, and in particular, between security contractors and troops. Although they respected the willingness of these contractors to put themselves in danger, the judge advocates interviewed perceive security contractors to be more willing to shoot than troops and therefore worry about the impact of these contractors on the overall missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. … Judge advocates also reported that the attitude of the contractors seemed to have a negative impact on the troops, in part because the contractors did not need to follow the same military discipline. As one judge advocate observed, “Blackwater gave the impression, ‘We’re going to do what we want and we don’t have to follow the rules. We’re not in America.’” Such an attitude: was bad for us because the soldiers saw it. I would talk to company commanders, with 6-9 years military experience, supervising young soldiers putting boots on ground, on the receiving end of insurgents. They could see the Blackwater guy drinking, on steroids, not following rules. It fostered discipline problems. … A number of judge advocates reported that individuals who had left the military because of discipline problems but were later hired by private firms to work as contractors. As one judge advocate observed, “There were plenty of stories that a guy working as a contractor got court-martialed when he was a platoon member, and now he’s back making $100 grand [per year],” as compared to uniformed military specialists who only earn $20,000. As another judge advocate noted, “I used to hear that some of the contractor guys, security contractors and others, had been kicked out of uniform, not for serious disciplinary issues, but rather because they got administratively separated. Now they were making $80,000 riding desk at [the Coalition Provisional Authority].” Yet another judge advocate reported, “There are stories that circulate among the JAGs that a soldier who’s been kicked out of the army with a bad conduct discharge can turn around and earn twice as much working for a contractor. “While, as the judge advocates acknowledge, these stories may be apocryphal, they reflect the unease that the judge advocates feel about the ability of contractors to flout military rules without suffering employment consequences. … Finally, the judge advocates generally reported that the training of the private security contractors was not as extensive as for troops. As one judge advocate recounted, “We were told they received training in their own rules on the use of force. We were told that they received certification from their super visors, and there was a form.” But, as this judge advocate observed, “There was no looking behind the forms.” Under federal law, contractor employees must be certified as having no prior convictions for domestic violence, but judge advocates report that the certification process was “completely ineffective” because “while violence against women is a serious offense,” it is not the best indicator of whether someone will use a weapon properly in Iraq. And as for whether third-country nationals had a criminal record or had even been convicted of war crimes, “no one was looking behind the veil on this.” Of course, at this point PMC advocates would argue that new laws passed in recent years, mainly modifications to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, helps solve these problems. Uh right; here is what Dickinson says in regard to that: First, it appears that few of the security contractor firms have accountability agents or ombudspersons who are charged with monitoring abuses and who are actually integrated in the field with operational employees, as the judge advocates are. While the firms typically rely on their general counsel for legal advice, the lawyers in these offices appear to remain primarily at headquarters rather than deploying in the field. … Second, the employees of these companies seem to lack a strong sense of even what the applicable laws and norms are, let alone have any great commitment to them. For example, in congressional testimony, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince appeared to have at best a murky understanding of the precise legal rules and regulations that governed his employees’ use of force and available accountability mechanisms for the misuse of that force. Thus, he asserted that his employees were subject to punishment in military courts under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, even though the military had not yet implemented recently enacted legislation extending military jurisdiction to contractors, and even though UCMJ jurisdiction over State Department–as opposed to Defense Department–contractors had still not been clearly established. … Third, contract employees seem to receive insufficient training in applicable laws and rules, particularly those that govern the use of force. While such contracts often now require training, government reports and other investigations have suggested in numerous instances that this training has not been adequate. … Fourth, the fact that many companies use foreign labor complicates training and accountability efforts, as well as the broader effort to instill public law values. So what is to be done? While there have been a few baby steps taken, such as giving JAGs the authority to investigate and prosecute cases of contractor misconduct or allowing security contractors to receive training from judge advocates Dickinson aims bigger: A more ambitious approach would be to try to recreate the full panoply of organizational features for contractors that the military created post-Vietnam for its own personnel. Such features could be mandated either through terms in the contracts with private firms or through direct regulation. And though it is debatable how best to implement these institutional features outside the uniformed military context, it is clear that this is an area that should be considered seriously in any effort to reform the contracting process. Rather than seeking more commingling of government accountability agents with contractor employees, another possible reform approach would seek to encourage or compel contractors themselves to institute processes that would help establish the organizational or professional culture necessary to protect public values. Thus, through governmental regulation or independent industry efforts, contract firms might create internal organizational structures to enhance compliance with the public law norms and values this article has discussed. Such efforts would involve firms adopting the kinds of reforms that the military adopted post-Vietnam with regard to its judge advocates. These efforts include requiring contractors to establish compliance units or hire ombudspeople who would accompany operational employees in theater, advise commanders, report through an independent chain of command, and have authority to confer benefits and impose punishments. In short, the idea would be to create within firms themselves a cadre of lawyers who would be analogous to the judge advocates within the military.

Read the full article →

Video: Lehman Strategist Finds Risk Pays as Ice Cream Maker

September 24, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Carlo del Mistro, owner and founder of ice cream company Gelato Mio Ltd., talks with Bloomberg’s Chief Food Critic Richard Vines about his career. Del Mistro left his job at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2007 and opened his Italian gelato business a year later. Andrea Catherwood also speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse”.

Read the full article →

Wendy N. Powell: An Unscientific, but Remarkable Explanation of the Wage Gender Gap

September 23, 2010

Women in the workplace from Baby Boomers to Generation Y, a think tank of respected opinions, a five-state search for truth When we hear the wage gap — 77 cents to the dollar — we all gasp, suck in the air, and respond with some quick opinions. We all have a unique take on the salary issue from “Men just want to keep women down,” to the common response, “It’s just the way it is.” Many of us don’t know how this figure was derived. This 77.9 cent/dollar figure was calculated by the U.S. Census using the American Community Survey Report from 2008. This data considers all employees working 36 hours per week or more year-round. It is raw data. It’s not adjusted for working parents who take time off for school breaks, family obligations, etc. It doesn’t include statistics about how many hours a week in overtime the person works or what type of profession, hard or soft sciences. It leaves a lot to individual interpretation. Twenty years ago, I thought being in the human resources field meant I could explain the gap. In 1990, it was 71.6 cents/dollar , not much different from where we are today. Of course, I evaluated salaries based upon a sum of education and experience related to the job. Because many women did not possess the breadth of experience of their male counterparts at that time, the wage disparity made sense. Yes, I thought, it will take many years to remedy the gap but it will correct itself. But now I know there is much more to this issue than the raw data at hand. Being on the quest for the answer, I looked to my smart, experienced family, colleagues, and friends to get answers. My informal “think tank” included women of all generations and a couple of wise men. My question to them was simply, “Why does this salary gap exist?” One incredibly talented young professional, Kelly, had an intuitive response that spans the generations. Our current economic strife creates an additional hurdle for those of us trying to secure well-paying jobs. “It seems that women in the workforce are in a catch 22. We are not happy with the salaries we receive, however we are not in a position to turn them down.” This may fuel the ”settling” and ”accepting” epidemic plaguing women’s careers; we can’t shop for the highest bidder. Are women hired at lesser salaries because employers can get away with it in this economy? “I will accept whatever they offer me to get my foot in the door.” Some in my think tank thought that if a woman stops her career to raise children, attend to an aging parent, and other such events, her return to the active workforce has a negative effect on her salary. It’s always been that way, right? Men are the providers, and women are the nurturers. When a need arises, you can count on the women of the family to “do the right thing” and take care of the problem. In fact, women experience absences covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act at the rate of 16 percent higher than men . And of course, since the women make less money in many cases, they will be the ones to take the time off so the family doesn’t take as much of a “hit” in wages. “You don’t need a raise; you have a husband.” Do women want to work the demanding and long working hours to get ahead? Many women tend to gravitate to the “softer” professions, social work, nursing, teaching, human resources where earning potential is not as substantial as litigators or surgeons. I recall one talented administrative assistant who would be next in line for a promotion. When I suggested that she take a couple of accounting classes to get ready for the next level, she said, “I don’t want to. I am where I want to be and don’t pressure me about that promotion.” She did not possess the drive to get ahead in the workplace; her priorities were different. “I can’t give you the promotion because you’re too good at what you do.” What about appearance? Oh yes, beauty matters for women at work. A polished and attractive woman who is not overweight yields a job offer with a better salary. One study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in 2007 revealed that attractive people earn five percent more and obese women earn 17 percent less than their slimmer colleagues. Women of the workplace, I conclude that we become resolved to our own opinions and choices. Of course, there is a dose of traditional values, some discriminatory practices, some personal preferences, our natural preponderance to care giving and nurturing. They all exist in the business world. They just don’t apply to all of us, at the same time, and in the same way. I see young girls wearing glittery shirts that say, “Girl Power” and, “I’m a princess, just get used to it,” and I’m hopeful that the next generation of young women will speak their piece. What do you do if you have a discrimination claim concerning your salary? Visit: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm . You will find a process to file a claim and possible remedies including mediation. Keep your eye on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for salary trends. The Department of Labor publishes the median usual weekly earnings by occupation and sex. Special thanks: Dr. Gail Ali, Florida; Kelly Jansen, Illinois; Rachel Kapur, New York; Bridget O’Connor, Florida; Marsha Grimm, Florida; Judie Steele, Michigan; Suzanne Mueller, Michigan; Lynne LeFebvre, Michigan; Suzanne Kaplan, Michigan; Sherry Pedigo, Florida; Lora Bruder, Michigan; Tammy Grimm, Florida; Diane Savko, Pennsylvania; Terry Powell, Florida; Ryan Powell, Florida; Barry Grimm, Florida; George Savko, Pennsylvania

Read the full article →

Video: Cohen Says Wall Street Risk Management Hiring `Booming’: Video

September 15, 2010

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) — Roy Cohen, author of “The Wall Street Professional’s Survival Guide: Success Secrets of a Career Coach,” talks about Wall Street hiring trends after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the financial crisis. He talks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” Bloomberg’s David McLaughlin also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Paula Deen Was Unemployed and Frustrated. What Saved Her Could Save You Too

September 15, 2010

If you’re one of the 15 million unemployed, you may be wondering if you’ll be able to find a job anytime soon. It’s easy in this market to feel like the odds are stacked against you. The airwaves are constantly filled with stories of doom and gloom on the job front which can feed your anxiety. The anxiety can turn into paralysis and a downward spiral. American cook, author and Emmy Award-winning television personality, Paula Deen, was in a similar situation many years ago. Shortly after she and her husband and two sons moved to Savannah, Georgia where she didn’t know anyone, her husband’s business tanked leaving them financially strapped. This precipitated a divorce, leaving Paula to raise two teenage sons on her own. For the previous 20 years she had battled with agoraphobia (struggled to leave the house) and with the divorce she was debilitated, “I went to bed for two months. I went to bed and I did nothing but cry. I would get up to eat and go to the bathroom and go back to bed.” Paula felt like she had no one (parents were deceased) and nothing to turn to. She didn’t have any marketable skills and didn’t know how she was going to support her family. Her self esteem was low and her agoraphobia had kicked into high gear. She was 42 years old. “So I said, Paula, what can you do? You were not listening in school. You have no talent. You can’t sing or dance. What are you going to do, girl?” The answer was to do what she had a passion for — cooking. She went back to bed, but this time focused on how she could make a living by cooking. Still unable to leave the house, she started a business called “The Bag Lady” and had her sons deliver sandwiches to offices during lunchtime. Paula sold all 50 tuna sandwiches on white bread her first day of business and slowly grew from there. She opened a restaurant called The Lady and Sons and a few years later her career skyrocketed. Today, Paula Deen has her own television show, Paula’s Home Cooking , on the Food Network. She has published 5 cookbooks, appeared on Oprah and launched a lifestyle magazine called Cooking with Paula Deen in November 2005. A tremendous amount of success from a woman who couldn’t get out of bed. In this job market, many people are in a panic and believe they should just take any job. The last thing on their mind is pursuing a passion. People think about their passion when they’re “fat and happy” not when they’re stressed. However, focusing on your passion now is a great way to alleviate your stress and energize you. Just like Paula Deen, you can start small and build from there. She focused on her strengths and her passion and developed a niche — preparing and delivering lunches to businesses. Stories like Paula Deen’s can inspire all of us to continue on when we feel like giving up. No matter how bleak the situation looks, doing the right things at the right time will ensure your success. If you’ve had a passion or desire to create something, this might be the perfect time to do it. Paula Deen: “If you have a dream, Follow It!” Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: From Trash to Cash – How 2 College Students Made a Fortune

September 9, 2010

Almost everybody at some point in their career wonders what it would be like to be their own boss. “Effortless Entrepreneur”, by Nick Friedman and Omar Soliman with Daylle Deanna Schwartz, tells the story of Omar & Nick, two college kids who started their own business and made millions. And, for a change, it wasn’t a tech business. It was good old fashioned hauling away trash. For some of you reality TV aficionados you may have seen them on Millionaire Matchmaker. We all like the success stories about people who are self made. You might be wondering if you have the right stuff to make something out of nothing – a germ of an idea to a multi-million dollar business. Here are some things to consider: An idea – Do you have to create a category or find a niche market to be successful? Not necessarily. What’s important is to differentiate your product or service. Nick and Omar didn’t create the junk hauling category but they were smart enough to figure out how to position themselves against their competitors. They did this initially with their name, “College Hunks Hauling Junk.” Not only is it memorable but it describes the service and who’s providing it. They were able to capitalize on a segment of the target audience who preferred hiring struggling college students to a large corporation. Sometimes the simplest ideas are the best. Ask yourself why your product or service should exist? If you believe you have a good idea, you owe it to yourself to explore it. A business plan – Writing a business plan will help organize your thoughts and evaluate the key areas of your potential business. A business plan will require you to assess the size of the market, your target audience, the competitive situation, your funding needs, etc. The plan takes an objective look at the viability of your idea which is why banks require it prior to lending money. While you love your idea and are attached to it, your banker is looking at the financial risk. If they’re willing to lend you money, that’s a vote of confidence in your business. A personality type – Are you persistent? Willing to deal with uncertainty? Can you be accountable to yourself? Can you be resourceful, getting things done with little support? Can you go a year without making money? When people think about owning their own business they think of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and fail to consider all the hard work involved. Even on your days off you’ll be thinking about your business because no one will care more about it than you. Many people are starting their own business, despite this difficult economy. Stories like Omar’s and Nick’s are inspiring to entrepreneurs of any age. Take a page from Effortless Entrepreneur as you think about launching your own business. Ask the tough questions and go with your gut. Think about any great company and you’ll find it started with two key ingredients: a great idea combined with someone’s determination to see it through. If you have these qualities you might just be the next Omar and Nick. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Caroline Dowd-Higgins: The Power of In-Person Communication in Your Job Search

September 3, 2010

In this technology driven age people rarely communicate face-to-face anymore. Emailing, texting, and Tweeting have kept us hidden behind computer screens and handheld devices. It’s time to dust off your professional communication skills and speak to people, especially if you are searching for employment. In-person communication is always the best option so you can utilize eye contact and positive body language. Remember, first impressions are lasting so be prepared to put your polished, professional self out there. Since you don’t have a built in auto correct mechanism for verbal communication like spell check on computers, you must become self aware and take charge of your communication skills. Ask those in your circle of trust to give you constructive feedback and listen and observe others in your professional circles to emulate great communicators you know. Here are some strategies to keep in mind as you begin to put your communication skills into practice. 1. Think before you speak and consider what you want to say before you open your mouth. In a professional situation you must be succinct and able to get your point across effectively. Rambling and tangential comments decrease your effectiveness and cause your audience to lose focus. Always consider whom you are addressing and customize your comments for each audience. 2. Diction is paramount – speak clearly and embrace your inner confidence. Be aware of your tempo and volume making sure not to speak too quickly or too softly. Channel your inner news anchor and aim for that kind of articulate delivery. Listen to yourself on your voice mail message to gage your clarity and vocal articulation. Clear diction is essential in the communication process – if you are unintelligible, your message will never land. 3. The use of appropriate humor is welcomed and can add levity to a situation but use it wisely and sparingly. Inappropriate language and off color jokes are never acceptable in a professional situation. This is not the time to test drive your stand-up comedy act, but a little humor can break the ice and set the tone for a conversation. 4. Body language is as important as what you actually say out loud. Make eye contact with those to whom you are speaking, assume a confident posture while standing or sitting, and be sure to smile naturally when it feels right. Avoid fidgeting and extraneous facial expressions. Keep an open body position and avoid crossing your arms so as to welcome your listener and draw them into your conversation. 5. Be an attentive listener – it’s an important part of how you communicate with others. Don’t interrupt or finish another person’s sentences. Be engaged and show them you are genuinely interested. The ability to fully comprehend information presented by others through active listening is a vital part of communicating. 6. Avoid filler words such as: “like” and “um” and avoid colloquial phrases in the professional arena such as: “you guys”. Actively listen to yourself to catch these filler words and remove them from your day-to-day vocabulary in professional conversations. Since the hidden job market represents 80% of positions that are never posted, it’s wise for job seekers to get out from behind the computer to be seen and heard. Building and stewarding professional relationships is how you will get noticed, recommended, and eventually hired. Strong communication skills still sit at the top of the list for career competencies that employers value most. Honing your communication skills will distinguish you and set you apart from the competition. It takes practice to polish these skills and build your communication confidence. So get out there and start talking with people. Attend networking events, community functions, or other activities and give yourself the opportunity to flex your communication muscles. Step away from your computer and start talking with people! Caroline Dowd-Higgins pens a career transition blog called “This Is Not the Career I Ordered” ( www.notthecareeriordered.com ). She is also the Director of Career & Professional Development at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Rejected Outright for the Job Because of Their Online Image

August 31, 2010

Business strategist and Webby Award winner David Allen Ibsen (runs business consultancy 5 Meetings Before Lunch ) was helping one of his start-up clients with their organizational needs. Specifically, they were looking to make a couple of key hires. Ibsen tapped into his business/social network on LinkedIn to search and identify potential candidates. “LinkedIn is great because you have the person’s resume right in front of you.” He then gave the short list of candidates to his client who “Googled” each person’s name to do a background check. The client put the names into two buckets: “People with a positive web presence” and “Not”. The positives were called in for interviews, the rest were rejected outright. While these people had professional LinkedIn profiles, they were dinged because of what they had on other social networking sites. A professional profile is great but it doesn’t mean you’ll get a pass on them checking Facebook, Twitter or blogs you may have written. According to Ibsen, these people should consider taking a look at their personal brand. “Just like my corporate clients who covet their brand reputation, individuals need to look at what type of story is being told about them online and make sure it matches who they are and how they want to be perceived.” So, where should you start if you have a less than favorable web presence? Facebook – Look at your profile photo. Is this how you would want to be judged by a potential employer? We know it’s supposed to be just for friends, but the reality is that your photo along with your profile’s “likes” and “dislikes” are open to public review. Give your likes and dislikes the same scrutiny. If you happened to be “tagged” in a photo, that picture could also make its way to a hiring manager or recruiter. Let your friends know that you would rather not be tagged. Twitter – Whatever you tweet can get retweeted, on and on. It’s like the old Faberge shampoo commercials , “I told two friends, who told two friends” and before you know it, it’s out there in a big way. Tweets do fall off Google searches rather quickly, which is the good news. If you need to do some damage control on something you’ve tweeted, then tweet a number of positive things. LinkedIn – A way to rebrand yourself here would be to raise your profile by answering questions in your area of expertise. Also, review your profile for keywords and positioning. That can make a difference in how people find you and perceive you. We coached a woman who was a professor, author and speaker. Her profile emphasized her academic background, when she really wanted to focus on her writing and speaking engagements. This was an easy fix and got her more attention in the areas she wanted. David Allen Ibsen: “The Internet and the rise of social media have changed the rules in terms of how prospective employers do background checks. Even though the rules have changed, one thing still holds true – building a good reputation is invaluable.” People make the mistake of viewing LinkedIn as their professional image and consider Facebook and Twitter as their personal ones. While you might make this distinction, hiring managers don’t. Ibsen: “Never post anything on the Internet you wouldn’t want your mother – or boss – to see.” Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Inder Sidhu: Decisions without Tradeoffs

August 26, 2010

A decade ago, I learned an invaluable lesson that serves me to this day: we have to make tough decisions, but we don’t have to make tradeoffs. I work for Cisco, the world’s largest maker of networking communications equipment. Early in my career, I was tasked to re-write 800 lapsed dealer contracts. Unfortunately, each was put together individually, complete with different terms and conditions. My mission: standardize the documents so Cisco could develop consistent plans and policies for working with thousands of business partners. Some days I wondered if rewriting the tax code would have been easier. But I stuck with it. The biggest challenge I grappled with wasn’t accommodating special, one-off demands, but trying to protect Cisco’s interests while preserving partner profitability. Initially, I approached the challenge as though the two objectives were in conflict. But the more I worked through the fine details, I realized that they were actually complementary. Cisco needed to protect its interests, but it also needed to have happy, profitable partners, too. That’s when it hit me: my job was to make decisions, but not to make poor tradeoffs. All these years later, I still approach business challenges with the same dual mindset. Yet all around me, I see people going another direction. When faced with a strategic decision, they often choose one option and abandon the other. They focus on innovation and new business models at the expense of core businesses or vice versa. They stress discipline and sacrifice flexibility. Or they focus on customers and ignore partners. In some instances, the consequences can be devastating. BP, for example, shut off fire alarms and drilled after leaks were discovered at the Deepwater Horizon well. In addition to the 11 lives lost and the untold environmental damage, the decision to trade safety for productivity cost BP more than $4 billion in cleanup and containment expenses, and more than $100 billion in market capitalization. Does anyone really think that was a smart tradeoff? No. And yet companies make poor tradeoffs all the time. Some are the result of split-second decisions, while others are the product of careful and deliberate thinking. Take Dell Computer, for example. Dell is a true marvel when it comes to operational excellence and efficiency. For its efforts to create the world’s most efficient supply chain, it climbed to the No. 1 spot in worldwide PC sales in 2001. But this decision to emphasize optimization over reinvention caught up with the company just a few years later when HP, Apple and others exceeded Dell in innovation. That led to a reversal in fortune. When HP surpassed Dell in PC sales, the company sacked its CEO and began a painful reorganization and reprioritization of the business. Could things have turned out for Dell had it pursued both optimizing and reinventing simultaneously? I certainly believe so. In industries as diverse as heavy machinery and pharmaceuticals, there are plenty of examples of companies that have benefitted from avoiding poor tradeoffs. Take drug maker Novartis, which benefits from doing well and doing good both. In terms of performance, Novartis is producing results above the norm: Despite the global downturn, its sales grew 7 percent in 2009 to $44.3 billion. Net income grew even more (8 percent) and reached $10.3 billion–the highest in the company’s history. In addition to doing well, the company has a long history of doing good, too. Among other things, it has donated money, drugs and other assistance to humanitarian causes. After the devastating earthquake struck Haiti in January, for example, Novartis immediately pledged $2.5 million in assistance. In addition to these efforts, Novarits does good by committing to develop drugs to fight diseases other companies ignore. Doing so has not only resulted in breakthroughs for under-served patients, but also produced new financial opportunities for the company, too. Novartis’ drug Ilaris, for example, was originally developed for people with rare rashes and fevers. Now, it is helping people who suffer with gout. When I think of my own experiences, I recall many examples of deciding to avoid tradeoffs–and benefiting as a result. Take Cisco’s efforts in emerging market economies. Initially, Cisco tried doing business in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa with strategies devised for more mature markets. It did so to streamline efficiency and increase standardization. But emerging countries move at different speeds than more established nations, and have different needs and priorities, too. So rather than force-fit plans crafted for one part of the world onto another, Cisco created an entirely new geographic region devoted solely to emerging countries. The region has its own management, go-to-market strategies and objectives. Later, Cisco assigned executives at headquarters to help bolster efforts in the field. I personally co-led a cross-functional team tasked with galvanizing the company’s energy, securing resources and setting the strategy in emerging countries. That led me to Mexico, where I met with Alejandro Burillo Azcárraga, chairman of Grupo Pegaso. He became so enamored by our TelePresence technology that he asked for systems at his home in Vail, Colorado, his office in Mexico City, and even on his yacht. This relationship would not likely have been established under the old way Cisco did business in Latin America. But because the company understood that it needed a different strategy for the emerging world than it had for the established world, new opportunities arose. It takes an effort to see difficult decisions as an opportunity to improve on two divergent vectors. A simple compromise is almost always easier. Rarely however, does it produce the gains that avoiding a tradeoff can. Rather than deciding between one thing or the other, I suggest doing both instead. Inder Sidhu is the Senior Vice President of Strategy & Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco , and the author of Doing Both: How Cisco Captures Today’s Profits and Drives Tomorrow’s Growth . Follow Inder on Twitter at @indersidhu .

Read the full article →

Michael Deane: Young Scientists Making Every Drop Count

August 25, 2010

Summer break is nearly over, and for many students that means saying goodbye to fun in the sun and reigniting a desire to learn. But summer wasn’t a total wash for students interested in pursuing education and careers in the water industry. Across the country, students from grade school to incoming-college freshman participated in programs that immersed them in the biology, geology, hydrology and just plain interesting stuff that happens between a water reservoir and the kitchen faucet. Meanwhile, a national dialogue continues on education, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), encouraging students to engage in these critical fields. Part of this effort is being undertaken by American industry, seeking to develop future engineers, conservationists, facilities managers and even chemists, and the water industry is no exception, engaging in a variety of programs designed to expose the career possibilities in protecting and delivering this essential resource. To cite just a few examples of students and industry working together this summer: • NAWC continued its long term commitment to engaging students in water-related education by helping sponsor the Federal Water Quality Association’s scholarships for four graduating high school seniors; • Middlesex Water held a “Faces Behind the Faucet” competition for 6-8th grade New Jersey students about the myriad careers in the water industry. Students were asked to write an essay on a career path they found interesting, and winners were selected to shadow a water professional for a day to see hands-on what goes into bringing water into the home; and • Teenagers in Connecticut got a chance to see the inner workings of Aquarion Water Company , in a “boot camp” designed by a local biology teacher. Company experts explained pieces of the complex water services process, and opened participant eyes to opportunities to contribute to this essential industry. On a personal note, I’ve enjoyed regularly engaging with students at my alma mater, Duke University, who are pursuing careers in water and/or environmental management. These graduate students, just like the kids participating in the Middlesex and Aquarion programs, represent the future of our industry, so working with them now not only helps to prepare them for the challenges of their professional futures, but gives me a leg up when we’re all working for them later! All of these students have one thing in common: curiosity. It is up to all of us, in whatever industry we are involved in, to encourage this pursuit of knowledge. If you have young inquiring minds at home, don’t let the end of summer mean the end of opportunity to expose them to hands-on learning away from the classroom. As STEM education progresses, the country will rely on them and their interest and ingenuity to meet the growing global demand for innovation. We can do our part simply by opening their eyes the world of possibilities.

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Eight Questions Every Startup Hopes You Won’t Ask

August 24, 2010

If you really want to impress a startup founder as a potential employee, or you want to be a smart investor, you need to know the right questions to ask. These are the questions that get past the hype of a founder “vision to change the world,” and into the realm of real business strengths, weaknesses, and current health. Some founders try to deflect these questions by talking incessantly, so you often need to be calm, patient, and persistent to get the answers. My advice to founders out there is to not volunteer too much, but be open and honest in the face of direct questions like the following: What is your burn rate and runway today? These are investor slang terms referring to how fast money is being spent, with an implicit question of how long the startup can survive before break-even or another cash infusion is required. You need to know this as a future employee, since it probably gates how long your new job will last. If the runway is less than six months, with no new source signed, both you and the startup are at risk. How much “skin” is already in the game? The intent of this question is to determine the level of commitment of founders, both cash and “sweat equity,” and how much others have already invested into this plan. Implicit in the analysis of the answers is how much progress has been made for the investment, and how stable the business is now. What’s the total history of this company? Gaps in the history of a startup are big red flags, just like gaps in your resume. If the company was incorporated five years ago, and is still in early stages, with the same founding team, chances are slim that it will suddenly get back on track with you as an employee, or you as an investor. How well do the founders get along with each other, and with the team? The smartest people are often the most eccentric, so some conflict in the ranks is normal. Excessive conflict, lack of communication, or lack of mutual respect is indicative of a dysfunctional team, and eventual failure of the startup. You won’t get this answer from the founder, but it’s not hard to get it by talking to other team members. What’s in this deal for me? Investing in a startup, or joining a startup, is always a very big risk, so the potential return better be large. As an employee, you salary will likely be low, your job security low, so the job title better be large, and the stock options better be large. As an investor, look for an ROI that is 10x your initial investment, based on something more than a dream from the founder. What traction can be measured today? Who do you have as outside board members? The only true outside board or advisory members are not family members, not current investors, but are experienced entrepreneurs with deep knowledge and connections in the relevant business area. They should be asking to speak to you if you are a potential investor or a superstar hire. If you talk to them, they better know the answers to the previous questions. Who is a real customer that I can talk to? Real customers are ones who have paid full price for the product, have it installed and in use, and are still satisfied. Free trials don’t count, betas don’t count, and “excited about the potential” doesn’t count. If there are no customers yet, when will the product ship, and how many times has the date been set? How solid is the intellectual property? Provisional patents, or lawsuits pending, don’t add up to a strong sustainable competitive advantage. You need to know these things before you put your money on the table, or bet your career and your family’s future on this startup. Again, I’m not suggesting that you go on the attack to get answers to these questions. But don’t let management divert you with comments on your failure to understand “the vision and the big picture.” If you are a potential employee, it probably makes sense to get the job offer first before you tackle some of these, always staying calm and assertive. In the parlance of an investor, asking these questions and getting answers is the heart of that mysterious “due diligence” process. Now you know. If you are a potential employee, you need to do the same due diligence before you sign on. Every good founder will have done the same on you, before they make you an offer.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: They Took My Ideas and Gave Somebody Else the Job

August 19, 2010

We met over coffee with a Director of Sales who told us of a recent experience he had interviewing at a company. He went through several rounds of interviews and by all accounts he was headed for an offer. The recruiter said, “Things are looking good” and told him he should keep selling. Every time this Director went back for another round, the company kept pumping him for more ideas, which he freely gave. After the fourth round in a protracted process, he was surprised to learn that they had implemented two of his ideas. When the CEO said to him, “You’re going to make me a lot of money”, the Director of Sales thought an offer was just around the corner. Unfortunately, the offer went to another candidate. This Director of Sales learned the painful lesson of giving away too much for free. We heard a similar story about an advertising agency which was approached by a potential client. The potential client was a small company and wanted the agency to develop some creative, free of charge, before they made an agency selection. The head of the agency told the company president that he was happy to provide broadcast and print samples from current clients, but wasn’t going to develop new creative and give away free what they sell. The agency got the account. We’re not saying that you should never give out ideas, especially when you’re interviewing. It’s normal in the course of an interview to be asked your ideas on how to solve a problem the company is facing. It gives a prospective employer a window into how you think and this is an important element in their hiring decision. However, it’s better to give them a “taste” rather than “serving up the whole meal.” You need to balance out the degree to which you give away your ideas. Otherwise, you’re in the role of an unpaid consultant. So what do you do when you’re faced with this dilemma? When you feel you’ve reached that level of discomfort where giving away more ideas without an offer just doesn’t feel right? A very powerful way to demonstrate your strategic thinking is to draw on your past successes. For example, you can relate the story of how you analyzed some research and came up with an epiphany that helped grow the business. Past performances are the best predictor of future results, which is why it’s important to highlight your accomplishments. Building the bridge between your past achievements and the challenges the prospective employer is facing is a great way to paint a picture of what kind of impact you could make at their company. The Director of Sales we mentioned above is scheduled to interview at another company. He is going to be very cautious and give ideas out on a more strategic basis. He learned from the previous experience. He no longer believes that, “They are using my ideas so they must love me.” He now realizes, “If they are using my ideas they may not need me.” This is not always the case, but it certainly can be. Use your best judgment when you’re asked for advice or recommendations during an interview. Give them just enough so they’ll want more – on a permanent basis. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Video: Miller Questions Education Department Loan Metrics: Video

August 17, 2010

Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) — Harris Miller, president of the Career College¶ Association, talks about student-loan trends at for-profit colleges.¶ Colleges owned by Career Education Corp., Corinthian Colleges Inc. and Washington Post Co. have campuses where fewer than 20 percent of federal student loans are being repaid, according to the U.S. Department of Education, which wants to use the data to determine whether programs can¶ remain eligible for aid. Miller speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop With Betty Liu.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →