Rants
Questions
Soapbox
Best Practices
Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 3:35 EDT

|
Posted by: Mark Cummuta in Best Practices Topic: Personal ManagementBlog: CIO Job Search: A Real Life Chronicle
Current Rating: |
In an increasingly globalized world, how can you put yourself in the front running for the top positions? In this follow-up to "The Impact of Globalization On Executive Job Searches and Economic Prosperity”, I provide some tips and hints from readers and recruiters on how to succeed in your job search in today’s difficult economic environment and harsh employment market.
In my prior article, I wrote about researcher David Gray’s decade-long research that indicates the highest-paying executive jobs in some organizations have increasingly been influenced by large institutional investment firms. His research indicates that many of these firms’ focus on short-term, "quick fix” investment outcomes has resulted in the replacement of the most experienced executives with younger, less expensive, more malleable junior managers. And as Mr. Gray predicted in his writings over two years ago, these changes have in turn created corporate cultures that devalue competence, wisdom and analytical thought, in a trickle down effect from their executive management teams. The result: firms and even entire industries where quantity and low cost win out over innovation, quality and customer satisfaction.
In a follow-up interview, Mr. Gray noted that well-qualified executive job applicants over age 35 “should not beat themselves up over what may appear to be illogical results in some firms’ final candidate selections. As frustrating as it is to these individuals, they should realize that these situations will eventually correct themselves” in the marketplace, he says.
In fact, Gray says he is seeing in his research some early signs that some firms are starting to realize the cost of hiring junior and inexperienced executives. These costs include quality issues impacting major consumers, lawsuits, lost market share, insidious decline and in some cases, bankruptcy. Or, we can look to the financial investment markets' meltdown for a prime example.
Until the market more broadly forces companies to again value long-term loyalty, experience and innovation, experienced job seekers will have to work hard to differentiate themselves and get jobs in such a volatile employment market. Mr. Gray, CIO.com's readers and recruiters shared the following suggestions for making sure you're one of the final candidates on your targeted firms' wish lists.
LOOK ELSEWHERE – This tip is by far the most obvious solution to this problem, and the one suggested most often by recruiters I polled. As one executive recruiter put it, “Why would anyone want to work in an environment like that?!” Instead, look for industries and firms that third-party analysts have evaluated as “recession proof”, “best places to work”, “investor top buys”, or any firm that Warren Buffet invests in. Mr. Gray offers three ways to help job seekers identify organizations that value short-term profits over long-term experience, innovation, quality and customer satisfaction, in order to avoid them:
1. Research the firm’s finances, and especially their investors and shareholders. If the insider and institutional amount to over 75% of the total public float, especially if only one or a few institutional investors, that is one indication to look deeper. With such a large volume of ownership in very few hands, this has the potential to create an oligopoly-like control internally, which in turn could foment the kind of corporate executive culture Mr. Gray describes.
2. Other indicators include recent acquisition by a larger holding or investment firm, significant stock movement to offshore owners, and significant or consistent movement offshore of major assets and/or processes. You can find this
As a followup to this blog post, I want to include several responses I received to the first article on this subject.
One, an executive from the UK, opposed David Gray's proposition and referenced recent research (summarized in "Has Offshoring Harmed IT Workers? One Researcher Says ‘No’). However, after reading the entire article and comments, I'm not sure this research supports this UK executive's opposing point. Specifically, the article and the research paper themselves note that measuring the number of outsourced, offshored jobs is nigh impossible to do directly because there are no reporting requirements in the US of which and how many jobs are specifically offshored. Further, even the author of the original research paper noted that there may be statistical evidence that inshoring of new IT jobs outsourced INTO the US may actually be larger than the offshored IT jobs. Finally, several of the commentors agreed with Mr.Gray's underlying premise in their thoughts.
.
.
Another reader emailed that she believes a major issue that has not been addressed is WHY firms are devaluing wisdom for short term profits. To summarize her point, because firms offshoring jobs and entire manufacturing plants are not required to account for those jobs, they take all the profits while the US taxpayers pay all the negative costs - both directly in lost jobs & benefits, and in increased taxes to pay for unemployment and retraining of those former employees. She concludes, "Only until those accounting records are required and those costs are fully borne by the companies offshoring all our jobs will there be true equity between business executives, investors and US employees."
.
.
Finally, a friend of mine from the industrial sciences industry, agreed with Mr.Gray's research, as evidenced by what he has seen in the sciences. In fact, he notes that even our US government, "theoretically acting on our behalf, killed our own chances in the next generation's greatest innovations and discoveries by backing out of a new US-led super collider in Texas". After reviewing the several articles he pointed me to, here are some of the more telling comments from international scientists (primarily from the article, "America is Loosing Its Vision of Greatness"):
• “US is (rapidly) declining in other areas of science and technology”
• “While the rest of (the) world has copied the US model, the US has lost (loosing) its vision”
• “So the bottom line is, can a country of financial analysts, lawyers, and doctors dominate the rest of the world in this century, or (will) such a country fade away? Unfortunately, I think it is the latter, although a number of economists think the former. However, I don't know of any civilization in human history that dominated the world without being a technology superpower.”
• "The real power of a nation and an ecomony (sic) is ultimately based upon creating new things and producing products from raw materials. Take that away and you have nothing left but money lenders, middle men, and service providers.”
• “Jobs in technical areas are already being shipped overseas, which only serves to strengthen the impetus for investment in technology and education in emerging economies. Once that investment gains fruit, these economies will become the focal point for investment and growth. America is in danger of becoming nothing more than a vacation spot by 2050.”