2011 Hiring Outlook for Accounting and Finance

2011 Hiring Outlook for Accounting and Finance

Companies that made deep cuts to their staff levels during the recession appear more likely to make selective hires of accounting and finance professionals in the coming year. Businesses are hiring not only to ease the burden on existing staff who have been shouldering extra workloads during the downturn but also to better position themselves for growth. To improve their ability to attract the best people for high-demand and hard-to-fill roles, some firms are demonstrating a willingness to modestly enhance compensation.

These and other trends are identified by Robert Half in the newly released 2011 Salary Guide. The guide forecasts that accounting and finance starting salaries will rise an average of 3.1 percent in the coming year, up from 0.5 percent as reported in last year’s guide. The Salary Guide lists average starting pay for nearly 300 positions in accounting, finance, banking and financial services.

Modest pay increases forecast for most management roles

If you’re a professional looking to pursue management-level employment opportunities in 2011, you can expect to find average starting compensation offered at most corporate and public accounting firms to be slightly above 2010 levels, the guide predicts. In the corporate accounting sector, for instance, directors of accounting at organizations of all sizes can expect average starting salaries to rise by between 2.3 and 3.1 percent.

Base salaries for senior-level roles such as treasurer and vice president of finance in corporate accounting are projected to rise less than 2 percent, but this does not take into account bonuses and incentives. Advanced degrees or professional certifications – such as the certified public accountant (CPA) and certified management accountant (CMA) – are also assumed at this level, and can increase average starting compensation by as much as 10 percent.

Tax services specialists hired for senior-level roles at large (more than $250 million in sales) or midsize public accounting firms ($25 million to $250 million in sales) could see starting compensation increase by as much as 3.9 percent over 2010 levels. Professionals joining large and midsize firms to serve in management services positions likely will earn 3 percent or more compared to last year, even for positions requiring only a year of experience. Compensation levels for senior-level tax accountants hired by large and midsize firms will experience some of the most significant increases, according to the guide – between 4.5 and 4.9 percent.

The projected 2011 salary ranges presented in this article are national averages. To calculate the approximate salary range for specific accounting and finance positions in your area and to download a copy of the newly released 2011 Salary Guide from Robert Half, go to http://www.roberthalffinance.com/salarycenter.

Future Leader Must-Haves

Future Leader Must-Haves: Integrity and Communication Skills

Our company recently asked more than 1,400 chief financial officers (CFOs) what — besides technical and functional expertise ­— they look for most when grooming future leaders. By a wide margin, the top survey responses were integrity (33 percent) and interpersonal/communication skills (28 percent). Initiative came in third at 15 percent.

The plethora of news reports over the last few years spotlighting ethics violations within Wall Street firms and other organizations underscores the importance of leaders possessing a strong moral compass. Just one lapse in judgment can significantly damage a company’s reputation and bottom line. Understanding this well, executives are searching for up-and-coming accounting and finance professionals who are highly principled and forthright — and whom they can groom for leadership positions.

If you’re a new or mid-level manager looking to advance in your career and move up the corporate ladder, you’ll need to make integrity a core value, while also establishing honest and open two-way communication with employees. Integrity is not something than can be “learned,” only practiced, but there are a number of ways to enhance your communication skills with your staff that can prepare you for more senior leadership roles.

Consider these tips:

Be as transparent as possible. Treat your team as valued stakeholders by sharing information freely — and frequently. Keep them apprised of what you’re doing to keep your company or department strong, stable and on track. Share your thought processes so employees understand the logic behind key decisions and how staff members will be impacted.

Listen up. Effective communication involves more than just speaking and writing skills. If you’re only delivering information but not inviting it, you’re not making a real connection with your staff. First, make sure team members know it’s safe to voice their opinions, and then make it a habit of practicing active listening — truly paying attention to what someone is saying. Far too often, professionals at all levels are guilty of interrupting others while impatiently waiting for their turn to speak. Establish trust and goodwill by giving each employee you’re talking with your undivided attention.

Don’t leave people guessing. Providing crystal-clear communication on the front end goes a long way toward preventing costly misunderstandings later on. With this in mind, be as specific as possible, particularly with new members of your team who are trying to get a handle on how you operate. Help your employees help you by making your communication preferences known.

Submitted by Robert Half Finance & Accounting. Robert Half Finance & Accounting, a division of Robert Half International, is the world's first and largest specialized financial recruitment service. Robert Half Finance & Accounting is headquartered in Menlo Park, Calif., and has more than 350 locations worldwide and offers online job search services at www.roberthalffinance.com.

Recruiting/Retaining a Multigenerational Staff

Post-Recession Tips for Recruiting and Retaining a Multigenerational Staff
The Great Recession impacted employees in many ways, including their attitudes about work itself. With at least three different generations now represented on teams at many companies, Robert Half International set out to assess each of their post-recession views. Our new white paper, Workplace Redefined: Shifting Generational Attitudes During Economic Change, reports on the findings. Here is a snapshot of what the survey found about how Gen Xers, Gen Yers and baby boomers characterize their priorities, perceptions and career plans. Also included are tips for addressing their concerns, which is likely to become increasingly important in recruiting and retaining key employees as conditions improve:

Competitive Compensation and Stability Appeal to All Ages
Baby boomers, Gen Xers and Gen Yers were in agreement when asked to name the most important factors they consider when evaluating a job offer. Salary, benefits and company stability topped each group’s list. Moreover, all three generations said “working for a stable company” and “having a strong sense of job security” are the work environment factors they value most.
Takeaway tip: When recruiting candidates from all generations, thoroughly spotlight your company’s competitive salary and healthcare/dental benefits. But don’t stop there. If your firm has a strong reputation and history of stability, emphasize those points, too. Economic turbulence has given workers a new appreciation for the relative stability of an employer.

A Sizeable Number of Employees are Looking to Leave
Many companies had to adopt a “do more with less” philosophy during the recession, and many still do. Employees were asked to take on a range of additional responsibilities, and, in some cases, salary freezes and/or pay cuts were instituted. When asked if they’re being fairly compensated for assuming heavier workloads, more than a third of all workers said no. This may be why 36 percent of Gen Yers, 30 percent of Gen Xers and 24 percent of baby boomers intend to seek job opportunities outside their firms if conditions continue to improve. Takeaway tip: Boost your retention efforts by making it clear that sacrifices made during the financial crisis will be rewarded as the economy picks up. As soon as possible, bring back popular benefits or perks such as bonuses, 401(k) matches or training opportunities that were cut or reduced.

Baby Boomers Rethinking Retirement
People plan to stay in the workforce longer because the need to rebuild their retirement funds. Fifty-four percent of baby boomers (and 46 percent of all employees) now say they’ll work beyond age 65.
Takeaway tip: Individuals who thought they’d soon be enjoying a leisurely retirement life will likely be attracted to flexible scheduling. To keep these highly skilled professionals motivated, consider offering them alternative work arrangements such as telecommuting options and shorter workweeks. You might also offer transitional consulting roles to top soon-to-be retirees. It’s a win-win scenario: They earn money and you retain their invaluable institutional knowledge.

Submitted by Robert Half Finance & Accounting. Robert Half Finance & Accounting, a division of Robert Half International, is the world's first and largest specialized financial recruitment service. The company has more than 360 offices worldwide, and offers online job search services at www.roberthalffinance.com.

Post Recession Leadership Strategies

Help Wanted: Hiring Tips for Small Businesses

During what many are now calling the “Great Recession,” small business leaders were often forced to focus solely on just keeping their companies afloat. Consequently, quick-fix staffing solutions may have been implemented. As the business cycle shifts toward more positive ground, now is the time to re-evaluate your staffing situation so that your company is positioned for growth. Success hinges on knowing both when and whom to hire. Following are tips based on our company’s new booklet, Post-Recession Leadership Strategies: A Small Business Guide to Hiring, Managing and Retaining Staff:

Recognize When It’s Time to Add Personnel
After making tough staffing decisions during the downturn, no business wants to over hire. But how do you know when it’s time to start slowly rebuilding your team? Beyond feeling chronically short-staffed, there are other signs that you may need to bring more personnel aboard. They include:
· An overload of overtime. Your employees frequently need to put in extra hours to complete their work. Remember that if you’re not paying proper attention to staffing, your overtime costs can run more than a full-time salary.
· Burnout. Staff members show signs of fatigue and stress, including missed deadlines, more errors, decreased morale and increased absenteeism.
· Constant firefighting. Important projects are repeatedly deferred in order to put out more pressing fires.
· All hands must be on deck at all times. The absence of just one person throws your entire team off schedule.

Look for Specific Traits and Abilities
Small companies need power players — talented people who can fulfill multiple roles, balance an array of duties and be comfortable with fluid job descriptions. Whether you seek accounting professionals for full-time, part-time or temporary positions, there are some key traits to look for in candidates. Those who thrive in small business environments typically possess:
· An entrepreneurial spirit: They apply creative and innovative thinking to realize strategic business goals.
· A team-oriented attitude: They have history of working collaboratively, constructively and cooperatively with others.
· Complementary personality: They adjust easily to the corporate culture and maintain an optimistic mindset.
· Customer-service focus: They are personable and able to provide superior service and support to clients, customers and other stakeholders.
· Commitment and engagement: They show interest in and commitment to the “big picture,” understanding the link between individual effort and the group’s success.

Robert Half Finance & Accounting, a division of Robert Half International, is the world's first and largest specialized financial recruitment service. Robert Half Finance & Accounting is headquartered in Menlo Park, Calif., and has 360 locations worldwide. To request a copy of “Post-Recession Leadership Strategies: A Small Business Guide to Hiring, Managing and Retaining Staff,” please visit www.roberthalf.us/smallbusinessseries.

Fair Value - Fair or Foul

SFAS 157 – Fair or Foul After Year One?

Michael R. Jordan
August, 2009

The Fair Value, or so called “Mark to Market,” debate continues to rage, even though application of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (SFAS 157), Fair Value Measurements was required back in 2008. Financial guru Steve Forbes, former General Electric Chairman Jack Welch and now the United States Congress are all on record criticizing “mark to market” accounting and implicating it as a culprit in the collapse of the financial sector. Think of it, a change in accounting guidance has brought the world to its knees. We accountants must be a pretty powerful group! Would that we could end armed conflicts by using similar means. Of course, we all know there is plenty of blame to go around for the current economic state of affairs.

What is the present status of fair value accounting?

The truth is, “Fair Value” is nothing new. Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18 (APB 18) was issued in 1971 and it refers to fair value. SFAS 157 did not require any new fair value measurements, nor change any previous guidance that require or permit fair value measurement. The real change was defining fair value as an “exit price.” When an asset is acquired or a liability assumed, that transaction price represents an “entry price.” When an asset or liability is disposed of or transferred, that transaction is referred to as an “exit price.” If you think about it, entry prices and exit prices can be very different, just as bid and ask prices can be. This one change in concept has caused about as much tumult in the accounting world as the issuance of SFAS 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities did back in 1998.

There are numerous arguments against fair value accounting. One such argument says that market prices do not always reflect the economic substance of a transaction, especially for assets held to maturity. This is actually a very common situation. For example, assume I have a U.S. Treasury security that pays a coupon interest rate of 1%. For at least the past year, market rates on these securities have been in the 5% to 7% range and, in management’s opinion, these interest rate levels will continue for the foreseeable future. Based on the SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 59 (SAB 59), this security could very well be “other-than-temporarily impaired” and should be written down. I am sure that anyone holding a Treasury security fully expects to receive their total principal and all interest payments at the agreed upon rate of return in a timely manner. Has the economic substance of the security changed just because of a change in market interest rates? You be the judge.

A related viewpoint is that fair value is simply a form of liquidation accounting. If the company is marked to market, this is equivalent to the amount that would be received today to sell off all assets and settle all debts (we won’t get into fair value determination for liabilities, that’s an issue the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is still struggling with). To carry this full circle, if Company A is marked to liquidation value, then Company B transacting with Company A will eventually be forced to mark their Company A asset down to liquidation value. Then Company C transacting with Company B will have to take a markdown, and so on. You can almost visualize the dominoes falling if you think about the financial sector over the past year or so.

In countering these arguments, you’ve probably heard or read the statement that fair value is the most relevant measure for financial instruments. Measures, other than fair value, are not typically indicative of the effect current economic conditions have on an entity’s financial position. By providing new fair value guidance, financial reporting was to be more transparent. Other than the “exit price” notion, SFAS 157 was very much about developing and standardizing disclosures. As the hierarchy level goes up, the disclosure requirements increase. That does not necessarily mean a Level 3 valuation is any less valid than a Level 1 or 2. In fact, more work and thought and cost probably went into generating those (hopefully reasonable) valuations than the other two levels combined. Level 1 valuations are easy, right? Additionally, the attendant disclosures for each level would tend to maximize transparency, especially for those hard to value instruments.

Assumptions About Assumptions

But, believe it or not, fair value was never intended to be an automatic “mark to market” valuation, though it seems many interpreted it that way. How do I know this? Well, here are a few tidbits that are dead giveaways.

Right out of the gate, SFAS 157 muddies the water with “The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability.” Any hypothetical transaction will necessarily involve a hypothetical price. There is nothing to base a price on but estimates, since the holder did not actually transact. Let’s face it, on many exchanges, even closing prices for actively traded instruments are derived from numerous transactions and are themselves, estimates.

Second, SFAS 157 states that: “A quoted price in an active market provides the most reliable evidence of fair value and shall be used to measure fair value whenever available.” This seems to be a reasonable premise given the market based approach to asset and liability valuation. However, what exactly is an active market? Generally, there are plenty of transactions such that reasonable market prices can be found through available trade information. Liquidity premiums are normally quite low and default premiums are consistent with the credit quality of the borrower. These attributes don’t always hold true in inactive markets.

Third, fair value is defined as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.” The Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com) defines order as: “A condition of methodical or prescribed arrangement among component parts such that proper functioning or appearance is achieved.” This definition seems to describe many of the markets we are most familiar with, in normal times. However, we all know there has been a great deal of market disruption and the term “orderly” is not one I would use to describe a number of markets lately.

Fourth, SFAS 157 provides for three valuation techniques to determine a fair value. They are the cost approach, the income approach and the market approach. If fair value was intended to be solely “mark to market,” the FASB would not have included the cost and income approaches.

Lastly, my favorite quote from this guidance is contained in paragraph 30 which states: “unobservable inputs shall reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.” You read that right, assumptions about assumptions. Instead of a verifiable historical transaction, we may now use, not just assumptions, but assumptions about assumptions to value balance sheet items. You can’t get much further from a true market price than that.

An Example of the Dilemma

So, let’s look at an example of something many have faced over the past year (Table 1). Suppose I have an investment grade mortgage security with a face value of $100 that pays a coupon rate equal to LIBOR which is currently 5%, plus a 2% premium, or 7%. For simplicity sake, assume that a 1% change in interest, or discount, rate results in a $1 change in the security’s price. That will make it easier to relate rate of return to price. Research has shown that a normal liquidity premium in this market is around 2%, hence the premium being received above. I have recently determined, using the income approach and a beautiful mathematical model, that I will probably collect only 75% ($75) of my investment amount because of the deteriorating credit quality, or default risk, of the underlying mortgages. If the market has similar information, I should be able to sell that security for around $75 or a 32% discount relative to the total contractual cash flows (5% LIBOR + 2% Liquidity premium + 25% Default premium). I have been able to find two trades in very similar securities during the last quarter and they were both in the $25 range. That translates into an 82% discount rate relative to the total contractual cash flows (5% + 2% + 75%). If the market has become so inactive that the liquidity premium doubled to 4%, and that is a quite severe premium, what is the rationale for the additional 50% in discount? (82% - 25% - 5% - 2% = 50%) It appears the current market has become not only inactive, but completely uncoupled from the underlying economic and financial risk and return metrics of 5% for LIBOR, 4% for liquidity and 25% for default risk, or 34%. This is one of those instances where you might hear the term “market dislocation.”

Table 1.

	Purchase Price and Contractual Rates	Price Adjusted for Additional Default Risk	Price Adjusted for Additional Liquidity Risk	Price Seen for Market Transactions
Price	$100	$75	$73	$25
LIBOR	5%	5%	5%	5%
Liquidity Premium	2%	2%	4%	2%
Default Premium	0%	25%	25%	25%
Panic Premium				50%
Total Discount Rate	7%	32%	34%	82%

What is the additional 50% attributable to?

I don’t have an answer to that, a “panic premium,” maybe. But this is the kind of illogical pricing information investment holders had to deal with. Some markets became quite illiquid as demand dried up, but an additional 50% liquidity premium is not sensible. If you remember, the dot com boom resulted in market values in the opposite direction. Models using then current risk and return metrics could not approximate the very high prices seen in the market. Could it be that markets truly are not rational?

Audit Fears Come to Fruition

It’s very difficult to prove a point using a “lack of information” as your support. Have you ever tried to adequately document an inactive market? It’s nearly impossible. Proving that transactions in that market are distressed is equally challenging. One reason the original exposure draft of FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 157-4 presumed that transactions in inactive markets were distressed, unless they could be proven otherwise, was to help address that quandary. Because of this difficulty, some accounting firms were uncomfortable with clients designating markets as inactive even though the press, the government and the markets themselves continuously bombarded media channels with the fact that markets were inactive, distressed and dislocated. This effectively precluded the use of Level 3 valuations and in some cases Level 2.

We accountants know enough about finance to be dangerous. (Of course, some might say we know enough about accounting to be more than dangerous.) Many accounting firms utilized financial experts to assist in the implementation of the new fair value guidance. A number of these experts hailed from Wall Street. Firms leveraged this real world expertise to evaluate the pricing techniques clients were using. The problem here was that many of these financial minds perceived the valuation measures through purely market colored glasses. They didn’t fully understand the nuances of the accounting guidance and some auditors didn’t really understand all of the complex finance. Clients were also struggling to interpret and ultimately explain the bizarre risk and return metrics implied by the markets. This triad of communication channels, between auditor, client and expert, was filled with so much static it could not all be filtered out. The consequence was a number of severe impairment write downs of Held to Maturity and Available for Sale investments, some because of this miscommunication and resulting misapplication of the fair value guidance. In the end, conservatism, not neutrality, ruled the day.

FASB to the Rescue

To address all of the misunderstandings, FASB was forced to issue two additional clarifications, FSP FAS 157-3 on October 10, 2008 and 157-4 on April 9, 2009. These two FSPs provided examples and checklists for determining if a market is inactive and if transactions in that market are orderly. (How is that for getting away from rules based accounting? Maybe we are not ready for the principles based approach of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)). Audit firms and their clients now have specific guidance to follow in their fair value determinations and impairment evaluations.

Will this reduce the impairment write downs we’ve been seeing?

Originally, SFAS 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, required an other-than-temporary impairment be recognized as a loss in the income statement if the loss was probable. The loss equaled the difference between fair value and carrying value. The amendments to SFAS 115, which accompanied FSP FAS 157-4, require that only the credit, or default, portion of an other-than-temporary impairment be recognized net as a loss in the income statement, if the holder does not intend to sell. The loss, however, no longer has to be probable. Holders must now develop their best estimates of credit, or default, losses on all securities that meet their criteria for other-than-temporary impairment, which is no small task. This is in addition to the fair value measurements already required. We may end up seeing fewer large impairment charges and many more, but smaller, credit loss charges. What the total dollar value of these write downs will be remains to be seen.

Along with these clarifications, FASB provided additional guidance in the form of FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, which was also issued in April. While a modest five pages long, it may significantly expand disclosures for some companies. In essence, fair value disclosures for financial instruments within the scope of SFAS 107 must now be included in the interim financial reports, rather than just annual reporting, of all public companies. Here again, the FASB felt that increasing the frequency of these disclosures would increase transparency by providing more timely and robust information to financial statement users.

Onward to Year Two

After some of the fits and starts we looked at, it appears this fair value thing may just survive the onslaught of critics. And after reading some of the comment letters on the recent FSP exposure drafts condemning FASB to the nether regions, that is probably saying something. It may be that this was the perfect economic environment to test it out, to shake out many of the bugs. Also, it doesn’t look like we’ll end up with anything like that 600 page “Green Book” of Derivatives Implementation Group (DIG) Issues, as we did with SFAS 133.

Already in the works are additional tweaks to the guidance, particularly in relation to the valuation of liabilities, and discussions on expanding the use of fair value in financial statements. But a number of industry groups still feel the principle is flawed. All in all, I believe we accountants have become a little more comfortable with this new conception of fair value, as have the users of the financial statements we produce. But I also think we will probably need some additional education in finance to further our understanding of how financial instruments can be valued. The good thing about this is we will be supporting colleges and universities that need it, providing jobs for teachers and contributing to the next economic upturn and resulting market rally!

To wind this up, 2009 brings with it the addition of certain nonfinancial assets and liabilities to the SFAS 157 domain. Generally, these will include assets and liabilities in a business combination, those tested for impairment under SFAS 142, Long-Lived assets, Asset Retirement Obligations and Exit or Disposal Activities. Their inclusion will add some new complications to the current valuation processes being employed. Some of them will have observable trading markets, though they may not be active. I suspect the predominance of valuations will involve discounted cash flow models, the income approach, and appraisals or replacement cost estimates, the cost approach. Given the experience we now have with financial instruments, hopefully this next round of fair value measurement implementation will go more smoothly.

Hiring Managers: Know How to Negotiate Salary - Kim Shark

Know How to Negotiate Salary

After tendering a job offer, employers should be prepared to negotiate the compensation package should the candidate request an adjustment. Job seekers today have access to an abundance of information on salary negotiation through websites and books, so many will attempt to negotiate your offer and will enter the meeting knowledgeable on the topic. To reach a fair deal, you need to be equally prepared.

The first step is not unlike that in any other sort of bargaining. If the candidate suggests a higher figure than you’ve offered, you can choose to raise the amount of your proposal, waiting for the candidate to respond or counteroffer, and, ideally, arriving at an agreement that’s within the salary range you’ve set for the position.

If the candidate keeps pushing, whether you want to exceed the established range generally depends on two factors: one, how badly you want the individual; and two, the policies and precedents in your company. Two questions to ask yourself before you move forward:
· Are other, equally qualified candidates available if the applicant says no? If the answer is yes, the leverage to make accommodations rests with the company.
· Has the job been particularly hard to fill, or are market conditions making finding and recruiting suitable candidates difficult? If the answer is yes, the leverage rests with the candidate.
· Will a stronger offer be significantly out of line with existing pay levels for comparable positions in your company or hiring manager’s department? Recognize that if you decide to go beyond the firm’s pay scale to win a really stellar candidate, you risk poor morale among existing staff should they learn that a new hire in the same role is being paid at a higher rate. And the best-kept secrets often do get out.

If you’re not able to match a candidate’s salary request, consider expanding other components of the package. Applicants are often willing to compromise on base compensation if concessions are made in other areas. Flexible scheduling is one candidate-pleasing option that will cost you little to nothing. Providing additional time off or opportunities to telecommute may also be acceptable to a candidate in lieu of higher wages.

Don’t get so caught up in negotiations that you lose sight of what is appropriate for your organization. Sometimes you just have to walk away. If your attempts to woo a reluctant candidate fall short, the best thing to do in many cases is to cut your losses and look somewhere else. The goal at this point should be to end the process so that the candidate leaves with a feeling of being treated fairly and with dignity. If carried out effectively, though, your salary negotiation has a very good chance of ending on a positive note.

Submitted by Robert Half Finance & Accounting. Robert Half Finance & Accounting, a division of Robert Half International, is the world's first and largest specialized financial recruitment service. The company has more than 360 offices worldwide and offers online job search services at www.roberthalffinance.com. Follow Robert Half Finance & Accounting on Twitter at twitter.com/RobertHalfFA.

Working Smarter: Tactics to Increase Your Team’s Efficiency

Working Smarter: Tactics to Increase Your Team’s Efficiency
Is boosting productivity one of your New Year’s resolutions? If so, now’s the time to root out inefficient and outdated practices that no longer work. Use the following tips to help increase the quantity and quality of your team’s output in 2010:
Reevaluate routines. All too frequently, tasks and procedures are hastily stitched together when a need arises, and that approach then becomes the “way it’s done” regardless of how effective it is. Take the time to look under the hood and question the status quo, keeping a constant eye on working smarter. Be on the lookout for common inefficiencies such as duplication of work and unwarranted layers of approval. Whenever possible, streamline and consolidate functions, making sure your top performers are tackling high-priority duties that contribute to the bottom line.
Avoid meeting mania. Meetings are often needed to accomplish key goals. But they can also be huge time wasters if managed improperly. In a recent survey by Robert Half, senior executives said that almost a third of meetings they attend are unnecessary. Moreover, 45 percent of respondents felt employees would be more productive if their organization banned meetings one day a week. Before calling a meeting, carefully consider whether it’s absolutely essential. If you have no significant updates and everyone is facing heavy workloads, why have the weekly staff gathering? And remember that when calling a meeting it’s important to invite only those individuals who truly need to be in on the discussion. Also, stick closely to the agenda, watch the clock and quickly rein in tangential conversations.
Promote (and practice) good time management. If you’re operating with fewer staff members, it’s all the more critical that your employees use their time well. Impress upon all your accounting professionals the importance of looking at the big picture and prioritizing their assignments accordingly. Being focused and well organized yourself will help set the tone for your staff. Regularly review your to-do list, be willing to delegate, and budget time for those unexpected but inevitable interruptions.

Submitted by Robert Half Finance & Accounting. Robert Half Finance & Accounting, a division of Robert Half International, is the world's first and largest specialized financial recruitment service. The company has more than 360 offices worldwide and offers online job search services at www.roberthalffinance.com.