Business RadioX ®

  • Home
  • Business RadioX ® Communities
    • Southeast
      • Alabama
        • Birmingham
      • Florida
        • Orlando
        • Pensacola
        • South Florida
        • Tampa
        • Tallahassee
      • Georgia
        • Atlanta
        • Cherokee
        • Forsyth
        • Greater Perimeter
        • Gwinnett
        • North Fulton
        • North Georgia
        • Northeast Georgia
        • Rome
        • Savannah
      • Louisiana
        • New Orleans
      • North Carolina
        • Charlotte
        • Raleigh
      • Tennessee
        • Chattanooga
        • Nashville
      • Virginia
        • Richmond
    • South Central
      • Arkansas
        • Northwest Arkansas
    • Midwest
      • Illinois
        • Chicago
      • Michigan
        • Detroit
      • Minnesota
        • Minneapolis St. Paul
      • Missouri
        • St. Louis
      • Ohio
        • Cleveland
        • Columbus
        • Dayton
    • Southwest
      • Arizona
        • Phoenix
        • Tucson
        • Valley
      • Texas
        • Austin
        • Dallas
        • Houston
    • West
      • California
        • Bay Area
        • LA
        • Pasadena
      • Colorado
        • Denver
      • Hawaii
        • Oahu
  • FAQs
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
    • Our Audience
    • Why It Works
    • What People Are Saying
    • BRX in the News
  • Resources
    • BRX Pro Tips
    • B2B Marketing: The 4Rs
    • High Velocity Selling Habits
    • Why Most B2B Media Strategies Fail
    • 9 Reasons To Sponsor A Business RadioX ® Show
  • Partner With Us
  • Veteran Business RadioX ®

Search Results for: regions business radio

Dr. Leslie Gaskill and Jim Brooks with Evermore CID

March 18, 2021 by Mike

Gwinnett Business Radio
Gwinnett Business Radio
Dr. Leslie Gaskill and Jim Brooks with Evermore CID
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Dr. Leslie Gaskill and Jim Brooks

Dr. Leslie Gaskill

Leslie S. Gaskill, M.D., isn’t simply just a family doctor, practicing family and internal medicine in Johns Creek and Peachtree Corners, GA. She treats the whole person and seeks to find the root cause to problems. 

As a board-certified physician, Dr. Gaskill is grounded in traditional Western medicine and especially focused on naturopathic, functional, and holistic medicine for her patients. She is a fully integrative physician and well-known for her work in advanced heart attack and stroke prevention. In addition, she is experienced in restorative, regenerative, and anti-aging solutions. She is a sought-after speaker and educator in the community.

Dr. Gaskill brings 25 years of experience, including almost 20 years of owning her private practice in Johns Creek. With her experience as a holistic, integrative and naturopathic doctor, she works tirelessly to get to the root cause of every illness, issue, and symptom her patients have.

Jim Brooks/Evermore CID

The Evermore Community Improvement District (CID) was established in 2003 and is the oldest of Gwinnett’s CIDs. This 7.5-mile corridor extends from the city of Snellville to the Gwinnett/Dekalb County line along US-78/GA10. The CID is home to more than 765 businesses and the home of the new Amazon fulfillment center.

Gwinnett Business Radio is presented by

Tagged With: business podcast, business radio, Business RadioX, dr. leslie gaskill, Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship, evermore cid, evermore community improvement district, gwinnett business, gwinnett business podcast, Gwinnett Business Radio, Gwinnett Business RadioX, gwinnett businesses, gwinnett online radio, gwinnett radiox, jim brooks, leslie gaskill, online radio, podcast, Radiox, small businesses, sonesta, sonesta gwinnett place, sonesta hotel, steven julian, subaru, subaru of gwinnett, subaru radio studio

Decision Vision Episode 108: Should I Have My Employees Return to the Workplace? – An Interview with Employment Attorney Jonathan Hyman and Physician Dr. Jim Morrow

March 18, 2021 by John Ray

Dr. Jim Morrow
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 108: Should I Have My Employees Return to the Workplace? - An Interview with Employment Attorney Jonathan Hyman and Physician Dr. Jim Morrow
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Dr. Jim Morrow

Decision Vision Episode 108:  Should I Have My Employees Return to the Workplace? – An Interview with Employment Attorney Jonathan Hyman and Physician Dr. Jim Morrow

Jonathan Hyman, an attorney with Wickens Herzer Panza, and Dr. Jim Morrow of Morrow Family Medicine join host Mike Blake to consider “return to workplace” issues such as requiring a Covid-19 vaccination, safety-related accommodations, and other concerns both employers and their employees are currently wrestling with. “Decision Vision” is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Jonathan Hyman, Attorney, Wickens Herzer Panza

Jonathan Hyman, Wickens Herzer Panza

Mr. Hyman is a member of the Firm’s Litigation Department and Employment & Labor practice group and serves on the Board of Directors. He focuses his practice on management-side labor and employment law, providing businesses proactive solutions to solve their workforce problems and reactive solutions when they find themselves litigating against an employee or group of employees.

Proactively, Mr. Hyman serves as outside in-house counsel for businesses. He is the voice on the other end of a phone when a business needs advice on firing an employee, a policy or agreement drafted, guidance on a leave of absence, disability accommodation, or internal complaint or investigation, or information on any number of other issues that plague human resources professionals and businesses daily. Mr. Hyman also has extensive experience on more specialized labor and employment law issues, such as wage and hour compliance, social media, cybersecurity, and other workplace technology concerns, affirmative action compliance, and union avoidance and labor relations.

Reactively, Mr. Hyman represents businesses in employment and labor litigation, including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and claims, non-competition and trade-secret misappropriation disputes, wage-and-hour class and collective actions, and union certification and decertification matters.

He is also the author of the renowned and award-winning Ohio Employer Law Blog (www.ohioemployerlawblog.com, an American Bar Association Blawg Hall of Fame inductee), which he updates daily to provide businesses and human resources professionals breaking news and other updates on the ever-changing landscape of labor and employment law.

Wickens Herzer Panza has been committed to providing sound legal guidance to businesses of Lorain & Cuyahoga Counties since 1932. Wickens Herzer Panza provides legal counsel to family- and privately-owned businesses in the areas of Business Organizations & Tax, Probate & Estate Planning, Elder Law and Business Litigation. We’re more than legal counsel, too. We’re a business partnership, an advocate for our clients and advisors who support, give advice and protect those we work with. We are our clients’​ trusted advisor and make it our mission to be responsive, accountable, proactive and client-centered. Our Firm has offices in Avon, Ohio, and Sandusky, Ohio.

Mr. Hyman joined Wickens Herzer Panza in March of 2021, and was previously with Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland, Ohio. (Note:  this show was taped prior to Mr. Hyman’s change of firms.)

Wickens Herzer Panza website | Hyman LinkedIn

Dr. Jim Morrow, Morrow Family Medicine

Dr. Jim Morrow
Dr. Jim Morrow, Morrow Family Medicine

Dr. Jim Morrow was the first physician to practice on the Northside Hospital Forsyth campus in Cumming, Georgia. Opening the practice in November, 1998, his practice quickly became a “go-to” practice for Forsyth County residents.

As with that practice, Morrow Family Medicine will be known for its open access policy, same-day appointments and very popular morning walk-in hour. Dr. Jim Morrow’s special areas of interest in medicine are sports medicine, episodic care (care of acute problems and illnesses), chronic disease management and urgent care. He has served as team doctor for various high schools in his many years of practice, most recently at North Forsyth High School and Forsyth Central High School in Cumming.

Dr. Morrow graduated from Clemson University and the University of South Carolina School Of Medicine. He completed his residency in Family Medicine in Anderson, South Carolina in 1985. A 2004 winner of the Healthcare Information Management Systems Society’s (HIMSS) Davies Award for Excellence in EMR Implementation, he was also recognized as the 2006 Physician IT Leader of the Year by HIMSS. He served four years as a commissioner on the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT). Dr. Morrow serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Georgia Health Information Exchange (GHIE) and is a member of the Advisory Board for Health for the Technology Association of Georgia (TAG-Health). In 2014, Dr. Morrow was awarded the Steve Bloom Award by the Cumming-Forsyth Chamber of Commerce as Entrepreneur of the Year, and he also received a Phoenix Award from the Metro Atlanta Chamber as Community Leader of the Year.

Founded by Dr. Jim Morrow, Morrow Family Medicine, a Member of Village Medical, is an award-winning, state-of-the-art family practice with offices in Cumming and Milton, Georgia. The practice combines healthcare information technology with old-fashioned care to provide the type of care that many are in search of today. Two physicians, three physician assistants, and two nurse practitioners are supported by a knowledgeable and friendly staff to make your visit to Morrow Family Medicine, A Member of Village Medical one that will remind you of the way healthcare should be.  At Morrow Family Medicine, a Member of Village Medical, we like to say we are “bringing the care back to healthcare!”

Dr. Jim Morrow also hosts “To Your Health with Dr. Jim Morrow” on the Business RadioX® network, a radio show/podcast that addresses a wide range of health and wellness topics. It can be found at www.toyourhealthradio.com.

Company website | Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

“Decision Vision” is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the “Decision Vision” podcast.

Past episodes of “Decision Vision” can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. “Decision Vision” is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional full- service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:20] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:39] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:06] So, this week’s topic is, Should I have my employees return to the office? And we’re getting to a point now here, March 2nd of 2021, and this is about the time when everything really started to change. I was just noting that the last time I was in a restaurant was actually St. Patrick’s Day of last year. And in retrospect, I probably should not have done that. But I got away with that. But I have not been to a restaurant since. And in the interim, we’ve had this pandemic as a riding shotgun in our lives in some fashion for the last year. And it has had profound effects on families, our economy, and society, politics as everybody listening to this podcast, I think, knows. But there’s not a light at the end of the tunnel.

Mike Blake: [00:02:08] Now, four companies have had vaccines approved. I think three are in production. One is about to start. I think that’s the one with Johnson and Johnson, if I’m not mistaken. One of our guests who’s an actual doctor may correct me on that. But, you know, we’re seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. As of this date, something on the order of about 60 million Americans have received at least dose one of the vaccine. And the United States is currently fourth among all countries in terms of vaccinations per thousand people. So, in spite of a lot of the doom and gloom that’s been hanging over this issue, you know, we are making progress. And so, I don’t know when the pandemic is going to be behind us. I don’t know if it’s going to be behind us. So, I don’t know if I’m going to use the term post-pandemic decision or a trans-pandemic or co-pandemic decision, meaning that, you know, it’s taking place along either the transition or just, you know, the pandemic sort of being here to stay.

Mike Blake: [00:03:16] But we are coming to a point now where we have new tools to manage the pandemic. And, also, new tools are coming on to treat the pandemic for those of us who fall ill with it. I believe a brand new antiviral cocktail was approved by the FDA either last week or two weeks ago that is showing good promise. So, you know, we’re better treating this as well. Not there out of the woods, but it is appropriate to start thinking about what does this whole thing sort of look like after or as we move into this new phase of the coronavirus pandemic?

Mike Blake: [00:03:56] And one of those topics is, should I have my employees return to the office? And this is such a tricky question. You know, the whole notion of our relationship with labor, I think, to some extent has been called into question. And we’ve discussed this before on the podcast a little bit, what constitutes an essential worker? Should workers be paid hazard pay? And that issue is cropping up, you know, even at this late stage in the pandemic. You know, some employers were adding a hazard pay bonus early in the pandemic and some of them have stopped. And I’m not going to offer an opinion as to one way or the other. That’s just the facts of what’s happening.

Mike Blake: [00:04:51] Some companies have been very aggressive in effectively telling their employees, “Go away. I don’t want to see you at the office. It’s not open.” Others have not let their employees leave because they are not comfortable with their ability to manage such employees remotely. And then, there’s been some hybrid in between. At Brady Ware, for the most part, we’re observing at least our interpretation of best practices from a medical standpoint to keep our employees safe. But we’re also making the office – and we’re certainly providing everything we think is reasonably possible to enable our employees to work from home or some other place they deem safe. But we’ve also kept the offices open for people that want to come into the office. Some people really struggle with working from home. You know, imagine if you’re a single parent, have school aged children, and your schools are closed, and you live in an apartment, and you’re trying to get meaningful work done. I thank God that I am not in that particular position and I have nothing but admiration for anybody who is able to manage that.

Mike Blake: [00:06:00] But, now, we’re in a position where returning to the office is going to become a viable option sometime, I would guess, in the next six months or so, if not sooner. And this is a multifaceted question. I think, two facets in particular. And so, we’re going to have two guests today. One facet of this is, what are the legal ramifications of return to work? For those of us who work in offices, we historically have not had to think all that much about worker safety. Our main concerns would be drink bad coffee, or do we get a million papercuts. Or, worst case scenario, does a disgruntled employee or former employee come back to the office and start making trouble? But, now, we have this virus and people that could be working in close contact in a closed air circulation system that’s going to lead to its own challenges.

Mike Blake: [00:07:06] And then, on the medical side, you know, where do best practices from a medical side mesh with, interact with, or perhaps even contradict what is legally required? So, this is a multifaceted discussion. And there are business issues as well that we could get into. But we’re not going to have the time. But we do have a mini panel of two that can help us at least unwind this in the legal perspective and the medical perspective.

Mike Blake: [00:07:38] So, in no particular order, first joining us today is Jon Hyman, who is a partner at Meyers Roman Friedberg and Lewis up in Ohio. Jon is a nationally recognized author, speaker, blogger, and media source on employment and labor law. Jon’s legal practice provides proactive and results driven solutions to employer’s workforce problems. He also works with businesses to help position them to best combat the ongoing risks of cyber crimes. Jon serves as the outside in-house counsel role for businesses. In this role, he drafts policies and handbooks, audit human resources and technology practices and procedures, advise companies on day-to-day human resource issues, and successfully litigate employee disputes.

Mike Blake: [00:08:21] Jon has written two books, The Employer Bill of Rights: A Manager’s Guide to Workplace Law and Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace. Jon has appeared in the Fox Business Network, National Public Radio and, locally, on WEWS – I think that’s in Cleveland. But Jon will correct me. He has also been quoted on workplace issues in publications such as The Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, MSNBC.com, Business Insurance Magazine, Crain’s Cleveland Business, and The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Finally, Jon appeared on a November 1999 episode of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? But sadly lacked the fastest fingers. Jon, welcome to the program.

Jon Hyman: [00:09:02] Thanks. It’s great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Mike Blake: [00:09:05] Also, joining us is Dr. Jim Morrow, and I will use the honorific of doctor only once per Jim’s request. Jim was the first physician to practice on the Northside Hospital Forsyth campus in Cumming, Georgia. Opening the practice in November 1998, his practice quickly became a go-to practice for Forsyth County residents. His special areas of interest in medicine are sports medicine, episodic care, i.e. care of acute problems and illnesses, chronic disease management, and urgent care. He has served as team doctor for various high schools in his many years of practice.

Mike Blake: [00:09:39] Jim graduated from Clemson University and the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. Does Clemson University have a football team? I think I’ve heard of them. In 2014, Jim was awarded the Steve Bloom Award by the Cumming-Forsyth Chamber of Commerce as Entrepreneur of the Year. And he also received a Phoenix Award from Metro Atlanta Chamber as Community Leader of the Year. Since 2015, Morrow Family Medicine has been voted Best of Forsyth in Family Medicine every year. The Milton location has been named best of North Atlanta every year since it opened. Jim is also host of the To Your Health podcast, a biweekly podcast produced by Business RadioX. Jim, also welcome to the program.

Dr. Jim Morrow: [00:10:17] Thank you very much. I’m glad to be here.

Mike Blake: [00:10:19] So, gentlemen, I think a question that’s on everybody’s minds, I think, is a subject to a lot of debate. And I’m probably leading off with the most unfair question I could possibly think of, but here it goes, it’s the Internet. How close do you think we are to mass return to offices or at least an option to return?

Jon Hyman: [00:10:42] That’s a hard question.

Mike Blake: [00:10:44] I told you it’s going to be unfair.

Jon Hyman: [00:10:47] I hate to give the stock lawyer answer, which is it depends, but I think it largely does. Because I think every business, I think, has to decide what’s right for it in its particular circumstances, with what its needs are, how it best operates, and what its employees are comfortable doing or not doing under the circumstances. So, I think for the, you know, run of the mill kind of white collar business office where people have been productively and effectively working remotely since the world shut down a year ago, the answer may be much further off in the future if ever the people return to the office full time. For the kind of widget maker manufacturer that needs to get people on a line in order to put out product and sell product and turn a profit, I think it’s a much different type of answer with a much different set of legal issues that business has to consider.

Mike Blake: [00:11:45] Jim, what do you think? As a physician, I’m sure you get asked this all the time. You know, one of our listeners has an office that’s been largely closed or skeleton staffed. How far along do we need to be in this vaccination program before you think it might be medically advisable? Or what condition need to be met for it to be medically advisable to open the gates and allow more people in?

Jim Morrow: [00:12:10] Well, as you started at the beginning talking about vaccines, we’re very fortunate now to have vaccines available. And I think that really is the thing that’s going to make all this possible. But the problem is, most of the people that are doing the work that you’re talking about are not old enough to get a vaccine yet. So, they’re not yet vaccinated. So, they are no different from what they were basically a year ago in that regard. But I think what we’ve got to do is get enough people vaccinated so that we can have herd immunity around the workplace. And that 75 percent of people probably vaccinated or with antibodies – and the problem with the antibodies from illnesses is it just doesn’t last long enough to give you much coverage.

Dr. Jim Morrow: [00:12:48] So, with Johnson and Johnson’s vaccine being approved over the weekend, we suspect that by the end of July, every American who will take a vaccine will have an opportunity to get one. And I think that’s what it’s going to take to get people back in offices, especially like the widget factory that you’re talking about, because, you know, they are next to each other. They are in close contact. They can’t close the door to their office in most cases and separate themselves. So, I think getting some form of immunity through a vaccine is what it’s going to take. I think by fall we’ll be there. I think we’ll be able to do that.

Jon Hyman: [00:13:26] I think the complicating factor is going to be how quickly we can get a vaccine approved for kids. Because part of the issue of getting people back to work is getting parents back to work, particularly if they’re at home managing younger children. And if those children can’t be vaccinated, it makes it difficult for the parents possibly to peel away from the home if schools aren’t open or there’s no child care otherwise available for the kids that they’re comfortable putting the kids in. So, I think part of the equation – I think an important part – is going to be just how quickly we can close out the clinical trials for the vaccines for teens and down so that they can get vaccinated, too, so schools can open up full time, daycare centers can open up full time, which allows kids to get back out of the house full time, which then allows their caregivers/parents to then get out of the home and return to work without worrying about who’s caring for their kids during the day.

Dr. Jim Morrow: [00:14:25] No doubt. And the trials for peds has really just barely started. So, I’m not sure when we’ll have that data. I think, it’s going to be a while now. And that certainly would push things for those people out past the end of the summer.

Mike Blake: [00:14:40] So, I’d like to get both your perspective on the following question, obvious to the seats to what extent they match up or not. When workers do start to return on mass – I understand that’s an amorphous term, but let’s roll with it anyway. When workers do return sort of in sufficient numbers, how would you advise offices to look or change in order to maximize safety or at least balance safety with the business objectives of the business?

Jim Morrow: [00:15:18] From a health standpoint, if you think about the company that has an entire floor – an office building full of cubicles – it makes me wish once again that I’d been in the plexiglass business when this thing started – because I can just envision plexiglass from the top of the cubicle to the ceiling or at least another five feet up and creating a cocoon where these people will sit. I don’t know that that’s something that’s going to be feasible. I don’t know that it’s something that companies are going to want to do or be able to do. And I could just see employees balking at the whole idea. They’re going to be sticking their head around the cubicle, talking to Joe next door. So, the company is going to be wondering why they spend these thousands of dollars on all this stuff? But I think that’s something you may very well see in that situation. I don’t know how you can bring people back into that until you do have the vaccines. I don’t know that you can really prepare for that.

Dr. Jim Morrow: [00:16:18] In the factory setting, the same thing. I mean, you’re not going to put plexiglass between all these people. It’s just not going to happen. And, again, if you did, they would, you know, ignore it pretty much, I’m sure. So, I think, really, it comes down to getting people immune. I don’t see any good way to change things in the work environment that’s going to allow this to happen without people being immune.

Jon Hyman: [00:16:46] I think we’ll be living with masks for a while as well. I think that we will be seeing masks in public, in general, and on a smaller scale in the workplace for the foreseeable future until we have – I’m not sure if there’s ever going to be a magic switch where the CD says, “Masks off today.” So, I think gradually over time, we’ll see a reduction in use. But I think for now, in the foreseeable future, at least through the end of this year, for certain, masks is just something we’re just going to have to to deal with, particularly as people are coming back to work.

Jim Morrow: [00:17:21] Or the employees are going to push back on that and say, “You can’t make me wear a mask.”

Jon Hyman: [00:17:25] I’ll tell them, “You don’t have to work here then.” I mean, we’re at will employees and so my rules. You know, “Go find a job somewhere else.” And there are lots of stories over the last year of employees who have pushed back on that or employers who have pushed back on it, who have had – there was a story I read just the other day of a beer hall in Columbus that had all of their employees walk out in masks. They said, “We feel this is an unsafe workplace. You’re not taking COVID seriously. You’re not protecting our safety adequately.” And every employee quit and they’ve been shut down since.

Jon Hyman: [00:18:07] So, I think one of the lasting stories, I think, that’s going to come out of the pandemic will be, sadly, we know that not every business is going to survive COVID. Some will never reopen. What I hope is that, if karma and the universe works the way I think it should work is that those businesses that don’t survive the pandemic and don’t reopen are the ones that didn’t take COVID seriously, denied that it was a reality, bosses who called it the China virus, didn’t enforce mask rules, didn’t enforce social distancing. Otherwise, didn’t do everything that they needed to do to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their employees, their customers, people they interacted with their business on a day-to-day basis, they’ll be the ones that close. And the ones that are able to open up and thrive in a post-COVID world, whenever that is, are the ones that took the virus seriously and did the things necessary to protect the health and safety of their employees.

Jim Morrow: [00:19:11] And I agree that the masks are going to be around to some degree for the rest of my life probably. But, you know, if just masking was going to be enough to get these people back to work, we could have done that before. So, I think the combination of being smart, getting a vaccine, being smart, wearing a mask, acting like you care about the people around you, and that kind of thing – which is a huge part of this – just that little bit, I think if we can find a way to get those things in combination together, I think, people could go back to work.

Jon Hyman: [00:19:45] Yeah. I agree. That’s the other lasting lesson of this whole thing is just how freaking selfish people are. It’s just appalling the selfishness that this has exhibited in people.

Jim Morrow: [00:19:56] People tell me all the time, you know, “You can’t make me wear a mask. I have a right not to wear a mask.” And I tell them, “Your right stops when your spittle hits me in the face.”

Jon Hyman: [00:20:05] Exactly right. Exactly right.

Mike Blake: [00:20:08] Well, Jon, I want to pause on that because I’m curious. Where is the law right now in terms of does it tend to favor employees right now, or employers, or is it all over the map? What is the posture of the law right now in terms of responsibilities of employers versus freedom to operate versus at will employment?

Jon Hyman: [00:20:37] Yeah. It’s a bit all over the map. There has not yet been a uniform national standard that’s been issued to govern COVID safety in the workplace. OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the federal agency that governs workplace safety, has not issued a uniform national standard on COVID or pandemic safety. They have issued a series of kind of informal best practice guidance to say this is what we think you should be doing in order to provide a safe and healthy workplace for your employees. Employers, even without a COVID standard, have under OSHA a general duty to provide a safe and healthy workplace for their employees.

Mike Blake: [00:21:31] And so, a lot of people, including myself, interpret that general duty as encompassing kind of the best practices that OSHA says employers should do, which is, you know, masking, social distancing, not coming to work when you’re sick, sanitizing surfaces, and things like that. All the things that we think of when we think about COVID safety in public spaces. But there isn’t a uniform national standard. State rules are all over the map. Some states have, for example, uniform masking requirements. Some states don’t. And some states are in the middle.

Jon Hyman: [00:22:12] And then, I think what is really driving a lot of what employers are doing or a lot of what is protecting employees is the PR hit that businesses are suffering when they get called out for not doing this the right way. When the employees quit in masks, when the employee complains about, you know, you’re allowing people to come in without masks, and they complain, and then they’re fired. And then, they hire a lawyer and the lawyer files a lawsuit and issues a press release. And now, you know, that employer has the scarlet letter for not taking COVID seriously. So, a lot of it is PR driven or reputationally driven. Some of it is driven by lawsuits that employees can file for things like, you know, whistleblower protections when they’re fired for raising safety issues. And a lot less of it is driven by what the government has said employers must do, because those rules are, frankly, kind of fuzzy.

Mike Blake: [00:23:07] And what about protections for people that are specifically vulnerable? I had an idea or thought, and I say this as completely a non-lawyer so I’m probably entirely off the reservation. But could we see something along the lines of where employees start to claim that they’re covered effectively under the Americans with Disabilities Act because of their particular vulnerability to COVID and, therefore, employers have a duty to go to extraordinary lengths to protect such individuals, particularly if coronavirus is going to be one of these things like the flu which is going to be with us for a long time.

Jon Hyman: [00:23:44] You’re in the ballpark. You’re in the ballpark. Yes, employees who are at high risk for complications from COVID-19 are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employer’s obligation is, once they become aware that an employee may need a reasonable accommodation, and that’s the standard. The standard is a reasonable accommodation, not extraordinary lengths. So, once the employer becomes aware of the employee’s need or potential need for a reasonable accommodation for a physical or mental impairment, the employer has to engage in what the law refers to as an interactive process with the employee. That’s a dialogue, a discussion, a conversation. Talk to the employee about how can we accommodate your medical issue.

Jon Hyman: [00:24:34] And then, the accommodations can really run the gamut as long as it’s reasonable and doesn’t impose an undue hardship on the employer. So, it could be a work from home arrangement on a temporary basis. It could be, we will put you in a different work area where you’re not near people, where you’re more isolated from people or where you might not be exposed to the virus from other people. It might be, we’re going to get you a different – instead of a mask, we’re going to get you a respirator or some other kind of gear to wear that’s going to better protect you from an airborne virus.

Jon Hyman: [00:25:09] It may be that the only accommodation you can offer someone is a temporary unpaid leave of absence. And so, you know, there’s no way to restructure your job. We have nowhere else to put you. This isn’t something that can be done remotely. So, the best we can do for you is say go sit on the sidelines for 30 day increments and we’ll revisit this in 30 days. And we’ll see if, at that point, we’re in a situation where you feel comfortable coming back. And in that case, it’s not an indefinite leave. It’s kind of short term temporary. And it may ultimately result in that employee no longer being employed because this thing is just stretching out. Now, it’s stretched out for a year. If somebody went on a temporary leave of absence a year ago because they were at high risk for COVID complications, if they contracted the virus, the employer’s responsibility to accommodate that employee would have expired months ago.

Mike Blake: [00:26:04] So, gentlemen, let me turn back to the medical side. Somebody has an employee that is at particular risk, whatever reason, maybe they’re diabetic, maybe they have one of the other comorbidities. From a medical standpoint, what would be your advice? And let’s assume that working from home is not an option. And I imagine the easiest thing to do is just send people home. We get that. But if sending somebody home to work is not a viable option, in your mind, what are some reasonable and effective steps that emplacing an office environment might be able to take to protect that employee?

Jim Morrow: [00:26:48] That’s really tough because I don’t know that there is a really good way to protect them. Going back to something I said earlier, I think if people could protect them, they would have been working all along. So, if you were going to do anything, I think isolating them, Jon mentioned putting them in a different part of the office or something like that where they’re not around everybody else, if that’s feasible, that can be good. They still got to get in and out of the building without spending much time conversing so that could be a problem.

Jim Morrow: [00:27:18] But, again, in a in a masked world, if everybody is wearing a mask in that situation, it shouldn’t be too bad. But I think isolation, basically, or separation is probably the only way to go about doing that. I can’t think of how else you’d pull that off.

Mike Blake: [00:27:38] Let me ask another question about the vaccines, because the vaccines are great. They’re, in many ways, a miracle of modern medicine. We weren’t supposed to be able to make vaccines like this in a short period of time. Literally, I think that it rivals the moonshot in terms of a technological advance. It’s that big a leap forward in that short period of time. But the numbers I’m seeing is that, the vaccine promises something on the order of 90 percent immunity. And, to me, 90 percent immunity is great. But that’s not a get out of jail free card. That’s not the same thing as a vaccine for measles or polio, which have a much higher immunity, right? And I’m curious, (A) do you see the same data that I do? And (B) do you agree that that requires an additional level of caution that 90 percent is great, but that doesn’t mean you just get a jail free card and go back to normal?

Jim Morrow: [00:28:50] No, it doesn’t. And people don’t think about that a lot of times. The Pfizer and Moderna report 94 or 95 five percent. But that’s still five or six percent chance of getting it. And if you’re in that group of people who could have a really terrible outcome, although anyone can, that you might expect a bad outcome, then that’s a pretty decent risk. And with the J&J vaccine that was just approved, they really show closer to 60 percent preventing infection, but above 90 for preventing severe illness and hospitalization, that kind of thing, which is very important, obviously. But it’s important to remember that this is not 100 percent. And that’s why we still have to distance. We still have to mask. We still have to be smart, use hand sanitizer, and do the things that we don’t like doing that we’ve gotten kind of accustomed to doing. And that’s going to, hopefully, take care of the other five percent of that. But it’s very true that these people are still going to be at risk to some degree. And so, they’re going to have to be careful.

Mike Blake: [00:29:51] I think about that from a personal standpoint. I’m a big baseball fan. I used to go to a lot of Gwinnett Stripers games. And you know, if you’re only 90 percent immune, if you’re surrounded by thousands of people, statistically speaking, that virus is still there, right?

Dr. Jim Morrow : [00:30:09] That’s exactly right.

Mike Blake: [00:30:09] And then, you’re banking on your nine shots out of ten or 19 shots out of 20 that you’re not going to get it. And to me, as much as I love baseball, the numbers don’t add up. If I did 20 games a year, my expected infection rate is one time a year just going to 20 games.

Jon Hyman: [00:30:34] And the numbers add up even worse when we consider that there’s a large percentage of the population that say they’re not going to get the vaccine anyway, what’s available to them. So, when we start adding vaccine hesitancy into the equation, that 95 percent number might be 95 percent for you, but it’s not going to be 95 percent among the population, because 100 percent is not going to get the vaccine. And so, if we’re looking at north of 75 or 80 percent to reach herd immunity, but 40 percent say they’re not going to get the vaccine, there’s going to be a huge gap that may prevent us from ever reaching herd immunity, particularly as these variants ramp up and the virus might becoming more virulent and more contagious. It’s a legitimate concern as we try and navigate our way out of this thing.

Jim Morrow: [00:31:19] Well, more virulent – I mean, more contagious but no sign yet that it’s more virulent.

Jon Hyman: [00:31:24] Correct. Correct.

Jim Morrow: [00:31:25] And that’s been a blessing. That’s been a blessing.

Mike Blake: [00:31:28] So, Jon, you jumped in to a question I want to make sure that I cover. And I think it’s going to be one of the hardest questions in the podcast. And that is, as an employer, can I make you showing proof of vaccination a condition of continued employment for the sake of my other employees or just for the sake of the continuity of my own operations?

Jon Hyman: [00:31:50] The short answer is yes. But the longer answer is, it’s yes, but you must make allowance for those people that cannot get the vaccine either because they have an underlying physical or mental impairment or disability for which the vaccine is contraindicated. They say, “I have a medical issue, so you need to provide me an accommodation for that medical issue to your mandatory vaccination policy.” Or, for an employee that holds a sincerely held religious belief observance or practice for which they can’t get a vaccine, an employer has to consider an accommodation for that as well.

Jon Hyman: [00:32:36] And, you know, in both those cases, the accommodation doesn’t have to be and probably shouldn’t be, “Come to work anyway. We’re requiring proof of vaccination to work. You know, come to work even though you can’t meet this policy.” But you have to go through the same interactive process, as we talked about earlier, talk to the employee, figure out what accommodation you can make. And the accommodation, at the end of the day, might be, “We just can’t accommodate this because we have a legitimate business interest in protecting our other employees from the vaccine. And you just can’t come back to work.” But you have to at least go through the process with the employee to figure out whether there is an accommodation you can make.

Jon Hyman: [00:33:23] But let me also add, I think, what uncomplicates the equation is, I don’t think the question is as easy as, can you require vaccine or proof of a vaccine as a condition of employment? Because I think just because you can do it – the law says you can – doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. I think if you look at the data that’s out there, as I mentioned earlier, we know about 60 percent say they will absolutely under every set of circumstances get the vaccine when they’re able to do so. There’s another 20 percent or so that say they will not get the vaccine, whether it’s because of a medical issue, or a religious belief, or because they wear tinfoil on their heads and they think the government is implanting 5G trackers in them through the vaccine, or for whatever reason.

Mike Blake: [00:34:11] Bill Gates doesn’t have enough money, right? He needs to track what I’m doing here in Chamblee, Georgia.

Jon Hyman: [00:34:16] Exactly. And then, there’s 20 percent that are kind of undecided on the fence. And, to me, I think if an employer has a mandatory policy, “Thou shalt get the vaccine when you can,” I think you are going to lose the 20 percent that are never going to get the vaccine, whether the reason is legitimate or illegitimate. You’re going to lose them as employees. You’re going to risk alienating some percentage of your employees are going to get the vaccine anyway because they’re going to view you as too intrusive, up in their medical business, invading their privacy, what have you. So, you risk alienating a percentage of employees that are going to get the shot anyway.

Jon Hyman: [00:34:54] And so, what I think employers should be doing is, rather than pissing off a whole bunch of your employees and, at the end of the day, not changing any of their behaviors, what you should be focusing on is that 20 or so percent in the middle. And arm them with education, resources, information as to the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and why it’s in theirs and everybody’s best interest for them to get the vaccine. And try and push some of them over to the, “Yeah. We’re going to get vaccinated” side of the equation.

Mike Blake: [00:35:25] Okay. Good. That segues nicely. So, Jim, you know, we all know there’s a big anti-vax movement. It existed before coronavirus, like so many things as just swamped it up. You’re a medical educator as well as a practitioner of medicine, and I’m sure you run into this directly. What have you found is the best way to educate people about vaccines so that, at least, they remain open minded to it? Or conversely, in your experience, once people walk in, they say they’re anti-vax, that conversation’s already over, and you move on?

Jim Morrow: [00:36:09] Well, I think it’s very clear cut. There are very little gray area that I’ve seen in having that conversation. If you’re talking to a patient and they’ve never done vaccines and they certainly aren’t going to do this one, that was developed in one year, which, like you said, is a world record in many, many ways. I don’t think there’s anything that I’m going to say to these people that’s going to convince them to get a vaccine. They’re not going to walk into my office totally against it and me say anything at all that’s going to make them leave and they’re thinking it’s a good idea to go get this. I can’t imagine. I’ve never turned anybody around yet, whether it was about tetanus, diphtheria, it didn’t matter. And I don’t think it’s going to be about this.

Jim Morrow: [00:36:53] And if it were going to be about a vaccine, it wouldn’t be about a vaccine that came out in 12 months. So, I don’t think that’s a problem. But I do think that education is the key to all of this. And all I can do and what I try to do is to let them understand the science as I understand it. And explain it to them as best I can. And then, they leave and don’t get the vaccine anyway.

Mike Blake: [00:37:19] So, an idea might be, maybe a turn around. If we accept the fact that there is going to be a material portion of the population that simply will not get the vaccine, end of discussion. Right? Is instead then maybe the educational path to educate those who are vaccinated, or even those who aren’t vaccinated, to just enable people to protect themselves. At least if you’re not going to get the vaccine, if you’re going to do something that runs against medical advice anyway, at least stack the cards in your favor as much as you can, even though you’re making a decision that is questionable from an evidence based perspective.

Jon Hyman: [00:38:16] Although I would bet you that the anti-vaxxers have a pretty substantial overlap with the anti-maskers, so that’s my gut anyway. I haven’t looked at any data. But my gut tells me the anti-vaxxers and the anti-maskers, if they’re a Venn diagram, it’s going to be pretty close to a circle – just one circle.

Mike Blake: [00:38:33] Well, I do think there’s a lot of overlap. There is certainly a lot of overlap. But, for example, as we just talked about, these vaccines, while miraculous, are only 90 or 95 percent effective. And when I say that, it reminds me, I used to work in Russia and I had a friend who worked for Brink’s in Russia. Brink’s is the armored car company. He told me that, you don’t realize how little of your body a bulletproof vest protects until you put one on. And you don’t realize how little a vaccine protects you until you kind of run the math and you see what 90 or 95 percent is. Now, I get a jail free card.

Mike Blake: [00:39:12] So, maybe the education process is, the people who are not going to mask, who are not going to vaccinate, have simply made a choice. Have simply made a choice that they’re just going to run that risk. And for good or ill, you can judge them if you want, but they’re going to make that choice on behalf of other people that they encounter too. Rightly or wrongly, that’s just the mechanics. We’re not going to lock up 30 million Americans. We don’t have the capacity to do it.

Mike Blake: [00:39:42] So, is then the best ROI and education to just continue to educate the people that are willing to abide by the protocols and listen to advice to say, “Hey, look. This is out there.” Just keep wearing the mask, and keep putting up barriers, and keep socially distancing, and keep being OCD about washing your hands. Is that the path to education that has a chance of being effective?

Jim Morrow: [00:40:10] I think it is. And like Jon mentioned, you’ve got that group that you need to continue to educate and try to push towards a vaccine. But the whole thing is, we’ve got this huge inoculum of coronavirus floating around us. And if we do get a ton of people – whatever percentage it is – vaccinated, then we’re going to reduce that entire inoculum. And so, the amount of virus being spewed at the Gwinnett Stripers game – and they really could have come up with a better name than that, I do think.

Mike Blake: [00:40:40] A different podcast. But I like the Gwinnett Braves as they were.

Jim Morrow: [00:40:46] I did too. But the whole inoculum of virus floating around you is less at that ball game. And that’s what this is all about, it’s about trying to be exposed to this virus. And so, if we can get people to do it, the ones we need to concentrate on, I think, are the ones that have a little bit of a chance are going to get it. And I think it’s enough of a percentage that we’re going to be able to be safe doing things, albeit potentially with masks in the future.

Mike Blake: [00:41:14] So, Jim, a question I have from a legal and business standpoint is, it occurs to me that employers might be a little bit of a no win situation. Because you can’t make people vaccinate. Frankly, I think if you’re really trying to force them, they’ll just falsify the documentation. If it really came down to that, they’d print out something on the Internet. You have no way of verifying it. They’ll say, “Yeah. I’m vaccinated. I’m good.”

Mike Blake: [00:41:42] So, employers have a duty to protect the minority. They have a duty to protect all their employees to some extent. But make special accommodations and also protect, for lack of a better term, human rights. I mean, where’s the part of that Venn diagram where they’re safe? I mean, if I’m an employer, I’m kind of thinking, “You know what? Shut the whole damn thing. Then, everybody can work from home or Starbucks or do whatever we do. And then, we’ll get together for an outdoor picnic once a year if we need to.” I mean, as an employer, where do you find that safe harbor?

Jon Hyman: [00:42:18] I can’t disagree with you. I mean, what I preach to at least my clients that listen to me over the last year is, being as flexible as possible, meeting employees where they are, and just doing the best you can with, you know, being as flexible as you can. And in that case, you might be right. It might be shut the whole thing down if you can shut it down and having people work remote. And then, whenever the CDC says pandemic over, we can talk about how we kind of put the remote genie back into the bottle, if that’s what businesses want to do. Otherwise, I think in large part, it’s never going to go fully back in.

Jon Hyman: [00:42:58] But I think you’re right, employers are in a very tough spot here in terms of, you know, no mandate from the government in terms of what to do or largely no mandates. A lot of employees who are scared to death to come in to work and businesses need to operate if you can operate without operating in person. I see very little downside of doing that, at least in the short term.

Mike Blake: [00:43:25] So, in addition, I mean, are there other kind of tools that companies can manage this? I mean, one of the things has been exposed in the insurance industry – I know you do some work there – is, does a pandemic lead to a legitimate business interruption claim, for example? Is that risk potentially insurable? Does it go through workmans’ comp? Does it go through something else? Get to buy a special kind of insurance? Do you self-insure the captive? Are there financial tools available to do this? Or is that still a work in progress? Or is that just crazy talk?

Jon Hyman: [00:44:06] No. It’s a work in progress. I think the insurance companies will spend, you know, hundreds of millions or billions in legal fees over the next half decade to decade sorting out the issue of to what extent COVID closures fall under business interruption policies. Because there’s a ton of those claims out there. It’s largely unknown. And it’s going to take the court years to sort it out with lawyers. Really, the only ones who get rich in that equation trying to answer that question.

Jim Morrow: [00:44:38] On the workers’ comp side, while a workplace exposure of someone got sick from COVID and they could prove that they got it at work, that would be a coverable claim under workers’ compensation insurance for the employee. But I question, how do you prove that something happened at work? Well, if you look at how widespread this virus is in the community, we’re only at work so many hours a day. They should presumably have protective measures in place in the workplace. And so, you know, if somebody gets sick, how do you establish that that exposure happened at work? Such you can establish the causal connection for purposes of establishing one’s eligibility to collect workers’ compensation.

Jim Morrow: [00:45:19] And so, you know, maybe if there’s 20 people in a conference room and all 20 of them come down with COVID in the span of a couple of days or a week, maybe that’s easier from a causation standpoint. Maybe not. But just the employee who gets sick and then says, “Well, I was at work last week and so-and-so had COVID a week ago. And, now, I have COVID and so I got it at the workplace. But I was also at the grocery store, in Starbucks, at my kid’s little league game. And then, I went to Target three times last week too.” You know, how do you prove where that exposure came from to establish the causation necessary to collect workers’ compensation? So, there’s really no easy answers here, unfortunately.

Mike Blake: [00:46:03] So, I mean, that leads into another question. We’re talking with Jim Morrow and Jon Hyman. And the topic is, Should I have my employees return to the office? Jim, is contact tracing something that, in an ideal world, would be advisable for companies to encourage and implement? Let’s just take Amazon, for example, they certainly have the capacity to build a contact tracing app if they chose to. You know, should companies have a contact tracing app that might help them identify exactly what Jon is discussing? Where is the vector of an infection into an office to establish did it come from the office or someplace else?

Jim Morrow: [00:46:49] I think contact tracing is one of the most important parts of trying to control this entire thing. I’m glad I don’t have to answer the legal question of how do you do that without infringing on people’s rights, and I’ll leave that to Jon. But if you look at the way that we can control the spread is testing and contact tracing. And if we’re doing that right – if we have done that right nine months ago – then we’d have had a lot lower cases and fewer deaths and so forth. I think contact tracing is critical, whether it’s in the work environment or school environment or wherever it might be. I think it’s one of the most important part.

Jim Morrow: [00:47:28] So, we need to be able to do that. People need to allow that to happen. Because this pandemic is really a training ground for the next pandemic. Because it might not be in my lifetime – I’d like to think I’d still be here for the next one. But I don’t want to be here for the next one. If you know what I mean? Kind of a double edged sword there. But I think contact tracing is everything when it comes to trying to control this.

Mike Blake: [00:47:57] So, Jon, again, the hard question to you, if I’m asking my employees to return to the office, but I say, “You can only do it if you agree to put in this contact tracing app,” that at least it’s going to track you while you’re in the office – or maybe not, I’m not sure – is that something a company can impose?

Jon Hyman: [00:48:16] They can and a lot have. As long as it’s done with disclosure and consent. There’s really no privacy concerns. The employee can always choose not to have the app installed and then not return to the office. And if it’s 100 percent in-person work environment, that might mean they’re looking for work elsewhere. But in a country that has at will employment, that’s just the name of the game. So, perfectly within an employer’s right to require it. An employee’s right to agree to accept it or not accept it. And then, live with the consequences that flow from that decision.

Mike Blake: [00:48:52] And we are running out of time and we could easily have made this a two parter or even a three parter. So, obviously, it’s a multilayered question but, you know, the answers are difficult and evolving. If people would like to contact you, maybe those questions that we didn’t cover or follow up, can they do that? And what’s the best way to do that? Jon, let me let you go first.

Jon Hyman: [00:49:14] The best way to find me is through my blog, which really kind of collects all my contact info. I’m not really hard to find. You could just Google Jon Hyman, Employment Lawyer, and you’ll find me everywhere, on Twitter, and LinkedIn, and my law firm, and everywhere else. But if people want information or how to contact me, they can just go to ohioemployerlawblog.com and all the information is collated there.

Mike Blake: [00:49:40] Jim?

Dr. Jim Morrow [00:49:41] You can get me, probably, email is the better way to do it. That’s drjim@toyourhealth.md. Or on Twitter, @ToYourHealthMD.

Mike Blake: [00:49:52] That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Jon Hyman and Jim Morrow so much for joining us and sharing their expertise with us. We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review of your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: COVID-19, Dr. Jim Morrow, employment law, Jonathan Hyman, Morrow Family Medicine, Village Medical, Wickens Herzer Panza, workplace law

Decision Vision Episode 107: Should I Actively Use LinkedIn? – An Interview with Adam Houlahan, Prominence Global

March 11, 2021 by John Ray

LinkedIn
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 107: Should I Actively Use LinkedIn? - An Interview with Adam Houlahan, Prominence Global
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

LinkedIn

Decision Vision Episode 107: Should I Actively Use LinkedIn? – An Interview with Adam Houlahan, Prominence Global

Adam Houlahan of Prominence Global joined host Mike Blake to discuss his journey to recognition as a LinkedIn authority, why using LinkedIn can be so rewarding for business owners and professionals, why so many users get LinkedIn wrong, how to effectively use LinkedIn to build relationships, and much more. “Decision Vision” is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Prominence Global

Prominence Global is, you’ll find, very different. They help their clients position themselves as industry leaders who are the envy of their peers. Their mantra is authenticity. They create intelligent strategies that cut through the noise that is social media. They do that by being authentic, courageous, and committed to make a difference in their world too. They value transparency. More is learned from mistakes than successes, sharing both is their commitment to honesty and truth.

Ethics in marketing is in their DNA, they are not afraid to say ‘no’. They seek continuous improvement through innovation They are constantly curious in growing themselves, their team and the service they provide.

They understand there is no cookie-cutter program that suits every business. They develop solutions that are as individual as their clients are. They believe real and meaningful change comes through the world’s entrepreneurs.  They create a powerful on-line presence for each client that grows & accelerates their global footprint, so that together they really can make a huge impact.

Company website | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook

Adam Houlahan, CEO, Prominence Global

Adam Houlahan is an International Keynote Speaker specializing in LinkedIn strategies for entrepreneurs, and CEO of the highly successful LinkedIn agency, Prominence Global. He hosts arguably the world’s largest free on-line LinkedIn training event with thousands of people registering every 10-weeks and is considered to be one of Australia’s leading experts in harnessing the power of LinkedIn for business.

Adam is also the author of three Amazon best-selling books Social Media Secret Sauce, The LinkedIn Playbook, and Influencer. Adam co-authored a fourth international best-seller Better Business, Better Life, Better World. He believes real and meaningful change comes through the world’s entrepreneurs. His purpose is to positively impact 12 million people in need and has surpassed 4 million on the way to that target.

LinkedIn | Twitter

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

“Decision Vision” is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the “Decision Vision” podcast.

Past episodes of “Decision Vision” can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. “Decision Vision” is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional full service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:22] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:40] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:06] So, today’s topic is, Should I actively use LinkedIn? And, you know, this is an interesting topic, I think, from so many levels. One, the pandemic has created opportunities and necessities that I think are far-ranging. And I don’t need to lecture people by now, at least here in the United States, it’s been a year since this thing has really hit. And we know what kinds of changes that it has created. And one of them has been that, you know, we’re just not selling and marketing the way that we once were. That will likely come back as we enter sort of a trans- pandemic and then a post-pandemic world. But for the time being, if you want to talk to people, for the most part, at least in the United States, it’s going to be in some digital virtual format.

Mike Blake: [00:02:01] And then, when we consider that there’s been massive displacement in our country and elsewhere with respect to employment, people are turning to LinkedIn once again in droves because that is, at least, one way that you’re going to get your next job, particularly if you’re in a technical or a professional field. And then, finally, it’s good to kind of touch base because, you know, the social media landscape is changing so rapidly and evolving that, you know, while LinkedIn has maintained its space and, of course, Facebook has maintained the space where it is, and YouTube, and so forth, yet we’re seeing new entrants such as Clubhouse, that is all the rage. We’re seeing the the ascent of TikTok and so forth, which is setting the world on fire. And, you know, that’s probably going to be the way the things are for a while, that we’re going to have to kind of touch base and take a look back and make sure the things we are using are as useful as we thought they were and that we’re achieving the same goal. And for a lot of people, I still think they need to be convinced candidly that LinkedIn is a viable platform.

Mike Blake: [00:03:24] And I had a conversation with somebody not that long ago, and I will not sell them out here online, but, you know, they did tell me sort of very dismissively, they thought that LinkedIn was basically a method by which we’re told by which their competitors could simply poach their employees. And that’s a pretty cynical view, but it’s not a uniquely held one. And so, I happen to be a LinkedIn fan. I’m an active user of it. I like to think that I’m a Power User, although I think our guest is going to find holes in the way that I use it because he’s the expert and not mine.

Mike Blake: [00:03:57] But we’re very fortunate that joining us today from Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia – and I’ve got to ask you about that – is Adam Houlahan, who is CEO of Prominence Global. Adam is an international keynote speaker, specializing in LinkedIn strategies for entrepreneurs and CEO of the highly successful LinkedIn agency, Prominence Global. He hosts arguably the world’s largest free online LinkedIn training event, with thousands of people registering every ten weeks. And is considered to be one of Australia’s leading experts in harnessing the power of LinkedIn for business. Adam is also the author of three Amazon bestselling books, Social Media Secret Sauce, which I’m reading right now; the LinkedIn Playbook, which I have read and led me to invite Adam to the program; and Influencer, which is on the queue. Adam co-authored a fourth international bestseller, Better Business, Better Life, Better World.

Mike Blake: [00:04:51] Prominence Global, as you’ll find, is very different. They help their clients position themselves as industry leaders who are the envy of their peers. They developed a range of support services to cater to every need. They host free web events. There are free community that you can join, a free Profile Optimization course, an Inner Circle Solo, Inner Circle Academy, Inner Circle Legends, and maybe Adam can tell us exactly what those mean. These programs are an intensive deep dive, a superb results producing methodology that creates a cutting edge lead generation sales funnel for almost any industry. The difference is simply how much support you need from their team of dedicated professionals. Adam, welcome to the program.

Adam Houlahan: [00:05:29] Thank you. And a very, very comprehensive introduction there. Well done. Thanks, Mike.

Mike Blake: [00:05:36] Well, thank you. That’s probably a very kind way of saying long winded, but I’m just going to take it at face value. So, I do want to ask you about Surfers Paradise. Are you a surfer yourself?

Adam Houlahan: [00:05:49] Interestingly, no, but where I live is a bit of a surfing mecca in the world. It’s kind of like the tourist capital of Australia, I suppose. And, fortunately, here in Australia, we can still travel around the beach, not so much international people. But I get to live right on about ten beaches within about a half-hour drive, which is fantastic.

Mike Blake: [00:06:16] So, I’m curious, so you are able to travel fairly freely within the country, but international travel, I guess, is shut down as it is in most places.

Adam Houlahan: [00:06:26] Yeah. So, it’s not easy to travel outside of Australia, but, fortunately, we seem to have the pandemic under control. There’s very few cases here in Australia. And they can still go on holidays and travel around. And our economy’s doing quite well, so we’re very blessed. I suppose it’s one of the advantages, Mike, of being an island nation in the middle of nowhere, it’s easy to close your borders.

Mike Blake: [00:06:51] I suppose that’s true. Well, well done and bravo. And, hopefully, we’ll catch up to you guys sooner rather than later. So, Adam, I’d love it if you could tell us your origin story. How did you become involved in LinkedIn? And then, could you sort of take us from that point to how you became one of the world’s leading experts on the platform?

Adam Houlahan: [00:07:15] Yeah. I’d love to. So, it all started about ten years ago now. And for the very first time in my life, I actually worked for somebody else. I was running a company based here in Australia that is a bit of a global player. And we’re exporting organic skincare products to about 64 countries around the world. At that time, I didn’t really know much about LinkedIn, or any other social media for that matter. But what I did notice was that, we were doing a little research on why other companies in that same space around the world were doing well. And it turned out to be that they were really good early adopters of social media from a business perspective. And that kind of piqued my interest on how that could be used for really high quality business.

Adam Houlahan: [00:08:03] And so, I just really immersed myself into learning about it, social media in general. But the more I did, the more I just personally resonated with LinkedIn. It seemed like a very difficult platform to master, and it is. Yet it just kind of made sense to me. And so, I just kept trying different things and learning. As I said, this is the only time I’ve ever worked for another company, and I got to the point where I really wanted to get back into my own thing. And I thought, I’m doing pretty well with LinkedIn myself. I can probably help other people do that.

Adam Houlahan: [00:08:41] So, I started really as just a consultant, just myself coaching a few people. And the interest in it was surprising. And we just kept growing and growing, and we had varying team members to sort of deliver that. And, now, we’re a global team of amazing people. We have a team in North America, in the Philippines, and UK, here in Australia, and we get to work with amazing, amazing people all over the world. And we just specialize in this base of a platform called LinkedIn.

Mike Blake: [00:09:15] So, what did it take to go from user to active user to an expert? Was it intense study? Was it a lot of trial and error? Do you know people who wrote code at LinkedIn? What did it take to develop that level of expertise that you now have?

Adam Houlahan: [00:09:32] I guess it’s that old saying, the ten thousand hours of putting in your time as well as funny things. I often get asked the question like, “How did you become an overnight expert?” Well, I didn’t. I mean, I did my time. It’s a lot of hard work. And as you said, a lot of trial and error, and it still is. We have people on our team, a data scientist, and all they do is kind of monitor algorithms and what’s working and what’s not, and find patterns and commonality and things. And as you’re aware, not only LinkedIn, no social platforms really share their algorithms. So, we spend a lot of time working this stuff out and, eventually, came up with a process that just worked. And we’re fortunate enough to work with over 200 people around the world. And so, it’s not just now, where it’s just what I see in what I’m doing, we get to see the results of what hundreds of accounts are doing. And, of course, that exponential sort of data capability is what helps us to really hone down on what actually is a methodology that works.

Mike Blake: [00:10:58] So, of course, LinkedIn is now one of many social networks. What made you choose to focus on LinkedIn? And I mean, are you active at all in other social networks as well?

Adam Houlahan: [00:11:13] I have other accounts like Twitter and LinkedIn – sorry – Facebook and Instagram. But to be honest, I spend 95 percent of my time on LinkedIn. And I think the differentiator there is that LinkedIn, it wasn’t the social platform. It’s very much a social platform from the business perspective as opposed to many others have a more social – they certainly have a business aspect to them. And there’s certainly industries and businesses that are better served by other platforms – but it’s the general SME, B2B market. There’s really no comparison, in my opinion, anyway.

Mike Blake: [00:12:00] And, you know, it’s interesting how LinkedIn has managed to more or less preserve its status as a network for professionals as opposed to personal purposes. And one example I have, as I’m sure you’re aware, in the United States, we have an unusually polarized political culture. I cannot remember in my 50 years seeing anything like it. And even so, when you see something spill over into the political on LinkedIn, it feels like nails on a chalkboard. I mean, it stands out right away. You can feel sort of the uncomfortableness of it being there. There’s something about LinkedIn, the culture of the users, I’m not sure, but they’ve managed to sort of keep it away. Whereas, with Facebook and Instagram and the others, it really is kind of a free for all.

Adam Houlahan: [00:12:51] You’re right. And interestingly enough, algorithmically, it’s one of the things that LinkedIn sort of manage well. So, I wouldn’t say you don’t see any of that type of content on LinkedIn. It’s certainly there. But the difference really is that they’re suppressing a lot of that out of their feeds. So, let’s be honest, there’s 750 million-plus users on LinkedIn, and probably 95 percent of them don’t really know exactly what is best practice and what works. And it’s not uncommon that it gets used like other platforms. The difference is that LinkedIn’s algorithms can spot a lot of that and actually cut it off before you see the high majority.

Mike Blake: [00:13:48] So, you said something I wanted to dive into a little bit. And you sort of answered the question and that is, it sounds like you think that most people are not using LinkedIn correctly or at least anything approaching the fullest capabilities of the platform.

Adam Houlahan: [00:14:03] Exactly. And I can give you a more specific number than that. In my opinion, it’s probably about the top 0.02 percent of people truly understand how to leverage it to its greatest capability and are rewarded by it. It’s interesting, you sort of mentioned earlier about someone you had a conversation with that had that view that it was just a place to poach team members and things like that. And I’m not saying that that type of thing doesn’t happen, it certainly does. But the real power of LinkedIn is – and I’m going to get some pushback on this one. But what I’m going to say is, it’s actually not a great sales platform and that’s what most people try and use it for. And the people who truly get the results from it truly understand its power are not actually trying to use it as a sales platform. However, because they know how to do it well, they enjoy more sales off the back of that process than 98 or 99 percent of people on the platform.

Mike Blake: [00:15:16] And I’m curious – you may not have specific insight, but I’m curious. Do you think that LinkedIn was designed to be as complex as it is, where there’s only a very small number of intelligency, if you will, or the Illuminati that really understand LinkedIn to its core? Is that the intent or is that something that simply evolved over time as new ideas, new functionality, new data has become available?

Adam Houlahan: [00:15:45] Mike, it’s a great question. And I think the reality is, I think, it’s just evolved over time. If you really go back to LinkedIn’s early days, it was a jobsite, to be honest. It’s a place where you pass your resume. And while it’s still used for job placement – and very, very well, some of them are successful clients, are recruitment agencies – but the reality is – and I think if you kind of put a line in the sand of where that really accelerated, it’s probably around the time Microsoft shelled out $26 billion dollars to buy it. Clearly, a company the size of Microsoft, again, have the resources and the capability to do whatever they wanted with the platform. And I think they’ve actually done more good than bad.

Adam Houlahan: [00:16:43] However, as you point out, in that process, it has become a little bit of a degree of complexity in how the algorithms treat different things that happened on there. And let’s be honest, the old platforms are algorithm-driven. Everything is algorithm-driven. LinkedIn just is what we call hyper-driven by their algorithms. So, the difference between really leveraging the platform well and not so well, it comes down to what we call algorithm intelligence.

Mike Blake: [00:17:20] Now, this may be an unfair question. And if it is, tell me and I’ll talk about something else, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway. Because of that, I wonder what your view is on that complexity of LinkedIn relative to other platforms. Let’s just say Facebook, for example. Facebook can be used to accomplish something similar, but an entirely different way about it, an entirely different business model in a lot of respects. You know, in your view, assuming that you sort of were at a flat footed start with knowledge of LinkedIn versus Facebook or other platforms, where do you think LinkedIn ranks in terms of complexity among the other platforms that are out there? Is it about average? Is it harder than most? Easier than most? Do you have an opinion on that?

Adam Houlahan: [00:18:07] Definitely. I’d say, definitely, it’s harder. Comparing to Facebook, it’s quite normal. Like you said, you have that flat foot stand and start. Really, the difference that I would suggest is that, with Facebook, even if you had a flat foot stand and start, yes, you can do some courses and educate yourself on how the ad platform works. And the reality is, the only way you can leverage real value from Facebook is through marketing budget. So, if you don’t have marketing budget, then you can have all the know how in the world. You’re just not going to get traction on Facebook.

Adam Houlahan: [00:18:53] Conversely, on LinkedIn, if you invest that time in that same education process, you can actually get around amazing results with no budget. You actually alluded to the reason, which you said, was a difference in business model. LinkedIn’s business model is incredibly different to Facebook. Facebook is a pay to play. It’s just that simple. It seems driven around the ad platform. With the LinkedIn, LinkedIn actually generates very high majority of their revenue through subscriptions. Meaning, that people have a subscription to the Premium platform sales navigator, the recruiter licenses, and there’s a whole bunch of other ones out there as well.

Adam Houlahan: [00:19:40] So, they have a, in my opinion, a much better model because it’s – what we call -a recurring profit model. They get paid every month regardless of the value event. They do have an end platform, as you know, but it’s really not the main driver of the revenue. So, what they really want is amazing content creators. So, if you want to dominate the platform, you’ve got to up your skill in content creation, and that’s what they really want. Because they want conversations that stay on the platform and want it to be a place where you come to it for.

Adam Houlahan: [00:20:18] If you think about why people go onto social platforms, in the simplest sense, it comes down to two things, they’re there to be entertained or educated or informed. So, LinkedIn wants to be that place for education and information. Not so much the entertainment part of the process. And it’s done a really good job at doing that. But, as we said, getting the traction on that is not simple.

Mike Blake: [00:20:46] So, you touched on something that I wanted to make sure to ask, of course, LinkedIn now does have fee-based services that do something. Each one kind of does something a little different, which is interesting. It’s not just a tier, but it’s a scope. What’s your view on the fee-based LinkedIn services? And do you think that the typical Power User would ought to at least strongly consider investing in one or more of those services?

Adam Houlahan: [00:21:12] Again, if you’re saying for Power User, then 100 percent you are going to have a Sales Navigator subscription. Now, in the U.S., I think that’s at around $65 a month. It’s around AUD 100, they’re kind of converts as the same thing, £50 in the UK. that sort of thing. So, it’s not a big investment. Realistically, if you’re really going to leverage a platform for high-level business use and success, $60 a month is not a big investment. As you said, there are other higher-level subscriptions. But the reality is the high majority user, you can do incredibly well with that subscription.

Mike Blake: [00:22:00] What do you think is the most understood thing about LinkedIn? What do a lot of people get wrong?

Adam Houlahan: [00:22:07] Most misunderstood, did you say?

Mike Blake: [00:22:08] Yeah. Most misunderstood.

Adam Houlahan: [00:22:10] Yeah. So, I think one of the most misunderstood thing is that, there’s this belief that it’s an amazing tool for sales. And reality is, it isn’t. What it is an amazing tool for is positioning yourself as a subject matter expert. And using that platform to reach out and educate and inform a marketplace that leads to having conversations off the platform. What the high majority of people are doing, as you mentioned with everything that went on in 2020, there was a massive amount of people that moved to LinkedIn. Some of them are already there, there’s a lot of people that would have a LinkedIn profile because someone just told them they should have but they never really used it. So, a lot of those people started using that account or they came across to set one up for the first time.

Adam Houlahan: [00:23:14] And through a mixture of not really understanding how the platform works, and desperation, or having to develop a new business model of how to get conversation, how to network, so to speak, they really missed the true value of what LinkedIn is all about. And interestingly enough, LinkedIn actually had to react. There was so much, let’s just say, low-quality activity that they actually introduced a spam filter into even – what’s called – messaging. So, you know, in the old days – when I say the old days, I mean about 2019 and even 2020 – a lot of people just thought that you connect with people and then you just kind of message and pitch them. And even these low-level programs around you’ve probably seen that say, “Oh, we can automate doing all this stuff.” And so, LinkedIn reacted to that and they introduced the spam filters, which again, algorithmically could detect a lot of this stuff. So, a lot of people are still punching at all these direct messages and not realizing that nobody’s actually even seen them because they’re just getting directed into the spam filters.

Mike Blake: [00:24:38] So, how much time does one have to invest to use LinkedIn in your mind properly? I know that’s a loaded question, because I imagine your answer might be that, theoretically, you can invest every minute, every day in it. But from sort of a typical Power User’s perspective that doesn’t have banks or armies of data analysts and personal assistants and so forth. But somebody just says, “Look, I want to become fluent in LinkedIn. I want to make it a big part of how I position myself in the market.” How much time do you think a typical person who wants to accomplish that needs to budget, say, on a weekly basis?

Adam Houlahan: [00:25:19] It’s a good question. And what I would suggest is, there’s a big difference between the terminology you’re using. The Power User is going to be a different level of use than to the majority of people that just want to get some good results. What I would say is, someone in that top 0.02 percent that we were talking about earlier are really doing this at a high level. On a monthly basis, it takes about 75 hours per month of work to make — happen. But the reality is that, you don’t necessarily need to be at that level to get results and you can certainly get results at a lower level. And the reality is, if you’re very strategic with your time and you sort of work to a plan, you can really get good results if you invest about an hour a day.

Mike Blake: [00:26:14] Okay. So, I mean, it is something that realistically somebody could embark on themselves and do something useful of, it sounds like.

Adam Houlahan: [00:26:24] Yeah, 100 percent. You don’t have to just be those Power Users to get results. It’s not like a deadline and saying you’re above it and you’re getting results and below it if you’re not. It’s a diminishing sort of level of result as you tee down to that. But we’ve proven it many, many times, so many people, as you mentioned, some of the programs, their solid programs, that’s what’s it designed for. Hence, the name. It means doing so. But if you follow the methodology and you diligently implement that hour or so a day, you can get very, very good results.

Mike Blake: [00:27:03] So, when you embrace LinkedIn and you’re moving towards expert level, what was it about your LinkedIn experience that made you feel like, “Okay. I’m on to something. I’m successful using this platform. I’m becoming a Power User.” What was the feedback, if you will, that LinkedIn was giving you that told you that you were really on to something and you’re getting good ROI on your time invested?

Adam Houlahan: [00:27:31] There’s probably two different versions of that. So, one part for me was, actually, being invited by Microsoft to become one of their Australian based ambassadors. So, obviously, that gave me a lot of insight, intel, into probably levels that many other people didn’t get. I still regularly get contacted by them for my thoughts on certain things. So, that certainly is at a different level. But in the more general sense, I think it was just the fact that I was able to take a company business events of around four or five companies prior to this. I wouldn’t say I’m a beginner as far as building a business. But I was certainly a beginner as far as building a LinkedIn business. But to how quickly we got traction and how quickly we were able to get growth, and then, clearly, we were using our own sort of IP, and we were using LinkedIn as the platform to generate all of that business. So, the success we had from me being a single sole consultant to a team of 18 people, that’s certainly a consistent journey. And that’s still a growing journey now, so that was really the validation for us, I suppose.

Mike Blake: [00:29:04] So, I’m going to steal one thing from your book, and I hope that you don’t mind, but I just think it’s a critical question for the podcast. And that is, for a LinkedIn user, what should be their KPIs or key performance indicators they’re looking at to ensure or track whether or not what they’re doing is a right thing so that, you know, they keep doing it if it’s doing well or they do something else if they’re not getting results? Realizing it’s not a sales platform, so judging it by the number of sales you generate is neither appropriate nor fair, what would be the appropriate KPIs to look at as a LinkedIn user?

Adam Houlahan: [00:29:42] It’s a great question. I would suggest that it’s still appropriately fair to track those sales conversations and conversions, albeit that they happen often – they should be happening off the platform. But the KPIs are what generates those conversations, and sales, the back side. So, it really boils down to a few key things. It’s not a lot of stuff that you don’t want to bog down in spending all your time on, either analyzing metrics or whatever.

Adam Houlahan: [00:30:17] But what you should be tracking on a regular basis is not only your growth in first degree connections, but more importantly, it’s the acceptance rate. So, how many connection or question you send are being accepted? If that’s below 30 percent, then there’s a problem there. It means that the market is not resonating with what you’re doing. It means that even your profile needs some work. Or, your messaging and connection strategy need some work. So, that’s the number one thing, you’ve got to maintain above 30 percent acceptance rate, whether you send ten connection requests or 100, it doesn’t matter. It’s the acceptance rate reaction that matter.

Adam Houlahan: [00:31:07] And then, the second thing is, you have to be creating content. If you want to get traction on LinkedIn, you’ve got to be a content creator. So, you need to be sort of across what level of tractions that a content is getting. So, how many views are you getting? Where are those views? LinkedIn is trying to make a connection between your profile, who you’re connecting with, and the content you’re creating. And if they can understand that, then they’re going to show it to the right type of people. So, you’ve got to look at some of the metrics, who is viewing your content and where they are, and is that aligned with the type of people who want seeing your content. So, they’re the two key ones in that area.

Adam Houlahan: [00:31:54] And then, of course, the final one, in my opinion, is how many people are willingly moving from LinkedIn into your database? Meaning, your CRM, your email list, whatever. And, again, I don’t mean these cheesy sort of platforms and bots and things that go and scrape a whole bunch of people’s information, apart from the ethical issue of that. There is no true credibility in what you’re doing if you do that. It’s how many people are willing to go from the interaction with you on LinkedIn into your CRM. And then, of course, the growth in your CRM that’s specifically attributed from LinkedIn. And, of course, how many sales conversations are you generating of that process? Because, clearly, you do need to have a sales process that is part of your LinkedIn sort of strategy. It’s just that it’s going to happen off LinkedIn, but you still need to know what it is. It’s still made world class and you still need to be able to track it.

Mike Blake: [00:33:07] So, you mentioned a couple of things I thought, for me, they’re extremely great takeaways from the book. And one of them is that, LinkedIn use is active. It’s not passive. And I imagine – and please correct me if you think I’m wrong – a common mistake made about LinkedIn is, you put up your profile and you aggressively wait for people to follow you and connect with you. And that’s probably not particularly effective. And then, the second is conversion – which I haven’t thought about until you mentioned it, until I read your book – which was, you need to then take a next step to get people to agree to get off of LinkedIn and onto something kind of more proprietary that you can control and have more direct communication with the user and with your network.

Adam Houlahan: [00:34:02] Well, yeah, exactly. I mean, at the end of the day, the only thing you truly are in control is your website and your database. All of your social platforms, whether it’s LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Clubhouse, any of them, you actually rent access to those. You have no actual say on what happens. You may leverage it better than others, but you’re still at the mercy of those who control that as to what happens. And I can tell you, every week, we get contact by people who have lost their link access to their LinkedIn accounts for numerous reasons and said, “Oh, this is my main source of lead generation. I’ve just lost it. How do I fix that?”

Adam Houlahan: [00:34:46] One, to have lost it, you must have been kind of doing something bad anyway. But the reality is that, if you’ve been building your database off LinkedIn and you’ve got a lot of activity happening there, it should be a blip in the road. It shouldn’t be the detriment of your business.

Mike Blake: [00:35:09] So, how are a lot of people misusing LinkedIn? What are most people doing wrong that they think that they’re doing right and they should change right now?

Adam Houlahan: [00:35:19] How long have we got? Let’s look on the 80-20 rule. Let’s look at the 80% of the outcome. The first thing is, it’s in their messaging strategy. So, it’s that spray and pray approach. You’re connecting with everyone and everyone and then just pitching. I’m sure you’ve had it happen to you plenty times, you might be connected with somebody, then the very next day, you get some sales pitch about – I think your background is being an accountant, which in your world would be fine. But just recently I had somebody connect with me and then send me a message saying, “We got the most amazing program for accountants -” true story “- and we’d love to help your firm to generate new leads for a [inaudible].” “Well, great. Except we’re not accountants.”

Adam Houlahan: [00:36:28] So, it’s this sort of untargeted process. So, it’s a different course frame. You just punch it out to everyone, whether they’re interested or not, hoping that one percent of those people would engage on that. And the reality is that, if you got a one percent actual conversion on that, you’d be doing incredibly well. If you think that through, one percent, you sent out 100 messages tomorrow and one person engaged about that, I think you’d be happy. If you got a [inaudible]. That’s great. I’m going to do that everyday. So, that’s what I would do. But the reality is, it’s way, way, way lower than one percent. It’s, like, less than one in a thousand. And the point, though, is that if you got one in one thousand, you’ve also really annoyed 999 people. So, it doesn’t position you as someone with credibility and authority, that sort of thing. So, that’s the big one.

Adam Houlahan: [00:37:29] The secondary one is the content strategy. So, they’re using it like they probably got a buffer account, or Hootsuite, or one of those scheduling platforms, and they’re punching out the exact same content across multiple platforms because somebody said it was really cool to do that. The reality is that, LinkedIn doesn’t like content that has links to external content. So, if you’re sharing content that takes people off the LinkedIn platform, it doesn’t matter where you take them, whether on your website or landing page – I mean, you could write a post and link to an article on LinkedIn’s blog. And so, this is the greatest piece of content ever created and everybody should read it – LinkedIn will still suppress it because they’ve got some algorithms, are not looking at what the content is. Just if it doesn’t have a link there, yes, this is not quality content.

Adam Houlahan: [00:38:29] And I guarantee you right now, if you went and scrolled through your LinkedIn profile, you wouldn’t have to go past two or three before you’d see one with exactly that type of content. But the interesting part of that, Mike, is, even though you see that one, there’s a hundred for every one you see being suppressed that you don’t see because the algorithms are just torturing them out.

Mike Blake: [00:38:53] You know, that’s interesting. I tend to rely on outside information when I do my posts. I happen to have a chart of the day, and I don’t write these charts myself. So, I want to give due attribution to the people that created it. And I do link, and that probably is undermining my visibility. But at the same time, since I am, in effect, ripping off somebody else’s content, I feel like that’s a price I have to pay ethically to give credit where credit is due, frankly.

Adam Houlahan: [00:39:26] And you’re right. I mean, if it is someone else’s content, you should be attributing them or giving them the kudos for it. Probably the message here is, it’s not really the best use of content falling in. If you want to really get traction, you need to be the author. You need to be the creator of the content. You need to be the one with the opinion.

Adam Houlahan: [00:39:52] And, again, touching on something you said earlier about the political scene in the U.S. with the polarization, the very truth is that, actually, in some ways you can use your content for polarizing an audience in a positive way. And what I mean by that is that, at the end of the day, there’s thousands of people potentially viewing that content, not every one of them are going to be in alignment with it. So, by having a bit of an opinion about something, you can polarize an audience. And the ones who are not your tribe, so to speak, say so. And then, you know the ones who are, so you keep sort of interacting and engaging with those ones.

Adam Houlahan: [00:40:44] I’m sure your previous president, let’s just say, was very, very good at polarizing audiences. But he was also very, very good at then leveraging the part of that market that didn’t resonate with his message. He wouldn’t have been president if it hadn’t been. And the reality is that, your content strategy really has to be as you, the author, more so than someone else’s content. Because, basically, what you do is transfer that authority to the author of that content.

Mike Blake: [00:41:19] Right. We’re talking with Adam Houlahan, CEO of Prominence Global. And the topic is, Should I actively use LinkedIn? We just have time for a couple more questions then we have to let you finish your day and at least another work week. How do you keep up with all the LinkedIn algorithm changes? These algorithms change with some kind of periodicity. And if we don’t keep on top of them, you very quickly fall out of date. How do you stay on top of that?

Adam Houlahan: [00:41:51] Well, for us, it’s not difficult because we have a team of people, but that’s their job to do that. I’d be quite open and honest with you, it’s not me sitting there doing that all day. So, for us, the size of the company that we are, we have that ability to do that. For an individual to do that, I would suggest it’s near impossible. And I often see this modeling team. I shouldn’t laugh when I say this, but, often, people say, “I’ve tested this and it works.” And I would say, “Well, how many accounts did you test that across?” “Oh, mine.” “Great. You think that means it’s the same from all 750 million of us. I guarantee you, it isn’t.” And so, to really do that effectively, you need a much, much wider test base than one single account. So, be very, very careful of the information that you see that suggests that this is being well-tested and proven if it hasn’t been well-tested and proven across 50 plus LinkedIn accounts.

Mike Blake: [00:43:07] So, as we wrap up here, I suspect at least some of our listeners, they’re thinking very, I think, critically about their LinkedIn profile right now. What’s one thing you would suggest that people go look at first just on a LinkedIn profile to make it more attractive, to make it more impactful on the platform?

Adam Houlahan: [00:43:28] Mike, the easiest thing would be, go on our website. We have a free Profile Optimization course there. Over 17,000 people around the world have used that to improve their profile. But, again, we did the 80-20 rule. You’ve got to have a really good background image. You’ve got to have a good profile image. You’ve got to have written your About section and a thing that talks about yourself really, really well. But what is really well? It’s well-documented and outlined in that free course, and I highly recommend that. I guarantee you, you comment what’s in there, and it will put you in the top five percent of that 750 million profiles.

Mike Blake: [00:44:13] Adam, this has been wonderful, and I cannot thank you enough for being so generous with your time. If people want to contact you for more information or maybe your organization, what’s the best way for them to do that?

Adam Houlahan: [00:44:26] One, I spend a lot of time on LinkedIn, so if you’re going to connect with me, though, make sure you leave me a message and say, “Hey. I listened to Mike’s podcast and I want to connect.” Otherwise, I probably won’t accept it. But other than that, just go even to my personal website, adamhoulahan.com, and you can link off to our company site and everything there.

Mike Blake: [00:44:49] Well, very good. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. And I’d like to thank Adam Houlahan so much for joining us and sharing his expertise with us. We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review of your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: Adam Houlahan, authenticity, Brady Ware, Brady Ware & Company, LinkedIn, linkedin coaching, Michael Blake, Mike Blake, networking on LinkedIn, Prominence Global, using LinkedIn

TMBS E153: Alex Gonzalez, Preserving Wealth in Uncertain Times

March 9, 2021 by angishields

Tucson Business Radio
Tucson Business Radio
TMBS E153: Alex Gonzalez, Preserving Wealth in Uncertain Times
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

KEYS TO BUILDING AND PRESERVING WEALTH IN UNCERTAIN TIMES

Expert Shares Tips for Achieving Financial Goals in a Volatile Market—and How an Advisor can Help 

GUEST: 

Alex J. Gonzalez, Financial Planning Expert, Regions Private Wealth 

Alex Gonzalez is a Regional Market Executive for Regions Private Wealth in Orlando, Florida. Gonzalez and his team work closely with high net worth and ultra-high net worth clients to provide customized solutions across a variety of investment and financial objectives. Gonzalez joined Regions in 2010. Previously, he served as Private Banking Director for Wachovia, now Wells Fargo, where he served clients in Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, and other Florida cities for nearly 28 years

 BACKGROUND: 

Amid an ongoing pandemic, political transition, market volatility, and economic uncertainties in the U.S. and abroad, staying on track financially is a challenging task right now. Many have shifted their strategy to protect what they have, rather than focusing on building new wealth. But does there really need to be a trade-off? 

 On March 4, Orlando-based wealth manager and financial planning expert Alex Gonzalez will provide some insights and perspectives on how to work with a financial professional to craft an ideal strategy that combines protecting ones’ current assets while positioning oneself to build wealth in the future. .


Tagged With: The Mark Bishop Show

Decision Vision Episode 106: Should We Think Outside the Box for Our Next Chief Executive? – An Interview with Marc Fleischman and Eric Majchrzak, BeachFleischman

March 4, 2021 by John Ray

BeachFleischman
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 106: Should We Think Outside the Box for Our Next Chief Executive? - An Interview with Marc Fleischman and Eric Majchrzak, BeachFleischman
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

BeachFleischmanDecision Vision Episode 106:  Should We Think Outside the Box for Our Next Chief Executive? – An Interview with Marc Fleischman and Eric Majchrzak, BeachFleischman

When choosing a new CEO, should you consider unconventional options? How do you transition the CEO role to a non-founder? Marc Fleischman and Eric Majchrzak are in a management succession like this at their firm, BeachFleischman, and they joined host Mike Blake to discuss their own experience. “Decision Vision” is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

BeachFleischman PC

BeachFleischman PC is Arizona’s largest locally-owned CPA firm and a “Top 200” largest CPA firm in the U.S. The firm has over 200 client service and administrative professionals and provides accounting, assurance, tax, and strategic operations & advisory services to businesses (U.S. and foreign-based), organizations and individuals. The firm serves clients doing business domestically and internationally and specializes in a variety of Industry-related practice areas, including cannabis, construction, healthcare, real estate, manufacturing, hospitality, technology, nonprofit and professional service businesses. BeachFleischman has subsidiaries, including Pinnacle Plan Design LLC, a national provider of qualified retirement plan consulting, design, administration and actuarial services; MOD Ventures LLC, a virtual client accounting services and consulting firm; and Contempo HCM LLC, a payroll and human capital management company. Offices are in Tucson (headquarters) and Phoenix.

Company website | LinkedIn | Twitter

Marc Fleischman, CEO, BeachFleischman PC

BeachFleischman
Marc Fleischman, BeachFleischman PC

Marc Fleischman is a founding shareholder and current CEO of BeachFleischman PC, an accounting and consulting firm with offices in Tucson and Phoenix Arizona founded in 1990. The firm has approximately 200 office and remote employees. Marc retires at the end of 2021 and is currently mentoring his replacement to share knowledge and experience.

Eric Majchrzak, Chief Strategy Officer, BeachFleischman PC

Eric Majchrzak, BeachFleischman PC

Eric Majchrzak is a shareholder and chief strategy officer of BeachFleischman PC. He is also the firm’s appointed CEO-elect and will assume the role in 2022. He joined BeachFleischman in 2012 and is responsible for the firm’s overall strategic growth initiatives, including innovation, service line development, M&A, joint ventures, institutional firm branding, market alignment, and community outreach.

 

 

 

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

“Decision Vision” is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the “Decision Vision” podcast.

Past episodes of “Decision Vision” can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. “Decision Vision” is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional full service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:20] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:39] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:08] Today’s topic is, Should we think outside the box for our next chief executive? And this is, I think in some respects, a hot topic, I think more companies are thinking outside the box in terms of retaining their next chief executive, because industries are finding that their markets are changing so rapidly. And this is even before we get into a coronavirus discussion, which has, basically, just yanked the tablecloth and everything sort of come crashing down wherever it’s going to come down. But, you know, we’re seeing this before.

Mike Blake: [00:01:46] And it’s an interesting conversation. If you look at Ford, right? They got rid of Mark Fields, he was a lifer inside the company and all he knew was making cars – I don’t mean to trivialize that. Knowing how to make cars is hard, just ask Elon Musk, especially doing it at scale. But they replaced him with a software guy – a woman, actually, from Silicon Valley – because they have decided that the future of driving is on autonomous vehicles. General Motors has done something similar because they are making a pretty all in bet on electrification.

Mike Blake: [00:02:32] Now, sometimes it doesn’t necessarily go as well. Those of us who are old enough may remember when Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple in the late 1980s. They hired a Pepsi executive to replace him. And they brought out products such as the Apple Newton, and if you’ve never heard of it, there’s probably a reason for that. But, basically, that was sort of the Neanderthal iPad and it was ten years too early before the the supporting technology was really ready to to support that kind of device.

Mike Blake: [00:03:08] So, it doesn’t necessarily all work out. But it is an interesting and a courageous decision and, I think, in particular as we’re in an interesting time where demographics are dictating turnover. And in my world where I live and I do a lot of transaction advisory, we tend to think that that is going to lead to a change in ownership, where people are going to be selling their companies because they feel like they’re too old to run them. Interestingly enough, we’ve thought that for the last ten years, we thought there was going be a massive turnover of companies. And that actually really hasn’t happened the way that we thought it was going to be, because it turns out that, you know, a lot of people still have their marbles at age 70 and can run their company. And there’s also a lot of data to suggest that the least healthy thing you can do is retire. But that’ll be a subject maybe for another podcast.

Mike Blake: [00:04:04] But it also brings to mind another issue, which is at the forefront even of Brady Ware, which is succession. That ownership is necessarily going to turn over at some point. And in professional services, one of the big tests of staying power and, frankly, whether the firm has value is, whether or not you’re able to have a successful transition of power, basically, and still retain the things about the firm that make it useful and valuable today while still positioning itself for the new challenges and opportunities that exist for that firm at the time that the succession is taking place.

Mike Blake: [00:04:51] And so, you know, for those reasons, I think this is an interesting topic. I think it will resonate with a lot of people, whether you’re in that succession plan yourself, whether you are maybe subject to that succession plan, or maybe you’re thinking that’s five to ten years away. And if there’s anything I’ve learned about succession, I’m not sure it’s ever too early to start thinking about it. Certainly, ten years is not too early because as Yogi Berra is famous for saying, it gets late early.

Mike Blake: [00:05:19] So, joining us today are Marc Fleischman and Eric Majchrzak, who are the current and future CEOs of BeachFleischman PC out in Arizona. So, we’re going to get a really interesting kind of perspective here of the full spectrum of transition, if you will.

Mike Blake: [00:05:40] Marc Fleischman is a founding shareholder and current CEO of BeachFleischman PC, an accounting and consulting firm with offices in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona. Founded in 1990, the firm has approximately 200 office and remote employees. Marc is retiring at the end of 2021 – this year – and is currently mentoring his replacement to share knowledge and experience. And that replacement is Eric Majchrzak, who is a shareholder and chief strategy officer of BeachFleischman. He is also the firm’s appointed CEO-elect, and will assume that role at the start of 2022. He joined BeachFleischman in 2012, and is responsible for the firm’s overall strategic growth initiatives, including innovation, service line development, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, institutional firm branding, market alignment, and community outreach.

Mike Blake: [00:06:32] BeachFleischman PC is Arizona’s largest locally owned CPA firm and a top 200 largest CPA firm in the United States. The firm has over 200 client service and administrative professionals and provides accounting assurance, tax, and strategic operations and advisory services to business, U.S. and foreign based, organizations and individuals. The firm service clients doing business domestically and internationally and specializes in a variety of industry related practice areas, including cannabis, construction, health care, real estate, manufacturing, hospitality, technology, nonprofit, and professional service businesses. BeachFleischman has subsidiaries including Pinnacle Plan Design, LLC, a national provider of qualified retirement plan, consulting design administration and actuarial services; MOD Ventures, LLC, a client accounting services and consulting firm; and Contempo HCM, LLC, a payroll and human capital management company; offices are in Tucson and Phoenix. Marc and Eric, welcome to the program.

Marc Fleischman: [00:07:33] Thank you for having us.

Mike Blake: [00:07:35] So, lots of ground we can cover today. And although we have a general direction where we’re going to go, we’ll see if it stays that way. But the thing that I think is going to be helpful for the listener and myself to understand the context is, what are the circumstances leading to this transition? Marc, since you’re the one who’s currently in the seat and you’re leaving, I’ll ask you to kind of answer that first. What’s happening that’s leading to this change?

Marc Fleischman: [00:08:09] I’m happy to. Under our governance policy, at age 67 – which I’ll be this coming December – I need to sell my shares back. So, I will no longer be a shareholder in the corporation. As a result, we deemed it not appropriate for me to remain as CEO. And quite honestly, you mentioned earlier about retirement maybe not being good, I’m going to find out how good it is or how good it isn’t. And plan on, maybe, staying on as an advisor to the firm and helping where they need it, if they need it. But, basically, getting out of the way and allowing Eric and the team to lead into the future.

Mike Blake: [00:08:48] So, I’d like to pause on that for a moment, because, one, 67 is interesting to me because it’s a little older than I normally see accounting firms have. At Brady Ware, it’s 65. Other places I’ve worked, it’s 65. But can you answer for me – and Eric might be able to chime in too – why do a lot of professional services firms have a mandatory retirement age?

Marc Fleischman: [00:09:12] I think it relates primarily to succession and the ability to allow, number one, the relationships that have been fostered for a number of years. We have to transfer those relationships to new people, younger people. Otherwise, the client will no longer have a service provider that they feel comfortable working with. So, it’s necessary to start early. You talked about succession, maybe ten years is long enough or not long enough. Basically, here, we believe in continuous succession. Whereby, we are constantly attempting to – I’m going to use the term – pushdown client relationships, transferring them to younger people, giving them an opportunity so that there is a continuing success of the firm going forward.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:10:06] I would add, Marc just addressed the client side of things, which is very relevant. On the talent side of things, on the internal side, it creates more space for future leaders to step up. And it’s a great way to retain top talent is to have that succession plan in place so that others can step up and lead a practice, lead a division, become a future leader. And that’s always been part of our culture here. So, both on the client side and on the internal talent side, both very important.

Mike Blake: [00:10:40] So, I’d like to go back in time then to the point at which you decided or where you arrived at the point where you needed to name that successor. How long ago was that? Was that six months ago, a year ago, two years ago? How long has that transition practice been in place?

Marc Fleischman: [00:10:59] We started the process back in July of 2019, so we’re talking over a-year-and-a-half ago.

Mike Blake: [00:11:06] Okay. And then, how long has it been known that Eric is going to be the next person up?

Marc Fleischman: [00:11:13] Well, we made the announcement internally this November, but actually the selection was a full year before that. The shareholders and the committee that selected him knew of it, but everybody else did not.

Mike Blake: [00:11:28] Okay. So, it sounds like that it’s going to be 2020 or maybe even 2019 BC, before coronavirus. And think back to that time when you were deciding who was the right person to take on this role and this challenge, talk to me about about how you viewed your own firm. I love to hear about when you took inventory of its strengths and weaknesses. What did those kind of look like to you?

Marc Fleischman: [00:12:00] Well, from my standpoint, I think we were a successful firm, having been founded in 1990. We had a one long term CEO that that served that position almost 25 years. And then, I replaced him naturally. I mean his name was Beach. My name is Fleischman. It was a natural for me to take over after that. And I guess, I would say, that having been involved with my partner and my good friend since I got out of college many, many, many years ago, I was Avis to his Hertz. And I was always practicing to become number one.

Marc Fleischman: [00:12:42] So, in 2019, we were still in a growth mode as we are today. We were considering rolling out new opportunities, new service lines, and realized that it would probably would make sense to spend a fair amount of time with regards to being able to mentor our new CEO in that role. Because Mr. Beach and myself had been really co-drivers of this practice for a number of years as far as running it. And no one else had really had too much opportunity to fulfill those duties. And so, it was going to take a long time to transition, regardless of whether it was a practice partner or a nonpractice partner.

Mike Blake: [00:13:30] And so, it sounds like this is the first time that a nonpractice partner is really somebody not named Beach or Fleischman is going to be in that seat.

Marc Fleischman: [00:13:38] Exactly right.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:13:40] No pressure. No pressure, right, Mike?

Mike Blake: [00:13:42] Well, and that’s why I want to ask you about, you know, does that change your calculus about how you approach the job? Did it give you any pause in taking the job? Because, you know, as they say in coaching, you don’t want to be the guy that follows a guy. You want to be the guy that follows the guy that follows the guy. You know, did that give you any pause?

Eric Majchrzak: [00:14:05] You know, only to the extent that both Bruce and Marc are loved within the firm, significant shoes to fill, so the bar was set very high. And that’s never necessarily a position you want to walk into, where the bar is so high already to begin with, right? But I have to say, I think it’s a blessing because they have created a firm and a culture that’s committed to growth, that’s committed to clients, committed to our own people internally. And I can’t think of a better circumstance to step into this role than what we have here.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:14:45] During the time when we were going through the search process and the transition process back in the second half of 2019, there was significant change happening here. I mean, we have launched two of our new ventures, two brand new subsidiaries or two companies. We’re going through a lot of transformation on the technology side. We’re shifting our business model away from the hourly billing model. We’re entering new markets. So, there was just so much change happening. And, with change comes opportunity, of course. So, that was kind of the environment that we were looking at.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:15:29] And by the way, we’re no different than any other firm. Other firms are grappling with the same issues of innovation and disruption and that, so I just feel we’re in a really good spot to navigate through this.

Mike Blake: [00:15:45] Well, we certainly are. But what’s interesting in how you described the state of the firm, if you will, as the succession decision was taking place, everything you described to me was a business issue that could impact any business, whether it is an accounting or whether it was in manufacturing paper clips.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:16:07] Agree.

Mike Blake: [00:16:07] And I wonder and I suspect that that’s one of the reasons that may bring somebody in who’s not a practitioner of accountancy or one of the specific services as a viable, maybe even an optimal fit, because you weren’t trying to figure out how to get tax returns out more efficiently or figure out how to manage audit risk or whether you can take on public company audits or something. It is much more kind of – I hate to say garden variety – but really garden variety business stuff.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:16:38] Yeah. And in my case – and maybe the committee and Marc thought about this – the firm is my only client. I get to work on the business 100 percent of my time, because I don’t have a client list. I’m not serving clients externally. I get to work on the business. And I think because of the fast pace of change, that’s a good spot to be in where I can dedicate all of my time on anticipating change, anticipating our needs, and not being reactive.

Mike Blake: [00:17:14] I suspect – and I’d love you to comment – I think there are a lot of positives about that. One, you’re not distracted by a book of business. Two, you don’t have to worry about trying to regain that book of business if you then leave that role but want to stay in the firm, as can happen with CEOs. And, you know, something I talk about philosophically and it doesn’t always meet with a lot of receptivity, you know, I think partners should have the fewest billable hours in the firm anyway because you need that time to work on the business, and you’re set up in a way. So, I can’t fill out somebody’s tax returns anyway, so I may as well go work and make the firm more valuable.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:18:00] I know. That’s a great point. And Marc can, maybe, comment on the conversations that were happening internally at that time about just that, about wanting to have that person ultra focused on the business of the firm and where the accounting profession was headed. And what we need to do, the decisions today that we have to make that are going to align with the future exploration, and what that looks like.

Marc Fleischman: [00:18:31] It was kind of interesting the way we went about it. I mean, we created a committee of about eight shareholders from different disciplines, all of whom had decided that they didn’t want to put their name in the hat. We then asked for people to put their name in the hat. We had them go ahead and write us a little narrative about why they felt they were qualified. We went ahead and did some psychological testing to see how they matched up with myself and Mr. Beach, what their strengths and weaknesses might have looked like in comparison to ours. We went ahead and had an interview process with each one of them. And from my standpoint, it wasn’t even a question as to who was the most qualified and why.

Marc Fleischman: [00:19:25] Eric shined compared to my other partners, who I love very much. And they are my partners, so I am married to them from a financial sense. But I realized that Eric’s background and what he does every day made him uniquely qualified to take the position, number one. And number two, from the CPA firm standpoint, it wasn’t going to be we have to transition $1 million or 2 million book of business to somebody else to handle so that the next CEO would be able to have fewer billable hours and focus on running the business.

Mike Blake: [00:20:03] So, in those internal discussions with that committee, was there expressed any concern that, you know, “But Eric’s not a practitioner”. You know, was there any concern?

Marc Fleischman: [00:20:19] Oh, yes. Absolutely. I mean, we, as CPAs, we know everything and we know it best, right? And we work on our clients. We know how to do it better than anybody else. How could somebody who doesn’t do that understand what we do? But Eric’s been in the CPA profession, just not working on a multitude of clients, but one client, whether it’s with us or his predecessor firm, his whole accounting firm career. So, you know, he does understand what we do. We’ve developed a process here over the last – what will be – over two years of him learning more about what his partners do on a day-to-day basis, providing excellent quality service to clients and being involved with the community, and also training the new leaders of the firm that are going to come up behind him and everybody else.

Mike Blake: [00:21:21] So, if I understood you correctly, it sounds like you considered exclusively candidates that were already in the BeachFleischman house.

Marc Fleischman: [00:21:32] That is correct. We preferred to do that because we believe we have a culture that we want to be able to be easily sustained and built on. And feeling that if we brought an outsider in, we just don’t know what the ramifications might be. They could be great, but they could also be destructive. And to the extent we could find a qualified individual that’s already living under our roof, we were very happy with that possibility that being the decision.

Mike Blake: [00:22:02] And I think that’s an important point, because, you know, how far you go in terms of bringing in an “outsider” and Eric is kind of a tweener, sort of an inside outsider or an outside inner – I’m not sure which way I’d go with that. But, you know, as I mentioned a couple of examples in the intro, there are some firms that just decided they’ve got to go really outside. And I think what’s driving that is because they feel like there’s some massive trend upon which they must capitalize. Or there’s some massive existential threat that just cannot be handled with the internal firm culture. You know, with you, it seems like you prized quite a bit of continuity. And I want to be clear, some people may hear that and think that means complacent. I don’t think that’s what it means. It means exactly what it means, which is that continuity of culture is important.

Marc Fleischman: [00:22:55] Well, I think that, honestly, for success in a business like ours, culture is key. And if you disrupt it, you create earthquakes that you don’t know what buildings you may have built that are going to fall because of disrupting your culture.

Mike Blake: [00:23:15] So, I like both of you to kind of answer this next question if you can, because I think you both have different perspectives on the same thing. And that is, Marc, as the firm was considering Eric for this role and as Eric was considering taking it, was there a particular skill set or area of expertise that, Eric, you did have that made you sort of the right person for this role at this time?

Marc Fleischman: [00:23:45] Well, I’ll go first, and he may echo what I say. But, you know, marketing is key. We cannot live on our laurels. We have to be able to grow. And as a growth leader and a strategy leader, he had the the natural areas that we were looking at to be able to move the firm forward as we go into the unknown abyss of what the world is going to look like going forward, right? With all the transition and the fast growth that’s taking place in our particular world here of accounting firms, it’s necessary to be able to be a forward thinker and look towards what the future can bring before the future brings it to you. And so, I think he had this natural perspective being in the marketing area to be able to have those skills and traits and be able to exhibit it and lead the firm forward.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:24:50] Yeah. And I have a broad definition of marketing, which is perhaps even textbook, but there are 4Ps to the marketing mix. And so, it’s not just about promotion, and advertising, and social media, and lead generation, but there’s also product and service development, pricing, and business model. There is placement replace, which is about distribution channels and how you deliver that service. And, really, I’ve been working on all 4Ps of the marketing mix for my career.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:25:20] So, I think maybe some firms consider marketing just that fourth P, promotion. And along with that comes, you know, competitive pressures. You’re looking at disruption. You’re looking at trends in technology. I’ve done my best to stay in tune with where the profession is headed and what the risks are, and articulate that to the folks in my firm. So, I think that’s what I brought to the table, because everybody in our profession is talking about how firms now need to diversify, we need to get away from compliance, how we need to be consultants, how we need to be launching new practices and service lines and industry groups. And that stuff that I do every day working with my colleagues here, and so I have a level of comfort dealing with discomfort. Which I think is something that future leaders are going to have to get used to, is being uncomfortable a good amount of the time.

Mike Blake: [00:26:33] So, that’s a very interesting word, and a word with a lot of depth to it. So, I like to follow that up then with this question, do you agree with me, you are accepting a place that is not necessarily all that comfortable. There’s some comfort level, I get it, you have a history with the firm. You understand the firm. Obviously, you have the blessing of the leadership. But it’s not the same thing as, say, a lateral move to take another role that’s like yours, maybe let’s say, a bigger company. Is that fair to say?

Eric Majchrzak: [00:27:08] Yeah. I would say that’s fair, for sure.

Mike Blake: [00:27:11] So, how did you get comfortable as a candidate? As someone who is, obviously, a responsible steward of your own career that this was the right move? And in doing so – and I don’t want to be specific. I wouldn’t be that prying. It’s not necessarily be that specific – I’m curious, did that lead you to think about your terms of employment in a different way than you might have thought about your terms of employment had the move been more, you know, within the typical comfort zone?

Eric Majchrzak: [00:27:51] That’s a good question. I’ll address the earlier portion of your comment about being uncomfortable. I don’t know that even at this stage that I’m comfortable with the idea of being CEO. But I know it needs to happen. I know that the firm is going to be going through change that’s going to make a lot of people uncomfortable. I just feel it’s a job to do. I already felt the burden of a lot of these issues we’re talking about, about sustainability, about growth. So, it just seemed to be a natural transition for me to go from chief marketing and strategy officer to chief executive officer in terms of, you know, is it the right move for my career?

Eric Majchrzak: [00:28:45] You know, I feel like with a solid team in place, great people around me, a common vision, it’s going to make it that easier. In terms of having a special kind of agreement in your employment arrangement, I think that’s probably more relevant to, like we mentioned before, when you have an accountant or a partner that has a book of business with clients and they have to transition those clients away. I don’t have that. But what I do have, and I think there’s a general understanding, is, I am still going to be directing the strategic growth and marketing initiatives of the firm even as CEO. So, that is essentially my fallback where a lot of accountants would have some limited client where I’m still going to be working on guiding the firm where we need to be in the future, launching new growth initiatives, institutional branding, that kind of thing. So, I just gave you a lot to ponder there, but those are the things that kind of go through my head.

Mike Blake: [00:29:57] Yeah. I mean, that’s good. I mean, that’s exactly the kind of information we try to get on this podcast. So, I appreciate you giving us a lot. And I asked you a really hard question, so it’s fair that the answer is hard too. So, you’ve been in this transitional role, I’m guessing, for about 18 months, give or take. So, in that role, how have you found sort of the practical on the ground reception? Have people been wary? Have they been welcoming? Have there been areas of even obvious resistance? What has that looked like? What have you picked up either from direct cues or even informal body language, nonphysical cues? How’s that going?

Eric Majchrzak: [00:30:46] I mean, I feel I have been welcomed into the room. I certainly feel supported and I am being supported. I think there’s certainly no shortage of ideas and opinions, which I get a lot of those coming my way nowadays, maybe even more so than I did in my chief marketing and strategy role. And it’s good, because it’s all the things that – some of the things we need to be thinking about, having a holistic approach to governing the firm.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:31:21] You know, there’s a lot of folks commenting about how things aren’t so linear anymore and that competition is coming from all different angles. So, almost like an asymmetrical kind of approach to governing a firm. And I think that’s in our dialogue, we’re talking about it a lot. It’s in the language that we use. So, in that sense, I feel that the firm is identifying and my colleagues are identifying the issues at stake, which makes me feel pretty good. I don’t feel isolated in that sense. I do feel like we’re on the same page. Now, we may disagree with how to get there. But I think all in all, we have the same common vision, we have the same understanding of the issues at stake. And I think that’s important.

Mike Blake: [00:32:16] So, how are you two working together now, Eric and Mark? I mean, is it a de facto? I can see a lot of ways it’s working. Is it a de facto dual CEO role right now until the end of 2021? Is it still more of a master-apprentice kind of relationship? Something else that doesn’t come to mind that you describe differently? What does that look like between the two of you right now?

Marc Fleischman: [00:32:42] I would describe it as a mentor-mentee relationship, where I’m available to Eric 24/7, seven days a week, whenever he wants to reach out, whatever he wants to talk about, I’m there. I try to include him in in meetings where I think this is something maybe he hasn’t been exposed to, whether it’s dealing with insurance issues, banking issues, setting goals for partners. We had our goal setting session last month and he sat in all of the goal setting sessions that I would typically sit through with the partners, whether it’s the tax partner-in-charge or the A&A partner-in-charge also sitting in there.

Marc Fleischman: [00:33:29] So, he’s involved in everything I do other than a little bit of client work that I do, which no one wants to be involved in because it’s divorce work. So, you’ve got to be crazy to do what I do, and another reason that 67 is a good time to retire, because 65 probably would have been good, too, to get out of that type of work.

Marc Fleischman: [00:33:51] But in any case, I think that it is more mentor-mentee than anything else. I still sign the important stuff as necessary for the firm. But I think everybody is accepting that Eric is in his master’s degree program, and soon he’ll go through a quick doctorate, and then he’ll be ready to take on the world.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:34:16] And there is some structure behind that arrangement – and by the way, that’s a great place to be – and, Marc, literally, does have an open door policy. And I knock on his door several times a day to go in there and ask him his perspective on something, or ask him a question, or just to do an update. But we’ve had for a while now a standing recurring meeting where we meet on a regular basis, I did take the opportunity to kind of map out what I thought the transition should look like. Marc gave me his feedback on that. I attend an external managing partner, CEO Bootcamp, that I’m in right now. I am also making an effort to talk to CEOs and managing partners of other accounting firms and other businesses that are not related to accounting and just having a sounding board and a network of support and people that I can count on. And so, it’s all of that. And it’s been great. I couldn’t be happier with that process.

Mike Blake: [00:35:25] Eric, I think what you just said is interesting. And for it’s worth for me, I think it’s really smart, the fact you’re going outside and looking for different perspectives, both within the industry and outside. What is the most frequent question you find yourself asking? Or if that doesn’t jump to mind, what’s the most frequent piece of advice you’re hearing?

Eric Majchrzak: [00:35:49] Boy, that is a good question. You know, a lot of people are commenting and I agree with this, that, you know, you really have to govern with a shared set of core values and beliefs, so mission, vision, values. And I strongly believe in that. So, using those elements as the core tenets of who we are, the purpose of our firm, which will help us and help me make decisions in the future there’s a fork in the road and we’re not sure which way to go. I think part of that is going to be my job and part of that is going to be, you know, understanding what we’re all setting out to accomplish, and then choosing the path that gets us there. But the top down approach, the tone from the top is very important. So, I’ve been hearing a lot about that.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:36:49] I’ve also been getting some advice just about taking care of myself, making sure that I stay healthy, that I exercise, that I can have moments to clear my mind, and to think, and to do that kind of thing. So, I’ll have to work a little bit harder with that. And there’s a few other things in there. But, I would say, those are the main bits of advice that I’ve been receiving.

Mike Blake: [00:37:21] So, so far, you’re 18 months into this journey and, give or take, you’ve got about ten-and-a-half months left in the transitional part of the journey. What have both of you learned along the way that might be good advice to our listeners who may be thinking about a similar model to their executive succession?

Marc Fleischman: [00:37:40] Well, I would say to the CEOs out there that are going to be transitioning out, don’t be afraid of what the future is going to bring, embrace it. And be open to the ideas of your successor, because their ideas are extremely important to even your final education in your role. There’s nothing better, from my standpoint, to be able to say, “When I leave here, I have no fear of the success of this organization, because I’ve done everything I can and look forward to the next steps of whatever that brings for me.”

Marc Fleischman: [00:38:28] As far as Eric is concerned, I think what I’ve learned so far is we made the right choice. We’re lucky to have had an opportunity to have somebody like that internally in our organization. And I also would say that I never thought I’d be able to be a teacher. And, now, I’m finding that it comes easy and it’s fulfilling to be able to share ideas and then hear what comes back from Eric, because, obviously, his upbringing was different than mine as far as professional services are concerned. And I love hearing his perspective on things.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:39:08] Yeah. Thanks for those comments, Marc. I’ve learned a bunch of things. One is, that we have to give each other a lot of latitude on the pace and empathy during the transition process. So, just really identifying with each other, I think, is a challenging time for both of us, actually, maybe for different reasons. The other thing I learned, that by going through this process, it’s actually a bit of an opportunity to document and develop a transition process. You know, Marc mentioned, he was the likely and the logical successor to Bruce Beach. Me, being the first non-founder CEO, we got to map out what the transition process looked like. And I think we can leave it behind for the transition I’m going to go through in another 15 years down the road. So, there’ll be a framework there for people to follow.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:40:17] And I would also say, just looking at all the things that we’ve been covering in this process, it helps you identify opportunities. I mean, Marc, think about all the opportunities that we’ve identified just for things that we can be doing helps us address, maybe, some challenges. So, all in all, I just think it’s a great process to kind of redefine and agree upon what we want to be. And that’s always a good thing to go through.

Mike Blake: [00:40:49] We’re talking to Marc Fleischman and Eric Majchrzak of BeachFleischman PC. And the topic is, Should we think outside the box for our next chief executive? A question I want to get to, I’m curious, has anything about this process surprised you? Is there something that you thought this would be like going in and it turned out to be different than what you were expecting?

Marc Fleischman: [00:41:15] I guess, I didn’t have any preconceived notion of what this was going to look like going in. I think, maybe, what surprised me the most was how easy it’s going. You know, change is hard, always. Sometimes, you know, especially if it’s change you don’t want, it’s brought upon you. I won’t say that I don’t want to be able to move on to whatever life is going to look like post being the CEO of BeachFleischman. But it wasn’t something that I may have necessarily chosen to do, but it’s the right thing to do. So, here, I think that it’s been really quite a pleasure to be able to experience this with Eric and the rest of our management team, which we pretty much run our organization as a team. We have a leader, but many decisions are made collaboratively and collectively. So, I’m happy that it’s been so painless up until now.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:42:19] Yeah. I have to agree with that. Knowing a lot of firms out there and transitions that other firms have been through, doing a lot of reading, I know that these can be really trying times and they can be difficult transitions. And, you know, maybe I have that in the back of my head that there’s going to be much more friction than what there actually is. And so, I just think that would probably be the biggest surprise. But it’s been enjoyable. It’s been a great learning opportunity. And I think other people are excited, too. So, all in all, it’s been a great experience to go through this. And, gosh, but the documents kind of the process as we go along, I think is going to be helpful for a way that a future succeeding CEO can go through the process.

Mike Blake: [00:43:24] So, I’d like to offer an observation that I love your comment on, because one thing, this transition that you’re doing is a pretty long one, I think, by most standards, right? It’s not British royal throne long, I mean, Prince Charles has been waiting about 50 years or so to become King Charles III of England. I don’t know if they’ll ever do that. But to be sort of in the wings for two-and-a-half years when all is said and done, that’s a long time to kind of wait and kind of get that seat where you get to take the training wheels off and really run the job that you’re training for. And, to me, it speaks to a certain level of humility. It speaks to a certain level of, at least, being able to subordinate your ego, if not outright just not having a big one. And I wonder if that’s either explicitly or sort of backdoor implicitly part of the process as to why you have such a high level of confidence this is going to work. Or if I’m just playing amateur psychologist and I should just shut up and never say things like that again.

Marc Fleischman: [00:44:39] Well, I guess from my standpoint, you know, I think you’ve got to check your ego at the door. And this, I think, goes through being able to have a successful partnership or relationship in any professional services firm. Of my 45 years of observing law firms, accounting firms, architects and engineering firms, regardless of the leader, everybody thought they were a leader and everybody thought they were the most important person in the firm. And, often, that’s what breaks them up. That’s what we try to avoid here as much as we always can to make sure that your ego doesn’t get in the way of decision making. And so, although, it probably has in my past and probably will again maybe tomorrow, I try my best to not let that get in the way of anything we do here. And I think that is – you know, Eric is the one that’s waiting in the wings, so his comment is probably much more relevant than mine.

Eric Majchrzak: [00:45:43] Yeah. I think, definitely you have to be mindful of the trappings of ego. It’s not about me, it’s not about Marc, it’s about the future of the firm. And so, we just have to find a way to work together, to collaborate, to put our firm in the best position moving forward. And you know what? A two year transition is not going to work for every company and it’s certainly not going to work for every accounting firm. I’ve seen transitions that were, you know, six months out, a year out. I don’t know what the answer is, but, for us, this seems to be working and it’s a way to do it.

Mike Blake: [00:46:31] Guys, we’re running out of time, but there’s more ground that we could cover than we realistically have time for. And I realized that I’m taking up not just one, but two chief executive’s time here effectively. If people want to learn more about this topic, get your insight, ask a question I didn’t have a chance to ask, can they contact you to follow up? And if so, what’s the best way for them to do that?

Eric Majchrzak: [00:46:57] Sure. I mean, Marc and I are both on LinkedIn, they can definitely search us there. Beachfleischman.com has a Contact us form, you can request a conversation through that form. You can also message us on Twitter, we’re @BeachFleischman. And we have a Facebook page. So, really, there’s many ways you can get a hold of us. Marc, I don’t know if you want to add to that.

Marc Fleischman: [00:47:31] I’m very old fashioned, I still use a phone. My direct dial number, 520-618-7918. Call and leave a message if I don’t pick up.

Mike Blake: [00:47:43] That’s so retro. People actually use smartphones to make and receive telephone calls. That’s extraordinary.

Marc Fleischman: [00:47:49] I know. I haven’t learned not to do it.

Mike Blake: [00:47:52] I want to see if there’s an app that will let me convert my keypad to an old rotary dial phone, like a virtual rotary dial, just to mess with my kids.

Mike Blake: [00:48:04] Well, thanks, guys. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Marc Fleischman and Eric Majchrzak so much for joining us and sharing their expertise with us. We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcast, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: BeachFleischman, Brady Ware, Brady Ware & Company, CEO, Chief Executive Officer, CPA firm, Eric Majchrzak, management succession, Marc Fleischman, Michael Blake, Mike Blake

Tad Leithead with Leithead Consulting & Lilburn CID, and Tyler Weant with Legendary Home Team @ Keller Williams

February 25, 2021 by Mike

Gwinnett Business Radio
Gwinnett Business Radio
Tad Leithead with Leithead Consulting & Lilburn CID, and Tyler Weant with Legendary Home Team @ Keller Williams
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Tad Leithead and Tyler Weant

Tad Leithead/Leithead Consulting & Lilburn CID

Founded in 2018, Leithead Consulting uses its resources and in-depth network to identify properties that are outside of the boundaries of current Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) in order to expand their boundaries. Through this process, Leithead Consulting helps CIDs increase their revenue while also increasing their geographical size.

Leithead Consulting also assists in the creation of a Community Improvement District and supports the administrative and legal paperwork and processes required for a CID’s creation plan or expansion. The firm also finds and identifies properties that may have been overlooked, locates the building owners, and secures contact information to update a CID’s database of current and potential members.

The Lilburn Community Improvement District (CID) is a quasi-governmental entity whose members are commercial property owners. The membership voluntarily increases their property taxes to invest in local infrastructure and improvement projects.

Tyler Weant/Legendary Home Team @ Keller Williams

Tyler Weant, Founder of Legendary Home Team @ Keller Williams, has over 16 years of real world real estate experience that allows him to best assist buyers, sellers, and investors in successfully completing transactions to gain the best value for their specific needs. He moved to Sugar Hill, GA in 2019 with his wife and two children because they love the area, the weather, and the wonderful people who live there. Tyler enjoys calling this area home and enjoys helping others to discover what living in Gwinnett County has to offer.

Prior to being in Real Estate in the Gwinnett area full time, Tyler was the Owner/Operator of a real estate acquisition & management company, as well as a termite & pest control company in North Carolina. Successfully selling the pest management company allowed him the opportunity to relocate to Georgia and dedicate his attention and expertise solely to the real estate profession. Leading and managing both of these corporations contributed to a vast and comprehensive knowledge of building and construction types, materials, risk factors, problem solving and conflict resolution, and the development of negotiation skills that aid in real estate transactions.

Tyler has a passion for helping people succeed. For that reason, he is dedicated to volunteering at local schools to mentor at risk youth, assisting with the cub scouts to help develop future leaders, and assisting individuals in finding the right home for their needs. Tyler is well equipped with the skills, knowledge and expertise to assist you in successfully concluding your next real estate transaction.

Gwinnett Business Radio is presented by

Tagged With: business podcast, business radio, Business RadioX, Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship, gwinnett business, gwinnett business podcast, Gwinnett Business Radio, Gwinnett Business RadioX, gwinnett businesses, gwinnett online radio, gwinnett radiox, gwinnett realtor, Keller Williams, Legendary Home Team @ Keller Williams, Leithead Consulting, lilburn cid, Lilburn Community Improvement District, online radio, podcast, Radiox, realtor, regions bank, small businesses, sonesta, sonesta gwinnett place, sonesta hotel, steven julian, subaru, subaru of gwinnett, subaru radio studio, Tad Leithead, tyler weant

Decision Vision Episode 105: Should I Enter Into Mediation to Resolve a Dispute? – An Interview with Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation and Arbitration

February 25, 2021 by John Ray

Mediation
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 105: Should I Enter Into Mediation to Resolve a Dispute? - An Interview with Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation and Arbitration
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Mediation

Decision Vision Episode 105: Should I Enter Into Mediation to Resolve a Dispute? – An Interview with Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation and Arbitration

Ellen Malow of Malow Mediation and Arbitration joins host Mike Blake to discuss how mediation and arbitration can be used to resolve business disputes. “Decision Vision” is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Ellen Malow, President, Malow Mediation and Arbitration

Malow Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution company that assists companies and individuals in resolving conflicts. A wide range of cases is handled including complex business, employment, construction, personal injury, and other areas of the law. Arbitration matters are also handled where Ellen serves as the judge on similar matters.

Company website

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

“Decision Vision” is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the “Decision Vision” podcast.

Past episodes of “Decision Vision” can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. “Decision Vision” is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional, full service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:20] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:41] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:07] Today’s topic is, Should I enter into mediation? And, you know, this is a really interesting topic to me from a dispute resolution perspective, because, as we’re going to learn, it has a lot of layers to it. And as we record this podcast on February 9th, 2021, we’re still in the midst of this whole pandemic thing. And only a small fraction of us have been vaccinated. I have not because I’m too young. And at my age, it’s nice actually still to fall into a category where I’m too young for something. That does not happen often anymore. So, I’m going to take that as a silver lining.

Mike Blake: [00:01:48] But, you know, in this time, we’re in a period right now where if you’re in a legal dispute, it is difficult to get on a court calendar. And we had, very early on in the podcast, a couple of folks come on and talk about, you know, should I sue, how do I make a decision to sue somebody, and so forth. But a lot of that is now kind of warped. A lot of those, at least, advice kind of warped because, you know, the courts are not functioning the same way that they did. In some cases they’re not functioning at all. Can you imagine in a time of COVID, and now we have more virulent strains that have been unleashed upon us, you know, how do you sit 12 jurors for a multiday case and not, like, kill two of them, basically? It’s nearly impossible.

Mike Blake: [00:02:46] So, you know, I think alternative dispute resolution avenues, such as arbitration and mediation, and there may be others as well – hopefully, not dueling pistols at dawn. I like to think that one out with the 19th century – these methods, I think, they have to receive more attention than they once did. Maybe they’re being revisited by parties that had once rejected them, because, otherwise, frankly, you might be stuck in the mud. I’ve got a client that on the one hand, I think, is desperate to sue somebody. But on the other hand, you’re looking at a two to three year period before you’re going to get in front of a judge, if that. And that’s assuming no continuances and so forth.

Mike Blake: [00:03:35] So, I think there should be a lot more interest in this topic, and I think that there will be. And so, helping us out today as an expert is Ellen Malow, who is the President of Malow Mediation and Arbitration. She is a former trial attorney who practiced law for 13 years. She started her company 17 years ago and has been a full-time mediator and arbitrator since that time. She received her undergraduate and law degree from the University of Texas at Austin. She’s a member of several professional organizations. She has had numerous speaking engagements for many law firms and other groups. She has also authored several articles and serves as an arbitrator on certain matters. Malow Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution company that assists companies and individuals in resolving conflicts. A wide range of cases are handled, including the complex business – I’m sorry – complex business, employment, construction, personal injury, and other areas of law. Ellen Malow, welcome to the program.

Ellen Malow: [00:04:39] Thanks, Mike. I had myself on mute so as not to interfere with you.

Mike Blake: [00:04:44] Well, that’s all right. You know what? We’re just going to call that a dramatic pause and then move on from there. So, Ellen, thanks again for coming on the show. Great to see you. It’s been a long time. With the show, I like to start to make sure everybody understands kind of what we’re talking about. What is a mediation?

Ellen Malow: [00:05:07] A mediation is basically a facilitated negotiation where the mediator works with the parties to try to come up with some sort of solution to their issues. It basically comes up with ways to look at it that they may not have considered before.

Mike Blake: [00:05:24] And what does that process look like? If we’re considering mediation or maybe you’re consulting with somebody and they just want to know kind of what that process looks like, what is that?

Ellen Malow: [00:05:39] So, the format is awhat we call a general [indiscernible] where we all meet together and the mediator goes over the mediation agreement. And, really, the key thing there is confidentiality. And then, each lawyer on each side has the opportunity to give, basically, an opening statement. And if they want, their client can make comments as well. And then, I separate them and they have a caucus room. And then, my role is to go in between the caucus rooms for the whole process and try to get to a deal. So, there’s some fluidity to the process. So, sometimes I may take one of the lawyers aside away from his or her client and try to say, “Hey, what’s the roadblock here?” And maybe we can break through it. Sometimes I take all the lawyers in a separate caucus room. Sometimes we come back together. But as a practical matter, it’s really the way I describe it to begin with.

Mike Blake: [00:06:35] So, I’ve never been in a mediation, candidly. I’ve been in arbitration. I’ve been in trial. But it’s interesting, you know, this facilitated negotiation, it sounds like you start with a position of keeping the parties physically separate, is that accurate?

Ellen Malow: [00:06:53] So, there’s some controversy now as to if it makes more sense to start out separate. I think starting out together makes more sense. And sometimes when you’re mediating, you haven’t even met the other side, sometimes you haven’t even met your opposing counsel. You may be early on. So, it’s an opportunity to set the stage for that conversation.

Ellen Malow: [00:07:17] Some people, if it’s a highly contentious – like I have one on Friday, it’s a non-compete, non-solicit case where they’re accusing the former employee of stealing documents. They don’t want to be in the same room together. So, we will start out separately.

Mike Blake: [00:07:33] So, I guess some of that is reading the room, for lack of a better term. I guess you have to have some feeling as to how hostile, maybe even how emotional, the parties are and whether or not being in the room can be constructive or destructive.

Ellen Malow: [00:07:51] Exactly. The thing I try to do is talk to the lawyers in advance to find out what the dynamics are with their clients, with opposing counsel, with the opposing party. But like I mentioned, people want to skip this part completely. And when you’re trained in the process, it is a critical part, so I will encourage them. I mean, unless we’re talking about a sexual assault case or something that’s so outrageously emotional, I just think it makes sense to meet the other side, set the stage, let them hear your position without going into a full blown opening argument. Because if you skip it, you’re already polarized.

Mike Blake: [00:08:30] You know, I’m going to go off script here, but it reminds me of a practice that the litigation section of the Atlanta bar used to encourage, which was, take your opposing counsel out to lunch. And I’m not an expert. I’m a lousy expert witness, that was why I don’t do it. But I always thought that that practice, I think, is just constructive. You know, if you just get people talking and if you get two attorneys who are truly interested in resolving a dispute, you know, magical things can happen if you take them out of having the spotlight on them and the pressure of “performing” in front of their client in a certain way. You just let them kind of do their thing. Good things, I think, can happen from that.

Ellen Malow: [00:09:23] I totally agree. And I actually use that same example when I give speeches to law firms. I mean, that’s it. Like, you don’t have to be adversaries. You do have to be an advocate for your client. But it doesn’t have to be this butting heads scenario. It’s challenging because there’s that fine line between zealous advocacy and trying to come up with a compromise.

Mike Blake: [00:09:45] Yeah, for sure. So, you mentioned lawyers being in the room, but I wanted to clarify something because it’s an important point that I think is often overlooked, you don’t necessarily need to have legal counsel representing you in a mediation, do you?

Ellen Malow: [00:10:02] No. I mean, you can have a mediation before you even have a lawsuit. I’ve done some with a shopping center dispute where you’ve got kind of an urgent issue, where a landlord is trying to get a tenant out or whatever that might be, and so they can meet with a mediator without counsel. The challenge is sometimes you’ll have one side with counsel and the other side without and they feel like it’s not an even playing field. But I’ve definitely done cases with business people. I’ve actually done even divorce cases where the husband and wife don’t want to pay for lawyers. So, you can definitely do it.

Mike Blake: [00:10:37] That instance where one side brings legal counsel, the other side does not, that’s got to make it tricky, too, because of bar ethics rules, I would imagine, right? I mean, not that I’m a lawyer, but I work with them enough, you know, attorneys don’t necessarily like kind of going lawyer to layperson in a legal conversation, right?

Ellen Malow: [00:10:57] True. And I also don’t like to be put on the spot to be their lawyer because I am a lawyer. But my role as a neutral is to be just that. So, it’s difficult because they’ll lean on you to give some opinion or advice and you have to really be careful not to cross that line.

Mike Blake: [00:11:16] So, another alternative dispute resolution mechanic, arbitration, is often kind of set in the same breadth as mediation. If I’m not mistaken, I think you’re also a qualified arbitrator – and correct me if I’m wrong. What is the difference between those two? Or rhat are the differences? There’s probably not just one difference.

Ellen Malow: [00:11:36] Right. So, arbitration, as an arbitrator, I’m a judge. So, when people say arbitration, they don’t really necessarily understand that it’s the exact same thing as if you filed a case in State Court or Superior Court. So, I’m sitting in the role of a judge. I’m just not getting paid by the government, by the taxpayers. I’m privately being paid. And there are a lot of reasons why people want to select arbitration. Most of the time you’ll see, it’s in a lot of contracts between parties. If it’s a business dispute, it’ll say in the event of a dispute, this is what we’re doing. So, as the arbitrator, I’m making a ruling. Whereas, as a mediator, I’m trying to bring the parties to their own agreement. I can’t force an agreement on them as a mediator. But as an arbitrator, there’s evidence, it’s a trial, it’s a full blown deal.

Ellen Malow: [00:12:28] The difference between arbitration and a trial – the main difference is, an arbitration is totally confidential. So, if there’s a bad decision or good decision, whatever, it’s not public. And the other thing is, it’s binding and you can’t appeal it. So, if you think about trials that you hear about, they could go on forever because you could get a great result, and then the other side appeals it. Now, we’re two or three years later, then it’s kicked back for new trial, whatever happens. So, it’s much more streamlined. It takes way less time. There is a cost, too, because you’re paying this private arbitrator.

Ellen Malow: [00:13:05] And the other thing, Mike, that I think is the reason people really like it is, you can get an arbitrator that has subject matter expertise. Because you could go try a case and you might have a judge that’s well versed in criminal law but doesn’t really know much about this business dispute. So, it has a lot, a lot of advantages. People don’t like it because you could get stuck with a bad decision. It’s not a jury. So, there are downsides to it.

Mike Blake: [00:13:36] Now, my understanding is that you don’t necessarily need to have legal training to become a mediator or an arbitrator. Is that correct?

Ellen Malow: [00:13:46] It is. I mean, I have some certifications. But I think a lot of successful mediators and arbitrators have subject matter expertise and that is what enables them to get a lot of business.

Mike Blake: [00:13:59] Now, I’ve been in arbitrations where there have been multiple arbitrators, does that happen in mediation as well? Or is it typically just one mediator that’s running the show?

Ellen Malow: [00:14:10] In 30 years of both practice and mediation, I’ve only had one case that we had co- mediators, and it was a huge, massive, toxic tort case with thousands of plaintiffs. So, it’s rare. At least I have not experienced it. It may be nice because it’d be great to bounce something off of someone, but you just don’t have that luxury.

Mike Blake: [00:14:34] Interesting. So, when do most parties go to mediation? And then, I have sort of a twin question with that, when should they go to mediation? In other words, do people tend to go too early, too late? How do most people do it? And then, what would you recommend?

Ellen Malow: [00:15:00] Can I back up one step to the arbitration?

Mike Blake: [00:15:03] Please.

Ellen Malow: [00:15:03] Okay. The only thing I want to say is, so you can have either a three-person panel or a sole arbitrator, and there’s a benefit to each. The benefit to a three-person panel is that, you’re not stuck with one person’s decision. There has to be a consensus. Usually with an arbitration with a three-person panel, each sides picking one, so they’re sort of in their camp, potentially. And then, those two are picking the third one. So, that person may actually be a little bit more neutral. So, the sole arbitrator, you could have that risk of just that one person’s opinion not being the way you want to be.

Ellen Malow: [00:15:40] Okay. So, timing, that does have some layers to it. So, I would say more and more I’m doing what we call pre-suit mediations, where they haven’t even filed a lawsuit. I think the earlier the better. Because what happens is, the further along in the process, the more invested people become and the sunk costs are already there. And it becomes less likely for them to just say, “Okay. Let’s resolve it.” They’re so far down the road, they think, “Well, let’s just go ahead and try it.”

Ellen Malow: [00:16:11] So, at the outset, you don’t have all that yet. You haven’t spent the money on attorneys fees and court reporters and all that stuff. The downside of too, too early is you may not have all the information. So, I do a lot of employment cases, typically the employer has everything or most everything and the employee may have next to nothing. So, in that instance, it might be too early to do a pre-suit. But sometimes they still work there, so you’re trying to figure out almost a severance and it makes sense to try to mediate it early. So, I think probably, maybe, the best stages are right after they’ve exchanged documents – what we call written discovery – and before you get into depositions, because that’s when the expense really happens.

Mike Blake: [00:16:56] And I wonder, too, I mean, it’s not just the expense, but I wonder if kind of the longer you’re locked in battle, the more you emotionally invest in the notion of a victory, in particular an unconditional victory. And, you know, that may be achievable, but it’s typically difficult to achieve. Because if you’re trying to achieve unconditional surrender, then the party on the other side is going to fight like counsel. They have no other alternative to avoid that because there’s no upside to surrendering early. So, interestingly, somebody is going to do that.

Mike Blake: [00:17:34] Now, what about your cases where, you know, lawsuits have been filed. You’ve gotten through the discovery phase and you’re getting to the point now where the judge is now starting to get involved. It’s probably still pretrial, but you’re talking to the judge or filing motions more and more frequently. My understanding is, judges will often send cases into mediation in some fashion. Is that your experience as well? And why do they do that?

Ellen Malow: [00:18:06] Well, typically, at some point they’re going to order you to mediation. If they don’t order you, one side is going to ask the judge to order you. And the main reason they do it is because they’re flooded with cases, and now more so than ever. So, they’re trying to avoid – you know, I don’t mean wasting resources – using resources that will be taken up, whether it’s the time of the jurors or the time of the court.

Ellen Malow: [00:18:29] And I would also say, probably, 95 percent of all cases settle. It doesn’t seem that way because the papers or the news or social media will show things that are outrageous and happening as if it happens all the time. So, if it’s going to settle, their thought process is “Let’s get it settled”. So, I do know there are a couple of counties where I’m on the roster and I’ll hear the lawyers say, “We’re too early. This judge ordered us to mediation. We haven’t done X, Y and Z. This isn’t the best time to mediate.” So, some of those may not be as successful, but the courts want these off their dockets. And like you said at the beginning, with COVID, they are buried.

Mike Blake: [00:19:10] So, a mediation, to me, sounds like a complex animal because, as opposed to a trial or an arbitration, which is a trial that’s privately held, there’s no guarantee of an outcome in a mediation, is there?

Ellen Malow: [00:19:30] Well, no. The parties can decide to settle or not settle.

Mike Blake: [00:19:33] Yeah. Exactly. So, I think that’s an interesting distinction. And so, I have to imagine you see this a lot, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I mean, do you see parties that, you know, maybe are being ordered into time out, they’re being ordered to mediation, maybe, frankly, very much against their will. Even in that case, is there something constructive that can come out of a mediation that doesn’t have a resolution?

Ellen Malow: [00:20:01] So, I think a couple things can come out. One is just information, sharing things that may not have been disclosed yet that ultimately have to be disclosed. The other thing I think is beneficial is to have a neutral person give their impressions on the strengths and weaknesses of the case, because you’re now hearing from someone who has no investment in the case what they think could happen. I mean, my decisions is not binding, their opinions aren’t binding like they are as an arbitrator, but I think they’re informative. So, you know, you can also start engaging in negotiations that maybe you haven’t started and get the momentum going. So, even though that may not be the day it settles, it could resolve sooner than later.

Mike Blake: [00:20:49] Yeah. And, you know, the part you brought up about getting sort of what seems to be a sneak preview of how an independent legal expert kind of evaluates the case for both sides. You know, that seems to me to be extremely valuable so that it can inform kind of both parties, “Look, if you do kind of press this into the next step, you may be a favorite or you might be an underdog.” And I have to imagine that’s very important information.

Ellen Malow: [00:21:22] I think, so the challenge with the court ordered ones, like you said, Mike, is sometimes they’re closed minded just checking a box. I had one recently that was court ordered – so, there’s two different types of mediation styles. One is facilitative and one’s evaluative. And I’m more evaluative, so I’m not just shoveling numbers. Well, that lawyer on that case who was ordered to be there, her thing was, “Well, what’s her number?” “Well, don’t you want to hear anything else besides their number?” And she was just walled off.

Ellen Malow: [00:21:56] Courts say that when you mediate under a court order, you need to be there in good faith. You need to have all the people that are the decision makers. And you need to be there with an open mind, willing to listen. So, when you have someone who’s not doing that, I can’t be subpoenaed to testify, that’s one of the protections I have. So, I’m not going to go to the court and say, “This lawyer did X, Y and Z.” So, it’s a little challenging because then it means the other lawyer has to go complain to the judge.

Mike Blake: [00:22:25] So, I want to ask about that good faith part, because it strikes me that when you’re a mediator, you’re also part kind of therapist or counselor, I would imagine, right? There’s got to be some overlap there. And I kind of wonder how often do you encounter it, where the the party’s goal of the mediation is to, basically, show the other party just how wrong they’ve been the whole time, and that’s their primary goal. And if you see that often, in your mind, does that constitute bad faith? And if there’s bad faith – I know this is a long question – is there any recourse to take if somebody has kind of put you through the motions of mediation when there’s really no intent to even attempt to have a useful outcome?

Ellen Malow: [00:23:18] Well, I think the very last part ties into what I said, that probably the only recourse is to go back to the court. And what is the court going to do? The court may assess attorney’s fees. “Listen, you showed up, the other side had to show up. They spent X amount getting ready and attending.” So, it’s just a weird scenario because you’re typically going to come up against the same lawyers over and over and it’s a small community, even though we’re in Atlanta.

Ellen Malow: [00:23:44] The part about the emotions, it’s interesting because I do so many different areas, you would think the emotions would be in a personal injury case or a divorce case. I’ve had some nasty business disputes, where what I get throughout the process is it’s the principle of it. It’s right or wrong. I’m going to teach them a lesson. And so, I get so much emotion. I mean, construction cases, you’re criticizing the other side’s work. Employment cases, someone has worked there for 20 years and now they’re out on the street. So, the the level of emotion and sort of the therapist role, I think it’s there in all types of disputes.

Mike Blake: [00:24:24] So, does your training as a mediator include having to address those emotions to try to de-escalate a scenario? Or is that outside of your purview?

Ellen Malow: [00:24:37] So, I’m a psychology major, so I feel that helps me be a good mediator. One of the things they do teach you in training is about listening. So, so much is letting them vent and tell their story. And you’ll see the shift during the mediation, at some point during the day, they start letting that go enough to start considering a deal.

Mike Blake: [00:24:59] You talked about, you know, being qualified and your training and so forth, what is a typical or, even, is there a standardized qualification set or certification to become a mediator? Do you have to be licensed? Can anyone hang up their shingle and do it? What does that process look like?

Ellen Malow: [00:25:22] So, in Georgia, there is a Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution. And in order to get certified by the State, you have to have this coursework and get a certain number of hours. And what that entitles you to is the ability to be on court rosters. So, I’m on the Gwinnett Roster, the Cobb Roster. I had been on Fulton, but they don’t really pay anything, so I got off of that one. So, if I were not certified by the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution, I could not be on those rosters. I could still be what we call a private mediator. So, there are mediators that have probably never taken training, but they’ve done a thousand mediations as an advocate.

Mike Blake: [00:26:01] So, you said something that was interesting I did not know. When you’re a mediator or, I guess, you’re a court appointed mediator, is it the court that pays your fee?

Ellen Malow: [00:26:11] Yes. It’s the county.

Mike Blake: [00:26:13] Interesting. I didn’t know that.

Ellen Malow: [00:26:14] Wait a minute. Sorry. That’s not the case in every county. So, on the counties I am on the roster, the parties are paying it. But like Fulton County, it’s a flat fee and the county pays it. It’s a free program, and Cobb is the same way. So, it is county to county.

Mike Blake: [00:26:36] Got it. Okay. So, in your particular case, what kind of certifications do you have to be a mediator? And what does that entail in terms of coursework, exams, continuing education, that sort of thing?

Ellen Malow: [00:26:52] So, when I started 17 years ago, what I was required to do is a 25 hour – what we call – civil training. I did a 40 hour domestic training and I did a six hour arbitration training, which is so bizarre to me because being an arbitrator is far harder than being a mediator. Anyway – and then I did some advanced training at the Pepperdine Institute – Pepperdine University Straus Institute many years ago. So, I have those certifications but, like I said, even if I didn’t re-up it, I could still mediate.

Mike Blake: [00:27:28] Sure. So, you talked about there are people that are subject matter experts, and I guess that ranges from the nature of the law, whether it’s family law or employment law, elder law, civil business disputes. Does it also help or should it matter if there’s a subject matter expert that maybe is a field expert? For example, if it’s a financial dispute, if somebody has a financial background, or if it involves fraud, somebody with forensic background, or if it involves some sort of engineering case, you should want an engineer. Does that factor into how a mediator is chosen and should it?

Ellen Malow: [00:28:11] I think it does and I think it should. What’s interesting is, you know, because I think you do a lot of expert witness work is, a lot of times you’ve already retained an expert who’s either issued a report or given a deposition. So, the lawyers have the benefit of that testimony or that expertise, so they’re not necessarily needed in their mediators. So, from my perspective, the benefit of a mediator is to look at risks and weaknesses, and why negotiation and settlement makes sense. And whenever you do that, I can do that analysis on any type of case. Now, certainly it helps if I can say I tried complex business cases, but I don’t have to be an expert-expert. I will say the one area I don’t do because I have no expertise is intellectual property. And I do think you’d want a mediator with that expertise because it really is very nuanced.

Mike Blake: [00:29:10] Well, yeah, I think that’s important. And, you know, in my practice, there are certain things that I don’t take on. You know, unless it’s really simple, I don’t take on health care, I don’t do extractive materials like mining rights or forestry rights. Those are such different animals that I’m like, “Man, I could do this but I’d probably do it badly. So, here’s three other people that actually know what they’re doing.”

Mike Blake: [00:29:32] As a mediator, I’m curious, can you call on outside resources as you’re mediating a case? Could you, in effect, phone a friend if you had a question? Or are you allowed to kind of Google things and look things up so you can mediate a case from a more informed perspective? Or are you limited to whatever is kind of contained within the the four physical walls of the mediation exercise?

Mike Blake: [00:29:59] I will say that one of the things I’ll do is research some laws. So, you say to me, “Here’s the case on point. This completely proves our position.” And while you’re then kicking me out of the room or when I’m doing something else or I’ve got a minute, I’ll pull up a case or I’ll look at the case they gave me or some statute. So, there are things like that. I can’t really phone a friend – I wish I could – because it’s all confidential. So, if I were to phone a friend, I would have to be really, really broad and not say anything that would reveal anything confidential.

Mike Blake: [00:30:33] Right. So, can a mediation process – I think I know the answer to this, but I want to make sure because I don’t want to assume. But can a mediation process impact – assuming that it fails to achieve a resolution – in any way a subsequent arbitration or trial?

Ellen Malow: [00:30:56] Well, I mean, it impacts if it settles, right? Because the others go away. If it doesn’t settle it, it shouldn’t because everything discussed in the mediation is confidential. So, it should protect, for example, the judge or the jury from knowing anything other than the judge would know it didn’t settle. And this may or may not go directly to your question, but I think it can impact the case. One thing that people say is, you can set a floor and a ceiling for future negotiations and so it could impact the ability to get it settled. I think, also, the other way could impact the ability to open up further discussions. But I don’t think it really impacts the trial or the arbitration other than, I mean, because of the confidentiality.

Mike Blake: [00:31:49] Right. So, one thing that you and I have in common is, I do find myself in an informal mediation of disputes, typically when there’s a buy-sell or some kind of built in dispute resolution, a shareholders, or an operating agreement where, you know, there’s a dueling appraiser issue. Two appraisers are going to do their own appraisals, the third is then going to decide which of the two they like more, that sort of thing. So, it’s a quasi mediation thing, which I enjoy. And in that scenario, one of the stickiest parts is, who do you pick to actually do that? Aside from a court appointed mediation where the parties don’t have a choice, presumably, or limited choice, how do parties come to pick you? And how do you convince them that, you know, you’re basically not working for the other side?

Ellen Malow: [00:32:49] Well, it’s interesting because some lawyers have the view that they just want the other lawyer to pick. And the reason they want that is because they think if the other side picks, that side is going to listen to what the mediator says when the mediator comes down hard on them. Typically, what will happen is, both sides have to agree to the mediator. And so, you would propose three names. I would propose three names. And then, someone in those list is going to overlap and that becomes our mediator, so it’s kind of like picking a jury. It’s a process of elimination, not selection. But at this stage in my career, after 17 years, people know me, you know, they’re going to say, “Oh, yeah. We used Ellen. We’re good with her.” And it goes back to the subject matter expertise because there are certain mediators that do employment law like I do. And then, there are others that do domestic. And you’re not going to pick a domestic mediator.

Mike Blake: [00:33:46] Does the timeline for mediation differ from the timeline for an arbitration or trial? I mean, for most matters it’s rare to see a trial last for more than a couple of days. It’s not like a murder trial. But you’re not going to mediate a murder matter. So, I’m curious, you know, do mediation’s last roughly as long, longer, or less long? What does that look like?

Ellen Malow: [00:34:13] So, most mediations are only one day. It’s rare to have a mediation that’s longer than a day. I will say that I recently did a case with three separate plaintiffs and we lined them up to have one at 9:00, and one at 12:00, and one at 3:00. And we were very unrealistic because the first one lasted 13 hours. So, in that instance, we’re really mediating three cases, but they arose out of the same facts. But, typically, it’s just a day. Like, a business dispute, it’s probably just a day.

Mike Blake: [00:34:43] I mean, that has to be so exhausting to do a mediation. I mean, I’m thinking about 13 hours, 13 hours doing anything is a long time. But the mental energy that is required to be spent, not just for the mechanics of the mediation of the case, but managing the emotions involved. After one of these things completes, I mean, you got to be ready for bed, I’m imagining.

Ellen Malow: [00:35:12] It is very draining. And a lot of it is because of the emotions. And it’s not necessarily just the party’s emotions, but it could be the lawyer’s emotions. So, I might be getting it from every direction. I’d like to think I’ve learned not to absorb other people’s emotions in that setting. I mean, obviously, in real life, it’s hard not to absorb someone’s emotions. But it’s tough. I mean, I think it’s very draining. But I like it. I love it. It’s fun.

Mike Blake: [00:35:43] Yeah. Well, you obviously do. You’re doing it for a long time and been successful. We’re talking with Ellen Malow of Malow Mediation. And the topic is, Should I enter a mediation? Let me switch gears here, are there scenarios under which mediation is not a good idea? Are there conditions where, you know, you just look at the matter, you look at the parties, you look at something and say, “You know what? I would love to help you, but this probably isn’t going to work the way that you like. And this may not be a good use of your time and fees.”

Ellen Malow: [00:36:17] Well, I always think it’s a good idea. There’s no instance where I don’t. But the the knock on it that I hear is, “We’re, potentially, too early. We need more information. We don’t want to show our cards. We don’t have to show our cards.” Like, there’s some cases that until you’re in the lawsuit and the court requires you to disclose – it could be an insurance policy, for example – they don’t want the other side to know that yet. So, it’s more about kind of playing poker from their side.

Mike Blake: [00:36:49] Interesting. Okay. So, have you run into any scenarios under which a matter is mediated more than once? Maybe they try mediation, they go away, and then more stuff happens. And then, they decide, “You know, let’s give this thing another try.” Can that happen?

Ellen Malow: [00:37:09] Yes. And sometimes what will happen is, they mediate with one mediator, it’s not successful. And then, they pick me later or they do come back. I will tell you what I do often is stay involved in what I would call an informal mediation process. So, if we don’t settle that day, I calendar two weeks from now. I call you up and say, “Where are we?” You say, “We’re not paying a nickel.” Then, I calendar another two weeks and you say, “Well, you know, we might pay a dime.” So, it can happen at different – it may not be a formal mediation.

Ellen Malow: [00:37:43] Interesting, the one with the three parties was kind of fascinating because I’ve never done this. As I told you, we had the three lined up. We couldn’t get to the other two. So, rather than doing two full blown mediations for the last two, we did – what I would call – a settlement conference where we didn’t even have the parties. So, I facilitated conversations between the lawyers in different breakout rooms and it worked.

Mike Blake: [00:38:07] So, we’re running up against our time limit here. But I do want to get a couple more questions. And before we take off, one question here is, is the decision to engage in mediation and has the process itself changed because of the pandemic? Is the thought process around in mediation, has that been changed because of the pandemic and its impact on the legal system?

Ellen Malow: [00:38:39] Absolutely. And it goes right back to what you said at the beginning, the opportunity to get in front of the judge or a jury is becoming more and more remote. I’ve had seminars I’ve attended where some of the judges have said maybe 2022, maybe 2023. And the real issue is, all the criminal cases come first because they have a right to a speedy trial. So, you’ve got all those people that need to be heard. Then, you’ve got the backlog from before the pandemic. And, now, you have this unknown answer as to when it’s going to happen. And like you said, you know, when are you going to put 12 people in a box? Well, they’re trying to come up with ways to be creative, but then you’ll have an outbreak at the court. And then, all of a sudden, that plan gets squashed.

Ellen Malow: [00:39:25] One of the things that judges are offering are bench trials. So, you just try it to the judge and you don’t get a jury. But a lot of people don’t want to try it to a judge. So, I think my business is busier. I mean, it’s hard to tell exactly but I’m seeing more and more cases now, I think, than I did two years ago. And I think it will get busier.

Mike Blake: [00:39:47] Are there any risks to entering into mediation that somebody listening to this program may need to know about? Are there things that can go wrong, haywire, unexpected, you know, that could materially impact their matter?

Ellen Malow: [00:40:02] I don’t see it at all just, again, because it’s confidential. But it goes back to some of the other things I mentioned about showing your hand, and maybe setting a floor and a ceiling, and maybe the other side saying the mediator said X, Y, Z. So, you should lower the value of your case. So, I see those types of things, which a lot of those are kind of psychological things.

Mike Blake: [00:40:30] Ellen, this has been a great conversation. I learned a lot. I’m confident our listeners have learned a lot. Would you be willing to let people ask you questions, send you an email or something to follow up? And if so, what’s the best way to do that?

Mike Blake: [00:40:44] Absolutely. So, my email address is Ellen, E-L-L-E-N, @malow, M-A-L-O-W, mediation.com. Only one Ellen Malow. And then, my website is malowmediation.com, there’s more information there. And I’m on LinkedIn. I’m trying to get really tech savvy, but I’m not quite there yet with Twitter and the other forms of social media.

Mike Blake: [00:41:11] Well, I don’t understand, if you don’t have social media, how do you know who to get mad at?

Ellen Malow: [00:41:17] I’ve got my head in the sand, Mike.

Mike Blake: [00:41:19] Well, that explains why you seem very well-balanced, so good for you. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Ellen Malow so much for joining us and sharing her expertise with us.

Mike Blake: [00:41:32] We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have a clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: alternative dispute resolution, Arbitration, arbitrator, Brady Ware, Brady Ware & Company, business dispute, dispute consulting, dispute resolution, Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation, mediation, mediator, Michael Blake, Mike Blake

Maxwell Wolk with Raymond James and Nancy Herrington & Sarah Senior with Insperity

February 18, 2021 by Mike

Gwinnett Business Radio
Gwinnett Business Radio
Maxwell Wolk with Raymond James and Nancy Herrington & Sarah Senior with Insperity
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Sarah Senior, Max Wolk and Nancy Herrington

Maxwell Wolk/Raymond James

When Bob James founded Raymond James, he did so based on a belief that clients deserved more than help with investment decisions. They needed advice that considered their entire financial picture.

Today, that client-focused approach has extended to serve client accounts through 8,200 financial advisors in the United States, Canada and overseas. Further, the company has expanded through the years to serve corporations, institutions and municipalities through significant capital markets, banking and asset management services.

Their deliberate nature and thoughtful approach to financial planning has led to a history of strength and steady, stable growth. The company’s conservative approach began in 1962 when Robert James put the word “Investments” after his name. Since then, Raymond James advisors have been crafting meticulously tailored, holistic financial plans to help ensure their clients can retire and realize their individual financial goals.

Nancy Herrington & Sarah Senior/Insperity

Insperity is a full-service HR Company that helps clients strengthen and streamline their business. Their proven approach helps better manage costs and minimize risk, helping businesses get ready-to-use HR infrastructure that they need to be more efficient and profitable, while showing them how to maximize their performance and productivity.

Gwinnett Business Radio is presented by

Tagged With: amanda pearch, business podcast, business radio, Business RadioX, Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship, financial planner, gwinnett business, gwinnett business podcast, Gwinnett Business Radio, Gwinnett Business RadioX, gwinnett businesses, gwinnett online radio, gwinnett radiox, hr company, Human Resources, Insperity, max wolk, maxwell wolk, nancy herrington, online radio, podcast, Radiox, raymond james, regions bank, sarah senior, small businesses, sonesta, sonesta gwinnett place, sonesta hotel, steven julian, subaru, subaru of gwinnett, subaru radio studio

Decision Vision Episode 104: Should I Layoff Employees? – An Interview with David Frame, HB NEXT

February 18, 2021 by John Ray

David Frame
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 104: Should I Layoff Employees? - An Interview with David Frame, HB NEXT
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

David Frame

Decision Vision Episode 104:  Should I Layoff Employees? – An Interview with David Frame, HB NEXT

Reflecting on an earlier career experience at Allconnect, David Frame, now CFO of HB NEXT, joined host Mike Blake to discuss decisions on layoffs he and his management colleagues had to confront during the 2007-2008 recession. “Decision Vision” is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

David Frame, HB NEXT

David Frame is Chief Financial Officer of HB NEXT. David’s focus has been on growing and scaling private equity-backed technology-enabled services companies in the $25 to 50 million range, and has held both financial and operational leadership roles. David’s passion is developing people and building high functioning teams to effectively execute growth strategies. Outside of work, he volunteers in the Boy Scouts of America, stays active with golf, basketball, and skiing when he can.

He has an MBA in Finance and Electronic Commerce from Vanderbilt.

HB NEXT is a technology-enabled services company servicing construction, industrial, and energy companies with a range of safety and environmental compliance and training solutions.  In business since 1999, the company constantly evolved with technology and now provides several SaaS platforms for clients including SafetyCloud and StormCloud for safety and environmental compliance.

HB NEXT is also proud to be a part of the Construction Ready program, providing training for individuals looking for careers in the commercial construction industry.  To date, the program has successfully placed over 1000 students in high-paying construction jobs in Georgia.

LinkedIn

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

“Decision Vision” is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the “Decision Vision” podcast.

Past episodes of “Decision Vision” can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. “Decision Vision” is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional, full service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:20] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:41] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:08] Today’s topic is, Should I conduct layoffs? And we’ve touched on this topic before, mostly about alternatives to layoffs. But, you know, as I said in Episode 100 that I wasn’t going to be afraid to revisit topics that we have covered before because everybody’s experience is different. And we’re also focusing more on getting people from industry as opposed to advisors on the program. And, again, we’re not going to stop having advisors. We just had one from the previous episode. But, you know, there is a difference from somebody who’s actually had to go through it versus somebody who’s tried to help somebody go through it. You know, there’s empathy and there’s actually feeling the pain.

Mike Blake: [00:01:59] And I think you’re really going to enjoy the podcast that we have for you today or at least find it helpful. Layoffs are not a pleasant topic. Certainly, very few people have enjoyed being laid off. One time I did, because the job I hated and I sucked at and they laid me off. So, they gave me a severance before I quit. So, that was good.

Mike Blake: [00:02:21] But bosses, business owners, business executives, you know, it’s very unpleasant for them to conduct layoffs for many reasons. And I’m not saying that to try to get people to feel sorry for them. But I am trying to say that, you know, if you’re an executive and you’re in a position of either considering layoffs or you’ve had to pull the trigger on that, and if you’re wondering what it says about you, if it bothered you that you had to do that, the answer is that it says good things about you. I think where it says bad things about you, if you can sort of do that cavalierly and then, you know, 30 minutes later, you’re kind of going right back to what you’re doing without a thought. That I would find, frankly, far more disturbing than somebody who had find the topic self-disturbing.

Mike Blake: [00:03:16] And, you know, I’m not sure there’s a more traumatic experience in business than layoffs. You know, if it’s a large company, then the decision to execute a series of layoffs or a layoff program could very well impact the livelihoods of thousands of people. And in a smaller company, it may impact the livelihoods of hundreds or dozens of people. But that’s painful enough. And you probably know a lot of the people that you’re laying off, which just makes it all the more difficult. But at the end of the day, you do have a company to run. You have value that you have to protect for your shareholders. And, you know, one of the reasons that executives are paid as much as they’re paid, besides what they bring to the table in terms of intelligence, capability, willingness to work long hours, weekends, missing birthdays and so forth, but it’s also because they’re the ones who have to make that extremely hard decision.

Mike Blake: [00:04:24] And I’ve had to do it. And our next guest has had to do it more than once, unhappily I know. And I think you’re going to get a lot out of kind of getting inside his head, getting inside what was the mindset, what worked well, what has he learned over the years about doing it better. And so, if you’re an executive that is facing the decision of whether or not that you’re going to have to have layoffs at your company, then my hope is that some of the information we’re going to talk about today is going to help you make a better decision and execute that decision better than you otherwise might have.

Mike Blake: [00:05:08] Joining us today is David Frame, who is the Chief Financial Officer of HB Next, a software and services company providing safety and environmental compliance solutions to construction and industrial companies in the Southeast. David’s focus has been on growing and scaling private equity backed technology enabled services companies in the $25 to 50 million range, and has held both financial and operational leadership roles. David’s passion is developing people and building high functioning teams to effectively execute growth strategies. Outside of work, he volunteers in the Boy Scouts of America, stays active with golf, basketball, and skiing when he can. I think one of his sons is actually an Eagle Scout, if I’m not mistaken.

Mike Blake: [00:05:50] HB Next is a technology enabled services company, servicing construction, industrial, and energy companies with a range of safety and environmental compliance and training solutions. In business since 1999, the company constantly evolved with technology and now provides several software as a service platform for clients including Safety Cloud and Storm Cloud for safety and environmental compliance. HB Next is also proud to be a part of the construction ready program, providing training for individuals looking for careers in the commercial construction industry. To date, the program has successfully placed over 1,000 students in high paying construction jobs in Georgia. Dave Frame, welcome to the program.

David Frame: [00:06:30] Thank you. It’s nice to be here. And, yes, my oldest son did make Eagle and made it the third straight generation of Eagle Scout.

Mike Blake: [00:06:38] Well, good for you. And I assume you’re the second generation. And, you know, thank you all for your service to our community. My son is in scouts. My wife is actually the leader of the Cub Scout troop. And, you know, we’re big fans of the scouting program and what it provides, not just to the individuals, but to the country in terms of building good citizens. So, thank you for that dedication.

David Frame: [00:07:08] I enjoy it.

Mike Blake: [00:07:08] So, let’s dig in. I mean, everybody knows what layoff is. I don’t need to do what I often do in a podcast. You know, what is a layoff? We know what that is. So, what I like you to do is, think about a layoff that you’ve had to do. And I know, unfortunately, you’ve had to kind of go through that – you had to see that movie more than once. But talk about a time that you had to do layoffs. And how did that decision come about? What was involved in making that decision? What was it like to be in the conference room talking through that decision and arriving at the decision that that was the thing that was appropriate to do?

David Frame: [00:07:51] Yeah. Yeah. There’s one that comes to mind, and as you said, unfortunately, I’ve been through it a few times. And oftentimes, it’s really precipitated by a very drastic event. COVID, lots of people had to go through it most recently with the pandemic. But the time I’m going to talk to in this podcast or this moment is one where – and we’ll get into it – it wasn’t necessarily event driven. And I think sometimes these are the hardest ones because there’s not necessarily an excuse, if you will.

Mike Blake: [00:08:25] Yeah. There’s no external blame.

David Frame: [00:08:27] That’s right. There are no external blame. There’s no shock to the system per se. And so, it’s a little like boiling a frog, right? You just slowly end up in a position, and that’s where we were. So, this is a number of years ago – actually, it was 2008 – and we’ll get into that in a second. I’ve been working at Allconnect, which was a technology enabled services company in the digital marketing lead gen space, and venture back, we were growing. As we continue to grow, as you do, you’re adding headcount.

David Frame: [00:09:01] And, frankly, we got to the end of 2007 and we were looking at our results and realizing that we were not on path to be meeting the financial threshold that we need to do towards profitability, which our investors were looking for. And so, we really took the time in early 2008 to sit down and go through the organization, because we felt like we were doing well. We felt like we were on the trajectory. But that wasn’t turning into the bottom line results we were looking for. And we were cash flow positive at that point. And so, we were still – you know, cash burn was an issue. And the last thing you want to do is go back to your investors.

David Frame: [00:09:44] And so, we really sat down with the senior leadership team and took a hard look at our entire organization. We, at the time, had a sales team – like a call center sales team – that was operating pretty well. That was not the issue. We started to look at kind of the overhead, if you will, account management, technology, finance, all of the kind of fixed overhead costs that we had, and we started to really pick it apart and try to look at who is adding value, where are we spending more money than we should. And we went through that process and we realized that we had a lot of people well-intentioned and probably brought on at some point for the right reason. As we’ve evolved, we’ve created a lot of overlap and a lot of redundancy in what people were doing. And it got to the point where we’re just, quite frankly, bloated. Let’s call it a $35 million company is bloated. It shouldn’t be part of the $35 million company. That’s what billion dollar international companies do.

David Frame: [00:10:58] So, we really sat down and we went through kind of a full reorganization of how we aligned resources, how we aligned resources against our customers, against our vendors, and against our goals. And realized that we needed to layoff about 20 percent of our corporate staff. And it was a hard decision because, again, in a small growth company, these are people that many of them started with us early in the process, have been with the company for a while. It’s a small, closely-knit group and so you know all these people really well. And so, it was a hard decision and you really had to fall back to kind of objective measures of what needs to happen, how many people really need to be doing this function to do it the way we want to, and who’s the best suited to do it.

David Frame: [00:11:48] The other thing you find in growth companies like this is, sometimes there’s the saying, “The people that get you here won’t necessarily get you there.” The skillsets you need when you’re a very small startup growth company tend to be people that are a lot of jack of all trades, can pick up a lot of different things, but they may not be the people that also know how to put in systems and structures and process to scale. And I think that’s really what we found we had gotten to.

David Frame: [00:12:18] So, we had to make some hard decisions and let some people go that had been with the company for a long time, were part of the success. But, quite frankly, as much as we tried, they weren’t the right fit going forward. And so, fortunately, we were not up against the wall with a major event that was causing financial stress so we could do it in as fair and equitable way as possible, given everyone’s longevity with the company. But we had to go ahead and do it and reorganize and restructure. And, you know, it’s never easy, particularly in that. But I think we tried to be as honest and upfront about it as possible, and give the context, and go from there.

David Frame: [00:13:07] You know, I will say what’s interesting about the timing of that is, as we know, by the time we fast forward to the fall of 2008, all hell had broken loose. And we were very fortunate to have gotten ahead of this because of a culling process, rather than waiting for the event, that when that happened, we were not in a panic. We were able to do this by being proactive. We were able to do it in a much more rational, logical, and methodical way, which, frankly, is better for the entire organization.

David Frame: [00:13:44] And in that particular case – I’m familiar with the company of which you speak – you know, there’s a dynamic that is somewhat distinctive. You’re venture-backed, correct?

David Frame: [00:13:57] Yes.

Mike Blake: [00:13:57] And you are not yet profitable. So, you know, to a certain extent, you expect venture-backed companies to not be profitable for a period of time. But on the other hand, not everybody is an Uber or an Amazon and can carry unprofitability seemingly indefinitely, if they feel like it. You didn’t have that kind of venture capital, basically. And so, you know, that slow boiling frog is really an interesting and apt description. So, before you reached that point or as you’re reaching that point that layoffs were the right decision to make, even if it was a tough decision, did you consider other vehicles? Maybe some kind of compensation adjustment, work sharing, maybe dumping more money into growth to try to grow your way out of the problem, and trying to cover the costs, or something else. Were there other alternatives that you considered? Or was it very clear just right from the get-go, you just had too much overhead and had to go?

David Frame: [00:15:03] No. I mean, it was clear that our financials were not doing what they needed to do. But, again, I think what we started with in this situation – and this is why it’s nice and something I’ve carried forward in constantly testing this – but we started with aligning an organization that would best accomplish the goals we needed. And then, we started to fill the required boxes in there. And then, what you had was kind of a remainder. And so, it was not done – the goal was not to do layoffs when we started the exercise. The goal is to understand our profitability and really make sure that we’ve aligned the organization for future success.

David Frame: [00:15:50] Had we come to that conclusion and said, “Hey, look. We really need all of these resources because here’s the new structure, here’s what we need to accomplish in 2008, and here are the resources we need and those aligned.” Then, I think we would have been willing to, you know, keep toeing the line, continue on that course, because we did still have funding. We were not going to run out of money right away. But by the same token, what we did was, we had to align the organization. And then, when there were remainders and there were potentially people who didn’t fit the new organization from a skillset perspective or something else, then we realized we had to make those hard decisions and knew that they were right for the company because then we had a fresh start to build from.

Mike Blake: [00:16:38] So, in the process of then implementing the layoffs, what was that like? For example, were you able to give people notice that their jobs are going to end in a week or two weeks? Did you have to basically kind of inform and walk them out the door? Were you able to give them severance? Was there anything else you’re able to sort of do to try to ease the impact or help with the transition?

David Frame: [00:17:04] Yeah. I mean, we were fortunate to be able to give severance, not a lot of golden parachutes, but there was a fair severance for everybody. We were in a situation we felt like we walk people out the door. So, we gave them notice. And in fact, some of that, we needed to do transitions and so on. And so, again, while it was difficult -and you don’t prolong if you don’t have to kind of the people in the building, because at some point that becomes counterproductive. But it was able to be done, like I said, in kind of a methodical as far away as possible, again, partly because we didn’t have our back against the wall.

Mike Blake: [00:17:48] So, what risks were you looking at as you decided to move forward with the layoffs? What are the risks of doing that that concerned you the most?

David Frame: [00:17:59] So, in the company, we had a lot of relationships. We relied on relationships with some large companies on both investor-owned utilities as well as telecommunication companies, and those relationships were critical. And so, one of the things where we really had to focus was how do we maintain those relationships and support those relationships but in a way that doesn’t risk diminishing them or hurting those. But at the same token, doesn’t take as many resources to do so. And so, I think the handoff of those relationships was probably the biggest risk we had because people had formed some good personal relationships amidst the business relationships. And so, we really had to plan around that. We took a lot of time with the executives to make sure the executives were able to step in with some of those changes and kind of support those relationships as needed. And so, we really did have kind of a leadership led process to make sure that all of those remained stable and in good condition. We didn’t lose any business as a result.

Mike Blake: [00:19:11] So, where did the decision for layoffs initiated? You, at the time, I think you’re the senior vice-president of finance and you reported to a chief financial officer. Where did that decision come from? Did it come from you guys? Was it a mandate from the CEO? Is it from the board? Was it from investors who may have sat outside of the board? Where did the genesis of that decision sort of come from?

David Frame: [00:19:39] The genesis came from myself and the CFO. The impetus did, because, as I said, we kind of were looking at our financials and our profitability and understanding that, for lack of a better word, it wasn’t adding up. All right? It was not going on the path we needed to. And I don’t think we had a clear idea why per se. But we knew we were on that path. And the path we were on was not going to get us where we wanted to go. And so, kind of we started with that analysis and understanding and brought that up to the CEO.

David Frame: [00:20:16] It was not at the board level at this point. I mean, we were able to bring that to the board. And then, we sat down with the CEO and the finance team and really kind of went through the first pass of where we are. And then, we had to bring in other leaders, CIO, chief sales officer, those folks into the conversation to start fleshing out the new organization. But the fact that we were going to do it, the decision had been made before we brought in the broader executive team to actually start making the detailed decisions of who needed to go where.

Mike Blake: [00:20:53] You know, you’ve been talking about this in a certain way and it finally sort of hit me. There’s a subtle but very powerful point here in the way that you approached this from an intellectual level. And the way that you approached it was not, “Hey, we have too many people, let’s start swinging the ax.” But it rather was, “Here’s what the organization needs to look like. And of the pool of talent that we currently have within the boundaries of this company, here’s who has a role in that new organization. And here’s who doesn’t have a role in that organization.” Is that a fair way to characterize it? And do you agree that that’s a meaningful distinction?

David Frame: [00:21:34] Yeah. I do. I do for a couple of reasons. One, I think in any growth company – probably any company – as you’re growing, new things come up. It’s not clear where they land. So, it’s easy to start kind of building a Frankenstein’s monster, if you will, of different people. And until you have a comprehensive view now of all the new things that are going on and how to best handle those, you’re going to kind of naturally grow that way a little, you know, Frankenstein’s monster, if you will. And then, you get enough data and you can step back and say, “Hey, there’s a better way to do all of this stuff. Now, that we see all of the new things we’re doing, how are we going to do all those in a more efficient and better way?”

David Frame: [00:22:17] And so, I think that’s a process that needs to happen. In my experience, always has happened in growth companies because of the nature of the way growth comes. And so, on the one hand, it’s the necessity of reassessing what are we doing today that’s different and how are we handling that the best way. The other part, I’ll say, too, is a little bit selfish, which is, nobody wants to have to go through layoffs. It’s painful. I, as a manager, always feel somewhat responsible for having gotten the company into this situation. I know that’s maybe overexaggerating a little bit. But there is a personal responsibility as a manager to say, “Hey, look. If we had been perfect, we might have been able to avoid this.”

David Frame: [00:23:01] So, I think the other part that this does is it provides an objectivity that allows you to make decisions that are hard to make from an emotional perspective. And so, for me, it’s always better to drop back to kind of a process that is not about people and names, but about functions and business requirements, and then match those up with the other one. And then, it’s not personal. It’s about the needs of the business. And it’s a little blunt to cut off a part to save the whole. And that’s what this is all about, you’re saving a hundred jobs by eliminating 20 as opposed to going down this path where, suddenly, it is swinging an ax and it doesn’t matter who you hit. And no one wants to be part of that.

Mike Blake: [00:23:50] So, once the that decision was made, what were some of the key steps in preparing to then implement? And how long did it take you to do that?

David Frame: [00:24:05] So, I think number one, for me, is I believe you want to do it once. And even if you cut a little deeper than you need to, being decisive with a clear communication for the organization of what is happening and why. And this is easier for a small company, I mean, you get to big multinationals, it’s probably hard to manage that. But a mid company size, you have a very clear and honest conversation with your employees of where we are, why we’re doing this, and how we got here. Have that communication come out at once and then have a very clear execution plan of how you’re going to go about doing that, so that everything kind of as much as can be done happens in a very short timeframe. Because I think it makes it easier for the organization. Plus, it allows the remaining people to move forward confidently and not feel like they’re waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Mike Blake: [00:25:10] Okay. So, you want to be prepared to do it quickly, so in order to be able to do that quickly, what’s involved in that?

David Frame: [00:25:19] You know, it’s nailing your talking points – not talking points, but nailing your message, really focusing on what you want to communicate to whom, and having that fully baked with a communication plan when, who, how. It also involves orchestrating all the individual conversations that need to go both for the people that are moving out, but also for the people that are moving in. And sometimes, you know, you want to really prepare the people that are staying before you necessarily let the people know that they’re going. It’s a tight window. But I would rather not surprise the person that’s stepping into a new role. I prefer to let them know what’s going on so they’re prepared. So, when the news is delivered to the person who’s leaving, there’s someone ready to step into that breach.

Mike Blake: [00:26:16] Okay. And that messaging, did you have legal counsel review it?

David Frame: [00:26:20] Yes. Yeah. We did. That was relatively – a smaller company, it’s a little easier. But, yeah, I mean, through the whole process, you’ve got to – and even more so nowadays – be really crisp on understanding and documenting. And another reason we do the process is from a legal perspective, too – I would say I’m more appreciated about now than maybe 15, 20 years ago – but going through that objective process we talked about also is very helpful from a legal standpoint as well as we’re in a world where you’ve got to have your I’s dotted and T’s crossed on those items as well.

Mike Blake: [00:27:00] You know, I’m assuming you agree with me that a layoff is a traumatic event, individually as well as collectively. What was the impact upon the people left behind and how did you manage kind of the after effects left in the wake of the layoffs?

David Frame: [00:27:24] I think that’s a great point, because as you were talking, it occurred to me, the other part of this that I found important is the honesty and the openness that you do this is critical for, (A) the relationships that you’re leaving as they leave the company. But more so, you’ve got an entire organization watching how you choose to execute something like this. And the more that you come at it with an honesty, and an empathy, and an openness, I think you can actually use these opportunities. These opportunities are either going to build or destroy trust in your organization. And the more that you demonstrate to the remaining organization that you are being honest, and open, and forthright, and empathetic, then that is critical to keeping that trust and the people that are still here and getting them to rally behind the new organization as opposed to buck against it or be distrustful of it.

David Frame: [00:28:28] And so, I have seen situations where, you know, it was not done in a way that felt right to people that, again, been long time employees. And I think that really starts to set the new organization on the wrong path in terms of trust, and buy in, and all the things you need to be successful.

Mike Blake: [00:28:49] And, you know, talk about, say, the 24 to 48 hours after announcing the layoffs. Could you feel a difference in the office? I mean, was there a different atmosphere, if you will, or were people able to kind of go back to business as usual?

David Frame: [00:29:09] I think there were two things. I mean, there was a brief period of, what we call, mourning, where people or friends left the building. But I think quickly, frankly, that turned not into business as usual, which was good. It turned into kind of an energy that says, “Okay. We’re refocused. We’ve got the right people on the bus.” I mean, the fact is, when you get to those situations, other employees have the same sense that, “Hey, this isn’t working quite right.” And so, I think if you do this right, you really get a reenergized group of people that see the vision, see the new organization, what it can accomplish. And if you pick the leaders right for that stay, then they’re energized with their new opportunity, probably taking on some different and new responsibilities. And you can actually kind of slingshot your way forward a little bit.

Mike Blake: [00:30:05] You know, that’s an interesting point and I wanted to ask you about that, and I still will because I like to probe. And that is, you know, employees are smart, right? They know what’s going on, on the ground. They often know better than we do in the C-suite, because, I mean, they’re just they’re living it day to day. And I do think on some level, they do know kind of who has a cushy job, who doesn’t have a cushy job, who seems to have a clear role, who doesn’t. And, you know, I do wonder if there’s some appreciation on some level that management at least is knowledgeable enough and has the courage to take action.

David Frame: [00:30:46] Yeah. I think that’s dead on. And I think that’s why people know those that aren’t pulling their weight, either on purpose or not, and the ones that are really motivated can get resentful of that, right? And so, it can be counterproductive. So, when they do see you taking action – and, again, it’s not that there’s anything wrong with that individual. It could be the position they were put in the role. But the fact that you get to the point where, you know, some group is carrying more than their weight, and there’s a group that’s not carrying their weight, and they see that. And so, the fact that, again, in their honest, open way, management is willing to acknowledge that and move forward is a motivator to those folks. And those are the folks you want to motivate too, right? I mean, those are the ones that are chomping at the bit to do more.

Mike Blake: [00:31:33] Well, yeah. And I think to my mind – and tell me if I’m wrong – one of the concerns that comes in right after that is okay. How do you motivate the people you want to stay to stay? Because it’s a natural reaction, I think, that if you’re in a firm that is having layoffs and is faltering at achieving its goals and there’s no more concrete admission of that than layoffs, some people are going to think, “Well, you know, maybe I should get off before my number comes up. Maybe I ought to get my resume out in the street. Or I have to flip a switch in the LinkedIn and say I’m open to job offers,” that sort of thing. And so, how did you manage trying to make sure, in particular the people you really wanted to keep, those high performers continue to have confidence in the company and to sell them? Did you feel like you had to sell them a new on, “We did this, this sucked. I’m not going to sugarcoat it this is a setback. But here’s why you ought to double down.”

David Frame: [00:32:44] Yeah. I mean, again, I’ll keep going back to it, I think honesty and transparency is the key there. And you can’t just wait to this side. That has to be a culture that you’re building anyway. People have to believe they trust you anyway. But I think if you go through a difficult situation, and sometimes that transparency involves risk. And I can share another story of that. But I think if you are honest and transparent, they have to start by trusting you to begin with. But if you continue that honesty and that transparency, and even as a business, take a little risk, then I think you’re likely to – maybe not everybody – retain that trust and gain that backing that you’re looking for. But it’s not going to come unless you’re willing to give a little bit as a company or as a management team.

David Frame: [00:33:34] I’ll share one story that I think embodies that a little bit. Not too long ago, I was working for a company and we had a sizable call center sales force. And we found out we lost a piece of business with one of our biggest clients. And so, in 60 days or 30 days, we were going to lose this business. So, we very quickly put together a plan and it would have been very easy for us, for business continuity reasons or for any business, to wait until a week before and then let everyone know that we lost this business and it’s no longer here. “Sorry. Here’s two weeks. Good luck.” But we didn’t think that was the right thing to do.

David Frame: [00:34:22] So, what we did is, we let about 75 people know right away this is coming and we also explained why. We, also, at the same time, had a plan where we set up a process by which people could apply for internal jobs in the other areas. We also had already reached out to a couple of companies in the area that did similar things and let them know we had high quality people that were being let go. So, we brought them in for job fairs. We set up a job fair internally. And I got to tell you, at the end of that conversation, the appreciation from a bunch of people just being told they’re going to be laid off was tremendous.

David Frame: [00:35:08] And what we found was, most of them stayed around. Some of them looked for other jobs. But they didn’t feel like we were going to cut their legs out. And so, you know, they went through the process and we were able to have a very orderly transition. And we bought a lot of credibility with the rest of the organization because they saw how we treated those people. And so, they’re going to be more trusting going forward. So, I think in the long term, while we took some risk – because half of those people could have walked out the door the next day and we have been struggling and we missed – we chose to take the risk of honesty and transparency because we felt like that was the culture we wanted. Plus, the benefit for us is, we continued to build the trust with our employee base, which is what we really needed for the remaining 350 people versus that. And so, that is the type of thing you got to make some decisions on how you’re going to handle these things. And sometimes they go beyond X’s and O’s, if you will.

Mike Blake: [00:36:03] Well, I mean, that’s when you find out what a company’s integrity and what a company’s dedication to its workforce is. It’s easy to have integrity and dedicated when you’re not in crisis. And there’s sort of plenty of money for everybody. But when things get tight and you’ve got to take something off the table, and you really have constraints, that’s where you find out what price are you willing to pay or even potentially willing to pay in order to pursue that path of integrity. And, you know, you showed it. I’ve never heard of that before where you proactively, you know, invite your competitors to come in and start recruiting, I think that’s awesome. That was very vulnerable. And I can see why people were appreciative of it.

Mike Blake: [00:36:55] And, you know, the thing also is, there are a lot of things that make Americans different from other societies. And one of them, I think, frankly, is that Americans know the name of the game, right? Americans, for the most part, we know that we are at will employees and we generally do not have a culture of job entitlement. We certainly have not had that since the 1980s, because of the economic realities just don’t match that. And part of this, too, I think is kind of giving people some credit. I mean, there are cases, obviously, there are disastrous cases where an employee is really upset and then it becomes a crisis of a different kind. And we had a guest come on and talk about that in the first couple of months of the show, Bruce Blythe. But for the most part, we benefit from a culture where, you know, Americans kind of know the score that nothing is guaranteed to them. And I think because of that case, honesty and transparency and integrity, I actually think, worked better in that case.

David Frame: [00:38:08] I think so, too. And I’ll be honest with you, you don’t learn that right away. One of the interesting things about potentially being on the finance side is, in my history, even as a junior person, when these things happen and you’re not in the management side, you tend to get pulled in early. Because they’re running the models, you’re trying to see that. And so, I guess I was fortunate – or unfortunate – but fortunate to watch other people in management seats have to go through this and took my own personal learnings from that about watching it when it was done in a way that felt a little sneakier or whatever. And so, I think that gave me a little bit of opportunity to learn before I was actually responsible for it. But, yeah, I just made a personal decision, again, because it’s a personal thing that, for me, I just always err towards transparency and openness. And I found that from an ROI perspective, I would argue you almost always get paid back on that.

Mike Blake: [00:39:11] You know, from a personal perspective, one of the best lessons I got as a young analyst was, I had to do one of those analysis to help somebody run three numbers for potential layoffs. And as I handed in my first draft – this was back in the days when bosses still wanted things in paper and wanted them stapled – he said, “Before you give that to me -” he looked me right in the eye and said, “- you need to know that those numbers represent people and families. So, what I want you to do is I want you to go away for an hour and then look at that from that context. And then, if you still believe this is the right thing to do, then I’ll take a look at it. But if you want, putting that in your head, if you want to take some more time to look at this, you can go ahead and do that.” And I thought that was a great lesson. That’s one I’ve never forgotten. And when this comes up with my clients, it’s one that I teach my analysts as well.

David Frame: [00:40:08] Yeah. I mean, you can’t get away from personal connection. Again, particularly at small and mid-sized companies where you really know everybody so closely and so well.

Mike Blake: [00:40:19] But it is easy. I mean, you haven’t done it. I hope that I haven’t done it. But it is easy. And I certainly believe I know people who have. It’s easy to dehumanize these things when they’re numbers in a spreadsheet. A change of a formula here, two people are fired. A change from an assumption there, six people are fired. Or they’re not getting their bonus or whatever. And one of the reasons I want to have you specifically to talk about that on this program is because I know you don’t think that way. I know that when you’re looking at that spreadsheet, behind that, there’s a realization of the human cost of what you’re contemplating.

David Frame: [00:41:02] And I’m going tell you the other big lesson that I learned from that is, I am much more reticent to hire the next body until there’s a very proven need with a long term proven need with a very defined role. Because until you’ve been through it and have to lay those people off, and you realize that potentially you’ve got to make sure it’s not a zero sum game. Because I don’t want to go through that. And so, sometimes that means we’re a little late on hiring. I’d much rather do that and work with the team I’ve got, and suck it up for a little bit, and prove that we have the need, then you don’t have to go through a layoff. We could avoid it. And I think it really does make you a much more discerning hirer.

Mike Blake: [00:41:49] Yeah. I agree with that. And I’ve been in cases where I’ve been pushed to hire. And I’m like, “No. We can handle it.” But I mean, the nightmare scenario is that you hire somebody and then three months later, things don’t pan out. And then, you got tell them, “Look, I don’t have the money to pay anymore.” And, you know, that’s just not a responsibility I’m interested in taking.

David Frame: [00:42:13] So, just as a note, right in that same time, this happened in that time, and I probably blocked it from my side. We hired a guy and came to this whole realization I talked about in the period of which we hired him to when he showed up, and we had to tell him there’s no job for him. I mean, it was horrible. And we made it right. Like, we worked very hard – similar to what we did – to give him a soft landing and all that stuff because that was unfair to him. And I felt horrible because the CFO and I looked at each other and said, “We need this role.” And then, it was a long transition. When we got the end of it, we can’t lay these people off and bring this new person on. And I think that event, probably more than anything, exactly highlighted what you said in no uncertain terms. And I think that probably as much as anything has shaped my hiring and layoff decisions from there going forward.

Mike Blake: [00:43:15] We’re talking to Dave Frame, who is Chief Financial Officer of HB Next. And the topic is, Should my company conduct layoffs? We’re running up against time here, and I’m not surprised. But a couple more questions before we let you go. And one of them is that, you know, how do you handle the emotional impact of having to make that decision? First, in one role, I know that you are reporting to the CFO, so you’re supporting that decision. But the last two, you’ve been the CFO, you have been that person who the buck stop with you, period. I’m curious how you emotionally make peace with those decisions and the aftermath, and find a way to kind of heal yourself on that, and move on.

David Frame: [00:44:06] And I think some of it, for me, is through the process. I’m an empirical person. And so, going through the right process and feeling like we’ve done everything we could to turn over every stone to make sure this is the right decision is the first step. The second step, to me, is honesty and transparency. It’s a hard time for everybody. And we owe it to that person and the rest of the organization to be as honest and transparent as we can. And then, doing it personally. I think that, you know, lots of times there are people that defer this to other people in the organization. And I just feel like, when appropriate, as the executive, it’s my responsibility. As I said, part of my responsibility that we got here and so it’s my responsibility to look it through. And so, I try to, you know, without sugarcoating it, be involved in delivering the message, and the empathy, and transparency, and try to support them as best I can. And I guess that’s about all I can do to make myself feel like I understand that inevitability in business at some level. But at least I’ve handled it in the most fair, transparent, and empathetic way.

Mike Blake: [00:45:29] Dave, this is great. There’s lots of ground we could cover. And, of course, every situation is different. If somebody would like to reach out to you to maybe ask you a question or some advice about a similar situation they’re facing, can they do that? And if so, what’s the best way to connect with you?

David Frame: [00:45:45] Yeah. Probably the easiest way is just to email me at my work email address. It’s dframe, like a picture frame, D-F-R-A-M-E@hbnext.com. And I’m happy to – if I can help anyone through this, I’m happy to do it. Or bounce any ideas, I’m happy to do that as well.

Mike Blake: [00:46:03] Thank you. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Dave Frame so much for joining us and sharing his expertise with us.

Mike Blake: [00:46:11] We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

Tagged With: Allconnect, Brady Ware, Brady Ware & Company, CFO, David Frame, employee layoffs, HB NEXT, layoffs, Michael Blake, Mike Blake, recession

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • …
  • 81
  • Next Page »

Business RadioX ® Network


 

Our Most Recent Episode

CONNECT WITH US

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Our Mission

We help local business leaders get the word out about the important work they’re doing to serve their market, their community, and their profession.

We support and celebrate business by sharing positive business stories that traditional media ignores. Some media leans left. Some media leans right. We lean business.

Sponsor a Show

Build Relationships and Grow Your Business. Click here for more details.

Partner With Us

Discover More Here

Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy

Connect with us

Want to keep up with the latest in pro-business news across the network? Follow us on social media for the latest stories!
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Business RadioX® Headquarters
1000 Abernathy Rd. NE
Building 400, Suite L-10
Sandy Springs, GA 30328

© 2025 Business RadioX ® · Rainmaker Platform

BRXStudioCoversLA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of LA Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversDENVER

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Denver Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversPENSACOLA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Pensacola Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversBIRMINGHAM

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Birmingham Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversTALLAHASSEE

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Tallahassee Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversRALEIGH

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Raleigh Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversRICHMONDNoWhite

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Richmond Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversNASHVILLENoWhite

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Nashville Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversDETROIT

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Detroit Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversSTLOUIS

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of St. Louis Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversCOLUMBUS-small

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Columbus Business Radio

Coachthecoach-08-08

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Coach the Coach

BRXStudioCoversBAYAREA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Bay Area Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversCHICAGO

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Chicago Business Radio

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Atlanta Business Radio