It’s time to educate them on the true career opportunities that exist if they stay in public accounting. It’s time for us to show them that we care about them beyond the numbers that drop to companies’ bottom lines—that we want them to have fulfilling and challenging work experiences.
Most importantly it’s time for us, as an industry, to change our mindsets and to create a widespread culture of career advocacy, where we push for the best and most fulfilling opportunities for our young talent, whether that’s in public accounting or whether their career takes them beyond it.
We know the change won’t happen overnight, but inertia is our enemy. The industry will keep losing top talent if we maintain the status quo. A recent report by the financial services recruiting firm Coenen Bros. says that the best time to leave public accounting is between the three- to six-year marks (see Leave Public Accounting after 3 to 6 Years, Says Research).
Many of the underlying themes of the study point to larger perception issues related to the public accounting field. Perhaps more importantly it shines a light on the glaring need for a much greater focus on educating young and mid-level accounting professionals about the career tracks and growth opportunities that actually exist in the public accounting space.
We must make them aware of the long-term growth opportunities that exist. They have to know that we have their best interests in mind, that we are their advocates. It’s no surprise that we find ourselves leading our industry and looking to compel them to make this shift and move towards a new mindset. At Rothstein Kass we have developed the following set of beliefs that can help every firm create a culture of career advocacy while putting an end to the “public accounting brain drain.”
1. Advocacy Begins with Transparency – It’s important for someone to know from day one that they can and should have candid conversations about their career—no matter where it takes them. Talk openly about career paths from the initial interview and acknowledge the possibility that their career may take them away from your firm. The honesty will be appreciated and it will demonstrate that you care about them as much as their work product. Transparency truly is the first step in career advocacy.
2. Encourage Natural Mentoring – Many firms have formal mentoring programs where younger employees are assigned a partner as a mentor. The problem is these relationships are random. Don’t force mentoring. Create and nurture an environment where mentoring is able to happen naturally. The relationship will be conflict free and therefore stronger if it comes about naturally. The advice will be more genuine and the results will be better—for the firm and your people. If you do go with a formal program, make sure mentees can opt out or switch to another mentor freely.
3. Make Learning Cultural and Practical – Creating ongoing learning opportunities is critical to keeping young employees engaged and excited. Don’t create check the box education programs. Develop application of knowledge-based learning programs that have a direct impact on what employees are working on in their daily lives and then give them the tools and the opportunities to implement what they’ve learned. Whether it’s technical skills or skills for how to be a better manager, young professionals will appreciate access to practical learning programs they can implement to achieve career growth.
4. Take Control of the Process – It’s natural for young professionals to explore new employment and earning opportunities at some point during their careers. And if they’re going to do it anyway, don’t let someone else guide their experience—especially a recruiter who has a built-in ulterior motive. Take control of the process by talking to them about the kinds of opportunities that exist outside of your firm. Have them talk to partners or other team members who have been on the corporate side about the pros and cons of their experiences. You can even recommend that they go interview to get a real understanding of what’s out there. Undertaking this process shows team members that the career talk is not taboo and more importantly it shows that you care about their happiness and their long-term success—and that goes a long way.
5. Create a Symbiotic Relationship – Caring about the careers of your professionals is not simply an altruistic gesture; it benefits the firm and the person. True career advocacy is mutually beneficial. Team members who are in the right position, with the right firm with a clear career path, will be happier and more engaged. And all the research shows that more engaged team members are more productive team members. By taking an active interest in the careers of your professionals you are really creating a symbiotic professional relationship—and that’s good for everyone involved.
6. Set the Tone at the Top – Career advocacy has to start at the stop. Executives have to set the tone and the culture. They have to foster a people-first, not firm-first attitude. They have to demonstrate through their actions, their policies and their programs that the firm cares about its people and not simply the work product they produce.
7. Walk the Career Advocacy Walk – Caring about team members’ career growth can’t be rhetoric. People can sniff out insincerity a mile away and it only creates animosity. Organizations must do more than simply talk about career opportunities and advocacy, they must walk the walk. They must make a commitment and infuse it into the fabric of the firm with formalized programs and widely known practices that show career development is a priority. Team members will recognize that commitment and pay it back with loyalty and effort.
These steps may seem basic, even intuitive, but the reality is most firms clearly aren’t following them. If they were, we wouldn’t be reading about top talent leaving the profession for supposed greener pastures after three years, six years or any years for that matter. Public accounting may not be the career for everyone who enters the field, but it’s our obligation to make every effort to keep the ones for who it is the best fit.
Here are two simple truths regarding the best times to leave: (1) If public accounting is not for you, then at the two-year mark you should start game planning with a mentor what your departure should look like; and (2) as for the upper limit in years—that’s even easier—start planning your departure with your mentor the day you stop learning and being challenged!
It’s our responsibility to change the industry’s mindset from one of squeezed worker robots to career advocacy. When that happens, the public accounting brain drain will transform into a flood of talent for you as well.
Vincent J. Calcagno is a principal at the accounting firm Rothstein Kass.
4 Comments
Mr. Calcagno, your article focuses on "young" recruits. Why is it that accounting firms are not attempting to recruit people who have been in the workforce for years and are now ready to move into a career in accounting? Why do you focus only on the young? When I passed the CPA exam, it was after having run a small bookkeeping firm for years, which I opened by accident. I have degrees in totally unrelated fields, and found the profession of accounting through having identified an affinity and talent for the art. I had to join a public accounting firm to obtain my license (issued by California), and I was treated horrendously by far too many people in the small firm where I was finally able to get a job. You bemoan the brain-drain caused by loss of young recruits, but you fail to see the amazing resource that older folks like me offer the accounting world. I left public accounting, knowing that I was absolutely the perfect public accountant, but there was only one partner in that small firm that understood and honored the contribution I made to the firm. I had white hair, and that was all that mattered, even though I received glowing assessments from audit managers, after every engagement. I would suggest that accounting firms need to move through a complete paradigm shift, and one aspect of that shift would be that accounting as a profession needs to cast its recruiting nets much wider than the same college campuses visited year in and year out.
Posted by: jel1955 | December 4, 2012 8:34 AM
Report this Comment
Vince's article is very well written and it is hard to argue with anything he suggests. I have two observations. First, law firms, like accounting firms, experience "brain drain" in the 3 to 6 year range; probably for the same reasons. Accountants and lawyers with 3 to 6 years of experience know enough about "firm life" to make a decision whether to continue along that path or "go inside." I believe it is a myth that firm lawyers and accountants work harder than corporate counsel or CPA; and that some people just can't cut it, and simply "go in-house." The jobs and demands are very different, and are more or less attractive depending on the person. To a large extent, the law or accounting firm cannot change the individual preferences. Ergo, some brain drain is a natural occurrence.
The second, and maybe more important observation, is about firm leadership. Firm leadership needs to make sure that the firm is the kind of place that talented people want to work. What does the firm and its leadership value and stand for? Does it serve clients or just make money? Does it invest in its people through training and opportunities? Does it respect diversity of ideas, experiences, and backgrounds? Does it compensate, reward, promote and generally treat people fairly? What is its reputation among clients, former and current employees, regulators, etc.? I think you understand what I am saying. Quoting Vince's article, "Accountants [and lawyers] may be thought of as numbers people, but we can never forget that people aren't numbers."
Posted by: Peter Fontaine | November 29, 2012 8:37 PM
Report this Comment
Well written article: First, let's make a distinction between the top four public accounting firms and the rest. The culture at the top 4 is primarily profit driven from their respective international corporate head offices. The focus is on each and every member's (from first year staff to partners) utilisation statistics followed by an evaluation on the future business the accountant will bring based on how much of their private time they are willing to dedicate to networking etc.
In my experience the major failings of these firms are: Treating staff as statistics and letting them know this. Paying in some cases only 25% of annual billings in the way of salaries while making it no secret that partner salaries are upwards of $500k in some cases. Not supporting an accountant in one area who wants to move to another area (in many cases above average staff are let go in favour of unknown outsiders). Also, a personal observation is that there are few partners in top four firms whom I would want to emulate. Their entire existence is work or work prospect driven and they are incredibly incredibly boring to be stuck in an elevator with.
Smaller firms on the other hand are more staff focused. In many cases they are able to offer the same services as the larger firms but at a much cheaper rate and in a much more nimble manner. There is also a smaller disparity in top and bottom remuneration hence satisfying the socialist leanings of this accountant at least!
Also, don't consider a departed staff member as one lost for ever. Often the best public accountants are those who have worked in industry but then have returned (often for the learning environment) to practise.
Posted by: djoblin | November 29, 2012 7:45 AM
Report this Comment
Well written article: First, let's make a distinction between the top four public accounting firms and the rest. The culture at the top 4 is primarily profit driven from their respective international corporate head offices. The focus is on each and every member's (from first year staff to partners) utilisation statistics followed by an evaluation on the future business the accountant will bring based on how much of their private time they are willing to dedicate to networking etc.
In my experience the major failings of these firms are: Treating staff as statistics and letting them know this. Paying in some cases only 25% of annual billings in the way of salaries while making it no secret that partner salaries are upwards of $500k in some cases. Not supporting an accountant in one area who wants to move to another area (in many cases above average staff are let go in favour of unknown outsiders). Also, a personal observation is that there are few partners in top four firms whom I would want to emulate. Their entire existence is work or work prospect driven and they are incredibly incredibly boring to be stuck in an elevator with.
Smaller firms on the other hand are more staff focused. In many cases they are able to offer the same services as the larger firms but at a much cheaper rate and in a much more nimble manner. There is also a smaller disparity in top and bottom remuneration hence satisfying the socialist leanings of this accountant at least!
Also, don't consider a departed staff member as one lost for ever. Often the best public accountants are those who have worked in industry but then have returned (often for the learning environment) to practise.
Posted by: djoblin | November 29, 2012 7:45 AM
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Accounting Today, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immeditely be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment.