NASDAQ GAINS APPROVAL FOR BX VENTURE MARKET FOR SMALLER COMPANIES

www.pryorcashman.com

NASDAQ GAINS APPROVAL FOR BX VENTURE MARKET FOR SMALLER COMPANIES


The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently approved the application of The NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc. to launch its new listing market, to be known as the BX Venture Market. The BX
Venture Market will provide companies that do not otherwise qualify for an exchange listing –
including companies that have been delisted from another market for failure to satisfy that market’s
listing standards and companies that want to take a first step toward an exchange listing – with an
opportunity to list and trade their securities in an environment that is designed to provide greater
transparency, regulation and liquidity than the over-the-counter markets. NASDAQ expects to begin
accepting listing applications during the third quarter of 2011, and to launch the BX Venture Market
by the end of the year.
To be eligible for an initial listing on the BX Venture Market, an issuer must meet the following
minimum quantitative standards:
Previously Listed on U.S.
National Exchange1
Not Listed on U.S.
National Exchange
Public Float 200,000 shares 200,000 shares
Public Shareholders 200 total, 100 round lot 200 total, 100 round lot
Market Value of Listed Securities $2 million $2 million
Market Makers 2 2
Bid Price $0.25 $1.00
In addition, prior to obtaining a listing on the BX Venture Market, a company not previously listed on
a national securities exchange must have: (i) either $1 million in stockholders’ equity or $5 million in
total assets; (ii) a one year operating history (which limits the ability of shell companies to qualify for
listing); and (iii) a plan to maintain sufficient working capital for at least 12 months after listing.
Once listed on the BX Venture Market, a company must satisfy the following quantitative continued
listing standards:
Public Float 200,000 shares
Public Shareholders 200 total
Market Value of Listed Securities $1 million
Market Makers 2
Bid Price $0.25
1 Prior to September 30, 2011, any company delisted from a national exchange since January 1, 2010 would be eligible for
this standard. After launch, a company would have three months to list on the BX Venture Market after being delisted.
June 2011 By: Michael T. Campoli
2 www.pryorcashman.com
The BX Venture Market will also have qualitative listing standards that are comparable to those of The
NASDAQ Stock Market and the other national securities exchanges, but that are targeted to smaller
and earlier stage companies. For example, the listed class of securities must be registered under
Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the company must be
current in its Exchange Act filings, the company must have an independent audit committee,
compensation decisions for executive officers must be made or recommended by independent
directors, the company must hold an annual meeting of shareholders, and the company must comply
with the applicable provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act.
However, companies listed on the BX Venture Market will not be subject to certain requirements
generally associated with a listing on a national securities exchange, including the requirement to have
a majority independent board and the requirement to obtain shareholder approval in connection with
certain issuances of common stock (including issuances generally covered by the so-called “20%
Rule”). In addition, securities listed on the BX Venture Market will not be exempt from state blue-sky
requirements or the penny stock rules.
***
The foregoing is merely a discussion and is intended to provide a brief summary of the BX Venture Market. If you would
like to learn more about this topic or how Pryor Cashman LLP can serve your legal needs, please contact Michael T.
Campoli, Esq. at 212-326-0468, mcampli@pryorcashman.com, or the Pryor Cashman LLP attorney with whom you work.
Copyright © 2011 by Pryor Cashman LLP. This Legal Update is provided for informational purposes only and does not
constitute legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. While all efforts have been made to ensure the
accuracy of the contents, Pryor Cashman LLP does not guarantee such accuracy and cannot be held responsible for any
errors in or reliance upon this information. This material may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee a similar outcome.
3 www.pryorcashman.com
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
MICHAEL T. CAMPOLI
Of Counsel
Direct Tel: 212-326-0468
Direct Fax: 212-798-6361
mcampoli@pryorcashman.com
Michael Campoli devotes his practice to counseling public and private companies on a broad range of
corporate matters, including securities law compliance, corporate formation and governance, mergers
and acquisitions, public and private debt and equity financing transactions, and limited liability
company and partnership counseling.
Mr. Campoli's work at Pryor Cashman has included the representation of:
• Marina Biotech, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRNA) as outside general counsel in connection with its
equity and debt financings, M&A initiatives and compliance with SEC reporting requirements
• Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE Amex: JAV) as outside general counsel in connection
with its equity financings and compliance with the reporting requirements of the SEC and other
regulatory agencies
• Henry Schein, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSIC) in connection with the acquisition of various private
companies in the medical equipment and software industries
• Cowen and Company, LLC, Rodman & Renshaw, LLC and Global Hunter Securities, LLC in
connection with various underwritten public offerings for domestic and foreign issuers
• Briad Restaurant Group in its prevailing tender offer for Main Street Restaurant Group, Inc.,
the largest T.G.I. Friday’s franchisee
• The Kushner Companies in connection with its acquisition of the office building located at 666
Fifth Avenue, New York, New York
• A private telecommunications company in connection with the issuance of a $260 million
secured note to the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
concurrent placement of $110 million of preferred stock to venture capital investors

If you are seeking an Executive Coach for yourself or your organization, consider contacting CB Bowman at Executive Leadership, LLC 908 822-9655 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.
CB Bowman, MBA is the president, CEO of Executive Leadership, LLC. She is also the Chairperson and Founder for the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches and the Association of Executive Coaches (http://www.acec-website.org).
Among mid to senior level professionals Executive leadership LLC is the go to company for individuals and companies seeking human capital repositioning, development and/or growth through coaching, counseling, and strategic advice.
With her Fortune 500 business background, laser like precision, and a take no prisoners approach she swiftly narrows in on the issue, and unlike others, she presents financially sound, creative and action oriented solutions with infinite possibilities


PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Firms fight proposal that would require union-related disclosures

Firms fight proposal that would require union-related disclosures
Reprinted from: Washingtonpost.com

By Catherine Ho, Published: July 24

Law firms and trade associations are fighting a proposed change to federal labor law that calls for stricter reporting requirements for companies and the lawyers they retain for advice on bargaining, strikes and union elections.

The proposal, introduced by the Labor Department last month, deals with what’s called the “persuader activity” rule, in Section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Under the current law, employers and outside labor consultants — including law firms — do not have to report legal advice attorneys give employers as long as lawyers don’t communicate directly with workers to persuade them about their rights not to unionize.

The proposed rule would change that, requiring companies and law firms to publicly disclose a wide range of legal work done for company managers if it’s used to persuade workers on union activity — as well as how much law firms are getting paid for it.

That could include drafting speeches, reviewing election documents, advising strategy, holding training sessions for managers on union organizing, and creating fliers or pamphlets for employers.

The public comment period for the proposed change ends Aug. 22. It was floated at the same time as the National Labor Relations Board introduced a controversial change that would shorten the period between when a union files an election petition and when the election is held, from an average of 38 days to as few as 10 days.

The Labor Department said it’s important to report agreements between employers and consultants because it helps workers understand where union-related materials and information from their employer is coming from.

While employers hire outside consultants for about 2,600 of the roughly 3,500 union election petitions each year, the Labor Department on average only receives reports from consultants for 190 cases. Under federal law, unions must disclose how much they spend on outside consultants, who the consultants are, and what the fees are for, in annual financial reports to the Labor Department.

“The department views reporting of persuader agreements or arrangements as providing employees with essential information regarding the underlying source of views and materials being directed at them, as aiding them in evaluating their merit and motivation, and as assisting them in developing independent and well-informed conclusions regarding union representation and collective bargaining,” John Lund, director of the Office of Labor-Management Standards, said in a statement.

Major unions including the Service Employees International Union, support the proposal, saying employers should have to disclose relationships with consultants if they are persuading workers against joining unions.

But law firms and business interests say the change could be a huge blow to labor law boutique firms and firms with large labor practices that may have to severely limit the advice they give clients if they don’t want to be straddled with the reporting requirements. They also say it could threaten attorney-client privilege by requiring firms to disclose the names of clients for whom they perform that kind of work.

“Any advice given as to how an employer wants to communicate with employees about the union would now be reportable, in detail,” said Mark Theodore, a labor and employment partner at Proskauer Rose, which advises companies in labor matters. “That is something that’s unheard of in any other area. You would never disclose things you talk about with your client. In fact, you’re prohibited from disclosing those things. This [proposal] would make it a requirement to detail that.”

The Labor Department said the rule would not violate attorney-client privilege.

Ultimately, the change would make it harder for employers to seek advice from outside counsel, said Michael Eastman, executive director for labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is part of an informal coalition of law firms and business trade groups challenging the rule change, he said.

“This is [an issue] that hits law firms’ bottom line and they’re interested in that, and concerned,” Eastman said. “There are a lot of law firms that don’t want to disclose client names or fees. Fewer law firms will offer labor relations services. That’ll make it harder for employers to find someone to talk to during a union campaign for advice.”



If you are seeking an Executive Coach for yourself or your organization, consider contacting CB Bowman at Executive Leadership, LLC 908 822-9655 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.
CB Bowman, MBA is the president, CEO of Executive Leadership, LLC. She is also the Chairperson and Founder for the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches and the Association of Executive Coaches (http://www.acec-website.org).
Among mid to senior level professionals Executive leadership LLC is the go to company for individuals and companies seeking human capital repositioning, development and/or growth through coaching, counseling, and strategic advice.
With her Fortune 500 business background, laser like precision, and a take no prisoners approach she swiftly narrows in on the issue, and unlike others, she presents financially sound, creative and action oriented solutions with infinite possibilities


PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Executive Coaching – What Would Your Performance Appraisal Be?

Executive Coaching – What Would Your Performance Appraisal Be With It?

Although you may be the leader of a team, it doesn’t automatically mean that you’re at the top of your game when it comes to leadership skills; that’s where getting a refresher through executive coaching becomes essential for the smooth running of the organization, or department, that you’re in charge of.

What do you think your personal performance appraisal would say about the way that you’re able to manage the people around you? You may already know many of the fundamentals of how to motivate a team of people, and how to get them all ‘pushing in the same direction’, but tips and techniques are changing all of the time; there are going to be many new ideas that you’ll be able to take away from the executive coaching that you’ll be participating.

You obviously know your own job well – when it comes to the technical aspects of it – so your performance improvement isn’t going to be focused on the actual tasks that you do in your job; the performance improvement is going to come in your ability to get the most out of yourself, and the people around you, and more often than not, under pressure!

Not all of the people who are most qualified to do their job, are actually going to be all that good when it comes to running a team; you may have noticed before that someone was promoted above you to a senior position, not because they knew anymore about the industry or the job requirements than you; they were simply better at running a team, and probably delegated all of the technical work to you anyway. Does that sound familiar?


So, now that you’ve taken that step up the rung of the work ladder, you’re going to want to make sure that you know as much about motivating people to do the things that they need to, as you possibly can learn, right? Signing up for an executive coaching is going to give you refreshing perspectives to generate additional workable options, to provide you with the confidence you need.

The way that many executive coaches work will often go like this:

A meeting will be arranged to find out the areas where you think that performance improvements can be made. Your most recent performance appraisal will be used as a reference here. You’ll be asked about what you think your strengths and weaknesses are, and then co-workers may be asked if they agree with your opinion. You’ll be asked questions by an executive coach to help you discover some of your available solutions to your issues at work. You will then be guided to systematically design a plan of action that will help you to strengthen in those areas that you’re weak in; and some form of mentoring may be required, just in case you’re struggling with some of the things that you have to do. Then there will be a performance appraisal to see how much of a performance improvement you’ve managed to achieve.

Although ‘executive coaching’ sounds a lot like the ‘team building’ events that you often hear about, they aren’t always quite as much fun; there’s a far more serious side to them, not that you won’t enjoy the unique experience and get a lot out of it.

So, if you feel that you need performance improvement on aspects of your management skills, such as; your professional, and interpersonal communications; your performance management; your level of strategic thinking; your ability to deal with departmental conflict effectively; or, one of many other skills that you’ll learn; then executive coaching is going to help to make a big difference in your ability to lead people effectively.

If you are seeking an Executive Coach for yourself or your organization, consider contacting CB Bowman at Executive Leadership, LLC 908 822-9655 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; www.exec-leadershipllc.com.

CB Bowman, MBA is the president, CEO of Executive Leadership, LLC. She is also the Chairperson and Founder for the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches and the Association of Executive Coaches (www.acec-website.org).

Among mid to senior level professionals Executive leadership LLC is the go to company for individuals and companies seeking human capital repositioning, development and/or growth through coaching, counseling, and strategic advice.

With her Fortune 500 business background, laser like precision, and a take no prisoners approach she swiftly narrows in on the issue, and unlike others, she presents financially sound, creative and action oriented solutions with infinite possibilities

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

When Leaders Need Coaches

When Leaders Need Coaches
By Anthony Goodman
I had a coaching call today. Don’t worry, there is nothing wrong. I am just trying to be more creative in my work. That’s where my coach comes in.
It appears that I am not alone. The coaching industry has grown massively in the last ten years. The International Coach Federation estimates that there are over 30,000 professional coaches worldwide, half of them in the US.
More

Why are perfectly capable people seeking the help of a coach? According to a comprehensive survey of leading coaches in the US and UK in the Harvard Business Review, the most popular reason is to develop the capabilities of high performers or to facilitate transition (48 per cent). Other reasons include to act as a sounding board (26 per cent) or to address behaviour that is likely to derail a career (12 per cent).

Michael Bungay Stanier, senior partner of Toronto-based Box of Crayons and a former Canadian Coach of the Year, says that an important role for a coach lies in “helping a leader understand what’s really going on. This is particularly important for those suffering the loneliness that goes with being the senior leader.”

Matthew Stone, a leading coach in the UK, told me: “People get promoted because they are good at something, not necessarily because they have personal insight. That can create problems throughout the organisation.”

There are many different types of coaching – including outplacement, onboarding, performance, development and transition coaching – and it is important for a potential user to determine what they actually need.

One of Mr Stone’s clients, a senior executive in the UK subsidiary of a major US bluechip said: “Like so many others considering the idea of working with a coach, I didn’t see any need at all. All I saw was the risk of sinking money and time into some fluffy, ill-defined HR-related bunkum. But, my word, I did need it.”

A partner in a Boston-based consulting firm who is currently working with Katharine Halpin, a leading US coach and former board member of the International Coach Federation, told me he wanted, “a sounding board to surface and discuss challenges, priorities and relationships. Someone who is unbiased and has no self-interest and who can expose blind spots.”

Clearly, identifying the right coach is critical to a successful outcome. The consultancy partner told me: “It’s not clear how you would know for sure whether you have the right coach. It’s a bit like asking how you find the right doctor. You definitely know if the coach is ‘wrong,’ but assessing ‘rightness’ is more difficult.”

Ms Halpin, advises: “Look for colleagues who are successful and that you respect. Ask directly if they have worked with a coach or if they can recommend a coach.” Mr Stone suggests that leaders ask potential coaches, “about the experience you will go through. Ask for access to three of the coaches’ clients to get their feedback on the process and the results”.

Mr. Bungay Stanier adds: “Set a trial period. And if it’s not working as well as it should, fire them and find someone else.”

According to the Harvard Business Review survey, most coaching assignments last between seven and 12 months. For Mr Stone and many other business coaches, the assignment starts with “a 360-degree appraisal of strengths and weaknesses, communication style, and an understanding of how the client manages others”.

Mr Bungay Stanier says the process “varies from coach to coach, and for each coach from client to client. But if there’s one thing that tends to be a constant, it’s more questions and less advice than the usual conversations. What’s powerful about that is, for many leaders, thinking time is one of the most precious commodities they have.”

So, having secured the right coach and worked through a process over several months how do you judge success? That’s a tough question for coaches who don’t tend to have elegant methodologies for measuring return on investment.

A much-quoted study a decade ago by Joy McGovern and others identified that “the majority of the 43 participants who provided a numerical estimate reported between $100,000 and $1m as the return on their investment in executive coaching.”

The consultancy partner confided that he was “not sure how to measure objectively, though ultimately the measure is probably whether an individual is closer to achieving his or her full range of goals (which are not always financial, by the way).”

What about our UK executive? His answer was purely qualitative: “I became happier, had less confrontation at work, and influenced and collaborated more easily. I also feel more equipped to deal with stress. I transformed my relationship with my boss, who became and remains a fan and a promoter.”

However, the result is not always so positive. Sometimes the individual seeking coaching comes to the realisation that they are in the wrong organisation. As Mr Stone observes: “If their style is so counter to what the organisation needs, and they can’t be moved because it would be so unnatural to them to behave differently, there will be a parting of the ways.”

According to Mr Bungay Stanier: “Coaching going wrong most typically results in mediocrity rather than disaster. It goes wrong for lots of reasons: lack of chemistry; loss of the connection to the purpose of the coaching; falling into familiar and safe routines; betrayal of trust. In other words, it’s just like every other relationship, both working and personal.”

If you are seeking an Executive Coach for yourself or your organization, consider contacting CB Bowman at Executive Leadership, LLC 908 822-9655 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; www.exec-leadershipllc.com.


CB Bowman, MBA is the president, CEO of Executive Leadership, LLC. She is also the Chairperson and Founder for the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches and the Association of Executive Coaches (www.acec-website.org).


Among mid to senior level professionals Executive leadership LLC is the go to company for individuals and companies seeking human capital repositioning, development and/or growth through coaching, counseling, and strategic advice.


With her Fortune 500 business background, laser like precision, and a take no prisoners approach she swiftly narrows in on the issue, and unlike others, she presents financially sound, creative and action oriented solutions with infinite possibilities

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

10 (NEW) Common Job Search Mistakes

10 (NEW) Common Job Search Mistakes

By: Patti Wilson Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 REPRINT from BlueSteps

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

At the pace that technology and the global economy is moving, it is no wonder that we all have trouble keeping up. It may not be dressed in overalls but it is absolutely hard work. In the last 5-8 years, the way a job search is conducted has altered markedly, and professionals must continue to stay abreast of new styles, techniques and methodologies employed in a career transition. In some ways, our careers are now always “on” due to the interweb.

In other ways nothing has changed, including people seeming to make the same mistakes over and over. There are reasons for this repetitive pattern - it can be summed up best as either taking the obvious route to a goal that is also the path of least resistance, or repeating learned behavior from years gone by without an update.

Here is a list of the top 10 job search mistakes. If you'd like more tools, information and advice on what works in a job search or career transition, then please join my BlueSteps webinar "Planning and Executing Your Job Search Strategy".

1) Search only by job postings: The higher we climb up the corporate ladder, the less likely our job will be posted on Monster.com. The sheer number of applicants for any posting tends to inundate the recruiter and our chances of being selected will be greatly diminished by the sheer volume of competition. Anyways, low hanging fruit is usually too green to be picked and the ripe plums are more out of reach and need to be uncovered.

2) Blasting our resume/CV out in a mass email: This is basically a form of spam and we know what most people do with that. The return on a direct mailings is typically 1-2% of the number sent, and the actual hit rate is even lower.

3) Expecting too much from search firms: We know that search firms are not paid to find anyone a position, but many people hope that if they have high visibility with several search consultants, then a job opportunity will arise as a result. This is simply a game of chance and there is no guarantee that you will be in the right place at the right time. However, building relationships with search consultants can be a valuable - they are always the best source of resources and information on the markets they serve and can provide objective career advice.

4) Formatting our resume/CV like it’s still 1990: In 1990, a resume was printed and mailed by post or entered page by page into a fax machine. In those days a resume had real pages that were held in a hand and read. Now it’s more likely that a Droid smart phone with a 6 inch screen will display our resume. The 1990 format is less than optimum, and can even be detrimental to your branding when in a digital job search.

5) Writing our resume/CV like it’s still 1990: Indeed, some professionals still put the word “resume” at the top of their document and include their references at the bottom. Many professionals still use a CV format for a non-academic job search and put their work history in chronological order. The most egregious mistake is to limit an executive resume to one or two pages that leaves out important and valuable details in the process. Pages do not exist on a screen and professionals resumes are way beyond the MBA resume book stage.

6) Relying on a Linkedin profile for our entire online marketing: Yes, Linkedin is a valuable, even indispensible tool for online visibility and self-promotion, especially during a search. But like relying on search consultants, job postings, resume mail-outs, and immediate networking contacts, it is only one avenue, methodology or tool during a search. It’s very important to cast our branded image far more broadly across the interweb as we have no idea where a new opportunity will arise. Facebook Pages are just beginning to become a powerhouse in the recruitment world.

7) Not digging the well before we are thirsty: With the average executive search taking at least six months, and most positions being found through people we know, or get to know, then it only makes sense to have in place and in a state of readiness a large, supportive, broad-reaching network to call upon at a moment’s notice. Further, staying in touch with our networks and reaching out to help from our side then makes us look less like needy opportunists when we need to ask for help.

8) Conducting a job search by lead generation rather than network building: When we treat every person we meet as a conduit to a job or door opener to a company, then the relationship will be short-lived at best and unable to grow and expand. People hire people they know and like, often despite their qualifications. Our networking contacts act as our goodwill ambassadors to those opportunities out of their affinity for us. It is up to us to build that affinity.

9) The lack of a systematic, well-organized networking database: A good relational database that can tag, categorize, sort, connect relationships and track appointments is a must-have to grow and advance our careers. That so many people still rely on Franklin-Covey bound volumes, Excel spreadsheets, Yahoo address books, and rolodex business cards is testimony to how resistant we are to new learning.

10) Following rules that may be obsolete, irrelevant, or limiting to our search: This list can be as endless as the one page resume is arbitrarily short. The bottom line is that the technologies and tools for search are dynamic, in flux and changing faster than any of us can typically master. But we compound the problem by our inflexibility, and unwillingness to adapt, change and grow.

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Nurturing a Diverse Workforce: A Key Asset to your Organization and your CV/Resume

Nurturing a Diverse Workforce: A Key Asset to your Organization and your CV/Resume

By: Christophe de Callatay Date: Monday, July 18, 2011
At any level of the organization in which you operate, I would advise that you reinforce your profile in strengthening your commitment to diversity and highlighting in your CV throughout your achievements what you have done work with – and maybe recruit - more female and multicultural talent.

How can you demonstrate your commitment to diversity? Wherever possible and at every stage of your career seek to work with more diverse teams, not just demographically, but also in terms of the backgrounds, competencies and interests of their members. Encourage turnover, not only by weeding out underperformers, but also by encouraging rotation to adjacent areas, other geographies, different roles.

A true belief in the value of diversity actually goes far beyond merely including representatives of designated categories (i.e. bringing together individuals from various cultures, ethnic groups, gender or languages). What you want is to work for an organization that embraces individuals with different views and experiences, that brings in new, fresh and challenging perspectives. If you want innovation and creativity to flourish you must have a diversity of viewpoints. This is the basis of rich and thoughtful discussion, of identifying new ways to grapple with familiar problems, and of enriching an organization's leadership capabilities.

At the top, it should be the duty of every CEO assisted by the HR function to recruit and retain individuals who challenge traditional thinking and offer fresh approaches to solving business problems. As a senior executive within any organization, you will be equally expected to embrace diversity in demonstrating your ability to work with individuals who are independent and creative but who also understand the importance of teamwork.

Broad cultural experience is extremely desirable – especially living and working abroad, as well as fluency in multiple languages. Additionally, retained executive search consultants point out that the leaders of tomorrow need to be forward-looking and have creative thinking. Most top-end recruiters I have met indeed seem to agree that while selective skills can be taught, innovation is a key quality of raw talent that sets a candidate apart.

--
This article was written by Christophe de Callatay, Managing Director for Europe at the Association of Executive Search Consultants (AESC).

BlueSteps is the exclusive service of the AESC that puts senior executives on the radar screen of over 6,000 executive search professionals in over 70 countries. Be visible, and be considered for up to 50,000 opportunities handled by AESC search firms every year. Find out more.
Category: Diversity

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

"How NOT to Sound Like a Liar at Work" AND "Business Jargon Makes People Think You're Lying, Study Says"

How NOT to Sound Like a Liar at Work

Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:10:33 PM GMT
REPRINT FROM VAULT.COM


Another entry for the folder marked "things we probably didn't need a university researcher to tell us".

Apparently the use of business jargon is more likely to make people think you're lying. According to BNet, "the study is out of New York University and a Swiss university and shows that when you want to seem believable and trustworthy, concrete language is the way to go."

No, really: there are times when you might want to seem believable and trustworthy—as opposed to all those other times when you're happy to come off as a flaky liar. Best to keep that sincerity for when you really need it, eh?

Anyway, on the rare occasion that you want people to believe what's coming out of your mouth, apparently it behooves you to sound like, well, a normal human being, rather than a robot programmed to ejaculate business-speak.

Here's a handy list of some key terms you may want to avoid—with possible alternatives thrown in for good measure.

Business-speak      What people who aren't liars say:


"Reach out"                     "Talk to/phone/email/send carrier pigeon to"


"Deep dive"                      "Instead of doing our usual half-assed job, we took the time
                                             to investigate properly"


"Circle back"                   "We'll discuss this again--ideally when we actually know something
                                             about it"


"Soup to nuts"                 "Things are so broken we couldn't patch them anymore, so we're
                                             going to fix them properly"


"Deliverables"                  "Mundane tasks I am responsible for completing"


"Ballpark"                        "I have no idea. But here's a guess"


"Verbiage"                       "Words"


"Let's take this offline"    "Let's talk about this after the meeting, so we don't
                                            embarrass ourselves in front of the boss/waste everyone else's time"

Of course, that merely scratches the surface of the horrors of business jargon, but consider it the point where the fun starts: why not submit your own pet peeves below? Bonus points are available in categories including the funniest, most egregious and best translations to normal-speak. Have at it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CLICK HERE: UNSTUCK TRANSLATOR/DICTIONARY THIS IS A RIOT!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Business Jargon Makes People Think You're Lying, Study Says

By Jessica Stillman | July 1, 2011
REPRINT from: BNet

Since way back in high school English class, people have probably been urging you, as per George Orwell’s famous advice, to never use a long word where a short word will do. But this is one lesson that business often finds hard to take to heart.

From ‘blue sky thinking’ and ‘impactful’ to ‘personal brand’ business writing is notorious for its love of fuzzy and complicating terminology. Business jargon is a major office pet peeve (and topic of several heated BNET posts) and likely to annoy co-workers and customers, but is your use of the latest hot term also making you look like a liar?

Yes, suggests new research in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin covered on PsyBlog. The study is out of New York University and a Swiss university and shows that when you want to seem believable and trustworthy, concrete language is the way to go. For instance, take these two sentences:

Hamburg is the European record holder concerning the number of bridges.

In Hamburg, one can count the highest number of bridges in Europe.

These sentences mean entirely the same thing but when asked to rate their truthfulness, people judge the second more highly. Why? The simple, clear image of pointing at arches crossing bodies of water that it conjures up. As PsyBlog summarizes there are several reasons easy-to-picture language equals believable language:

Our minds process concrete statements more quickly, and we automatically associate quick and easy with true.
We can create mental pictures of concrete statements more easily. When something is easier to picture, it’s easier to recall, so seems more true.
Also, when something is more easily pictured it seems more plausible, so it’s more readily believed.
If you want to come across as a straight shooter, the study’s authors suggest, stick as much as possible to simple language that’s easy to visualize — concrete verbs like ‘write’ or ‘walk’ beat ambiguous ones like ‘benefit’ and ‘improve’ — and avoid the passive tense (for those of you with only a hazy recollection of those high school English classes, here’s a quick primer on the difference.)

Still struggling to strip the business jargon from your memos or website copy? Perhaps handy translator Unsuck It can help. It promises to turn corporate speak into non-annoying, standard English and is also not bad for a Friday chuckle.

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

My Other Job Is a Passion

In The Black: Vault's Finance Careers Blog

My Other Job Is a Passion

Posted on Monday, July 11, 2011 8:57:57 PM GMT


Last week, a DealBook article highlighted several former Goldman Sachs insiders who left the investment bank everyone loves to hate as of late to follow their artistic passions. These young ex-bankers and traders either decided to jump ship to begin careers they were already dabbling in on the side, or were forced out of the firm after given an "it's us or them" ultimatum from Lloyd "No Sleep Til" Blankfein and the rest of the Goldman gang. What this story underlined (along with how little Goldman likes its ranks to do anything other than contribute to its bottom line, and a regulation I'd never heard of that requires certain financial institution employees to report all of their outside/freelance earnings to their firm) was that employees of even the most prestigious institutions in the country are not following their passions (or top career choices) on a full-time basis, but instead are doing so on the side, as a second job.

While it might not be a grand revelation that corporate employees often pursue arts-related or other second careers that typically do not/can not "pay the bills," it is surprising just how many do so.

Early last week, before the DealBook piece was published, Vault began conducting a survey that asked respondents if they had a second job and, if so, if they had said job to make ends meet, or to pursue a second career path.

And what we found is that nearly two out of five people (40 percent) do have second jobs, and that one out of four (nearly 25 percent) have the job not because they have to, but because they want to, in order to pursue a second career path.

Which means that a significant number of employees are looking outside their main jobs/careers for satisfaction and/or money.

The Vault study also found that, in addition to the 40 percent who work second jobs, another 30 percent would like to do so but don't have the time. Which means that at least 70 percent of employees are not getting the career satisfaction out of the jobs they're working in now (and/or not earning enough money to pay the bills).

It also means that seven of 10 people who work for you (and whom you can see through your glass window) or who sit in your pod, or in your row of cubes, are not getting the satisfaction they desire by doing what you can see them doing. Unless, of course, they're surreptitiously working (online or off) on that second career path right now.

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

At Goldman, Pressure on Staff to Keep a Low Profile

JULY 7, 2011, 6:49 PM

At Goldman, Pressure on Staff to Keep a Low Profile

By KEVIN ROOSE
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Allen Mask, a former Goldman employee who now works at Google, is pursuing his passion for hip-hop music.
When Matt Levine, a vice president at Goldman Sachs, announced in May that he was leaving his job to become a full-time writer for Dealbreaker, a satirical blog that covers the finance industry, a few colleagues gave him a wary send-off.

“Pretty much everyone thought it was awesome, though some of them are sort of nervous about talking to me now,” he said.

Katie Baker got a similar reaction when she announced that she was planning to leave Goldman’s private wealth management division, where she worked as a vice president, to write for Grantland, a new ESPN sports site. While colleagues in her group were excited, Ms. Baker, 28, had to meet with Goldman executives, who quickly rejected her plans to continue working at the firm for her final two weeks, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

Restless Wall Street workers often dream about quitting their jobs, breaking the so-called golden handcuffs of high-paying finance careers to chase their passions. But several recent Goldman Sachs employees with interests in the media, arts and other visible industries have found themselves in uncomfortable positions with the firm. At Goldman and other banks whose reputations were damaged in the financial crisis, a public persona can be a liability.

In Ms. Baker’s case, she was told that writing about her time at Goldman would represent a breach of her confidentiality agreement, which extended indefinitely. The firm informed Mr. Levine, 33, that he would have to take a paid 60-day leave before he could start at Dealbreaker, a common industry waiting period referred to as a “garden leave.”

“I don’t think it’s all that surprising, given everything that’s gone on with Goldman Sachs and the press,” said Bess Levin, the Dealbreaker editor who hired Mr. Levine.

A Goldman spokesman declined to comment. Ms. Baker and Mr. Levine declined to talk about the contractual terms of their departure, citing their confidentiality agreements.

Investment banks have always prized discretion among employees. But at Goldman — an investment bank so private that many of its employees refer to it simply as “the firm” — there is added pressure to keep a low profile.

Allen Mask came to Goldman’s retail analyst program as a 22-year-old with a side career. An amateur rapper during his time at the University of North Carolina, Mr. Mask had recorded several albums and hoped to further his music career in New York.

“At first, it was a cool thing, and everyone at the firm was like, ‘We’re here to support you,’ ” said Mr. Mask, now 23. “They knew that was part of my life.”

But then a financial blogger discovered his Goldman connection and posted one of his performance videos online, crowning him the “hip-hop investment banker.” As more blogs and media outlets picked up his story, Goldman’s media gatekeepers clamped down. They declined interview and television requests on his behalf and eventually gave him strict orders: no more performing, no more recording and no speaking to the media.

Mr. Mask, faced with a choice between his music and his finance career, decided to quit.

“I didn’t do anything to deserve the negative treatment and the harassment I got,” said Mr. Mask, who now works for Google and lives in Silicon Valley. “It’s not like I changed the share price.”

Tom Comerford, an employee in Goldman’s graphics department, was also a victim of side-career success. In his spare time, he moonlighted for the Wall Street Experience, giving guided tours of New York’s financial district. When a British newspaper wrote an article about Mr. Comerford, he was called into meetings with the firm’s legal and compliance officers. He left the firm of his own accord shortly thereafter.

“I told them I could understand their anger,” said Mr. Comerford, who still gives Wall Street tours.

“But they said, ‘No, you don’t understand. Even if you want to be on the board of your condo, you have to get it passed through us,’ ” he added. “They’re very covetous over their name.”

Goldman has regulatory reasons to be wary. A federal rule requires employees at financial institutions to disclose outside sources of income. Ms. Baker, the wealth manager, wrote paid freelance articles for several blogs while on the job at Goldman without informing the firm, a clear violation of the regulation.

But reputation is just as important on Wall Street.

“People expect their bankers to behave like bankers,” said one former trader at JPMorgan Chase, who left the firm to pursue a film career. The trader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his relationships at the bank, added, “You’re not supposed to be known for anything else or stand out for anything besides your work.”

Image concerns in the corporate world are hardly unique to Goldman, and not everyone gets the third degree. Frank Leung, who worked at Goldman’s London office, left in 2009 to open a Mexican restaurant with a friend from college. Mr. Leung said that he was on good terms with his former colleagues, some of whom he continued to serve as customers at the restaurant.

“Maybe they’re more lenient in the United Kingdom,” he said.

Regardless of the tenor of their departures, recent Goldman dropouts said they were happier now. Mr. Levine and Mr. Mask emphasized that they still had good relationships with Goldman, and Ms. Baker said that her only regret was quitting before a Shake Shack diner went up next to the firm’s Manhattan headquarters. (“Goldman always wins,” she joked.)

For Mr. Levine, taking a big pay cut to work at Dealbreaker — a blog that covers, and often lampoons, his old employer — could be seen as a rogue move. But the blog’s editor, Ms. Levin, said she did not expect Mr. Levine to reveal any trade secrets, although she was excited about having a Wall Street insider on staff.

“Of course Goldman expects me not to write about anything that I saw or did at the firm,” Mr. Levine said. “But I was a corporate equity derivatives marketer and believe me, no one wants to read about that.”

Copyright 2011 The New York Times CompanyPrivacy PolicyNYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Don't Be Too Quick To Accept That Promotion

Don't Be Too Quick To Accept That Promotion



Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2011 7:08:19 PM GMT | Post a comment


When you give 110% to your work and always succeed in your tasks, it only stands to reason that you would want to be recognized for your consistent performance. However, when your boss offers to reward you with a promotion, don’t jump too quickly at the offer. A promotion can be a great way to advance your career, but it could also work against you. Be careful what you wish for. Take these steps before making a final decision:

1. Dig Deeper. What exactly does the promotion entail? Figure out all the specifics involved, including how many additional hours you might be working, who you will be answering directly to, who you will be supervising, how much additional pay you will receive and how far the promotion will take you as far as your resume is concerned. These are the questions you would ask when looking for a job, so why not do the research when taking on a new responsibility?

2. Do You Love Your Job? Just because you work hard doesn’t mean you love your job. Hard work might just be a personality trait. If you hate your job, will the promotion make a difference or just make you hate it even more? This is an important question, because if the promotion means additional hours at a place that makes you miserable, it won’t be long before you end up suffering a nervous breakdown. No one wants that.

3. Don’t Fall Into The Trap. Assess your current position. Are you happy making the money they are currently paying you for the amount that you work? Is the extra bump in salary and responsibility worth the potential risk? How have other people fared in the position you will be filling? If there is a heavy turnover rate, the new job may not be worth it. You have a responsibility to yourself – making sure you have enough money for shelter, food, clothing, etc. Taking a promotion that might lead you right to the unemployment line may not be the wisest move to make.

4. Talk To Your Family. You should always include your significant other in conversations affecting your future. If the new job is going to ruin your work/life balance, what good is a promotion when you lose the ones you love the most? If your family is willing to understand the sacrifices involved and support your decision to accept the promotion, then go into your new role with strength behind you.

5. Resume Radiance. If a promotion is going to take you off of your specific career track, then why accept the offer? See if there are opportunities that will build your resume and wait it out until one becomes available. Do not just accept a new position because the title makes you feel importance. It’s really how other companies you aspire to work for see you that really matters and the wrong moves could hurt you in the long run.

--Jon Minners, Vault.com


PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

PROFESSIONAL "411": 8 important tips for Skype interviews

8 important tips for Skype interviews (meetings)

(CareerBuilder.com) -- With video interviews becoming more common during hiring, not being prepared can easily keep you out of the running. While meeting via video is time saver, getting past the technological barriers of not speaking face-to-face can be difficult.

Be sure you're prepared and use Skype to your advantage, experts say. For one, use your computer screen to refer hiring managers to your achievements or provide explanations.

"Prepare a digital portfolio that you can link to during the interview or show the interviewer your screen, which has a sample of your work," says social media expert Marian Schembari, who adds that you can also send relevant links through the chat function.

Looking for more ways to impress? Here's how to handle a Skype or video interview:

1. Look at the camera, not the screen

It can be confusing, but when you're looking at your monitor it actually makes the interviewer feel as if you're looking away. Instead, look directly at the video camera you're using for your interview. And although you're not making eye contact in the traditional sense, this is the way that the interviewer perceives that you're looking straight ahead.

2. Be aware of interruptions

Since you're used to living in the house, it can be easy to forget to turn off a phone or not warn family members to give you some privacy, Schembari says. Have a plan for whatever distractions you have in your house, including children and dogs. "Too many people don't take [Skype interviews] as seriously as in-person interviews, but you need to be just as professional here," she says.

3. Practice in front of a mirror

During the interview, you can see yourself in the video camera, which can be startling if you've never seen yourself speak. "It's important to get familiar with your own facial expressions when you talk," says Colleen Aylward, chief executive of InterviewStudio Inc., a company that offers video interview capabilities. "It also gets rid of some of the camera shyness."

4. Mind the background

Your surroundings can say a lot about how you've prepared for the interview, so it's important to put your best foot forward. "Shoot your video against a blank wall or a warm one-color background," Aylward suggests. "Clear off your desk, or have only awards and certificates in the background."

5. Avoid patterned clothing

Wear a shirt that's business casual and complimentary to your skin tone. Avoid patterns that come across as too loud on screen, such as anything floral or bright stripes. Clothing can distract the interviewer from the information conveyed during the conversation, so it's important to plan your outfit carefully.

6. Conduct a mock interview

Being comfortable with the technology prevents the added stress from a tech malfunction. Find a person you trust and use Skype or other video conferencing software to conduct a mock interview. You're bound to make mistakes, so it's best to practice with someone who can provide honest feedback.

7. Test audio and video

Just because your laptop has a built-in video camera and microphone doesn't mean the quality is up to par. Instead, test out the video and audio capabilities on your computer and decide whether you need to buy a headset with a microphone or an attachable video camera. Before the interview, some companies may send their own video devices to applicants.

8. Add extra enthusiasm

Any news announcer will tell that your reactions translate differently when on-screen, so it's important to compensate with extra enthusiasm and concise answers. Additionally, speak succinctly and remember that speed is important, Aylward says. "Practice speaking more quickly than you normally do," she says.

© CareerBuilder.com 2010. All rights reserved.


PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Be careful with your agreements: Bayh-Dole Act does not automatically confer ownership of inventions from inventors to institutions receiving federal funds

International Lawyers Network
179 Kinderkamack Road
Westwood, NJ 07675
Phone: 201.594.9985
Website: http://www.iln.com/
Blog: http://legalnetworkzen.blogspot.com/

Be careful with your agreements: Bayh-Dole Act does not automatically confer ownership of inventions from inventors to institutions receiving federal funds

Court holds Bayh-Dole Act simply assures that contractors may keep title to what they already have
The Supreme Court recently held in Stanford v. Roche that the Bayh-Dole Act (also known as the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Action of 1980, the “Act”) does not confer title to federally funded inventions on contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to those inventions. Instead, the Act “simply assures contractors that they may keep title to whatever it is they already have.” Therefore, the institution may retain its ownership provided it meets the remaining requirements of the Act only if it has an agreement with an inventor assigning his or her rights in a federally funded invention.

Upon joining Stanford University, Dr. Mark Holodniy agreed “to assign” to Stanford his “right, title and interest in” inventions resulting from his employment at Stanford. As part of this research, Dr. Holodniy’s supervisor arranged for him to conduct research at Cetus, a research company developing methods for quantifying blood-borne levels of HIV. As a condition for gaining access to Cetus, Dr. Holodniy signed a second agreement by which he actually assigned to Cetus his “right, title and interest in each of the ideas, inventions and improvements” made “as a consequence of [his] access.”
Dr. Holodniy conducted research at Cetus for the next nine months devising a procedure for calculating the amount of HIV in a patient’s blood. Dr. Holodniy then returned to Stanford where he and other Stanford employees developed an HIV measurement technique. Stanford filed several patent applications related to the technique and obtained written assignments for the inventors, including from Dr. Holodniy.
Roche later acquired all of the rights of Cetus, including the rights to the assignment between Dr. Holodniy and Cetus. In 2005, Stanford filed a patent infringement suit against Roche contending that Roche’s HIV test kits infringed Stanford’s patents. Roche responded by asserting that it was a co-owner of the HIV quantification procedure based upon Dr. Holodniy’s assignment to Cetus. Stanford countered that Dr. Holodniy had no rights to assign because his research was federally funded giving Stanford superior rights in the invention under the Bayh-Dole Act.

The Act allocates rights in federally funded “subject invention[s]” between the federal government and federal contractors. The Act defines “subject invention” as “any invention of the contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement,” and provides that contractors may “elect to retain title to any subject invention.” As the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded some of Stanford’s research on the HIV measurement technique, the Bayh-Dole Act applied. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, Stanford notified NIH that it was electing to retain title to the invention and conferred on the government a license to use the patented procedure.
The District Court held that the Dr. Holodniy effectively assigned rights to Cetus, but because of the Bayh-Dole Act, Dr. Holodniy had no interest to assign when he signed that agreement. The Federal Circuit then reversed the District Court, holding that Roche did have an ownership interest in the patents-in-suit, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In affirming the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court held that “the Bayh-Dole Act does not confer title to federally funded inventions on contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to those inventions; it simply assures contractors that they may keep title to whatever it is they already have.”
The Supreme Court rejected Stanford’s contention that the Act reorders the normal priority of rights in an invention when the invention is conceived or first reduced to practice with the support of federal funds.
stated that no where does the Act expressly vest in contractors or anyone else title and nowhere in the

Act are inventors expressly deprived of their interest in federally funded inventions.
The Supreme Court went on to state that only when an invention belongs to the contractor does the Act come into play. The Act serves to clarify the order of priority of rights between the federal government and a federal contractor in a federally funded invention that already belongs to the contractor. By using the word “retention” the Act assumes that the inventor had rights in the subject invention at some point, undermining the notion that the Act automatically vests title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors.

Finally, the Supreme Court noted that its construction of the Act reflects the common practice among parties operating under the Act, i.e., contractors generally institute policies to obtain assignments from their employees. Universities typically enter into agreements with their employees requiring the assignment to the University of rights in inventions. With an effective assignment those inventions, if federally funded, become “subject inventions” under the Act, and the Act as a practical matter works pretty much the way Stanford says it should.

This decision emphasizes the importance of obtaining proper assignments of inventions from employees and contractors. Institutions cannot and should not rely upon the Act to vest ownership in inventions created using federal funds. Therefore, anyone that receives federal funds and is subject to the Act should review their assignments to ensure that the agreements effectively assign rights in any inventions, including, without limitation, those that are federally funded to the institution. Moreover, it is imperative that institutions ensure that their employees have not otherwise assigned their rights in an invention to a third party, especially those involved in shared research.

As a side note, the Federal Circuit in reaching its decision held that Dr. Holodniy’s agreement with Stanford constituted a mere promise to assign rights in the future, but that his agreement with Cetus actually assigned his rights in the invention to Cetus. While the Supreme Court did not address this issue, the applicable agreements with employees and contractors should themselves assign rights in the invention and not be a mere promise to assign in the future.

For more information, please contact:
Todd A. Benni 561.847.2349 tbenni@mcdonaldhopkins.com
David B. Cupar 216.430.2036 dcupar@mcdonaldhopkins.com
David T. Movius 216.430.2029 dmovius@mcdonaldhopkins.com
or any of the intellectual property attorneys at McDonald Hopkins by clicking on the intellectual property link below: Intellectual Property

It is critical in today's technology-driven, global marketplace to effectively procure and manage intellectual property. Our clients rely on us to provide prompt, thorough and efficient counsel on matters involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, trade secrets, intellectual property procurement, and enforcement. We focus on management and enforcement for Fortune 500 companies, mid-cap companies and start-ups. Supported by the talents of our litigation and business law attorneys, our IP attorneys deliver a complete range of innovative and comprehensive solutions, as well as insightful industry expertise. Our in-depth approach enables us to meet the business goals of our diverse client base. In fact, the hallmark of our IP practice is to dovetail our clients’ intellectual property needs with their business plans and strategies, presenting a cohesive and thorough outcome.


PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

The Labor Board Is Giving Employees More Rights To Complain

The Labor Board Is Giving Employees
More Rights To Complain

By D. Albert Brannen and Brian Herman

(Labor Letter, July 2011)

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) grants employees the right to
"engage in…concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection." (emphasis added). This broad statutory language leaves room for
subjective interpretation, and, over the years, the courts and the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) have refined the standard for what conduct is considered
"concerted."

As explained by the current Chair of the Labor Board, Wilma Liebman, despite years of precedent dictating whether employee activity is truly "concerted," the public should
expect "policy oscillations" resulting from changes in the political makeup of the Board. In several recent cases, the Obama Labor Board has shown a willingness to expand the definition of concerted activity to protect employees and labor unions. Employers (both organized and non-union) should take notice of the dramatic shift in the Labor Board's policies. Act now to avoid being caught in these changing tides.

Two Recent Cases Have Expanded the Concept of Concerted Activity

In the 1980s, the Supreme Court confirmed that a single employee acting alone could be engaged in concerted activity and thus could be protected under certain
circumstances. Soon afterward, the Labor Board articulated the standard for
determining when a single employee was engaged in concerted activity to be those times when the individual was seeking "to incite, induce or prepare for group action" or to bring group complaints to the employer's attention.

Two cases decided by the Obama Labor Board this year demonstrate how the Obama
Labor Board is expanding the concept of concerted activity. Parexel International, LLC,
decided in January 2011, involved an employee who complained to a coworker about
her belief that certain employees were paid higher wages and given preferential
treatment. The employee told her supervisor of her complaint, who in turn reported it to
Human Resources. Later, the Human Resources Director asked the employee about
the nature of her complaints. During that conversation, the Human Resources Director
asked if the employee had mentioned her complaints to any other employees, and the
employee said she had not. Six days later, the employer terminated the complaining
employee.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the employer did not violate the law by
discharging the complaining employee. His decision (that the complaint was from a
single employee, acting alone, and therefore not "concerted") was based on existing
precedents. But in a 2-1 decision on review, Chairman Liebman and controversial
Member Craig Becker ruled that the employer violated the NLRA. They reasoned that
the discharge of the employee for expressing her individual complaint was "a pre-
emptive strike to prevent her from engaging in activity protected by the [NLRA]." The
Board continued, stating that "[i]f an employer acts to prevent concerted activity - to ‘nip
it in the bud' - that action interferes with and restrains the exercise of Section 7 rights
and is unlawful."

The Board decided a similar case, Wyndham Resort Development Corp., in March. In
that case, the employer maintained a "resort casual" dress code under which male
employees could wear untucked Tommy Bahama shirts. An employee returned from
vacation and heard a rumor about a new dress code that required employees to tuck in their shirttails. Prior to an employee meeting, the employee confronted his supervisor
and complained about the new dress code policy. He also complained that the company usually put policy changes in writing and he had not seen a memo on the new policy.
The employee said he "might not want to tuck in my shirt" and "I did not sign up for this crap." The supervisor then took the employee into his office, with another employee
witness, to scold him and "invited" him to quit. A few days later the employer simply
issued the complaining employee a written warning.

An ALJ ruled that the employee's protest of the dress code was not concerted because he acted independently of other employees, in his own self-interest and without a
common goal. However, in another party-line split decision, Chairman Liebman and
Member Becker rejected the ALJ's decision and held that the individual employee's
actions were concerted and thus protected, because they occurred in front of other
employees - even though he had not solicited his peers' input on the policy before
voicing his complaints.

Watch Your Step

The shifting Labor Board policies announced in these two recent cases underscore the need for employers to take time to review all of their work rules to make sure they could withstand the scrutiny of the current lineup. Work or behavioral rules that may have
been lawful under the policies of the Bush 43 Labor Board may be deemed unlawful by the current Labor Board.

Chairman Liebman has suggested that employers should add language to their
employee handbooks that makes it clear that the employer's work rules and policies are limited and not intended to violate employee rights under Section 7 of the NLRA. We
agree that such language may be appropriate, at least in the context of rules addressing topics such as solicitation or distribution, off-duty access to employer property,
disclosure of confidential information, contact with government agencies, and non-
disparagement of the employer.

You should also establish precise grievance or problem-solving procedures. Educate your employees about the proper channels and methods of raising complaints. When employees raise complaints, consider whether the act of raising the complaint is subject to the protections of Section 7 of the NLRA. Consider adding the phrase "any protected concerted or union activity" or some similar variation to your standard nondiscrimination or Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policies.

Under the previous NLRB, employers clearly had more latitude to discipline or
discharge individual employees who complained. But with these policy changes and the
dramatic rise in claims of retaliation under various other laws, employers should be
especially cautious when disciplining or discharging complainers or whistleblowers.

For more information contact the authors: dabrannen@laborlawyers.com, bherman@laborlawyers.com, or 404-231-1400.

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

What Exactly Is a ‘Coachable’ Entrepreneur?

What Exactly Is a ‘Coachable’ Entrepreneur?
By ADRIANA GARDELLA

Courtesy BlueTree Capital Group
Catherine Mott

Previously, Catherine Mott, an angel investor, stressed the importance of investing in “coachable” entrepreneurs who surround themselves with solid management teams. As chief executive and founder of BlueTree Allied Angels in Wexford, Pa., Ms. Mott says she knows one when she sees one. But during a recent conversation, I asked her to try to specify what she looks for when investing in start-ups. A condensed version of our conversation follows.

Q. How do you define coachable?

Ms. Mott: It’s very challenging to identify. I wish it were black and white, but it’s more of an intuitive gut feel. During our due diligence process, which includes five to six meetings with a start-up’s management team, we hope to see that the founder is the kind of person who takes advice because we know and understand there’s lots they won’t know. They’ll make mistakes. In effect, we’re giving them tuition money. But we want to mitigate how much of it they’ll lose.

Q. Can you tell me about a founder who failed to gain your confidence?

Ms. Mott: There was one who seemed somewhat coachable. But he had met with a very successful entrepreneur who told him to place an extremely high — and in our view unwarranted — value on his company. The founder assumed he should price his company similarly, just because this other guy did. I suggested that he talk to other people who might be able to offer different viewpoints, and he chose not to. I could see he wasn’t going to listen to, or take, advice. Another problem was that he had only one independent on his board. The rest were insiders. He’s still not funded.

Q. Why is a start-up’s management team so important?

Ms. Mott: When you first get into this business as an investor, there’s a tendency to fall in love with a technology. But it’s not the technology that makes the company. It’s the people. You can identify a need in the market and be an industry upsetter, but you’ve got to have the right people to execute. Founders need to make us comfortable that they’ve analyzed their strengths and weaknesses and know how to compensate for the latter.

Q. How can entrepreneurs show you they’ve done this analysis?

Ms. Mott: We want them to be able to say, “I know I’m an engineer. I know nothing about sales or marketing. I know we need someone to develop a marketing plan.” It scares the living dickens out of us when we’ve got all engineers in the room and they’ve made one the vice president of sales. It’s a human foible. We’re more comfortable with people like us. I was recently at an incubator, speaking with a founder who said he knew he was not C.E.O. material. I was thrilled.

Q. Why should a founder listen to an investor?

Ms. Mott: I can only speak for BlueTree, but we are not unreasonable. I don’t hire yes people. I promote people who challenge me. I’m not always right. But I’ve built a solid company and have some experience. I’ve invested in 24 companies and been through four exits. I’ve got a pretty good feel. The longer you do this, the more you can trust your gut.

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Teaching Women to Think Like Angels (INVESTORS)

Teaching Women to Think Like Angels (INVESTORS)
By ADRIANA GARDELLA

Natalia Oberti Noguera

The overwhelmingly male field of angel investing is about to become a bit more diverse. Ten women, including some business owners (TechCrunch has the full list), will soon learn the secrets of angel investing during the Pipeline Fund Fellowship’s inaugural six-month program for aspiring female angels. Beginning this month, the group, chosen from among 50 applicants, will attend monthly workshops on issues like due diligence and valuation, and will be paired with mentors who are seasoned male and female investors. The program, held in New York, will culminate with an investment by the group in a women-led, profit-making, socially conscious venture.

The Pipeline Fund Fellowship was founded by Natalia Oberti Noguera to address the lack of gender diversity in the world of venture capital, while also improving funding options for the types of businesses in which the fund will invest. “Our goal is to change the culture of the investment world,” she said. While other funds (such as Golden Seeds), and nonprofits (like Springboard Enterprises) promote investment in women-led companies, Ms. Oberti Noguera, 27, said her program differs because it offers education, mentoring, and practical experience combined. Additionally, it is relatively accessible financially, requiring each fellow to pay $1,000 for the program and commit to investing $5,000 toward a $50,000 investment in a start-up that meets the fund’s specifications.

Elizabeth Crowell, who owns Sterling Place, a gift shop in Brooklyn, is among the angels-in-training. After building her business for seven years, she said she is ready for a different role and is eager to leverage her experience to help female entrepreneurs. A competitive swimmer who has coached the sport, Ms. Crowell said investing draws on elements of coaching, which she always loved. “As an investor, you’re on the sidelines to support,” she said. “It will be nice to be able to come up with ideas and not have to execute them,” she added. Although Sterling Place is not seeking capital, Ms. Crowell said, “sizing up different businesses and strategizing growth opportunities for them, may spark ideas for my own.”

While Ms. Crowell, 40, focuses on the program, her husband and business partner will handle more day-to-day responsibilities at the store. The couple, who have two young children, often liken their business to a third child. Ms. Crowell, who believes she will continue to invest after the program ends, said she suspects the companies in which she becomes involved will not occupy “the same emotional space.” One thing she said she knows for sure: “I won’t be showing up at the businesses every day, dealing with leaking roofs, sanitation permits and overflowing toilets.”

Another fellow, Erica Frontiero, 33, is a senior vice president in capital markets for GE Capital. She said that, while she spends her workdays raising funds for large companies, she lacks the confidence to invest in the start-ups of friends and friends-of-friends who seek her guidance. “I’d like to understand how the businesses I work with on a daily basis got where they are,” she said.

Ms. Frontiero sees a lack of resources for female entrepreneurs who wonder, for example, what is the right percentage of company ownership to give up, or, what is the likelihood that an investor will ask for a certain percentage. Despite the large number of women who are starting businesses, she said, “we still aren’t really talking about finances and investing with each other.”

In the months to come, we will follow the fellows as they become angels and decide where to invest their pooled resources.

You can follow Adriana Gardella on Twitter.


PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Important news about Google

Google's New Social Network Google+

Google also launched its latest and greatest social media attempt this week, the social network Google+. Google+ has much in common with Facebook. Both networks allow you to friend or follow people and share photos, videos, and comments. They each offer the feature of a wall, or stream of information about what your friends are doing. They even look pretty similar.

However, Google+ is different in how it allows you to manage your friends. It has introduced something called Circles. Each friend can belong to one or more circle, or group of friends. When you share information, you can select which individuals you want to share the content with on a case by case basis.

Google+ also allows you to "hang out" with friends through group video chat. You can share videos, chat, or talk to each other via video. You still have the ability to only share your hangout session with the circles indicate you'd like to.

Google has also integrated Google+ throughout all of Google's other properties through a menu bar that now appears at the top of your browser window. It keeps you updated on what's happening in Google+, whether you are in your email account or keeping up with your blogs in your reader.

Marketing Lesson: Google+ is an interesting new development in the social media world. We have yet to see how it will impact search results and inbound marketing, but you can keep updated on how marketers can use Google+ by following HubSpot!
Google's Ban of Co.cc Domains

A SIDEBAR! FYI

Google Bans A Domain

On Thursday evening, Google banned the Co.cc domain, which removed every website using that domain from all Google search results. While Google reserves the right to ban all sites on a certain host if a high percentage of sites hosted on that domain are spammy, it's not something they do very often.

Marketing Lesson: As a marketer, Google's co.cc ban is an example of why it's very important to make sure all your content is hosted on domains that you own.

Google's Ebook/Video on Zero Moment of Truth

This week, Google also released an ebook and video explaining the zero moment of truth (ZMOT). ZMOT is a theory about consumer buying practices. It builds on the First Moment of Truth (FMOT), as defined by P&G back in 2005. According to P&G, FMOT is the first moment when a consumer interacts with your product on a store shelf. ZMOT takes the idea one step further. It refers to the time between when a consumer first becomes aware of your product and when they buy it.

Today's consumers begin to build relationships with and make decisions about products before they ever even come in contact with the product. According to Google's report, 70% of Americans say they look at product reviews before making a purchase, and the average shopper references 10.7 sources of information before buying.

Marketing Lesson: Brands need to be practicing inbound marketing to ensure that consumers are have a great zero moment of truth. 


Don't forget to tune into the Marketing Update live next Friday at 4 PM ET!

Read more: http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/18671/What-Marketers-Should-Know-About-Google-s-Latest-Announcements-HubSpot-TV.aspx#ixzz1RA9TAoL5

3 mistakes every entrepreneur can learn from

3 mistakes every entrepreneur can learn from
 
Posted: 30 Jun 2011 06:00 AM PDT
(Editor’s note: Chad Little is the founder and CEO of FetchBack. He submitted this story to VentureBeat.)

As entrepreneurs we tend to beat ourselves up over the tiniest mistakes – but sometimes we make big ones. I’ve been part of four ventures over 20 years, but some of the biggest I’ve made came when I launched Sandbox Entertainment. We had millions of customers – but little revenue. I was the founder – but ultimately, I was fired. We had roughly 100 employees – but no team.

The good thing about mistakes is you can learn from them. Here’s what I did wrong.

Mistake #1: Not prioritizing the company culture – At Sandbox, I was so focused on things like fundraising and acquiring customers that culture wasn’t on my priority list.

During the course of building the company we acquired another entity, whose employees had a culture that didn’t match ours (or that of a startup company). Through no fault of their own, they continued working as they always had, which unfortunately didn’t mesh well with our existing way of running things. It’s something I should have paid attention to, but didn’t – and that was a huge screw-up.

By the time I realized there was a problem, the internal culture was completely out of synch. Trying to re-synch the process was so burdensome that it began to take time away from innovating the product and creating a sustainable model.

My takeaway from this was to spend time building a company culture that contributed to the overall success from the very beginning. I also learned to pay attention to the symptoms of a workforce that isn’t working and deal with it swiftly.

Mistake #2: False sense of financial security  – The ability to raise capital and high valuations was completely out of hand in the 90s and we all know how that ended. Like so many dot-coms, we were handed a pile of money that made us feel secure, but it was an illusion.

Because of that influx, we spent cash like it was guaranteed to keep flowing. Because of a ripe market and some really smart viral marketing, we had an amazing growth in our user base early on, but that didn’t mean we had a sustainable revenue plan (something we considered to be a minor detail at the time, thanks to the cash infusion).

I knew that it would take years for the organization to drive big revenue, but we could have easily implemented another model to curb some of the mounting costs, and probably would have made the business cash flow neutral. Here’s the kicker: without a large bank account, we might have been forced to come to that conclusion, or another creative way to keep revenue coming in the door. This effort may have even saved the company. But we didn’t feel the need to go there, since our bank account was padded by VC dollars. Ultimately, we realized we shouldn’t have taken the big round.

Mistake #3: No clear vision – Sandbox had no clear vision – and, at the time, no one realized how problematic this was. Before you talk to an investor – hell, before you talk to your first prospective customer – pull your partners and executive team together and come to terms on this. Take as much time as you need here because this will be what you go back to when things go awry (and they will go awry).

I was rightly fired from the company I had founded and I believe it partly goes back to my failure to take this step. After I was dismissed, Sandbox was merged into another company – and the remaining executives weren’t able to stand their ground on how the company should grow, because they had no ground. Had we built a formal vision and stuck to our guns, things might have turned out quite differently.

        
PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

Is your company ready for the second wave of social media?

Is your company ready for the second wave of social media?

By Jesse Stanchak on June 24, 2011 | 

When people ask what the next big thing in social media will be, they’re usually looking for an ascendant platform that will supplant Facebook the way Facebook supplanted MySpace or they’re expecting a feature set, such as geo-location or group messaging. But what if it’s not a network or a tool? What if it’s an application?

“Internal social media is the second wave … the future of work is in communities,” said Cisco’s Andrew Warden at this week’s Corporate Social Media Summit.

Warden gave the crowd four reasons to start looking at internal social tools:

The next wave of employees will expect it. The current workforce has members of every generation who love social tools, as well as those who loathe them. But the next generation of workers will have no such divide, Warden argued. These workers will have grown up with these tools and will expect to use them as part of their internal work communications, because that’s how they’ve always communicated. Failing to have an internal social media system in place would alienate these workers and keep them from fully contributing to the company, Warden said.

The workforce is increasingly global. Global deals, branch offices and telework are going to become more common for companies of every stripe and if you want remote teams to work together and stay engaged with their mission, you need to give them tools to work collaboratively, just as if they were all in the office together, Warden noted. Social tools also make 24-hour operations and complex global deals easier on employees, by allowing work to pass easily between time zones, thus empowering work/life balance without a loss of continuity.

It can make management easier. By watching internal social communications between employees, managers can figure out where their workers are spending the most time, where their pain points are and what resources are needed to enhance performance, Warden noted.

A strong corporate culture may depend on it. The focus of social media so far as been on external branding — communicating your vision and values to your customers. But what about your employees? Do they understand the company’s vision? Do they share it? Feel like they’re a part of it? Live it out everyday in their work? Warden notes that internal branding allows your company strategy to permeate the corporate culture, instead of working against it.

Of course, embracing internal social media will bring me fresh challenges, he notes. The technology is still evolving — Cisco decided to build their own internal tools rather than go with an outside vendor. Training is key, particularly since broad guidelines such as “don’t do anything stupid” can mean radically different things to workers of different generations. And not every department will embrace such tools with the same vigor, possibly creating the need for incentive programs, he noted. All the more reason to get started now — before the next generation of workers shows up.

How are you using social media within your own company?

PRESENTED BY: Executive Leadership, LLC SPECIALIZING IN: Career Transformation or Change and Executive Coaching or Development - (908) 822-9655 WEBSITE: http://www.exec-leadershipLLC.com

ANNOUNCING THE NEW: “Association of Corporate Executive Coaches” and “Association of Executive Coaches” Join now on LinkedIn for free during open enrollment~

 ANNOUNCING THE NEW:

“Association of Corporate Executive Coaches”

and

“Association of Executive Coaches”

Join now on LinkedIn

for free during open enrollment~

======================================================

the “Association of Corporate Executive Coaches”

for Executive Coaches, who specialize in the corporate area

======================================================

See your LinkedIn directory of groups for

"ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE EXECUTIVE COACHES (ACEC)"

ABOUT ACEC

ACEC is dedicated to serving Executive Coaches who specialize in coaching business leaders in the Corporate, Non-Profit and Professional arena. It is our intent to use our upcoming blog, website, social networks and events so that we can collectively serve as a source for our target audiences.

As we grow, services we plan to provide include certification, client industry updates, coach-to-coach sounding boards, webcast, conferences, face-to-face meetings, technical support, guest speakers, lobbying for client/coach confidentiality, group blogging, marketing support packages, and much more.

ACEC MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS:

1. Masters degree in business, or in a business related field such as:
           Marketing,
           Leadership,
           I/O Psychology,
           Labor Law/Relations, or
           Management etc.
2. Professional experience working in a corporation preferably on the income side, working in a non-profit on the executive administrative side or as a profitable entrepreneur in a business preferably other than coaching.
3. Evidence of a minimum of 4 corporate clients/key contributors where coaching was focused on organizational performance or development.
4. A recommendation from 2 clients (recommendations on your LinkedIn profile may be used)
5. Submission of your coaching methodology.

Please email this information to: cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; or feel free to contact CB Bowman @ 908 822-9655 from 11am to 6 pm est./USA

ACEC MEMBER PROMOTION

Self-promotion is welcomed in the promotion section. It is here that we recommend that you place your bio and your coaching methodology so that potential clients can learn about your experience. Your fee structure may also be included.

ACEC FEES

Membership is currently free during open enrollment.

Certification by ACEC is currently not required to join. In 2012/ 2014 our goal will be to require certification. Current members in good standing will be grandfathered.

======================================================

ANNOUNCING:

the “Association of Executive Coaches"

AEC is dedicated to Executive and Career Coaches

who serve the general public.

======================================================

See your LinkedIn directory of groups for

"ASSOCIATION OF EXECUTIVE COACHES (AEC)"

ABOUT AEC

It is our intent to use LinkedIn and the upcoming blog, website, and events to serve as a source for our target audiences.

As we grow services we plan to provide include coach-to-coach sounding boards, webcast, conferences, face-to-face meetings, guest speakers, lobbying for client/coach confidentiality, group blogging, and much more.

AEC MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

Certification in coaching from an accredited institute or evidence of experience
Certification in two coaching assessment instruments i.e. MBTI, 360 etc.
A recommendation from 2 clients (recommendations on your LinkedIn profile may be used)
Submission of your coaching methodology


AEC FEES

Membership is currently free during open enrollment. Certification by AEC is currently not required to join.

Please email information to: cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; or feel free to contact CB Bowman @ 908 822-9655 from 11am to 6 pm est./USA

Website currently under construction

www.acec-website.org