If you are the owner or top executive of your company, join Ren Carlton, President/ CEO of Dynamic Advisory Solutions, for the CEO Mastermind Event.
On Wednesday, April 25th at 9am, Renaissance Executive Forums is hosting Ren Carlton as their award-winning keynote speaker to discuss the financial aspects of business. Specifically, he will discuss the importance of hiring a qualified CFO capable of making profitable decisions in the interest of your company. Further, he will explain the many reasons why other professionals within your finance department, such as your bookkeeper or CPA, will never be the CFO that your business needs.
For entrepreneurs… By entrepreneurs, this event cannot be missed! Renaissance Executive Forums is an excellent way to network with other top professionals, and get the guidance that you need to take your business to the next level!
Event: “Your CPA Is Not Your CFO! But Your Bookkeeper Is Closer Than You Think…”
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012
Time: 9:00am- 10:30am EST, Registration & Continental Breakfast at 8:30am
Location: Automation Alley, 2675 Bellingham, Troy, MI 48083
FREE! To Top Executives (Business Owners/ CEOs/ Presidents)
FREE! Autographed copy of the book Profitpreneurship: #1 on Amazon!
COMPLIMENTARY! 2 month trial to Chief Executive Forum!
Click here to register now!

For more information, visit Renaissance Executive Forums .

Want more?

Follow me on Twitter.
Connect with me on LinkedIn.
Friend me on Facebook.
Add me to your Circles on Google+.
Read Profitpreneurship.

 

Additional Comments

 

From LinkedIn:

When a company is getting their first CFO, they are usually having reporting issues caused by growth. Internal controls and data structure have not been a factor. The owners of the company begin to recognize they can no longer “feel” where the business is at. They usually are very smart people and know change is needed.

The key is to mature and change together. CFOs are change agents at this point. The functions of the controller and CFO are not clearly defined at this point.

Controllers look backwards creating a solid general ledger and building staff for the day-to-day (often overlooked value-added stuff). The CFO oversees this process and insures it is consistent, repeatable and auditable. The CFO looks forward through strategic budgets and analytics. Communications with other departments and senior management becomes a pivotal part of the function.

In short there is a time for the CFO.
Posted by Henry Gransee

The most important thing is to meet a customer’s needs. Each team member should be well-trained for this task. Cross-training is important for emergencies (sick/medical leave), and procedures manuals should be required for all job levels. For a job consistently well done- invest in the right people.
Posted by Heather King

I do think, at a certain point, having employees focus on too many areas is detrimental as it is difficult to become an expert in every area. I have found as a CFO, that having close involvement in operations is beneficial to the company in that the financial analysis, and communication of the results can be tailored to fit the company and its strategic plan.
Posted by Joan Kulka

I think local networking groups who meet regularly and linked in are the best way for small businesses to network as the cost is very low and you can select who you wish to network with.
Posted by Alastair Jack

Accountants will never become irrelevant even when you have high quality software. For any software to function you require “Input” the process and “Output”. There is a GIGO “Garbage in Garbage Out” Principal. What you input in the Software system will produce the output – Final Accounts. A Professional and experience d Accountant will be able to analyse the numbers and identify the risks in the business and warn the Board.
At the end of the day the Board has the right to follow or reject the Accountants advice. Or the Board can manipulate the accounts (Enron) to satisfy their personal greed. The Accountant here should have been the guardian of company’s funds.
Posted By Michael Mapendere

I have mixed feelings as well. A simple example is the person who is hired to be a waiter in a restaurant and suddenly finds that the chef has been fired and the restaurant will not hire another chef because the waiter can do both jobs at the same time. Will the restaurant be able to sustain itself if a larger customer base is realized? Will the over worked waiter be able to help grow the business while doing two jobs? Then there are safety considerations. Should the waiter not deserve a higher salary? That of both his current pay and the job that he was asked to take over in the name of globalization?
Posted By Joseph Polko

Gentlemen, this is a very interesting conversation. I am not trying to get in between it or take side, but I see both sides in a way. A person can do all they can do to their standards, but the direct feedback from their superiors is definitely need for most people if you look back that the psychology of business (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs or Herzberg’s hygiene theory). As a manager you must keep employee morale in order for your employees to want to work for you instead of wanting to work for a paycheck. I find that a lot of people in this world lack self-motivation, however there are many on this discussion that don’t.

As far as requiring an employee to perform functions outside of their job role, the results can be positive or negative depending on how you handle it. Juan had a great way to handle it….Lead by example! My experience is that if you allow an employee to perform a duty that is about his job description, depending on how you handle it, you may be get an employee that is disgruntle after he/she goes back to their old duties. That person may be someone that you are considering promoting in the near future. Now you have a motivated individual doing a new job and you get to see what they would be like in a different role. As far as asking them to do a job below their pay grade, Juan’s way would be how I would do it. Inform them that it’s just temporary and simply ask regardless of the duty being above or below their pay grade. I have never had an individual tell me no.

In summary to all of this, it is about knowing your employees and how to deal with them…keep positive morale!
Posted By Adrian T. Marable

I simply cannot comprehend this conversation. There is ZERO reason to have narrowly defined job functions. One should always be flexible no matter where. Sure, we have specialties, but the ONLY time I have ever given very poor ratings to employees were when an employee refused to do something because it was not in his job description. This is some kind of union type mentality which we need to totally erase from the world.
Posted By Sam Thornton

Simply stated, if an Employee is unwilling to go beyond the functions of his role, step out of his comfort zone, etc etc….then how else is he supposed to improve his skill set and move up ? Im in agreement with a Manager lending a hand, but put way more stock into the Employee’s willingness to step “Outside the box”……

AS far as a risk vs. reward for this, I think you would gain more by trying to use current employees to take over the responsibilities….unless the task requires certs, licenses, etc…then immediately look outside for a qualified candidate. Use of current employees would bolster the employees faith in the Mgmt, showing them you are willing to let someone try to take on new challenges, and IF it works, it allows you to hire a replacement at the starting wage…which (assumed) would be lower than the current employee.

Its rather risky for an employee to “turn down” an opportunity if Mgmt comes to them with it. In my area, our unemployment rate is still very close to double digits, and the fear of someone better just around the corner is VERY much a reality. There seems to be a lot more ” I better do it” than “Its not my job” nowadays..
Posted By Michael Sigman

Wow. You guys are tough. As a heretofore neutral observer, let me add my contribution:

I come from a regulated industry in which employees are required to have “…adequate education and experience to perform their appointed tasks”. If you’re going to ask an employee to take on tasks for which he/she is not qualified, then you must be prepared to provide the appropriate training/coaching.

I think cross-training is of great value. I know of several managers whose standing policy is “everyone gets trained on everything…” (to the extend practical). The result is a highly trained and flexible work-force.

This may not be as easy to implement outside of regulated industries, where training is required; and simply “throwing your employee into the deep end of the pool” is likely to bite you sometime in the future. But I tend to think that most employees appreciate the the chance to broaden their skills, engage in more varied & interesting work, if they know they will receive the appropriate management support.
Posted By Lou Ragni

My experience with employees not wanting to do things outside their job description is not the lack of training, but the general lack of interest of some people. Often they think the task required is beneath them. To me, that is not an acceptable response. Certainly proper training is always a necessity; in places I have worked (never regulated) that was not an issue, fortunately I suppose.
Posted By Sam Thornton

Great discussion so far. Just my opinion, but the “Something for Nothing” statement is WAY too subjective. That person is employed by a company and being paid for the time spent on the clock. As long as there is nothing unsafe, immoral, unethical about the proposed new task he/she is being asked to perform, there shouldn’t be an issue, UNLESS, like I’ve said before, there are certifications, qualifications, etc that are a must. No one should grade an employee “lower” because they didn’t want to step out of their current role, I agree, but I can tell you that if the need arises again, that employee will not be asked again. As tough as good employment is to come by nowadays, just my semi-worthless opinion, you do NOT pass up an opportunity, you will most likely never get another one.

As far as asking the right employee, reading the “mood” of the employee, etc….thats where MY experience is needed, I better use my skills as a manager to make a competent decision, or I’m not doing my job to the best of my ability.
Posted By Michael Sigman

Not sure I entirely agree, Michael: It’s true times are tough, but capable people get employment. Employees are people too, and have limitations, concerns, likes, dislikes, etc.. I feel employers need to take the interests of their employees into account…It’s not just about the “contract”.

I worked as a stock-boy when I was a kid and the store manager was the kind of guy who pitched in if you needed help; praised you when you did well, scolded when you didn’t: People would do ANYTHING just because it was him asking.

There was another ass’t manager, not so nice…mostly yelled…acted the boss: Couldn’t get anyone to do squat..

Sometimes it’s just a people thing.
Posted By Lou Ragni

I second Lou’s comment: When you require an employee to fill an extra position or one outside of his/her current position are you not trying to get “something for nothing”? That person was hired for a job at a certain salary and work conditions and they agreed to that situation. If they are allowed to grow they will, but their compensation should also reflect that. When it comes time for salary review they should be mindful of what they are being graded on. You can’t label them as having a bad attitude for that. Also from the internal customer’s point of view: If you went to a hardware store and asked the attendant for a steak dinner and they agreed to get you one: How long would it take? How good would it be? and How much would it cost? Is it a win/win situation?
Posted By Joseph Polko

Interest level regained…. We cannot always expect someone to *not* turn down an opportunity because the work may be out of their comfort zone. “The world needs ditch diggers too.” There will always be workers who are happy where they are. Just a little more responsibility may be too stressful for them. The original question is “What is the biggest issue with requiring an employee to perform functions outside of his job role?” The key word being “requiring”. My standing on the issue is that a time sensitive job should only be offered, not required. Maybe incentives would help like rewarding with an hour lunch for the day instead a half hour but forcing the job may result in poor workmanship, injury, scrapped parts and/or a disgruntled employee. I really do understand the value in offering the opportunity which should always be encouraged, just not mandatory. Employees perform their best when they enjoy what they do.
Posted By Juan Del Rio

Juan I agree. I also agree that employees *should* see new responsibilities as opportunities and *should* have the desire to make a needed contribution regardless of job title…but when that is not the case the manager has a couple of choices:

1-Seek to understand the underlying reasons for the employee’s refusal and apply a little psychology.
2-Ask someone else who is willing (you’ll probably get a better job out of them)
3-Call HR.

Employees are free to make their own choices and to pay consequences or reap rewards accordingly.
Posted By Lou Ragni

A key factor is what is the budget that we are working with? Another question is what is the product. If affordable a combination of all the above.

Social networking in today’s world is required for a company. But to be effective you will have to invest significant time. Actual time and effectiveness depends on the product.

Networking is an excellent tool. Venues need to be chosen carefully and building this requires an investment. I currently attend ASQ meetings and events. After 1 year of active involvement we have established an ongoing webinar program with National exposure.
Posted By Bill Mitchell