Why It Is Hard For Foreigners To Work In the U.S.?

Most of my readers are Americans.  But many of you know people who are foreign nationals who want to work here.  Please pass this information to them.

                                                               

Despite the plethora of worldwide agencies, it is very difficult to obtain work in the United States, even for employees of those agencies.  In many cases, some companies, as a matter of form, simply ignore people with foreign credentials (they even discount Americans who have worked abroad), even those from their own offices abroad..

Foreign nationals face a double whammy when they move or want to move here.  First, agency people are reluctant to do the paperwork necessary to obtain visas.  Second, and possibly more important, because the U.S.  is geographically isolated and many of us are infrequently exposed to people with advertising training in other countries, so there is a built in prejudice against foreigners..  One HR person commented to me that people from other countries don't know U.S. media.  That is laughable since anyone in the business under forty years old has not been intimately involved with  U.S. media operations since  the media companies became separated from the general agencies.

Most people who work in Europe or Asia are constantly exposed to people from other nations; they know that people assimilate and learn quickly.  Advertising is not a complicated business and the principals are the same throughout the world.  In the United States, we do somewhat better with with English speaking people – people from the U.K., South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.  But we are often adverse to others, no matter how well they speak English.  

Almost every day I receive résumés from people throughout the world.  I can honestly say that some of them are wonderful and might make a great contribution to American companies, but few will get a chance.  American ad agencies reject most of them out of hand. 

Case in point: I recently interviewed a wonderful person from Singapore.  She had worked for one of the major international ad agencies, spoke perfect English and had absolutely stellar CPG credentials.  Her husband was transferred here so she was totally eligible to work in the United States with minimum paperwork.  The woman from Singapore had been highly recommended to the U.S. office of her former employer.  She contacted the New York office, which had received the references, and the human resources person, despite the excellent recommendation, wouldn’t give her an interview; she was told to keep checking back with their web site to see if any appropriate jobs were posted.  I thought that was shameful. HR could have done the courtesy and found a half an hour for an interview. Had she called her former CEO, she probably could have gotten him to get her an interview, but she was reluctant to call in the favor.

There is no question that visa applications are a pain.  No one likes to do them. But when the talent is good, the extra work may be well worthwhile.  In this business, talent trumps everything else.

Most of the people here with working visas, initially got American jobs either through transfers or knew a senior executive who was able to champion their candidacy for employment here.  Sadly, there are actually several ad agencies which have instructed recruiters not to submit anyone who requires sponsorship of any kind. I can honestly say that in all my years of recruiting, I have only been able to place one foreign national here in  an initial U.S. job. Other recruiters tell me the same.  This even applies to Canadians and Mexicans who are eligible to work here under NAFTA; however it is somewhat easier to place a Canadian (I have placed several).

It is also difficult to place an American who has worked abroad.  (I once had a really good HR person tell me that she did not want to see an American candidate who had worked in Eastern Europe because she did not fully understand what an account person might do in one of those countries.  That is the result of our being geographically isolated.)

The truth is, many big city ad agencies don’t even want to interview Americans from another U.S. city.  The issue in recruiting (and hiring) is always talent.  We put square pegs in square holes and there should be no issue if someone has lived and worked somewhere else.  I suspect one of this issues, particularly in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, is that we are snobs and cannot believe that an advertising person from somewhere else might actually be qualified or know more than someone home grown.

Ironically, once a foreign national has their first U.S. job, it is somewhat easier for them to transfer visas and move to another company.  I have placed many of them who simply required a visa transfer; but even doing that, with proven talent, some agencies are reluctant. 

My heart goes out to people who come here and want to work here but find it really difficult.

Clients Approving Agency Hires Sends A Bad Signal

Many years ago, my dad, also Paul, ran a successful advertising agency.  Gumbinner-North was the twentieth largest agency in the world.  My dad had wonderful insights into the business.  Once I had achieved some prominence in the industry, he warned me that, and I am quoting, “Fees will be the death of the agency business as we know it.”  He couldn’t have been more right.

One of the many issues with fees is that it puts clients in charge of their own business.  Part of what agencies should be paid for is their objectivity.  But with fees, clients have the last word.  One of the manifestations of this is clients who insist on meeting candidates who will work on their account prior to their being hired by the ad  agency.  (Or, worse, agencies who do it out of fear and volunteer to have clients interview prospective hires for their accounts). 
                                                                    

This is alarmingly common, especially with senior executives, but I have seen account executives and account supervisors who have been forced to meet with their prospective clients prior to being offered  a job.  Some agencies have told me that this is a courtesy and the clients do not have the right of approval. That is BS and unlikely - an agency is hardly going to make the hire if, for some reason, the client does not like the potential employee or has negative comments: “Oops, sorry, we are going to hire her/him anyway.”  Wrong.

By having the client meet the potential employee prior to hire is giving he client tacit approval to control every action which the agency makes on the client's business, no matter how significant or trivial.

I can think of one instance where a group account director was interviewed by a client.  The interview went well.  But at the end of the interview, the client called the agency and told them that since they were paying a fee, they felt that they didn't need someone that senior running their business; they instructed the agency to find someone more junior.  As appalling as this is, it actually happened.

Gosh, dad, you were right.

Agencies are always in the best position to know who they need and who will succeed.  Presumably, after interviewing multiple candidates and with much experience with the client, they are in a position to determine the ideal staffing on their accounts. This is not a shared responsibility.

By giving clients the ability to meet prospective candidates, agencies not only lose their objectivity, but they end up in the difficult position of being totally beholden to the client. What happens if the person ends up being liked by the client but not by the agency?  How do you tell your client that the person is not doing a good job?  The reverse is a lot easier: if the hire turns out to be a dud, it is a lot easier to tell the client who has not approved them that a mistake was made.

When an agency hires an executive at any level it should be with total confidence, enthusiasm and absolute support.  Clients should  always know and trust that the agency has their best interest at heart.  Period.

When clients interview agency executives, it puts the client/agency relationship in perspective; and not a good one, either.

Checking The Right References

           

I ran my co-op for many years.  For all that time, we had a resident manager who reported to me.  He was good, but extremely difficult to manage.  Ultimately, he left and was hired by another co-op.  I was actually very surprised that I was not asked for a reference by their board. I determined that the manager gave other names, but not mine.  Not surprisingly, I heard that he was gone in under a year.

Advertising is no different.

                                     

I have had this discussion with other respected advertising recruiters.  We are all surprised that our clients rarely ever ask us about people they are going to hire.  I have been recruiting for long enough to know most of the major players, and if I don’t know them personally, I know them by reputation or can quickly get an objective reference about them.  Clients should trust recruiters to give them honest feedback about people and their reputations; even when those candidates are found directly and not from a recruiter.

Getting references from candidates is important.  Surprisingly, I have called people whose names I have been given and found that those people do not like the candidate who gave their name.  One even told me he was shocked to be given as a reference since he had fired the candidate, not once, but twice. However, more important than the references you are given, particularly for senior executives, are the people whose names do not appear on the candidate's list..  How could a co-op board fail to call the person who the resident manager reported to for over eleven years?  How can a company hire an executive at any level and not check with their previous employers, especially if their names are not on a reference list?

As an aside, if the person is currently employed, it is a no-no to call an existing employer, but previous companies should be checked out. Anyone looking for a job knows that this may happen. It is part of the process.  However, overlooking references happens all the time.

I can think of one case where a “name” executive was simply hired as a president based on his excellent résumé.  Remember my post, “Falling Up”?  They never checked him out; they assumed that with his previous credentials, he just had to be good..  If they had spoken to knowledgeable people he had worked for and with, he would never have been hired for what was, essentially, a new business job.  The company would have determined that new business was his single weakest attribute.  Could it be that the hiring company executives simply did not want to be proven wrong in their decision to hire this person?  At any rate, it was a disastrous oversight.

I can think of another case where an executive was an EVP at a respected ad agency for many years.  He joined another agency as president, lasted under two years and then had three more presidencies, none of which lasted more than two years.  I asked the chairman of one of those agencies if they had called people at the other places where he was president to determine why his tenure was so short.  He confessed that he only called someone he knew at the first place where the executive was an EVP.  This chairman is a good friend of mine and he never thought to call me. If he had, I might have told him what I had heard, but  I certainly would have given him names of people at the other companies.

I am not sure I understand the psychology of not thoroughly checking references of very senior people to determine their management style, philosophy and their strengths and weaknesses.  Can anyone explain this phenomenon?

Resigning Properly: What Everyone Should Know

I was counseling a candidate I placed on how to resign and I realized that I had never posted this important information.

                                                            

There is actually a proper way to resign.

Resigning is never easy, especially if your company has been good to you or if you and they are very busy.  However, the best way to do it is to go to your supervisor, swallow hard, take a deep breath and simply state that you have accepted a new job. You must do this assertively and without hesitation.  If, while resigning,  you hem and haw, you are communicating lack of commitment and assurance, which could be taken as a sign that you are looking for a counter offer. 

Without getting into a long dissertation on counter offers, which I have previously written about, suffice to say that 90% of all people who accept a counter offer are gone within twelve to eighteen months – mostly not by their choice.  Counter offers are always for the convenience of the existing company. So, if you are looking for a new job in order to get a raise or promotion from your existing employer, it is a very bad tactic and will only have a short term effect.

Accepting a new job is giving your word and your word should be kept.

It is important to thank the person you are resigning to for the opportunity to have worked there, but to explain that you have a accepted  a new career opportunity.  By doing it as a statement of fact, you make it clear that you are leaving and not looking to negotiate.  You do not need to offer a long explanation as to why you are leaving or what your new job entails.  The less said, the better.  Your manager should react gracefully and positively.

Most managers will be positive and supportive, but I have heard stories about those who react badly to resignations.  A common response is to lash out. Some managers react selfishly, “You can’t do this now.  Who is going to do the presentation [or analysis, or project] in two weeks?”  What this means is that the manager will have to do the work herself or himself.  Ironically, a poor reaction is often indicative of the reasons someone is leaving in the first place.  

It is proper to give two week’s notice; if you want to leave sooner, simply ask if that is possible.  It is to the company’s benefit to keep you there as long as possible.  I know of one instance where someone resigned on a Monday after lunch and the human resources person actually wanted the employee to stay for two weeks and not leave until after lunch two weeks from that day (she did not).  Some employers ask for three or four weeks.  This is only acceptable for the most senior executives who are running businesses.  The truth is that once it is over, it is over and you want to leave as soon as possible. And in many cases, the company wants you to leave as well.  Many people discover that by the middle of their second week after resigning that they have been cut out of important meetings and are only finishing projects.

If the company asks for a resignation letter it should be just two or three sentences long.  It should simply say, “This letter is to confirm what I have previously stated.  [Date] will be my last day of work.  I have enjoyed my time here, learned a lot and appreciate the opportunity which [firm name] has given me. Sincerely.”  Nothing more.  However, unless they ask for such a letter, it is totally unnecessary.  I don’t think that in my career, which spanned a number of agencies, I ever wrote a resignation letter.  Resignation letters are sometimes requested by the company for legal reasons.

It is important to ask key executives if, in the future, you can use them as a reference.  During your resignation period is the time to do that.

You always want to try to leave on good terms.

How To Lose A Job

It is rare as a recruiter to hear how someone screwed up.  99% of my candidates come to me with a story; getting fired is never their fault.  I can't think of anyone who has ever told me that they screwed up.  The reason for termination is generally bad business or account loss, which is mostly true.  And if I check with clients, most companies, in order to protect themselves, rarely tell me the truth about someone leaving, especially if that person is being let go for any kind of cause.

I had a fascinating conversation with a client the other morning. He was totally honest with me and told me about an account person he had the need to replace.  When I asked him why, he said that the person he had  incapable of performing, perhaps because she was too junior for her role.  I asked him to explain more.  His description, which follows, gave rise to this post and my desire to understand what separates successful executives from others.

My client told me a bunch of things about this account person, who happened to be someone I knew.  Among the “for instances” he described was this story.  My jaws dropped when I heard it.  

The client emailed this account person to tell her that a photograph that they (the client) had supplied for incorporation into a trade show display that the agency was creating did not work.  There was no blame on the agency; just a simple statement that it didn’t look right.  There was absolutely no problem.  However, the account person called her manager, who was out of town with a different client to tell him about the problem and ask what to do.

                                                                                                                                           


His first question, “Which image did not work?”  The account director actually didn’t know.  “Didn’t you ask the client?”  Again, no. Since the manager was not in the office, he asked the account person what she thought should be done. She actually didn't know. Of course, the answer was simple.  All she had to do was call the client and see what he wanted the agency to do.  This account director, believe it or not, had over 15 year's experience and should have known how to handle the situation.  All the client really wanted was commiseration.  the manager, who was out of town was forced to call the client.  He realized that the account director was clueless as to the real nature of her job.

There is a management principal which says, don’t bring me the problem, bring me the solution.  Some people get it, unfortunately, some don’t.  It isn’t about age or experience.  One does not expect an employee a year or two out of school to simply get it, although many do.  But certainly after fifteen years in business, an executive is expected to know how to handle what is, essentially, an easy, day-to-day situation.  In this case, it wasn't even a problem.  

Last year, in my blog, I wrote about how to get promoted.  In essence, all promotions should be anticlimactic.  Account executives get promoted once they have already assumed the position of account supervisors.  When EVP’s get promoted to president, most people are not surprised because the EVP was already acting the role.  

The secret to success is that one must have confidence enough to take charge.  I am reluctant to use myself as an example, but I was a senior vice president before I was thirty.  I was lucky enough to work with fabulous people who appreciated my talents and pushed me, but I was always able to take the next role long before it was given to me.  I recently looked at my high school yearbook and the quote under my name was, “The most important thing is to know what ought to be done.”  I was fortunate at one point in my early career to work for a man named John deGarmo  who had an agency by that name.  I was having an issue getting started on a project and he gave me this great advice:  “Just start.  Go in a direction.  The knowledge you gain as you progress will enable you to evaluate what you are doing and, if necessary, change direction.”  He went on to tell me a truth about business: There are very few decisions you make which cannot somehow be changed if you discover that they need to be adjusted.

And that is the secret of the take charge account person or any other executive, for that matter.