HolidayBlogging

Tag: smaller

  • Find the people that are right for your business

    Find the people that are right for your business

    In his latest article, John Ritchie, Chief Executive Officer at Ellipse emphasises why this is particularly the case for SMEs and why, even though finding the ‘right’ people isn’t easy, you can’t afford to recruit anyone who doesn’t pull their weight.

    Before you can even start searching, you need to consider what your aims are for your business. What is the extent of your ambitions? Even if you have only just set up your business, what is your exit strategy? What is needed to take your business from where it is now to where you want it to be in five years’ time?

    If you can answer these questions, you will know if you need to find someone who will ultimately succeed you, or someone with the skills and experience you lack that are needed to help the business develop – or perhaps someone with the potential to become one or the other.

    Once you have identified a particular set of skills or experience that your ideal recruit might have, the obvious people to look for might seem to be those who have been in a similar role at another company. My own experience is that however logical this might seem, it doesn’t necessarily follow that such a person will deliver what your own business needs.

    They may have a brilliant track record at a big, well-known company, but that doesn’t mean they will be able to repeat the trick for yours. They might have benefited from having a great team around them. They could simply have been lucky in that the circumstances in which they operated at the time might have made it hard to fail. Above all, they may simply be the sort of people who thrive in large corporations but find it hard to succeed working for smaller companies, particularly if they lack the entrepreneurial outlook that those working in small outfits need to have.

    I have friends in business who have been looking to grow their companies and brought in people who seem to be the right types to take their companies up to the next level. All too soon, they bitterly regretted it as their company got bogged down in the sort of big company processes that undermine the agility which gives many small businesses their edge.

    For me, attitude is more important than skills or experience. People can develop skills and gain experience. Although attitudes can change, they tend to only slowly, if at all. If someone takes the view that their role is to do X and they can’t be expected to do Y, they are less useful to me than someone who might not know all the ropes but is willing to learn and not afraid to make a few mistakes along the way. I would rather take on someone inexperienced but with these attributes:

    • bright, so they will learn quickly
    • passionate, so they will work hard to get results
    • willing to help others, so that as they develop they will in turn develop the people around them
    • optimistic realism, so that they will try to find ways in which things can be done rather than reasons why they can’t

    When it comes to finding such people, beware relying on interviews alone. It could be that your interviewees seem to have the attributes you are after but when it comes to business it turns out that their greatest talent is in being good at interviews! Use strategies that will give you a real insight into how useful – or not – they might be.

    Why not set them a problem to solve before you meet up with them and tell them you’ll expect them to give a presentation of their solution? If numeracy or literacy is vital in the role you are looking to fill, set a task that will demonstrate whether or not they have sufficient abilities in these areas. Ideally, ask someone whose judgement you trust to interview them as well.

    While ‘The Apprentice’ may ultimately be a bit of a circus for the cameras, the idea of setting tasks to assess ability is sound, and the episode in every series where Lord Sugar asks some of his business associates to grill the remaining candidates always reveals a wealth of interesting new information.

    Psychometric and other personality tests are worth the small investment when compared to the potential cost and aggravation of a wrong hire – like so many services, they can now be accessed online at a cost that makes them accessible for all businesses. Try a few different providers’ tests out on yourself, ask other people you know well to do likewise, and pick the one that delivers the most accurate and insightful results. If the tests reflect true pictures of people you know well, you can trust them to deliver the same for job applicants.

    In short, don’t rely on one method or another to screen recruits – aim for a mix that gives you objective as well as subjective information.

    However good your recruitment process is, you can still sometimes end up with taking someone on who just isn’t right for your business. When this is the case, don’t delay and let it damage your business – say goodbye to them. And this naturally means that you need to set up contracts that give you and your recruits the opportunity to change your minds if things just don’t work out. At my own company, we have taken on some excellent people – and offloaded some who didn’t fit in – by adopting a ‘temp to permanent’ model as our standard one for new recruits.

  • Sabotage: Inside Trumps BLS Director Tirade

    Sabotage: Inside Trumps BLS Director Tirade

    Who’s Been Sneaking Around Those Job Numbers?

    So, folks, last week the labor market update blew out the charts in a way that made even the most seasoned economists go, “Hold up, what’s this?” Trump, lashes it out—calling the revisions “incompetency” at best, a patch‑up of “intentional sabotage” at worst. And honestly, while the first smackdown makes sense, the second is a wild goose chase.

    Data Integrity: A Long‑Running Roadblock

    • Job numbers haven’t been the cleanest thing. We’ve been steeped in inconsistencies.
    • The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) struggled to keep the data sane for ages.
    • Now someone’s dropped a wrench into the mix, fiddling with the figures.

    Was It Politics or Just Bad Plain Tweaking?

    Let’s break it down: the obvious adjustments? Clearly a bit suspect.

    • Think of it like someone messing with your playlist, swapping out a single track for a total EDM boomerang.
    • It’s possible political motives tipped the scales, but it’s just as plausible it’s a slip‑ups from data wranglers.

    How to Keep Your Head in the Game

    Instead of letting the chaos get under your skin, here’s the low‑down:

    1. Don’t sweat the tiny misfires—focus on the big picture.
    2. Keep an eye on consistent data releases. If something feels off, flag it.
    3. Lastly, stay informed, but don’t let the numbers turn into a “who’s doing what” showdown.

    In short, the job numbers’ drama is a bit of a circus, but the best way to survive it is to stay calm, stay curious, and keep your wits about you. No amount of sabotage can shuffle you out of the game if you’re rolling with the right info.

    PROBLEM #1: Garbage in, Garbage Out

    Government Data Surveys: The Vanishing Acts of Response Rates

    Picture this: a government survey waiting giggling in the inbox of everyone who has ever opened a “you will be asked to comment on the couch’s upholstery” letter. But once you glance at the question, they’re already disappearing into the ether. That’s the reality we’re facing today.

    What’s Slowly Sliding Away?

    • Declining Participation: Growing numbers of people, from busy professionals to weekend hibernators, no longer feel the itch to fill out these questionnaires.
    • Questionable Incentives: The sweeteners that once proved irresistible—promised pizza discounts, monthly giveaways—aren’t enough to shake the civic apathy.
    • Survey Fatigue: With an overload of reminders bouncing off us, the very act of responding has become a thing of the past.

    A Quick Takeaway

    In the world of data collection, the tide is turning. Whether it’s a subtle shift or a dramatic wave remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: if we don’t speak to the masses, our numbers will never be complete.

    Why the Fed’s Numbers Might Be a Bit Off‑Balance

    Picture this: you send a “Hey, how big is your payroll?” questionnaire to 100,000 companies. Only 40,000 open the envelope and write back. That leaves a pretty glaring gap in the data.

    The Big‑Company Bias

    • HR departments love surveys. Corporate giants with a full HR team are far more likely to hit “send.”
    • Small shops? Probably not. A lone pizza joint owner who’s juggling orders on the sidewalk isn’t going to bother with a form about payroll.

    What This Means for Numbers

    When big firms dominate the responses, the total payroll count shrinks on the smaller side. That’s like listening to only the loudest voices in a conversation—you miss all the quieter, yet still important, perspectives.

    Tech‑Sensitive Small Businesses

    Small companies are often the ones who feel the pinch of a slowing economy first. If they’re underrepresented, the snapshot you get is a little out of date.

    The Bean‑Cup Effect on Fed Decision‑Making

    Because the data is skewed, the Federal Reserve’s big policy calls feel like they’re riding a delayed train. They’re reacting to a picture that’s a smidge older than the real world, and that can lead to a lag in the right economic nudges.

    KILLING THE WRONG MESSENGER

    Who Is Erika McEntarfer, the Ex‑Director of the BLS?

    Picture this: a high‑flying economist lands a top‑ballot gig, gets slapped with a colossal problem, and finds herself in the cross‑fire of politics. That’s Erika McEntarfer’s story. Let’s unpack the drama, credentials, and why the headlines called her a scapegoat.

    A Quick Run‑Down of Her Journey

    • PhD in Economics – She earned her doctorate and gunned her way into the Census Bureau.
    • Early stints as an advisor on labor markets sharpened her policy chops.
    • Member of the Council of Economic Advisors before stepping into the BLS Director’s chair.
    • Officially took office in January 2024, with a portfolio that’s all about data and jobs.

    Do Her Credentials Line Up With the Job?

    On paper, Erika looks like the type of labor economist everyone dreams of in the academy or in Washington. But the reality of running the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a different ballgame.

    • She’s lacking hands‑on experience running big bureaucratic wheels.
    • The BLS has its own data‑collection maze, a niche that even seasoned economists don’t typically navigate daily.
    • Erika knows the big picture but the nitty‑gritty operations? Not so much.

    Why the Scapegoat Label?

    Think of the BLS Director as a ceremonial crown—the real work is executed by a team of analysts, survey technicians, and data wranglers. When a national data lop‑off occurs, the people in the ring start looking for someone to pin a blame on. Erika was the trophy target.

    The Data Dilemma She Faced

    Right after she assumed office, the BLS was grappling, as all agencies had been doing for years, with subfields in the jobs data. But here’s the kicker: she was told to fix it.

    • Zapped 810,000 jobs from the March 2024 count during the “annual revision.” The “bright” 2.8 million job growth story flopped to a more modest 2 million.
    • Later, the May‑June NFP report pulled another 280,000 jobs, causing a sudden dip that made headline‐makers gasp.
    • In the middle of all this, Fed Chairman Powell pushed back on rate cuts, citing a “strong jobs market” narrative.

    Political Backdrop

    Trump’s administration was no fan of friendly bureaucracy—unlike the West Coast’s “hand‑hold” style in California where leaders can stay on if they manage to keep the betrayal low. Under Trump, swift firings were the norm for any slip‑up.

    • Erika’s dismissal was part of a fleeting wave of turnovers led by the president.
    • Some argue the firing shattered BLS’s credibility, but the agency itself had been bleeding credibility long before the firing.
    • Contrast with Hegseth’s case—because his oversight of Pentagon communications wasn’t a direct failure in his core duties, he got a “second chance.”

    Bottom Line

    The 2024 BLS saga shows that the chief of a major data agency can be treated like a fuse: if something goes off spark‑y, the director, not the entire machine, gets the blame. In Erika’s case, professional rigor met a nitty‑gritty task she hadn’t fully mastered, and a politically motivated admin decided that someone needed to be held accountable. That’s why she’s being called a scapegoat.

    In the world of labor economics, it’s a reminder that degrees and titles don’t guarantee survival—context and operational expertise are equally vital.

    EVIDENCE OF DATA SKEWING: THE WHAT BUT NOT THE WHO AND WHY

    Payroll Data Glitches: The 98K Job Mystery

    For the past months, I’ve spotted two glaring signs that the payroll numbers are getting a little hand‑adjusted. Let’s take a quick walk through these clues.

    What Happens in a Single Month?

    • In April, the payroll department suddenly invented 98,000 jobs out of nowhere.
    • That surge blew the April NFP numbers higher… almost like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

    Why This Is a Red Flag

    • Historic norms for this sector: typical monthly growth sits around 15,000, with peaks topping out near 22,000—and never anywhere close to that 98,000 spike.
    • The jump appeared and vanished within just one month, which is as rare as finding a four‑leaf clover in a calculus textbook.
    • When a sector truly expands or contracts, it usually does so in a sustained wave, not a lightning‑flash.
    Bottom Line

    Seeing a 98K jump pop up and disappear overnight feels more like a prank than a legitimate payroll update. If this was a one‑off blip, it should align with the sector’s long‑term growth trend, but it didn’t—making it a smoking gun for possible data tinkering.

    Full-on Data Shuffle: The Public Education Blues

    What’s going on? The charts from the June preview of the NFP (National Fiscal Pulse) are screaming at us. Roughly 70,000 jobs rippled out of our State and Local schools. That number is the sort of thing that makes you want to grab a coffee and do a double-check.

    Hold on—schools are holding more people than ever

    For the first time in decades, schools are keeping folks on the payroll instead of making hasty cuts. You’d expect a shortage to trigger staff downsizing, but nope—the opposite happened. Teachers, aides, support staff… every single one of them feels a little more secure.

    Why is this so wild?

    • Schools usually have a lot of temporary hires who usually get let go when the academic year wraps up.
    • Yet, the numbers tell a different story: they’re sticking around. That’s not just unexpected—it’s basically a scene out of a sitcom where the main characters all suddenly decide to stay in town.
    • Imagine a school with 100 seasonal temp staff—because of a sudden spike in enrollment they still get paid the full term. That feels like a sign illuminating that “we’re in it together.”

    Bottom line

    So while your spreadsheets might say “pang!” (or slam a fist on the desk), the reality on the ground is: teachers, aides, front‑desk clerks, and that sneaky tech team have a good chance of not being laid off next spring. It’s almost like a plot twist, but this time the writers are the NFP and the actors are good‑old public employees.

    THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS

    Oops! A Batch Goes Boo—And It Stuck

    Picture this: a junior analyst, fresh from the office, reaches for a keyboard and accidentally sends billions into the system instead of millions. Classic “fat‑fingering” meets financial blunder—but why did nobody catch it in time?

    The Big Fumble

    • Reality check: the glitch happened within minutes of the data publishing schedule.
    • It wasn’t a one‑off; a similar mishap popped up in a separate BLS release.
    • Both incidents involved unintentional swapping of decimal points or a simple typing error.

    Where’s the Early‑Warning System?

    The question that keeps people up at night: why didn’t a single BLS analyst spot the anomaly right away? Think of the BLS as a busy bookstore—every shop assistant should see if a book title is misspelled.

    • It turns out BLS internal checks were weak, more like a light stroll than a deep audit.
    • Data collection happened perfectly; the flaw sprang from an oversight trap in post‑processing.

    Who’s Holding the Gloves?

    With such loopholes exposed, attention turns to the Director of the BLS. Was she too distracted or simply a figurehead, letting the mess build under her umbrella?

    • The headlines say: “Did the Director care?”
    • Reality: she has the tools and access that could have wrangled this issue.
    • Now, the debate centers on whether the Director was actively engaged or merely waving her hands.

    In the end, this blip shows it’s more than a tool glitch—it’s an organizational oversight problem. Time for a full audit, a clearer chain of command, and maybe a double‑check system. Until then, let’s hope the next batch sticks to the million marks and not the billion ones!

    TO THE PARANOID, A WEB OF DECEPTION

    Trump’s “Job Fiddling” Conspiracy: A Tale of Numbers and Politics

    Picture this: the Trump camp is watching the economy like a detective on a crime scene. When the Biden team makes a move, Trump sighs. When he needs an edge, he spots the numbers slipping.

    1⃣ The “Biden‑Boost” Timeline

    • In the months leading up to the election, the Fed slashes rates and the BLS drops strong jobs data. Both hand‑shakes for Biden.
    • After the polls, the BLS flips the script: “Oops, jobs were actually bad.” The headline revives the weak‑jobs, weak‑economy narrative.
    • March’s jobs revisions set the stage for an “embarrassing” post‑election fallout.

    2⃣ July: The Great Job Game

    • Before the crucial July Fed meeting, BLS reports solid payrolls. Numbers look like a party for the Fed’s rate‑cut wishes.
    • When the Fed says “No cuts for now,” the spins spin fast. The “strong‑jobs” story cracks like a bad ice cube.
    • Revisions appear overnight, wiping the jobs glow and leaving a flat‑lined economy that screams for cuts.

    3⃣ Trump’s Take: “I’m Not the Target!”

    “Guess what, Mr. President? Those revisions are actually good news. They help push the Fed to cut rates.” Yet, Trump can’t shake the feeling that the economy is being painted with a smudge.

    4⃣ Are Bureaucrats Sabotaging?

    • Question: “Did someone create jobs out of thin air?” Trevor thinks that some numbers may have been over‑inflated for a good reason.
    • Case in point: The public‑sector education jobs in June vanished during the July revision. Suddenly, they were as real as a unicorn.
    • And why should the government do this? Why big unwinding of fabricated jobs?

    In the end, Trump feels a tangle of numbers, politics, and “mysterious” edits. Whether that’s a clever tactic or just a messy stats‑dump is a debate that’s still open. Either way, the penguin’s been juggling numbers like a circus act.