Democracy at its finest. If you need explanation on any of these brilliant combinations, check out the comments from the original post.
Vote, after the jump
Related Posts
Why Are Accounting Firms Crappy at Diversifying Their Workforce?
Since accounting firms like to boast about their diverse workforce but always seem to maintain that it isn’t diverse enough, we would kindly ask, “which the hell is it?” The whole argument of “we can always do better” is fine but at least one academic is saying that the accounting profession has pretty much failed in its attempts to develop a more diverse workforce.
Continued, after the jump
Frank K. Ross, director of the Howard University Center for Accounting Education, called for increased efforts at recruitment, retention and leadership development…Ross noted that despite four decades of effort and significant progress, accounting still trails other professions, and many large businesses, in minority representation. According to the AICPA’s most recent study, minorities currently hold only 5 percent of partnership positions at the largest firms, and only one percent of partners are African-American.
So if accounting firms of all sizes having been trying for forty years to diversify their workforce and still trail other professions and minorities only compromise 5% of the partner positions at the largest firms, does that mean these firms really suck at recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce?
If the AICPA is calling out its own members for sucking at diversity, we might have more of a corporate culture issue as the source of the problem. Professor Ross notes “significant progress” but that doesn’t really seem to be illustrated here.
Fortunately, like all good academics, Prof. Ross manages to have suggestions for improvement:
• Making diversity an integral part of the corporate culture – building it into the DNA of the organization;
• Developing special training for employees at all levels to help them become more sensitive to cultural differences and more aware of diverse styles of working;
• Identifying the best and brightest from their minority workforce and singling them out for focused support at all times, including downturns; and,
• Establishing diversity in cultural background and experience as key criteria in hiring and for work assignments.
Honestly we’re not crazy about these suggestions since we don’t understand how some of these would be implemented. All the firms require diversity training already so is the suggestion to require super-diversity training? And “identify the best and brightest”. Don’t the firms already claim to do this?
Since you all are on the front lines discuss – in the comments – your firm’s diversity initiatives and whether you think they are actually productive or its simply more of your firm’s sorry attempt to disinform about their lack of diversity. Is it the culture among the firms or are there other factors keeping these firms from improving on diversity?
Fraud Risk, Staffing Reductions, and OJ Logic at CFO.com
Editor’s Note: Robert Stewart is a former Big 4 auditor and ex-Marine who has since served in several executive management roles in both Internal Audit and Corporate Finance. He is also the founder and chief contributor to the online accounting and audit community, The Accounting Nation. Outside of work, he is a husband, father, brother, writer, uate aspiring triathlete.
You can always count on CFO.com for logic flaws and surface reporting. It’s like drinking that concentrated orange juice in a can when you add three parts too much water and then put ice cubes in it because it’s warm, which makes it even more watery which… Where was I going with this?
Oh yeah. In one of their latest articles, entitled “As Internal Audit Staffs Shrink, Will Fraud Rise?“, the author portends — based on a Deloitte survey and subsequent interview — that the decrease in internal audit personnel somehow increases the risk of organizational exposure to fraud. What? Ever hear the phrase “Correlation is not Causation”? Symptom or cause.
Here’s my $0.02: such staffing reductions may increase the risk that fraud will go undetected (though only nominally given that IA only uncovers about 12% percent of frauds according to the ACFE’s Report to the Nation), but the risk to the organization more than likely remains constant, right? Am I missing something here?
After all, Internal Audit is a downstream event unless you make the argument that the organizational perception of being “watched” has diminished with the reductions in internal audit/compliance staffing, thus emboldening would-be fraudsters (i.e. strengthening the “opportunity” leg of Cressey’s Fraud Triangle). But this article doesn’t make that argument.
The article further states that:
Despite the reduction in compliance personnel, 50% of respondents to the Deloitte survey, who included CFOs, CEOs, board members, and middle managers in finance and risk management, said their compliance and ethics programs are strong. Another 36% said they are adequate. Many public companies and some private companies invested significantly in their compliance programs after the passage of Sarbox in 2002, notes Francis, and they may now feel confident that those programs are effective even with a reduced staff. But that confidence may not always be justified.
Confidence? I would hardly call the above percentages “confidence” on the part of the respondents. If I told you that 50% of the airline pilots felt that their pre-flight checklist procedures were strong, how would you feel about flying? No F*#$ing way I’m getting on that plane.
The words wrapped around the survey results and subsequent interview quotes don’t at all support the conclusion that this article is trying to draw. Perhaps it’s because the survey was designed and administered by a firm (Deloitte) that has a vested interest in drumming up some business through fear tactics? After all, you’re never going to hear a burglar alarm company extolling the improvements in public safety.
And you’re never going to hear a company that sells risk-related services conducting and publicly releasing results that don’t support their strategic objectives. Or perhaps it’s just bad writing at CFO.com in order to satisfy a quota? The World may never know (I think the World will be fine with this). Either way, I’ve wasted double the amount of time that I should have on this topic (i.e. read it and wrote about it). And so with that…I bid you adieu.
Our Token Swine Flu Post
We’re upping our pandemic coverage today because 1) it’s god-awful slow out there and B) refer back to #1. Apparently most businesses out there don’t really have a plan in case this whole H1N1 thing gets medieval on our asses.
Continued, after the jump
AP:
The survey found that two-thirds of the more than 1,000 businesses questioned nationwide said they could not maintain normal operations if half their workers were out for two weeks. Four out of every five businesses expect severe problems if half their workers are out for a month. “What we found is that a minority of businesses have started some sort of emergency planning,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and leader of the project sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Most, I don’t think, have thought through the implications of something so widespread.”
Surely you’d think that the accounting firms would not fall into this particular category. We glanced over the BW list again (because we’ve got nothing better to do) and surprisingly, only PwC and McGladrey & Pullen have sick days listed. P. Dubs is “Unlimited” and M&P provides five days. The other firms have nothing listed.
So are we to assume that the other usual suspects don’t provide any sick days? Most of you are aware of the really obnoxious habit that some people have of coming to work when they should probably be in the hospital. They pop some Airborne or overdose on Vitamin C and they think they’re cured.
Then, of course, there are types that assume that anyone who calls in sick is faking because, well, their jobs sucks. So the “sick” play at accounting firms is always a lose-lose-lose.
So the question should be asked: What the hell happens when half your team can’t crawl out of bed? Are the firms going to start giving you GASP sick days? Are the firms going to provide everyone with biohazard suits so everyone can still come to work? Maybe just the new associates and partners (probably the most likely scenario)? Discuss.