Why Work With A Supply Chain Recruiter

Supply chains do not have good visibility from the outside. The internal environment can be messy and difficult to understand, especially for those who have little experience with it. In addition to the large amount of information available through sources such as company websites, rather than cold calling employees you should consider working with a supply chain recruiter to find your next job.

Supply chains are more complex than most people realize. The interactions between suppliers, manufacturers and distributors can be hard to understand if you do not see the whole picture of the business and its role in the industry. If you had little experience with supply chains before starting to look for a job, it’s a good idea to start by using a qualified workforce recruitment agency.

Supply chain management is a challenging and competitive job market. Supply chain managers have one of the largest salaries among all business professionals and also working as SCM manager offers many possibilities for advancement to the next position (e.g., as an SCM director, VP, COO or CEO).

 

Those factors explain why many people decide to work with an external recruiter. Supply chain recruitment agencies help you find the perfect job for your skills and interests, they can answer any questions about your resume, prepare your interview processes and negotiate salaries with the employers. Working with a good agency is great for both parties, as it becomes a win-win situation.

A professional workforce recruitment agency will reduce your time and effort in finding the right position, increase your chances of getting into interview processes and will help you with your resume and any questions regarding the interview process.

 

Using an external recruiter can also be beneficial to employers who are looking for new SCM staff. Most of the time companies are not interested in interviewing candidates who did not pass through a workforce agency. It is also good for their brand image, because it shows that they are open to new hiring styles and willing to support professional agencies.

The job market of supply chain management professionals is very competitive and using external recruitment partners can increase your chances of finding a job faster and easier.

When you’re looking for your next position, it’s good to start by researching the available employment opportunities and then contact the best workforce recruitment agencies in this area. You should also prepare your resume and identify which companies you would like to work for. Making a list of potential employers will make it easier for the agency to match you with a job that fits your expectations.

You can also use an external recruitment partner if you are looking for a new position in logistics, procurement, supply chain management or marketing. All those jobs require engaging with third parties, which is one of the areas where workforce agencies have more knowledge. Some companies even offer their own workforce recruitment services, to support their own staff with finding the right job opportunities.

The main advantage of using external work agencies is that they can provide you with access to a much larger number of job openings than you could find on your own.

 

Arlene Guzman Todd: COVID, Women in the Workplace & Losing Ground 

An odd thing happened during the COVID pandemic, but in hindsight the reasons seem unfortunately clear and obvious. Arlene Guzman Todd and others focused on women’s leadership in business saw with shock that the pandemic reduced the number of women in the workplace, particularly in key director roles. As the workplace returns from the pandemic, the number of women leaders and in key functions have dwindled, much of it due to having to choose between the traditional caretaker role, notes Arlene Guzman, and a career.

Women in particular were challenged on three fronts. Arlene Guzman Todd points out women are already handicapped by the fact that many have had to play the dual role of being the homemaker and career person at the same time, raising kids as well as running an eight-hour work day at the office. However, when the COVID pandemic hit, sending everyone home, including the kids from school, it created a third demand element on women: home teachers. For many women, that was too much. And, as Arlene Guzman Todd and others have seen in retrospect, working women made choices that reduced their presence in the office.

Including her own experience, businesswomen like Arlene Guzman Todd have historically had to push harder to achieve and retain leadership roles. Only in recent years with diversity pushes have the number of women in leadership grown notably, especially in the C-suite and executive ranks. In many cases, women have finally figured out how to strike a working balance, although tenuous, between raising a family and keeping on par with peers in a power-career role. However, interestingly enough, this balance had a critical reliance on schools. When COVID requirements forced schools to send kids home, it produced an additional factor that was never part of the balance, yet again pushing many women off-balance. As Arlene Guzman and others concluded, the fundamental role of raising children again handicapped career women.

Companies failed to provide alternatives as well, Arlene Guzman Todd notes. Since mothers and their kids were at home already, the issue of split demands seemed to be a personal matter. Already struggling with entire workforces suddenly telecommuting, many companies were unwilling to do more for women employees suddenly managing kids’ schooling as well. If women managers and workers couldn’t figure out something with their partners, they were out in the cold, according to Arlene Guzman Todd. No surprise, many chose family over the job.

Now, as the workforce is partially returning, women being encouraged to pursue and retain leadership positions matters even more. Arlene Guzman Todd and others in leadership guidance are even more pressed to convince women to keep pursuing key roles and business functions, and its an uphill battle. Fortunately, the job market is in the favor of employees, and the demand is high for anyone with the right skills. This silver lining, Arlene Guzman Todd notes, is a key saving grace for returning women employees or those seeking a career change. If they can’t return to their old role, there are plenty of opportunities for new paths right now. But how long, Arlene Guzman Todd asks, will that offset be available?

The fact that a public health impact had such a disparate impact on women in the workplace is notable and should be addressed by companies going forward instead of ignored. Companies have an opportunity to use COVID as an active lesson on how to prevent a similar impact to women going forward, Arlene Guzman Todd argues. And those businesses that act proactively will be at the forefront of protecting women’s equal opportunities in the workplace, particularly in leadership.

A New Model for American Business, The Philanthropic Enterprise, Thanks To Paul Newman and Former Newman’s Own CEO, Bob Forrester

When Bob Forrester succeeded Paul Newman as Chief Executive Officer of Newman’s Own, he had a plateful of urgent issues needing to be addressed. Paul Newman was the Founder of Newman’s Own and for 26 years its only CEO. By the time of Paul Newman’s passing, his eponymous food company, Newman’s Own Inc., was a successful business admired for its founding commitment to donate 100% of profits to charity.

In the early years, this charitable commitment was a factor in Newman’s Own success, but what truly propelled the business was the mega-celebrity of its founder, Paul Newman, and the trust and respect people had for him. Paul Newman and the Newman’s Own brand were inextricably linked, and with the passing of Paul Newman, many doubted that Newman’s Own could survive without him. This over-reliance on Paul Newman was also reflected in the fact that Newman’s Own had not developed the type of planning, management financial, and leadership infrastructure needed to make it on its own.

Additionally, there were several dire threats unique to Newman’s Own, which were certain to arise once Paul was no longer here. At the top of this list was the requirement that Newman’s Own break itself up within five years i.e., go out of business as it was when Paul Newman was alive. This was due to an unintended consequence of an old tax law, and the only solution was to get a new tax law passed. This doomsday clock started ticking when Bob Forrester became CEO of Newman’s Own. (1)

Bob’s first priority, however, was to assure employees, customers, suppliers, business partners, and key grantees that he was committed to running Newman’s Own based on the values which had been laid down by Paul Newman and were at the heart of the Newman’s Own brand. Concurrently he set about assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Newman’s Own and began to put into place the most essential pillars for building a successful business operation, such as statements of policies for all functions, upgraded financial controls, basic systems support, and the recruitment of a seasoned management team.

By the spring of 2009, he was able to begin to turn his attention to the effort of trying to get a new law passed. Getting a new tax law is one of the most challenging types of legislation to get passed even in the best of times, and these were hardly the best of times for getting any legislation passed. Congress was increasingly a place of conflict and stalled legislation. The quest for Bob would be daunting, and he knew the odds were against him. The only way he could hope to be successful was to get strong bi-partisan Congressional leadership behind him. This would take developing a case supporting the new law, which was substantive, compelling, nonpartisan, one which would be seen as good public policy.

As Bob Forrester reflected, “ I knew there were red flags we needed to avoid even the appearance of being possible, and beyond that, it was important to me as a person representing the nonprofit sector, and as a taxpayer myself, that this be a good law the only purpose of which was to serve the common good, and not leave open doors for abuse. A tall order, but I felt that those who believed in Newman’s Own deserved to expect nothing less.”

One example of a red flag was that the proposed legislation not just be special legislation only benefitting Newman’s Own, i.e., an “earmark.” Thanks to Bob’s career of working in the philanthropic sector, he was aware of others who were interested in emulating the Newman’s Own commitment of donating 100% of profits to charity. There were no established reference sources for identifying such philanthropic business enterprises, but Bob was able to turn to his extensive network of contacts to begin an informal search for such businesses. His early inquires identified over 25 such businesses. There were several craft breweries, a few restaurants and cafes, a tea purveyor, a coffee purveyor, a large consulting firm, an online animal prescription service, a chocolate maker, an eyeglass store, and more. These businesses were scattered throughout the country; some were started by young, passionate, purpose-driven individuals with little if any business experience. Others were founded and run by successful business entrepreneurs who wanted to give back and felt doing so through an operating business was the best way to go. They were an eclectic group which reflected the very fabric of American small businesses and were bound together by a commitment to donate all profits to charity. It was safe to assume if an informal search produced this number, then more were out there.

Bob next looked to the future for such philanthropic enterprises, what a new tax law might do to encourage and support the further development of Philanthropic Enterprises, and what this might mean to the economy. An initial university base, independent study concluded that there was a rising tide of interest among undergraduate and graduate students in combining an operating business with a philanthropic purpose. The legislation would be a significant encouragement to those considering this course. Conversely, without such legislation, the further development of these types of businesses would not likely go anywhere.

A second study was done in 2016/17 and concluded that with a new law:

  • Growth in philanthropic enterprises would jump to over 500 over ten years
  • Through direct and indirect employment, philanthropic enterprises would add 47,500 jobs
  • Total direct and indirect contribution to the economy would equal $50.6 billion
  • Total contributions to federal, state, and local taxes would be $7.2 billion (2)

Shortly after the Philanthropic Enterprise Act was signed into law on February 9, 2018, Bob Forrester was contacted by the CEO of a 160-year-old company in the Midwest, who called to thank him for his efforts. She told Bob that the new law was the answer to their desire to keep a business presence in their community while at the same time being able to donate 100% of their profits to charity. They had converted a significant part of their business enterprise into an independent Philanthropic Enterprise like Newman’s Own, thus becoming the first existing business to become a Philanthropic Enterprise.

(1) Under extenuating circumstances, the IRS is empowered to make a one-time extension to the 5-year requirement. Bob successfully argued the case for such an extension, and the new break-up date was set for November 2018.

(2) Baseline estimates using 2016 dollars

Arlene Guzman Todd: COVID, Women in the Workplace & Losing Ground 

An odd thing happened during the COVID pandemic, but in hindsight the reasons seem unfortunately clear and obvious. Arlene Guzman Todd and others focused on women’s leadership in business saw with shock that the pandemic reduced the number of women in the workplace, particularly in key director roles. As the workplace returns from the pandemic, the number of women leaders and in key functions have dwindled, much of it due to having to choose between the traditional caretaker role, notes Arlene Guzman, and a career.

Women in particular were challenged on three fronts. Arlene Guzman Todd points out women are already handicapped by the fact that many have had to play the dual role of being the homemaker and career person at the same time, raising kids as well as running an eight-hour work day at the office. However, when the COVID pandemic hit, sending everyone home, including the kids from school, it created a third demand element on women: home teachers. For many women, that was too much. And, as Arlene Guzman Todd and others have seen in retrospect, working women made choices that reduced their presence in the office.

Including her own experience, businesswomen like Arlene Guzman Todd have historically had to push harder to achieve and retain leadership roles. Only in recent years with diversity pushes have the number of women in leadership grown notably, especially in the C-suite and executive ranks. In many cases, women have finally figured out how to strike a working balance, although tenuous, between raising a family and keeping on par with peers in a power-career role. However, interestingly enough, this balance had a critical reliance on schools. When COVID requirements forced schools to send kids home, it produced an additional factor that was never part of the balance, yet again pushing many women off-balance. As Arlene Guzman and others concluded, the fundamental role of raising children again handicapped career women.

Companies failed to provide alternatives as well, Arlene Guzman Todd notes. Since mothers and their kids were at home already, the issue of split demands seemed to be a personal matter. Already struggling with entire workforces suddenly telecommuting, many companies were unwilling to do more for women employees suddenly managing kids’ schooling as well. If women managers and workers couldn’t figure out something with their partners, they were out in the cold, according to Arlene Guzman Todd. No surprise, many chose family over the job.

Now, as the workforce is partially returning, women being encouraged to pursue and retain leadership positions matters even more. Arlene Guzman Todd and others in leadership guidance are even more pressed to convince women to keep pursuing key roles and business functions, and its an uphill battle. Fortunately, the job market is in the favor of employees, and the demand is high for anyone with the right skills. This silver lining, Arlene Guzman Todd notes, is a key saving grace for returning women employees or those seeking a career change. If they can’t return to their old role, there are plenty of opportunities for new paths right now. But how long, Arlene Guzman Todd asks, will that offset be available?

The fact that a public health impact had such a disparate impact on women in the workplace is notable and should be addressed by companies going forward instead of ignored. Companies have an opportunity to use COVID as an active lesson on how to prevent a similar impact to women going forward, Arlene Guzman Todd argues. And those businesses that act proactively will be at the forefront of protecting women’s equal opportunities in the workplace, particularly in leadership.

Jim Marchese Knows Many Individuals Who Are Pondering the Question About Whether or not to Get Vaccinated

Jim Notes That the Question Everyone Is Asking Now Is, “To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate?”

People have been living under extraordinary circumstances for the past 18 months or so, ever since the first signs came to light about the novel coronavirus. The virus quickly spread to become a worldwide pandemic and has infected a large percentage of the population with COVID-19 and its variants. Gazing upon this health crisis, Jim Marchese is a well-known mortgage banker, entrepreneur, and financial consultant points out that everyone has been asking lately whether to vaccinate.

To Vaccinate or Not?

Jim Marchese expresses that people have become accustomed to getting vaccinated for a variety of purposes. To be allowed to attend a school or play extracurricular sports, a school may require a range of childhood vaccines, for example. Vaccines are how medical science addressed such awful scourges as polio and smallpox.

With a vaccine, the body is exposed to a substance that provokes an immune response. For example, individuals will get a flu shot every winter to protect themselves against influenza. Vaccination is appropriate late in the year since the flu spreads more quickly when more people congregate inside, often without much ventilation.

But some people do not want to get vaccinations for religious reasons, medical reasons or personal beliefs. Others are worried about how effective a particular vaccine might be any about side effects or allergic reactions.

And then, some individuals have already been exposed to coronavirus and have tested positive for COVID-19 without ever having been vaccinated. Since their immune system handled the COVID-19 infection, they would like to rely on their natural immunity.

The Question to Vaccinate or Not Will Be with Us for the Foreseeable Future

It seems that the issue about vaccination for COVID-19 and a whole host of other diseases is not going to go down quietly. Jim Marchese is anticipating that cooler heads will prevail regarding vaccinations and the personal choices we all must make about protecting ourselves.

There are many people with strong feelings on both sides of the issue. In the meantime, here’s hoping that the current pandemic will ease up soon. In the meantime, it’s safe to say that more people will be protecting themselves against the virus in consultation with their primary health care provider.

Wherever you happen to stand on this complex issue, one thing is certain. People who disagree about policies on vaccination are looking for a suitable approach to protect themselves, friends, and loved ones.