The Talent Conundrum

One of my colleagues at the local gym is a retired engineer for a major software company. Frank (not his real name) tells anyone who will listen that he’s 70, works out religiously and constantly monitors his weight and caloric intake.

You probably wouldn’t be incorrect by labeling his daily routine as “excessive” or even “obsessive” but no one doubts his perseverance when it comes to maintaining his health. With so much energy pent up in his wiry little frame I once asked him why he retired. To me he was like the AARP version of the Energizer Bunny.

He replied that he was obligated to step down under his company’s mandatory retirement age of 65 but still kept active in the workforce as an IT freelancer among residents and small businesses within the community.

The joke among the other members is that Frank is also incredibly smart – he’s knowledgeable on all subjects - just ask him.

I thought about Frank’s situation and its relevance to the CPA community’s constant battle to recruit and retain talent. I never thought that someone’s birthdate should ever dictate how long they should work. We’ve had a number of clients in their 60s say they want to work at least another 10 years.

But that presents what the ancient philosophers used to refer to as a conundrum – a confusing and difficult question.

For example, imagine you’re a youngish CPA with a decent book of business (or even without one) and you’re contemplating a change to one of two firms where you have a chance to ride the partner track.

Firm A has a mandatory retirement age of 63 to pick a number at random. The good news is that several partners are encroaching on that milestone, thus opening up an opportunity for you to be part of the succession team.

By contrast, Firm B has no age cutoff and there are several partners that have stayed long past their expiration date and are, for lack of a better term, hanging around and collecting a paycheck. So, as not to be callous about it, you would basically have to wait for one or more to pass away before you receive an opportunity to gain equity.

Excluding unusual circumstances, I would predict that nine out of 10 candidates would choose Firm A. Thus, Firm B would be left in the uncomfortable position of having a string of older partners with no one waiting on the bench.

One solution could be that firms with no age limit could begin to wind down the older partners with such roles as “of counsel” or “partner Emeritus” this giving the young talent a chance to advance.

But I’ll let far brighter minds than mine sort that one out.

On the other hand they could always ask Frank for advice and they’d get it whether they wanted it or not.