By JOE LIGHT

Printed on the front of Fabrice Tourre’s performance review was a message: “Not intended for disclosure outside the firm.” At Senate hearings last week he and a few other Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

executives learned there was an exception: Congress.

As they grilled the executives about their roles in the financial crisis, senators quoted from the executives’ performance reviews, noting the self-congratulatory tone they regularly used.

“It should not be a surprise to anyone that the 2007 year is the one that I am most proud of to date,” Goldman managing director Michael Swenson wrote in his self-evaluation. The comments could be an argument for a bonus, but Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) used them to tie Goldman to trades that now have the bank in the hot seat.

Employees long ago learned to watch what they put in emails, which often are monitored, saved and used as evidence. But even human-resources professionals were surprised to learn that self-assessments aren’t really confidential, even beyond their use in wrongful-termination litigation. The revelation of what many considered confidential information could have a chilling effect on an evaluation tool that is ubiquitous in corporate America.

“It’s mind boggling,” says Fred Foulkes, a Boston University professor who specializes in human-resources issues. “No one could have expected that these would become public.”

Self-Promotion

Bankers’ self-assessments could be a rich source of fodder for a Congress keen to bring financial firms under scrutiny. To justify year-end bonuses and argue for promotions, investment bankers commonly brag about behavior that otherwise wouldn’t be made public.

“There are a lot of firms on the street where if you don’t beat your chest like Tarzan, it’s viewed as a sign of weakness,” says Nick Zarcone, a managing director and chief operating officer in Robert W. Baird & Co.’s investment-banking department.

Earlier in the decade, self-evaluations were used as evidence during investigations into the relationship between the research and investment-banking arms of Goldman Sachs and other firms. But, unlike the current hearings, in most of those cases, the names of the analysts were hidden.

Self-assessments can also become evidence in wrongful-termination cases; most people filing suit would expect that to be the case.

But, what many people may not know is that evaluations of co-workers of someone filing suit can be disclosed and used to help make a case, says Daniel O’Meara, an employment attorney for Montgomery McCracken in Philadelphia. Still, the names are rarely publicly disclosed, Mr. O’Meara says.

Chilling Effect

That’s what makes the Goldman case so surprising to human-resources experts. Self-evaluations are nearly ubiquitous at corporations and often are used as part of a “360-degree” review process, in which the employee is assessed by superiors, peers, and subordinates. Most human-resources departments allow only managers of an employee’s group to look them up, says Kim Ruyle, a vice president of HR consulting firm Korn/Ferry International.

Many employers keep them in their files for up to seven years, leaving them open to subpoena. After the publicity of the Goldman case, companies may think twice about keeping them around for so long, say employment experts.

And in the short term until the political pressure dies down, firms might be wary of creating reviews that could embarrass them later, said Peter Cappelli, director of the Center for Human Resources at the Wharton School of Business.

“This can have a chilling effect on the whole process,” says Mr. Foulkes of Boston University.

By MELISSA KORN

Business-school professors are making a morality play.

Four years after the scandals of the financial crisis prompted deans and faculty to re-examine how they teach ethics, some academics say they still haven’t gotten it right. Melissa Korn reports on Markets Hub. Photo: Getty Images.

Four years after the scandals of the financial crisis prompted deans and faculty to re-examine how they teach ethics, some academics say they still haven’t gotten it right.

Hoping to prevent another Bernard L. Madoff-like scandal or insider-trading debacle, a group of schools, led by University of Colorado’s Leeds School of Business in Boulder, is trying to generate support for more ethics teaching in business programs.

Richard Mia

“Business schools have been giving students some education in ethics for at least the past 25 or 30 years, and we still have these problems,” such as irresponsibly risky bets or manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, says John Delaney, dean of University of Pittsburgh’s College of Business Administration and Katz Graduate School of Business.

He joined faculty and administrators from Massachusetts’ Babson College, Michigan State University and other schools in Colorado last summer in what he says is an effort to move schools from talk to action. The Colorado consortium is holding conference calls and is exploring another meeting later this year as it exchanges ideas on program design, course content and how to build support among other faculty members.

But some efforts are at risk of stalling at the discussion stage, since teaching business ethics faces roadblocks from faculty and recruiters alike. Some professors see ethics as separate from their own subjects, such as accounting or marketing, and companies have their own training programs for new hires.

A strong ethics education can help counteract a narrowing worldview that often accompanies a student’s progression through business school, supporters in academia say. Surveys conducted by the Aspen Institute, a think tank, show that about 60% of new M.B.A. students view maximizing shareholder value as the primary responsibility of a company; that number rises to 69% by the time they reach the program’s midpoint.

Though maximizing shareholder returns isn’t a bad goal in itself, focusing on that at the expense of customer satisfaction, employee well-being or environmental considerations can be dangerous.

Without tying ethics to a business curriculum, “we are graduating students who are very myopic in their decision-making,” says Diane Swanson, founding chair of the Business Ethics Education Initiative at Kansas State University.

Stand-alone ethics courses are a start, but they “compartmentalize” the issue for students, as if ethical questions aren’t applicable to all business disciplines, says David Ikenberry, dean of University of Colorado’s Leeds School.

Some schools are experimenting with a more integrated approach. This fall, Boston University’s School of Management is introducing a required ethics course for freshman business students, and is also tasking instructors in other business classes to incorporate ethics into their lessons. It may also overhaul a senior seminar to reinforce ethics topics.

“We need to hit the students hard when they first get here, remind them of these principles throughout their core classes, and hit them once again before they leave,” says Kabrina Chang, an assistant professor at Boston University’s business school, who is coordinating the new freshman class.

Students likely know right from wrong, so rather than, say, discussing whether a student would turn in a roommate caught stealing, Ms. Chang says she’ll lead a debate on how or if a student might maintain a relationship with the thief.

Students may find the roommate-thief scenario more relevant than a re-examination of recent Ponzi schemes, but many remain skeptical of how such discussions apply to real life.

As one M.B.A. wrote last year on College Confidential, an online message board, “It’s not like Johnny is going to be at the cusp of committing fraud and then think back to his b-school days and think, “gee, Professor Goody Two Shoes wouldn’t approve.”

What’s more, schools can’t calculate the moral well-being of their graduates the same way they can quantify financial success or technical acumen. One of the few rankings available—the Aspen Institute’s “Beyond Grey Pinstripes” report—was suspended last year, in part because researchers could not determine the net benefit of ethics courses. Without demonstrable returns, there’s little incentive for deans to add classes and instructors.

Employers, who have in the past pushed schools to add more hands-on training and global coursework, could successfully agitate for more ethics instruction. But many companies say completing an ethics course won’t make or break a hiring decision—especially since firms tend to offer their own training for new hires.

“I’m not so sure that an ‘A’ in an ethics class is really a valid way of judging” an individual’s moral compass, says Jill Smart, chief human resources officer at Accenture,

which hires thousands of students each year.

Even if recruiters do indicate expectations of more ethics curriculum, some say schools still won’t change without clear marching orders from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, the industry’s main accrediting group. Schools must demonstrate that they both expose students to ethics and measure learning outcomes, says Joseph DiAngelo, the AACSB’s chairman. But the group doesn’t prescribe which concepts must be addressed, nor does it track the number of classes offered at member schools.

As the financial crisis fades from memory and the economy recovers, instructors worry that the moment has passed.

“That’s the danger of ethics education in business schools. We only think about it when there’s a crisis,” says Katz’s Mr. Delaney. Citing the previous rounds of introspection sparked by Michael Milken’s downfall in the 1980s, Enron and other accounting scandals a decade ago, he says, “If we don’t find a way to instill [ethics] in people, we’re going to repeat it over and over again.”

Write to Melissa Korn at melissa.korn@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared February 7, 2013, on page B4 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Does an ‘A’ in Ethics Have Any Value?.

By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN

A new study shows a large gap in perceptions among the sexes in who has more opportunities for advancement—men or women.

Earlier this month, consulting firm Bain & Co. surveyed 1,834 business professionals world-wide on gender parity in the workplace. The findings, which will be presented later this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, show that 90% and 85% of men and women, respectively, believe qualified applicants of either gender have the same shot at landing a junior-level position. Yet 81% of men said opportunities to move to middle management are gender neutral, compared with just 52% of women. Similarly, 66% of men said promotions to the executive level are equally attainable by both sexes, versus 30% of women. As for appointments to leadership and governance roles, 69% of men and 31% of women said consideration is granted evenly among the sexes.

In reality, women represent a much smaller portion of leadership roles in business. A December 2009 study from New York research organization Catalyst Inc. shows 3% of chief executive officers and 13.5% of all executive-officer positions within Fortune 500 companies are women. In the boardroom, women hold only 15.2% of seats.

Men’s perceptions may be rosier than women’s because they may be considering the long-term progress women have made in the workplace, says Ellen Galinsky, president of nonprofit Families & Work Institute in New York. Men will “say women have it a lot better than they did in the past,” she says. “Women say, ‘Yes, but there are a lot fewer of us and we had to give up a lot more to get there.’ “

Perceptions may play a role in women lagging behind men in advancing their careers, says Deborah M. Kolb, a professor specializing in women and leadership at Simmons School of Management in Boston. Ms. Kolb says studies have consistently shown women are seen by bosses and colleagues—men and women alike—as being less capable of serving in leadership posts than men, despite evidence to the contrary. “Women often get asked to take career detours, to go into areas like human resources, to be on the diversity committee,” she says. “Men get asked to take on strategic-development activities.”

Similarly, studies suggest that women are disproportionately assigned to oversee change within businesses—assignments that pose greater risk of failure, adds Ms. Kolb. “They get asked to clean up messes, so they might not have a track record of success and mistakes may follow them,” she says.

Research also shows that men are better at developing career advocates than women, Ms. Kolb adds. “Men are much more likely to have sponsors who put them forward,” she says. “Women are not as well connected and networked. It’s harder for them to be seen as the kind of people to be put forward.”

Achieving gender parity in the workplace is possible if business leaders take a systematic and customized approach to finding out what derails women along the way at their organizations, says Orit Gadiesh, chairman of New York-based Bain.”You need to tailor it to the company—how many women you have, where they drop off, and what happens with promotions,” she says. “You can’t fix what you don’t measure.”

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com

By DENNIS NISHI

If you’ve been laid off and your former employer is hiring again, you might see the news as a chance to get back to work at your old firm. But first it’s important to consider whether it’s a good idea—and whether the skills you bring are what the company needs now.

The odds of getting an old job back are good if you were let go simply for budgetary reasons and the company outlook has been improving.

But before you get too excited about trying to return, do a self-assessment—and be honest. “Sometimes there is some selectivity in who is laid off,” says Jerald Jellison, a professor of social psychology at the University of Southern California who specializes in the workplace. He recommends asking yourself whether you created any bad feelings when you left or while you were working at the company. Was your work up to par? Was your role valued in better economic times?

You also should consider whether or not you feel a renewed commitment to the work you’d be doing, says Mr. Jellison. “I liken it to returning to an old flame. Is it really a good idea? Do you really want to be there?”

What the Company Needs

Next, consider what the company will need as conditions improve. If you were a marketing manager, figure out how you could return with a new angle of attack that could help make the company more competitive. If you’ve enrolled in any courses or have time to sign up for a webinar that will bump up your skills, highlight these efforts in a cover letter.

Keep in mind that even if your old firm is starting to rebuild and your position—something like it—is resurrected, you might not get the job. Approach the application process and interview as if you were a new candidate. Fine-tune your résumé, do research that shows you haven’t fallen behind on what the company has been doing, prepare for the interview and be ready to answer tough questions.

And before you apply, contact former co-workers who have kept their jobs to assess how things are now relative to when you were there. Get up to speed on any other news that can help you understand key personnel changes or staffing needs, says Ruth K. Liebermann, managing director of HR Insourcing in Boston. “Contact your former boss and let him [or her] know that you’re interested,” says Ms. Liebermann. “Tell your boss what new initiatives you plan to bring, with the benefit of hindsight, and what new energy you have coming back.”

No Grudges

When you contact your former boss or human-resources department, assure them that you harbor no bad feelings about being laid off and are eager to return to work. If you’re trying to persuade a new boss to bring you back, focus on your accomplishments and get references to back up your claims.

If there are no full-time positions available, consider asking to work on a contract basis. The pay is often higher and, though there are no benefits, the job may eventually transition into a full-time position.

Don’t be discouraged if you get through the interview process and find out the job now pays less than you earned before. “You have to consider the market conditions,” says Paul Glen, a management consultant in Los Angeles. “Everybody is taking pay cuts and losing benefits. That will change as the economy improves.”

Write to Dennis Nishi at cjeditor@dowjones.com

By LAUREN WEBER

Daniella Zalcman for The Wall Street Journal

Matt Stern, 51, a former hedge-fund analyst, says he may have to rethink retirement. He had expected to be able to retire at 62.

The American workplace is about to get grayer.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans between the ages of 45 and 60 say they plan to delay retirement, Lauren Weber reports on Markets Hub. Photo: AP

Nearly two-thirds of Americans between the ages of 45 and 60 say they plan to delay retirement, according to a report to be released Friday by the Conference Board. That was a steep jump from just two years earlier, when the group found that 42% of respondents expected to put off retirement.

The increase was driven by the financial losses, layoffs and income stagnation sustained during the last few years of recession and recovery, said Gad Levanon, director of macroeconomic research at the organization and a co-author of the report, which is based on a 2012 survey of 15,000 individuals.

Matt Stern, 51 years old, a former analyst at a Manhattan hedge fund, met with a financial planner in December, days before he was laid off and the fund announced its imminent liquidation. At the meeting, the planner projected that Mr. Stern could retire at age 62. But now, with his assets down 10% to 20% from their 2008 peak, he is looking for a job and retooling his expectations for retirement.

“I might have to prioritize income over whatever calls to me on other levels,” such as travel or being involved in nonprofit organizations, Mr. Stern said.

The labor force has been getting older for decades for reasons that range from longer life spans and better health to companies’ replacement of defined-benefit pensions with higher-risk 401(k) plans.

But the stark increase in workers expecting to stay on the job—now 62%—was a surprise, Mr. Levanon said. After all, the stock market has largely earned back its losses, home prices are rising, and the unemployment rate is creeping down, all of which suggests workers should be feeling more secure.

Many middle-aged Americans, though, drew down their savings during those lean years and now find that leaving the work force on their original timeline is no longer viable, he said.

They are also facing low interest rates, an uncertain future for Social Security, and a lower likelihood of receiving employer health insurance after retirement.

The uptick may be good news for some industries—notably utilities and power companies—that face disruptive skills shortages when older workers retire.

However, senior employees can be expensive for companies, both in salary and health-care costs.

In addition, amid anemic economic growth, these workers may block the pipeline for younger employees trying to advance their careers.

In the long run, that concern is misplaced, said Kevin Cahill, an economist at the Sloan Center on Aging and Work at Boston College.

“Keeping older Americans in the work force is a good thing,” he said. “Those workers have more financial security, employers have a larger labor pool to draw from, and we have more people to produce goods and services. There may be bumps like the recent contraction in the labor market, but we need to look beyond the short term.”

Ultimately, many workers will still retire on schedule, Mr. Levanon added. Research shows that intentions don’t necessarily align with reality, and people often end up retiring as they had expected because of health reasons, job losses or simply a miscalculation of their own desires.

Write to Lauren Weber at lauren.weber@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared February 1, 2013, on page B1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Americans Rip Up Retirement Plans.

By DANA MATTIOLI

(See Corrections & Amplification item below.)

With unemployment at 9.4% and rising, it’s a buyer’s market for employers that are hiring. But many employers are bypassing the jobless to target those still working, reasoning that these survivors are the top performers.

“If they’re employed in today’s economy, they have to be first string,” says Ryan Ross, a partner with Kaye/Bassman International Corp., an executive recruiting firm in Dallas. Mr. Ross says more clients recently have indicated that they would prefer to fill positions with “passive candidates” who are working elsewhere and not actively seeking a job.

The bias extends from front-line workers to senior managers. Charlie Wilgus, managing partner of executive search for Lucas Group, based in Atlanta, says a manufacturing client looking for a division president recently refused to consider a former divisional president at Newell Rubbermaid Inc. whose department had been eliminated. The client doesn’t want candidates who have been laid off, Mr. Wilgus says.

Employers’ preference for the employed adds another hurdle for those who have been laid off. Job seekers frequently are competing with dozens of other applicants for the few available positions.

Bobby Fitzgerald, a partner in five restaurants in three states, says these days he gets two dozen or more unsolicited résumés each day at one of his Phoenix restaurants, the White Chocolate Grill. But Mr. Fitzgerald says his top candidates, for jobs ranging from servers to management, usually are people who are employed elsewhere. He currently has 50 openings across his five restaurants and has told recruiters to bring in only people who are working.

Mr. Fitzgerald has long practiced “guerrilla recruiting.” Even with so many applicants available, he still sends managers to other restaurants with instructions to approach staffers who seem to be strong performers.

Mr. Fitzgerald’s preference for the employed can be time-consuming and expensive. He recently spent three weeks courting a restaurant manager in Birmingham, Ala., for a management post. Mr. Fitzgerald flew the candidate to Phoenix for an interview and a “realistic job preview,” but the candidate chose not to relocate and declined the job offer. “There are a lot of applicants between Phoenix and Birmingham who would have gladly taken the job,” says Mr. Fitzgerald.

While the tactic doesn’t work very often, Mr. Fitzgerald says it lets people know he is hiring. “We are always looking for the very best of the industry, which happens to be people who are still employed,” he says. “The overflow of applicants hasn’t made it easier to hire at all.”

Even when employers are successful, recruiting the employed can cost money. Tim Donohue, senior account manager of Infinity Consulting Solutions, an executive-search firm specializing in finance-related industries, based in New York, says candidates who are wooed away from other jobs typically demand a higher salary than the unemployed, who tend to be more open to negotiation.

Nonetheless, many employers consider the employed more valuable and worth the extra effort. Health-care management-consulting firm Beacon Partners Inc., Weymouth, Mass., has openings for 10 technology-consulting and senior project-management positions. Chief Executive Ralph Fargnoli is looking first for people who are still working. “If they’re still employed that means they have some significant value,” Mr. Fargnoli says.

Beacon, with about 145 employees, targets candidates at conferences, presentations and other gatherings. “We attend industry events and approach the speaker or attendees to see if they’re happy at their job and whether they see a career path at their current employer,” says Mr. Fargnoli. Recently, Mr. Fargnoli successfully recruited a chief information officer of a hospital health system for a vice president role at Beacon after meeting the person at conferences.

The targets aren’t always eager to jump ship. “We’re seeing candidates afraid to move because they don’t want to be the last one in, first one out,” says Jaimie Lynn Craig, an executive recruiter with Premier Staffing in San Francisco. She says many executive-level candidates are seeking guarantees and severance provisions in case their new jobs fall through. Messrs. Fargnoli and Fitzgerald say the employees they approach are more risk-averse, given the shaky economy.

When employers post jobs, they often are flooded with applicants, many of whom aren’t good matches for the position. Kristi Robinson, vice president of talent acquisition at Express Scripts Inc., says applications at the St. Louis pharmacy-benefit manager are up 80% from last year, but many candidates are either over- or underqualified. By targeting people who are currently employed in comparable positions, the firm can bypass candidates who aren’t perfect matches.

Ms. Robinson is looking to fill more than 100 positions, from operations and sales to finance. She says Express Scripts is targeting passive candidates through networking and referrals, and expects them to account for about half of new hires this year, similar to last year.

Job seekers sense the trend. A recent online survey conducted by Infinity Consulting Solutions of 417 job hunters in the New York area found that 59% agreed or strongly agreed that employers gave preference to candidates that are currently employed.

However, there are still jobs to be had if you can calm an employer’s biggest worry about out-of-work applicants: that your termination was the result of poor performance.

Arming yourself with strong letters of recommendation from your previous employer, stating that you were laid off for economic reasons and that you are “eligible for rehire,” can help your case, says Mr. Ross of Kaye/Bassman. If you can’t obtain formal letters, get references from senior-level employees at your prior company, he says.

Being flexible on your salary or title also goes a long way, says Mr. Donohue of Infinity Consulting.

And if you lost your job when your department was eliminated, make sure to tell prospective employers; that will be considered more benign than selective layoffs, says Mr. Donohue. “If they got rid of half the team and you’re on the losing half, their antennas are up,” he says.

Corrections & Amplifications

Restaurant operator Bobby Fitzgerald of The White Chocolate Grill only uses recruiters for management positions and says he accepts applications from everybody. This article incorrectly said Mr. Fitzgerald had instructed recruiters to only bring in people who are working for openings at his five restaurants.

Write to
Dana Mattioli at
Dana.Mattioli@wsj.com

CHICAGO—Richard Malone has cooked up a new operating model for sick newspapers, an idea that may need investors.

Unsure of its feasibility, the former Chicago Tribune official outlined his tentative plan last month to executives seated in black leather chairs around a polished mahogany table here. The meeting’s attendees, mostly other displaced executives, proposed ways that Mr. Malone might improve his Power Point presentation before possibly pitching it to private-equity firms.

“Some of the free consulting I’m getting here, I’d have to pay hundreds of dollars for from outside firms,” he said.

Actually, Mr. Malone spent plenty for the “free” advice by forking over a hefty five-figure fee to Shields Meneley Partners, a Chicago career-transition firm that serves displaced top executives by offering specialized job-hunting help, including tapping clients’ expertise, as in the case of Mr. Malone. The boutique runs “Think Tank,” the weekly brainstorming session where he addressed eight fellow clients of Shields Meneley and one former client.

Welcome to the brave new world of high-end outplacement assistance. More laid-off senior managers now must pay part or all of the bill for this customized counseling because employers are less generous in the current economic environment. At the same time, jobless executives need every possible leg up in a fiercely competitive job market.

Shields Meneley charges between $45,000 and $100,000 for 18 months of aid. About 60% of its 35 clients cover at least a portion of the fee, up from 40% in 2004. Small rivals report similar recent spurts in clients footing part of the tab. Yet the median value of external outplacement offered to executives during the past two years is just $6,000, according to a June poll of 265 U.S. employers by the American Management Association and Institute for Corporate Productivity.

As the jobless rate soars, a close look at Shields Meneley offers insights into the pluses and minuses of deluxe career-transition services. The firm’s strongest selling point? Highly personalized attention.

Clients initially undergo a lengthy assessment with a staff psychologist. Assigned one of the firm’s three counselors, executives then develop a marketing plan, polish their resumes, practice interviewing, update wardrobes, enlarge professional networks and get “acclimation” coaching during their next job’s early days.

Shields Meneley represents “the custom tailors of outplacement,” says client Jeff Held, a former vice president of business development for Quixote Corp. The Chicago maker of highway- and transportation-safety products eliminated his post in December 2007. When Mr. Held arrived at Shields Meneley early last year, co-founder Gail Meneley already “had done her homework about my background,” he recalls. Mr. Held likes the firm’s array of services—plus extra touches, such as the staffer who arranged to send his wife a surprise birthday gift. And its plush, high-rise office felt “like being at work again,” he says. Mr. Held, who paid $32,000 of the $50,000 fee, is still looking for a new gig.

If clients need it, Shields Meneley provides extra hand-holding. One Sunday morning this spring, a telecommunications executive called co-founder Hugh Shields at home because he felt anxious about a job interview the next day. “We did role playing,” rehearsing answers to trick questions, Mr. Shields remembers. The man began work Monday, leading a global division at a major telecom.

Other executives appreciate Shields Meneley so much that they become repeat customers. Peter Dunn’s first stint helped him land the presidency of Steak N Shake Co. in 2002. Mr. Dunn later advanced to chief executive. He again used Shields Meneley after leaving the restaurant chain in fall 2007 following a strategy disagreement. He covered $5,000 of that $45,000 fee.

This time, Mr. Dunn rejected CEO offers. He says he and Ms. Meneley instead explored entrepreneurial roles where “my skills could make a difference.” Ms. Meneley encouraged him to consider elder care or health care as “opportunities for solving unsolved problems,” Mr. Dunn adds. In January, he and a partner launched Activate Healthcare LLC, an Indianapolis concern that operates on-site health clinics for businesses.

Shields Meneley also introduces clients to influential corporate leaders, including alums. That’s how Mr. Dunn met potential “angel” investors for his start-up. “These are resources I would not have found on my own,” he says.

The firm created the Think Tank partly so participants could swap potential opportunities in different industries. For instance, in Mr. Malone’s Think Tank session, participants included a printing-industry lawyer, a former marketer for a big consumer-goods maker and the ex-chief administrative officer of an asset-management firm.

There are downsides to high-level outplacement. It requires considerable time and money. On average, Shields Meneley clients now spend nearly a year finding employment—up from eight to 10 months last fall. However, the longer searches common these days persuaded the firm to temporarily extend its standard 12-month client contract to 18 months without raising fees.

New Directions, a Boston competitor, recently introduced a shorter and less expensive version of its traditional multiyear program. Other rivals slash rates for clients who could generate referrals.

Stephanie Kushner, who lost the chief financial officer’s spot at Federal Signal Corp. in December, didn’t mind paying 60% of Shields Meneley’s $45,000 fee. She figures that equals less than 5% of what she likely will earn next. “Why should I try some low-budget [outplacement] alternative?” she asks.

Another drawback: A comprehensive but cozy array of career-transition services may lull people into complacency. The exclusive clubhouse approach “takes the edge off your job search,” and you may not feel so motivated to hustle for a new job if you’re getting so much relaxed hand-holding, warns Laurence Stybel, co-founder of Stybel Peabody Lincolnshire, a Boston consultancy that counsels jobless executives.

“Ours is high-end outplacement as a halfway house,” Mr. Stybel says. “We are here to help you get moving, get on your feet and get out of here.”

Ms. Meneley insists her clients work hard seeking work. “They don’t want to spend a single day longer than they need to in transition.”

—
Email Joann.Lublin@wsj.com

Write to
Joann S. Lublin at joann.lublin@wsj.com

By BETH GARDINER

Just like large companies eager to get a foothold in one of the world’s most important markets, international business schools are moving into China in a big way.

Eager to capitalize on demand in a fast-growing economy that has a huge need for well-trained managers, big name B-schools from Europe and the U.S. are launching and expanding M.B.A.-program collaborations with Chinese universities or going it alone with courses aimed at mid-career executives.

Experience in China is also a selling point at home, since Western students increasingly see the benefits of studying at an institution whose faculty have close-up experience of the country. Such links can also give M.B.A. students the chance to study in China for a module or a semester.

“The lure is to go and learn about what’s happening, and be in the middle of the action in one of the most dynamic economies in the world,” says Krishna Palepu, senior associate dean for international development at Harvard Business School. The school has had a faculty research base in China for about 20 years but now shares a new Shanghai classroom with other Harvard schools.

“In the last four or five years we have ramped it up to a much larger scale,” he says.

A flurry of deans from top international institutions who have moved recently to run programs in Asia shows the influence the continent’s institutions now wield in the B-school world, says Matt Symonds, whose company, Symonds GSB, does consulting for business schools.

George Yip is leaving the top post at the Rotterdam School of Management in the Netherlands for the China Europe International Business School, or CEIBS, where John Quelch, a onetime head of London Business School, recently became dean. Arnoud De Meyer quit his job as director of the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School last year to become president of the Singapore Management University.

China has scores of its own business schools, which now attract thousands of students a year.

“But nonetheless, such is the thirst for a managerial talent pool that there remains tremendous demand for the Western business-school product,” Mr. Symonds says.

Duke University is setting up a campus in Kunshan, near Shanghai, and its Fuqua School of Business is slated to be the first to offer programs there. Some other Western universities run full-fledged M.B.A. programs in partnership with Chinese institutions, and many more offer shorter training courses.

Chinese companies are growing so quickly that training programs can barely keep up with the demand for qualified managers. With companies vying for their services, such employees jump ship frequently, so firms must make sure they have a pipeline of new talent available to manage their own growth, says Mr. Palepu.

Big multinational firms also look to the major business schools to train managers for their Chinese operations. And given the projections for China’s economic growth, the need is only likely to get bigger.

“The demand is already huge, but it’s going to grow several-fold,” says Rama Velamuri, academic director of the international executive M.B.A. program at the China Europe International Business School. CEIBS was one of the first international business schools in China when it opened in 1994 as a joint effort of the European Union and the Chinese government.

But Chinese students are no longer willing, as they were then, to listen unquestioningly to anyone bringing Western ideas to the classroom, he says.

“The market has become very discerning now,” Mr. Velamuri says. “It’s no longer good enough for you to come up with a theory that was done up in the West and present it to an audience in China. The Chinese will push back and say ‘Tell us how it will apply here.’”

The most promising new source of students may be from Chinese companies that are looking to expand globally and seeking to educate employees about Western markets.

Chinese companies “are now looking outward to the rest of the world,” Mr. Symonds says. “A lot of their executive-training demands will focus on the Western business schools teaching them how to reach out.”

Harvard Business School is among those seeking to tap that market with a new, simultaneously translated program for Chinese CEOs who do not speak English and whose companies are aiming to go international.

It is not just Chinese students who want a global perspective. Building a presence in China is key to a school’s attractiveness at home too, says Bernard Ramanantsoa, dean of HEC Paris business school, which offers joint M.B.A. degrees in China with Tsinghua University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and executive M.B.A.s in partnership with Chinese government agencies.

“It becomes a strong marketing tool if a school has this China engagement,” Mr. Velamuri of CEIBS says.

In many ways, though, China is still not an easy place for foreigners to do business. Bureaucratic and cultural hurdles can be high, Mr. Symonds says. And while many Western schools boast of their links with Chinese universities, “they happen at such different levels,” Mr. Symonds notes. “There are lots of flimsy partnerships.”

Markets like Singapore are becoming overcrowded with international B-schools, but Mr. Symonds predicts China may get only a few more.

“If it was as easy to do business in China as it is in Singapore, perhaps we’d see other main players setting up there,” he says.

By JOE LIGHT

The job market for business- school students is better than last year, but still isn’t back to prerecession levels, says Nicole Hall, president of the MBA Career Services Council, a professional association.

Driving the pickup is more robust recruiting by companies in health care, energy and technology, she says. Yet compared with a few years ago, a smaller percentage of students are getting multiple offers, and companies are recruiting closer to home to save money. That has led candidates to be more open to employers they might not have otherwise considered.

Lingering weakness means some graduates from the class of 2010 still hadn’t found jobs a few months after graduating.

According to a September survey of 824 business-school graduates from around the world, 88% of M.B.A. and other graduate management alumni from the class of 2010 had a job, a slight increase from 84% of the class of 2009 a year earlier, according to the Graduate Management Admission Council.

T. Rowe Price Chief Economist Alan Levenson gives his unemployment outlook for 2011 and predicts areas of potential job growth for the U.S. economy. He also gives Dow Jones’ Veronica Dagher his view on the odds of another quantitative easing program by the Fed.

Starting pay rose to a median of $78,820 this year from $75,000 for the class of 2009, according to the Graduate Management Admission Council survey.

Ms. Hall, who is also career services executive director for the Graziadio School of Business and Management at Pepperdine University, recently spoke to The Wall Street Journal.

Excerpts:

WSJ: At business schools overall, are employers recruiting M.B.A. candidates more aggressively this year?

Ms. Hall: We still see companies are conservative with hiring and not equal across all industries. But overall, hiring appears to be up. It’s still dramatically down from 2007 and 2008. Back then, employers were engaging earlier on, and I’d have a full recruiting calendar. We’re nowhere near where we were in the past.

WSJ: What sectors seem to be more keen to hire this year?

Ms. Hall: With the class of 2010, we saw a strong trend. There was a big increase in hiring in health care, energy and technology. Those areas increased in 2009 too, but that trajectory continued this year. I expect the same will happen with the class of 2011.

WSJ: Have consulting and financial services come back yet?

Ms. Hall: It’s been consistent across most schools that they’re still down compared to before the recession. We’re certainly seeing a higher volume of activity than last year, but they’re being very conservative with hiring estimates.

WSJ: How have schools dealt with the lack of opportunities?

Ms. Hall: There’s a decrease in the number of opportunities that companies have available overall. In the past, a lot of schools were accustomed to getting multiple hires from one employer, but now in a lot of cases, a company will only make a single hire. So that makes it highly competitive.

Schools that had existing relationships with companies had the ability to hold onto those relationships for hiring opportunities for their students. It’s been harder for schools that didn’t have them, since companies have focused on schools where they’ve already gotten candidates with proven success.

WSJ: Are companies focusing on top-tier schools?

Ms. Hall: There’s not as much national recruiting as before. A lot of companies are focusing on high quality schools that are right in their backyards. All schools, no matter how high the rank, try to diversify their base of employers, but companies right now want to recruit in their immediate regions. It saves them a lot of money on their recruiting budgets.

WSJ: How are students adjusting?

Ms. Hall: Back in 2007 and 2008, students had flexibility to decide where they wanted to live and work. With outlooks tightening, students will take opportunities wherever they’re available.

The classes of 2010 and 2011 had the benefit of seeing the downturn happening as they moved through school. So they’re not surprised like the class of 2009. They know that the number of offers per student has declined. At Pepperdine, probably 30% of students have gotten multiple offers during this downturn. Before, many more would have.

WSJ: Are there still 2010 grads looking for work?

Ms. Hall: Job acceptances are coming later [because some students are taking longer to accept offers they don't consider ideal]. Before, we’d expect to see acceptances within three months of graduation, but now it’s happening as late as six months after. At Pepperdine, there are a handful of 2010 graduates still looking for jobs.

WSJ: Has your role as a career services director changed?

Ms. Hall: We’re much more like headhunters. We’re aggressively matching students to roles. We’ll find out what companies need and recommend students to companies that fit. Companies like it, because they get four or five pre-screened candidates to consider for their opening.

We also profile the graduating class each year on their skills and interests and pursue companies that would have roles for them.

So rather than expand our overall company relationships, we do it strategically based on what our students need.

By JANE PORTER

While starting a new job means learning the ropes at an unfamiliar place, for those faced with a sudden role shift within the same company, the move can be even trickier. But it’s happening more these days as companies downsize and responsibilities shift. Whether you are moving from one internal job to another or suddenly answering to a new boss Rick Brandon, author of “Survival of the Savvy,” says you need to take steps to avoid the pitfalls of office politics and work overload.

• Talk it out. When moving from one job to another or transitioning between bosses and departments you can easily get stuck with twice the work. You might be eager to start the new job, but Mr. Brandon advises sitting down with the old and new bosses together to reach an agreement about how the transition will be handled. Who will take over your old role? What will your new job responsibilities entail? “Negotiate time frames for the new job,” says Mr. Brandon. If you’re asked to take on work in addition to what you do now, ask for a priority list and find out who you will report to for the new responsibilities.

• Understand the new rules. Just because you are still in the same company, doesn’t mean you will be playing by the same rules. Take the time to learn how things operate in your new work situation. “It’s easy to think, ‘I know the company, I’ve been here for 20 years,’ ” says Erika Andersen, author of “Being Strategic,” and founder of New York-based organizational development firm, Proteus International Inc. “It’s really important not to assume that it’s the same.” While you handed in monthly reports and held monthly meetings in your old job, a new manager may expect you to report your progress weekly or meet more frequently. Be sure to ask about these details early on, says Ms. Andersen. And talk to colleagues about the particulars of the departmental culture.

• Stay open. Reorganization usually leads to angst and fear among employees, whether it’s a favorite co-worker whose place you’ll be taking or former peers who now report to you. You’ll be bringing whatever old baggage you have—and dealing with the worries of new colleagues, says Mr. Brandon. Don’t be surprised by initial push-back from co-workers who may see your new role as a threat. Be open with your colleagues about your role and how it fits into the group.

• Learn to let go. Consider in advance what might happen if you’re needed back in the old job or role—even temporarily—says Mr. Brandon. Will your new manager be on board with the idea? Can other colleagues or outside consultants help if a crisis hits and your hands are full? “Make sure you run interference for yourself,” says Mr. Brandon. “Plan for the unexpected.”

• Manage your relationships. While you may have a new set of colleagues, preserving relationships with old co-workers and managers is important, particularly in such a volatile work environment. Stop by to say hello or invite a former boss to coffee. “There’s so much reorganization,” says Mr. Brandon. “You might end up back with those people.”

Write to Jane Porter at jane.porter@wsj.com