As we approach November, that can only mean one thing -- election-time! I'm not going to get into a discussion of politics; but I did want to relay an interesting tale (or, actually, two tales).
A few months ago, before the primaries, I received a call from a survey-taker for Kathleen Rice, who was running for attorney general. At the end of the survey, I was asked if I would be able to volunteer any time to help Ms. Rice's campaign. In the past, I've almost always declined these offers, but I thought about it -- I *am* unemployed; and odds are there would be some great connections there -- and said, "sure, I'd consider it!"
I heard nothing for a week-or-so, and then, I got a phone call. The gentleman asked me what I was interested in doing, so I outlined my skillset -- communications, writing, etc. "Oh no," he said, "we don't need any help there -- we need help stuffing envelopes and making phone calls." I explained I was looking to make this a win-win possibility, and he asked me to send him my resume.
A few days later, I received a postcard in the mail for Ms. Rice's pre-primary day bash, held the Monday evening before the Primaries. Tickets were pricey (of course), but any volunteer who donated 10 hours of time, could attend for free. I immediately wrote the gentleman back again, and explained that, with that offer on the table, I would be happy to stuff envelopes (since it would lead to an opportunity to do something that would, in fact, better my chances of landing a position).
And, I waited. And waited. Sent another email, with no response. Finally, on the Monday (!) of the bash, I got a phone call from someone who said, "oh, you were passed on as someone who was interested in volunteering; would you be interested in handling duties in the office tonight, while the bash is going on?" I politely declined.
So, a few weeks ago, a walk-up surveytaker for Brian Foley (who's runing for NY State Senate), showed up at my door. I answered all the questions, and, at the end, I was asked, again, if I would be willing to volunteer (and also, if I would be willing to have a lawn sign on my property). Again, I expressed my interest in helping out, and I offered to have a lawn sign.
That was nearly three weeks ago. I haven't received any communication regarding my willingness to volunteer; and I have no lawn sign. I'm amazed that something as basic as providing a lawn sign seems beyond the capabilities of the "people in charge" at these campaigns.
If I was Mr. Foley, I'd take notice of the fact that Ms. Rice, ultimately, came up short in her campaign. I'm not saying that was entirely due to not using my skills to her advantage, but one never knows, does one?
Remember - if you want to be updated each time I post something, you can always choose to "follow me" or you can subscribe to the RSS feed (and be notified in Google Reader).
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Transferable Skills (huh, yeah! What are they good for? Absolutely nothin')
Actually, I've been pretty remiss in blogging recently -- trying to balance out so many different things (and, the end result, of course, is that nothing actually gets completed).
I've thought about this post for a while, but I've fluctuated on how to tackle it.
When you first attend unemployment seminars, they advocate (hard) for candidates to embrace their transferable skills -- these are skills that are developed that aren't tied to a specific job industry or position type (things like exceptional organization, or project management, or writing).
I've long said that my role, thankfully, is able to be productive in any industry, by-and-large. Communications is predominantly about finding and writing stories and building relationships; that's the breakdown of the role, and -- it's easy to see -- it can be a productive asset in nearly any company.
And yet, I would say the number one reason for many of my rejections is a lack of industry experience -- no experience in education, or healthcare, or finance, or law (despite my interest and enthusiasm for each of those industries). I've had one recruiter tell me that I should be looking "only in the industry I've just left (i.e., distribution), despite the fact that there was nothing about my role that was even remotely tied to it being a distribution-oriented company).
It's easy to take a superior-feeling opinion -- to say, "well, clearly, the company is losing out on some extremely talented workers because of an extremely narrow view of what would make for a successful employee," but, of course, that loss cuts two ways.
But, the reason I've vacillated on this is that I have recently started getting some interest -- in some cases, strong interest -- from industries outside my normal area of expertise. And, that's certainly encouraging. Perhaps it's a sign that, as the economy (slowly) recovers, positions that have sat vacant for too long are now becoming more necessary (and the lack of qualified candidates means companies have to look outside the narrow parameters they've established). And, in some other cases, maybe, it's just a case of some companies being far more proactive and forward-thinking.
In either case, thankfully, it's a good sign. For too long, the concept of transferable skills could easily have been translated as "waste of time." Finally, it seems some companies are starting to see the talent that may be escaping, due to nothing more than an antiquated concept that only persons with a specific industry background can be successful.
I've thought about this post for a while, but I've fluctuated on how to tackle it.
When you first attend unemployment seminars, they advocate (hard) for candidates to embrace their transferable skills -- these are skills that are developed that aren't tied to a specific job industry or position type (things like exceptional organization, or project management, or writing).
I've long said that my role, thankfully, is able to be productive in any industry, by-and-large. Communications is predominantly about finding and writing stories and building relationships; that's the breakdown of the role, and -- it's easy to see -- it can be a productive asset in nearly any company.
And yet, I would say the number one reason for many of my rejections is a lack of industry experience -- no experience in education, or healthcare, or finance, or law (despite my interest and enthusiasm for each of those industries). I've had one recruiter tell me that I should be looking "only in the industry I've just left (i.e., distribution), despite the fact that there was nothing about my role that was even remotely tied to it being a distribution-oriented company).
It's easy to take a superior-feeling opinion -- to say, "well, clearly, the company is losing out on some extremely talented workers because of an extremely narrow view of what would make for a successful employee," but, of course, that loss cuts two ways.
But, the reason I've vacillated on this is that I have recently started getting some interest -- in some cases, strong interest -- from industries outside my normal area of expertise. And, that's certainly encouraging. Perhaps it's a sign that, as the economy (slowly) recovers, positions that have sat vacant for too long are now becoming more necessary (and the lack of qualified candidates means companies have to look outside the narrow parameters they've established). And, in some other cases, maybe, it's just a case of some companies being far more proactive and forward-thinking.
In either case, thankfully, it's a good sign. For too long, the concept of transferable skills could easily have been translated as "waste of time." Finally, it seems some companies are starting to see the talent that may be escaping, due to nothing more than an antiquated concept that only persons with a specific industry background can be successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)