Whew ... it's been a long time since I blogged. I had one topic in mind; but it's a little more pop-culture than business-focused; and I didn't want to return from such a hiatus with something as meaningless as pop culture.
This morning, I was thinking about the irony of job-seeking versus being a great employee. Those very traits that make someone an exceptional employee are not the ones that convince an organization to hire them in the first place.
What do I mean? Well, simply stated, most companies seek out employees that will always put the company's needs first. Even salespeople (who need to exude more confidence than the average worker) still should never lose sight of the company's mission and goals (although, again, with sales, many of those goals are achieved through sales goals).
And, I like to think I fit into that category. I've been fortunate to have the ear of several executives during my professional life, and none of them would ever say I ever recommended anything that benefited me, exclusively (or, more to the point, *didn't* benefit the company).
Yet, when it comes to interviewing and job-seeking, humility and modesty is not a welcomed trait. If you cannot speak effusively about yourself, your skills and your accomplishments, you're perceived as not being a strong candidate.
And, for someone like me (true story: I was asked in an interview what one word best described me and -- without hesitation -- I said "modest"), that can be a challenge.
Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that most of my "accomplishments," I simply considered to be "my job." To me, even if I do my job exceptionally well, it's still my job (and should be done to the best of my capabilities). So, to go into an interview and spew out all these great things I did, just feels insincere to me.
I'm not without confidence ... but, being confident doesn't necessarily mean talking yourself up. I leave most interviews convinced I can help the company achieve its goals and that I can handle the responsibilities of the position (and deliver exceptional results). Anecdotally, I can point to my previous positions: Look at where the company was before I got there; look where it got *while* I was there; and look at where it is now that I'm no longer there. I can assure you, the differences are stark.
The other difficulty comes from the fact that -- rightfully so -- interviewers want to learn what led to your accomplishments. And, again, I consider it just my job. I go into a company; learn the product/service or the culture (depending on my role and focus); and then I ensure messages reach the target audience in the way intended. Whether I'm creating the messaging or editing it or advising someone else; the important piece of the puzzle is making sure the audience *hears* the message the way it was intended. If they don't, the failure lies with the message and message sender (*not* the audience).
But, ask me to describe the minutiae of how I do that, and I'm probably going to be a little flustered. It's not something I've ever analyzed (despite the fact that I pride myself on being meticulous and methodical). In some ways (and I'm not comparing myself to him, necessarily), it's similar to the plight of Ted Williams.
Ted Williams is arguably the greatest baseball hitter of all time (I can make a case for Ty Cobb; but that's another blog!). After his playing career, teams wanted to hire Williams to teach *their* players how to hit; which was a great idea on paper. Problem is -- Ted couldn't explain how he hit, and he certainly couldn't teach anyone. To him, it was as simple as: see the ball; hit the ball; and it worked. Ask for more details than that, and you'd be sorely disappointed.
One of the reasons I've built up my network so much (and that I've tried to actually *meet* as many of the people in my network as I can), is because there are few things in the job search as powerful as having someone talk you up to the company to which you've applied. Sure, I can apply for a job online; but if I know someone who knows someone at that company, and my contact is able (and willing!) to tell the person what a fantastic addition I'd be; and how I can help transform their company ... well, that accomplishes two things: First, it's an incredibly meaningful recommendation (and, honestly, you can't have too many of those!); and second, it takes the pressure off of me.
Then, I can focus on simply being a modest and exceptional employee.
Showing posts with label Career. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Career. Show all posts
Monday, February 17, 2014
Monday, October 21, 2013
It May Be Heresy, But I Blame Sabermetrics for the Detroit Tigers Collapse
As I may have mentioned before, when I was a young student, I desperately wanted to be a sabermetrician ... someone who analyzed baseball statistics for a living.
Of course, back then, there really weren't many of these roles (this was before "Moneyball" came out). To be sure, my interest in *watching* baseball has waned (it trails basketball and football, easily); but my love of the numbers, and my love of research of those numbers is still unparalleled.
I was driving home from Erie, Pa., last Sunday, and had the Red Sox-Tigers game on. Detroit had won the opener. 1-0, behind masterful pitching (something the Tigers had an abundance of this past year). Shutting out the Red Sox was no small task; they were the most proficient offensive team in baseball this year.
So, this was Game 2 ... in Boston ... Detroit leading 5-1 in the 8th inning, and sitting smugly. They were going to be heading back to Detroit up 2 games to none, and -- pretty much -- a sure thing for the World Series.
I think everyone knows what happened then. Leyland (the manager of the Tigers) pulled his starter, Max Scherzer, the odds-on favorite for the Cy Young Award, who had -- through 7 innings -- allowed *2* hits, 1 run and 13 strikeouts. Why was he pulled? He'd thrown 108 pitches.
The agony played out like this:
Jose Veras was brought in to pitch. After getting the first batter out, the next batter doubled.
Doug Smyly was brought in to pitch. He walked the only batter he faced.
Al Alberquerque was brought in to pitch. He struck out the first batter, and the next batter singled, loading the bases.
In 2/3 of an inning, the Detroit bullpen had let nearly as many runners reach base as Scherzer had all game.
The next pitcher -- the *fourth* pitching change of the inning -- was Joaquin Benoit, and, on his first pitch, David Ortiz hit a grand slam homerun, tying up the game (with the Red Sox winning in the 9th). It completely changed the dynamic of the series, and although Detroit grabbed on more win, they succumbed in 6 games.
So, why do I blame sabermetrics?
There was a movement, somewhere around the 1990s, where number-crunchers decided, beyond anything else, "pitch count" was the most important thing for a pitcher. So, although Scherzer was pitching a fantastic game, he'd pitched 100+ pitches. Whether the fear was that he'd lose his stuff or that he'd hurt himself, the logic was to pull him out.
I won't address the second concern here; but let's look at the first concern. He was pitching a magnificent game! And, four pitching changes later, the absolute worst case scenario had unfolded. Even if Scherzer had imploded, it couldn't have been worse than the actual reality that did occur.
This isn't new this year. Detroit had a great pitching staff ... well, starters, anyway. Third best WHIP and ERA in the league, the *best* SO/BB ratio. But the starters hid the relievers effectively.
In terms of WHIP -- just the starters alone would've been tops in the league. The relievers would've been 13th.
In terms of ERA -- again, the starters would've ranked first; relievers, 11th.
In terms of SO/BB ratio -- starters first; relievers 8th.
So, the point is, no one should've been surprised that the relievers got beat up, once the starter came out of the game.
Then, I decided to prod a little more. I sketched out the number of times pitchers pitched 250+ innings for the past 66 years (basically, back to 1945, removing the strike years of 1981, 1994 and 1995). And then, I decided to analyze these two groups -- breaking them (conveniently) into the 1945-1989 group (a total of 44 playing years) versus the 1990-present (a total of 22 years). Here's what I found:
1945-1989: 675 different occurrences
1990-present: 42
So, although 1945-1989 had only double the playing years, it had 16 TIMES the number of occurrences. This goes along with the increase of pitchers on the roster (from around 13-14 in the 1940s and 1950s, to around 15-16 in the 1970s, to 22-23 today).
But, surely, there's a reason for this -- lower innings must be resulting in far more dominating pitching, right? So, let's take a closer look.
The average age of the qualifying pitcher in the first group was 28.6; in the second group, it was 29.5, so the pitchers were roughly the same age. Here's a breakdown of the relevant statistics:
W/L - roughly the same, 18-12 for the first group, 18-10 for the second. They started the same number of games (36 for the first group, 35 for the second). The big change came in terms of complete games (16 average for the first group, 8 for the second), and -- on average -- the first group faced about 80 batters more each year.
Now, the nitty-gritty stuff:
1945-1989
ERA: 3.08
WHIP: 1.192
HR/9: 0.7
K/9: 5.6
K/BB: 2.1
1990-Present
ERA: 3.02
WHIP: 1.138
HR/9: 0.74
K/9: 7.7
K/BB: 3.29
Aside from the increased strikeouts (which can be attributed, in part, to the increased focus on "all or nothing" swinging from the batters), there's no marked difference in ERA, WHIP or HR allowed.
Now, let's look at the players who have achieved this lofty plateau:
1945-1989
Warren Spahn: 16 times
Gaylord Perry: 12 times
Steve Carlton: 12 times
Phil Niekro: 11times
Tom Seaver: 11 times
Fergie Jenkins: 10 times
Robin Roberts: 10 times
Bert Blyleven: 9 times
Mel Stottlemyre: 9 times
Bob Gibson: 8 times
Bob Lemon: 8 times
Catfish Hunter: 8 times
Claude Osteen: 8 times
Don Drysdale: 8 times
Don Sutton: 8 times
Jim Bunning: 8 times
Jim Palmer: 8 times
Juan Marichal: 8 times
Larry Jackson: 8 times
Early Wynn: 7 times
Jim Kaat: 7 times
Vida Blue: 7 times
Bob Friend: 6 times
Fernando Valenzuela: 6 times
Jack Morris: 6 times
Ken Holtzman: 6 times
Lew Burdette: 6 times
Mickey Lolich: 6 times
Mike Cuellar: 6 times
Nolan Ryan: 6 times
Steve Rogers: 6 times
Charlie Hough: 5 times
Dave McNally: 5 times
Frank Viola: 5 times
Hal Newhouser: 5 times
Jim Perry: 5 times
Luis Tiant: 5 times
Wilbur Wood: 5 times
Andy Messersmith: 4 times
Billy Pierce: 4 times
Carl Morton: 4 times
Clyde Wright: 4 times
Dave Stieb: 4 times
Dean Chance: 4 times
Dennis Leonard: 4 times
Frank Lary: 4 times
Fritz Peterson: 4 times
JR Richard: 4 times
Jerry Koosman: 4 times
Joe Coleman: 4 times
Joe Niekro: 4 times
Johnny Sain: 4 times
Larry Jansen: 4 times
Mike Garcia: 4 times
Mike Torrez: 4 times
Pat Dobson: 4 times
Randy Jones: 4 times
Rick Wise: 4 times
Roger Clemens: 4 times
Sam McDowell: 4 times
Sandy Koufax: 4 times
Whitey Ford: 4 times
1990-present
Curt Schilling (4 times)
Greg Maddux (4 times)
Jack McDowell (3 times)
Kevin Brown (3 times)
Randy Johnson (3 times)
Or, maybe that's not dramatic enough for you ... how about this:
Number of pitchers that have pitched more than 250 innings five times in their career:
1945-1989: 38
1990-present: Zero
I'm not disparaging the 1990-present pitchers. I consider Maddux one of the greatest pitchers of all time; and Johnson and Schilling are also amazing. But, ponder over that top list -- there are a ton of all-time greats there.
And, I think Schilling and Johnson would've fought with a manager who wanted to take them out (I do think Maddux wouldn't put up much of a fight), but, can you imagine the manager who tries to take out Perry? Carlton? Seaver? Gibson? Marichal? Drysdale?
If one of them had been pitching in the Red Sox game, they would've not-so-politely told Jim Leyland to get his *&$* back to the dugout, before they cracked open his skull on live television.
And then, they would've continued pitching, and won the game. And they would be in the World Series today.
I was driving home from Erie, Pa., last Sunday, and had the Red Sox-Tigers game on. Detroit had won the opener. 1-0, behind masterful pitching (something the Tigers had an abundance of this past year). Shutting out the Red Sox was no small task; they were the most proficient offensive team in baseball this year.
So, this was Game 2 ... in Boston ... Detroit leading 5-1 in the 8th inning, and sitting smugly. They were going to be heading back to Detroit up 2 games to none, and -- pretty much -- a sure thing for the World Series.
I think everyone knows what happened then. Leyland (the manager of the Tigers) pulled his starter, Max Scherzer, the odds-on favorite for the Cy Young Award, who had -- through 7 innings -- allowed *2* hits, 1 run and 13 strikeouts. Why was he pulled? He'd thrown 108 pitches.
The agony played out like this:
Jose Veras was brought in to pitch. After getting the first batter out, the next batter doubled.
Doug Smyly was brought in to pitch. He walked the only batter he faced.
Al Alberquerque was brought in to pitch. He struck out the first batter, and the next batter singled, loading the bases.
In 2/3 of an inning, the Detroit bullpen had let nearly as many runners reach base as Scherzer had all game.
The next pitcher -- the *fourth* pitching change of the inning -- was Joaquin Benoit, and, on his first pitch, David Ortiz hit a grand slam homerun, tying up the game (with the Red Sox winning in the 9th). It completely changed the dynamic of the series, and although Detroit grabbed on more win, they succumbed in 6 games.
So, why do I blame sabermetrics?
There was a movement, somewhere around the 1990s, where number-crunchers decided, beyond anything else, "pitch count" was the most important thing for a pitcher. So, although Scherzer was pitching a fantastic game, he'd pitched 100+ pitches. Whether the fear was that he'd lose his stuff or that he'd hurt himself, the logic was to pull him out.
I won't address the second concern here; but let's look at the first concern. He was pitching a magnificent game! And, four pitching changes later, the absolute worst case scenario had unfolded. Even if Scherzer had imploded, it couldn't have been worse than the actual reality that did occur.
This isn't new this year. Detroit had a great pitching staff ... well, starters, anyway. Third best WHIP and ERA in the league, the *best* SO/BB ratio. But the starters hid the relievers effectively.
In terms of WHIP -- just the starters alone would've been tops in the league. The relievers would've been 13th.
In terms of ERA -- again, the starters would've ranked first; relievers, 11th.
In terms of SO/BB ratio -- starters first; relievers 8th.
So, the point is, no one should've been surprised that the relievers got beat up, once the starter came out of the game.
Then, I decided to prod a little more. I sketched out the number of times pitchers pitched 250+ innings for the past 66 years (basically, back to 1945, removing the strike years of 1981, 1994 and 1995). And then, I decided to analyze these two groups -- breaking them (conveniently) into the 1945-1989 group (a total of 44 playing years) versus the 1990-present (a total of 22 years). Here's what I found:
1945-1989: 675 different occurrences
1990-present: 42
So, although 1945-1989 had only double the playing years, it had 16 TIMES the number of occurrences. This goes along with the increase of pitchers on the roster (from around 13-14 in the 1940s and 1950s, to around 15-16 in the 1970s, to 22-23 today).
But, surely, there's a reason for this -- lower innings must be resulting in far more dominating pitching, right? So, let's take a closer look.
The average age of the qualifying pitcher in the first group was 28.6; in the second group, it was 29.5, so the pitchers were roughly the same age. Here's a breakdown of the relevant statistics:
W/L - roughly the same, 18-12 for the first group, 18-10 for the second. They started the same number of games (36 for the first group, 35 for the second). The big change came in terms of complete games (16 average for the first group, 8 for the second), and -- on average -- the first group faced about 80 batters more each year.
Now, the nitty-gritty stuff:
1945-1989
ERA: 3.08
WHIP: 1.192
HR/9: 0.7
K/9: 5.6
K/BB: 2.1
1990-Present
ERA: 3.02
WHIP: 1.138
HR/9: 0.74
K/9: 7.7
K/BB: 3.29
Aside from the increased strikeouts (which can be attributed, in part, to the increased focus on "all or nothing" swinging from the batters), there's no marked difference in ERA, WHIP or HR allowed.
Now, let's look at the players who have achieved this lofty plateau:
1945-1989
Warren Spahn: 16 times
Gaylord Perry: 12 times
Steve Carlton: 12 times
Phil Niekro: 11times
Tom Seaver: 11 times
Fergie Jenkins: 10 times
Robin Roberts: 10 times
Bert Blyleven: 9 times
Mel Stottlemyre: 9 times
Bob Gibson: 8 times
Bob Lemon: 8 times
Catfish Hunter: 8 times
Claude Osteen: 8 times
Don Drysdale: 8 times
Don Sutton: 8 times
Jim Bunning: 8 times
Jim Palmer: 8 times
Juan Marichal: 8 times
Larry Jackson: 8 times
Early Wynn: 7 times
Jim Kaat: 7 times
Vida Blue: 7 times
Bob Friend: 6 times
Fernando Valenzuela: 6 times
Jack Morris: 6 times
Ken Holtzman: 6 times
Lew Burdette: 6 times
Mickey Lolich: 6 times
Mike Cuellar: 6 times
Nolan Ryan: 6 times
Steve Rogers: 6 times
Charlie Hough: 5 times
Dave McNally: 5 times
Frank Viola: 5 times
Hal Newhouser: 5 times
Jim Perry: 5 times
Luis Tiant: 5 times
Wilbur Wood: 5 times
Andy Messersmith: 4 times
Billy Pierce: 4 times
Carl Morton: 4 times
Clyde Wright: 4 times
Dave Stieb: 4 times
Dean Chance: 4 times
Dennis Leonard: 4 times
Frank Lary: 4 times
Fritz Peterson: 4 times
JR Richard: 4 times
Jerry Koosman: 4 times
Joe Coleman: 4 times
Joe Niekro: 4 times
Johnny Sain: 4 times
Larry Jansen: 4 times
Mike Garcia: 4 times
Mike Torrez: 4 times
Pat Dobson: 4 times
Randy Jones: 4 times
Rick Wise: 4 times
Roger Clemens: 4 times
Sam McDowell: 4 times
Sandy Koufax: 4 times
Whitey Ford: 4 times
1990-present
Curt Schilling (4 times)
Greg Maddux (4 times)
Jack McDowell (3 times)
Kevin Brown (3 times)
Randy Johnson (3 times)
Or, maybe that's not dramatic enough for you ... how about this:
Number of pitchers that have pitched more than 250 innings five times in their career:
1945-1989: 38
1990-present: Zero
I'm not disparaging the 1990-present pitchers. I consider Maddux one of the greatest pitchers of all time; and Johnson and Schilling are also amazing. But, ponder over that top list -- there are a ton of all-time greats there.
And, I think Schilling and Johnson would've fought with a manager who wanted to take them out (I do think Maddux wouldn't put up much of a fight), but, can you imagine the manager who tries to take out Perry? Carlton? Seaver? Gibson? Marichal? Drysdale?
If one of them had been pitching in the Red Sox game, they would've not-so-politely told Jim Leyland to get his *&$* back to the dugout, before they cracked open his skull on live television.
And then, they would've continued pitching, and won the game. And they would be in the World Series today.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Personal Brand -- A Twist on a Newsday Article
This past weekend, I appeared in Newsday. The reason wasn't entirely great -- it was a spotlight on the long-term unemployed (which the Department of Labor defines as those who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks).
After the interview, I had some concerns: concerns that the tenor of the article could paint me as "unemployable" -- which I certainly didn't want. I didn't love the way the original spotlight ended; so I asked the author to include the quote which appears (which, I felt, put more of a positive spin on the situation.)
When it came out, I saw the amount of space allotted, and I understood why many of my comments and suggestions hadn't been incorporated. Still, I saw the opportunity to use the article as a jumping point.
As I said to the author, I wasn't opposed to being included, but I needed to ensure it had a positive impact on my job search (and my personal brand). I didn't want someone to read it and say, "wow, he's been out a long time ..." I'd rather have them say, "how has no one scooped this guy up yet?"
So -- here is *my* version of how I would've loved the article to appear, if I'd had unlimited space! I'm using the author's original material as a launching point:
Long-term unemployment isn't a new experience for Chris Palermo, who lost his communications manager job at a local educational technology company in January, after two years.
The last time the 44-year-old Ronkonkoma resident was unemployed was in October 2009, just one year after receiving the Achievement in Communications Award from the International Association of Business Communicators. It took him 14 months to find another job. He hasn't been lucky this time either. He is still jobless after sending out close to 500 resumes. He believes the intense competition from numerous other long-term unemployed people is the problem.
"The number of skilled workers that are out of work, really enables companies to be uber-specific with their hiring requirements," he says.
Despite the length of his unemployment, he remains hopeful.
Earlier this summer, Palermo published two blog posts on job seeking. One, in particular, discussed a new method he began using to overcome a potential weakness in the online networking site, LinkedIn.
"I check LinkedIn for every job I apply to, to see if I have connections to the company," he says. "A lot of times, my contacts respond that they don't really 'know' the person to whom they're connected.
"So, then I realized I was being hypocritical -- I noticed I had a number of connections I didn't know as well as I should," he says. "Rather than simply considering those connections to be 'not-so-useful,' or -- worse yet -- 'cleaning house' and deleting them, I emailed each and every one of those connections to arrange informational meetings, with the goal of having that connection leave the meeting, thinking, (a) I was knowledgeable about my craft and (b) I was a good person.
"Overall, I had pretty good success with that initiative. I still have a number of connections to follow up with, but I have faith in my persistence," he laughs.
Palermo believes networking is a key element in the job search, but it's not the only element.
"We're consistently told that 80 percent of the jobs aren't listed online," he says. "If that's true, why would anyone spend more than 20 percent of his time looking online? By significantly reducing the number of hours spent searching, it frees up time to do more meaningful things, like networking."
He created a job-search technique that enables the viewing and searching of thousands of jobs in only three hours each week.
"The technique uses technology -- nothing that costs any money (in fact, I don't even charge when I *teach* the class)," he says. The intent is to have a hands-on session where we set everything up, and -- after that -- people can simply check the information a few times a week; and they'll see exponentially more jobs than they have ever seen before."
Palermo has taught this technique in groups ranging from three to more than 40 job-seekers.
"I've actually received emails from participants after the class saying, 'Thank you for giving my life back!'" he says. "That's a great feeling; and it's certainly part of my pay-it-forward mentality."
This fall, Palermo enrolled in the Comprehensive Project Management Certificate Program at Stony Brook. For him, this has two purposes -- first, it's part of his personal belief that we should be life-long learners (especially when it comes to personal/professional development); and second, it validates his belief that business communications *is* business (and not that it's just an unnecessary/'fluff' part of the business). It should be woven into the business fabric.
"By taking this course, I hoping to gain the skills to ensure my role is even more ingrained into the business structure of my next company," he says. "On a personal note, it's amazing how much of the core concepts of project management I already used in my personal life.
He also joined a number of organizations to continue his learning and networking, including the Long Island chapters of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and American Society of Training and Development (ASTD), as well as the Public Relations Professionals of Long Island (PRPLI) and Social Media Association.
"I also joined Toastmasters," he adds. "which was recommended to me, and -- as I've learned more about the organization, I can see myself enjoying it as well as taking on a leadership role."
Finally, a long-term goal for Palermo is the construction of a knowledge-management/networking website specifically for Long Island Job Seekers -- something he plans to continue even after he's employed.
"There are numerous networking groups (including LinkedIn, of course)," he says. "My site would not be a competitor to LinkedIn, but, rather, a complementary site, specifically focused on Long Island people (not necessarily the LI Job Market, since many are willing to travel to NYC). The idea is to merge all the existing networking groups and job boards under one, easier-to-use site, with far more robust features for sharing job leads and search tips, while still offering an abundance of 'connectivity' between the members, without compromising their privacy."
It's easy to see how Palermo remains optimistic, even in the face of the long-term joblessness that continues to plague the nation.
"I'm still confident that my skills, my experience and my commitment to life-long learning will land me a great opportunity," he says.
(Admittedly, this article *would* have taken considerably more space than the allocated area available. On the other hand, for someone (like myself) who is typically super modest, it's almost cathartic writing something like this. I'd encourage any/all to share this -- my network can and will expand exponentially, based on the reach of this particular post).
After the interview, I had some concerns: concerns that the tenor of the article could paint me as "unemployable" -- which I certainly didn't want. I didn't love the way the original spotlight ended; so I asked the author to include the quote which appears (which, I felt, put more of a positive spin on the situation.)
When it came out, I saw the amount of space allotted, and I understood why many of my comments and suggestions hadn't been incorporated. Still, I saw the opportunity to use the article as a jumping point.
As I said to the author, I wasn't opposed to being included, but I needed to ensure it had a positive impact on my job search (and my personal brand). I didn't want someone to read it and say, "wow, he's been out a long time ..." I'd rather have them say, "how has no one scooped this guy up yet?"
So -- here is *my* version of how I would've loved the article to appear, if I'd had unlimited space! I'm using the author's original material as a launching point:
Long-term unemployment isn't a new experience for Chris Palermo, who lost his communications manager job at a local educational technology company in January, after two years.
The last time the 44-year-old Ronkonkoma resident was unemployed was in October 2009, just one year after receiving the Achievement in Communications Award from the International Association of Business Communicators. It took him 14 months to find another job. He hasn't been lucky this time either. He is still jobless after sending out close to 500 resumes. He believes the intense competition from numerous other long-term unemployed people is the problem.
"The number of skilled workers that are out of work, really enables companies to be uber-specific with their hiring requirements," he says.
Despite the length of his unemployment, he remains hopeful.
Earlier this summer, Palermo published two blog posts on job seeking. One, in particular, discussed a new method he began using to overcome a potential weakness in the online networking site, LinkedIn.
"I check LinkedIn for every job I apply to, to see if I have connections to the company," he says. "A lot of times, my contacts respond that they don't really 'know' the person to whom they're connected.
"So, then I realized I was being hypocritical -- I noticed I had a number of connections I didn't know as well as I should," he says. "Rather than simply considering those connections to be 'not-so-useful,' or -- worse yet -- 'cleaning house' and deleting them, I emailed each and every one of those connections to arrange informational meetings, with the goal of having that connection leave the meeting, thinking, (a) I was knowledgeable about my craft and (b) I was a good person.
"Overall, I had pretty good success with that initiative. I still have a number of connections to follow up with, but I have faith in my persistence," he laughs.
Palermo believes networking is a key element in the job search, but it's not the only element.
"We're consistently told that 80 percent of the jobs aren't listed online," he says. "If that's true, why would anyone spend more than 20 percent of his time looking online? By significantly reducing the number of hours spent searching, it frees up time to do more meaningful things, like networking."
He created a job-search technique that enables the viewing and searching of thousands of jobs in only three hours each week.
"The technique uses technology -- nothing that costs any money (in fact, I don't even charge when I *teach* the class)," he says. The intent is to have a hands-on session where we set everything up, and -- after that -- people can simply check the information a few times a week; and they'll see exponentially more jobs than they have ever seen before."
Palermo has taught this technique in groups ranging from three to more than 40 job-seekers.
"I've actually received emails from participants after the class saying, 'Thank you for giving my life back!'" he says. "That's a great feeling; and it's certainly part of my pay-it-forward mentality."
This fall, Palermo enrolled in the Comprehensive Project Management Certificate Program at Stony Brook. For him, this has two purposes -- first, it's part of his personal belief that we should be life-long learners (especially when it comes to personal/professional development); and second, it validates his belief that business communications *is* business (and not that it's just an unnecessary/'fluff' part of the business). It should be woven into the business fabric.
"By taking this course, I hoping to gain the skills to ensure my role is even more ingrained into the business structure of my next company," he says. "On a personal note, it's amazing how much of the core concepts of project management I already used in my personal life.
He also joined a number of organizations to continue his learning and networking, including the Long Island chapters of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and American Society of Training and Development (ASTD), as well as the Public Relations Professionals of Long Island (PRPLI) and Social Media Association.
"I also joined Toastmasters," he adds. "which was recommended to me, and -- as I've learned more about the organization, I can see myself enjoying it as well as taking on a leadership role."
Finally, a long-term goal for Palermo is the construction of a knowledge-management/networking website specifically for Long Island Job Seekers -- something he plans to continue even after he's employed.
"There are numerous networking groups (including LinkedIn, of course)," he says. "My site would not be a competitor to LinkedIn, but, rather, a complementary site, specifically focused on Long Island people (not necessarily the LI Job Market, since many are willing to travel to NYC). The idea is to merge all the existing networking groups and job boards under one, easier-to-use site, with far more robust features for sharing job leads and search tips, while still offering an abundance of 'connectivity' between the members, without compromising their privacy."
It's easy to see how Palermo remains optimistic, even in the face of the long-term joblessness that continues to plague the nation.
"I'm still confident that my skills, my experience and my commitment to life-long learning will land me a great opportunity," he says.
(Admittedly, this article *would* have taken considerably more space than the allocated area available. On the other hand, for someone (like myself) who is typically super modest, it's almost cathartic writing something like this. I'd encourage any/all to share this -- my network can and will expand exponentially, based on the reach of this particular post).
Friday, September 20, 2013
Choices
When I was growing up, I was a big fan of "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. For those who don't know, these were books that laid out a scenario (and adventure, essentially) and would present the reader with two (or more) choices at vary stages. The choice the reader made would lead them to another page (different for each choice) and, thus, the adventure could be different each time.
Early on, I suspect these were intended as a moral test -- effectively, choose the "right" choice; get a reward; choose the wrong/immoral/unethical things, face the consequences. Eventually, they morphed into more arbitrary results -- so even choosing what seemed the right thing might end poorly; simply because the book's author wanted to make things less predictable (which, as a reader, can be disappointing, I'm sure; but, as an adult, makes total sense (i.e., things rarely go the way they should).
When I was in college, in a moment of self-awareness, I reflected on choices I'd made ... most notably, which college I was going to attend. I had been accepted to two, and my choice really came down to a gut-check. I thought, "if I had chosen the other college, I'd have never met the friends I've made here -- which I'll have for the rest of my life -- and I'd never have met my girlfriend; and my career choices would be different, etc." Of course, years later, the girlfriend is long gone; and of the many friends I made, there are but a few I speak with regularly.
The difference between life and the books is pretty stark. In the book, when I didn't like the way something turned out, I could just start over. Or, better still, I could just go back to the place where I made a "bad" choice and pick it up from there. I didn't have to necessarily start over; just start from where I needed to make a different choice. In life, we don't get that option. Each choice you make (well, the meaningful ones, anyway) impact your life in ways that are immediate *and* long-lasting.
For example, this past week, I had to make two such choices (well, I had to really only make one; but I had to think about making two).
Back in July, my knee began bothering me again. I was convinced I'd torn my meniscus. Now, I've gone through two surgeries -- they're not terrible; the recovery time is about a week (a few days off your feet, then a cane for support; within a week I was walking freely, albeit gingerly).
Over the past two months, the pain varied from intense to nearly insignificant. When I went to see the surgeon -- of course -- it was insignificant ... until the last visit. He gave me a steroid injection, and finally recommended surgery. He's not convinced it's the meniscus, but he's looking to perform something called microfracture surgery (which has been helpful for people). I've had to do a lot of debating about this .... there are times, even now, my knee feels okay; and other times where I need to take an anti-inflammatory. Even today, I'm still not 100 percent convinced I *want* to do the surgery (granted, the results in the link above don't entirely pertain to me; I don't put my body through the same rigors as a professional athlete ... my goal is simply to eventually be able to exercise, lose weight, and return to playing recreational basketball; something he seems to think is realistic). Still, the key was the surgeon said he didn't see any way it could make things worse (although, secretly, I'm still hoping he sees a meniscus tear as the cause of the problems).
Another related choice is the method of anesthesia -- the first time, because I have what's known as a 'difficult airway,' it took nearly an hour to intubate me. The second time, it was proposed that I go through the intubation while awake (something that isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds -- especially, when the amnesiac they give you doesn't actually work, and you remember every. single. moment.).
This time, the suggestion is an epidural, followed by conscious sedation (so, in other words, no intubation) -- there's numbness from the waist down; and there's a smaller amount of anesthesia (so you're more "napping" than "sleeping.") It still sounds semi-terrifying (but, then again, as we get older, and our misguided conceptions of immortality strip away, *every* surgery sounds terrifying).
The second "choice" I had to make was an even more difficult one (although, as I said, it stopped being a choice). My brother-in-law -- who works as a custodian in a school district -- heard of an opening at another school, and proposed it to me. He made very good points:
It's a compelling argument. On the negative side, it's a step away from what I've spent my entire career doing. It's not that it's *beneath* me (those who know me know I'm not particularly judgmental), it's just that, looking at it from the perspective of a hiring manager, it's a warning sign. If I were hiring someone to work for me (back when I was a magazine editor, for example), I wanted to see progressive experience in that field. A departure would certainly raise questions. I'd like to think the simple answer of, "it paid more than unemployment, and the shift enabled me to work while still pursuing a job in my field," would satisfy a potential hiring manager; but you never know.
So, I spent days thinking about the choice, and agonizing, going back and forth. Ultimately, it didn't matter. When my brother-in-law spoke to the contact, he learned the position had been filled already. In many ways, I was relieved, because it meant I didn't have to make the choice; although even that is misguided, because for all I know, the job could've been a dream job for me.
And, somewhat soberly, I realize, there really isn't a page I can go back to, to see where the "wrong" choice was made and start over.
Early on, I suspect these were intended as a moral test -- effectively, choose the "right" choice; get a reward; choose the wrong/immoral/unethical things, face the consequences. Eventually, they morphed into more arbitrary results -- so even choosing what seemed the right thing might end poorly; simply because the book's author wanted to make things less predictable (which, as a reader, can be disappointing, I'm sure; but, as an adult, makes total sense (i.e., things rarely go the way they should).
When I was in college, in a moment of self-awareness, I reflected on choices I'd made ... most notably, which college I was going to attend. I had been accepted to two, and my choice really came down to a gut-check. I thought, "if I had chosen the other college, I'd have never met the friends I've made here -- which I'll have for the rest of my life -- and I'd never have met my girlfriend; and my career choices would be different, etc." Of course, years later, the girlfriend is long gone; and of the many friends I made, there are but a few I speak with regularly.
The difference between life and the books is pretty stark. In the book, when I didn't like the way something turned out, I could just start over. Or, better still, I could just go back to the place where I made a "bad" choice and pick it up from there. I didn't have to necessarily start over; just start from where I needed to make a different choice. In life, we don't get that option. Each choice you make (well, the meaningful ones, anyway) impact your life in ways that are immediate *and* long-lasting.
For example, this past week, I had to make two such choices (well, I had to really only make one; but I had to think about making two).
Back in July, my knee began bothering me again. I was convinced I'd torn my meniscus. Now, I've gone through two surgeries -- they're not terrible; the recovery time is about a week (a few days off your feet, then a cane for support; within a week I was walking freely, albeit gingerly).
Over the past two months, the pain varied from intense to nearly insignificant. When I went to see the surgeon -- of course -- it was insignificant ... until the last visit. He gave me a steroid injection, and finally recommended surgery. He's not convinced it's the meniscus, but he's looking to perform something called microfracture surgery (which has been helpful for people). I've had to do a lot of debating about this .... there are times, even now, my knee feels okay; and other times where I need to take an anti-inflammatory. Even today, I'm still not 100 percent convinced I *want* to do the surgery (granted, the results in the link above don't entirely pertain to me; I don't put my body through the same rigors as a professional athlete ... my goal is simply to eventually be able to exercise, lose weight, and return to playing recreational basketball; something he seems to think is realistic). Still, the key was the surgeon said he didn't see any way it could make things worse (although, secretly, I'm still hoping he sees a meniscus tear as the cause of the problems).
Another related choice is the method of anesthesia -- the first time, because I have what's known as a 'difficult airway,' it took nearly an hour to intubate me. The second time, it was proposed that I go through the intubation while awake (something that isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds -- especially, when the amnesiac they give you doesn't actually work, and you remember every. single. moment.).
This time, the suggestion is an epidural, followed by conscious sedation (so, in other words, no intubation) -- there's numbness from the waist down; and there's a smaller amount of anesthesia (so you're more "napping" than "sleeping.") It still sounds semi-terrifying (but, then again, as we get older, and our misguided conceptions of immortality strip away, *every* surgery sounds terrifying).
The second "choice" I had to make was an even more difficult one (although, as I said, it stopped being a choice). My brother-in-law -- who works as a custodian in a school district -- heard of an opening at another school, and proposed it to me. He made very good points:
- It's pretty decent money
- It's pretty decent vacation time, etc.
- It's an evening shift (so, I could continue to look for jobs/interview/network during the day).
It's a compelling argument. On the negative side, it's a step away from what I've spent my entire career doing. It's not that it's *beneath* me (those who know me know I'm not particularly judgmental), it's just that, looking at it from the perspective of a hiring manager, it's a warning sign. If I were hiring someone to work for me (back when I was a magazine editor, for example), I wanted to see progressive experience in that field. A departure would certainly raise questions. I'd like to think the simple answer of, "it paid more than unemployment, and the shift enabled me to work while still pursuing a job in my field," would satisfy a potential hiring manager; but you never know.
So, I spent days thinking about the choice, and agonizing, going back and forth. Ultimately, it didn't matter. When my brother-in-law spoke to the contact, he learned the position had been filled already. In many ways, I was relieved, because it meant I didn't have to make the choice; although even that is misguided, because for all I know, the job could've been a dream job for me.
And, somewhat soberly, I realize, there really isn't a page I can go back to, to see where the "wrong" choice was made and start over.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Lemonade from Lemons (Responding to the ol' Bait-N-Switch)
I try not to post too much "negative" stuff here, for a variety of reasons: 1 - I believe positivity breeds positivity; and 2 - as someone else recently told me, it's enough for people to know I'm unemployed; I don't need to drive it home with negative stories.
But, despite that, I see this next story as having a positive outcome (on two levels) despite the fact that it was among the most appalling situations I've ever seen.
I had submitted an application as a director of communications to a NYC-based non-profit; one I was exceptionally excited about. I'm always wary of non-profits, because salary isn't usually consistent with the corporate world's titles; but the mission of this non-profit -- educational reform -- was something I found particularly near-and-dear.
Like many applications, I didn't hear anything -- something I've come to expect; although, I do have plans to revisit many of these organizations in August, in a more ambitious marketing campaign (where I'll be marketing myself). In any event, then, last week, I got an email from the organization. They were going to be having a "recruiting open house" this past Tuesday -- the founders of the organization would be there. The email identified me as "as a highly qualified candidate for one of their open roles."
I had two quick reactions to this. First - I thought I should reach out to them and ensure it was "worth my while" to attend; second - I thought this was an amazing, innovative and unique opportunity (although, if multiple people were attending for the same role, it's a little 'gladiator'-like.
I then decided, the OLD Chris would call first; the NEW Chris would just show up, full of confidence, basically saying, "of course it's worth my while; because I'm clearly the best candidate for this role. And, thank you for noticing!"
I hopped on the website, printed out the job description for the director of communications and headed into NYC: $26 in train fare, and about six hours of my life (between train and event).
I arrived and made my way to the 11th floor. The elevator opened and I saw -- maybe -- about 40 people there. Not too many; but still more than I would've liked. I signed in and saw about 15 percent of the people had "communications" listed as their profession. Again, my confidence was strong. I knew I belonged there.
The founder (maybe 23-24 years old?) went through a brief synopsis of the organization and its beginnings; and then she introduced the interim director of talent to go through the open roles. One of those roles was a director of talent (because the current one has a full-time consulting gig; and was only 'helping' out here). She also discussed the director of finance, director of operations and the communications coordinator.
Huh?
So, after the intros, I headed to the founder. Introduced myself; gave a brief synopsis about my background, and explained I was there for the director of communications role (assuming the current director was -- like the talent director -- interim only).
"Oh, yes, we filled that position five days ago." she says. "Well, it's still on your site, as of today?" I inquired. "Yeah, we haven't had a chance to take it down."
I then asked, why was I even invited? Oh, well, we have the coordinator role that we think some of our candidates would be great fits for.
Wow.
I made my way to the talent director; because I wanted to speak with her (since she also works elsewhere). And relayed my story -- I even told her about my initial apprehension in coming, but, "Of course the role would still be open!" I said. "Why would an organization invite people to an event for a role that's not longer available? That would be appalling and complete organizational failure."
Even with this, I still took some positives from last evening. First, that I even just went, without couching my expectations first. Sure, it backfired; but it's still a sea change for me to do something like that.
In addition, I made a great contact. I noticed a gentleman with his own name badge there. His badge identified him as a communications professional; and the look on his face was exactly how I felt (although, I suspect I'm a better poker player, since I wasn't quite as evident!). When I spoke with him, my presumptions were confirmed -- like me, he had applied for the director role; his pedigree is probably even more impressive than my own. In no way would he be able (or willing) to take on a coordinator role.
We talked for a while there (and on the way back to Penn Station), and I think he'll become an outstanding connection. He has some great skills (in terms of job-seeking) as do I, and we figured we'd swap our 'systems' to help each other out. He also recommended I look into publishing my job-seeking system as an eBook, which could potentially help bring in some cash flow.
It's an interesting time for me. For some reason, I'm still *amazingly* positive; but I'm also completely undecided in what makes the most sense. My networking meetings have gone exceptionally well (and I still have many, many more to do).
Only one person, so far, has shown any resistance to meeting (which is incredibly odd, in my opinion); although many haven't responded yet. Fear not; if you're one of the ones who hasn't responded, you'll be getting another invitation from me in a few weeks!
But, the advice I've received has been all over the place. I guess that's what advice is ... it's up to the individual to parse it out and decide what makes sense.
I've been advised to:
And, this is only after a handful of networking meetings! The career coach is an exceptionally intriguing concept. I *love* helping people figure out what they want to do. I've created systems that are hands-on and practical (and not simply inspiring or general). And, I write a pretty damned good resume. In fact, my own resume will undergo a *massive* change, based on advice I've received from people so far.
Most importantly, I'm still positive. I know - even if I keep on my path - I have a good road ahead of me, with some really good ideas. I know I'm not looking for a 'job,' but for a career. And, I know the efforts I'm expending *will* pay off. I haven't always been positive this time around (unlike the last time, where I was almost exclusively positive), but I feel my old self coming back. I'm helping people, connecting people and making great connections myself. And, it only takes one ...
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
But, despite that, I see this next story as having a positive outcome (on two levels) despite the fact that it was among the most appalling situations I've ever seen.
I had submitted an application as a director of communications to a NYC-based non-profit; one I was exceptionally excited about. I'm always wary of non-profits, because salary isn't usually consistent with the corporate world's titles; but the mission of this non-profit -- educational reform -- was something I found particularly near-and-dear.
Like many applications, I didn't hear anything -- something I've come to expect; although, I do have plans to revisit many of these organizations in August, in a more ambitious marketing campaign (where I'll be marketing myself). In any event, then, last week, I got an email from the organization. They were going to be having a "recruiting open house" this past Tuesday -- the founders of the organization would be there. The email identified me as "as a highly qualified candidate for one of their open roles."
I had two quick reactions to this. First - I thought I should reach out to them and ensure it was "worth my while" to attend; second - I thought this was an amazing, innovative and unique opportunity (although, if multiple people were attending for the same role, it's a little 'gladiator'-like.
I then decided, the OLD Chris would call first; the NEW Chris would just show up, full of confidence, basically saying, "of course it's worth my while; because I'm clearly the best candidate for this role. And, thank you for noticing!"
I hopped on the website, printed out the job description for the director of communications and headed into NYC: $26 in train fare, and about six hours of my life (between train and event).
I arrived and made my way to the 11th floor. The elevator opened and I saw -- maybe -- about 40 people there. Not too many; but still more than I would've liked. I signed in and saw about 15 percent of the people had "communications" listed as their profession. Again, my confidence was strong. I knew I belonged there.
The founder (maybe 23-24 years old?) went through a brief synopsis of the organization and its beginnings; and then she introduced the interim director of talent to go through the open roles. One of those roles was a director of talent (because the current one has a full-time consulting gig; and was only 'helping' out here). She also discussed the director of finance, director of operations and the communications coordinator.
Huh?
So, after the intros, I headed to the founder. Introduced myself; gave a brief synopsis about my background, and explained I was there for the director of communications role (assuming the current director was -- like the talent director -- interim only).
"Oh, yes, we filled that position five days ago." she says. "Well, it's still on your site, as of today?" I inquired. "Yeah, we haven't had a chance to take it down."
I then asked, why was I even invited? Oh, well, we have the coordinator role that we think some of our candidates would be great fits for.
Wow.
I made my way to the talent director; because I wanted to speak with her (since she also works elsewhere). And relayed my story -- I even told her about my initial apprehension in coming, but, "Of course the role would still be open!" I said. "Why would an organization invite people to an event for a role that's not longer available? That would be appalling and complete organizational failure."
Even with this, I still took some positives from last evening. First, that I even just went, without couching my expectations first. Sure, it backfired; but it's still a sea change for me to do something like that.
In addition, I made a great contact. I noticed a gentleman with his own name badge there. His badge identified him as a communications professional; and the look on his face was exactly how I felt (although, I suspect I'm a better poker player, since I wasn't quite as evident!). When I spoke with him, my presumptions were confirmed -- like me, he had applied for the director role; his pedigree is probably even more impressive than my own. In no way would he be able (or willing) to take on a coordinator role.
We talked for a while there (and on the way back to Penn Station), and I think he'll become an outstanding connection. He has some great skills (in terms of job-seeking) as do I, and we figured we'd swap our 'systems' to help each other out. He also recommended I look into publishing my job-seeking system as an eBook, which could potentially help bring in some cash flow.
It's an interesting time for me. For some reason, I'm still *amazingly* positive; but I'm also completely undecided in what makes the most sense. My networking meetings have gone exceptionally well (and I still have many, many more to do).
Only one person, so far, has shown any resistance to meeting (which is incredibly odd, in my opinion); although many haven't responded yet. Fear not; if you're one of the ones who hasn't responded, you'll be getting another invitation from me in a few weeks!
But, the advice I've received has been all over the place. I guess that's what advice is ... it's up to the individual to parse it out and decide what makes sense.
I've been advised to:
- Start my own company as an internal communications consultant
- Partner with a friend to offer my services in conjunction with hers
- Become a career coach
- Publish eBooks on my job-seeking systems
And, this is only after a handful of networking meetings! The career coach is an exceptionally intriguing concept. I *love* helping people figure out what they want to do. I've created systems that are hands-on and practical (and not simply inspiring or general). And, I write a pretty damned good resume. In fact, my own resume will undergo a *massive* change, based on advice I've received from people so far.
Most importantly, I'm still positive. I know - even if I keep on my path - I have a good road ahead of me, with some really good ideas. I know I'm not looking for a 'job,' but for a career. And, I know the efforts I'm expending *will* pay off. I haven't always been positive this time around (unlike the last time, where I was almost exclusively positive), but I feel my old self coming back. I'm helping people, connecting people and making great connections myself. And, it only takes one ...
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Why Do You Have So Many LinkedIn Connections? (aka, The Art of the Referral)
Most job seekers know it's important to be active on LinkedIn. The networking site provides a wealth of information and opportunity (that is valuable all the time, but especially when you're in the market for a new job).
But, I think some people don't really know how to use it effectively.
Let me preface this, by saying - this doesn't apply to recruiters. Recruiters have a different purpose on LinkedIn, and they need to be able to see as many full profiles as they can. Because of LinkedIn's policies (that you can only see full profiles of your second degree connections), it's nearly imperative that recruiters make as many connections as they can; so they can better see full profiles of potential candidates.
Everyone else, though, I think is missing the boat.
Each week, when I send out resumes, I head to LinkedIn to check out which companies I may be connected to. I'm only looking at second-degree connections -- that indicates someone who shares a mutual connection with me. I'll then email my connection and ask them if they wouldn't mind recommending me to their connection.
A lot of times, I get back a response of, "Yeah, I don't really know that person."
And, this confuses me. Why would you be connected to someone that you don't really know? And, far more importantly, what's the purpose overall? You're certainly not getting anything out of that relationship.
Last week, I went through my LinkedIn connections. I have more than 500. Some I realized were recruiters -- those are necessary, even though I don't know them as well. I need to see when they're posting jobs. The remainder were people I knew well, and people I didn't know well. Rather than chalking up the people I didn't know well, I emailed them, one-by-one. I said, "We don't know each other very well; and that should change. We're connected on LinkedIn (I don't always remember who reached out to whom), but, in all honesty, if we don't form a relationship, the connection is useless. For me, right now, I'm looking for work. I don't expect you to have a position for me; but it's far more likely you'll know someone who might. And, I cannot expect you to recommend me, if you don't actually know me."
Some have responded already, and I've had a handful of sitdowns and phone conversations. To me, this is more valuable than "growing" my network; I'm fortifying it.
And, I think my connections recognize this value as well -- after all, what purpose do I have to them, if I don't know them really well? So, it's win/win.
I'm not someone who gets into having thousands and thousands of connections. I'd far rather have 500 really strong connections who have strong bonds with their connections. By extension, *I* have strong bonds (because, a connection who's willing to recommend you is someone that can be that vital liaison for you).
And that brings us to the referral.
My last post discussed the need for a networking wingman, and, in truth, a referral/recommendation is just an extension of that. Honestly, if you were looking to hire someone, which approach would impress you more?
1 - a candidate approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you he's awesome and you should really get to know him, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
2 - someone you trust approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you about an awesome individual you should get to know, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
If anyone DIDN'T say #2, I'd be amazed. We trust the people we trust, and we expect them to give us good advice (and we're more willing to take a chance on their advice). The same candidate (as above) is perceived differently, depending upon the way they're introduced.
So, when I ask people to make the referral for me, I'm basically asking them to do something I'd be happy to do for them.
"Hi Bob, so a friend of mine is really interested in working with your company. He's an award-winning communications executive, and he's got a great track record of helping companies reach goals -- both internally (he's increased employee engagement and morale and trust) and externally through press releases, getting his companies more well-known. He's bright, he immerses himself in the company (so he can be even more useful than just in communications functions -- he's worked in organization development and efficiencies) and he's been a valued and trusted confidant to the CEO of a company. Maybe even as importantly, he's friendly and really funny ... he's a great fit for your organization."
And, Bob, is almost certainly going to want to meet me, because *his* trusted friend/source/colleague has just done the most awesome networking wingman/referral one could hope for.
Think about your own contacts on LinkedIn, and then ask yourself -- which of your connections could you writing something like that about? And, which of your connections could you send that referral to? Because, if you can't write about a connection and you don't know a connection well enough to make the referral, why are they a connection? I don't care if you have 13,000 connections -- I'll always take the 500 quality connections.
And, if *I'M* connected to you, and you don't feel comfortable writing something like that about me; reach out to me. We clearly need to "fortify" our LinkedIn relationship.
But, I think some people don't really know how to use it effectively.
Let me preface this, by saying - this doesn't apply to recruiters. Recruiters have a different purpose on LinkedIn, and they need to be able to see as many full profiles as they can. Because of LinkedIn's policies (that you can only see full profiles of your second degree connections), it's nearly imperative that recruiters make as many connections as they can; so they can better see full profiles of potential candidates.
Everyone else, though, I think is missing the boat.
Each week, when I send out resumes, I head to LinkedIn to check out which companies I may be connected to. I'm only looking at second-degree connections -- that indicates someone who shares a mutual connection with me. I'll then email my connection and ask them if they wouldn't mind recommending me to their connection.
A lot of times, I get back a response of, "Yeah, I don't really know that person."
And, this confuses me. Why would you be connected to someone that you don't really know? And, far more importantly, what's the purpose overall? You're certainly not getting anything out of that relationship.
Last week, I went through my LinkedIn connections. I have more than 500. Some I realized were recruiters -- those are necessary, even though I don't know them as well. I need to see when they're posting jobs. The remainder were people I knew well, and people I didn't know well. Rather than chalking up the people I didn't know well, I emailed them, one-by-one. I said, "We don't know each other very well; and that should change. We're connected on LinkedIn (I don't always remember who reached out to whom), but, in all honesty, if we don't form a relationship, the connection is useless. For me, right now, I'm looking for work. I don't expect you to have a position for me; but it's far more likely you'll know someone who might. And, I cannot expect you to recommend me, if you don't actually know me."
Some have responded already, and I've had a handful of sitdowns and phone conversations. To me, this is more valuable than "growing" my network; I'm fortifying it.
And, I think my connections recognize this value as well -- after all, what purpose do I have to them, if I don't know them really well? So, it's win/win.
I'm not someone who gets into having thousands and thousands of connections. I'd far rather have 500 really strong connections who have strong bonds with their connections. By extension, *I* have strong bonds (because, a connection who's willing to recommend you is someone that can be that vital liaison for you).
And that brings us to the referral.
My last post discussed the need for a networking wingman, and, in truth, a referral/recommendation is just an extension of that. Honestly, if you were looking to hire someone, which approach would impress you more?
1 - a candidate approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you he's awesome and you should really get to know him, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
2 - someone you trust approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you about an awesome individual you should get to know, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
If anyone DIDN'T say #2, I'd be amazed. We trust the people we trust, and we expect them to give us good advice (and we're more willing to take a chance on their advice). The same candidate (as above) is perceived differently, depending upon the way they're introduced.
So, when I ask people to make the referral for me, I'm basically asking them to do something I'd be happy to do for them.
"Hi Bob, so a friend of mine is really interested in working with your company. He's an award-winning communications executive, and he's got a great track record of helping companies reach goals -- both internally (he's increased employee engagement and morale and trust) and externally through press releases, getting his companies more well-known. He's bright, he immerses himself in the company (so he can be even more useful than just in communications functions -- he's worked in organization development and efficiencies) and he's been a valued and trusted confidant to the CEO of a company. Maybe even as importantly, he's friendly and really funny ... he's a great fit for your organization."
And, Bob, is almost certainly going to want to meet me, because *his* trusted friend/source/colleague has just done the most awesome networking wingman/referral one could hope for.
Think about your own contacts on LinkedIn, and then ask yourself -- which of your connections could you writing something like that about? And, which of your connections could you send that referral to? Because, if you can't write about a connection and you don't know a connection well enough to make the referral, why are they a connection? I don't care if you have 13,000 connections -- I'll always take the 500 quality connections.
And, if *I'M* connected to you, and you don't feel comfortable writing something like that about me; reach out to me. We clearly need to "fortify" our LinkedIn relationship.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Needed: Networking Wingman
People don't believe me when I tell them I'm an introvert. Most people say, "oh, you're so outgoing and talkative" -- and, maybe when I know someone, I can appear that way.
But, compare me to any successful salesperson, and you see how much less extroverted I am; especially when it comes to talking about myself (or, more to the point, talking about something else, with the *goal* of talking about myself).
Now, this has not been an issue in my career -- in journalism, editorial and communications, the ability to ask good questions and listen (and *not* talk about yourself) is key. But, when it comes to job-seeking, there's no alternative. You can't be modest; and you can't be shy. And, when it comes to networking, it's even more important that you be skilled in small talk. And, for someone who doesn't like talking about himself, that's difficult.
So, I took out a book from the library: "Networking for People Who Hate Networking," thinking it would provide some nugget of information that would clear up this uncomfortability. Sure enough, they described the exact scenarios we all despise -- you've just walked into a cocktail hour and everyone is chatting; how do you get involved in the conversation?
The solution, according to the author? "Just Do It." Well, that's not the revolutionary concept I was hoping for.
Then, I started thinking -- what could make the situation less painful? And, I thought about one of my favorite TV shows, "How I Met Your Mother."
Now, obviously, a successful 'introduction' is usually done with a little more thought and build-up, but in truth, what is more powerful than a strong introduction done by a trusted source? And, I realized: I need a networking wingman.
One of my Three Laws of BusinessTM (a post I may make sometime in the future), is that nearly everything in life comes down to two questions:
A job I had a while back used to say they'd never let an exceptional candidate leave without an offer, even if they didn't have a position for them at that moment. That mentality led to pretty strong growth for about five consecutive years (with the recession finally slamming the lid on both the growth and the practice); but it made a lot of sense. They evaluated each candidate based on those above questions -- and, if the net outcome made sense, they hired the person.
I've been fortunate, with my last two roles, to have had the opportunity to discuss what I can offer to a company in meetings with the company executives. In both cases, I was probably ahead of my time, unfortunately.
Not every company is ready for someone with my energy and ideas. Some prefer to keep things "the way they've always been done" because it's worked in the past. It remains to be seen if this is a wise choice, but I think the past five years have shown that "doing things the way they've always been done" more than likely ends badly. The world is littered with failed companies that once were quite successful that were incredibly resistant to change.
My suggestions are pretty liberal -- from an internal communications perspective, I'm a huge proponent of using social media/web 2.0 inside the enterprise, resulting in better knowledge management and employee engagement. I'm also equally adept from an external communications perspective. When I've been able to do things, the outcomes have been significant (including increasing the level of trust and morale in an organization by more than 10 percent in one year -- and that happened at each of my last two companies).
I don't say this to boast (as I mentioned above, I really don't enjoy talking about myself). I do this to explain who I am, for the purposes of my prospective networking wingman.
I'm looking for someone who's already accomplished in his/her line of work *and* who is well-connected *and* who also thinks I'm worth the effort -- and that is truly a powerful combination. Once I have that introduction; once they've already piqued the interest in someone, to get them curious as to how I can help their business excel, I can speak comfortably and confidently about my abilities.
I'm currently accepting applications for this role. :)
But, compare me to any successful salesperson, and you see how much less extroverted I am; especially when it comes to talking about myself (or, more to the point, talking about something else, with the *goal* of talking about myself).
Now, this has not been an issue in my career -- in journalism, editorial and communications, the ability to ask good questions and listen (and *not* talk about yourself) is key. But, when it comes to job-seeking, there's no alternative. You can't be modest; and you can't be shy. And, when it comes to networking, it's even more important that you be skilled in small talk. And, for someone who doesn't like talking about himself, that's difficult.
So, I took out a book from the library: "Networking for People Who Hate Networking," thinking it would provide some nugget of information that would clear up this uncomfortability. Sure enough, they described the exact scenarios we all despise -- you've just walked into a cocktail hour and everyone is chatting; how do you get involved in the conversation?
The solution, according to the author? "Just Do It." Well, that's not the revolutionary concept I was hoping for.
Then, I started thinking -- what could make the situation less painful? And, I thought about one of my favorite TV shows, "How I Met Your Mother."
Now, obviously, a successful 'introduction' is usually done with a little more thought and build-up, but in truth, what is more powerful than a strong introduction done by a trusted source? And, I realized: I need a networking wingman.
One of my Three Laws of BusinessTM (a post I may make sometime in the future), is that nearly everything in life comes down to two questions:
- What can/will this do for me?
- How much will it cost me?
A job I had a while back used to say they'd never let an exceptional candidate leave without an offer, even if they didn't have a position for them at that moment. That mentality led to pretty strong growth for about five consecutive years (with the recession finally slamming the lid on both the growth and the practice); but it made a lot of sense. They evaluated each candidate based on those above questions -- and, if the net outcome made sense, they hired the person.
I've been fortunate, with my last two roles, to have had the opportunity to discuss what I can offer to a company in meetings with the company executives. In both cases, I was probably ahead of my time, unfortunately.
Not every company is ready for someone with my energy and ideas. Some prefer to keep things "the way they've always been done" because it's worked in the past. It remains to be seen if this is a wise choice, but I think the past five years have shown that "doing things the way they've always been done" more than likely ends badly. The world is littered with failed companies that once were quite successful that were incredibly resistant to change.
My suggestions are pretty liberal -- from an internal communications perspective, I'm a huge proponent of using social media/web 2.0 inside the enterprise, resulting in better knowledge management and employee engagement. I'm also equally adept from an external communications perspective. When I've been able to do things, the outcomes have been significant (including increasing the level of trust and morale in an organization by more than 10 percent in one year -- and that happened at each of my last two companies).
I don't say this to boast (as I mentioned above, I really don't enjoy talking about myself). I do this to explain who I am, for the purposes of my prospective networking wingman.
I'm looking for someone who's already accomplished in his/her line of work *and* who is well-connected *and* who also thinks I'm worth the effort -- and that is truly a powerful combination. Once I have that introduction; once they've already piqued the interest in someone, to get them curious as to how I can help their business excel, I can speak comfortably and confidently about my abilities.
I'm currently accepting applications for this role. :)
Monday, April 8, 2013
I Still Don't Know What I Want to Be When I Grow Up
I've certainly said this before. In so many ways, I'm quite jealous of my wife. From a young age, she knew what she wanted to be, professionally, in her life (a nurse). She pursued that career and became one of the best. She's succeeded everywhere she's been, and she's been routinely promoted due to her exceptional skills.
I've not had a similar experience.
When I was very young (and I don't mean young like, "I want to be an astronaut" or "I want to be the third-baseman for the Yankees."), I mean younger than I am now -- but old enough to be aware of what a career is, I wanted to be a sabermetrician.
Interestingly, today, that wouldn't be met with as much skepticism as it was back then. Now, with films like Moneyball, and the public awareness of pioneers like Bill James, it's a viable career (albeit, still a difficult one to break into). But, in the 1980s, no one knew what I was talking about.
While I was in ninth grade, I participated in an independent study project, in which I decided I was going to write a book, similar to James' seminal "Baseball Abstract" works. In my research, I reached out to James (but he refused to take my calls). I did, however, make a great connection with Craig Wright, who became a pretty influential force for a year.
As an aside, I should mention, throughout this time, my *dream* was to work in sports; in many ways, working as a statistician for the Elias Sports Bureau was my perfect setting. It combined my fascination with statistics and sports into one nice little box.
But, in one discussion with Craig Wright, my entire career trajectory changed. I asked him what courses I needed to focus on, so I could do what he was going as a career. I assumed he'd say Statistics or some mathematics course (or, even an accounting course). Instead, without hesitation, he said, "English." When I questioned him (to ensure he understood what I was asking) he responded, "If you cannot effectively communicate your findings, it's as good as never having done them." Wow.
I marched out of the library (where I'd phoned him) and headed to the Journalism teacher's office, and signed up to be a sports reporter for the high school paper. I continued with that vision throughout college, eventually taking over as editor-in-chief (despite the fact that I never wanted to do anything but write about sports). And then, on my "exit interview" from college, my faculty advisor outlined what I could expect, salary-wise, from my career. And I decided I wanted more.
I don't begrudge anyone who's followed their dream -- a good friend of mine definitely took the long road; working for small weekly and daily papers, before finally becoming a major player in the sports journalism world. For me, I didn't have that patience.
And, so I ended up in magazine journalism. I worked in several industries for my first publishing company: woodworking, plastics formulation and finally, janitorial product distribution. I devoted myself to the magazines, ultimately becoming the youngest editor-in-chief the company had (although, subsequently, younger editors have certainly been in place). I was a "shining, rising star."
Ultimately, power went to the head of my editorial director (who had actually been a friend at one time) and in a capricious move, we had a parting of the ways (in related news, the magazine, which I'd helped dramatically increase advertising revenue through a new approach, had folded less than two years later). I headed into NYC where I took the lead role of a start-up magazine on the commercial shallow-draft maritime industry and helped it become profitable.
Again, hungry for more, I left that role and took over the lead editor role of a magazine about lighting design, helping that magazine turn a profit for the first time in several years. Sadly, 9/11 then happened, and our discussions about reducing staff became a more pressing matter. Rather than eliminating lower-level editorial staff; the decision was made to cut from the top, and I was gone.
At this point, I decided print journalism wasn't really for me any longer. I'd done a great deal -- accomplished a lot, and succeeded at every level. I headed to graduate school to become an English teacher, but realized my heart wasn't in it (and, unlike the previous industries, where I could still be extremely successful without *loving* the industry, I felt it was imperative to be passionate about teaching).
I started with a company in their marketing department and then found a growing need for internal communications and operational efficiency in the company. I put together a comprehensive job description and pitched the role *and* myself to the higher-ups at the company, ultimately being named to the role, and eventually winning an award for my communications strategy and plans.
Much like the last job I recently held, this was a new position. It was a role that was totally unfamiliar to most of the company, which didn't recognize how important the role should be (and how successful companies use this role). Consequently, more of my day was spent evangelizing and justifying my existence, as compared to actually *doing* the vital work. This is a taxing existence.
Part of it was a hesitation for "something new" (but, of course, we all know how that story ends ... companies that don't want to change, well, end up closed, eventually ... especially in today's economy which is more fluid than ever before ... hell, Google doesn't even have a 5-year plan. I remember reading that they don't plan more than 3-6 months, in fact.
The other difficulty was a lack of planning -- this type of role requires access to executives (my first week, the CFO idly said, "perhaps you should be in our executive meetings" ... two years later, I was still awaiting an invite). It also requires one of two approaches:
1. The freedom to do what I think is necessary and support of the higher-ups to accomplish those goals.
2. Definitive tasks as established by the executives (in other words, nothing as vague as "change the culture" - far more specified tasks.
I did learn quite a bit about myself and my abilities. The CEO certainly considered me a valued counselor; not only in matters of communications, but in matters of business importance as well. I regret that I didn't have as much opportunity as I thought I had, because I think we could have done great, great things there; but again, the lack of a cohesive plan (and the fickleness of our economy) didn't provide that.
Where does that leave me? I have time, now, to analyze things (and I'm certainly no closer). Do I move to Canada (where my wife's family lives) and think "Oh, they'll be ecstatic to hire me, because I'll come with NY credibility" (sometimes, life needs a drastic reboot -- I did this when I left high school and headed to college, and I never looked back).
The one negative (that is still prevalent today) is the tendency of companies to not look at "what *can* you do" but rather at "what *have* you done." Worse still, this isn't even a reflection of skills, necessarily; but rather, the industry where you've worked. I've had more than a few companies/recruiters consider me to not be a valid candidate *solely* based on the companies I've worked for (even though my responsibilities were exact matches for the positions for which they were recruiting). Again -- companies that aren't willing to look at potential and change and doing things slightly differently than they've done in the past, aren't really sticking around as much.
I'm still optimistic though; and I'm still well aware that it only takes *one* yes; one progressive company that sees my skills, traits and abilities and says, "Please do for us what you've done your entire career." I'm ready.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
The Joys of Job Seeking
I have to confess. Not everything about job-seeking is awful. There's a certain amount of excitement that goes into checking out jobs and seeing how well you match up with them, and visualizing yourself working for that company.
But, sometimes, it's a little less enjoyable.
I'm not just talking about those positions that you're summarily rejected for -- even though you match up completely with the duties, you still don't even get an interview. In one case, I was told, "You haven't worked for a large company." So, I explained, I've been an editor of magazines with readerships near 70,000, and I was writing on a monthly basis. To which, the response was, "yes, but that wasn't communication." Huh?
(I've decided to simply write off companies like that ... there are companies that will look at what you *can* do for them; and companies that only want to see what you *have* done for others. I suspect, we'll see far fewer of the latter, as they go out of business. Today's marketplace doesn't reward standing still.
It's like dating. If a girl asks, "What kind of car do you drive?" and you say, "Yes, I have a car." and she asks, again, "OK, but what kind of car *is* it?" She's probably not the right girl.)
Tuesday was a pretty good day for me -- I got three phone calls for prospective jobs. One was for today (Thursday); one will happen in a couple of weeks; one was a preliminary phone screen.
I was excited about the position today; but predominantly because it was so close to my home. In fact, I hadn't even applied for the role yet (it was on my list to apply). The HR Director had found me through a resume search online. As I read through the role, I realized that the position title (manager of corporate communications) was a bit misleading -- this was a pretty hardcore marketing job. Still, I did some other research and saw some opportunity so I headed to the interview.
We began talking about my background; good conversational pace. Things were going well. We talked about my previous positions, and I outlined my accomplishments, my strengths and what I bring to the table. And then, she started asking about marketing responsibilities.
The long and short of it is that they weren't looking for a manager of corporate communications. They were looking for a marketing director. But, even more interesting, they weren't looking for just a strategic marketing director -- they also wanted someone who was an expert graphic designer. And a world-class writer. And who could manage the company intranet. And handle trade show responsibilities. And manage/update the company's internet pages.
She realized I wasn't the right candidate for this Superman-type position (I don't really know *anyone* who would be able to do all these tasks), and she apologized for wasting my time.
A few thoughts on this:
So, basically, *everything* I preach about creating an engaged workforce would have been like Kryponite to this organization. Yes, it would have been nice to work so close to home; but it's far nicer to have a job that offers challenges that are at least surmountable. I don't have any interest in being set up to fail at a company. I've been down that road, and it's far from fun.
But, sometimes, it's a little less enjoyable.
I'm not just talking about those positions that you're summarily rejected for -- even though you match up completely with the duties, you still don't even get an interview. In one case, I was told, "You haven't worked for a large company." So, I explained, I've been an editor of magazines with readerships near 70,000, and I was writing on a monthly basis. To which, the response was, "yes, but that wasn't communication." Huh?
(I've decided to simply write off companies like that ... there are companies that will look at what you *can* do for them; and companies that only want to see what you *have* done for others. I suspect, we'll see far fewer of the latter, as they go out of business. Today's marketplace doesn't reward standing still.
It's like dating. If a girl asks, "What kind of car do you drive?" and you say, "Yes, I have a car." and she asks, again, "OK, but what kind of car *is* it?" She's probably not the right girl.)
Tuesday was a pretty good day for me -- I got three phone calls for prospective jobs. One was for today (Thursday); one will happen in a couple of weeks; one was a preliminary phone screen.
I was excited about the position today; but predominantly because it was so close to my home. In fact, I hadn't even applied for the role yet (it was on my list to apply). The HR Director had found me through a resume search online. As I read through the role, I realized that the position title (manager of corporate communications) was a bit misleading -- this was a pretty hardcore marketing job. Still, I did some other research and saw some opportunity so I headed to the interview.
We began talking about my background; good conversational pace. Things were going well. We talked about my previous positions, and I outlined my accomplishments, my strengths and what I bring to the table. And then, she started asking about marketing responsibilities.
The long and short of it is that they weren't looking for a manager of corporate communications. They were looking for a marketing director. But, even more interesting, they weren't looking for just a strategic marketing director -- they also wanted someone who was an expert graphic designer. And a world-class writer. And who could manage the company intranet. And handle trade show responsibilities. And manage/update the company's internet pages.
She realized I wasn't the right candidate for this Superman-type position (I don't really know *anyone* who would be able to do all these tasks), and she apologized for wasting my time.
A few thoughts on this:
- The company is larger than either of my previous two companies (my last two companies -- at their largest -- were about 160 and 250 people respectively. This company has more than 300 employees). The marketing and communications departments at those previous companies totaled 10 and 15 respectively. At this company, the department was comprised of ONE person.
- I explained that they were looking for at least two people, probably more, because of the varied skills they were looking for. She seemed non-plussed by this.
- I then asked who handled their internal communications functions. A company of 300+ surely had need of that. She explained those responsibilities were *also* handled by this position (at this point, I think I may have wondered if the company provided a boxspring and mattress for the person to simply reside in the building). I explained how internal communications is a vital part of the business; and -- having checked out the company on Glassdoor and Indeed, there surely was a need (comments there were somewhat damning of the company culture). I also discussed the company website (they're a b2b company with ZERO interaction with the public/consumers. In my opinion, the only thing that should be on the website is a company history, contacts and a way for prospective employees to learn about the culture (without having to head to Glassdoor). She sat there and nodded at me; but never commented nor did she ask me for more information. Again, this is the HR director - the person who should be most concerned with employee engagement, morale and securing the best possible workers for her company.
- Finally, and most puzzling. This person searched for my resume, found it, and called me! Nowhere on my resume does it intimate that I'm skilled in marketing, let alone graphic design work. Why was I even called in? I explained she should change the title to "Marketing Director" - not simply because it's unfair to communications professionals who might apply; but, quite honestly, because the people she DOES want to have apply, won't be applying when the title is "manager of corporate communications." Those are two completely different skillsets. I received a blank stare back, to that suggestion.
So, basically, *everything* I preach about creating an engaged workforce would have been like Kryponite to this organization. Yes, it would have been nice to work so close to home; but it's far nicer to have a job that offers challenges that are at least surmountable. I don't have any interest in being set up to fail at a company. I've been down that road, and it's far from fun.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
What to do ... what to do ....
Hello again.
So, it's been a while since I've posted anything. 2012 has not been a great-fun year ... you can read back over my posts if you're not familiar with the circumstances (in short: my mom's passing, two surgeries, and a few other inconveniences that comprised my crap cake).
This blog originally started as a way for me to continue to keep up with writing, while I was unemployed. In fact, two years ago -- November 2010 -- I participated in NaBloWriMo (National Blog Writing Month), where each day I posted one story. At the time, since I wasn't working, this was my primary outlet for writing, and I used it pretty frequently.
When I started working again in 2011, my posting frequency dropped off ... why would someone who writes for a living (effectively) want to write in his spare time?
So, a few weeks ago, I had to wonder ... what is the purpose of this blog? For those of you who are friends with me on Facebook, you know that I'm not someone who posts random stuff there, necessarily ... my posts tend to be (1) informative, because Facebook is the quickest, easiest way to engage my friends in social media (as compared to emailing all of them separately, and having their responses in isolation); and (2) funny. Why should this blog be any different?
There are a few things I'm passionate about in life. One (which does make for good blog fodder) is customer service. I am continually amazed ... amazed ... by what passes for that these days. I've never been involved in customer service, directly, as a profession (although, I've been involved in training on it); but I also knew it wasn't my calling. I'm a firm believer that in today's commerce world, with online stores hammering away at price, the ONLY differentiating factor a company can offer is exceptional service. Too few get that.
In the past few weeks, before the hurricane, I had the opportunity to visit two 'restaurants' - 34 New (in Huntington, during Huntington Restaurant Week) and California Diner (in Patchogue). Both had remarkably poor service -- in the first case, they readily admitted they weren't prepared for large crowds due to Restaurant Week (mind you, the restaurant was *about* half-full ... I wouldn't rush there; if they aren't prepared to be half-full, I doubt they'll be successful). In the latter's case, *everything* was a surcharge ... you want a bread basket? $3 ... you want a refill of your unsweetened iced tea? full price.
So, initially, I was going to blog about the service there. But, then the hurricane hit. Between LIPA and Cablevision, new achievements were reached in poor service.
LIPA started by calling my cell phone the day after the hurricane and informing me (through automated message) that I would have my service back by noon that day. I was amazingly impressed -- this was a punishing storm, and there were nearly a million people out of service; what had I done to warrant such care? Ultimately, that wasn't true ... and when I called to inquire, they had no knowledge the call had gone out (one operator told me I had been mistaken). By Thursday of last week, the outage map was completely useless, except for the phone numbers at the top -- calling the 800 number took you to an automated center; but calling the local number provided you with the option to speak to a live person! So, I would call and politely (really!) inquire about an ETA (since the outage map didn't provide those; all ETAs were "being evaluated").
And, on Thursday, they rerouted the local number to the 800 number, so you no longer had the option of speaking to a live person ... awesome, LIPA! This is clearly the new, more transparent communication you were promising, yes?
*****************************
I don't know how much I'll be blogging still ... As I said, it's tough for writers to want to write in their spare time. But, I do think blogs need a focus; a purpose. And, hopefully, this can be this blog's purpose. It won't be a mish-mosh of topics, as it has been in the past.
With that, I just got notice of a delayed opening for my job today; so that provides me with an unexpected additional two hours where I can sit in a gas line! Joy of joys!
So, it's been a while since I've posted anything. 2012 has not been a great-fun year ... you can read back over my posts if you're not familiar with the circumstances (in short: my mom's passing, two surgeries, and a few other inconveniences that comprised my crap cake).
This blog originally started as a way for me to continue to keep up with writing, while I was unemployed. In fact, two years ago -- November 2010 -- I participated in NaBloWriMo (National Blog Writing Month), where each day I posted one story. At the time, since I wasn't working, this was my primary outlet for writing, and I used it pretty frequently.
When I started working again in 2011, my posting frequency dropped off ... why would someone who writes for a living (effectively) want to write in his spare time?
So, a few weeks ago, I had to wonder ... what is the purpose of this blog? For those of you who are friends with me on Facebook, you know that I'm not someone who posts random stuff there, necessarily ... my posts tend to be (1) informative, because Facebook is the quickest, easiest way to engage my friends in social media (as compared to emailing all of them separately, and having their responses in isolation); and (2) funny. Why should this blog be any different?
There are a few things I'm passionate about in life. One (which does make for good blog fodder) is customer service. I am continually amazed ... amazed ... by what passes for that these days. I've never been involved in customer service, directly, as a profession (although, I've been involved in training on it); but I also knew it wasn't my calling. I'm a firm believer that in today's commerce world, with online stores hammering away at price, the ONLY differentiating factor a company can offer is exceptional service. Too few get that.
In the past few weeks, before the hurricane, I had the opportunity to visit two 'restaurants' - 34 New (in Huntington, during Huntington Restaurant Week) and California Diner (in Patchogue). Both had remarkably poor service -- in the first case, they readily admitted they weren't prepared for large crowds due to Restaurant Week (mind you, the restaurant was *about* half-full ... I wouldn't rush there; if they aren't prepared to be half-full, I doubt they'll be successful). In the latter's case, *everything* was a surcharge ... you want a bread basket? $3 ... you want a refill of your unsweetened iced tea? full price.
So, initially, I was going to blog about the service there. But, then the hurricane hit. Between LIPA and Cablevision, new achievements were reached in poor service.
LIPA started by calling my cell phone the day after the hurricane and informing me (through automated message) that I would have my service back by noon that day. I was amazingly impressed -- this was a punishing storm, and there were nearly a million people out of service; what had I done to warrant such care? Ultimately, that wasn't true ... and when I called to inquire, they had no knowledge the call had gone out (one operator told me I had been mistaken). By Thursday of last week, the outage map was completely useless, except for the phone numbers at the top -- calling the 800 number took you to an automated center; but calling the local number provided you with the option to speak to a live person! So, I would call and politely (really!) inquire about an ETA (since the outage map didn't provide those; all ETAs were "being evaluated").
And, on Thursday, they rerouted the local number to the 800 number, so you no longer had the option of speaking to a live person ... awesome, LIPA! This is clearly the new, more transparent communication you were promising, yes?
*****************************
I don't know how much I'll be blogging still ... As I said, it's tough for writers to want to write in their spare time. But, I do think blogs need a focus; a purpose. And, hopefully, this can be this blog's purpose. It won't be a mish-mosh of topics, as it has been in the past.
With that, I just got notice of a delayed opening for my job today; so that provides me with an unexpected additional two hours where I can sit in a gas line! Joy of joys!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
What I Should Have Done with My Life
I had an epiphany a few weeks ago, while I was working on a computer problem in my home.
When I finally figured out the problem and solved it, I was awash with a sense of accomplishment -- there was a definitive solution to the issue, and I had discovered it. There was no opportunity for anyone to second-guess or point out a better way or recommend an improvement. Unequivocally, I had diagnosed and solved the issue.
And then I started thinking about my current career as a writer (using the broadest scope of the word, obviously). It's unusual I ever get that same feeling.
To be sure, I suppose I'm "accomplished" in my career -- for a while, I was the youngest editor named to head a magazine at my first company (in the process, revamping the content and helping the magazine go from #4 to #1 in the industry); I launched a start-up magazine into profitability at my second company; and overhauled the production efficiencies at my last publishing company, helping it go from "in the red" to "in the black" for the first time in five years.
I switched to communications and -- in 2008 -- won an award as "Communicator of the Year" from the International Association of Business Communicators. So, I suppose, I'm accomplished in my field.
Yet, it's rare that I ever get that sense of "it's done, and it's spectacular!" Part of this, certainly, is my own quest for greatness -- my personal commitment to doing the best job I can (and, writing or strategizing communications is a fairly subjective task). But even more than that is the presumption by so many others in the workforce that they too are "experts" in communication (even though research and employee surveys scream otherwise). So, it's par for the course for me to be given a tactical task, complete it, and then, submit it to a committee to be picked apart and "improved."
This is not specific to me; far from it -- I've heard communicators bemoan this for years. I guess it's finally just been made clearer to me.
For example, I would never head into the CFO's office and say, "hey, I was thinking of a better way to balance our books this weekend; let me take a crack at it!" Or to HR or IT or Sales - or any other discipline where those who hold those positions have earned their way to that seat. How could I possibly offer suggestions (especially unsolicited ones) in that scenario.
So, at times, I lament my choice of career -- how much easier would my life have been if I had gone into computers, for example -- get a task, create the product; if it works, it works (yeah, there's the 0.5% of the population that will pick apart your code and say how "inelegant" it is -- I'm not counting them). Most people, when they ask IT for a task, and it's delivered to their specifications, simply say "thank you!" and they don't concern themselves with what it took to get there.
Not so, when it comes to writing or communications strategy, I suppose. Although, again, I think this is the fate all communicators are doomed to live with. It just comes with the territory.
When I finally figured out the problem and solved it, I was awash with a sense of accomplishment -- there was a definitive solution to the issue, and I had discovered it. There was no opportunity for anyone to second-guess or point out a better way or recommend an improvement. Unequivocally, I had diagnosed and solved the issue.
And then I started thinking about my current career as a writer (using the broadest scope of the word, obviously). It's unusual I ever get that same feeling.
To be sure, I suppose I'm "accomplished" in my career -- for a while, I was the youngest editor named to head a magazine at my first company (in the process, revamping the content and helping the magazine go from #4 to #1 in the industry); I launched a start-up magazine into profitability at my second company; and overhauled the production efficiencies at my last publishing company, helping it go from "in the red" to "in the black" for the first time in five years.
I switched to communications and -- in 2008 -- won an award as "Communicator of the Year" from the International Association of Business Communicators. So, I suppose, I'm accomplished in my field.
Yet, it's rare that I ever get that sense of "it's done, and it's spectacular!" Part of this, certainly, is my own quest for greatness -- my personal commitment to doing the best job I can (and, writing or strategizing communications is a fairly subjective task). But even more than that is the presumption by so many others in the workforce that they too are "experts" in communication (even though research and employee surveys scream otherwise). So, it's par for the course for me to be given a tactical task, complete it, and then, submit it to a committee to be picked apart and "improved."
This is not specific to me; far from it -- I've heard communicators bemoan this for years. I guess it's finally just been made clearer to me.
For example, I would never head into the CFO's office and say, "hey, I was thinking of a better way to balance our books this weekend; let me take a crack at it!" Or to HR or IT or Sales - or any other discipline where those who hold those positions have earned their way to that seat. How could I possibly offer suggestions (especially unsolicited ones) in that scenario.
So, at times, I lament my choice of career -- how much easier would my life have been if I had gone into computers, for example -- get a task, create the product; if it works, it works (yeah, there's the 0.5% of the population that will pick apart your code and say how "inelegant" it is -- I'm not counting them). Most people, when they ask IT for a task, and it's delivered to their specifications, simply say "thank you!" and they don't concern themselves with what it took to get there.
Not so, when it comes to writing or communications strategy, I suppose. Although, again, I think this is the fate all communicators are doomed to live with. It just comes with the territory.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Why Politicians Make Good Marketers (and Vice Versa)
So, I happened to catch a news broadcast this morning (I think it was on Good Morning America). The show featured an interview with a politician whom, apparently, was in a bit of a pickle last year. In October, he was "going through some things," and it resulted in nearly a quarter of his staff resigning.
So, he went on GMA this morning to set the record straight. What we learned was the following:
That's it -- over and over, regardless of the questions asked of him, his answers were the same: some variation of those answers.
And I got to thinking, most politicians are just good speakers (and some aren't even that!). Most don't actually write their own material -- they have speechwriters to do that for them. The only thing they're asked to do is speak effectively (and in the case of today's speaker, even that was a challenge). So, I thought, why aren't more marketing professionals turning to politics? An original thinker -- someone who can actually *think* of what to say, and say it effectively, should be a slam-dunk.
Much like how I did in grad school -- when you're able to write effectively, you're already 10 or 20 percent better than everyone else. I sat there, with my mouth wide open, listening to this politician spew the same stuff out over and over. And then I envisioned his speechwriter, who probably advised him to "mention" these few key points; doing the facepalm, while he heard his politician repeating the same lines over and over, like a trained parrot.
It's interesting that the older I get, the less "awed" I am by professions/people -- celebrities; politicians; doctors -- there's no mystique to them, anymore. Today's broadcast was another stark reminder....
So, he went on GMA this morning to set the record straight. What we learned was the following:
- He's in a good place now.
- He's taking care of his two kids.
- He's taking care of his 88-year-old mother.
- He got help.
- He's in a good place now.
That's it -- over and over, regardless of the questions asked of him, his answers were the same: some variation of those answers.
And I got to thinking, most politicians are just good speakers (and some aren't even that!). Most don't actually write their own material -- they have speechwriters to do that for them. The only thing they're asked to do is speak effectively (and in the case of today's speaker, even that was a challenge). So, I thought, why aren't more marketing professionals turning to politics? An original thinker -- someone who can actually *think* of what to say, and say it effectively, should be a slam-dunk.
Much like how I did in grad school -- when you're able to write effectively, you're already 10 or 20 percent better than everyone else. I sat there, with my mouth wide open, listening to this politician spew the same stuff out over and over. And then I envisioned his speechwriter, who probably advised him to "mention" these few key points; doing the facepalm, while he heard his politician repeating the same lines over and over, like a trained parrot.
It's interesting that the older I get, the less "awed" I am by professions/people -- celebrities; politicians; doctors -- there's no mystique to them, anymore. Today's broadcast was another stark reminder....
Monday, November 22, 2010
They Like Me ... They Really Like Me
Apparently, my RSS Feed presentation is a big hit!
I first delivered the presentation to my marketing job-seekers group a few months ago, when I was still learning how the feeds could help improve the job search.
Then, I continued to refine the process (updating my blog with each improvement I made). And, last week, I gave the presentation to my job-seekers group again, in a far more organized, hands-on approach. I explain that this will not get you a job; it's not a magic wand ... what it does is it frees up your time to do things that CAN help you get a job.
Anyway, the presentation was very well received -- so much so that another group emailed me this afternoon and said they had heard the presentation was informative, and would I be interested in presenting it tomorrow. Normally, I prefer a little more notice, but I'm happy to do it (again, following up on my new "selfless" mentality).
Plus, it's a new group, new people, new contacts -- you never know whom you might meet; you never know what introduction can turn into a job.
In related news, I'm really starting to wonder if there *is* money to be made here. A friend is trying to convince me that this could be a business, but I definitely have my doubts.
I first delivered the presentation to my marketing job-seekers group a few months ago, when I was still learning how the feeds could help improve the job search.
Then, I continued to refine the process (updating my blog with each improvement I made). And, last week, I gave the presentation to my job-seekers group again, in a far more organized, hands-on approach. I explain that this will not get you a job; it's not a magic wand ... what it does is it frees up your time to do things that CAN help you get a job.
Anyway, the presentation was very well received -- so much so that another group emailed me this afternoon and said they had heard the presentation was informative, and would I be interested in presenting it tomorrow. Normally, I prefer a little more notice, but I'm happy to do it (again, following up on my new "selfless" mentality).
Plus, it's a new group, new people, new contacts -- you never know whom you might meet; you never know what introduction can turn into a job.
In related news, I'm really starting to wonder if there *is* money to be made here. A friend is trying to convince me that this could be a business, but I definitely have my doubts.
Monday, November 15, 2010
The Chain of Generosity
Just a quick post today...
I'm teaching a class tomorrow to my marketing jobseekers group. I've taught it once before (using RSS feeds to aid in the job search), but, since then, I've streamlined everything to be more effective. I've also led a class in setting up/starting a blog.
I'm in the process of reading a book about networking (and, I'll post about that in a few days, I think) but, one of the key elements the authors point out is that networking is primarily about generosity. The interesting part is that so much of what the book recommends, I've been doing already.
And, the book also points out a key difference -- one that I've long thought, but hadn't really put into words -- that there's a difference between 'networking' and 'connecting.'
I'm amused when I tell prospective companies that Ive been doing my freelance work, effectively, on a pro bono basis -- so many of them ask why I'm choosing to not be paid. I need only point to the concept of generosity as evidence that my actions have purpose.
I'll be posting more about networking and generosity this week; as it's a subject I'll be thinking about (as I finish the book).
I'm teaching a class tomorrow to my marketing jobseekers group. I've taught it once before (using RSS feeds to aid in the job search), but, since then, I've streamlined everything to be more effective. I've also led a class in setting up/starting a blog.
I'm in the process of reading a book about networking (and, I'll post about that in a few days, I think) but, one of the key elements the authors point out is that networking is primarily about generosity. The interesting part is that so much of what the book recommends, I've been doing already.
And, the book also points out a key difference -- one that I've long thought, but hadn't really put into words -- that there's a difference between 'networking' and 'connecting.'
I'm amused when I tell prospective companies that Ive been doing my freelance work, effectively, on a pro bono basis -- so many of them ask why I'm choosing to not be paid. I need only point to the concept of generosity as evidence that my actions have purpose.
I'll be posting more about networking and generosity this week; as it's a subject I'll be thinking about (as I finish the book).
Friday, November 12, 2010
Characters vs. Plot
Yesterday's post on writing struck a chord (as I actually received comments on a blog post, for a change!) so, I thought I'd continue.
My friend and I have talked about doing collaborative writing for a while -- we definitely complement each other. The issue has been finding an idea.
But, while we were talking yesterday, an interesting point was raised. Which is more important, characters or plot? Yes, they're both important; but, if you had to pick one -- one to start with; one to make more important; which would it be?
Going back to one of my earlier posts about creativity, I compared the TV show Lost with the movie Cloverfield - both were done by JJ Abrams; but, whereas Lost succeeded on two levels (appealing to both the diehard fans and those who want to just be entertained for an hour), Cloverfield wasn't nearly as successful. Take away the innovative filming structure (camcorder-like) and the copious marketing, and Cloverfield is basically just a retread of old monster movies.
And, I think, perhaps, that's due to the lack of character development done in the movie, whereas on Lost, characters were far more fleshed out.
When you think of popular TV shows, most of them have memorable characters. Perhaps the most famous one that bucks that trend is Law and Order (Dick Wolf, the creator, has long said that no actor is irreplaceable on his show -- the plot is the most important part). So, in that respect, Law and Order succeeds against the odds.
In terms of writing, I hold that a good character is the starting point; my friend is more convinced that plot is the glue (which is ironic, as I suspect, in our writings, I would be doing more to push the plot along; and he would be responsible for developing the characters).
So, which do you think is *more* important -- is Law and Order the exception, or should more shows follow its lead (for example)?
My friend and I have talked about doing collaborative writing for a while -- we definitely complement each other. The issue has been finding an idea.
But, while we were talking yesterday, an interesting point was raised. Which is more important, characters or plot? Yes, they're both important; but, if you had to pick one -- one to start with; one to make more important; which would it be?
Going back to one of my earlier posts about creativity, I compared the TV show Lost with the movie Cloverfield - both were done by JJ Abrams; but, whereas Lost succeeded on two levels (appealing to both the diehard fans and those who want to just be entertained for an hour), Cloverfield wasn't nearly as successful. Take away the innovative filming structure (camcorder-like) and the copious marketing, and Cloverfield is basically just a retread of old monster movies.
And, I think, perhaps, that's due to the lack of character development done in the movie, whereas on Lost, characters were far more fleshed out.
When you think of popular TV shows, most of them have memorable characters. Perhaps the most famous one that bucks that trend is Law and Order (Dick Wolf, the creator, has long said that no actor is irreplaceable on his show -- the plot is the most important part). So, in that respect, Law and Order succeeds against the odds.
In terms of writing, I hold that a good character is the starting point; my friend is more convinced that plot is the glue (which is ironic, as I suspect, in our writings, I would be doing more to push the plot along; and he would be responsible for developing the characters).
So, which do you think is *more* important -- is Law and Order the exception, or should more shows follow its lead (for example)?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Choices We Make
I had an interview this past Friday, and during the interview, we began talking about choices one makes in life (specifically, the interviewer and I both confessed to being introspective and looking back over choices we'd made, and wondering how our lives would have been different had we made a different choice).
From a professional standpoint, for me, I can look back to my 9th-10th grade years of school, as the 'turning point' for my career.
Up until high school, I had wanted to be a sports statistician. Even now, my love of and fascination with sports statistics is unparalleled. I was a huge fan of Bill James, who was, by popular consensus, the fore-father of "sabermetrics," which intended to break down baseball statistics into more sensible analysis.
In any event, in 9th grade I was writing a book, on sabermetrics, as part of an independent study project. My ambition was quite high -- I was going to design *the* authoritative player evaluation system ... as a 9th grader ... (and I still couldn't pass algebra; ah, youth!).
Part of my 'research' involved talking with professionals in the field -- I tried to reach Bill James, but was unsuccessful. I ended up speaking with Craig Wright, whom - at the time - was the only person employed by a major league team (the Texas Rangers). One day, as we were talking, I asked him, "so, what is the most important subject for me to pay attention to, as I go into high school and college?"
He replied, immediately, "English."
I was confused. I explained, "No, I want to do what you're doing." After all, wouldn't I need to excel in statistics? or accounting? or algebra?
And he replied, "If you can't effectively communicate your findings, it's as good as never having done them in the first place."
Fast forward to a year or two later. I was doing statistics for the high school basketball team, and my friend - the sports editor for the high school paper - came to me to get material for a piece he was writing. I provided him with all the data, and definitely portrayed the team in a good light. He wrote a story that was a bit more negative; and, consequently, I was blamed for the piece by the players (who thought I'd sold them out).
I marched in to the faculty adviser's office, and said, "This piece on the basketball team is completely inaccurate, and a retraction needs be printed; or - better still - a new story." And, she threw me a pad and pen and said, "That's an excellent idea; have it to me in two weeks." The rest is history.
It's amazing to see how a few choices we make, that seem innocuous at first glance, can be complete life-changers in retrospect. Obviously, personal choices (where we go to college; whom we date; whom we marry; jobs we leave and jobs we take) all help to create the person we end up being.
So, what is the *earliest* choice you can recall making, and how did it affect who you are today? Let's get some great stories!
From a professional standpoint, for me, I can look back to my 9th-10th grade years of school, as the 'turning point' for my career.
Up until high school, I had wanted to be a sports statistician. Even now, my love of and fascination with sports statistics is unparalleled. I was a huge fan of Bill James, who was, by popular consensus, the fore-father of "sabermetrics," which intended to break down baseball statistics into more sensible analysis.
In any event, in 9th grade I was writing a book, on sabermetrics, as part of an independent study project. My ambition was quite high -- I was going to design *the* authoritative player evaluation system ... as a 9th grader ... (and I still couldn't pass algebra; ah, youth!).
Part of my 'research' involved talking with professionals in the field -- I tried to reach Bill James, but was unsuccessful. I ended up speaking with Craig Wright, whom - at the time - was the only person employed by a major league team (the Texas Rangers). One day, as we were talking, I asked him, "so, what is the most important subject for me to pay attention to, as I go into high school and college?"
He replied, immediately, "English."
I was confused. I explained, "No, I want to do what you're doing." After all, wouldn't I need to excel in statistics? or accounting? or
And he replied, "If you can't effectively communicate your findings, it's as good as never having done them in the first place."
Fast forward to a year or two later. I was doing statistics for the high school basketball team, and my friend - the sports editor for the high school paper - came to me to get material for a piece he was writing. I provided him with all the data, and definitely portrayed the team in a good light. He wrote a story that was a bit more negative; and, consequently, I was blamed for the piece by the players (who thought I'd sold them out).
I marched in to the faculty adviser's office, and said, "This piece on the basketball team is completely inaccurate, and a retraction needs be printed; or - better still - a new story." And, she threw me a pad and pen and said, "That's an excellent idea; have it to me in two weeks." The rest is history.
It's amazing to see how a few choices we make, that seem innocuous at first glance, can be complete life-changers in retrospect. Obviously, personal choices (where we go to college; whom we date; whom we marry; jobs we leave and jobs we take) all help to create the person we end up being.
So, what is the *earliest* choice you can recall making, and how did it affect who you are today? Let's get some great stories!
Friday, November 5, 2010
Is Facebook Killing the Blog?
While it's popular to think that Facebook started the whole "social media" movement, it's also incredibly untrue. In fact, it's far more likely that the blog was the first form of social media -- it signaled a change from static, one-way communication to a more fluid conversation that took place online.
However, with the rise in popularity of Facebook, are blogs now completely passe?
Like many, I use Facebook to broadcast details of my life -- including, obviously, when I make new posts here on my blog. Invariably, people choose to comment not here on the blog; but back on Facebook; even though they, clearly, have to visit the blog to view the post.
Why is that? Is it that the blog isn't nearly as graphically pleasing as Facebook (and thus, the thought of leaving a comment here is less satisfying that leaving one on Facebook)? Is it that the people don't think I'll see it here (I do, rest assured)? Is it a selfish thing -- I think it's significantly easier these days to start building up a Facebook network than it is to build a blog following -- perhaps those leaving comments want the maximum exposure to their contributions; and Facebook probably offers that.
Is this signaling the end of the blog? For a period of time, new blogs were being created at insane paces. Now, it's just as easy to write a Facebook "note" and share it with your network. And, if the content is good, perhaps that network shares the "note" with their networks, and you build up your following equally as fast. Are there really any drawbacks?
So, is Facebook killing the blog? And -- perhaps more importantly -- is it really a worthy successor?
However, with the rise in popularity of Facebook, are blogs now completely passe?
Like many, I use Facebook to broadcast details of my life -- including, obviously, when I make new posts here on my blog. Invariably, people choose to comment not here on the blog; but back on Facebook; even though they, clearly, have to visit the blog to view the post.
Why is that? Is it that the blog isn't nearly as graphically pleasing as Facebook (and thus, the thought of leaving a comment here is less satisfying that leaving one on Facebook)? Is it that the people don't think I'll see it here (I do, rest assured)? Is it a selfish thing -- I think it's significantly easier these days to start building up a Facebook network than it is to build a blog following -- perhaps those leaving comments want the maximum exposure to their contributions; and Facebook probably offers that.
Is this signaling the end of the blog? For a period of time, new blogs were being created at insane paces. Now, it's just as easy to write a Facebook "note" and share it with your network. And, if the content is good, perhaps that network shares the "note" with their networks, and you build up your following equally as fast. Are there really any drawbacks?
So, is Facebook killing the blog? And -- perhaps more importantly -- is it really a worthy successor?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Game's the Thing
About a week ago, I received a phone call from a professor at C.W. Post University, who had found my website online. She was teaching a course on game design this summer as part of a summer game course initiative at the college. She asked if I would guest lecture.
So, accompanied with another member of my boardgaming group, we headed off to C.W. Post today to teach 12 high school/college students about boardgames and design.
It was really refreshing -- the students were definitely interested in learning (and trying) some of the new games they'd never heard of. We taught them two new games, had a brief discussion on the history of games (and modern games) and spoke with a few of the students about their final projects (designing a game).
I don't regret not pursuing a career in teaching -- today's experience didn't change that at all. But, it did reaffirm how much I enjoy teaching - even in a corporate setting. One of my favorite aspects of my previous career was being a trusted advisor/source for a company. In fact, when I explain my role, I normally focus on how a large part of my role was helping others become better communicators (both from a writing and strategic standpoint).
For more details about my class today, check out my board game examiner blog on examiner.com.
So, accompanied with another member of my boardgaming group, we headed off to C.W. Post today to teach 12 high school/college students about boardgames and design.
It was really refreshing -- the students were definitely interested in learning (and trying) some of the new games they'd never heard of. We taught them two new games, had a brief discussion on the history of games (and modern games) and spoke with a few of the students about their final projects (designing a game).
I don't regret not pursuing a career in teaching -- today's experience didn't change that at all. But, it did reaffirm how much I enjoy teaching - even in a corporate setting. One of my favorite aspects of my previous career was being a trusted advisor/source for a company. In fact, when I explain my role, I normally focus on how a large part of my role was helping others become better communicators (both from a writing and strategic standpoint).
For more details about my class today, check out my board game examiner blog on examiner.com.
Friday, July 9, 2010
My new writing position (not really) and social media wishlist
So, I started actually writing for "pay" -- if you can call it that. I signed up on examiner.com as a local "board game" examiner, which pays the princely sum of $1 per article (plus additional monies, as determined by traffic).
Unlike this blog, which has really evolved (or devolved, depending on your interests!) into more of a professional thinkbank for me, the examiner piece allows me to write about a hobby of mine, and keeps my skills up. Plus, it's fun being an ambassador for - what I consider to be - a great pastime. Unlike some of the boardgaming-focused sites, which are really geared towards the experienced player, this column will attempt to bring these games to the public's awareness.
You can access (and subscribe to) my column here. Right now, there's only one story up, but I'll try and get 2-3 up each week (more often than not, it'll be '2'). But, almost all of them will be shorter than what I typically write here!
The other thing I've been working on is figuring out the best way to secure emails in an RSS feed. For those who've been reading this column, you know that I'm a huge fan of the use of RSS feeds. I find email to be cumbersome and inefficient. Nevertheless, there are still some sites that *insist* on using email to communicate -- most notably, YahooGroups (understandable, as Yahoo, in general, is years behind the rest of the world) and - shockingly - Linked In.
I've gone through so many attempts to figure out ways to do it -- using blogger.com, using xfruits.com -- my latest attempt used posterous.com, but even that has fallen short (although, there's still a possibility of that working -- next week will tell).
So, here's my WISHLIST of social media/technology tools, that would make my life significantly easier:
Unlike this blog, which has really evolved (or devolved, depending on your interests!) into more of a professional thinkbank for me, the examiner piece allows me to write about a hobby of mine, and keeps my skills up. Plus, it's fun being an ambassador for - what I consider to be - a great pastime. Unlike some of the boardgaming-focused sites, which are really geared towards the experienced player, this column will attempt to bring these games to the public's awareness.
You can access (and subscribe to) my column here. Right now, there's only one story up, but I'll try and get 2-3 up each week (more often than not, it'll be '2'). But, almost all of them will be shorter than what I typically write here!
The other thing I've been working on is figuring out the best way to secure emails in an RSS feed. For those who've been reading this column, you know that I'm a huge fan of the use of RSS feeds. I find email to be cumbersome and inefficient. Nevertheless, there are still some sites that *insist* on using email to communicate -- most notably, YahooGroups (understandable, as Yahoo, in general, is years behind the rest of the world) and - shockingly - Linked In.
I've gone through so many attempts to figure out ways to do it -- using blogger.com, using xfruits.com -- my latest attempt used posterous.com, but even that has fallen short (although, there's still a possibility of that working -- next week will tell).
So, here's my WISHLIST of social media/technology tools, that would make my life significantly easier:
- An easy way to convert email to RSS feeds that stays private. I want to be able to get the full text of the message in the RSS reader. Basically - a dream would be to combine posterous.com -- which allows you to subscribe to a private RSS feed, with blogger.com or wordpress.com -- which allows ANY email address to post to the blog (whereas, posterous only allows approved/confirmed email addresses to post).
This makes for a circuitous snafu. I receive emails at gmail.com, and auto-forward to the blog; but since I'm unable to confirm email addresses from yahoogroups or linkedin, and the auto-forward *retains* the original sending email address, the posts never arrive at posterous.
Admittedly, this is probably over the head of most people; but if it's not - there will be MUCH gratitude for assistance in fixing this issue. - Nested folders in google reader -- isn't it about time, already?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
My Secret to Getting Interviews
Been a few weeks since my last post -- apologies...my wife had surgery and it was a little hard to get back into a routine (I'm still not).
I belong to a job seeking group made up of marketing/communications professionals. In spite of the potential competition that could arise from the similar backgrounds (and goals), the group succeeds. There's a good exchange of information and best practices.
We introduce ourselves at the start of each meeting, and I always give an update on my search -- the number of interviews I've had, in particular. I've been fortunate to have what I'd consider to be a decent amount of interviews, although - obviously - I'd certainly trade interviews for offers.
I credit the interviews, first, to my search mechanism. I've outlined the use of RSS feeds as a way to greatly improve your online efficiency. Through those tactics, I'll see approximately 7000 jobs a week, although - admittedly - not all of them are even loose fits (one of the drawbacks of searching this way is that you need to be quite broad in your search terms. Also, searching for "communications" generates an awful lot of job titles, as many have the words "communications" in the job description). Even still, it's far easier to cycle through these jobs in an RSS reader than it would be to do searches on each site each week.
Through that effort, Ill probably identify anywhere from 20-50 jobs each week that I can apply to -- internally, I group them into 'tiers' -- Tier 1 are the jobs that are perfect for me, with companies I think I'd love to work for; Tier 2 are a little less appealing - maybe I don't have exactly the qualifications, or it's a sizeable step up (and I'm wary); and Tier 3 positions are jobs I don't feel extremely comfortable with -- for any number of reasons.
I don't turn down interviews -- even from Tier 3 positions -- for two reasons: 1) I'm always open to being surprised; and 2) interviews are always good practice.
What *is* concerning is that the majority of the interviews I get are from the Tier 2 and Tier 3 positions ... admittedly, the Tier 1 jobs are already few and far between; but I'm always astonished when those positions don't result in interviews. Although, I'm waiting to hear back from one Tier 1 position, even now.
I don't think I'm necessarily revealing anything super-secretive about landing interviews -- for me, it all starts with the search, which I do each day. I have a standard resume (which I'll occasionally update to the job's specifics) and I always attach a cover letter, which I customize far more often. But, in the end, it's the search that fuels the interviews. If I'm landing 2 interviews a week, and I'm sending out 50 applications, then it's logical that someone sending out 5 resumes a week, will be waiting about 10 weeks to get those same 2 interviews. The search drives the effort.
I belong to a job seeking group made up of marketing/communications professionals. In spite of the potential competition that could arise from the similar backgrounds (and goals), the group succeeds. There's a good exchange of information and best practices.
We introduce ourselves at the start of each meeting, and I always give an update on my search -- the number of interviews I've had, in particular. I've been fortunate to have what I'd consider to be a decent amount of interviews, although - obviously - I'd certainly trade interviews for offers.
I credit the interviews, first, to my search mechanism. I've outlined the use of RSS feeds as a way to greatly improve your online efficiency. Through those tactics, I'll see approximately 7000 jobs a week, although - admittedly - not all of them are even loose fits (one of the drawbacks of searching this way is that you need to be quite broad in your search terms. Also, searching for "communications" generates an awful lot of job titles, as many have the words "communications" in the job description). Even still, it's far easier to cycle through these jobs in an RSS reader than it would be to do searches on each site each week.
Through that effort, Ill probably identify anywhere from 20-50 jobs each week that I can apply to -- internally, I group them into 'tiers' -- Tier 1 are the jobs that are perfect for me, with companies I think I'd love to work for; Tier 2 are a little less appealing - maybe I don't have exactly the qualifications, or it's a sizeable step up (and I'm wary); and Tier 3 positions are jobs I don't feel extremely comfortable with -- for any number of reasons.
I don't turn down interviews -- even from Tier 3 positions -- for two reasons: 1) I'm always open to being surprised; and 2) interviews are always good practice.
What *is* concerning is that the majority of the interviews I get are from the Tier 2 and Tier 3 positions ... admittedly, the Tier 1 jobs are already few and far between; but I'm always astonished when those positions don't result in interviews. Although
I don't think I'm necessarily revealing anything super-secretive about landing interviews -- for me, it all starts with the search, which I do each day. I have a standard resume (which I'll occasionally update to the job's specifics) and I always attach a cover letter, which I customize far more often. But, in the end, it's the search that fuels the interviews. If I'm landing 2 interviews a week, and I'm sending out 50 applications, then it's logical that someone sending out 5 resumes a week, will be waiting about 10 weeks to get those same 2 interviews. The search drives the effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)