A résumé ought to be a living document, not a dusty one. If you have done something noteworthy in your job in the past three months, it is time to update your résumé—and if you haven't done something noteworthy in your job in the past three months, it is time to look for more challenging work, in which case it is also time to update your résumé.
According to research done for Robert Half International, 45% of workers haven't updated in the past year and 20% haven't updated in more than two years. If a new job opportunity did pop up, they would not be able to respond quickly.
Résumé Tune-Up
Spell-Check!
A revved up résumé ought to hold an employer spellbound, not leave him dumbfounded by the spelling. Poor spelling makes an employer skiddish skittish about how conscious conscientious you really are.
Use Bullet Points to Hit the Target.
• key words geared to profession
• action verbs, active voice
• quantify accomplishments, show numbers
• skills and strengths
Customization Specials
Now that most résumés are stored as word processor documents or portable document files rather than professionally printed on vellum, your main résumé file can be easily customized and framed so that it emphasizes the skills and training that apply to the job at hand. Keep master lists of things that you have done, and then pick out the four or five that best suit the specific job that you are applying for.
Go Social
Social networking is probably the oldest job-hunting skill around, but incorporating it in a résumé is relatively new. Use it, but with discretion. John Hill, Michigan State University’s director of alumni career services says, "LinkedIn is like the corporate office. Twitter is like the water cooler, and Facebook is like the bar."
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Hiring Commissioned Salespeople? Don’t Use a Scientific Selection Process
I ran across an interesting post from a fellow blogger the other day. He plaintively described the dreadful failure rate of newly-hired commissioned salespeople. Over three-quarters of his new hires were tanking in the first three months. Obviously, he felt the need to reassess his interview technique.
He concluded that he'd been interviewing as if his company had the greater risk, and therefore he hedged his bets to reduce risk to the company—it had not worked. Trying a new paradigm, he structured the interview as though all the risk was on the candidate. It makes sense. When a commissioned salesperson flunks at his job, he doesn't get paid.
To put his revelation into practice, he began talking to the sales candidates like he would talk to a partner. His newly formatted interview included discussion of the company's development, industry trends, success and failure rates, and similar matters. He then evaluated the candidates' strengths and pitfalls as if looking for a partner.
What was the outcome? He called it "significantly more effective" than the scientific process they'd been using.
Equally interesting were the views in the comment section that followed. The consensus agreed that commissioned salesperson interviews are some of the toughest, and they added other insights as well.
The business partner approach works because most good salesmen don't like bosses. They want to be their own boss, so interviewing in a manner that brings out traits of self-sufficiency helps in the selection process. One commentator went so far as to suggest that the real sales manager of any good salesperson is their "significant other." He likes to have a portion of the hiring process include an interview with the family unit to get them on board.
Several posters lamented that all the great salesmen seem to already be out selling, but that excuse seems like the whine of the dateless college coed complaining that all the great guys are already married. Several comments said having clearly defined expectations helps, and that reality holds in continuing this analogy—the girl doesn't know what kind of man she wants, all she knows is that she wants a date. Is it little wonder that hiring commissioned salespeople with that attitude has results similar to dating services?
The original blogger was struggling to find his balance of art and science in the hiring process. It is a battle we all face.
He concluded that he'd been interviewing as if his company had the greater risk, and therefore he hedged his bets to reduce risk to the company—it had not worked. Trying a new paradigm, he structured the interview as though all the risk was on the candidate. It makes sense. When a commissioned salesperson flunks at his job, he doesn't get paid.
To put his revelation into practice, he began talking to the sales candidates like he would talk to a partner. His newly formatted interview included discussion of the company's development, industry trends, success and failure rates, and similar matters. He then evaluated the candidates' strengths and pitfalls as if looking for a partner.
What was the outcome? He called it "significantly more effective" than the scientific process they'd been using.
Equally interesting were the views in the comment section that followed. The consensus agreed that commissioned salesperson interviews are some of the toughest, and they added other insights as well.
The business partner approach works because most good salesmen don't like bosses. They want to be their own boss, so interviewing in a manner that brings out traits of self-sufficiency helps in the selection process. One commentator went so far as to suggest that the real sales manager of any good salesperson is their "significant other." He likes to have a portion of the hiring process include an interview with the family unit to get them on board.
Several posters lamented that all the great salesmen seem to already be out selling, but that excuse seems like the whine of the dateless college coed complaining that all the great guys are already married. Several comments said having clearly defined expectations helps, and that reality holds in continuing this analogy—the girl doesn't know what kind of man she wants, all she knows is that she wants a date. Is it little wonder that hiring commissioned salespeople with that attitude has results similar to dating services?
The original blogger was struggling to find his balance of art and science in the hiring process. It is a battle we all face.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Importance of Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic methods of motivation, those that arise from the task itself, are finally getting some of the attention they deserve. In the past, business has relied heavily on external motivators such as a pay bonus, an extra pin on the uniform, or a parking place near the door to help motivate employees. There comes a point, especially in jobs that entail creativity, that an employee will start identifying with that great line from the musical Hello, Dolly! when Dolly Levi tells her would-be beau, "And on those cold winter nights, Horace, you can snuggle up to your cash register. It's a little lumpy, but it rings!" His wooing technique had failed to motivate her.
Dolly stated what every employee learns—that there is more to life, and to a job, than simply a paycheck. Distilled down, the wisdom of recognizing "more to life" has found three new motivational buzz words: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Autonomy
Simply stated, this means that people want to have control over their work. Giving people a goal and then giving them the freedom to have some say-so over how they meet the goal can be a terrific motivator.
Mastery
Every normal person wants to be good at what they do. There is more enjoyment in doing something when you can do it well. By using this fundamental human trait as a basis for motivation, work becomes more interesting and productivity increases.
Purpose
Studies in behavioral sciences have shown that people don't mind being a little cog in a bigger machine as long as they know that their cog has significance. A good boss knows how to capitalize on the natural desire to be part of something that is larger than one's self by helping employees know that their work is meaningful.
Dolly stated what every employee learns—that there is more to life, and to a job, than simply a paycheck. Distilled down, the wisdom of recognizing "more to life" has found three new motivational buzz words: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Autonomy
Simply stated, this means that people want to have control over their work. Giving people a goal and then giving them the freedom to have some say-so over how they meet the goal can be a terrific motivator.
Mastery
Every normal person wants to be good at what they do. There is more enjoyment in doing something when you can do it well. By using this fundamental human trait as a basis for motivation, work becomes more interesting and productivity increases.
Purpose
Studies in behavioral sciences have shown that people don't mind being a little cog in a bigger machine as long as they know that their cog has significance. A good boss knows how to capitalize on the natural desire to be part of something that is larger than one's self by helping employees know that their work is meaningful.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How to Make People Feel Like a Million Bucks Without Spending Any
Last year Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a professor at Harvard Business School, wrote a column on gift giving ideas for cash-short, recession-weary workplaces. It was both innovative and practical, making the point that "gifts that don't require a commercial transaction can strengthen human bonds." It was refreshing to see someone from a high profile business school actually suggesting alternatives to the commercialization of the holidays.
But if low- or no-cost gifts can add energy to the workplace and lift morale one week out of the year, what's to say that it won't work the other fifty-one as well?
Building on Professor Kanter's premise that gifts that create a "connection of caring" will reinforce motivation, and by adding a few ideas of out own, we offer our list of "How to make people feel like a million bucks without spending any."
• Hold a Management Slave Day. The bosses can cook, serve and clean up after a meal or do other chores for their staff.
• Give a mini-vacation. Can you close up an hour early one day? Or start an hour later after a weekend?
• Be an Affirmation Elf. This is a take on the Secret Santa idea, except that instead of giving a gift, you give a compliment.
• Try a Time Share Chore Exchange. Almost every job comes with at least one yucky, routine chore, right? Let your employees switch a ten-minute chore of their choice with someone else. It breaks the routine and builds sympathetic camaraderie.
• Rule suspension. Remove the most frustrating and least necessary rules. Okay, that last sentence is a verbatim copy job from Professor Kanter's list, but it was just too cool to overlook.
• Post a note. Except that this time when we say "post," we mean post office, as in use snail mail and send a note home to the employee's family telling them how their parent/sibling/child makes a difference.
• Name Recognition. This is another idea borrowed from Professor Kanter—actually, she suggested a graffiti wall—but we think smart folks like our readers may want to spin that a little and add some audio recognition as well.
• Do kid stuff. Remember elementary school assemblies when they'd bring in a magician or sketch artist or a Punch 'n Judy puppet show? This idea may not be no-cost, but it can be cost-effective to take an hour break for a bit of entertainment.
But if low- or no-cost gifts can add energy to the workplace and lift morale one week out of the year, what's to say that it won't work the other fifty-one as well?
Building on Professor Kanter's premise that gifts that create a "connection of caring" will reinforce motivation, and by adding a few ideas of out own, we offer our list of "How to make people feel like a million bucks without spending any."
• Hold a Management Slave Day. The bosses can cook, serve and clean up after a meal or do other chores for their staff.
• Give a mini-vacation. Can you close up an hour early one day? Or start an hour later after a weekend?
• Be an Affirmation Elf. This is a take on the Secret Santa idea, except that instead of giving a gift, you give a compliment.
• Try a Time Share Chore Exchange. Almost every job comes with at least one yucky, routine chore, right? Let your employees switch a ten-minute chore of their choice with someone else. It breaks the routine and builds sympathetic camaraderie.
• Rule suspension. Remove the most frustrating and least necessary rules. Okay, that last sentence is a verbatim copy job from Professor Kanter's list, but it was just too cool to overlook.
• Post a note. Except that this time when we say "post," we mean post office, as in use snail mail and send a note home to the employee's family telling them how their parent/sibling/child makes a difference.
• Name Recognition. This is another idea borrowed from Professor Kanter—actually, she suggested a graffiti wall—but we think smart folks like our readers may want to spin that a little and add some audio recognition as well.
• Do kid stuff. Remember elementary school assemblies when they'd bring in a magician or sketch artist or a Punch 'n Judy puppet show? This idea may not be no-cost, but it can be cost-effective to take an hour break for a bit of entertainment.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why Small Business Won't Be Hiring
At the end of last year, business economists and government prognosticators alike had a growing list of reasons that small businesses weren't hiring. Chief among the causes were the continuing credit crunch and bleak prospects for future sales.
Even the improving numbers for new orders that looked optimistic at the surface had shadows of pessimism showing around the edges—many of the new sales were not so much "new" as they were restocking of inventories that had been purposely lowered for end-of-year tax reasons.
The results of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 have been either disappointing or abysmal, depending upon who you talk to. By in large, small businesses, which are the creators of half of all non-government jobs, haven't experienced the rising numbers depicted on the colorful bar graphs at Recovery.gov.
As the new year opened, the State of the Union Address promised a $5,000 tax credit for every net new employee in 2010. The goal, according to federal officials, was "to encourage businesses that are on the fence about hiring to take the plunge." The problem is that there aren't that many small businessmen who are on the fence. Most are standing firmly behind it and only peeking through the knotholes, waiting to see how the Senate will vote on part of that promise later this month.
More recently, reports of trillion dollar deficits and chatter of coming tax increases have made small entrepreneurs even more cautious. Those who are familiar with history and are wary of its repeating itself know that government spending has never brought private sector recovery.
Additionally, many employers are already operating with employees who have accepted fewer hours just to keep their jobs. Should the economy begin a recovery, the first new hires will be in line behind the part-timers who are waiting to get their full time status back.
In the end, the varied reasons that small businesses are not hiring—the lack of credit, the sluggish sales, the threats of future tax increases, and the surplus of hours for existing employees—are all attached to the same root: uncertainty in the economy. For most small businessmen, the risks of expanding are still too great.
Even the improving numbers for new orders that looked optimistic at the surface had shadows of pessimism showing around the edges—many of the new sales were not so much "new" as they were restocking of inventories that had been purposely lowered for end-of-year tax reasons.
The results of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 have been either disappointing or abysmal, depending upon who you talk to. By in large, small businesses, which are the creators of half of all non-government jobs, haven't experienced the rising numbers depicted on the colorful bar graphs at Recovery.gov.
As the new year opened, the State of the Union Address promised a $5,000 tax credit for every net new employee in 2010. The goal, according to federal officials, was "to encourage businesses that are on the fence about hiring to take the plunge." The problem is that there aren't that many small businessmen who are on the fence. Most are standing firmly behind it and only peeking through the knotholes, waiting to see how the Senate will vote on part of that promise later this month.
More recently, reports of trillion dollar deficits and chatter of coming tax increases have made small entrepreneurs even more cautious. Those who are familiar with history and are wary of its repeating itself know that government spending has never brought private sector recovery.
Additionally, many employers are already operating with employees who have accepted fewer hours just to keep their jobs. Should the economy begin a recovery, the first new hires will be in line behind the part-timers who are waiting to get their full time status back.
In the end, the varied reasons that small businesses are not hiring—the lack of credit, the sluggish sales, the threats of future tax increases, and the surplus of hours for existing employees—are all attached to the same root: uncertainty in the economy. For most small businessmen, the risks of expanding are still too great.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Can Bonuses Do More Harm Than Good?
The terms 'greed' and 'Wall Street' have been linked since 18th century traders and speculators met to make deals and bargains under a buttonwood growing along the street. In the 21st century, the term 'Wall Street' has expanded to include the self-indulgence of big business interests and investment banking. When these indulgences dip into the little guy's already shrinking pockets, it is time to cry "Foul!"
With recent government bailouts, that is exactly what is happening. Americans still have a strong sense of fair play. We first learned about fair play from mom when it was time to share the candy, we reinforced our sense of fairness on the Little League fields of our youth, and we demand to see it in business as adults. When Wall Street executives were being handed bonuses—big bonuses—for driving their companies into bankruptcy, the hue and cry could be heard on Main Street. This is anathema to the American conscience: Make good choices, get rewarded; take stupid risks, get rewarded big time!
"But isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?" you may ask. "Aren't risk-takers deserving of the payoff?" Except that once again, government bailouts have siphoned money from other sources to manage a crisis that need not have happened. When those 'other sources' are you and me, we have a rightful responsibility to speak up. It is a problem that has yet to be resolved.
Jack Hough, associate editor at SmartMoney.com, writes, "for risking everything and failing spectacularly, the bosses lost plenty but gained more." He bases his conclusion on research reports from Harvard Law School and The Yale Journal on Regulation that uncovered some mind-boggling numbers. The top executives at Lehman Brothers received $1 billion in cash; those at Bear Stearns totaled $1.4 billion. Even though the executives had personal on-paper loses of millions as their stocks fell during 2007 and into the crisis of 2008, the studies found that the cash payments "substantially exceeded the value of the executives’ initial holdings in the beginning of the period.”
The period for the study stretched back to 2000. The researchers went back that far because the real question that they wanted to answer was not how much cash did the CEOs get, but whether or not the executives had some incentive to make decisions that we can now, in hindsight, label as crazy risk-taking. By looking at this broader time span, the researchers were able to compare cash rewards of the earlier decisions to become heavily involved with mortgage securities against the penalties that occurred later and then determine the overall gain or loss. The conclusion was yes, they had incentive to take wild risks.
The real tragedy is that not much has changed. For those of us who must live on Main Street, it is time to add a new refrain to the protests of "Unfair!" It is time to add, "Use your brain and don't let this happen again!"
With recent government bailouts, that is exactly what is happening. Americans still have a strong sense of fair play. We first learned about fair play from mom when it was time to share the candy, we reinforced our sense of fairness on the Little League fields of our youth, and we demand to see it in business as adults. When Wall Street executives were being handed bonuses—big bonuses—for driving their companies into bankruptcy, the hue and cry could be heard on Main Street. This is anathema to the American conscience: Make good choices, get rewarded; take stupid risks, get rewarded big time!
"But isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?" you may ask. "Aren't risk-takers deserving of the payoff?" Except that once again, government bailouts have siphoned money from other sources to manage a crisis that need not have happened. When those 'other sources' are you and me, we have a rightful responsibility to speak up. It is a problem that has yet to be resolved.
Jack Hough, associate editor at SmartMoney.com, writes, "for risking everything and failing spectacularly, the bosses lost plenty but gained more." He bases his conclusion on research reports from Harvard Law School and The Yale Journal on Regulation that uncovered some mind-boggling numbers. The top executives at Lehman Brothers received $1 billion in cash; those at Bear Stearns totaled $1.4 billion. Even though the executives had personal on-paper loses of millions as their stocks fell during 2007 and into the crisis of 2008, the studies found that the cash payments "substantially exceeded the value of the executives’ initial holdings in the beginning of the period.”
The period for the study stretched back to 2000. The researchers went back that far because the real question that they wanted to answer was not how much cash did the CEOs get, but whether or not the executives had some incentive to make decisions that we can now, in hindsight, label as crazy risk-taking. By looking at this broader time span, the researchers were able to compare cash rewards of the earlier decisions to become heavily involved with mortgage securities against the penalties that occurred later and then determine the overall gain or loss. The conclusion was yes, they had incentive to take wild risks.
The real tragedy is that not much has changed. For those of us who must live on Main Street, it is time to add a new refrain to the protests of "Unfair!" It is time to add, "Use your brain and don't let this happen again!"
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Social Media: The New Word of Mouth
I recently came across another blog that spoofed a Human Resources robot, claiming that the HRbot would 'spider' all your tweets and social networking info each time you apply for a job. It may have been meant as satire, but there was a kernel of truth in it.
Major—and minor—businesses are posting their company profiles on social media and using them for recruiting new employees. During the hiring process, it is likely that any personal profiles that an applicant may have on the web will be searched. It is not so much that a potential employer is interested in the size of your mob in Mobsters, or how many potatoes you've harvested in Farmtown. It is more that these social networking sites can offer a window into the kind of community that you choose to belong to and provide a fuller picture of who they might be hiring.
The jury is still out on whether tweeting for work is the wave of the future or a passing fad. In the here and now, it is the new word of mouth. Most of the best jobs are filled on the basis of personal word-of-mouth recommendations. The thing to remember is that it works both ways.
With social media such as LinkedIn, which was set up for the purpose of business networking, members expect others to scrutinize their profile. But what about friend networks like MySpace and Facebook? If you are looking for a job, there is a fair chance that the person looking at your application will be looking for your social media profile.
If there really was a spider HRbot, would you get caught in its web?
Major—and minor—businesses are posting their company profiles on social media and using them for recruiting new employees. During the hiring process, it is likely that any personal profiles that an applicant may have on the web will be searched. It is not so much that a potential employer is interested in the size of your mob in Mobsters, or how many potatoes you've harvested in Farmtown. It is more that these social networking sites can offer a window into the kind of community that you choose to belong to and provide a fuller picture of who they might be hiring.
The jury is still out on whether tweeting for work is the wave of the future or a passing fad. In the here and now, it is the new word of mouth. Most of the best jobs are filled on the basis of personal word-of-mouth recommendations. The thing to remember is that it works both ways.
With social media such as LinkedIn, which was set up for the purpose of business networking, members expect others to scrutinize their profile. But what about friend networks like MySpace and Facebook? If you are looking for a job, there is a fair chance that the person looking at your application will be looking for your social media profile.
If there really was a spider HRbot, would you get caught in its web?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)