I saw a movie this week that changed, or rather, reminded me of a thought process I forgot about. All this business angst I've been carrying around is keeping me from being my best.
In her book Eat, Pray, Love, Liz Gilbert describes a method of thinking about the past and your troubles in a way that makes total sense, but I often forget about in the moment.
In the book (and the movie), a friend tells the protagonist to, "Send it light, send it love, then drop it."
The protagonist is talking about a failed and missed relationship and how hard it is to let go and the friend simply tells her that it's ok to miss things and love them, but you need to just learn to send it light, send it love, then drop it.
I realized that I'm not doing that in the process of letting go of the business world that I just don't fit into. I'm angry at the process and the lack of respect of people on a day to day basis, but being angsty isn't going to change my reality.
So this month, I'm trying something new. Every time I'm reminded of the misery of my old job or the current misery of another's job, I simply need to send that world light, send it love, then drop it. It's one single facet of a life, not the whole part.
In that same vein, that means after only a few short months, I'm retiring this blog. No need for the angst baby, no need for the angst.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Insulting Interview
Yesterday, I went to one of the most insulting interviews I've ever been to, though sadly, it was not my first.
The first time was in 2005. I was working at the Cincinnati Enquirer as a sales coordinator and wanted to be promoted, so I interviewed for the sales associate position. Walking into that interview, I was confident and composed. Walking out of that interview, I was shaky and upset. I had unknowingly walked into a mine field. The manager had decided to throw rumors left and right in my face and scream at me. None of the rumors were true, which my current manager corroborated on my behalf later; but at the time, I was freaking out. I told myself to stay calm and answer his questions (accusations really) to the best of my ability.
In this situation, it all worked out for the best. The manager apologized, I began to work for him and for the next year, we had a great working relationship.
Yesterday, I was interviewing with an agency who I had interviewed with in February. In February, I had a decently hefty consulting schedule and couldn't work full time, but this time, I'd be able to hold down a full time job and keep some consulting work on the side. When they called, they informed me the position I was interviewing for was temporary, with potential to become full time. I assumed this meant that they needed help on an account, but had not gotten full approval from the client on the additional headcount.
I was really, really wrong.
When I arrived, they were 10 minutes late beginning the interview. Not 5 minutes in, they told me that I was there because they thought my resume was interesting, but not really what they were looking for. However, all the candidates whose resumes were perfect hadn't worked out in the interview process. Since I wasn't really right for the job, they were interviewing me for a "temporary" account supervisor position. They wanted to see if they could try me out because they didn't think I'd work out. Oh, and on top of that, throughout the course of the 2 person interview, they also told me that they were going to keep the account supervisor position open and continue to look for someone to fill it while I would be doing the job temporarily.
So, to summarize, they didn't really like me from my resume, but thought I was interesting. They weren't willing to hire me for the account supervisor position, but would take me temporarily and keep looking for the perfect account supervisor. Additionally, they wanted me to start right away, accept the offer of temporary work, but I had no idea what I would be making. They also seemed confused that I needed a formal offer to review before accepting the job.
If I were desperate for work, I probably would have swallowed my pride and said sure, I'll work here even though you've insulted my ability and my intelligence by being here. However, I'm fortunate enough to know that I deserve better than to be treated as a low grade marketing professional.
And apparently, this type of interview is quite common in the agency world. They make sure you know that they don't really like you but are willing to let you get a foot in the door. This way, they can pay you next to nothing and watch you grind it out with blood, sweat and tears to make it in their agency.
I'm not against hard work and paying your dues. Life and work is filled with adversity you have to overcome. But I am very much against working in an environment where you aren't expected to succeed from the get-go.
In life, you often have to prove yourself, but shouldn't have to prove yourself to an audience of people who are clearly not expecting you to succeed and show you no respect whatsoever. If you are on twitter or follow the tweets from the @shitmydadsays account, it's like the elder Halpern says: "Don’t focus on the one guy who hates you. You don’t go to the park and set your picnic down next to the only pile of dog shit."
So what to do in a situation like this? Breathe. Smile. Don't retaliate. Believe it or not, you have a bridge to all the people you interview with and you don't want to burn it with a snide remark. Answer their questions, but let them do most of the talking. Shake hands hard, be confident and walk the heck out of there with your head held high.
And don't accept an offer below your skill level unless you really need to. It's a bad economy, but you'd be better off getting a job at a Starbucks where they will appreciate your work ethic than working someplace where from the beginning where they don't really want you to succeed.
The first time was in 2005. I was working at the Cincinnati Enquirer as a sales coordinator and wanted to be promoted, so I interviewed for the sales associate position. Walking into that interview, I was confident and composed. Walking out of that interview, I was shaky and upset. I had unknowingly walked into a mine field. The manager had decided to throw rumors left and right in my face and scream at me. None of the rumors were true, which my current manager corroborated on my behalf later; but at the time, I was freaking out. I told myself to stay calm and answer his questions (accusations really) to the best of my ability.
In this situation, it all worked out for the best. The manager apologized, I began to work for him and for the next year, we had a great working relationship.
Yesterday, I was interviewing with an agency who I had interviewed with in February. In February, I had a decently hefty consulting schedule and couldn't work full time, but this time, I'd be able to hold down a full time job and keep some consulting work on the side. When they called, they informed me the position I was interviewing for was temporary, with potential to become full time. I assumed this meant that they needed help on an account, but had not gotten full approval from the client on the additional headcount.
I was really, really wrong.
When I arrived, they were 10 minutes late beginning the interview. Not 5 minutes in, they told me that I was there because they thought my resume was interesting, but not really what they were looking for. However, all the candidates whose resumes were perfect hadn't worked out in the interview process. Since I wasn't really right for the job, they were interviewing me for a "temporary" account supervisor position. They wanted to see if they could try me out because they didn't think I'd work out. Oh, and on top of that, throughout the course of the 2 person interview, they also told me that they were going to keep the account supervisor position open and continue to look for someone to fill it while I would be doing the job temporarily.
So, to summarize, they didn't really like me from my resume, but thought I was interesting. They weren't willing to hire me for the account supervisor position, but would take me temporarily and keep looking for the perfect account supervisor. Additionally, they wanted me to start right away, accept the offer of temporary work, but I had no idea what I would be making. They also seemed confused that I needed a formal offer to review before accepting the job.
If I were desperate for work, I probably would have swallowed my pride and said sure, I'll work here even though you've insulted my ability and my intelligence by being here. However, I'm fortunate enough to know that I deserve better than to be treated as a low grade marketing professional.
And apparently, this type of interview is quite common in the agency world. They make sure you know that they don't really like you but are willing to let you get a foot in the door. This way, they can pay you next to nothing and watch you grind it out with blood, sweat and tears to make it in their agency.
I'm not against hard work and paying your dues. Life and work is filled with adversity you have to overcome. But I am very much against working in an environment where you aren't expected to succeed from the get-go.
In life, you often have to prove yourself, but shouldn't have to prove yourself to an audience of people who are clearly not expecting you to succeed and show you no respect whatsoever. If you are on twitter or follow the tweets from the @shitmydadsays account, it's like the elder Halpern says: "Don’t focus on the one guy who hates you. You don’t go to the park and set your picnic down next to the only pile of dog shit."
So what to do in a situation like this? Breathe. Smile. Don't retaliate. Believe it or not, you have a bridge to all the people you interview with and you don't want to burn it with a snide remark. Answer their questions, but let them do most of the talking. Shake hands hard, be confident and walk the heck out of there with your head held high.
And don't accept an offer below your skill level unless you really need to. It's a bad economy, but you'd be better off getting a job at a Starbucks where they will appreciate your work ethic than working someplace where from the beginning where they don't really want you to succeed.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Feedback 201: people's opinions that don't matter
Yes, we're back to the fun subject of feedback after my team vs. tribal city rant.
In our last installment, we talked about the boomerang method of getting feedback. You work and about 6 months later, you hear what you did wrong when you can't fix it.
In this issue, we'll briefly discuss what happens when you get feedback from people who's opinions don't really matter. And of course, we'll have to discuss why you are getting that feedback in the first place.
We'll begin with an example of what I'm talking about. About a year ago, I was leading a project avidly with about 10 other people. The project changed directions about 5 times and then it sort of died down. It had a short resurgence, and I had to assert my position a few times on the project team. A few weeks later, two women, who really had nothing to do with my project, nor were they on my team, decided to give my boss feedback on me for the project. It wasn't good feedback- they claimed I was trying to take over a project that really wasn't mine.
The feedback seemed out of place. It was given by two women who weren't on my team and didn't have anything to do with the project. I didn't understand where it came from until later when it became clear that they wanted to attach themselves to the projects as the owners of it for the glory and fame associated with completing it.
Where to begin....
First, we need to understand why people who aren't associated with your job in any direct fashion are giving "feedback" on your performance. In some cases, it really is in your best interest. They might be interpreting or hearing things that you are doing differently than others and what they say can be seen as an unbiased opinion and judgment of your work. You could really learn from this feedback so it can be important to hear it and take it in.
On the other hand, you can have people with other motives...usually power. In my case, these women wanted the project from me. It was a high profile project which could have garnered them many accolades, so the easy way to put a person down is to give feedback that's negative about how they approach something. It's very possible that I was in the wrong and being overly assertive- but what matters in this instance is that the women were never there personally to be making these claims. They decided that they were going to give this criticism absent of any actual knowledge on the subject. This is a power play.
The problem is that although their opinion shouldn't have mattered, it did to my manager. And this is the problem with most out-of-place feedback. People who have nothing to do with your job shouldn't be giving feedback on your performance. Ultimately, they are reaching that opinion via gossip and not first hand knowledge. However, in the new style of performance reviews, their opinions are anonymous and part of a collective set of opinions. Unless you have a really thoughtful manager, this isn't going to get weeded out in a review.
So what to do? You can't escape some negative criticism in your career unless you have perfect charm, charisma, popularity, work ethic, and competency, so two things to know:
1. Take criticism, especially from people who don't matter, in stride. If you can learn something from what they say after letting it marinate a little, that's all the better, but don't worry if you can't. In the words of Jay-Z, go on brush your shoulder off, you gotta get that dirt off your shoulder.
2. Try listening instead of talking sometimes. I'll confess that I am TERRIBLE at this. I am passionate and excitable about my projects and just like jumping in with ideas and information, so this is still something I need to learn. But if you can, try listening instead of talking sometimes and maybe you can avoid some of that feedback.
In our last installment, we talked about the boomerang method of getting feedback. You work and about 6 months later, you hear what you did wrong when you can't fix it.
In this issue, we'll briefly discuss what happens when you get feedback from people who's opinions don't really matter. And of course, we'll have to discuss why you are getting that feedback in the first place.
We'll begin with an example of what I'm talking about. About a year ago, I was leading a project avidly with about 10 other people. The project changed directions about 5 times and then it sort of died down. It had a short resurgence, and I had to assert my position a few times on the project team. A few weeks later, two women, who really had nothing to do with my project, nor were they on my team, decided to give my boss feedback on me for the project. It wasn't good feedback- they claimed I was trying to take over a project that really wasn't mine.
The feedback seemed out of place. It was given by two women who weren't on my team and didn't have anything to do with the project. I didn't understand where it came from until later when it became clear that they wanted to attach themselves to the projects as the owners of it for the glory and fame associated with completing it.
Where to begin....
First, we need to understand why people who aren't associated with your job in any direct fashion are giving "feedback" on your performance. In some cases, it really is in your best interest. They might be interpreting or hearing things that you are doing differently than others and what they say can be seen as an unbiased opinion and judgment of your work. You could really learn from this feedback so it can be important to hear it and take it in.
On the other hand, you can have people with other motives...usually power. In my case, these women wanted the project from me. It was a high profile project which could have garnered them many accolades, so the easy way to put a person down is to give feedback that's negative about how they approach something. It's very possible that I was in the wrong and being overly assertive- but what matters in this instance is that the women were never there personally to be making these claims. They decided that they were going to give this criticism absent of any actual knowledge on the subject. This is a power play.
The problem is that although their opinion shouldn't have mattered, it did to my manager. And this is the problem with most out-of-place feedback. People who have nothing to do with your job shouldn't be giving feedback on your performance. Ultimately, they are reaching that opinion via gossip and not first hand knowledge. However, in the new style of performance reviews, their opinions are anonymous and part of a collective set of opinions. Unless you have a really thoughtful manager, this isn't going to get weeded out in a review.
So what to do? You can't escape some negative criticism in your career unless you have perfect charm, charisma, popularity, work ethic, and competency, so two things to know:
1. Take criticism, especially from people who don't matter, in stride. If you can learn something from what they say after letting it marinate a little, that's all the better, but don't worry if you can't. In the words of Jay-Z, go on brush your shoulder off, you gotta get that dirt off your shoulder.
2. Try listening instead of talking sometimes. I'll confess that I am TERRIBLE at this. I am passionate and excitable about my projects and just like jumping in with ideas and information, so this is still something I need to learn. But if you can, try listening instead of talking sometimes and maybe you can avoid some of that feedback.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Are you a team player or a tribal guy?
I had an oddly unsettling experience this week. After a certain amount of time in the workplace, you would assume you would get used to getting completely screwed over by someone you've allowed yourself to trust a little. But I guess I'm just not there yet. I'm still overwhelmed with disappointment each time someone screws me over that I thought was a team sort of player.
Allow me to explain a theory that I can't take credit for- but a theory that should be shared nonetheless. My friend Alana is a business guru and one the super connectors that Malcolm Gladwell talks about in The Tipping Point. Her theory is that there are two kinds of cities- team cities and tribal cities. In a team city, the residents and business owners work together to bring prosperity to that city. While their is competition, each team member is wise enough to understand that even competition has to work together sometimes for both to profit. To translate down a bit, this would be when a restaurant owner or executive chef eats at a competitor's restaurant to enjoy the meal and appreciate the good food. Or when one agency decides that the client request isn't a competency of their own and subcontracts or recommends the work go to a different agency.
In a tribal city, it's the opposite. In a tribal city, you have tribes with big kahunas on the top. Eventually, a big kahuna is going to fall from power and then it's a scramble from the tribe below or a neighboring tribe to take the new position. It's all about competition. In terms of Wealth of Nations style economics and capitalism, this kind of city works (in theory).
The problem with a tribal city or a tribal work style is that you are constantly trying to one up someone else, screw someone over and take down the competition. The fear of not being the best or owning the most drives you crazy. The competition is unhealthy and once you reach big kahuna status, in many ways, you stop learning.
In a team city, you still compete, but you recognize the benefits of the competition and understand that it's important to set your ego aside long enough to notice what the competition does well.
Ok, enough on theory. Let's get back to the story. This all links together, I swear.
So, I'm a team style player. A few weeks ago, I went to an American Marketing Association Mixer at Firehouse Lounge in Pittsburgh. I networked, met a few people, had a drink, and in general, enjoyed myself. One of the guys I talked with sent me an email request to meet for coffee and learn more about what the other did so that we could possibly help each other in the future.
My job description is tough to understand until you start talking to me, but I'm specifically looking to work with restaurants and food companies on their business models, marketing, and brand image. This guy worked for an agency in town that dealt mostly in manufacturing. 2 different industries.
I let him know of a couple of example clients I was going after to give him a better idea, he told me about his potential clients, we shook hands and agreed to stay in touch.
The very next day, he called and asked about a particular client I had mentioned I was going after and said he thought he'd be perfect for the position. Did I think I'd be able to help?
Really? Now I'm all about being a team player, but I'm also not about to give away the opportunities for a new client that fits the profile of work I'd be doing.
This type of screw-you-over behavior is so completely centered on a tribe philosophy that I wondered how I ended up meeting with him and getting the impression he was a team player too.
Granted, he did call to ask me if I would help him, which shows me that although he's a tribe kind of guy, he's a rather stupid one.
So, are you team or tribe? Let's hope for team. The business world could seriously use a lot of team players.
Allow me to explain a theory that I can't take credit for- but a theory that should be shared nonetheless. My friend Alana is a business guru and one the super connectors that Malcolm Gladwell talks about in The Tipping Point. Her theory is that there are two kinds of cities- team cities and tribal cities. In a team city, the residents and business owners work together to bring prosperity to that city. While their is competition, each team member is wise enough to understand that even competition has to work together sometimes for both to profit. To translate down a bit, this would be when a restaurant owner or executive chef eats at a competitor's restaurant to enjoy the meal and appreciate the good food. Or when one agency decides that the client request isn't a competency of their own and subcontracts or recommends the work go to a different agency.
In a tribal city, it's the opposite. In a tribal city, you have tribes with big kahunas on the top. Eventually, a big kahuna is going to fall from power and then it's a scramble from the tribe below or a neighboring tribe to take the new position. It's all about competition. In terms of Wealth of Nations style economics and capitalism, this kind of city works (in theory).
The problem with a tribal city or a tribal work style is that you are constantly trying to one up someone else, screw someone over and take down the competition. The fear of not being the best or owning the most drives you crazy. The competition is unhealthy and once you reach big kahuna status, in many ways, you stop learning.
In a team city, you still compete, but you recognize the benefits of the competition and understand that it's important to set your ego aside long enough to notice what the competition does well.
Ok, enough on theory. Let's get back to the story. This all links together, I swear.
So, I'm a team style player. A few weeks ago, I went to an American Marketing Association Mixer at Firehouse Lounge in Pittsburgh. I networked, met a few people, had a drink, and in general, enjoyed myself. One of the guys I talked with sent me an email request to meet for coffee and learn more about what the other did so that we could possibly help each other in the future.
My job description is tough to understand until you start talking to me, but I'm specifically looking to work with restaurants and food companies on their business models, marketing, and brand image. This guy worked for an agency in town that dealt mostly in manufacturing. 2 different industries.
I let him know of a couple of example clients I was going after to give him a better idea, he told me about his potential clients, we shook hands and agreed to stay in touch.
The very next day, he called and asked about a particular client I had mentioned I was going after and said he thought he'd be perfect for the position. Did I think I'd be able to help?
Really? Now I'm all about being a team player, but I'm also not about to give away the opportunities for a new client that fits the profile of work I'd be doing.
This type of screw-you-over behavior is so completely centered on a tribe philosophy that I wondered how I ended up meeting with him and getting the impression he was a team player too.
Granted, he did call to ask me if I would help him, which shows me that although he's a tribe kind of guy, he's a rather stupid one.
So, are you team or tribe? Let's hope for team. The business world could seriously use a lot of team players.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Feedback 101: the annual review boomerang
I could spend months, months, maybe even years researching and gathering anecdotes about feedback and reviews in the workplace and how this has forever been a sore spot in business. Humans have never been good at receiving feedback and giving feedback is always difficult because of the anticipation of the reaction.
In this weeks installment of feedback 101, we'll discuss the current trends in the corporate world for annual reviews and feedback and why they are so very, very inefficient and even less effective.
Let's begin with how feedback is given and why it's evolved to this point.
I call it the boomerang effect, especially when it comes to an annual review. All year long, as an employee, you throw things out there. You do presentations, make calls, attend meetings, etc., with the intention of making some money for the company and getting a promotion and raise. You get some spur of the moment feedback when you are going over your work with your boss throughout the year, but all else is quiet on the western front.
Then comes your annual review. You believe you had a good year- you got a few "good jobs", made your numbers or close to it, and otherwise had no major hiccups. But then, sitting in your review with your boss, or worse, an HR rep, you feel blindsided by anecdotes and comments of the negative sort and you have no way to defend yourself or fix the situation.
This is what it has come to. It's no longer "appropriate" to give feedback on the spot for several reasons.
1. On the spot feedback could result in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation for the giver of the feedback.
2. By giving feedback that allows them to fix and change something right in that moment, the feedback giver cedes their position of power over that person and will have fewer reasons to ensure they stay right where they are.
3. It could be politically incorrect to give your feedback.
4. By waiting the feedback can be "anonymous" and no one has to suffer the process of being direct.
This is so completely inefficient that I'm more than certain that some MBA genius could come up with the negative ROI equation that shows how much money you lose when you give feedback via the boomerang method.
As the employer, when you allow your employees work with little feedback and ultimately little direction, and the results don't come back until months later to slap them in the face, a few things happen. First, when you aren't giving your employees feedback often and clearly, you are missing the opportunity to get better work out of them then and moving forward. Second, by waiting so late to give the feedback, the employee is going to feel blindsided and a little betrayed. The feelings in the moment aside, that employee is never going to feel comfortable in that working environment again. Their work will suffer because of the fear of feedback like that again. Both pieces translate to reduced profit over time and when you multiply per employee, it adds up.
So how did we get here? See above. People who can't handle receiving feedback and political power plays. By coddling the past 2 generations and raising them to believe that you should get a pat on the back for participating and getting up for work these days, we've created a labor force that has trouble hearing that they've done a bad job. And then you have the other half of the equation that revolves around politics and the power plays people make in an attempt to either keep their job safe, elevate their current position, or both.
Here's the deal. In order to run a good, efficient business you have to be willing to give good, constructive feedback and give it often, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Otherwise, you are going to end up with work that isn't what you want or need. Also, for the love of god, stop keeping good workers down so you can continue to keep your position. Help foster their growth as employee instead. You look good when your employees do well. You become a true leader when you foster growth though, and leadership is far more valuable over time than power (it's a little idealistic to say that, but let it marinate a little and think it over again).
And when it comes to receiving feedback, you have to be willing to lay yourself wide open. It sucks, I know. Hearing that the work you put in isn't so hot is hard. But if you can hear it, absorb it and let it marinate a little you might find that you can grow and learn a little or you can decide you think they are full of crap, but at least you can take it standing up with professionalism and composure. If nothing else, that will get you a reputation for being a ballsy yet reasonable employee.
That's installment one regarding feedback. Don't get smacked upside the head by the annual review boomerang.
On the flip side
In this weeks installment of feedback 101, we'll discuss the current trends in the corporate world for annual reviews and feedback and why they are so very, very inefficient and even less effective.
Let's begin with how feedback is given and why it's evolved to this point.
I call it the boomerang effect, especially when it comes to an annual review. All year long, as an employee, you throw things out there. You do presentations, make calls, attend meetings, etc., with the intention of making some money for the company and getting a promotion and raise. You get some spur of the moment feedback when you are going over your work with your boss throughout the year, but all else is quiet on the western front.
Then comes your annual review. You believe you had a good year- you got a few "good jobs", made your numbers or close to it, and otherwise had no major hiccups. But then, sitting in your review with your boss, or worse, an HR rep, you feel blindsided by anecdotes and comments of the negative sort and you have no way to defend yourself or fix the situation.
This is what it has come to. It's no longer "appropriate" to give feedback on the spot for several reasons.
1. On the spot feedback could result in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation for the giver of the feedback.
2. By giving feedback that allows them to fix and change something right in that moment, the feedback giver cedes their position of power over that person and will have fewer reasons to ensure they stay right where they are.
3. It could be politically incorrect to give your feedback.
4. By waiting the feedback can be "anonymous" and no one has to suffer the process of being direct.
This is so completely inefficient that I'm more than certain that some MBA genius could come up with the negative ROI equation that shows how much money you lose when you give feedback via the boomerang method.
As the employer, when you allow your employees work with little feedback and ultimately little direction, and the results don't come back until months later to slap them in the face, a few things happen. First, when you aren't giving your employees feedback often and clearly, you are missing the opportunity to get better work out of them then and moving forward. Second, by waiting so late to give the feedback, the employee is going to feel blindsided and a little betrayed. The feelings in the moment aside, that employee is never going to feel comfortable in that working environment again. Their work will suffer because of the fear of feedback like that again. Both pieces translate to reduced profit over time and when you multiply per employee, it adds up.
So how did we get here? See above. People who can't handle receiving feedback and political power plays. By coddling the past 2 generations and raising them to believe that you should get a pat on the back for participating and getting up for work these days, we've created a labor force that has trouble hearing that they've done a bad job. And then you have the other half of the equation that revolves around politics and the power plays people make in an attempt to either keep their job safe, elevate their current position, or both.
Here's the deal. In order to run a good, efficient business you have to be willing to give good, constructive feedback and give it often, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Otherwise, you are going to end up with work that isn't what you want or need. Also, for the love of god, stop keeping good workers down so you can continue to keep your position. Help foster their growth as employee instead. You look good when your employees do well. You become a true leader when you foster growth though, and leadership is far more valuable over time than power (it's a little idealistic to say that, but let it marinate a little and think it over again).
And when it comes to receiving feedback, you have to be willing to lay yourself wide open. It sucks, I know. Hearing that the work you put in isn't so hot is hard. But if you can hear it, absorb it and let it marinate a little you might find that you can grow and learn a little or you can decide you think they are full of crap, but at least you can take it standing up with professionalism and composure. If nothing else, that will get you a reputation for being a ballsy yet reasonable employee.
That's installment one regarding feedback. Don't get smacked upside the head by the annual review boomerang.
On the flip side
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Magnum Forever
Remember the movie Zoolander? In case you forgot, here's Zoolander in under 9 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHM53NnAaGc.
A side plot of this movie is that Derek Zoolander has been working on a new look for years called Magnum. It's an update on Blue Steel, his signature look. At the very end, you get to see Magnum for the first time and everyone just goes WILD. The male modeling industry thinks it is just innovative and edgy and fresh! But to everyone else, it's the exact same look as Blue Steel.
In many jobs, you'll hear that the brand is going to undergo a "packaging refresh" or they are going to "overhaul" their look. Some brands & companies do successfully undergo a total overhaul while staying true to their original brands (think Aussie hair products- newer purple, different shape, better text).
Some brands completely abandon the old and start over (think Herbal Essences hair products- not even remotely the same).
And then their are most brands, who nudge something a little, add a burst, put some "texture" on it and call it totally new. These brands are my Derek Zoolanders. You never really know who they are unless you work with them because their package never changes. It looks the same for years and years and years- even when that look starts to become outdated.
Food categories tend to suffer from this aversion to true change. Check out the frozen aisle, for instance, and tell me if you can point out the number of frozen brands who have changed their package in the past 5 years. I can only think of a few myself and Lean Cuisine is only significant change:
But otherwise, with food brands, you see a lot of the same packaging over and over again, but they definitely call it new in their office because this year they did a "refresh" and it's much more "modern".
In a lot of these places, the cry to be more edgy, modern, fresh, etc. comes from a competitor in the category already doing something and seeing great results. When it comes to executing that change though, it's not so simple. Above all, one must maintain the brand standards, even if the brand standards are outdated. Afraid to be different or to completely change their look, they adhere to their standards and end up regurgitating the same design with a burst that says "new look!" or adding "texture" to a background.
To my little Derek Zoolanders, Magnum forever, Magnum forever.
A side plot of this movie is that Derek Zoolander has been working on a new look for years called Magnum. It's an update on Blue Steel, his signature look. At the very end, you get to see Magnum for the first time and everyone just goes WILD. The male modeling industry thinks it is just innovative and edgy and fresh! But to everyone else, it's the exact same look as Blue Steel.
In many jobs, you'll hear that the brand is going to undergo a "packaging refresh" or they are going to "overhaul" their look. Some brands & companies do successfully undergo a total overhaul while staying true to their original brands (think Aussie hair products- newer purple, different shape, better text).
 | |||
| Old Aussie Package |
 |
| New Aussie Packages |
Some brands completely abandon the old and start over (think Herbal Essences hair products- not even remotely the same).
 | ||
| Old Herbal Essences Package |
 |
| New Herbal Essences Lineup |
And then their are most brands, who nudge something a little, add a burst, put some "texture" on it and call it totally new. These brands are my Derek Zoolanders. You never really know who they are unless you work with them because their package never changes. It looks the same for years and years and years- even when that look starts to become outdated.
Food categories tend to suffer from this aversion to true change. Check out the frozen aisle, for instance, and tell me if you can point out the number of frozen brands who have changed their package in the past 5 years. I can only think of a few myself and Lean Cuisine is only significant change:
 | ||
| Old Lean Cuisine Package |
 | ||||
| New Lean Cuisine Packages |
In a lot of these places, the cry to be more edgy, modern, fresh, etc. comes from a competitor in the category already doing something and seeing great results. When it comes to executing that change though, it's not so simple. Above all, one must maintain the brand standards, even if the brand standards are outdated. Afraid to be different or to completely change their look, they adhere to their standards and end up regurgitating the same design with a burst that says "new look!" or adding "texture" to a background.
To my little Derek Zoolanders, Magnum forever, Magnum forever.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Changing the World of Business
These two individuals spend a lot of time acting on the principles I find valuable in business. Unlike my blog about what to watch out for and what I hate about business, they manage to talk about the ways to be the change I want to see in the world.
They are my Mother Theresa's of business.
Umair Haque His blog called bubblegeneration is fantastic and offers new perspective and theories on how to change the business world for the better. If only I could be so uplifting and thoughtful! For a short dose of daily business inspiration, follow him on twitter @umairh.
Geoff Vuleta The CEO of Farenheit 212, Vuleta is on TOP of trends and cool things. His whole business model is based on creating a new idea or new product that is going to transform the way consumers use items. His twitter account also leads you to some of the coolest products on the market. Check it out @kiwiquick.
They are my Mother Theresa's of business.
Umair Haque His blog called bubblegeneration is fantastic and offers new perspective and theories on how to change the business world for the better. If only I could be so uplifting and thoughtful! For a short dose of daily business inspiration, follow him on twitter @umairh.
Geoff Vuleta The CEO of Farenheit 212, Vuleta is on TOP of trends and cool things. His whole business model is based on creating a new idea or new product that is going to transform the way consumers use items. His twitter account also leads you to some of the coolest products on the market. Check it out @kiwiquick.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Popularity Matters
Do you remember when you were in middle school and high school and your parents always told you that popularity then wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things when you grew up? That in the real business world, it wouldn't be about how popular you were?
In the words of Glinda from Wicked, it's all about Pop-U-lar.
In some respects, your parents were right. The Hollywood version of popular people in movies such as Mean Girls, Sixteen Candles, Can't Hardly Wait, etc.- those guys aren't necessarily the most successful people ever. And your level of popularity in high school won't often determine your success in business feeding chain.
But being popular in the office does matter. In the musical Wicked, one of the funny songs done by Glinda is called Popular. She sings, "It's not about aptitude, it's the way your viewed so it's very shrewd to be very very popular, like me."
And in business this couldn't be more true. I have watched the dingiest of dingbats get promoted because they were friendly(ish), well known, and well-liked by upper management. Meanwhile, smarter, more effective people doing the work trudge along in the same positions because someone important doesn't like them or they don't have enough face time with the right people. I have friends who can't get promoted because in their reviews they've been told that they aren't very well known around the office. What does that have to do with their ability to excel at their job?
This isn't to say that I think being popular is a bad thing. I've been popular- it was great. I've been unpopular- that was fine too. I don't think that if you are popular, it means you are incapable or stupid. You have rare birds in business who are smart, effective and popular. At the same time, I don't think popularity should be a part of the decision to promote people. Promotions and raises should be based on performance. If you are excelling at your job, you should be promoted. If you are doing OK, but are popular, that's not a reason to get promoted. Being more popular at work can help you excel at your job in some instances, but you shouldn't just excel at being well-liked and then move up.
A performance-based path to success used to be so clear. These days, performance is just a small piece of the pie. If your performance is just ok, you can still get promoted if you manage to have the right face time and say the right things. Rhetoric without action will get you a long way if you sound innovative and being friends with the right people will get you even further.
It's funny how true the adage, "It's not what you know, it's who you know," is in business. If you are known and liked by the right people, you are going to succeed. If you are known and disliked by those same people, you'll find yourself stagnating early in your career.
In the words of Glinda from Wicked, it's all about Pop-U-lar.
In some respects, your parents were right. The Hollywood version of popular people in movies such as Mean Girls, Sixteen Candles, Can't Hardly Wait, etc.- those guys aren't necessarily the most successful people ever. And your level of popularity in high school won't often determine your success in business feeding chain.
But being popular in the office does matter. In the musical Wicked, one of the funny songs done by Glinda is called Popular. She sings, "It's not about aptitude, it's the way your viewed so it's very shrewd to be very very popular, like me."
And in business this couldn't be more true. I have watched the dingiest of dingbats get promoted because they were friendly(ish), well known, and well-liked by upper management. Meanwhile, smarter, more effective people doing the work trudge along in the same positions because someone important doesn't like them or they don't have enough face time with the right people. I have friends who can't get promoted because in their reviews they've been told that they aren't very well known around the office. What does that have to do with their ability to excel at their job?
This isn't to say that I think being popular is a bad thing. I've been popular- it was great. I've been unpopular- that was fine too. I don't think that if you are popular, it means you are incapable or stupid. You have rare birds in business who are smart, effective and popular. At the same time, I don't think popularity should be a part of the decision to promote people. Promotions and raises should be based on performance. If you are excelling at your job, you should be promoted. If you are doing OK, but are popular, that's not a reason to get promoted. Being more popular at work can help you excel at your job in some instances, but you shouldn't just excel at being well-liked and then move up.
A performance-based path to success used to be so clear. These days, performance is just a small piece of the pie. If your performance is just ok, you can still get promoted if you manage to have the right face time and say the right things. Rhetoric without action will get you a long way if you sound innovative and being friends with the right people will get you even further.
It's funny how true the adage, "It's not what you know, it's who you know," is in business. If you are known and liked by the right people, you are going to succeed. If you are known and disliked by those same people, you'll find yourself stagnating early in your career.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
"Binding" Contracts
Growing up, there is a a sense that contracts are completely binding. They are like death and taxes- you can't escape them. Then after your first apartment lease goes awry or you decide you want out of that pain-in-the-ass 2 year agreement with your cell phone company, you get a little nugget in your head that contracts really aren't so rock solid.
The myth is that all contracts are binding during their duration.
The truth is that a contract is only as solid and binding as the early termination penalties are painful.
For example, when you sign a 2 year agreement with a cell phone provider, you get a highly discounted phone and monthly service plan with some bells and whistles, such as a phone upgrade. The early termination fee for most cell phone companies is somewhere between $200 and $400. If you really hate your provider, it might be worth it to you to get out of that contract.
In business to business contracts the idea is similar, though the stakes are a little higher. As a service provider to another business you usually have 2 options - a fixed fee contract or an hourly contract. Hourly contracts typically require 30-60 days written notice to cancel. That's it. Because it's an hourly rate, they aren't beholden to pay the service provider anymore than what they work for. These types of contracts are far from rock solid and make it easy for the business to cancel.
A fixed fee contract with a set end date is truly the way to go for a service provider. They are less messy for billing and require a penalty for early cancellation, which often requires the other party to pay up to 75% of the total contract fee. But even in a fixed fee situation, if the business carries a bigger stick (i.e. a bigger bank account) than the service provider, if they want out of the contract, they'll find their way out.
This doesn't mean that no contracts are ever truly binding. You can certainly have a lawyer draw up a contract that leaves no loopholes for exiting early. However, in this day and age, businesses, as an allegory for all people, are commitment-phobic and will want some way to get of the contract.
Sometimes even good working relationships can't save a contract. They aren't necessarily worth more than the value of the cancellation penalties. If I learned one thing from my first boss, it was that business is not meant to be personal. But as human beings, we form attachments to the things that we've built- we pour a little bit of ourselves into our work ( I know I do, it's one of my worst faults) and it becomes personal. At the end of the day though, if canceling the contract equals a better payoff for the business, the contract is going to go away, relationship or not.
Don't kid yourself with contracts. Do the smart thing and read your contracts front to back or better yet, have a lawyer review it so that you can best understand it's content. And if you are the one writing the contract, make sure you have a lawyer at the very least read it over to ensure you aren't setting yourself up for failure.
The myth is that all contracts are binding during their duration.
The truth is that a contract is only as solid and binding as the early termination penalties are painful.
For example, when you sign a 2 year agreement with a cell phone provider, you get a highly discounted phone and monthly service plan with some bells and whistles, such as a phone upgrade. The early termination fee for most cell phone companies is somewhere between $200 and $400. If you really hate your provider, it might be worth it to you to get out of that contract.
In business to business contracts the idea is similar, though the stakes are a little higher. As a service provider to another business you usually have 2 options - a fixed fee contract or an hourly contract. Hourly contracts typically require 30-60 days written notice to cancel. That's it. Because it's an hourly rate, they aren't beholden to pay the service provider anymore than what they work for. These types of contracts are far from rock solid and make it easy for the business to cancel.
A fixed fee contract with a set end date is truly the way to go for a service provider. They are less messy for billing and require a penalty for early cancellation, which often requires the other party to pay up to 75% of the total contract fee. But even in a fixed fee situation, if the business carries a bigger stick (i.e. a bigger bank account) than the service provider, if they want out of the contract, they'll find their way out.
This doesn't mean that no contracts are ever truly binding. You can certainly have a lawyer draw up a contract that leaves no loopholes for exiting early. However, in this day and age, businesses, as an allegory for all people, are commitment-phobic and will want some way to get of the contract.
Sometimes even good working relationships can't save a contract. They aren't necessarily worth more than the value of the cancellation penalties. If I learned one thing from my first boss, it was that business is not meant to be personal. But as human beings, we form attachments to the things that we've built- we pour a little bit of ourselves into our work ( I know I do, it's one of my worst faults) and it becomes personal. At the end of the day though, if canceling the contract equals a better payoff for the business, the contract is going to go away, relationship or not.
Don't kid yourself with contracts. Do the smart thing and read your contracts front to back or better yet, have a lawyer review it so that you can best understand it's content. And if you are the one writing the contract, make sure you have a lawyer at the very least read it over to ensure you aren't setting yourself up for failure.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Buzzwords 201- Inventing New Words
In our last edition of Buzzword training, we discussed the type of Buzzer that misuses words in order to elevate their status above your own.
Today, we'll discuss a whole new level of Buzzers. These Buzzers set themselves apart as the elite in Buzzing. They make-up words with the goal of sounding incredibly creative and innovative. It's all about "streamlining", being highly efficient and promoting synergies.
Translation: A Buzzer that makes up a new word is combining at least two words in an attempt to be superbly brief, almost to the point of acronym-speak, and sound very creative.
To further demonstrate my theory, I suggest you get a hold of CBS's How I Met Your Mother Season 4. You're looking for Episode 14, the Possimpible. I can't find the video online anymore, but Barney's Video Resume summarizes almost everything I might have to say in the lifetime of this blog. Wikipedia has a short description here. It's so utterly ridiculous, yet everyday in business, more and more people are making up words that don't mean anything. I'll start with a short list of the top 5 words I've heard in the past year:
1. Grotate- To grow as an employee while you rotate to a new position. This was thrown out during a meeting about a logo design.
2. Learnbounce- Indicating what an individual learns from reading/studying an object. This was thrown out in the same meeting as Grotate was.
3. Deliverables- The goal or task that an individual must complete. This one is so far entrenched in business vocabulary it might actually make its way into Websters, like "ain't" did. I use it all the time (wince), but when I said this word to a high-school student, they just looked at me blankly. What is a deliverable?
4. Edutainment- Something that educates while entertaining. I heard this during an agency presentation. It wasn't a very good presentation, but it sounded Innovative.
5. Heavy(-)up- I've seen this as one word and a linked word. It means to increase. I heard this first used in the same meeting as edutainment.
What strikes me about all of these words is the inability to just say what you mean in a clear, concise way. Do it like Ernest Hemingway and use short, clear sentences. It promotes effective communication.
Then again, these days, rhetoric is sexier than clear speech. For example, look at the presidential race in 2007. This race was marked by its ability to utilize rhetoric over clear stances on issues, and American's ate it up.
It's hard to be sure if businesses are looking for clear speech and "do-er's" in upper management. From what I can tell, it's a pretty mixed bag. You've got a lot of really worthy people moving to the top, with reputations for being do-er's. But then you have a lot of people who tend to live out their Buzzer speech in their work.
At the end of the day remember- to survive the jungle, you have to be quick on your feet with a Buzzer of any level. Either out-buzz them or politely poke fun at them.
Today, we'll discuss a whole new level of Buzzers. These Buzzers set themselves apart as the elite in Buzzing. They make-up words with the goal of sounding incredibly creative and innovative. It's all about "streamlining", being highly efficient and promoting synergies.
Translation: A Buzzer that makes up a new word is combining at least two words in an attempt to be superbly brief, almost to the point of acronym-speak, and sound very creative.
To further demonstrate my theory, I suggest you get a hold of CBS's How I Met Your Mother Season 4. You're looking for Episode 14, the Possimpible. I can't find the video online anymore, but Barney's Video Resume summarizes almost everything I might have to say in the lifetime of this blog. Wikipedia has a short description here. It's so utterly ridiculous, yet everyday in business, more and more people are making up words that don't mean anything. I'll start with a short list of the top 5 words I've heard in the past year:
1. Grotate- To grow as an employee while you rotate to a new position. This was thrown out during a meeting about a logo design.
2. Learnbounce- Indicating what an individual learns from reading/studying an object. This was thrown out in the same meeting as Grotate was.
3. Deliverables- The goal or task that an individual must complete. This one is so far entrenched in business vocabulary it might actually make its way into Websters, like "ain't" did. I use it all the time (wince), but when I said this word to a high-school student, they just looked at me blankly. What is a deliverable?
4. Edutainment- Something that educates while entertaining. I heard this during an agency presentation. It wasn't a very good presentation, but it sounded Innovative.
5. Heavy(-)up- I've seen this as one word and a linked word. It means to increase. I heard this first used in the same meeting as edutainment.
What strikes me about all of these words is the inability to just say what you mean in a clear, concise way. Do it like Ernest Hemingway and use short, clear sentences. It promotes effective communication.
Then again, these days, rhetoric is sexier than clear speech. For example, look at the presidential race in 2007. This race was marked by its ability to utilize rhetoric over clear stances on issues, and American's ate it up.
It's hard to be sure if businesses are looking for clear speech and "do-er's" in upper management. From what I can tell, it's a pretty mixed bag. You've got a lot of really worthy people moving to the top, with reputations for being do-er's. But then you have a lot of people who tend to live out their Buzzer speech in their work.
At the end of the day remember- to survive the jungle, you have to be quick on your feet with a Buzzer of any level. Either out-buzz them or politely poke fun at them.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Buzzwords 101- Misusing Real Words
I begin this post with a little self-confession. Most of the things I'm posting about as bad business decisions, I've done. That's why I know they were mistakes. Buzzwords, one of the things I most loathe in business, are unfortunately a regular part of my work vernacular. It's hard to avoid using them, especially when the person you are talking to will best understand you if you use buzzwords. That said, let's deep-dive into the core values of this holistically written blog post meant to relay a true game-changing initiative. Bah.
Buzzwords 101 is for buzzword novices. This will teach you how to decipher what a Buzzer is saying to you and how to make them sound like an ass.
First, let's define buzzwords. A buzzword is either a word that does appear in the English language whose definition has been stretched or completely misinterpreted and used in a context for business that doesn't really make sense; or a completely made up word that often tries to fuse two words into one.
Second, let's define Buzzers. Buzzers are people who overuse buzzwords in work conversations to make them appear smarter. They attempt to confuse you and put you on a level beneath their own, and hope to sound "innovative", "forward-thinking", and "creative".
Today, we'll focus on some examples of the first definition of buzzwords. Read the following phrases and see if you can interpret them.
1. "I need a numeric, metered, graphic representation of deliverables."
2. "Can you make this a regular fixture in your Monday work allotment?"
3. "I need to interface with you offline. I'll ping you when I have the bandwidth post meeting about repurposing some material."
4. "I have an ask. There’s been a disconnect, so let’s deep-dive, be proactive and circle back to add texture to the situation, establish a best-practice and value-add to better leverage and interface this bleeding-edge game-changer and make it more impactful!"
5. "Good! Lets proactively circle back and leverage our lunch hour face time collaboration metrics holistically. Best practice core competencies and globalization infrastructure are in the pipeline."
OK, here's what these phrases mean in actual English:
1. I need a chart.
2. Could you do this every Monday?
3. I'll call you when I get a chance after the meeting to go over my changes with you.
4. I'm not sure I understand what you need. Can we talk about the details so that we can get this right?
5. Good! Let's have a lunch meeting to go over our processes and what the future holds.
To a non-Buzzer, these phrases can be overwhelming. At first, you might feel stupid because you can't figure out what they are saying. You don't want to ask, because that would only flaunt your stupidity to the Buzzer. This would mean you aren't "forward-thinking".
Yes, forward-thinking is a buzzword, though not nearly as bad as others you'll hear.
When faced with an indecipherable phrase from a Buzzer, you can only do one of two things- join them, or make fun of them.
Once you've learned the buzzwords and the Buzzer lifestyle, it's much easier to out-buzz them, or better yet, repeat what they said in plain English with a slightly snarky tone. For example, in response to the first phrase I shared with you...
Buzzer: "I need a numeric, metered, graphic representation of deliverables."
Non-Buzzer: "OK...So you need a chart?" (said with smirk)
Buzzer: "Well...yes. But it really needs to represent the deliverables in a metered, graphical way, with all the right tonality."
Non-Buzzer: "OK. Send me the numbers and I'll build you a CHART." (again, said with smirk)
On that note, tonality. Tonality means either a musical tone or a color scheme. Tonality does not refer to tone in speech or writing. Tone in speech or writing refers to the writer or speaker's voice and what it is trying to convey, not tonality. Look it up in the dictionary. So when someone says they want to make sure the tonality is right- they are probably mean the tone, but they'll use tonality, which means color or muscial note, in an attempt to sound super-intelligent.
I'm just saying.
Tune in over the next few days for Buzzwords 201. Advanced linkativity and the ability to grotate to the possimpible are in the pipeline.
By the way, note that all italicized words in the post are not actually real words.
Buzzwords 101 is for buzzword novices. This will teach you how to decipher what a Buzzer is saying to you and how to make them sound like an ass.
First, let's define buzzwords. A buzzword is either a word that does appear in the English language whose definition has been stretched or completely misinterpreted and used in a context for business that doesn't really make sense; or a completely made up word that often tries to fuse two words into one.
Second, let's define Buzzers. Buzzers are people who overuse buzzwords in work conversations to make them appear smarter. They attempt to confuse you and put you on a level beneath their own, and hope to sound "innovative", "forward-thinking", and "creative".
Today, we'll focus on some examples of the first definition of buzzwords. Read the following phrases and see if you can interpret them.
1. "I need a numeric, metered, graphic representation of deliverables."
2. "Can you make this a regular fixture in your Monday work allotment?"
3. "I need to interface with you offline. I'll ping you when I have the bandwidth post meeting about repurposing some material."
4. "I have an ask. There’s been a disconnect, so let’s deep-dive, be proactive and circle back to add texture to the situation, establish a best-practice and value-add to better leverage and interface this bleeding-edge game-changer and make it more impactful!"
5. "Good! Lets proactively circle back and leverage our lunch hour face time collaboration metrics holistically. Best practice core competencies and globalization infrastructure are in the pipeline."
OK, here's what these phrases mean in actual English:
1. I need a chart.
2. Could you do this every Monday?
3. I'll call you when I get a chance after the meeting to go over my changes with you.
4. I'm not sure I understand what you need. Can we talk about the details so that we can get this right?
5. Good! Let's have a lunch meeting to go over our processes and what the future holds.
To a non-Buzzer, these phrases can be overwhelming. At first, you might feel stupid because you can't figure out what they are saying. You don't want to ask, because that would only flaunt your stupidity to the Buzzer. This would mean you aren't "forward-thinking".
Yes, forward-thinking is a buzzword, though not nearly as bad as others you'll hear.
When faced with an indecipherable phrase from a Buzzer, you can only do one of two things- join them, or make fun of them.
Once you've learned the buzzwords and the Buzzer lifestyle, it's much easier to out-buzz them, or better yet, repeat what they said in plain English with a slightly snarky tone. For example, in response to the first phrase I shared with you...
Buzzer: "I need a numeric, metered, graphic representation of deliverables."
Non-Buzzer: "OK...So you need a chart?" (said with smirk)
Buzzer: "Well...yes. But it really needs to represent the deliverables in a metered, graphical way, with all the right tonality."
Non-Buzzer: "OK. Send me the numbers and I'll build you a CHART." (again, said with smirk)
On that note, tonality. Tonality means either a musical tone or a color scheme. Tonality does not refer to tone in speech or writing. Tone in speech or writing refers to the writer or speaker's voice and what it is trying to convey, not tonality. Look it up in the dictionary. So when someone says they want to make sure the tonality is right- they are probably mean the tone, but they'll use tonality, which means color or muscial note, in an attempt to sound super-intelligent.
I'm just saying.
Tune in over the next few days for Buzzwords 201. Advanced linkativity and the ability to grotate to the possimpible are in the pipeline.
By the way, note that all italicized words in the post are not actually real words.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Worst Answer to the 5 Years Interview Question
The worst answer you can give to the "Where do you see yourself in 5 years" question (or any time iteration of this same question) is often the truthful one.
Other examples of this same question, phrased differently:
-- What are you goals, short and long term?
-- What do you want to be doing in 10 years?
-- Tell me about your dreams, your plans for yourself.
Etc., yada yada yada, so forth and so on.
There are 3 typical answers to this question, given the current economy. Which one do you think is the right answer, most likely to land you the job?
1. The Commitment-Phobe Answer
Symptoms: Rents an apartment, preferably with a month-to-month lease. No sign of a steady significant other. Loves dogs, but probably has a cat because it's less commitment and hassle to care for it. Smart & versatile.
Response: Wow. 5 years is a long way away. I can't say 100% what I'll be doing then, because who really knows where life will take you, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say I'd be moving up in the company I'm at and possibly starting a small side business.
(I, for a large part of my early 20's, really did feel this way. I wasn't ready to commit to the job or the place.)
2. The Truthful Dreamer Answer
Symptoms: They have realized they can't get a job in their field of choice or city of choice at the moment and are interviewing other places, but just haven't let it go yet.
Response: I'd love to see myself as a director in a totally different field living in a completely different city from where your company is located.
(I've been here too)
3. The I Really Want this Job Answer
Symptoms: This guy is a hard read. Sometimes they really do want that job. And sometimes it is the perfect match for them, which is why they are so natural and happy in the interview. But sometimes, it's a person who knows how to interview well.
Response: In 5 years, I'd love to see myself here, growing at this company. I'd love to take on more responsibility and grow the business.
OK, if you haven't figured it out, you want to use number 3. That's going to get you further in the interviewing process than anything else. It's not that companies don't care what your long term goals and dreams are for yourself. They probably want to know as a biotechnology company that your dream is to own a landscaping company because it means you aren't passionate about their product.
The real goal with that question is to see if you are smart enough to play the game. And yes, when I'm asking you that question, I'm aware I'm not getting the truth all of the time, but I like that you are smart enough to tell me what I want to hear. Getting ahead often requires you to be able to play the game with a kick-ass game face, so show me you can do it.
When I used to do phone screens for interviews, I always asked them where they wanted to be in 5 years just to see if they would be honest with me or if they could figure out what I wanted to hear. I've been appalled listening to the introduction of interns to higher ups in companies. The interns blather about wanting to move to another state and pursue a small business of their own. Really? Than why intern there?
Other examples of this same question, phrased differently:
-- What are you goals, short and long term?
-- What do you want to be doing in 10 years?
-- Tell me about your dreams, your plans for yourself.
Etc., yada yada yada, so forth and so on.
There are 3 typical answers to this question, given the current economy. Which one do you think is the right answer, most likely to land you the job?
1. The Commitment-Phobe Answer
Symptoms: Rents an apartment, preferably with a month-to-month lease. No sign of a steady significant other. Loves dogs, but probably has a cat because it's less commitment and hassle to care for it. Smart & versatile.
Response: Wow. 5 years is a long way away. I can't say 100% what I'll be doing then, because who really knows where life will take you, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say I'd be moving up in the company I'm at and possibly starting a small side business.
(I, for a large part of my early 20's, really did feel this way. I wasn't ready to commit to the job or the place.)
2. The Truthful Dreamer Answer
Symptoms: They have realized they can't get a job in their field of choice or city of choice at the moment and are interviewing other places, but just haven't let it go yet.
Response: I'd love to see myself as a director in a totally different field living in a completely different city from where your company is located.
(I've been here too)
3. The I Really Want this Job Answer
Symptoms: This guy is a hard read. Sometimes they really do want that job. And sometimes it is the perfect match for them, which is why they are so natural and happy in the interview. But sometimes, it's a person who knows how to interview well.
Response: In 5 years, I'd love to see myself here, growing at this company. I'd love to take on more responsibility and grow the business.
OK, if you haven't figured it out, you want to use number 3. That's going to get you further in the interviewing process than anything else. It's not that companies don't care what your long term goals and dreams are for yourself. They probably want to know as a biotechnology company that your dream is to own a landscaping company because it means you aren't passionate about their product.
The real goal with that question is to see if you are smart enough to play the game. And yes, when I'm asking you that question, I'm aware I'm not getting the truth all of the time, but I like that you are smart enough to tell me what I want to hear. Getting ahead often requires you to be able to play the game with a kick-ass game face, so show me you can do it.
When I used to do phone screens for interviews, I always asked them where they wanted to be in 5 years just to see if they would be honest with me or if they could figure out what I wanted to hear. I've been appalled listening to the introduction of interns to higher ups in companies. The interns blather about wanting to move to another state and pursue a small business of their own. Really? Than why intern there?
Monday, June 14, 2010
Appearing Confident > Sounding Smart > Actually Knowing the Answer
When you are sitting in an important meeting and you are called upon to participate with information relevant (or irrelevant really) to the topic and you don't know the answer right then, just know that;
Appearing confident is better than sounding smart and that is better than actually knowing the answer.
Who knew, right?
The truth is that as a human, most of us are not blessed with photographic memories. Although as smart business people, we are coming to meetings with what we think will prepare us (sometimes), we know in our guts that inevitably that meeting you are in is going to go off topic. When this happens, we need a moment to look over the billion emails and excel files we have to give the specific, qualified answers. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "Why should I remember anything if I can just look it up?" The chances are, that tidbit they are asking for isn't always going to be on call in your brain and you aren't always going to have the file you need on hand to answer adequately.
A few things to remember when you are put on the spot. First, BE CONFIDENT. For those of you who aren't sure how to accomplish that when you don't know the answer, here's how:
1. Breathe normally, try to be nonchalant.
2. Sit up straight and be engaged- use your body language. Lean forward to the table or speaker and remain open- don't cross your arms.
3. Be concise. Nothing shows you don't know what you are talking about more than rambling on without answering the question, and the smart guy in the room is going to notice that.
4. Try not to insert weird buzz words into your answer. Speaking directly and clearly demonstrates that you are confident in yourself and your knowledge on the subject.
5. Choose one of two routes to respond: The polite I-don't-know-but-will-find-out-ASAP or the I-know-enough-to-BS-a-little. I've done both, but I think the former is the most honest answer that is accepted with a higher degree of respect. But sometimes the people in the room want something, so if you feel confident enough you can try the latter.
Here's a sample of the I-don't-know response:
I'm not 100% sure on those figures (or whatever they are asking you about), but I know I have some solid numbers to share at my desk. I can send those through to the team with my analysis as a follow up directly after this meeting or I can run and get them now if that would be helpful.
Here's a sample of the I-know-enough-to-BS response:
Recently we've seen solid performance on Brand X in Q1. The numbers have been up overall, with some dips in categories y and z, but the more specific analytics I'd need to forward to you are on my desk. I'll be sure to pass those along as soon as possible.
When said confidently, either of these responses will buy you the time you need to give a solid, specific answer (now, if you aren't doing your job and you actually don't know, this isn't going to help you all that much. It will buy you an hour or so, but it won't fix the fact that you didn't do your work).
The worst thing you can do is scramble and fidget and attempt to fudge your way to an impromptu answer. And don't use buzzwords. Although it seems like the trendy thing to do, it's not going to earn you a reputation for communicating clearly. Does it make sense or sound smart when you use acronyms instead of words or try to achieve the possimpible?
The smartest thing you can do is be honest when you don't know, but speak up and show them that you are confident that you'll have the answers they need quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)