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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)