WorkPuzzle

Are You Networking or "Not-Working?" - Part 2

Yesterday, our discussion focused on how social networking tools, such as LinkedIn, can hinder the development of a true network.  While these tools are not inherently counterproductive, they often provide limited assistance in equipping a person to do the “real work” necessary to build relationships.

In Peter Weddle’s discussion of the topic (see yesterday’s discussion for more background), he states:

“Now, if you've ever been in a relationship, you know two things about them.  First, you quickly learn that they are hard work.  That's why the word is spelled the way it is:  it's netWORK, not net-get-around-to-it-whenever-you-feel-like-it.  And second, you come to appreciate that relationships take time to develop.  They don't happen with the click of a mouse, whether you're on LinkedIn or Facebook or any other social or professional "networking" site.

You see, the Golden Rule of Networking is that you have to give as good as you get.  It's fundamentally an exchange of information, ideas, and/or assistance from which both parties derive value.  That mutual allocation of benefit establishes familiarity and trust, and those two factors are the twin pillars of a relationship.  When networking is working, that's what creates a relationship.”  

Peter does a great job of boiling down this issue to the most important point:  People who are truly in your network are those in which you have developed familiarity and trust.  Of course, those same people have also developed a common level of familiarity and trust with you.
 
In reality, most people have very small personal and professional networks.  They don’t dedicate the time and maintain the focus necessary to put together something more significant.  For most people, that’s OK.  They don’t have the bandwidth or the strengths to do more.  Most of us would agree that it’s better to have a close group of real friends than 1,000 contacts on LinkedIn.

However, if your job as a Hiring Manager or Recruiter depends upon networking for success, then you do yourself a disservice by focusing on shortcuts that amount to “not-working.”  Here are some ideas that may help you be more effective at networking:

1.  Dedicate a certain amount of time every day to real networking activities.  Unless an activity is scheduled, it seems to get pushed back by urgent matters.  Schedule a time each day to work on building and maintaining your network and stick to it.

2.  Focus on providing something of value to the people around you.  Reread what Peter said above:  “[Networking is] fundamentally an exchange of information, ideas, and/or assistance from which both parties derive value.”   He’s right. 

3.  Say "thank you."  If you’re struggling to find ways to provide something of value to those around you, try simply expressing gratitude.  A personal hand-written note or personal email is a great way to do this.  In the note, let people know you appreciate them, or you’re thankful for something they said, or you’ve heard something positive about them and you’re thankful to have friends with good character like them, etc...
  
4.  Ask for something.  Remember, true network relationships are two-way streets.  If you’re always providing the information, ideas, and assistance, and there is never any feedback from the other person, that’s a red flag.  Occasionally, ask for something and see what happens.  It could be something small, like a recommendation for a restaurant or advice on a problem.  If a person is not even willing to help you with something small, you may need to find some new network contacts.

There are many more ideas out there.  You’re welcome to leave a comment if you have a good idea that you think I’ve missed.  Just don’t suggest that I spend more time building my contacts on LinkedIn!

My New 3 Wood and Twittcrastination

If you’re out of a job or reevaluating what you want to do next, using social medias can be a useful tool in extending your exposure to a broader network.  However, it is not wise to rely on them exclusively for landing that new, interesting, challenging job. 

Why?  Because if you don’t understand the fundamentals of good job searching, these tools will only provide the illusion that your doing something productive, rather than help you land that “better fit” job. 

Remember... These are tools!  That’s all they are - Just like my new 3 wood that was sold to me with the promise that 200+ yard fairway lies will now go straight and long - It didn’t quite live up to the hype.  So, too, will your job search stagnate if you rely on all the internet’s latest social networking tools to land you that exciting new job.

Most new internet tools continue to repeat the same problems with regard to hiring and networking that have always existed:  They give you the illusion that you’re doing something productive, when you're simply Twittcrastinating.  Even though we have thousands of job postings at our finger tips, and can search the ones that closely resemble what our expertise might be, most ads are so horribly written, focusing on sterile information about the job description, that only the most desperate job seeker would answer them. 

As a side note - Are Employee Referral Programs a reliable hiring tool if the recruiter ends up hiring the most popular person rather than the skilled, yet reserved person, who might be best for the job?  

The majority on both sides of the equation (companies and job seekers) continue to miss the mark.  There are a few who "get it".  What do they get?  They get that people want more than a job - They want to be challenged with the responsibility of contributing to achieving something great. 

When companies don’t "get" this, they hire the “best interviewee”.  This is typically the most socially connected, or worse....the most desperate, because that is who they are pitching to!
 
When job searchers don’t "get it", they come across as individuals who are needy and desperate, and will do anything to look good.  Looking good doesn’t last too long once the first 90 days have passed.  Not to mention the fact that the best companies won’t hire you when you come across as simply desperate to get a job.

Great companies and very talented people want to know how each will compliment the achievement of something really interesting.  Both parties search and interview with this in mind.

So, for job seekers, the old fashioned way remains the best way.  TAKE CHARGE!  Know that the easiest way a recruiter can hire is to have someone call them and ask what the given company is trying to accomplish, and how this position is expected to contribute to this mission.  Only after you understand all of this, tell them why your skills and experience are a good fit for making THAT contribution.

While you’re doing that, I’ll be returning to the driving range, working on improving my game, while my gimmick 3 wood sits safely in my bag...

Where Do I Fit? Part 3

Today I am sharing two final job search myths with you.  Refer to the previous two blog entries (1, 2) for Myths 1 - 3, and for further discussion on this topic.  Again, this perspective comes to us from Po Bronson's article in Fast Company, titled "What Should I do With My Life Now?":

Myth #4:  There Is One Perfect Thing Each Of Us Is Meant To Do On This Planet:

"Give me a break.  Where’d that myth come from?  If someone repeats it, throw a glass of water on them.  For each of us, there are dozens, hundreds of careers, any one of which could provide you a sense of meaning and goodness.  You don’t have to find 'The One,' you just have to find any one. The biggest mistake is being seduced by the myth that you’re looking for the right answer, as if there is only one answer.  It’s just so damn easy to look upon someone else and jealously think, 'Wow, he sure got lucky.'  Real people did not have great opportunities fall in their lap.  Mostly, crappy opportunities come along, and in the meantime, you make the best of them.  But that skill and habit, of making the best of your situation, is essential training.  Because one day, a good opportunity will come along.  And if you make the best of it—if you’re good at making the best of things - you will turn it into a great situation.  A “calling” is not something you know, the moment you see it. For real people, in the real world, a sense of “calling” is something you grow into, over the course of your life, by having an impact on your organization and the community around you.  In this way, it provides a sense of belonging and relevance.  Or in the terminology of engineers, one enters a phase of 'positive feedback experience' that makes you feel good about being where you are."

Myth #5:  You Don’t Know What You Want: 

"Don’t tell me you don’t know what you want.  Of course you know what you want:  fulfillment, connection, responsibility … and some excitement.  The real problem is figuring out how to find a path that doesn’t suffocate those natural feelings in you.  Which is hard.  Of course it’s hard.  It’s supposed to be hard.  If it weren’t hard, you wouldn’t learn anything along the way.

If you don’t know how to make the best of a bad situation, you will never get there.  If you are not willing to put up with some shit work, you will never recognize that a good opportunity is staring you in the face.  If you are not willing to be humble and repeatedly be a beginner in new areas and learn the details faster than the next guy, you are not capable of transformation.  Only by embracing these realities will you be able to answer the question 'What should I do with my life now?' "

If you have responsibilities coaching people, write these down, and help lead people back to reality.  During these down times, people need reality coaching more than ever...

Where Do I Fit? - Part 2

On Friday, I shared the first of a few myths around job search, quoted from articles by famous author, Po Bronson.  Here are two more for you to ponder, along with some some thoughts of my own:

Myth 3:  Your Dream Job Has No Sucky Parts:

"I call this the Fallacy of Intrinsic Fit.  There’s this notion that you should love the mere act of what you do so much that just by virtue of it being Monday morning and you’re at work, neurotransmitters of joy will drip on your brain all day.  That is not how real people do it.  All jobs have things you hate about them.  But real people feel fulfilled enough by the overall purpose that the crummy parts are worth it."

I'm in agreement with most of what Bronson has to say here.  Where I differ is that I feel he makes the assumption that the overall purpose is evident in every job.  This is a stretch to say the least.  Both the employer and employee need to know what the greater purpose is, and why their "sucky work" will help them achieve something great.

Myth 4:  You’ll Love The Job For The Job:  

"There’s an old parable about the three bricklayers who are working all morning.  When they get a break, one guy asks the other two, 'Why are you doing this job?'  The first guy says, 'I’m doing it for the wages.'  The second guy says, 'I’m doing it for my wife and kids.'  The third guy looks up at what they’ve been building — a church, a place to get in touch with one’s highest self — and says, 'I’m helping to build a cathedral.'  Most people hear this parable, and they think the third guy has the right answer.  But that is not the lesson of the parable.  All three men have a sense of purpose — a 'cathedral,' if you will, whether it be spirituality or family or self-sufficiency. They’re all good.  They’re all 'right' answers.  The real lesson of the parable:  Notice what no man answered.  Not one said, 'I just love laying bricks.'  Doing something for the sheer love of it is not what real people mean when they say their work provides a sense of purpose."

They may all be "right answers," but not all the answers will sustain a person's spirit and soul for a long period of time.  To sustain over time, we need to know what greater goals the person has, and what greater goals the company has.

Where Do I Fit?

Everyone wants to know where they fit in life.  With work consuming 2/3 of our waking life, the million dollar question is "What job out there will give me the greatest satisfaction and provide the best fit?"

Not too long ago, there was no science of psychology.  There was no consistent, accepted way to describe the various kinds of people.  There was no validated way to classify and measure psychological illnesses.  Only in the past eighty years has there been tangible progress in this arena, and mostly in the treatment of mental illness.  We have consistently tested, annotated, characterized and treated mental illnesses with increasing success.  However, if your waiting for some assessment to tell you where to concentrate your life's work, you'll be waiting a long time... 

What I've just said may surprise some people, especially since we are in the business of helping companies and job seekers increase the odds of finding a good job match.  But in doing what we do, we've found people to have several misconceptions that I have had to address over the last few years.  Last month while reading Fast Company, I ran across an article that practically read my mind.  Po Bronson, author of "What Should I do With My Life" had been bombarded with similar misconceptions, and addressed them in this follow-up article.  This guy nailed the misconceptions so well, that I had to pass some of my favorites on to you.  I've pieced them together from two of his articles and paraphrased his words below:

---

Myth #1: All It Takes is Passion

Pervasive in our society the last six years is what I call, "The Modern Dream Machine Industry."  Media companies have made a killing selling content to consumers (#1 example: The Secret) that uses the term "passion" loosely and vaguely, and makes false claims that a dream life is right around the corner if you just dust off your fantasies and pursue them.  This is what I condemn as "selling transformation irresponsibly."

I hear it all the time: "I'd love to quit my job to follow my purpose, but I've got responsibilities!"  This artificial distinction is misleading. Your responsibilities are not keeping you from your purpose, they are part of your purpose, often the very most important part. Envisioning your responsibilities as being outside the circle of "purpose" will lead you to make bad decisions about your life.

---

The above is just a taste of the misconceptions Mr. Bronson discusses in his articles.  Tomorrow I will share more of these career choice myths with you...

Do You Have a Set of Hancuffs Handy? - Part 2

Yesterday, we discussed the idea of using self-imposed restraints to reach goals and improve performance.  There was an interesting study conducted by a doctoral student at Harvard that investigated the nature of how humans tend to act in this regard: 

“Katherine Milkman, a doctoral student at Harvard Business School, has studied the way customers wrestle with two kinds of products: 'wants,' which are things they crave in the moment, and 'shoulds,' which are the things they know are good for them.  For instance, Milkman studied the Australian equivalent of Netflix and found that when customers rent a 'should' film, such as Schindler's List, along with a 'want' film, such as Die Hard 3, they tend to watch (and return) the want film much faster.  We aspire to be the kind of people who watch Schindler's List, but two weeks later, it's still sitting on top of the DVD player, unwatched, as we rotate through the entire John McClane cycle.” (Fast Company)

So, even with the best of intentions, we’ll struggle (and often fail) to do the things that are best for us.  This is why some restraints are necessary.

With regard to your personal performance, start by asking yourself these questions:

1. Is there an activity that I could stop doing that would improve my performance?
2. Is there an activity that I enjoy and naturally gravitate towards doing that I could limit to improve my performance?
3. Are their restraints that I can put in place to keep myself from falling back into my natural tendencies?

Let me give you an example from my own life:  I enjoy learning about politics and popular culture.  There are a number of cable news programs that cater to this interest.  A couple of years ago, I came to the conclusion that I was wasting too much time watching these programs.  I learned that I could get the same amount of substance from reading a 10-minute summary of the news from the Seattle Times.  So, I stopped watching cable news programs.

While this was a good start, I soon found that I needed even more restraint.  I was still able to waste time, even with my conversion to the news summary.  There were times when I would read five or six articles at a sitting.  I would look up at the clock and notice that 45 minutes had passed.  I definitely needed another restraint.  I now limit myself to reading one article that catches my interest from the summary, per day. 

I was successful in eliminating one activity from my daily routine.  In addition, I found a way to replace it with an activity that has some natural restraints built into it (It’s a summary, rather than a whole show).  Even with my scaled-down activity, I hold myself accountable to a simple rule that keeps this activity from detracting from my personal performance.

For most of us, this is hard to accomplish on our own.  We need structure, accountability, and relationships to maintain our restraints.  We need help recognizing where time is being wasted and how to focus our efforts on the activities that will produce the best results.

If your manager or someone else in your organization is not providing this type of accountability, it is important to understand that you’re the one being hurt most by this arrangement.  Ask for some handcuffs during your next coaching session.

Avoiding Incompetence

Yesterday, we reminded you that the Peter Principle has a logical corollary:

“Peter's Corollary states that, in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties... Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

I met with part of the executive team of a very large real estate company in the Seattle area yesterday.  During part of the meeting, the discussion focused on how some people are “wired” to perform certain tasks with a high level of proficiency. 

As the discussion progressed, the General Manager of this group mentioned that their company had collected assessment data demonstrating that their best managers had substantially different make-ups than their best sales people. 

I was shocked.  Why?  Because this company naturally acknowledged this reality. It was refreshing because we work with the executive teams of so many different companies who have still not grasped this concept.  They may acknowledge it on the surface, but their actions reveal their true beliefs.
 
Let me give you an example of a more typical encounter - A couple of years ago, the owner of a regional insurance company looked me in the eye and said:

“I will never use an assessment for hiring because I took the [common surface trait assessment] and it suggested I would not be good at sales.  But I was the best salesperson this company has ever had!”

In this case, the assessment he took was not built for hiring, and the profile that was being used as a benchmark was not designed for his specific company.  These are both tactical problems that would need to be solved, but the bigger problem is this executive’s basic belief system.
 
He believes that his remarkable capacity to start and build a successful insurance company would be very similar to the recipe of capacities necessary to successfully perform the day-to-day sales function in his company.  This is right where Peter’s Corollary comes into play.  Remember....

"Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

If the Owner hires people like himself, he will likely end up with new employees who perform well quickly, but then get bored and want to do more than just sell.  If an interesting, short-term opportunity is not available in the company, they’ll leave to find that opportunity.  These people simply are not wired to perform the day-to-day sales function for a long period of time.

Let’s suppose that at some point in the future a Sales Manager position opens up.  With the Owner’s paradigm (“I was the best salesperson this company has ever had!”), who will he choose for the position?  That's right, someone who has a proven sales record!

You can see how seductive our natural tendencies are concerning the realities of the Peter Principle.  If you’re coaching or managing people, acknowledge that their highest and best contribution at work will be below their level of incompetence. 

Don’t arbitrarily push people into an arena where they do not have the natural capacities to perform.  Instead, work on helping them gain proficiency in the area where their natural talents already align with the tasks in that role.  Certainly, there are times where a job change makes sense, but careful not to react in a manner that would make a good illustration for the next Dilbert cartoon.

The Peter Principle Turns 40

It is rare that someone unveils something so profound that it continues to resonate with us 40 years after its discovery.  When Dr. Laurence Peter published the “The Peter Principle” in 1968, he did just that. 

If you manage and coach people, you’re probably familiar with this principle already.  If not through the formal name and description, then you’ve become familiar through observation.

The Peter Principle is the principle that:

" 'In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence'...It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently.  Sooner or later, they are promoted to a position in which they are no longer competent (their 'level of incompetence'), and there they remain.  Peter's Corollary states that, 'in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties... Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.' " (Wikipedia)

Peter reached his audience through humor.  There is something funny about how people view and participate in work.  He was able to capture this in his book, but he also inspired others to find humor in work as well. 

“Peter's book contains many real-world examples and thought-provoking explanations of human behavior.  Similar observations on incompetence can be found in the Dilbert cartoon series (such as The Dilbert Principle), the movie Office Space, and the television show The Office.  In particular, the Dilbert Principle seems to be an extension to the Peter Principle.”

Dr. Peter died in 1990, but his book is being republished this year. 

Warning to the Job-Seeker: Most Companies Screw Up Hiring

I ran across the graphic in this posting a few weeks ago and thought it did a great job of describing the reality of the job hunting experience for most people.  The posting was in a newsletter sent out by Electronic Recruiting Exchange (ERE).  Here is a link to that newsletter if you care to read it.

This image came to mind after receiving an email from a person in my professional network who is currently job hunting.  I had sent her a note earlier in the week asking her how things are progressing. 

“Still looking and sending out tons of resumes and applying to jobs. It is so hard.  I just don’t understand it. There are so many jobs posted, but they take forever to get back to me.  I received a call yesterday from [a major insurance company you’d recognize] that I applied for 2 months ago!”

If you’re one of the 13 million people looking for work right now, you probably have experienced similar frustrations.  As the graphic suggests, you’re not imagining things.  

Most companies are pathetic at hiring.  It is bad enough that there is a huge amount of inefficiencies (the wasted money could be used to pay the wages of more people), but it is even more disappointing to realize that the candidates are the ones who suffer the most. 

Unfortunately, this is reality, and it is not going to change in the near future.  Is there anything you can do to make the most of this reality?  I think so.  Here are a few ideas:

1.  Adjust your expectations.  If you’re responding to job openings posted by companies, expect delays, poor communication, mishandled paperwork, and other problems.  It doesn’t matter who you are or how qualified you are for a position; companies will still botch the hiring process.  People experience disappointment, discouragement, and even a sense of despair when expectations do not match reality.  Lower your expectations.

2.  Remember, it’s a numbers game.  If your hope is to see one perfect job posting, send the prospective employer a resume, and then get hired; what happens when thing don’t work out?  You’re devastated.  What if you’re working on 20 different opportunities and one doesn’t work out?  You still have 19 more opportunities.  Concentrate most of your efforts on keeping the opportunity bucket full.  Something will eventually work out.

3.  Sidestep the hiring system.  If companies are going to screw up the hiring process, maybe you should sidestep the process all together.  There are career gurus who espouse the benefits of looking for a job outside traditional techniques.  The most notable is Richard Bolles, but there are many others, as well.  Some of these techniques are worth investigating because they acknowledge that the system is broken and provide solutions from this premise.

Tomorrow, I’ll cover one of these techniques in detail.

Confessions and Accountability

Now some thoughts and ideas for Owners, CEO's and Managers regarding my recent revelations about confessions.  You may want to review our recent blogs on this topic (Part 1, Part 2).

It may do you some good to confess your shortcomings as well.  What should you confess?  Perhaps your lack of setting up systems that hold people accountable?  As we've learned, accountability leads to success.  Remember our blogs referencing "The Office?"  (Part 1, Part 2).

Or, you might confess your neglect of coming up with a goal that is a bit impossible.  Remember, people don't just want a job:

"They want a goal that’s just a little bit impossible (vision).  They want a leader who can paint the picture of how to get there (direction).  They want a leader who will be honest enough to tell them they are off track (feedback).  And they want a leader who, when the goal is achieved, remembers to say, ‘Unbelievable – What you just did was impossible.'... '" (Essence of Success blog)

Consider bringing your team together and confessing that you have let things slip, even if it is just all too slightly.  Admit that you've become bogged down with the things that really don't matter.  Then paint a big picture, one that is exciting, one that inspires people and holds them accountable.  I bet they will be moved by your honesty and inspired to achieve more as a result.