Author Archives: John Buckley

Qualify the Jobs to Which You Apply

There are basically four ways to find a job:

  1. Respond to a job advertisement.
  2. Apply unsolicited.
  3. Work through a professional recruiter.
  4. Network to a hiring need.

Although networking is, far and away, the most effective method to find a job, most job seekers waste the bulk of their job-searching time responding to job ads.  This is because networking takes courage and is therefore hard, while responding to job ads is easy.

When I coach job seekers, I don’t want to discourage applying to job ads completely.  Instead I recommend applying to one (1) job per day, and spending no more than one (1) hour preparing an effective application.  Spend whatever additional job-search hours you have available: networking.

If you give yourself only 1 hour to prepare an effective application and submit it, you don’t want to waste time by selecting a job that is a long shot.  “[O]ver 75% of resumes sent by candidates are NOT qualified for the role.”  These unqualified candidates are people who are constantly wasting their time taking ridiculous long shot after ridiculous long shot.  So, instead of quick-click applications, I coach job seekers to select the one job ad that they are MOST qualified for, and spend no more than an hour tailoring their application materials before submitting.

  The linked article (here, above, and in the quotation) gives some great advice on qualifying the jobs to which a candidate should apply. Ask yourself:

a.) Do my responsibilities today or in the past align directly to those listed in the job description (or are they highly relevant)?

b.) Do I have the required skills, educational, and industry qualifications noted in the job description?
If you can’t clearly answer “yes” to both questions, it’s a long shot, so continue to look for a job for which you are better qualified.
There is other useful information in the linked article, so I recommend taking a few minutes to read it.

Fear of Networking?

“She said that she contacted many people, and nobody helped.”  I have to say I find this statement completely unbelievable, and probably fictional.  Some people love being overly dramatic, and when you call them on it, they usually admit they were exaggerating.  I like being data driven, and as a job seeker, you can’t afford to be driven by inefficient emotions and erroneous beliefs.  Job searching is difficult, often repetitive, work.  If you are acting on the erroneous belief that people mostly are mean and won’t help, you are going to waste a lot of effort and time.

In my experience, which I have recorded and backed up with data, when you contact local people professionally through LinkedIn, about 50% will end up meeting with you face to face over lunch or at a coffee shop.  More than 50% will initially agree to meet with you, but conflicts will arise, and that number will fall to ~50%, according to my personal experience.  If you are not reaching that level of effectiveness, there are probably ways you can hone your approach.  If “nobody” is helping, you are definitely doing something wrong to put people off when you contact them, or you are not actually exercising the courage it takes to contact people.  Misinformation, like the quote above, discourages people from contacting others.  Sure, it’s hard, but it’s not insurmountable, and it is much, much more effective than simply applying to job ads on Indeed.

Reach out professionally.  Be humble, be relevant, be accommodating, and whenever possible get introduced.  There are very rare occasions when an introduction is not obtainable, but usually that’s an indication of poor planning or laziness.  Getting an introduction is not unseemly.  It demonstrates a willingness to work for what you want, an ability to plan effectively, and a genuine commitment to the task at hand.

 

 

 

 

Beware the Bait-and-Switch Job Search Alert

I have coached 100’s of people in job searching over the last decade. I am located in, and many of those people are either located in, or seeking to relocate to, Charlotte. Job search alerts which allow specification of location can be a great time-saver for job seekers. I often use them myself as a tool to assist the people I coach.  I have recommended various job-search sites that offer this feature as a great resource over the years.

Job Search Alert Emails ONLY jobs in Charlotte

Job Search Alert Emails ONLY jobs in Charlotte

 

However, job search alerts can become SPAM when criteria established by the job-seeker are ignored. One of my pet peeves is the practice of baiting job seekers with a job in a desirable location when in fact the job is in another, less desirable, location. I guess the theory is that ‘if I can just get them to read my job description, they will overlook that it requires relocating.’

 

Job Ad from Clicking on 3rd job in Email Above - Note Location: Charlotte

Job Ad from Clicking on 3rd job in Email Above – Note Location: Charlotte

In some cases it may be a simple quality control shortcoming. Because Charlotte is such a desirable location we see these bait and switch job ads all the time here. If this is intentional, then it is unethical, and job search sites that condone it are complicit. If it is unintentional, then it shows poor commitment to quality on the part of both the employer and the job search site. A quality job search site would provide a button to report job ad problems, such as mis-location, in a drop down menu, and they would have someone assigned to follow-up and correct user-identified problems. A general feedback page is good, but not many people are going to bother to find it to identify a mis-location, bait-and-switch problem like the one exposed in these images.

Company Website indicates Chicago is actual location

Company Website indicates Chicago is actual location

I encourage job-seekers who encounter this type of problem to find the feedback pages on the sites involved, and take the time to identify the problem, even if the result is unrewarding.

Feedback Response

Feedback Response

Nuts and Bolts of Networking

I recommend strategically meeting people who can lead you to a “coach on the inside” of 50 growing companies in the growing industries and geography of your choice. How do you do this?

1. Make a list of 50 companies that you think meet the definition above.

2. Divide the list into 5 category columns of about 10 companies each.

3. Add all of your contact information to the top of the page, like on your resume.

4. Make a couple copies.

5. Arrange to meet with someone in your network for coffee or over lunch.

6. If you are currently employed, you are going to need to be careful to secure their agreement to keep your conversation confidential. You will also need to give some color around why you are looking to move. If you are unemployed, you need to give some explanation around your last departure.

Compliance7.  Let them know you’ve spoken with a career transition coach (this will also tell them you are serious), and he suggested that you learn more about the marketplace for your skills before actually looking for a job; that way your next move will be a better long-lasting fit. Ask if they can help.

8. They may say yes, but if they equivocate with something like “I don’t know how,” say the coach told me to draw up a list of companies (don’t say 50 – that sounds overwhelming) and go through the list and get people’s reactions, positive or negative, particularly around a company’s growth prospects.

9. Pass them a copy of the list; keep a copy for yourself to write notes on. Start with the first category and go through the list.

10. Some companies they won’t know, some they will have positive things to say, some negative. Take notes on your sheet next to each company. At the end of the category, ask if they can think of any companies in that category that aren’t on your list, but should be. Note them.

11. At some point they will begin to tire, or you will get to the end of the last category. Now go back and ask about the companies for which they had positive things to say. How do they know these things? Did they read it do they know someone there? Who do they know? If possible get someone’s name and contact info. If you can get contact info for 3 people from your meeting, your meeting is a success!

12. Thank the person. Send a handwritten thank you note. Connect with them on LinkedIn if not already connected. Put them on a tickle for a monthly email to update them subtly to let them know you are still in the market, but don’t get in their face.

13. Edit your list of companies to remove those that scored negatively, and add any new ones.  Repeat this process with as many of the contacts as they offer. These people, who are inside growing companies in which you are interested, can be your “coach on the inside” when an opportunity arises. They may even be able to alert you before a job is posted.

14. Never eat lunch alone, or with coworkers. Get away for coffee as much as you can. If you can, meet with 2 people a day – use weekends to catch up, so 10 people a week. Studies show that on average it takes about 75-80 meets like this to get a job interview. So that’s 2 months straight of hard core networking. Most people can’t keep up that pace. And 75-80 meets is the average – half of job searchers will need more meets to get an interview.  Plan for this length of time, this level of work, and this percentage of ‘failures’ before success.

Golden Ticket

The Importance of Identifying Job Vacancies

The ‘Golden Ticket’ of job searching is having a pre-existing relationship with the hiring manager. This means that you know the hiring manager before the hiring manager is hiring. In fact, he or she may have you, or someone like you, in mind before they even sit down with HR to describe the position they want to fill. If they really want someone like you, they may have asked you for a resume before working with HR to review or write the job description. This is the situation that people mean when they say “most jobs aren’t advertised.” Eventually this job will actually be advertised, but the front-runner will be known. If that front-runner is you, then that’s a ‘Golden Ticket.’

The power of having a large network of relationships (not just connections on LinkedIn, but real pre-existing relationships) is that you have more ‘Golden Ticket’ opportunities.

Now let’s talk about the ‘Paper Ticket:’ A job at ABC company has been advertised for a couple weeks and someone I don’t have much relationship with contacts me and says “do you know anybody at ABC company? They are advertising a perfect job for me!” I can connect them with someone I know there, but the reality is, this is way late in the process. I give them the “Paper Ticket,” but it will be quickly torn in half, and they will be directed to queue up with all the other unknown applicants.

Paper Ticket

There is something in between – not as good as a ‘Golden Ticket,’ but not as flimsy as the ‘Paper Ticket.’ Let’s call it a ‘Silver Ticket.’ That’s when you learn of a vacancy before the job has been advertised, and hopefully before the job description has been reviewed. You don’t have a pre-existing relationship with the hiring manager, and if someone else does, then their Golden Ticket is going to trump your Silver Ticket. But if the hiring manager doesn’t have someone in mind, connecting with them at this critical juncture may allow your resume to influence their thought process in reviewing the job description.  Certainly, in the back of their mind, you could become the standard against which they evaluate other candidates who respond to the ad.

Silver Ticket

So how do you find out about these vacancies before the job ad to fill them is shared with the market.  LinkedIn is a great source of this type information.  First, LinkedIn will inform you when your connections update their profiles with a new position (unless they have changed the default setting). If they have a new position, that usually means they left an old position, and there is a vacancy. Sometimes the change is a promotion in title, and there is no vacancy; sometimes the “new job” is a part-time activity in addition to their job, which they still have.  In some cases they have updated their profile so tardily that the job was probably filled months ago.  You need to review their profile closely to better understand the situation, and then it may be worth reaching out to them to fully understand.

There are also times when your connections will update their profile, but because they’ve changed the default settings, the change won’t show up on your notification feed. It’s always a good idea as you network and job search to take note of anyone’s profile who appears to have recently changed positions.

Finally, if you are a member of the Opt for Change group on LinkedIn, you may see that I post from time to time “New Job Vacancy?” when I see someone in my network has left a position.  In all of these cases, it’s important to remember that just because someone left, doesn’t mean there is a vacancy.  The position may have been eliminated, or there may have been an internal succession candidate who was moved into the role (which may create a lower level opportunity).

Seeking New Opportunities

 

Today I’m rebutting the assertion in this (and many similar) article headlines:

Why ‘seeking new opportunities’ should never be your LinkedIn professional headline!

Your LinkedIn headline should sell a more accurate version of yourself than the article above’s headline sells of itself. If you read this headline you quite probably got the impression that you shouldn’t use the work “Seeking” in your headline. The article is really about writing a good, strong headline, with which I agree. Because it has valid points, I’ve selected it for you to read (the video is a little tedious). But what I disagree with (and why I didn’t bother including other articles that support it) is the headline discouraging the word “Seeking.”  If you are unemployed, I encourage using it. Even if you are employed and job-searching, I would encourage working the word into your headline subtly or even coyly, as in “In-house Compliance Counsel seeking to help my client comply with HIPPA.”

First, the guy wiring the article linked above is from the UK, and I’m from America, and although we have many similarities, hiring processes can be surprisingly different. Be careful applying any foreign job-search advice in the US, and vice versa.

Second, the author touts his 10+ years of experience as a professional recruiter. By ‘professional recruiter’ he means someone who was paid a contingency fee if a candidate he provided was hired by his client. That fee was likely some percentage of the candidate’s annual starting salary. My experience with recruiting, has been, and continues to be, as an in-house recruiter, although from time to time we engage contingency recruiters. Again surprisingly, the experience can be different, and as a candidate you should understand the biases.

Both in-house and contingency recruiters are aligned in looking for qualified candidates. However, their second-tier drivers start to diverge. Contingency recruiters want to place the highest salary candidates they can, because that increases their contingency fee amount. In-house recruiters, while they want to minimize costs of the hiring process (which often comes out of their budget), are more neutral on salary (which comes out of the hiring manager’s budget), but if anything, they want to minimize it. A metric that is more important for in-house recruiters than candidate salaries is “speed to hire.”

If you are unemployed, this distinction is critical in the difference between how your profile will be vetted by an in-house recruiter versus a contingency fee recruiter. As an in-house recruiter I frequently use the words “seeking,” “available,” “opportunity,” and even “ISO” (in search of) as part of my candidate profile search terms. Why? Because unemployed candidates are much, much faster hires.

  1. If I message an unemployed candidate on LinkedIn, he or she usually responds the same day, often within minutes. It’s because unemployed candidates are always checking their LinkedIn, and have the messages coming to their primary email. Employed candidates usually take a few days to respond; some employed candidates never respond because they haven’t updated their profile since the last time they were looking for a job, and LinkedIn still directs messages to their old work email. On average, this is about a 2 day advantage to the unemployed candidate.
  2. Then if I want to schedule a phone or Skype screening interview, unemployed candidates are available this afternoon, any time that’s convenient for me. Employed candidates have to schedule in the evening, after they commute home, if they’re not working late, and they don’t have to take their kids to practice. On average, add another day of delay.
  3. When I schedule them for an in-person interview, unemployed candidates can be here tomorrow, even if I have to fly them in. Employed candidates have to get their supervisor’s permission to take a PTO day, and they want to get in and out the same day, so they only have to take one day of PTO. They are also time constrained when they are interviewing, so I have to change company meetings around so key people can meet them. Unemployed candidates can meet at our pace, at our convenience, and they can spend the night at a nearby hotel, so we can have dinner with them and see them in social contexts. Add an average of 3 days delay to the employed candidate, not too mention more opportunity for social interaction.
  4. Scheduling the second interview, even just a quick meeting with the CEO, can be difficult with employed candidates who don’t want to go back to their supervisor to request another day off on the heels of the first interview.  Add a another 7 days of delay.
  5. Compensation negotiation can be difficult and time consuming with an employed candidate, especially if a recruiter who wants to maximize the offer is involved.  The truth is, the unemployed candidate has little or no bargaining power, so negotiations are minimal.  Add 5 days off delay.
  6. Most companies do drug screen/background checks on their proposed hires.  Employed candidates, very reasonably, don’t want to give notice to their current employer until they have passed all the screening.  Unemployed candidates have nothing to lose, so employers can start them immediately, with continued employment contingent on passing the screens.  Add 10 days to employed candidates.
  7. Employed candidates have to give 2 week’s notice.  Their former employers often ask for more.  Add an average of 12 days.
  8. Employed candidates receive counter-offers. It’s rare that a candidate takes a counter-offer, but they can result in matching the higher offer, and possibly further negotiation delays.  If the employed candidate accepts the counter-offer, if often means the candidate was playing the market to coax his current employer into a raise.  For the in-house recruiter it means starting over.  Unemployed candidates almost never get simultaneous offers.

So even if you are an employed candidate, if you are looking for a new position, recognize that speed-to-hire focused in-house recruiters will be using the term “seeking” in their search terms to locate candidates.  If you want to improve your chances of being in that selected pool, work the word ‘seeking’ subtly into your headline.

 

The Prey Defines the Hunt

At one end of the spectrum are jobs that require a person to think on their feet, to be creative, adaptive, articulate, persuasive, engaging, and to show initiative.  On the other end of the spectrum are jobs that are mundane, routine, rote, repetitive, tedious, monotonous, dull and boring.  Jobs at either end are hard.  Jobs in the middle are hard.  It’s just a different kind of difficult.  Spending 8 hours a day repeatedly asking the same questions like “Paper or plastic?” or “Would you like fries with that?” is actually really hard – it’s maddening.  The repetitiveness makes it hard.  Spending 8 hours a day trying to come up with the right questions to ask in the right order when preparing for a deposition, or when calling on a new customer is also really hard. The creativity, the analysis, the second-guessing oneself, is all very difficult.  As a colleague of mine is find of saying: “Jobs are hard.  That’s why we call it ‘work’ and not ‘play.'”

In this post I offer the proposition that when you are job hunting, the type of job you are hunting defines the type of hunt in which you should be engaging.  If you want a simple, repetitive job – it doesn’t have to be in fast food or a grocery store – it could be at Google or Apple or Tesla (they have routine jobs too), then you should employ a simple, repetitive job hunting technique.  Such a technique would have a single resume (or maybe just your LinkedIn profile) that you would use for every job that has a one-touch or Easy Apply application.  You wouldn’t waste time tailoring to, or maybe even reading, the job ad – just click and send to as many jobs as possible, repeat, repeat, repeat.  On the other end of the spectrum are jobs that aren’t even advertised, that don’t even exist, for which you have to get an appointment, and then go in and convince the company that they need to fill a job they didn’t know they had, and that you’re the person for that job.  That would be the “Not Easy” button.

Most job hunters employ tactics somewhere between these two extremes.  However, as you tend towards one end or the other, I would suggest your outcomes will also tend toward one end or the other.  Those job hunters who tend to apply to jobs online repetitively are more likely to encounter more rejection, but also when they eventually find employment are more likely to find employment that is less creative in nature.  Job hunters who demonstrate the initiative to network into growing companies in growing industries are more likely to have jobs structured around their skills, or at least be considered ahead of other candidates for more tailored roles.

So here’s the observational ‘anecdata’ I offer to support my hypothesis. I coach a lot of people through career transitions, especially job searches.  I find those who follow a network-heavy approach are more likely to find jobs they find satisfying, tailored to their skills and desires.  I find those that follow an approach that is predominantly job-ad responses have a more difficult, longer time to find employment, and when they eventually do find employment, they are less satisfied, and tend to continue their search or within a year, restart a search.

So why do people not network?

There are 4 actions a candidate can take to find a job.  Three are easy; one is hard.  The hard path is networking, and it requires a candidate to actually demonstrate skills that many people will say they have, and may believe they have, but they actually lack.  These are the ability to think on their feet, to be creative, adaptive, articulate, persuasive, engaging, and to show initiative.

THE 4 Routes

Employers will almost always prefer, and pay more for, candidates who come through the networking gauntlet versus the candidates who just push the “Easy” button.

LinkedIn: Open for Opportunities Setting

It is really important, if you are job searching, that you switch your LinkedIn profile status to “Open” for opportunities.  Do this by (1) going to your little picture in the top right of your LinkedIn Home page and (2) clicking on the drop down arrow next to “Me.”  In the drop down menu under “ACCOUNT” (3) click on ” Settings & Privacy.”  In the new page that opens, locate “Privacy” with a shield in the center and (4) click on that word.  Now in the menu on the left, (5) locate and click on “Job seeking.”  (6) Click on “Let recruiters know you are open to opportunities.”  This should bring you to a page that looks like the one below:

On for 90 More Days

(7) Make sure the button is switched to “Yes.”  Also, note where the green arrow above is pointing.  When you switch to “Yes,” LinkedIn only gives you 90 days before it switches back to “No.”  You should make sure you are checking this frequently to make sure it doesn’t turn to “No.”  In fact, I recommend jumping into this page regularly, and switching it to “No” and then back to “Yes” to reset the 90-day clock.

The Emotional Side of Job Loss

Ron Ashkenas in his article Navigating the Emotional Side of a Career Transition addresses an important aspect of job searching.  Ron takes his discussion in a different direction than I will go in below, so I recommend after reading this blog, you also read his article.

Ron talks about issues encountered by someone making a voluntary job transition after a very long period (37 years) with a single employer. In my experience, this is a very rare event. People who voluntarily leave their employers, usually have a mindset that allows them to do so after much shorter periods, and they do so relatively frequently – so that in a 37 year career, I would expect to have met someone who has done this 5-10 times already. On the other hand, most people who have been stable (stagnant, depending on your perspective) at one company for decades and then find themselves in a career transition, usually are experiencing the event involuntarily. While they may encounter some of the emotions discussed in this article, in my experience advising and coaching job seekers, those emotions are usually trumped by grief.

Job Loss Can Be a Life Shattering Experience

Job Loss Can Be a Life Shattering Experience

There are 5 classic stages of loss and grief.

    1. Denial and Isolation

The first reaction is to deny the reality of the situation. It is a normal reaction to rationalize overwhelming emotions. It is a defense mechanism that buffers the immediate shock. We block out the words and hide from the facts. This is a temporary response that carries us through the first wave of pain. This is why I advise people to not make any decisions – for example regarding severance – the day of the layoff, and perhaps for a few days thereafter.

2. Anger

As the masking effects of denial and isolation begin to wane, reality and its pain re-emerge. We may not be ready. The intense emotion is redirected and expressed instead as anger. The anger may be aimed at inanimate objects, complete strangers, friends or family. Anger may be directed at our former co-workers or boss. Rationally, we may know the person is not to be blamed. Emotionally, however, we may resent the person for causing us pain. We feel guilty for being angry, and this can make us more angry.  Remember that job loss can be traumatic for a spouse as well. In some ways their fears may be worse, because they may have no reference point about future career options in your field, and may perceive your prospects to be more bleak than they really are.  For this reason I coach people to find a friend, not a spouse, to vent to during the frustrations that accompany a job search.  It’s a good idea to warn the friend that you need them for this purpose; it will be easier for them to absorb because they are not as tied to the outcome as your spouse.

3. Bargaining

A normal reaction to feelings of helplessness and vulnerability is often a need to regain control. This may manifest itself as genuine bargaining – going back to our former employer and asking or begging for the job back, or more rationally, negotiating different, more tailored severance terms to meet your specific needs. It can also appear as preoccupation with “what if” questions – what if I would have taken that transfer 2 years ago? what if I would have gotten that MBA at night? what if I would have been more active in my professional organization and met more people who could help me now? Eventually these will be important lessons learned, but we shouldn’t dwell on them now.

4. Depression

A doctor once told me that if you have a reason to be depressed, being depressed is normal. People who ‘suffer from Depression’ are depressed when they shouldn’t be. Loss of a job is a valid reason to be depressed. But it can last too long, and if it does, seek professional medical help.

5. Acceptance

This is where we need to get to as quickly as possible after a job loss. In my experience, you can’t avoid going through the 4 stages before this one to get to acceptance, but you can accelerate the process by recognizing the stages, and preparing yourself for, and pushing yourself on to, the next one.

Alcohol in Social Media Pics

I couldn’t disagree more with the suggestion that posting pics of yourself with alcohol on your LinkedIn profile is okay.  Maybe on Facebook, if it is rare, but never, never on LinkedIn. To do so brings into question your judgment, as well as the concern of a hiring manager who doesn’t want to be criticized for hiring someone. Most hiring managers like safe harbors, where they can’t be second-guessed for a hire they have made. If the hired employee wrecks a rental car his first month on the job, and someone sees the beer bottles lined up for a background image on his linkedin profile, that will reflect poorly on the hiring manager. If there is more than one viable candidate (and there always is), then why would any hiring manager take the risk?

Beer Drinking

Posting a Picture of You Drinking a Beer No Longer Hurts Your Career, But This Could

The rest of the article I agree with, and would strongly caution against social media comments or “likes” that you might consider joking or sharing, but still touch on any of these subjects:

  • Anything that could be considered bigoted
  • Anything that could be considered illegal
  • Anything that appears abusive of drugs
  • Anything that appears derogatory of a former employer

Also limit your daytime social media activity.

On the positive side, illustrate your community involvement and volunteering with social media posts.