Tarzan the Career Coach

For anyone who has ever helped someone in transition or been in transition  you know one of the first things to do is forget about the circumstances that lead to the transition and focus on the future.  The sooner a person can do that the more productive their job search will become.  However, this is easier said than done.  I was helping an executive deal with this recently, and as I was searching for another way to tell them they needed to move on I thought of something I used to do as a kid.

A leadership pipeline is no pipe dream

Alaska is a big State!  How big, well the State of Texas can fit five times inside the State of Alaska.  Sorry Texans if I bruised your ego but the facts are the facts. 

In 1968, oil (an estimated 9 billion barrels) was discovered in Prudhoe Bay just north of the Artic Circle.  To use that oil it had to be transported across the wilderness and it was determined the best way to do that was through a pipeline.  In 1977, the pipeline was completed and stretched 800 miles, and cost $8 billion to build.  In addition, to the pipeline itself, 360 miles of roadway and small camps or cities were built to support construction and service the pipeline.  The pipeline was designed and constructed to survive the weather and earthquakes.  This pipeline moves valuable natural resources. 

The selection and development of executive talent is often referred to as a Leadership Pipeline.  In no way, does a Leadership Pipeline physically resemble the Alaska Pipeline.  However, there is a comparison worth noting.

Now is the time to get your house in order

If you ever sold your house, condominium, townhouse or just plain moved from your apartment you know getting your stuff together is no easy task.  You discover things you forgot you had.  We all accumulate more than we need and we have trouble letting go. 

When it comes to job search, there are areas where we have accumulated more than we need and it is time to get our house in order.  Those areas include social networking sites (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.), personal and professional references, and background checks.

Take expert resume advice with a grain of salt

I am in the business of giving job search advice.  However, I try not to be too authoritarian in my recommendations thus, implying you have to do it my way or the highway.  Some would consider my opinion as expert advice.  I humbly like to think of it as the voice of experience.  I have been a student and practitioner of career search for a long time.  Whether my suggestions are tried and true, at least they have been tried. 

One area of job search where people need a lot of advice is preparing a resume and no two resumes are alike.  There are basic ingredients that all resumes must have.  The difference is how you combine a pinch of this and that, and whether you add other ingredients.  You cannot get too carried away because it still must pass the taste test.    

As a resume chef, I work with the basic ingredients but will occasionally add other ingredients as appropriate.  One of those ingredients is an Objective.  Other resume chefs believe this ingredient is:

"Point blank, bad form, self-serving and will get you nowhere in this job market.  Instead of telling the employer what you want, show them what you can do."

This statement sets my chef"s hat on fire.  I believe an Objective is appropriate and helpful in certain instances.  For example, college students or people seeking entry level positions.  For many college students they struggle with job search because they do not know what they want to do.  On the other hand, if they do know they are uncertain what jobs to pursue.  An Objective forces them to seriously consider their career objective and target their job search to positions that match their interest.  To be effective the Objective should state a specific position or career path.  Can this be accomplished without putting it on their resume?  Certainly, however, to say it is bad form, self-serving and will get you nowhere is just...not Iron Chef material.  A resume is supposed to be self-serving.  Take expert advice, including mine with a grain of salt.

Is charisma a strength or a weakness?

Is charisma a strength or a weakness?  Before you say yes or no or yes and no, let me or rather Wikipedia define charisma.  Charisma is a trait found in people whose personalities are characterized by personal charm, magnetism, and innate and powerful ability to communicate and persuade.  Okay, that said is charisma a strength or a weakness.

I came across an article published in Fortune, written by Jim Collins, titled "The 10 Greatest CEOs of All Time."  In the article, Collins listed Sam Walton, founder of Walmart, in the top 10, with the sub-text, "overcame his charisma."

Regardless, how you feel about Wal-Mart, it is undeniable what they have accomplished as an organization.  What most do not realize is the majority of what has been accomplished came after their charismatic leader passed away in 1992.  Just that alone is amazing as many organizations die when their charismatic leader dies.  However, what has been accomplished is even more remarkable given it is the result of two decisions Sam Walton made before he passed away.  One, he set a goal for the company to achieve $125 billion in sales by 2000 up from the then $30 billion.  Remember this goal would be achieved posthumously.  Second, he selected a successor who could not spell charisma or find it if it were written on a door.

Sam Walton recognized his personality was a strength and weakness.  He determined that strong personality should not rule the day.  It was the big idea that was important not the big personality.  Easy for him to say because he was the one driving the company the real test would be the uncharismatic successor.  Apparently, Sam was right his successor blew past the $125 billion goal in 2000 and kept going to where in 2009 sales exceeded $400 billion.

I was once asked on an interview if I was a charismatic leader.  I fumbled with my answer, which is a dead giveaway because a true charismatic would have no problem saying absolutely.  However, I think if I were asked it today, I would say no and it has not stopped me from having big ideas and delivering big results.

It is you and it's not meant to be

"It's not you.  It's not me.  It's just not meant to be" is the title of a post on RecruitingBlogs.com by Jose Ruiz, a Principal at Heidrick & Struggles' Monterrey, California office.  Contrary to the title, it is not a segment on Dr. Phil but it could be.

Jose offers insight into corporate hiring trends resulting from the realities of today's marketplace.  In the past companies defined job qualifications and considered candidates on a broad spectrum.  Well, that is changing as companies will consider candidates on a much narrow spectrum.  The bottom line is they will search for talent that has been there and done that. 

What implications does this trend have on the job seeker and the employer?  Will it result in more frustration for the job seeker, what about the employer? 

For the job seeker, it may mean more or less frustration depending where you fall on the scale.  It may mean fewer opportunities, take longer to land a position and require relocation, etc.  However, I don't believe this trend will last. 

If it does, an employer will lose the war for talent.  Why, because identifying and attracting qualified candidates has always been challenging and this trend will only add to the challenge.  How, the pool of talent was never full and this will dry it up even more.  As a result, positions will remain vacant longer putting more pressure on the short-term.  Assuming a qualified candidate is identified; attracting them will be more difficult.  Who wants a position where they have been there and done that? 

I think this trend is doomed and employers will learn quickly that "It is them and it's not meant to be."  Agree?  Disagree?

Application Purgatory

What do you think is the most frustrating aspect of job search? I believe not knowing the status of your application. I call it application purgatory.

In my opinion, very few employers do a good job of staying in touch with applicants. Oh sure, they may provide a computer generated response letting the candidate know they received their application. That is good but what happens after that. Your guess is as good as mine is. For not often does the applicant know the process and timeframe of next steps, and even if they do, it is seldom adhered.

What is the right amount of time to spend in application purgatory before you start wondering am I being considered or have I been rejected. When I was with the federal government, they did a study and learned that 80 days was as long as a candidate would tolerate. In the private sector, I believe people give up long before that.

Why don't employers frequently update their candidates on their status? Is it because they are overwhelmed with applicants and do not have the staff to communicate to candidates. Or don't they think it is necessary? Is this any way to treat a customer? After all, isn't an applicant a customer?