Your EQ plays a role in job hunting

Ever wondered how some individuals effortlessly glide through the job market and their careers, while others bang their heads hopelessly as they attempt to navigate the employment maze? It could have something to do with the individual’s EQ.

I initially encountered EQ (emotional quotient) while completing a Masters. At the time, I didn’t instantly connect the correlation between one’s EQ and the ability to navigate the job market.

Emotional intelligence amounts to one’s  ability to read and understand others and then react appropriately. Some experts claim one’s EQ is more important than IQ. (A strong case can be made for that as well.) Dr. Travis Bradberry, president of TalentSmart, wrote an article on the topic.

To offer a simplified interpretation, there are several subsets to one’s EQ (self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy and social skills). These categories address one’s emotional competencies, such as the ability to recognize one’s sense of self-worth, control impulses, adapt to changing situations, strive for excellence, anticipate the needs of others, persuade others effectively and so on.

What characteristics do high EQ achievers emulate that others do not? Dr, Bradberry identifies 13 behavioral issues high EQ holders consciously avoid. I have borrowed 12 of them to illustrate how these behaviors manifest themselves as a job seeker enters the marketplace.

·        High EQs do not stay in their comfort zone.

As creatures of habit, the less successful job seekers strive hard to stay within their comfort zone. They resist pushing themselves or perfecting their self-awareness. In doing so, they inadvertently remain in a mental box, which in turn limits their potential to achieve greater things or accomplish higher career goals.

·        High EQs do not give in to fear.

I could write a doctoral thesis on this topic. Interview a few thousand job seekers and you’ll uncover volumes of irrational fears. Limited space does not permit covering them all, but from a job perspective, the top ones include fearing their shortcomings and lies will be exposed (probably shouldn’t have lied in the first place), and the fear of participating in live job interviews.

Irrational fear as an entity qualifies as a mental illness. But even in lesser forms, fear tends to be overpowering. The convoluted things people perform out of fear boggling rational minds. To illustrate, I’ve actually encountered job seekers who wanted to respond to blind ads while conducting their job searches en cognition—as in they didn’t want employers to know who they were or be able to find them. It’s hard to imagine getting more fearful than that.

·        High EQs do not stop believing in themselves. 

I’ve yet to encounter a single successful job seeker who stopped believing in himself or his abilities. That’s because they endeavor to persevere even in the face of poor odds and temporary setbacks. They use failures as learning opportunities.

The flip side presents a different scenario. For individuals with low EQs, even a small career setback constitutes grounds for giving up. They will often listen to like-minded naysayers who advise them to proceed cautiously or predict imaginary gloom and doom.

·        High EQs do not pander for attention.

Those who beg or pander for attention are usually in search of their self-identity and lack self-esteem. The high EQ individuals do not search for ego boosts.

·        High EQs do not act like jerks.

Jerks are insecure to a fault, and act out accordingly. High EQ people value their relationships and treat others fairly regardless of their mood.

·        High EQs do not hold grudges.

The higher one’s stress levels, the more inclined the individual will cling to a grudge. Stress—by itself—wreaks havoc with one’s immune system and is a known contributor to high blood pressure and heart disease. Holding onto grudges ensures continued elevated stress. The grudge turns into a psychological anchor: As such, the job seeker cannot move forward. Those with high EQs avoid this.

·        High EQs avoid associating with negative people.

Negative individuals wallow in their own misery and tenaciously share their misery with others. They focus solely on their problems but avoid solutions.

High EQ individuals avoid getting sucked into this negative emotional spiral by setting limits and distancing themselves from negative people.

·        High EQs do not feel sorry for themselves.

Probably the easiest thing to do is feel sorry for oneself. With only the slightest effort, it migrates into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once that becomes engrained into the psyche, the individual gets to declare himself a helpless victim. (We’re all supposed to feel sorry for helpless victims—right! I wonder if that includes self-inflicted injuries as well?)

·        High EQs do not feel entitled.

If you believe in meritocracy, you only deserve those things you’ve earned. Those with low EQs believe they are being cheated whenever they don’t receive their fair share even when they haven’t exerted the effort to earned it. True success is something one earns—it is not something one is entitle to by default.

·        High EQs do not close their minds.

Those who feel threatened often resort to closing their minds. New information, as well as the opinions of others, get blocked out or ignored. Maintaining a closed mind actually requires a concerted effort, which infers a lot of wasted time gets invested in preserving one’s ignorance. An individual with a low EQ is never wrong, or at the very least will never admit to it. When failure is never admitted, there’s nothing to change.

High EQ individuals are not threatened by progress, new ideas or information. They will admit to self-ignorance and when they’ve been wrong. They see themselves as work-in-progress and improve as they go.

·        High EQs are not consumed by jealousy and envy.

Jealousy and envy are two wasted emotions that are difficult to disguise. These emotions manifest themselves in many ways. Skilled job interviewers can easily penetrate a job seeker’s flimsy façade with a series of simple, “How do you feel about … (this or that)” probing questions.

Those with high EQs have no difficulty celebrating the success of others, and that’s the way it comes across during job interviews.

·        High EQs do not live in the past.

Having written résumés for thousands, I have encountered a fair share of those job seekers living in the past. No amount of sage advice or magic words will jolt them into today’s employment reality. Fearing failure—often the result of never taking risks—they mentally reside in the past as if it were a sacred duty or perhaps buried treasure.

The secret, of course, amounts to living in the present. Accept those things one cannot change. Change those things that will help you move forward. Naturally, it helps if you can figure out the difference.

Copyrighted © 2016 by Robert James

Spotting Outdated Jobseekers

If you are one of those prone to reminiscing and start telling an employer about your best bygone years, you may be driving a nail in your job-prospecting coffin. Jobseekers need to evolve or risk perishing like analogue (outdated) technology.

Recently, a plethora of résumés arrived from jobseekers requesting reviews and suggestions on what could be done to improve their job-hunting prospects. Half projected a Rip Van Winkle image. Several of their job histories stretched back into the 1980s.

When I suggested that there was no need to delve into outdated history, several exploded with anger and dumbfounded bewilderment. The common response followed this line of rationale: “I was told employers want to know about all my experience,” or “If I leave anything out, isn’t that being deceptive?”

Whenever you are invited to a job interview, you have already met or exceeded the basic criteria for holding the position. Now it becomes a matter of second-tier elimination. This is where the jobseeker proceeds to eliminate him/herself.

Most jobseekers, however, never reach this stage in the selection process. They eliminated themselves during the first-tier screening process. Where did they shoot themselves in the foot? When they attempted to market outdated experience.

Depending upon the position and prerequisites, and amount of employment history to include depends greatly upon what’s relevant to the here and now. Beyond a certain point, the average employer becomes increasingly less interested.

For example, if the average employment opportunity requires five- or perhaps eight-years’ of experience and you attempt to cram 20 or 25 years down their throat—it won’t work.

Now we come to what most employers deem as their rule of thumb. Whenever an employer announces they are seeking to fill a position that requires a specific amount of experience, piling on additional years often proves counterproductive. Solution: Give them what they need and want to know.  

Once you overreach and send an employer too much information, it might as well serve as your obituary or epitaph. Naturally, there are always exceptions. These usually involve organizations that have paid committees to screen applicants.

The academic communities are idiosyncratic for exhaustive details, followed closely by the medical community. The government, however, prefers shorter résumés, but often include lengthy applications. Applications however, rarely reach most interviewers’ desk.

The rest of the real world is on a quick-time schedule. If the individuals reading the résumé are not being paid extra to scrutinize and digest the information you provide, they are not interested in wasting their time. For those markets, brevity and conciseness carry the day.

Copyrighted © 2015 by Robert James.

Real Time Job Hunting

On the small scale, some things go unnoticed: On the large scale, they become obvious. Take for example the employment screening process. It occurs in real time. For many jobseekers, they often gloss over or perhaps ignore this big picture reality.

Employers move through the screening process faster than greased lightning. The windows of opportunity can open and close within a matter of days. Those who are slow leaving the starting gate are often left choking on the dust of others. In their hesitation, the com­petition beats their action and snatches their interviewing opportunities.

Recently, a jobseeker contacted me. The individual informed me his company would be posting a desired opening for a director’s position in another state. He approached his mentor—the Divisional President—for advice.

The Divisional President informed him as to what he needed to do and laid out a strategy. She told him the position would be publicly posted on a Monday. She informed him he needed to have his résumé and presentation ready by the close of the business day on Wednesday. She cautioned him not to procrastinate.

To prepare him mentally, she mentioned that the company anticipated 1,000 applicants. She had previously participated in other screening and hiring situations involving similar positions.

Most jobseekers do not have this insider advantage. Opportunities are usually applied for from the sidelines. The individual spots what appears to be an ideal position and then scrambles to assemble a résumé. The longer it takes to respond, the greater the chances those positions will be filled by those on top of their game.

Successful companies operate in real time. The employment and screening process is rarely an exception. When a company needs to fill an important opening, the company will not shut down its operation to accommodate those slow to respond. Ain’t gonna happen!

Now, let us conduct a reality check. Rather than place yourself in the jobseeker’s role, assume you are responsible for expediting the screening and hiring process. Your job performance will be predicated on your ability to get the job done—plain and simple.

Let us further suppose the opening is an attractive position with a competitive salary and benefits. You anticipate a minimum of 500 applicants. Before announcing the opening, you set down basic requirements and desired experience. You create a separate email to accom­modate the anticipated responses. Here are some reality questions:

1.      Are you going to interview all applications? (Absolutely not!)

2.      Are you going to read all 500 résumés? (Hell no!)

3.      Are you going to wait until all the résumés trickle in before you begin the interviewing process? (No way!)

4.      Once you have identified the three most qualified candidates, will you extend the job search to accommodate those slow to respond? (Just kidding, of course you won’t.)

5.      Are you going to read enough résumés to select between five and eight seemingly qualified candidates to interview? (Most likely.)

In the corporate world, time is money. Lose sight of that reality—you usually come up short.  

Copyrighted © 2014 by Robert James

Employers Seventh Sense

Most humans come with five built-in apps (smell, touch, taste, sight and hearing). The sixth sense deals with one’s sense of balance. There is, however, one more sense we tend to ignore—the seventh sense.

This sense goes by various nomenclatures, such as one’s gut feeling or instinct, perception, hunch, psyche, mother wit, and judgment. Whatever term you favor, this primal instinct will impact the executive-level interviewing decisions.

We do things on multiple levels, some of which may not be in our best interest. These account for many get themselves into interviewing trouble. Some candidates proceed down an illogical path, relying heavily on lying, dumb luck or happenstance.

In the real business world, serious employers do not rely on the dumb-luck method. Those that do, get themselves in difficulty. They encounter high management turnover, a disgruntled workforce, low morale and/or low productivity, and other oh-shit situations.

To avoid these pejoratives, most employers take extraor­dinary precautions. The prescreening process eliminates those with obvious defects. Even those who may be qualified receive the fast shuffle due to quirky behaviors or unintentional faux pas.

Without belaboring the list of interviewing abnormalities, employers continue to rely on their seventh sense in making final hiring decisions—especially for upper management. They refer to this as judgment calls. The hiring team relies on their collective instincts in reaching a decision.

One way to explain the process is to approach the situation from the employer’s perspective. Let us arbitrarily begin with an executive position paying $250,000 or thereabouts. As someone on the final decision making team, you have to reach closure. The process has come down to three finalists.

All the candidates are qualified in terms of experience, education and likeability. All passed background checks. Once each individual’s tangible skillsets have been assessed and evaluated, what will you call upon to make your final decision? Which candidate will receive your acquiescence?

Inevitably, your decision comes down to the individual who was the most candid, straight­forward and sincere. How does one assess those traits? Will you listen to your instincts? Keep in mind, lest you risk having your own judgment drawn into question, wasting a quarter mill could come with repercussions.

Those who conduct interviews for serious positions do not like being played. The slightest hint an executive candidate might be attempting to pull a fast one, usually backfires.

Classic example: You casually ask each candidate, “Oh, by the way, who prepared your résumé?”

Your seventh sense kicks in when two of the candidates lean forward, look you squarely in the eye and says, “I did. Why do you ask?”

Copyrighted © 2014 by Robert James.

Changing Employment

Changing one’s employment can be worse than buying changing technology: You think you know what you are getting into, but more often than not—you don’t. The box may arrive without instructions.

Before Amazon’s Fire phone hit the market, I preordered one. The phone is not like anything Alexander Bell envisioned, any more than what folks think job hunting and résumés should be.

The younger generation comes with built-in apps, while the retrofit crowd searches for instructions. The new Fire phone has more technology than anyone can use. And wouldn't you know it, the technology arrives with minimal instructions. You are expected to figure things out on the fly.

The same applies to job hunting. The moment you open the job-search box, you discover there are minimal instructions. You are expected to hit the ground at virtual operating speed, as well as if you came equipped with a Firefly button.

When it comes to changing employment—especially for those who have enjoyed a prolonged job-hunting hiatus—the evolutions that have transpired will astound you. The following are a few innovations that have occurred in less than five years.

1.      Employment screening is done paperless, online. (If your résumé/vita presen­tation is not 100% Internet friendly, you’re in trouble.)

2.      Résumé/vita must be relevant and concise. (Off-topic page fillers are viewed as time-consuming worthless apps.)

3.      Time as you once thought it to be has collapsed. (The employment process is becoming a virtual process and employers do not have time to study your message. Ergo, the message has to connect on first read.)

4.      Selected candidates are based on fit, qualifications and liking. (Come up short in one of those categories, and you will be passed over.)

5.      Vetting is done electronically. (If serious red flags in your background exist, they will be discovered. Interviewers no longer take your word for things.)

6.      Video interviewing has become commonplace. (Be prepared to respond on short notice.)

7.      Your next position of substance will be most likely appear on LinkedIn—not the news­paper. (If LinkedIn is not part of your strategy, you are not where the action is.)

In days of old, job hunting was about as easy as operating a pushbutton phone. Show up on time, present an acceptable image and a smooth line of blarney, and your odds were rela­tively decent. Today, those methods amount to growing cobwebs waiting for the landline to ring.

Not only will you be required to jump through interviewing hoops, you will be required to demonstrate a with-it-ness résumé image, a knowledge of the company, and an enthusiastic desire for the posi­tion. Show up with less, and your efforts are as good as outdated technology.

Copyrighted © 2014 by Robert James

Understanding Globalization

A class-B movie actor occupied the Oval Office. Unlike most politicians in 1984, he knew how to follow a teleprompter. For the want of a better description, the mosaic of the times appeared healthy. Terms like global economy and globalization began cropping up in conversation. We bantered those terms as if we comprehend what their meaning, but few among us grasp the long-term significance.

If you are required to earning a living—as opposed to being idly rich or gainfully self-actualized—what global corporations do affects you—the spectator.

Think of the globe as one horrendously huge three-dimensional chessboard with nine Kings scattered about. Each King represents one of the eight industrialized nations, plus China. These Kingdoms collectively control more than 60% of the world economy and 100% if you live within their jurisdictions.

Unlike a conventional chessboard, each industrialized Kingdom is not pared with a matching Queen, as there is but one. We will refer this Queen as the International Monetary Fund (or IMF). The Queen works with all the various Kingdoms. All the other pieces and pawns on the board closely monitor where the IMF positions herself on economic issues.

The other major pieces (Rooks, Bishops and Knights) represent trade, capital, resources and investments. To avoid being outmaneuvered by the Queen, those pieces form alliances of convenience. While individually they do not have the power held by the Queen, a strong alliance among the lessor pieces can influence the Queen’s maneuverability.

As for the pawns, those are multinational companies striving to move forward. The more trade, capital, resources and investments they control, the more influence they have on how the game progresses. Their goal is to promote themselves into a major piece—thereby becoming too large to fail—and some cases even too large to prosecute.

Once a multinational industry amasses enough assets, they qualify to run the Kingdom’s pieces-parts. From this position, they influence legislation, write self-serving laws, decides who gets elected, and how the the kingdom is administrated. Not even a duly elected official can override that amount of power, money and influence.

Before participating in this convoluted game of chess, the corporation has to control large amounts of trade, capital, resources and investments. The slightest hint that the participant might upset other pieces on the board, and the others will neutralize the situation.

This accounts for why you observe very few mavericks holding public office. While there are occasionally exceptions, for the most part, the real players stay out of the limelight. Should those under their control attract too much attention, the pieces can be discretely replaced.

Mitt Romney desperately desired to be the front man for multinational corporate interests. Unlike Ronald Reagan who could stay on scripted message, Romney could not. His habitual verbal missteps brought too much attention on himself, which eventually did him in.

In the end, the global community got want it wanted—a non-interfering government tied up in administrative gridlock. The average Joe Spectator’s economy may be stumbles along, but corporate profits and their subsidies soar. A comprehensive jobs bill might improve things at the bottom, however, it is not on the global agenda. If it were, things would be otherwise.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

What Gets Read

There is a disconnect when it comes to what gets read versus what gets looked at in résumés. Résumés amount to flash ads for a commodity. Think of yourself as the commodity, and your résumé as the ad portion for that commodity.

 Let’s say a well-known company announces an opening. Okay, the employer probably has dozens of openings. Depending upon its reputation and locations, résumés pour in—sometimes several hundred in a day.

Most jobseekers assume their résumé will be read: In reality, that’s not the case. Only a handful gets that far. The others are glanced at. The résumés that arrive after the selection process starts often get discarded.

The résumé ads receiving attention are the ones that satisfied five overriding conditions. The process takes 7 to 11 seconds per résumé. The conditions most often considered are:

1.      Location: Where is the applicant from? If you are more than a 45-minute commute, and the position is non-management, chances run high the screener stops there. If the opening involves a management position, this carries less weight, but can be important, as a cost-to-interview decision needs to be made. Even at the executive level, where one lives carries consideration. (This portion takes between 1 and 2 seconds.)

2.      Appearance: The instant the reviewer determines a résumé is going to be tedious or difficult to read, those get passed over. This is especially the case whenever the reviewer has identified four or five decent candidates already. (This process occurs in 2 to 3 seconds.)

3.      Experience: Do the companies and positions held by applicant appear relevant? Too many employers and/or short periods of employment also constitute red flags. Also, there is no point in reading a programmer’s résumé when you are looking for an IT manager? The screener need scan no further. (This process takes between 3 and 4 seconds.)

4.      Education: Once the reader gets past the first three items, this is where most screeners stop cold. If the position requires specific educational level, or collegiate pedigrees and the résumé fails to contain that information, the process ends. (This takes 1 or 2 seconds.) Add up the seconds and you have the average 7-to-11 scan rate.

5.      Gut reaction: Candidates who receive acceptable nods on the first four conditions, still encounter gut instinct. The screener has not actually read the details, but rather glanced at it in 7-to-11 seconds. If the reviewer’s gut says the candidate appears qualified, the résumé gets placed in the small, to-be-read or reviewed pile.

Many large employers use automated AI screening software. It can be programmed to perform the same operations in steps one-through-four. While this speeds up the screening process, it leaves much to be desired. Software glitches abound, and are void of human instinct.

Trust me on this: Most résumés do not get read. In half the cases, the reading portion does not occur until the day of the interview. If you are receiving invitations to interview, invest your time honing your interviewing skills. You may assume your résumé ad is working.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

Is Anyone Listening?

As you grow older, one of your greatest fears will be that no one is listening. Trust me on this one. Chances run high you’ll repeat yourself more than once. Most of the time, it is of small consequence. In job interviewing, repeating yourself can be a fatal faux pas.

We could chalk it up to bad TV commercials. After all, who listens to those anyway? In most cases, the background noise helps drown out the message. (I say, blessed are those who invented the mute button.)

There are various listening disorders. They come in all sizes, flavors and smells. There are passive listeners—they are the ones who politely head nod, but don’t hear a damn word you said. Then, there are selective listeners—the ones who hear what they want. Others qualify as incidental listeners: They listen as long as you’re saying something interesting. Start rambling, and they change the channel.

Most company interviewers fall somewhere between selective and incidental listeners. They tend to focus on responses they think they want to hear, and start losing interest when you recite scenarios they’ve already heard countless times.

Even when you consciously avoid rambling, if you recite commonly regurgitated responses that qualifies as repeating yourself. In other words, when five previous job candidates recite shop-worn responses and you show up spouting ditto, your voice may sound different but your words smell the same.

Experienced résumé writers routinely hear repetitive responses. In the beginning, everyone’s responses appear sincere and unique. Over time, say after four or five hundred interviewers, I consider myself (and the client) lucky if the individual tells me anything I haven’t heard a hundred times before.

Not unlike visiting a psychologist, résumé writers are paid to listen. We are on an informational gathering mission to solve or address a client’s dilemma. Thus, a person paid to listen tends to be more attentive than passive or selective listeners.

The process—that is to say listening to gather usable info—carries psychological overtones. Is what the jobseeker saying, fiction or fact? Are they attempting to blow smoke or placate the listener? Hear the same answer too often and interviewers conclude the job candidate is brain-dead.

While most jobseekers strive to be sincere and candid, more often than not, they are unaware of how others have responded to identical inquiries. They are unaware that those who interview hundreds (and possibly thousands), are not easily persuaded by spewing forth what others recite.

Whatever the cause, we have lost the art of listening. Since then, we are more into tuning out, than tuning in. When it comes to job interviewing, no one is listening unless paid to do so. Even then, the listener (or interviewer) wants to hear something fresh, exciting and interesting.  

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

Action Speaks Loudest

We could chalk the whole notion of achieving job-changing success to good or bad fortune, or perhaps free will versus predestination, but those constitute a reach. The down and dirty reality is that humans are creatures of behaviors. The bad job-hunting and interviewing habits are not conducive to achieving employment success.

Most people believe that bad habits are limited to over indulgence (eating, smoking, and drinking). Those, however—unless habitual—usually have a marginal impact. It is the actionable and passive behaviors that directly impact job-hunting effectiveness.

The most observed behaviors amount to glaring dichotomies. Two that stand out are those who are well organized versus those who pursue a job search haphazardly, and those who are proactive versus those who are passive-aggressive.

Recently, I encountered such a dichotomy. One was George and the other was Tim. Both had nearly identical degrees, both are in their forties, and both were unemployed white males due to similar circumstances. Beyond these, there are no other similarities.

George appeared well organized, and his résumé went together in about the same time it takes to make a loaf of bread. Tim, not so such: His project has turned into a piecemeal affair and we are still waiting for the dough to rise.

George hit the ground running, and secured a new position in record time (two weeks). Tim isn’t exactly sure what it is he wants to do yet, or when he will get around to making that decision. In fact, finding new employment appears to be a low priority.

George had an action plan well before he walked into my office—replete with a list of names and employers he planned to contact. Tim has yet to articulate a game plan. (His unemployment benefits have not yet expired, which may account for his lack of urgency.)

While no two individuals will conduct an identical job search, behavioral dichotomies appear glaring. Awhile back, I had a similar encounter with two mechanical engineers. Their profiles were astonishingly similar right down to simultaneously applying to the same companies and having back-to-back job interviews.

In that situation, the glaring dichotomy came down to their interviewing skills. One was well prepared, while the other was not. One exhibited proactive interest in conducting employer research, while the other promised to do the same, but never got around to it. Guess what! The interviewer observed the difference.

We could scramble a list of opposites together: focused versus unfocused, fearless versus overly cautious, outgoing versus timid, and so on. Somewhere withing the array of behaviors, you'll discover that your actions (or lack thereof) speaks louder than your shallow promises.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

Running the Job Market Gauntlet

“I have met the enemy and it is us.” –Pogo

Keeping pace with usable job seeking information poses a challenge. Never have so few had so much information and so little time to grasp the learning curve. We are drowning in data and statistics.

In olden days, the process proved to be straightforward. A company announced an opening, usually under help-wanted. You mailed your résumé to Personnel. If you met the preliminary requirements, you stood decent odds you could fumble your way through the interview.

Today, you need the interviewing dexterity of an ingenuous octopus. Even under optimal circumstances, the process gravitates toward navigating a convoluted maze of obstacles and hazards.

Then, there is the exasperating (anal) paperwork:  With some positions, the procedure is so exhaustive; it sucks oxygen out of a room. (The fields of education and nursing rank among the highest.)

Once an initial screening process commences, a candidate’s background, experience and finances can be scrutinized down to the minutia. Everything from driving record, credit reports, references, educational verification, court documents, medical records, LinkedIn and Facebook accounts can be examined ad nauseam.

Let the position involve a modicum of confidentiality, trust or integrated skills, and you'll think you are being prepped for invasive surgery. You can expect a battery of trick-and-trap, behavioral and psychoanalytic questions that would cause a shrink to blush.

Walk into an interview unprepared, and expect coming out as bloody as if you had gone five rounds with Joe Frasier or George Foreman. Naturally, everything you need to know is available online: All you have to do is be sure you known as much about the next employer as the interviewer.

That, however, is a given. Job-hunting crusades are nothing short of a mentally challenging, time consuming, and physically demanding undertaking. Ever wonder why Cousin Joey and brother Mackie can’t land decent employment? Chances run high they were unable to maneuver the job market gauntlet.

Once unemployment benefits expire, the individual has committed job-hunting hari-kari. Now the job search boarders on chasing fairy dust. When all else fails—look within, for there you’ll find your worst enemy.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

The Dirty Secret

Employers occasionally share dirty little hiring secrets with me. This one may not qualify as little, as much as an oh-shit secret.
         From time to time, I've brought this secret up. Occasionally, it bears repeating. The biggest dirty secret is that hiring executive hate reading résumés. ... Really. They roll their eyes just thinking about it!

The degrees of disdain vary depending on how many they have to cull through. A dozen each month—not so much. Let that swell to hundreds, and tolerance levels dwindle proportionately. At the upper range, executives develop selective reading prejudices.

What does that mean for John Q Jobseeker hoping to garner an interview? It means that the home-crafted résumé you emailed is not necessarily the one received. The résumé gets scan read and mentally filtered. Hence, a selective read.

Here is a reoccurring scenario: Twenty-five emailed résumés arrive. Rather than scrutinize each on arrival, busy employers allow them to accumulate. The moment they have a break, they take a deep breath, self-vow to keep an open mind, and then proceed to plow through them—close to Roadrunner speed—minus the humor element.

After the first few, the pace quickens. As valuable time elapses, the procedure morphs into page glancing. Foggy details get brushed aside while the reader scans for any relevant experience, job titles and education.

The reader’s mind glazes over. In what amounts to a snapping of the fingers, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. ·        A “busy” or “cluttered” résumé is perceived as someone unorganized.
2. ·        A lengthy résumé gets processed as a jobseeker full of oneself.
3. ·        A vague résumé is flagged as a jobseeker that has something serious to hide.
4. ·        A résumé reading like a job application is tagged do-you-have-a-job-for-me.
5. ·        An overly fancy, razzle-dazzle résumé is judged a class-A bull-shitter.
6. ·        An overly detailed résumé is interrupted as tedious, pedantic or anal.
7. ·        An error-ridden résumé is tagged as a careless and unqualified applicant.

          From the jobseekers' perspective, this may appear hard, cold and uncaring. From the busy executive's perspective, it is an unwelcomed, time-consuming, mind-numbing chore. The concise and easy get plucked for later review.      A qualified résumé writer avoids these classic pitfalls. Everyone else needs to rely on Tarot cards, outdated résumé books, winning the lottery, or their Aunt Bea’s HR connections. That, however, is no dirty little secret.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

Reinventing Job Candidates

So Rudy said to his plumber, "You charge more than my dentist."
His plumber replied, "That's the reason I gave up dentistry."

Upon entering the job market, potential candidates are often encouraged to reinvent themselves. Such makeovers often involve becoming more proactive, flexible and/or diversified. Some resort to learning new disciplines such as computer skills or a foreign language—all done in a quest to become a new you.

Employers become giddy when confronted with job candidates who appear tailor-made for the position. To entice the unwilling, they often paint a rosier-than-heaven image of themselves. That seductive imagery lures many to apply.

The transition from being yourself into something other than what you used to be imposes a formidable challenge--especially for those in their mid-forties and beyond. The emotional stress alone can cause one to hit the pause button.

For those gainfully employed, a proactive job search is not a discipline performed on a daily basis. Thus, the learning curve alone presents a looming and foreboding nightmare.

There exists a plethora of books, articles, workshops and seminars designed to help you make the transitional metamorphous. Each service promises to make you more appealing to prospec­tive employers. A few of those services are legit—others not so much.

The problem confronting employers is that the most qualified may not be looking to change partners. Prying ideal candidates away from whatever they are doing is a never-ending, time-consuming mission. When employers get frustrated or desperate, they call upon a recruitment agency--hoping they can fix a problem the employer cannot.

While highly qualified individuals exist, most are often reluctant to venture into unknown territory. One of the overriding factors for not entering the job market comes down to staying with the devil they know versus the devil they don’t know. Hence, only when the position becomes intolerable or disappears do they surface.

The balance of jobseekers undertake extraordinary efforts to camouflage their short­comings and deficiencies. Likewise, employment services (aka: headhunters, body snatchers and flesh peddlers) commonly resort to retooling a candidate’s résumé in an effort to tailor match pseudo or quasi candidates in exchange for a fat commission.

Best advice for jobseekers comes from a line in Shakespeare's Hamlet: "To thine own self be true." Reinventing yourself to placate others--even employers and recruiters, rarely works in the long haul. Either do what you love, or love what you do.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

No Guts Gambling

         Surely you've heard (or perhaps used) the expression No Guts: No Glory. Gentlemen sitting about the poker table often recite this ditty when gambling on hitting an inside straight. That same retort applies to employment gambling.

Finding suitable employment is a lot like trying to draw on an inside straight. The game books caution you not to do it, but what the hell—we do it anyway.

I have a client who was about to make such a longshot bet before he came to see me. He planned to leave a secure position (cut the deck), and place a wager before peeking at his hand. Is that gutsy, or what?

Every time we enter the job market, we are wagering a bet. Sometimes the odds are short, especially if you’ve been dealt a pat hand such as a full house or flush—as in the case where you are handed the family business on a silver platter. Usually, however, that is not the hand most jobseekers are dealt.

Also, if your position is secure and the benefits are adequate, you are not likely to gamble it away on a whim. You merely sit on the sidelines while others spend their money and emotional energies. On the other hand, seeking gainful employment is not a spectator sport. You have to have skin in the game, or you have a zero chance of winning new employment.

Should you desire to sit in on the action, you have to ante up. You have to either invest your time and energy or hire someone to draft your résumé. You have to either learn the game rules, or have someone show you the ropes. In either case, there is a time investment—either yours or someone else’s.

When the time arrives for you to sit down and place your bet (interview), you are either ready to gamble, or you are in the game with scared money. It is not prudent to play with scared money. The odds are simply too long, and the risk of losing what you have are too great.

Before making a no guts: no glory bet on new employment, it is recommended you have what is referred to as a come-to-Jesus moment. A few weeks back, I created a 25-question, self-evaluation sheet entitled: Do You Have An Employment Action Plan?

The questionnaire is designed to determine if you have enough skin in the game to risk making an employment bet. The winning odds start tipping in your favor when you score 68 out of 100 points. (Most of those taking the exercise have averaged in the low fifties.)

If you think you are up to enter the game, take the exercise by using the above link. The more issues you can resolve before you sit down to play, the better your odds. Go ahead, have some fun. Besides, this is a low-cost gamble, and requires only a few moments of your time.

Copyright © 2013 by Robert James

The Burning Question

How do employers know when you are blowing smoke in your résumé?

Don’t hold my feet to the fire on this, but allow me to hazard a guess as to how the résumé exaggeration process came about.

Back in the 1960s, long before most jobseekers were born, I worked for an employment agency. We did not refer to ourselves an employment agency, but that’s what the license on the backside of a door said. Except for staff rah-rah sessions, that door rarely closed.

We billed ourselves as “professional recruiters” and “talent scouts.” Legally, however, we were a state-licensed employment agency. The average jobseeker was none the wiser.

It was during one of those rah-rah, closed-door meetings, the topic of résumés arose. Out of all the traffic that wandered through, one jobseeker caught our alpha shark’s attention. The individual’s résumé, however, amounted to sheets of unreadable gibberish.

The assistant office manager volunteered to “spruce it up.” Though she had never met the jobseeker, she dashed into another room, sat down at an IBM Selectric Type­writer and retooled the individual’s résumé.

Her revamped version thrilled the alpha shark. He appeared giddy. With a few keystrokes, this average Joe jobseeker was transformed into a miracle worker with a fabricated work history of astonishing accomplishments. Our resident talent scout now had something to market, if nothing more than an employment illusion.

Within a month, we had a new department devoted solely to retooling résumés. The assistant office manager’s efforts worked so well, the agency promoted her! It did not take long before other talent scouts jumped on this bandwagon. The old expression, “turning sow’s ears into silk purses” regained popularity.

In jimmy-quick fashion, John Q. Public awoke to the chicanery. Most likely, the new onslaught of résumé books helped expedite the process. The new books came with supercharged vocabulary and other superlative buzzwords jobseekers were encouraged to infuse into their presentation.

You no longer “perform a specific task” –you transformed or orchestrated it. Over­night, Standard English grew into a lexicon of obfuscated terminology, pandering platitudes, and buzzword hysteria. Résumé hyperbole emerged as the new norm.

With this modicum of insight behind us, let us return to the question: How do employers know when you are blowing smoke in your résumé? Answer: When you start using 25-word sentences to state what should be said in 10 words or less.

The problem with unvarnished truth is that it tends to read dry and unexciting. To project a livelier image, today’s headhunters recommend you to jazz it up, so that the material sounds as if you can accomplish the impossible. In reality, agencies are solely interested in filling an opening where they can earn a fat placement commission.

Thus, instead of “Manage the Service Department with 18 employees,” they wanted you to, “Orchestrate the entire Service Department and all customer needs to ensure viable, high-quality and top-notch services are being met and exceeded, while inspiring staff personnel during periods of global flexuous demand cycles.”

Oops! Did something get lost in translation? Was there a nuance that slipped past me? Did the message become shrouded in hyperbole? Add a few superlatives to that 33-word sentence, and that would garbage comprehension even more!

Suppose you are recruiting to fill a position on your staff. You announce the opening. Within a week, you receive 20 résumés. (If this is a well-paying position with decent benefits, plan on 200 arriving.) Now imagine yourself plowing through endless pages of overcharged, heavily infused rhetoric. (I get exhausted just thinking about it.)

Is what you are reading true, or hype? Furthermore, if they are so damn marvelous, successful and otherwise fabulous, why are they in the job market? –Huh? (Trust me; employers ask themselves this question regularly.)

I shouldn't let this out, but here’s the secret. State much in few words. When it comes to an interview-generating résumé—less tends to be more.

Here is an example of blowing smoke chancery: A guy shows up needing a résumé to fill an in-house opening. He hands me his current version. Under education, which filled half a page, he listed every specialized training sessions, informational seminars, and individual courses taken at various facilities. The dates stretch into the 1990s.

In a three-second glance, I replied, “So, you don’t have a degree. Correct?”

He appeared taken aback. “You haven’t had time to read it yet.”

“Don’t have to. Anytime someone devotes that much space to education, it usually signals—no degree.” I avoided using blowing smoke, but there it was.

It’s challenging to write your own résumé without resorting to wishful thinking or pandering to popular hysteria. The trick is to write tight, remain focused and keep content relevant. Accomplish that and you have a done deal. Best of all, in these times of exaggerated amplification, the résumé will sound more believable.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

Link to website