September 25, 2008
Conflicting philosophies at work:  When is it time to leave?

Recently, a client asked me, “How does a person know when its time to leave a job?”  He was feeling out of alignment with some of the thinking and behaviors present in his current work environment, and he shared that he was struggling with not wanting to “settle” or compromise himself by working for an organization “just to stay employed.”  He was also concerned about the impact on his resume of leaving a job before completing two full years of employment.

My view of the situation is that the next steps depend on the magnitude of the differences that you perceive between yourself and the organization.  First, I always recommend looking at the legal ramifications.  When there are legal issues, that’s big, and it is usually clarifies one’s choices pretty quickly.  Often, though, that is not the case.  Unethical is not always illegal, and it is a more common dilemma that employees face. 

When looking at values, ethics, or philosophies, my view is that there is a continuum for each.  On one end, there is complete alignment with individual and organization—that’s bliss!  At the other end is a total disconnect—ouch!  It may be helpful to ask, “Where am I on that continuum, and how much stress is it causing me?”

I strongly recommend that you make a change if the degree of stress you are experiencing is enough to:

• Wake you up or keeping you awake at night
• Distract your focus from work responsibilities
•  Interrupt your enjoyment of family activities and personal time
• Produce frequent physical symptoms, e.g., headache, nausea, angina, anxiety, etc.

If the stress you are experiencing is not as severe as the above, I suggest that you consider making a change as a preventive measure.

When you are considering making a change, there are four options to reduce or eliminate your stress:

1.  Change the external situation that is causing your stress.  Take a stand or a risk if it feels appropriate to do so.
2. Change the internal situation that is causing your stress, i.e., change the way you are viewing the situation.  Find a fresh perspective or get greater altitude and view the situation from there.
3. Change yourself.  Perhaps you can release an attachment or get off a position?
4. Leave the situation.

I believe that each one of us has the ability to weigh each of these options and determine which is the best course of action.  We may look to certain members of our support system and our trusted colleagues to assist us in this examination in case we feel too close to it.  And, there are always qualified professionals available to provide us with reality testing to ensure that we have made a wise choice.

Regarding the “length of stay” issue, one “short stay” on a resume is not a red flag for most employers.  It becomes an issue only when there is a pattern of short stays, which can indicate a number of potential concerns with an employee.  Despite the trend in decreasing mutual loyalty between employers and employees, many organizations and individuals still think that working with one company for a long time is always a positive indicator of an employee’s character and value.  This of course is not the case, but you may have to deal with that perception and questions stemming from it.

As always, the best answer is be honest about the circumstances of your leaving.  If that doesn’t work, then you probably don’t want to work for that employer!

June 18, 2008
Job Search Strategies:  where are you coming from?

I estimate that I have occupied the interviewer’s chair in more than one thousand employment interviews in my career.  I have learned a great deal about people and organizations from this vantage point.  When I’m asked for interviewing advice, I have a difficult time picking just one or two things to share.  And, it’s even more difficult providing an answer when asked, “Why didn’t I get the job—my resume reflects all the position requirements and I interviewed great!?”  Recently, one thought came forward that seemed to merit some discussion, and that concerns the motivation or energy underlying people’s job search strategies, how it comes across during the interview process, and whether that energy is congruent with the person’s qualifications.  This seems to be on way to address both questions effectively.

I believe that people tend to approach their job search from a place of understanding about themselves that determines how they show up during the interview process.  Regardless of whether this understanding is accurate, it creates a persona.  This persona is the one the interviewer evaluates to determine whether there is a fit with the position and the company.

Before a candidate applies for a job, they always makes a determination of how well qualified they are for the position by comparing the position description with their understanding of themselves.  Even though the candidate may be unaware they have made this determination, they can’t help but show the signs of their self-assessment during the interview process.  And while the candidate’s self-understanding determines the persona that show up at the interview, that persona does not necessarily reflect the candidate’s actual fitness for the position!

When an interviewer feels that an applicant is presenting themselves in a way that is incongruent with their qualifications, it is perceived (consciously or subconsciously) as a concern.  Interviewers use this information as a key criterion in the decision making process when selecting a candidate for hire, perhaps weighing it almost as much as the candidate’s job-related qualifications.

For example, let’s say a candidate’s underlying understanding of themselves with respect to the position they’re applying for is one of certainty in their capability to do the job.  This will lead them to come across during the interview process as either confident/competent or arrogant, depending on the attitude with which they hold this understanding.

However, if the candidate’s underlying understanding of themselves with respect to the position they’re applying for is one of uncertainty of their capability to do the job, they will come across during the interview process as either insecure or incompetent, depending on the attitude with which they hold this understanding.

At this point, it may appear that I’m overcomplicating things just a bit.  But bear with me.  I think that by painting a picture of how the “certain” candidate and the “uncertain” candidate behave in the interview process, I’ll be able to show you how people display:

• their understanding of self as competent or incompetent
• whether they feel qualified or underqualified for the job for which they’re applying
• whether they hold their self understanding as arrogant, confident/competent, or insecure

This may help to explain why candidates who look great on paper sometimes fair to get a job for which they seem ideally qualified—and also provide job seekers with information on how best to prepare for an interview!  At the risk of “candidate profiling,” I now present my impressions of the “certain” and “uncertain” job applicants.   :0)

Candidates searching from a place of certainty with arrogance or uncertainty begin showing signals of bravado or fear as soon as they enter your offices.  For example, they may not greet the Receptionist at all, or they may sometimes treat the Receptionist as a second-class employee.  (You’d be surprised at how many candidates I’ve eliminated based on the way they treated the Receptionist!)  Or, they may be trying too hard, acting overzealously nice to make a positive impression.  The candidate searching from a place of arrogant certainty might walk in and greet each person like they own the place, like they already have the job offer in their pocket, and the interview is just a formality.  Through their verbal and body language, the arrogantly certain candidate consciously or unconsciously conveys their assumption that they are a perfect fit with the organization’s culture and the position particulars—despite not knowing as much about either as the interviewer does.

The candidate with certainty and arrogance sits just a little too comfortably, communicates with just a bit too much familiarity, like they are at a coffee klatch with their close friends.  The uncertain candidate might sit poised for danger, like they’re being interrogated for a felony that everyone knows they committed because they were caught on tape by the local news.  They look somewhat stressed in their “interview uniform,” like they’ve never worn it before or just bought it and didn’t have time for the tailoring to be completed.

When they field a question, the arrogantly certain candidate might reply with a somewhat related answer they rehearsed.  This makes them sound like a politician performing a Q & A dance at a press conference; their answers never quite address the question asked.  Or, the uncertain candidate may be so entrenched in fear that they have difficulty understanding the questions and are afraid to ask for clarification.  Then they struggle needlessly to come up with an answer.

And when the candidate with certainty and arrogance answers a question, it’s often all about them.  It seems that every sentence begins with “I” and ends with “me.”  “They” refers to their former employer, boss, co-workers, or inferiors, usually used interchangeably.  It sounds as though the candidate is describing a one-person play, and it’s not clear that anyone supported them, collaborated with them, or gave them any direction.  They might launch into a discourse about their many talents and deep experiences in response to a question, quickly broadening the scope of their answer to encompass every skill, ability, and accomplishment in their career.  I’ve interviewed candidates like this who seemingly never stopped talking long enough to take a breath!

Uncertain candidates sometimes reply to questions apologetically, as though their answers are not good enough, could never be good enough.  Their replies are too succinct, as though they fear that you will see through their answers to the truth of their inadequacy or the exaggerations and outright fabrications on their resume.  It hurts to watch them suffer in the interview chair; it seems the term “hot seat” was invented for them.  It feels as though they want the interview to end so they can leave more than you do!

In contrast, a candidate conducting a job search from a place of certainty and confidence without arrogance demonstrates a positive energy as soon as they enter your offices.  They greet the receptionist and treat them with respect and genuine kindness.  The candidate of certainty meets each person with confidence—not like their family owns the company, but with the sense that they deserve the invitation to interview with your company.  Their verbal and body language demonstrate that they are prepared and eager to share what they know, and they really want to learn about the organization and the position.  They smile and sit easily with an open, upright, yet relaxed posture.  The conduct themselves at the interview as though it were simply a meeting for the prospective employee and employer get to know each other as people and to exchange information—which, ideally, is all an interview is.

When asked a question, the certain candidate listens carefully and pauses to think before replying.  They know that that there is no shame in asking clarifying questions to ensure understanding or in asking for the question to be repeated.  However, they don’t ask for every question to be repeated.

When they answer a question, the certain candidates are careful to bring forward only relevant examples of previous work experience and behavior quickly; they know that the interview time is limited and the interviewer’s time is valuable, so they get to the heart of the answer without reveling in the story.  They have a sense of when the question is answered and when to stop talking.  They ask to be sure that they answered the right question and check to be sure they covered all parts of it.

Candidates with certainty use ownership language judiciously.  They begin their sentences with “We” not “They” when referring to their previous employer. They say “we” when their teams accomplished something and use “I” carefully to differentiate their contributions from those of their teammates.  They clarify who did what, and where their responsibilities ended and those of their supervisor, team, or direct reports began.  Thus, their work history comes into focus clearly and easily, so that follow-up questions can delve more deeply into relevant related areas.  This creates a deeper interview experience that allows both candidate and interviewer to reveal more information in less time.

There are many articles and books available to support people in preparing for interviews.  The ones that might be the most helpful are those that hold up a mirror to show us the faces that other see that we may not; that is the intent of this missive.  I hope to raise awareness of the roles we take on unknowingly, the masks we wear, and the underlying reasons we wear them when we are interviewing.  My intention is to assist people in bringing forward a sense confidence without arrogance during their job search, a confidence that comes from truly appreciating who you are and owning your gifts.  It makes sense that the candidate who shows up for an interview most authentically and brings the most valuable gifts to the table will be invited back as an employee.

May 20, 2008
The Myth of Problem Solving

Almost every organization I’ve worked with has had in its job descriptions or open position postings the requirement for “strong problem solving skills.”  I believe that this “requirement” too often indicates an organization’s limiting view of work and of effective behavior at work.

In the Free Dictionary by Farlex (http://www.thefreedictionary.com), the top two definitions of the word “problem” are:
1. A question to be considered, solved, or answered.
2. A situation, matter, or person that presents perplexity or difficulty.
When we bring these definitions into a workplace, consider the repercussions.

For obvious reasons, the second definition is not helpful because using the word problem frames the situation as one that presents “perplexity” or “difficulty.”  The first definition is more accurate and helpful because it carries no such baggage.  However, just by using the word problem, you apply the connotation of “perplexity” or “difficulty” to the situation, and this is not helpful.  That’s how I see “problem-solving skills” as too often creating a limiting view of work.

Further, when situations are framed as problems, they limit effective behavior at work.  In my experience with various organizations, the attitude toward problem solving is best expressed by a Beetle Bailey cartoon I read years ago.  Beetle, a rebellious private in the Army, is mopping the floor in the general’s office when the phone rings.  He picks up the handset, says “You got a problem?  Find it, fix it and forget it, or fake your way though it!” and hangs up.

All joking aside, the mentality of problem-solving puts people in a box, and no one in a box feels empowered to find creative solutions.  When in a box, people tend to move into “fix it” mode.  They subconsciously want to find, fix, and forget the problem because of the organizational mores they were taught in organization.  And, fixing problems without taking a creative, systems-thinking approach usually leads to sub-optimal solutions—ones that sometimes create more perplexity” or “difficulty” than the situation they were supposed to resolve!

When an organization chooses to establish a culture in which situations are viewed not as problems but as learning opportunities for both the organization and the individual, the repercussions are immense.  The best example I’m aware of that shows the application of this theory is the kaizen approach that many successful organizations employ, particularly Toyota.  In case you hadn’t heard, in 2006 Toyota surpassed GM as the biggest auto manufacturer in the world, and continues to own the #1 designation.  Kaizen is one of the reasons why they did, and lack of this approach is one of the reasons why GM fell from the top position.

Not coincidentally, one of the fundamental tenets of kaizen is taking personal responsibility.  The organization dedicated to kaizen entrusts its employees take full ownership of their work processes.  Again according to the Free Dictionary by Farlex, the principles of kaizen are:

• “consider the process and the results (not results-only);
• systemic thinking of the whole process and not just that immediately in view (i.e., big picture, not solely the narrow view); and
• a learning, non-judgmental, non-blaming (because blaming is wasteful) approach and intent.”

1. Establishing a learning culture.
2. Creating reinforcing systems to nurture the growth of that culture.
3. Hiring people who love to learn and to apply what they learn at work.
4. Making accepting personal responsibility a job requirement.

On an individual level, if you want to continually evolve toward greater levels of mastery, viewing situations as learning opportunities is the path of choice.  This requires:

1.  Developing a learning orientation to life.
2.  Establishing personal disciplines and practices to nurture your
    growth and development.
3.  Surrounding yourself with people who love to learn and to apply
    what they learn.
4.  Making accepting personal responsibility a habit.

So, regardless of whether you are an individual responsible for an organization or simply responsible for yourself, it makes sense to view situations as learning opportunities to be embraced, not problems to be solved.

May 5, 2008
Career Coach vs. Career Development Consultant:  What’s the Difference?

When you are seeking assistance moving forward in your career, this is an important question.  Both Career Coaches and Career Development Consultants can help you progress in your chosen field.  However, there are differences in their areas of expertise that make choosing one a better option than the other, given the type of assistance you need and your career stage.

Career Coaches are trained to assist you in learning the positive habits needed to excel in your career and in identifying and overcoming the internal obstacles that are keeping you from performing your best at work.

Career Development Consultants are trained to assist you in identifying the knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience you need to move from your current position into a higher-level position or into an entirely different position, field, or industry.

To truly excel in either of these very different roles requires a unique combination of education and practical experience.  The competent Career Coach has learned how to identify and overcome internal obstacles and learned the positive habits needed to excel at work, and also has done the internal work necessary to overcome their own internal obstacles and developed the positive habits themselves.  They clearly demonstrate in all they do the ability to “walk their talk.”

The competent Career Development Consultant has been educated in identifying knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience required for a given position, and they have worked with people long enough to know how to accurately assess an individual’s willingness, readiness, and capacity to make the next step in their career.  And, the Career Development Consultant has worked inside organizations long enough to know that there is more required to succeeding in a position than the knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience printed on the job description.

Can one person have everything it takes to succeed at both career coaching and career development?  Sure.  However, to truly excel in both roles requires a unique combination of education and practical experience.  These individuals are rare, because the education and required to reach a level of mastery in either role is significant, and to achieve this level of mastery as both Career Coach and Career Development Consultant is a lifetime investment.

April 27, 2008
Is it OK to ask for a personal referral from someone inside the organization I’m applying to?

A personal referral is the best way to get your “foot in the door. The impact of a personal referral is comes from the fact that the employee is putting their reputation on the line by referring you. This gives the hiring manager confidence that the recommendation is meaningful.

The only caveats I can think of are to be sure that the person is:

• Of sound character and a good performer, because their reputation will reflect on your own
• Close enough and trustworthy enough to give you a good recommendation
• Diplomatically savvy so that when they refer you, they do so gracefully
• Aware that you are asking them clearly for a referral; don't be shy and expect indirect communication to get your point across. Come right out and ask for what you want.
• Sufficiently knowledgeable about your skills and work history that they can represent you well when the organization asks for details (forwarding them a copy of your resume is helpful)
• Going to get it into the hands of the hiring manager. Don't let them put it into HR's hands if you think HR might be a “black hole” in that organization.

Finally, be sure that your conduct throughout the application and interview process is impeccable so that you make a positive impression that reflects well on the person who referred you. This sounds like a no-brainer, but I’m aware of situations where the person being referred did not follow through with all the accepted protocol of the process.