Technology and the Return of the Talking Stick

During a recent meeting with a client organization’s senior leadership team, the team decided they needed feedback from another member located in a remote office. One of the team members called her on his cell phone, explained the situation for which we needed her input, and activated the cell phone’s speaker feature so that all present could hear her response. Not long after the remote member began to provide her input on the situation, the company president became impatient and attempted to cut her off. However, much to the frustration of the president, the cell phone’s speaker feature was asynchronous; it transmitted only one caller’s voice at a time. So, because the manager in the remote office began speaking first, she could not hear us speak until she stopped speaking.

The manager in the remote office had a lot to say on the topic, and the longer she spoke, the more aggressive the president became in his attempt to interrupt. Had the other manager been present, the president would have been able to overtalk her into silence. However, the technology’s limitations prevented the president from being able to do so. This did not deter him from trying, and with greater volume and impatience in every attempt, but with the same results. The party at the other end of the line could not hear him, and she continued speaking. It was an awkward few minutes, and I had to put on my best poker face to keep from showing my disbelief at the president’s behavior.

This incident reminded me of the Native American tool called the talking sick. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the talking stick, Dr. Carol Locust of the Native American Research and Training Center in Tucson, Arizona, eloquently explains that:

The talking stick has been used for centuries by many American Indian tribes as a means of just and impartial hearing. The talking stick was commonly used in council circles to designate who had the right to speak. When matters of great concern came before the council, the leading elder would hold the talking stick and begin the discussion. When he finished what he had to say he would hold out the talking stick, and whoever wished to speak after him would take it. In this manner the stick was passed from one individual to another until all who wished to speak had done so. The stick was then passed back to the leading elder for safe keeping.

Some tribes used a talking feather instead of a talking stick. Other tribes might have a peace pipe, a wampum belt, a sacred shell, or some other object by which they designate the right to speak. Whatever the object, it carries respect for free speech and assures the speaker he has the freedom and power to say what is in his heart without fear of reprisal or humiliation.

Whoever holds the talking stick has within his hands the sacred power of words. Only he can speak while he holds the stick; the other council members must remain silent. The eagle feather tied to the talking stick gives him the courage and wisdom to speak truthfully and wisely. The rabbit fur on the end of the stick reminds him that his words must come from his heart and that they must be soft and warm. The blue stone will remind him that the Great Spirit hears the message of his heart as well as the words he speaks. The shell, iridescent and ever changing, reminds him that all creation changes -- the days, the seasons, the years -- and people and situations change, too. The four colors of beads -- yellow for the sunrise (east), red for the sunset (west), white for the snow (north) and green for the earth (south) -- are symbolic of the powers of the universe he has in his hands at the moment to speak what is in his heart. Attached to the stick are strands of hair from the great buffalo. He who speaks may do so with the power and strength of this great animal.

The speaker should not forget that he carries within himself a sacred spark of the Great Spirit, and therefore he is also sacred. If he feels he cannot honor the talking stick with his words, he should refrain from speaking so he will not dishonor himself. When he is again in control of his words, the stick will be returned to him.

Because the talking stick has been used for centuries by a culture renowned for its wisdom, it seems safe to say that it is a common trait among all peoples to want to say their piece, and that they are often willing to be less than polite in their efforts to be heard. The Native Americans accepted that people behave this way, and implemented a tool to ensure that effective meeting ground rules would be in place to protect the rights of all present to be heard with respect.

I find it fascinating that the designer of the cell phone instilled in it, probably inadvertently, the same beautiful and powerful functionality of the talking stick. Everyone present at the meeting was insured the opportunity to hear what the manager in the remote office had to say, despite the president’s attempts to stifle her. There was of course no guarantee that she would be listened to, but her words were allowed to be heard.

Do those present at your meetings and the meeting facilitator allow the loudest or most long-winded to dominate the discussion? Doesn’t it make sense that each speaker is given the opportunity to be heard, as if s/he possessed the talking stick? If the leader really does not want or value each attendee’s input, why invite them to the meeting? Or, why call a meeting at all? It is far better to eliminate any meeting whose primary purpose is to get nods of approval to rhetorical questions.

As a strong advocate for organizational effectiveness, I would recommend either inviting only those whose voices will be heard, or simply sending an email with a directive in it, to save everyone’s time and spare them some frustration. Generally, people will feel better about executing actions they may disagree with when they are straightforward directives. People tend to become disengaged when they are asked for input that is quickly diminished or disregarded, rather than at least given a modicum of consideration before being discarded. While the input may hold little value, the person who brought it forward deserves to be left with their dignity intact, because s/he is your teammate.

Based on my experience working with many organizations, I strongly recommend that the concept of the talking stick, if not the stick itself, be made a part of your organization’s culture—but only if you want creativity and innovation to flourish. It is more than a matter of courtesy to allow people to speak their minds; this right is so important in our culture that it became a part of the first amendment to the US Constitution. That is not to say that all free speech rights apply in organizations (they don’t), only that the right to speak freely is essential to the optimal functioning of any group. And, no one really wants to participate in a group whose functioning is less than optimal, or worse yet, dysfunctional.

One of the best ways to increase employee engagement at every level in your organization is to allow each person’s voice to be heard. While creating a culture of open communication will require an expenditure of energy to manage that communication and the communicators themselves, it will lead not only to more engaged employees, but also to better discussions and improved decision making. When those with the loudest voices, the most hot air, or the biggest titles are allowed to dominate any discussion, you will never know what brilliant ideas are being overlooked. And, it is likely that the employees with these ideas will decide to find another job with an organization that is willing to hear them… leaving behind the loud, the unengaged, and the long-winded.

The Dead End Job:  A Myth Exposed!

Yes, the dead end job is a myth!  And like any myth, you can believe in it literally and let it disempower you, or you can learn from its metaphors.  Sure, you may argue that there is no room for advancement, the co-workers just don’t get it, the boss isn’t very supportive, the work itself is boring, ad infinitum.  And, all of the above may be accurate assessments.  However, when one possesses a learning orientation to life, there is opportunity for growth in every situation, in the inner world if not the outer.

In my experience, I have found that you cannot leave a job until you declare that work experience complete on at least one level.  And, you cannot fully release that job until you declare it complete at all levels.  Otherwise, you will continue to be tied to that place—in the physical world or on the mental or emotional levels.  I’m sure you know people who, regardless of how long ago they left a job, still talk about it like they were there yesterday.  They are still enmeshed in that work experience, and it is still very present for them.  They may have left the workplace, but the workplace never left them.  That is an obstacle that will prevent them from advancing in their career or achieving their fullest potential in the workplace, and likely both.

So… do you still think you want to leave your job?  That’s great.  If you really want to leave your job, then you had better begin your wrap-up tasks.  It is essential that you complete your work there at some level—ideally on all levels.  By carefully reflecting on your inner and outer experience of work, you can discern the “unfinished business” you have there, which is the first step in finding the healthiest way out.  If you think you don’t have any unfinished business, I encourage you to take a look at these questions:

• What are the things that attracted you most to this job and workplace?  Are they now sources of discontent or disillusion?
• What aspects of the workplace most trigger you?  Which people do you find most difficult to deal with?  Can you tell what you are projecting onto them?
• What positions do you have to drop to complete your stay there in a place of neutrality?

Gloom, doom, or opportunity?

Try as you might, is nearly impossible to escape the gloom and doom of the current economic climate and forecast.  The media loves to cover bad news, and there is no question that the US economy is performing poorly by all indicators.  It is easy to forget during times like this that all is well, because everything is happening in perfect harmony with the laws of cause and effect.  Fortunately, as anyone with the perspective of a spiritual psychologist will tell you, this is a perfect opportunity to reframe current events using your USM skill of Facilitating Lesson Awareness.

The skill of Facilitating Lesson Awareness reminds us of one of the fundamental tenets of spiritual psychology: how you relate to the issue is the issue.  Whenever anything disturbs your peace, you know that school is in session.  That is the time to choose to view an issue from a clear perspective, i.e., from a higher altitude.  From there, you can see that there is a blessing of some type (most often an opportunity for learning) inside every challenge you experience.  The true challenge is in finding and integrating the lesson, which then becomes a blessing. 

How are you relating to the issues present for you?  Are you concerned that your investments are shrinking rapidly?  Worried that you might lose your job or your home?  Afraid that you might not find a new job soon?  From the physical world perspective, these are real concerns.  However, when viewed from the learning line perspective, they are rich opportunities to:

• work with the feelings that present themselves
• uncover and reframe the limiting or irrational beliefs that underlie them
• release the judgments that you have placed against yourself and others
• develop an action plan to anchor your learnings and maintain your shift in thinking

What does this have to do with career consulting, you might ask?  Quite a bit, actually.  I find that every client I work with is feels some upset and judgments about where they are in their career.  And, there are limiting and irrational beliefs that are causing these feelings and judgments.  Moving forward in your career requires that you work your process so that you can bring a clear mind and positive attitude to bear on the process of career development.  If you are feeling stuck in your career right now, I guarantee you that you have material to work with.  And as any of my clients will attest, once you process this material, you will feel much more energy and enthusiasm about your career options.  Even at a time like this.

If you are still concerned about a lack of job opportunities at this time, I offer for your consideration the following experiment.  Go to any of the popular internet job boards and search for a position you would like to work in.  I’m willing to bet you will find that a lot of jobs come up.  Now that you see there are many open positions right now, take heart:  all you need is one of them!

Moving forward in your job search will be much more productive when you bring a positive attitude to the process.  Regardless of the outcome of your job search, you can rest assured that there are blessings to be grateful for on the learning line if not the goal line.  And, who’s to say that you won’t score wins on both lines? 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.