Unemployment--what's that like?

I don't often like to get too personal in this blog, but I thought I'd make an exception to share some of my experiences for this entry.  You see, even though the unemployment rate in recent years has been the highest that most of us currently living have ever seen, I have come to realize that there are still many folks out there who don't know what it's really like to be unemployed and often have words of advice for me that are really unhelpful (and, at times, downright hurtful).  So I thought I'd jot a few words of my own down so that curious readers can get a sense for what it's really like "out there."

First, I should say that I am not "lazy," and neither are most of us who find ourselves temporarily without work (which is one of the stigmas out there).  I dedicate 40 hours a week to my job search, and treat it as my full-time job.  How can I fill up this time, you may ask?  Well, these days, a job isn't just going to fall into my lap, so it's easy to fill up the time with  networking (either going to events or reaching out to my own network, sometimes to inquire about a company and sometimes just to "wave my hands" so I'm a little more top of mind).  I'm also constantly looking for job postings, talking to recruiters and headhunters, attending webinars (I'm working on my PRC certification--one more thing to add to my resume), and reading a LOT of news--I am more aware now of what's going on out in the business world than I usually have time for when I'm working full-time.  I also do interview a lot, so I spend a lot of time doing company research and interview prep.  With all this work that I do, you can see why it would be hurtful when I hear folks say that the unemployed are "not trying hard enough," or are "lazy mooches."

Despite all this hard work, I still put up with a lot of adversity.  Many companies never call me, sometimes surprisingly so (if a company's industry and job description match exactly what I have done in the past, making me perfect for the role).  I take my interactions with headhunters with a grain of salt because, while it might be a decent lead into a company, they ultimately work for the companies, not for me.  And in dealing with the companies themselves, I have found that many processes do not benefit the job-seeker.  Follow-up always takes longer than they say it will (hey, they have a lot going on), the formats of online job applications indicate that some companies appear to be recruiting keywords rather than people, and because of the stiff competition out there, they are (and perhaps can afford to be) very very selective.  More than at any other time I've spent job-searching, companies now are increasingly requiring much more before making any offers--several rounds of interviewing (5 rounds is not uncommon), tests, throwing folks into stressful situations to see how they handle it, looking at work samples, etc.  Some of this is to be expected, as I am further along in my career than I was in my younger days.  But sometimes it does seem like more than that--companies obviously now can afford to be picky, and they do indeed take advantage of that.

All that is just the day to day stress.  There have also been some fascinating experiences that make up the stories I may tell my children someday.  My favorite example is a company that was a great fit for my background--I had worked in the industry before, and the job description basically described me.  I spent a month interviewing with them--I  met with lots of people, and every time I was in the office, they pulled more people into the interview, unplanned ("oh, if you have a few minutes, I'd love for you to meet X").  This is always welcome, and a positive sign.  They had me put together a project plan with 3 scenarios, and present it to them.  When all was said and done, they told me I nailed all the interviews.  But they weren't going to hire me.  Not because there was someone else they liked more--they were going to leave the position open and keep accepting applications.  Why, you may ask?  They decided they were looking for someone who had done the work with no budget.  I wish them all the luck in finding such a person, if it exists, but I wish they hadn't spent a month of my time interviewing me when they would ultimately rule me out based on something in my background that they knew the first time I talked to them.

The worst part about unemployment, however, is the stuff that people don't like to talk about (which I will, because if you know me, you know that I have no problems talking about nearly anything).  Even if we know that the situation is temporary, it is very difficult to not have a "purpose."  No one is expecting me to show up somewhere every morning.  In an American culture where who you are is often measured by what you do for a living and how hard you work, it's dehumanizing to believe that you make no worthwhile contribution--especially when you have to rely on friends and family for help more often than you would like.  If the job search lasts more than a couple of months, you become very sensitive when people ask you, "so, you don't have a job yet?" suggesting that you aren't good enough or have somehow failed.  It hurts even more when it comes from family.  You start to avoid talking to those people.  If you have any hope that you will (eventually) find a job, you still face the stress of the unknown--your life may change drastically, causing you to move, perhaps across the country, and you have no way to prepare for it because you don't know when it might happen or what the circumstances will be.  If you're lucky enough to receive unemployment benefits, you still have a very limited budget, and may worry about paying all your bills.  You have to turn down a lot of invitations from friends because it just isn't in your budget anymore, and may be embarrassed to say why because you don't like to talk about money.  Sometimes that means you don't see your friends as often.  You feel depressed, and if you already had some sort of clinical depression, the situation is worsened (although you are still criticized by others who say you should "be more positive," or "stop being depressed," when they obviously don't understand what real depression is).  And despite all this stress that you go through worrying about your future and your livelihood, you still  have to appear in great spirits to the companies you talk to because one hint of negativity or one slip-up in even the smallest way, and they can turn you away.  Because they can afford to be picky.

Why am I sharing all this with you?  Why get so personal with my peers, my mentors, and anyone else who might read my blog? (okay, maybe I'm too optimistic about my readership--I'm not sure even my mom reads my blog).  It's because I believe, in all aspects of life, that the world is a better place when we understand each other.  My unemployment experience is not going to be the same as all those who are unemployed, but I can guarantee that we're all fighting a tough battle.  Be kind to us.  Instead of saying something like, "so you don't have a job yet?", try simply saying, "how are you doing?" and don't be shocked if we let a lot of horror stories spill out.  We don't have a lot of people to talk to.  Instead of inviting us to your birthday party at an expensive restaurant, tell us that you'd like to see us, and suggest something we can do together that won't make us worry about money.  And forgive us if we haven't been ourselves lately.  We're dealing with a lot.

Best wishes to all of you, and thanks for reading all the way to the end.  That last part is the most important.

Hiring: How's it Hanging?

Whichever side of the hiring process I've been on, in the last several years I have noticed some glaring problems in the way recruiting/hiring has changed.  Certainly with the problems in the economy, many HR departments have been looking for ways to be more efficient.  Depending on the position, they may be facing hundreds (or even thousands) of applicants per open position, and they simply do not have the staff to cull through the pool the way they had done in the past.
Their current solution?  Make it electronic.  Use a web-based application system to weed out anyone who is unqualified, weed through the remaining pile with a cursory glance over the resumes, narrow down the list further with phone screens, then finally deliver the top handful of candidates to the hiring manager, who will interview them and decide on the best person.

So what's wrong with this system?  Where do I begin.  While it is certainly understandable that there is a need to more efficiently work through an overabundance of candidates (some which may be qualified, some not), it can't work the same way with human beings as in other situations because humans are not cookie-cutter.  If I want a pair of shoes on Zappos, all I have to do is specify search criteria for the things that I want (e.g. Women's, boots, casual style, size 9, black, less than a 2-inch heel, knee-high, and less than $100), and boom!  I have a small set of boots to choose from, making my decision much easier than if I had scrolled through all the thousands of shoes Zappos has available.

Online application systems were designed to basically filter humans in a similar way that Zappos does with shoes.  Want a candidate with 5 years experience, a college degree, experience designing webpages and running search engine analytics?  Sure, you can filter that.  Also want someone who lives less than 10 miles away, enjoys fly-fishing, and has blonde hair?  No problem.  Okay, some of that is an exaggeration, but the point is that this system of turning people into data takes advantage of the idea that the hiring company has the advantage of infinite possibilities, and can have whatever they want, so the filter criteria can get a little outrageous.  This kind of system hurts both job applicants and hiring companies, and I fear that a lot of times the companies are not aware of the ways it hurts them.  You see, people are not data.  People are not made from cookie-cutters.  They will never fit molds because their lives have infinite possibilities, and the value of their potential contribution cannot be evaluated by a series of data that are created by a seemingly arbitrary lists of demands the hiring manager provides.  Some of the most hard-working, dedicated, and intelligent people I have known in my past work experiences were those who did not have a college degree, or whose background was otherwise outside of what is "typical" for the work that they do.  Those gems are easily missed through this process, but the search criteria has gotten so crazy that even folks who are extremely qualified are lost through the cracks, never to even be noticed by a human being.

Missing out on qualified candidates is a big loss for the hiring company.  But this system also creates other problems.  Candidates are becoming more and more aware of the downfalls of this system, so they do what they can to get around it so that they can be noticed.  They flood their resumes and applications with keywords and buzzwords, as many as they can, so that their application will land in the "keep" pile.  They make more calls and emails to HR and the hiring manager, hoping that it will get them noticed.  They send out applications to EVEN MORE companies than they would have before, even applying to positions that they know they are unqualified for, just thinking that maybe luck is in numbers.  The result?  HR has to filter through even MORE correspondence and applications than they would have in the first place, basically shooting them in the foot by making a problem larger that they were trying to solve in the first place.

This problem, of course, begets more problems--HR managers become frustrated, creating even stricter search criteria to plow through the masses, which brings the problem back to the beginning in a downward spiral, making HR managers grumpy and overworked, and job candidates frustrated, weary, and confidence-shot.

Oh, what to do, what to do.  I give advice to others all the time on how to conduct an effective job hunt.  This time I'll give some tips to HR departments that might help ease their headaches and not miss the best candidates:

You can filter--but keep it real

Of course, it would be unreasonable to say that you should stop filtering candidates altogether based on their online profiles.  After all, there are only so many hours in the day, and so many of you to get the work done.  But you have got to be reasonable.  Have really good communication with the hiring manager to get to know what he/she needs and what that particular area of expertise is like.  Decide on the dealbreakers (must-have qualifications) and the desireables (things you think a good candidate would have, but you might hire someone without).  Note:  most things will (and should) fall into the "desireable" camp rather than the "dealbreaker" camp.  Think really hard about filtering by 5-7 years experience, for example.  Is it really out of the question that someone with more or less years could shine at the job and work harder than anyone else to get it?  In this case, maybe it makes sense to ask for 5-7 years experience in the description, but perhaps filter by 3-10 years and look at the results in more detail to see if the details make those people an interesting candidate.  Remember, "years" of experience do not lead to quality of experience, and people with any number of backgrounds could contribute something to your company.  You just have to figure out which is the best.  Don't rule out those gems who went against the grain.

Don't be so negative

By this, I mean the attitude or culture you maintain in the way you approach a pool of candidates.  A negative approach would be to go into a resume review or a phone screen looking for ways to "weed out" a candidate.  The goal is to get down to a handful to interview in person, so the more you can get rid of, the better.  It's almost a "pass the buck" attitude--like, "my job is just to get down to a small group of candidates, then the hiring manager can worry about picking one."  What about picking the best candidate?  With a positive attitude, instead of focusing on weeding out candidates, the focus is to find out who can make the best contribution.  This involves experience and background partly, yes, but it's also in listening to their ideas and let them explain why they are the best and why they want the job.  The people who want it the most and have the best ideas will work the hardest and do the best work, not necessarily the ones with the most credentials who have the most "checkmarks" on your list of things you're looking for.  That simple attitude change does not mean more work for you, just a shift in the questions you ask, the way you ask them, and the way you listen to the answers.

Fix the online application

Oy, there are so many issues here.  This is almost always outsourced, and if busy HR managers aren't careful checking the outsourced work, they may not notice all the potential problems that could be in their very own online applications.  As someone who has worked with data all my career, I cannot stress enough how important it is to get it right.  When it comes to data collection, it's garbage in, garbage out!  That is to say, if the method for collecting data (or, in this case, information on job applicants) is not precise, the information you get back will not be usable to your standards.  Let me offer up a few examples based on what I've personally seen in real-life online applications:

• A couple of companies had drop-down lists of countries (to either indicate residence, or past work).  But a couple of them were not in alphabetical order, or the United States was not even listed!
• Sometimes there was other kinds of menus, either for how you heard about the job, or what industry your past work was in, but the menu does not list all options, and there is no option for "other."  What is an applicant to do?  And you might filter them out if they interpret their industry differently than you do, or if you don't even list theirs.  Bad data....
• Asking for salary history.  This is an entirely different blog post, so I'll try to hold myself back from launching into it.  What it boils down to, though, is that of course it's helpful to you in getting the best deal when you make an offer.  However, asking for salary history should not be used as a proxy to evaluate the potential contribution of a candidate, and it turns a lot of candidates off if you ask for it prematurely (or ever).  Don't scare away your best candidates.  If you ask for this, at least make it optional.

There are many more examples, but I'll stop there.  Basically, if the candidate is confused about how to fill in the application, you will get shoddy, unusable data, rendering your whole screening process useless.  Be careful!

Be respectful

There is no way to put this delicately.  Yes, it's a "buyer's market" in the hiring market, meaning that there are more applicants for each open position.  But that does not give you license to be rude.  Don't set up applicants to fail by giving them no notice to prepare for interviews, or blowing off meetings, or not apologizing when you mess up.  Remember that the applicants are interviewing the company as much as you are interviewing them.  They are trying to figure out if the company is a good fit for them, and you are often the first contact they have.  Please remember your manners and treat them as you would like to be treated.  This kind of thing should go without saying.

I know you're overworked.  I know it's tough to do it all.  Just please do what you can.

And candidates, good luck.  It's tough out there.

Tough love for retail customer service policies

In this article from the Business Insider, the author describes how brick-and-mortar retailers are trying to offer better service to try to better compete with online competitors.  Sounds like a good idea, right?  Customer service is the one thing that folks in a shop can do better than a website, so might as well focus on improving that.

Nope, not good enough.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it's old-fashioned retail.  And unfortunately for many brick-and-mortar retailers, a lot of them have very old-fashioned cultures and ways of running their businesses.  What they have to do is ask the consumers what they want, and (this is a very important part) be willing to roll the dice and make investments in some drastic changes if necessary.

Sure, maybe I am biased because I am a career researcher.  But in doing the work that I've done over my career, I have seen many times when consumers would tell me what they want in a study, management would be unwilling to make a change, and a year later, some other company was doing it, it became all the rage, and the first company was officially behind in the game.

Here are some things that I am seeing out there in retail world:
1)  Customer service doesn't mean what it used to mean
It always bothered me that old-school retailers always think that "customer service" always has to mean how nice a store employee is to you.  But service means so much more to shoppers.  It means did you give me what I want, and am I happy about it.  There's a lot going on in the world, in case you haven't noticed.  I can practically blink my eyes and twitch my nose and anything I want will be right in front of me by first thing tomorrow morning, and my credit card will be automatically charged.  So you think it's enough for someone to pounce on me as soon as I walk into a shop and say hello, and subsequently follow me around while I shop?  Wake up and flip on your Apple II computers, retailers.  If you ask customers how good your customer service is, you may mean one thing, but their answer will mean something completely different.

2)  Yes, some store employees are rude.  Probably more than you realize.  And that's unacceptable.  But they don't need to be in your face every second, either.
It seems to me that a lot of "revamped" customer service policies or training modules are really weak, basically asking employees to say hello to guests more quickly, and maybe even have more employees on the floor.  Now, I ask you--is that really revolutionary?  Many people now are used to an automated world of the internet, mobile devices, and figuring out what they want on their own.  Yes, be there for us if we need help.  But if you jump from around the corner ever two seconds scaring the bajeezes out of me asking me if you can help me, you're just going to creep me out enough to make me leave and shop at Amazon.

3)  The conveniences, pricing, and other appeals available with online retailers have changed the game permanently.  A smile or a "can I help you?" in the store isn't going to change it, and it isn't going to be enough.
Apps.  Seamless ordering however I want, without bombarding me with requests to buy more or add on warranties or insurance or other crap.  Reviews I can rely on.  One-step ordering.  Make it easy for me.  If I want something, don't tell me it's only available online, or only available in the store.  Put a stamp on it and get it to me--I don't care how you do it.  Go above and beyond for me.  That's service.  Check out Zappos.  They do it right.

To you, old retailers, service means store employees saying "can I help you?"  That's not enough.  Ask your customers what service means to them.  Even ask them in different ways--ask them what was the last time a business did to go out of its way to make them happy, and what did it do.  Learn from that.  If I hear one more retailer say that their new "customer service policy" is to have a race to see how quickly they can say "hello" to a guest once they enter the store, I'm going to throw up on their 1981 shoes.

With great power comes great responsibility

Greetings again old friends of the blogosphere.  Today I come to you on a topic that is of timely importance to a large amount of people around the world:  the Olympics.  Specifically, in the United States, getting information about the Olympics from finding schedules to results to video leaves us largely at the mercy of NBC, with the exclusive rights to Olympics coverage in the States.

There has been a lot of controversy and criticism of NBC with these rights, which as it turns out, come with great responsibility.  The Olympics have widespread appeal, which means that while the holder of the media rights will undoubtedly win in the ratings, it will also be expected to deliver up to expectations, which are set quite high.

Let us look at just a few of the controversies.  Broadcasting the Olympics used to be straight-forward:  show a few things during the day because well, you could.  But most things could be shown in primetime, 1) because that's when most people were watching TV, 2) with the Olympics being held in various parts of the world, it was almost always taped, and 3) No one really knew the result until you broadcasted it anyway.

The problem is, we now live in the day of social media, and in a global society.  Other parts of the world are no longer a distant mystery because we are all connected via the internet, and news is reported in real time via CNN newsfeeds, NY Times email alerts, and Twitter.  True, there are still folks who will go home from work and curl up to watch the events in primetime, content with knowing that it is not broadcast live.  But chances are, with all the news outlets they bump into throughout the day, they still found out who won the event, spoiling the surprise before they even had a chance to walk into the door at night.  Even in the last Olympics in Beijing, Twitter was just a baby and didn't have nearly the usage it does today.

It's a different ballgame now.

NBC gave it a half-assed effort.  They allowed you to watch events online.  But you had to have a cable subscription (which is another issue--understandable that they have to make money somehow, but is that really the spirit of the games?  That only the folks with cable can watch, and everyone else is screwed?).  And some high-popularity events, like gymnastics, were still unavailable online so that NBC could hold them hostage for higher primetime ratings.  But again, you probably already knew the result before you got a chance to watch it, even if you tried to watch it live and were denied.  So, in effect, instead of making everyone happy by covering all its bases, NBC made everyone furious by only doing everything halfway.

It's a tricky scenario to figure out, but it's fair to be harsh on NBC because they are a media company, and this is a media issue.  They took on the responsibility by paying big dollars for the exclusive rights, and as a media company, they should be able to rise to the challenge of mastering a multi-channel media experience.

As a shout-out to someone who describes this disappointment far better than I can, I give you this satire article from the New Yorker.  Enjoy.

And in case you still aren't sure what the fuss is all about, here is more.

Don't sweat the small stuff. But do treasure the laughter.

I recently made the decision to make a change in my career, and was asked in my final week at the job I was departing for my parting words of wisdom.  Obviously I learned a lot of things at that job, like how to take reasonable risks in trying new projects or new responsibilities, how important it can be to consider how you deliver the message (even as much as the message itself), and how including a bit of personality in your professional life can go a long way.

But upon reflection, I may have settled on one thing that is an important bit of advice in a wide variety of occupations:  Enjoy your job.  Certainly not all of us are lucky enough to have a job that we love, and definitely all of us have some days that just do not go the way we would like.  But we spend much of our lives at work, perhaps even seeing our co-workers more than our families.  For that reason, it is important to do our best to find a job that we enjoy at least most of the time, and find a way to enjoy ourselves while doing it, even if we are stuck doing the most mundane of tasks.  We should enjoy being with our co-workers, feel comfortable laughing with them, and make the most of our work environment to make it safe and comfortable (as much as we can control, anyway) not only because we are spending so much of our time there, but an environment where we feel inspired and comfortable will enable us to do our best work.

Part of enjoying your job is learning how to handle stress, and not sweating the small stuff.  When I find myself in breakdown mode because of too many deadlines or professional failures/disappointments or frustration, I try to remind myself that five years from now, or ten, or after I move on in my career, or other such future milestone, I will most likely not remember this moment.  The moments I will remember, however, are the moments when I laughed so hard I could barely breathe, or what the morning sun felt like from my office window every morning, or silly office pranks we sometimes played on each other.  Obviously the stress cannot be ignored because the work needs to be done and I still care about my contribution to the company and my professional reputation.  But in the grander scale of my life, those kinds of problems are not worth sacrificing my health by slipping into a nervous breakdown, and I'm not likely to remember those moments or problems in the future anyway.

I will, however, remember the fun and the jokes.  I'll remember the silly mistakes that I was able to laugh about.  I'll remember the misunderstandings that I was able to resolve.  I'll remember the silly things that co-workers say, and how I was able to develop a closeness with them over sharing silly experiences together.  When some of my co-workers were laid off, I remembered the feelings I felt, but I don't remember what the company memo said.  I remember laughing over beer with them after their last day, but not what they said while they packed up their personal items from their desks.  I remember standing on desks to decorate workplaces for birthdays or pranks, but I don't remember the nights I worked late.  I will keep some perspective and try not to get caught up in those stressful moments because they do not make a difference in the big picture.  And that is my advice to others as they stumble through their careers, as well.

I wish all my former co-workers the best as they continue on in their own careers, and I wish my former company well as it continues on to find new ways to build on its success.  Making a big change like this can be scary, but I am excited to try something new in my career and find even more things to learn and new ways to enjoy my career. And other co-workers to play pranks on.  :)