Showing posts with label job opportunities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label job opportunities. Show all posts

The Internet of Things and how it is creating YOUR next job NOW


By Neil Patrick

Drawing credit: Wilgengebroed on Flickr



The Internet of Things (IoT) is the next big thing. The thing is this; right now, digital tech is set to inhabit more and more of the devices and products we use everyday.

If you follow me on Twitter you might have noticed that I am not exactly a fan of AI. Call me a Luddite if you wish – but let’s face it, it’s much less cruel to poke fun at machines than people.

The simple fact is that I am not against technology, I am against the fact that it is destroying jobs faster than we can create new ones.

I like progress, but since the main driver is profit, no-one who has a big stake in this cares one bit about whether or not this progress delivers more jobs. In fact, the business models for most tech startups rely on the fact that they need less people and cheaper ones than the bigger businesses they disrupt.

Technologists want to make new things. Businesses want to make money. Governments are just happy to see a new factory or office doing internetty things, quite oblivious to the fact that this may well be disrupting jobs in more traditional businesses.

Anyway, we cannot change any of this.

What each of us can change is how we think about the IoT. Because this is going to be a massive growth sector in jobs in the next few years.

The temptation I think for most people who are not digital and tech specialists is to think, “Okay Neil, but that’s all computer stuff and that’s not my field at all. I don’t how to write computer code and I don’t want to either.”

And my answer is that you don’t have to do any of this. I am not suggesting that all you lawyers and accountants should grow beards, don cargo pants and become all techy.

Because what’s coming isn’t just more jobs in coding and programming. What’s coming is a transformation in which understanding how to deal with the issues surrounding the IoT will create huge numbers of new job opportunities in every area of specialism. And ones for which there will be a real shortage of skills.

What everyone should be doing right now is figuring out how the IoT is going to impact their job field. If you are a marketing person, what are the ways in which the IoT will impact the consumers of goods or services you deliver? If you are a real estate person, how will the IoT make property more or less saleable? If you are a lawyer, what sort of legal issues are likely to arise as the IoT becomes more and more established?

Because if you start thinking about these things right now, figuring out what the questions are (not even the answers) in YOUR specific area of expertise, and better still writing and talking about them, you’ll be positioning yourself as a rare expert in your field. Your know-how will be scarce. You will have transformed your value and marketability by one simple small change in what you do today that will be a massive investment in your career assets for tomorrow.

And tomorrow is coming very soon.

PS Despite my worries about the impact if the IoT on jobs in business, one area that I really hope grasps this opportunity is the NHS. If anyone needs to do more with less people and cost than before, it's our struggling public health services. Now that would be progress for the benefit of all...




Why are so many job descriptions cut and paste catastrophes?


As employers increasingly complain about the poor quality of job applicants and trouble finding the skills they seek, the implication is that it’s not their fault.

Despite lots of searching and advertising, they just cannot secure the quality of talent and skills they aspire to; they are deluged with low quality applications.

Maybe, just maybe, they should look at their own actions first?

The advertised job description determines who applies. So why when I look at so many job vacancies are they cut and paste catastrophes?



Here’s a post for the position of Senior Marketing Manager I pulled at random today from Linkedin along with my own commentary in italics (with a few key points removed to protect the guilty):

Key Duties & Responsibilities: 
  • Work closely with ******* to identify and promote new opportunities 
  • Work with the web marketing team to develop effective, distributable marketing assets (tools, banners, emails) 
  • Assist affiliate team to identify potential partners willing to host content 
  • Write all required copy including: emails, product copy, press releases and social copy 
  • Update existing material 
  • Work with the design team to produce newsletters and mailings 
Senior Marketing Manager? A Senior Marketing Manager is more erm, senior than a simple Marketing Manager. Whilst they are not the principal owner of the marketing strategy (that of course is the remit of the Marketing Director) I would expect to see at least some mention of the word ‘strategy’ in this JD.

What about leadership? Nope. This is a hands-on, get the work done role. The only action verb here beyond the hands-on stuff is “Assist affiliate team…”

The reality is that this position is mainly about content production – writing copy, a bit of design work, and developing media distribution channels.


It’s not a Senior Marketing Manager position. It’s not even a Marketing Manager role. It’s a junior marketing  job.

Desired Skills and Experience

Essential

  • Degree (or relevant experience) 
  • Excellent computer competency 
  • A versatile portfolio showing experience with a range of clients 
  • At least 3 year’s copywriting experience 
  • Strong problem‐solving skills 
  • Excellent written communication skills 
  • Ability to effectively manage own workload and perform under pressure 
  • Quick to learn and adapt to new challenges 
  • Highly organised and reliable 
My diagnosis is borne out by this section. The only job specific essential requirement is 3 years copy-writing experience. The rest is more or less generic (I'm being polite - it's a cut and paste isn't it?). So with 3 years copy-writing experience do you suddenly have the necessary skills to be a Senior Marketing Manager? I'm sorry to disappoint the person that is hired for this job, but you've not become a Senior Marketing Manager...

Okay. So let’s look at the requirements that an absolutely great candidate will also possess:


Desired 

  • Marketing based degree 
  • Knowledge of (our) products and services 
  • Understanding of affiliate platforms and tracking 
  • Experience of measuring the success of your writing and PR (for example through Google Analytics, A/B testing and campaign metrics) is extremely desirable 
Studied Marketing at university? Great. Tick that box. Unfortunately if you did that and then spent the next 3 years writing copy, the stuff you studied at university was probably written no later than about 2008 – when Twitter was just one year old and still in its infancy. See my point? The speed of marketing communications development is so fast today that even if you graduated as recently as 2010, most of what you studied has already been overtaken by subsequent media and marketing developments.

I’d expect a Senior Marketing Manager candidate to have experience of things like:
  • Acquiring and disseminating customer, competitor and market insights 
  • Product/service development and positioning 
  • Promotional strategy development and implementation
  • Experience of managing specialist external suppliers 
Nothing even remotely resembling this appears anywhere in this job description.

Nowhere in this JD is anything mentioned about goals and outcomes. Things like growing market share, enhancing product/service quality, monitoring and helping respond to competitor and market movements. A Senior Marketing Manager should be tasked with delivering marketing accomplishments. So an applicant that has a stellar record of such achievements won’t necessarily even get considered for this job.

A Senior Marketing Manager spends their time making their employer more competitive, more attractive to its customers, more profitable. Not writing copy and pushing it out to anyone who’ll take it.

I'm pretty confident that this vacancy will attract plenty of under-qualified applicants and very few great ones, simply because the best candidates will be entirely uninspired by the job description.

No salary or benefits information is given for this role. If this had been present, then at least the true nature of the job and whom it would suit would be clearer than the inflated job title infers. And it would demonstrate that the firm was being transparent about what was on offer.

Instead readers are just left with a sneaky feeling that the pay package will be disappointing or at best subject to fierce negotiation.

I’m left with the distinct impression that this firm’s ideas about marketing are all mixed up…and that their HR people probably need to skill up too…

Am I being fair, or is this just a unwarranted rant?





It's now official - The Global Jobs Crisis is real


By Neil Patrick

When I set up this blog, I was convinced that the subtitle – Global Jobs Crisis was appropriate and justified.

But many of my friends online and offline commented that they thought I was being rather apocalyptic. Even sensationalist. After all it does rather fit with the sort of conspiracy theory stuff which abounds in the online media world.

But I stuck with it nonetheless. Not because I wanted to be alarmist or a doom-monger. On the contrary. I wanted to raise awareness of the problem and try to find solutions that would work for people at a personal level.

It was simply the most appropriate tagline I could come up with which described the unfolding situation as I saw it. And with every week that passes I see more evidence that it remains the right subtitle.

So today I was interested to see that two years after I started this blog, none other than the World Bank has issued a report which describes the global jobs crisis in forensic detail.

I’d forgive anyone for not noticing it. It went more or less unremarked upon by the mainstream media. It’s titled in typical government speak and somewhat benignly: “G20 labour markets: outlook, key challenges and policy responses”.


The World Bank, Washington
By Shiny Things [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)] via Wikimedia


Behind the dull bureaucratic title is the starkest confirmation I've yet seen which describes in depressing detail, the true nature of the problem.

The world is facing a global jobs crisis that is killing the chances of reigniting economic growth. Worse there is no magic bullet to solve the problem.

The Study was released at a Group of 20 (G-20) Labor and Employment Ministerial Meeting in Australia in September 2014. The Bank says an extra 600 million jobs need to be created worldwide by 2030 just to cope with the expanding population.

"There's little doubt there is a global jobs crisis," says the World Bank's senior director for jobs, Nigel Twose.

"As this report makes clear, there is a shortage of jobs — and quality jobs.

"And equally disturbingly, we're also seeing wage and income inequality widening within many G-20 countries, although progress has been made in a few emerging economies, like Brazil and South Africa."


He said that overall emerging market economies had done better than advanced G-20 countries in job creation, driven primarily by countries such as China and Brazil, but the outlook was bleak.

"Current projections are dim. Challenging times loom large," said Twose.

Who says something really matters

Local mainstream media is so heavily influenced by national government spin that we cannot take anything that is said at face value. And I do my best to expose the most blatant deceptions about jobs and employment news that I come across.

Which is why this report has to be taken seriously. The World Bank isn’t beyond the influence of key stakeholders with their own agendas. Many have argued that the World Bank which has had an American as its President ever since its creation in 1946, promotes a US based world view.

And I have concerns that the World Bank still clings to a largely discredited view on monetary systems.

But critically, the World Bank isn’t controlled by politicians. And that’s the most important thing in my view. No-one at the World Bank is trying to win votes from citizens. They gain no benefit by telling people that things are better than they really are.


100 million unemployed

The report, compiled with the OECD and International Labor Organization, said more than 100 million people were unemployed in G-20 economies and 447 million were considered "working poor," living on less than US$2 a day.

It said despite a modest economic recovery in 2013-14, global growth was expected to remain below trend with downside risks in the foreseeable future, while weak labor markets were constraining consumption and investment.

The persistent slow growth will continue to dampen employment prospects, it said, and warned that real wages had stagnated across many advanced G-20 nations and even fallen in some.

"There is no magic bullet to solve this jobs crisis, in emerging markets or advanced economies," said Twose.

"We do know we need to create an extra 600 million jobs worldwide by the year 2030 just to cope with the expanding population.

"That requires not just the leadership of ministries of labor but their active collaboration with all other ministries — a whole of government approach cutting across different ministries, and of course the direct and sustained involvement of the private sector."


The Group of 20 leaders have called for each member country to develop growth strategies and employment action plans. They emphasized the need for coordinated and integrated public policies, along with resilient social protection systems, sustainable public finance and well-regulated financial systems.

"Coordinated policies in these areas are seen as the foundation for sustainable, job-creating economic growth," says the report.

So there we have it. The responsibility for solving the problem has been passed to national governments. And they are urged to adopt a cross-departmental approach to solving the problem.

Given the nature of governmental silos and the painfully slow way in which government policies are formulated and implemented, I’m not holding my breath for any big breakthroughs anytime soon.

And sadly the subtitle of this blog seems to be one thing which isn’t about to become redundant for a long while yet.






Why we all need to rethink our career plans right now


By Neil Patrick

We all need to think differently about our jobs and careers in the 21st century. This isn’t something which is ever talked about in the mainstream media. They are too busy reporting job losses and hunting down stories about new jobs being created. At best you’ll find tips about interviews or resume writing. None of this information deals with the fundamental shifts in society that we seeing today and which will become more and more dominant in the future. Worse, none of this really helps people who are desperately searching for jobs and trying to figure out why even if they have great qualifications, they still can’t find work…

What is REALLY going on?


Part of the reason for this tragic state of affairs is that the world is undergoing a radical transformation. It’s a change so great that nothing like it has happened for over two hundred years. It’s the endgame of a complex interplay between technology, energy sources, demographics, communications, globalisation and the biosphere.

Jeremy Rifkin’s latest book, “The Zero Marginal Cost Society” has set out an immensely insightful view of what’s really going on in the world today. And it has nothing to do with selfish businesses, greedy bankers or corrupt politicians.



As Rifkin says, “We are just beginning to glimpse the bare outlines of an emerging new economic system, the collaborative commons. This is the first new economic paradigm to emerge on the world scene since the advent of capitalism and socialism in the early 19th century. So it's a remarkable historical event. It has long-term implications for society”.

Technology will continue to make goods and services cheaper and cheaper until they are almost free

The trigger for this global change is something called “zero marginal cost”. Marginal costs are the costs of producing an extra unit of a good or service after your fixed costs are covered. All business people are familiar with marginal costs, most of the public isn't. And as I discussed here, marginal costs have been falling consistently for decades as technology progressively replaced expensive human labor and drove down the cost of production. I distinctly recall wanting a flat screen television about twelve years ago. I never bought one then, because they cost about £15,000. Today I could buy a bigger and much better TV for less than £1000.

Books used to be another thing I would spend a lot of money on. It wasn’t unusual for me to fork out £20, £30 or even more to buy a printed copy of a book that really interested me. Today I can download an electronic version usually for around £5. CDs would cost me £10-£15 each back then. Today, most CDs are about half that price and legal downloads even less.

Endlessly falling marginal cost means consumer goods and many services will continue to get cheaper and cheaper, heading ever closer to zero. Zero or near zero marginal cost is going to dramatically affect every single person in the world in the coming years in every aspect of their life.

A new economic paradigm is on its way right now

There's a paradox embedded in the heart of the capitalist market system that’s pretty much never discussed. This paradox has been responsible for the tremendous success of capitalism over the last two centuries. But here's the irony; the very success of this paradox is now leading to an end game and the new paradigm emerging is what Rifkin calls, “collaborative commons”.

In a traditional market, sellers are always constantly probing for new technologies that can increase their productivity, reduce their marginal costs so they can put out cheaper products and win over consumers and market share and beat out their competitors and bring some profit back to investors. So business people are always looking for ways to increase productivity and reduce their marginal cost.

But they simply never expected in their wildest dreams that there would be a technology revolution so powerful that it might reduce those margins of cost to near zero making goods and services essentially free, priceless and beyond the market exchange economy. That's now beginning to happen in the real world.

And the internet is at the heart of this transformation

The first inklings of this zero margin cost phenomenon was with the inception of the world wide web from 1990. Millions of consumers became prosumers with the advent of the Internet. Today, they produce and share their own videos, their own news blogs, their own entertainment and their own knowledge with each other. In these lateral networks, this is done at near zero marginal cost. It’s essentially free, completely bypassing the capitalist market.

This zero marginal cost phenomena wreaked havoc first on publishing businesses. Newspapers went out of business; they couldn't compete with near zero marginal costs. Magazines went out of business. Record companies went out of business.

But free stuff cannot easily be converted into stuff which earns us money

The strange thing about it is that at first a lot of industry watchers said this was a good thing. They argued that if we give out more and more information goods free and people are producing and sharing it free, these “freemiums” will stimulate people's appetite to want premiums and then upgrade this free goods and information by getting more customized information.

Musicians gave away their music free when they started to see this happen hoping that they would get a big loyal fan base and then their fans would be enticed to go to their concerts and pay the premium in order to be there in person. We saw a similar strategy with newspapers. The New York Times will give you ten free articles a month, hoping that you'll then upgrade to premiums and join their subscription service. It just didn't happen on any large scale.

This was very naïve by industry watchers. Sure, some people have moved from freemiums to premiums but when more and more information goods are out there nearly free shared with each other, music, film, arts, information and knowledge, the attention span and scarcity is not there to motivate people enough to want to pay for the premiums when they have so much available already for free.

What does this mean for jobs in the future?

All the while that this has been going on, jobs have become scarcer for more and more people. Even where human skills are required to deliver services, like healthcare, the ever increasing efficiency of the technology they use to provide care, means fewer and fewer people are needed.

The implications of the zero marginal cost society are huge. We all need to think differently about how we will earn a living in the coming years. There are several implications as I see it:
  1. Even if we are working full time currently, it is almost certain that the number of people organisations require to do the type of work we do will continue to reduce. 
  2. As traditional jobs continue to become scarcer, competition for the remaining jobs will continue to become fiercer. 
  3. The loss of a job is likely to result in longer periods without work. The loss of income coupled with continuing outgoings, will continue to bankrupt many people. 
Placing our entire faith in our skills and qualifications that have enabled our careers until now, will therefore not guarantee our incomes in the future. We all need to plan for this eventuality and the start point for this planning is how we assess the personal assets that we have to deploy. And these may be very different assets to the ones which have enabled our careers up to now.

I believe that we can keep ahead of this tsunami of job destruction if we embrace three essential ideas about our careers in the internet age:

The importance of connectivity and personal networks. The internet facilitates the development of our personal networks. The largest numbers of opportunities will accrue to those who are the best connected people. This is why Linkedin and other social media is so important to all of us.

Collaborative approaches will yield greater returns than competitive ones. Building our opportunities will be less and less as a result of competition. More and more they will be the result of collaborations. People do business with people they like. And helping others out is the best way I know to develop the necessary goodwill for a relationship which has future value to both parties.

Personal intellectual capital and especially forms of creativity that cannot be easy replicated by technology will be the most resistant to erosion. We tend to think of intellectual capital as a very corporate thing. But every one of us has personal intellectual capital which is ours and ours alone. It might be great cooking recipes. Or a gift for oratory, or the ability to show great empathy. The list is endless. But more than ever before we need to clearly understand what our personal intellectual capital assets are. This will be the only way we can figure out how we can leverage our value and continue to earn money in a zero marginal cost society…



From slavery to technology – a brief history of jobs.


By Neil Patrick

How can anyone expect to sell their labor in a future world where machines will do all the work?

Human civilization goes back more than 10,000 years, to when the first Neolithic peoples emerged. Early humans had four over-riding needs to survive: food, shelter, clothing and materials to make tools and weapons. No-one had told them about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs of course. So they didn’t know what they were missing. Consequently, self-actualization wasn’t too much of a priority for early man.

Money also didn’t exist in pre-history. The level and range of consumption was so low that simple bartering sufficed for millennia. Today, it’s hard to even imagine a society that isn’t based on money. And whilst many of us wish we had more money, we don’t really think very much about what money actually is. Let alone about the monetary and central banking systems that prevail in the world today. Instead, we mostly think of money as a handy way of facilitating the exchange of goods and services by means of a convenient and universally acceptable token.

While early man worked digging, planting, hunting, foraging and building mainly to satisfy his own needs directly, today, we exchange our work for money from satisfying the needs of others on a daily basis. We go to work, and that work is usually a job.

A job, any job, is labor. Whether you sweep streets or perform brain surgery, you are engaged in labor. And every job trades money for labor. In general terms, the scarcer your labor is relative to the demand for it in the market, the more highly paid you will be.

But slavery not paid work was the basis for the world’s most successful civilizations.

The more work a society can extract from its population, the more successful and powerful it becomes. So, the powerful members of society in all civilisations were quick to spot the opportunity that was available if you could get labor for free. The means to obtain this was the exertion of force. Slavery was created. We think of this as an ancient and barbaric practice. But the world’s greatest empires and nation states from ancient Greece to Rome and Egypt all leveraged free labor to build their power.


Not many workers were actually paid for building this.


Slavery was so successful that it proved remarkably persistent through the centuries, including in the US and Europe. The thirteenth amendment to the US Consitution, abolishing slavery, was passed by the Senate in April 1864, and by the House of Representatives in January 1865. The amendment did not take effect until it was ratified by three fourths of the states, which occurred on December 6, 1865, just about 150 years ago, which is yesterday in terms of human history on earth.

But that was far from the end of it. More recently, slave labor was the chosen means to sustaining the power of the Third Reich and effectively prolonged WW2 in Europe. Not to mention directly bringing about the premature demise of millions of innocents who were quite literally worked to death. But looked at from a purely economic perspective, slavery is a very effective method for a group of people to acquire by force greater wealth and power than they would be able to do by legitimate means.

But slavery hasn’t really ended.

Today slavery is far from over. Its most loathsome variant has been given a rebranding for a start; human trafficking. There are many different estimates of how large the human trafficking and sex trafficking industries are. Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People (2004), estimates that almost 27 million people are in "modern-day slavery" across the globe.

Only a little less exploitative is the debt-slave or indentured servant. Largely made illegal almost everywhere, this practice remains widespread in many parts of the world today. In order to pay off debts (often incurred through nefarious means in the first place), a person becomes a virtual slave, working to pay off debts that never actually reduce enough to free them.

A less repellent form of indentured servitude is the apprenticeship, where an individual trades their labor in return for training. Whilst an internee may not think of themselves as a slave, they are still willingly participating in a form of indentured servitude. This is why internships are on the rise. They are no more and no less than a white collar version of indentured servitude.

And even the academic world exploits free labor. Here, indenture takes the form of the scholarship system used by most universities. Nearly all Ph.D. programs use graduate students as a supply of virtually free labor, assisting staff and professors to carry out their work on research projects.

Now even slaves are about to be put out of work.

Quite apart from the abhorrent human suffering created by slavery, it has profound economic consequences on the rest of the population. Slave or low paid labor lessens the demand for paid labour. Which in turn makes the rest of society poorer, with the critical exception of those who are able to derive benefit from leveraging slaves or low paid workers.

And right now there’s a whole new generation of slaves. Except they are not human. They are better and even cheaper than human slaves. They are machines. They are micro-chips. And they are multiplying faster than a virus.

And this is the problem with technology. We love the way it enables us to do tasks faster, cheaper, better than ever before. At home and at work. But technology is both a glorious gift and our potential nemesis. Just like slavery, technology is consuming the opportunities available for people to exchange their labor for money. And technology is destroying jobs at an unprecedented and accelerating pace.

Plenty believe that this is just scare-mongering. That there is absolutely no historical precedent when technological progress has resulted in anything other than increased wealth and prosperity. That much is true. But today isn’t yesterday. And here’s why. We cannot separate technology from two other factors which combine to make today different from any time before; finite natural resources and a monetary system based on ever-compounding debt.

Planes, trains and automobiles.

Whilst some will profit from the creation of new types of work created by the tech age, many more will be condemned to a life of exclusion and poverty. And it's not just low paid manual workers. High skill jobs are under threat too. Even with their lengthy training, professionalism and high status, pilots’ days as the rockstars of the world of transportation are numbered.


How long before an aircraft cockpit no longer needs windows?


Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are now flying all over the world every day. Not just as surveillance platforms and weapons carriers for the military. They are doing photography, crop spraying and rescue work. Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos announced in December 2013 that Amazon is planning delivery of some of its parcels using UAVs. This was met with skepticism, with perceived obstacles including federal and state regulatory approval, public safety, reliability, individual privacy, operator training and certification, security (hacking), payload thievery, and logistical challenges. But just 7 months later, in July 2014, it was revealed that Amazon was working on its 8th and 9th drone prototypes, that could fly at 50 miles per hour and carry 5-pound packages.

It can only be a matter of time before unmanned aircraft are carrying passengers and much bigger payloads. How many pilots will become unemployed as more and more aircraft become pilotless?

Calling an argument “Luddite” doesn’t refute it.

The fear that technological progress threatens jobs is nothing new. In 19th century England, the Luddites, a group of textile workers carried out violent protests against newly developed labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work. The artisan Luddites burned mills and smashed looms. Many were subsequently arrested by the government and either executed or transported to penal colonies.

How many people working as drivers today will have little or no work 10 years from now? Right now, every day, Google has driverless cars trundling round the streets of California 24/7. Interestingly, in August 2011, a Google driverless car was involved in a crash near Google headquarters in Mountain View, California. The neo-Luddite’s celebrations at this news were short-lived, when Google reported that the car was being driven by a human being at the time of the accident.

Economists apply the term “Luddite fallacy” to the notion that technological unemployment leads to structural unemployment and is consequently economically calamitous. Their argument is essentially that if a technological innovation results in a reduction of necessary labour inputs for a given activity, then the industry-wide cost of production falls. This in turn lowers the price of the goods or service and increases the supply. The combination of greater supply and lower prices pushes consumption higher. Theoretically, this higher production volume requires an increase in aggregate labour inputs and this extra labour requirement offsets the unemployment caused by the original technical innovation.

But this is where the economists have got it wrong. They are looking at the question from too narrow a perspective. Implicit in their theoretical viewpoint is that our capacity and appetite to consume is limitless. That consumption is potentially infinite and only price dictates how much we will consume. The Luddites existed at a time when scarcity was still a prevalent state of affairs. Today, scarcity of goods has become scarce. It's only the world's non-renewable natural resources which are getting scarcer.

Machine derived work has replaced scarcity with over abundance.

Today, technology means we can produce way more than we can consume. Technology has almost eliminated scarcity in the developed world. Prior to 1800, the world was a low energy society. And the primary unit of work was a human being. A working human can produce about 0.1 horsepower. During this time, around 98% of all work done was the result of human labor. The remainder was animal power and basic technologies like the waterwheel. Machines existed, but they didn’t replace humans, they merely assisted human tasks.

So throughout all of mankind’s history, until around 1800, 98% of all work done was done by humans. This ratio was a fixed constant and meant that while 2% of humans enjoyed wealth and comfort, 98% endured a struggle just to survive. For millennia, there was no absolutely change in the energy available to produce things and so scarcity prevailed everywhere.

In 1781, James Watt created the first steam engine. Since that time there has been continuous technological progress and machines have become more and more efficient at converting energy into work. These developments have spread throughout the world and the United States was the clearest leader.

James Watt's and Henry Boulton's steam engine, 1784
By Robert Henry Thurston , via Wikimedia Commons


Between 1800 and 1900, the use of human labour steadily reduced, as the proportion of non-human energy moved ever upwards. The continuation of these two trends predicted that eventually machines would be doing more work than humans. And this is exactly what happened. We can more or less pinpoint when it happened - 1911. At this point, the proportion of machine-derived work overtook human work for the first time. And its growth has continued exponentially ever since.

As of 1992, the USA had over 35.3 billion horsepower of work energy available from non-human sources. This was a gain of over 4000% in just 192 years, and represents 89,000 kg-cal of mechanically derived work energy per person in the US. Before 1800, this figure had been constant for all time at just 2,000 kg-cal per person – a growth of over 44 times! This made the USA the first country in history able to produce more than it could consume and was the foundation of the US becoming a global superpower in the 20th century.

Today it is no co-incidence that the US is struggling to recover from the reverberations of the 2008 financial collapse. But the financial collapse wasn’t the cause of the recession, it was a symptom of it. A symptom of a society in which the creation of abundance by technology has overtaken the abilities of people to earn money by selling their labor to a market where scarcity was disappearing.

This isn’t a prophecy of doom or neo-Luddite manifesto however. It is merely a description of why we all need to grasp a new economic paradigm if we are to survive and prosper in the 21st century. It’s not the end, rather it’s the beginning of a new economic era. We are on the cusp of a transformation of society which voids many of the ideas that underpinned all our thinking about how we earn the money to lead our lives.

I'm not the only person that thinks this. This TEDx talk by economist Andrew McAfee argues that that, yes, machines will take our jobs. The kind of jobs we know now. And here he thinks through what future jobs might look like, and who will become the 21st century's have's and have-nots.









How to earn money while you look for your next job


By Diana Schneidman

There are millions of things you could do while you look for your next job.
  • You could mow lawns or shovel snow. 
  • You could return recyclables or take a metal detector down to the beach. 
  • You could work breakfast shift at the local fast-food outlet or babysit your nephew. 
Here’s a better idea: You could practice your proven work skills as a well-paid freelancer or consultant working with businesses.

Why businesses? Well, because that’s where the money is. Businesses are more likely to have the funds to hire the assistance they need than individuals are, even if the individuals do have a need that service providers can fill.

This strategy is easier to implement than you may think, and if you have a little gumption, applied with forethought and taste, you can be earning good money quickly in a few weeks or less. 



The secret to success is to get busy with marketing efforts that directly connect you with valid prospects while postponing nice-to-have but optional brand positioning and internet marketing for later.

I’ve been unemployed several times and each time I followed the same three steps to land work as a freelance writer / editorial consultant serving the insurance and asset management industries.

These steps are:

Step #1: Offer a service as similar as possible to what you did in your last good full-time job.

You can jump into marketing with confidence because you understand which companies are most likely to want your services and exactly which benefits they desire. You also know the job titles of those most likely to hire you.

Also, it’s easiest to work independently when you have already polished your skills and can do the work without guidance from others.

Some may advise that you should do what you love and the money will follow. Sounds persuasive but this saying is not always true. Your hobbies and other “love interests” may be in overcrowded fields or talents that are challenging to monetize.

So why not start where you are and offer the service you know best?


Step #2: Contact the best prospects individually . . . and since today’s marketing gurus recommend developing personal relationships, why not start with a no-pressure, simple phone call?

Over the years I’ve made thousands of phone calls on behalf of my services and I only remember one person who hung up on me.

My calls are nothing like the nuisance calls you get at home while at the dinner table.

Since I only phone businesses, I call during business hours. I make the calls myself. I phone live - no recordings for me!

I only phone people who are likely to want my services.

I get to the point quickly and don’t waste time on useless happy chatter.

Sure, some people say “no,” but it’s all in a day’s work. I don’t consider a simple “no” as rejection.

Step #3: Get real! Let’s define getting work quickly as within 30 days, not 30 minutes.

Every marketing technique, from Twitter to advertising, relies on large numbers. So does phoning.


Why not give this simple three-step system a try? Access everything you need to know to achieve success with Diana Schneidman’s new book on Amazon: Real Skills, Real Income, A Proven Marketing System to Land Well-Paid Freelance and Consulting Work in 30 Days or Less.
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0991015304)


Diana offers an informative blog and other free advice on how to market freelance and consulting services at www.StandUp8Times.com.


How to assess the risk and rewards of joining a start-up


By Neil Patrick

In my career, I have been a member of three start-up teams. Two were highly successful. One was not. How can you tell which is which before you join?

Last week I had an interesting meeting. I had a coffee with a new Linkedin friend. It was one of those getting to know you type of conversations.

It turned out that he’d been a casualty of a failed business start-up. He’d invested a lot of his time, energy, skills and money into a business which the management team had convinced themselves would make them all millionaires.

But due to a variety of reasons outside his control, the business foundered. He ended up with no job. Nothing. Not even a redundancy cheque.

His story got me thinking about how we decide to join a start-up. I’ve done it three times in my own career. And I learned something different each time.

Often we don’t take the necessary steps to actively control our careers. We just react to the opportunities as they come along and they flow over us in a somewhat unplanned fashion. And if we are not totally happy in our present role, the prospects of a start-up can be highly attractive. You’ll get out of an organisation you don’t like very much and have the opportunity to shape a new one that’s much more to your liking.

But when we leave a ‘safe’ job for a shiny new start-up, many people do it because it offers the prospect of a big pay-off in the future.

That’s a problem; we get dazzled by the prospect of that big payoff, rather than being focused on what has to be achieved hit the jackpot.

And realistically what are the prospects of surviving a start-up, let alone making the big time? That’s the really important thing you must understand before you jump ship. 




But to get back to my new connection’s story. I could see several aspects of it which have relevance to almost everyone:

If a start-up offer materializes when we are job hunting, it’s tempting to just grab it.

The events which led up to the eventual meltdown in this story were not the result a great business plan gone wrong, but rather a series of events which created the illusion of an opportunity. He had lost his job recently so was on the hunt for his next paycheck.

Then the opportunity with the start-up came along. My friend had seized it with enthusiasm, but did he do the necessary due diligence? I don’t know, but if he did, it was clearly insufficiently rigorous. I think it just happened to come along when he needed a job and it was the most accessible offer around.

We can get blinded by the temptations of massive payoffs so easily

The excitement of the prospect of a huge pay-off is an extra tempting proposition for most of us. But the job offer isn't the same thing at all. You should view it as the offer of a job which may evaporate faster than any you've had before. And leave you with nothing.

So you must be clear you are comfortable with this reality. Ask yourself questions, like ‘Will this improve my job satisfaction and my skills?’ Will it get me closer to where I really want to be five years from now? I say five years because that’s the typical horizon at which you should anticipate an exit from a start-up.

Start-up plans are always full of faulty assumptions

One thing I have learned is that unless the business plan is based on completely known assumptions from an identical business elsewhere, they will be wrong. Sometimes a little bit wrong, sometimes a million miles from anything even remotely accurate.

And the more innovative i.e. untried the business model is, the less reliable the business plan assumptions will be. So whilst I love start-ups, if you are joining one, my advice would be to make sure that you know how reliable the planning assumptions are.

It’s your future that is in jeopardy if someone else got these even a little bit wrong. One thing is for sure, no business plan survives its first real world contact without alteration.

Without the right people, a start-off is seriously disadvantaged from the off

You must pay close attention to the start-up team. If they have done it before, you can take some confidence that they know what they are doing. If not, you need to really decide whether they can be relied upon to achieve what’s required.

Often start-ups struggle to attract the best talent. They are forced to settle for who they can get. This is simply because since they have no track record, they are obliged to pick from the minority who are willing to take the risk. And unless the leadership team has a stellar record of success, these are rarely the best possible candidates.

If we are not true to ourselves, we can never do our best work

I know, I know. It’s that ‘p’ word again. Passion.

It’s become a cliché. We get asked it at interviews. What’s your passion? And we feel obliged to say something ridiculous, like, ‘My real passion is building SQL databases’. Really? 

Our true passion is what we feel compelled to do. It’s what we’d do even if no-one paid us to do it…ever.

In hindsight, only one of the three start-ups I took on really matched my passion at the time. The other two I took on because they appeared to be the best option available at the time. In hindsight therefore, two were a bad choice for me.

In the case of my friend, I am pretty certain that he wasn’t truly following his passion either.

Joining a start-up isn’t a guaranteed ticket to fabulous riches

There’s a difference to being a founder (and therefore owning a large slice of the equity) and an early joiner, in which case you will possibly be offered stock if you stick around long enough AND if the business flourishes. This isn’t to be sniffed at, but it probably won't get you into the millionaires club either.

Plus you should expect that the next five years of your life will be consumed by the business. Its needs will take precedence over you own. This is fine if it’s a commitment you are willing to make and you believe totally in the company mission and business plan and playing your part fully in ensuring it becomes a reality.

If not, you really shouldn't be there.

So how should you decide whether you should join a start-up?

This depends on you. What do you find most important? If you are looking to strike it really rich, you probably have a better shot at doing so by being a moderately successful co-founder (eg 30% of a £10m exit is £3m). As an early joiner, even with a bigger exit value, your payout will be much less (eg 0.5% of a £25m exit is £125k).

On the other hand, if you are merely looking to accelerate your career, then there’s much to be gained by finding a superstar team and joining it at the earliest possible opportunity. Whatever happens to the business in the coming years, you’ll learn lessons of huge value to your future career.

At the end of the day, the key is to know what is most important to you, have a clear appraisal of the business plan and team and be completely clear about why you are joining.

Now can I try that again please?

How to use LinkedIn to power up your job search – and it’s not the way you think


By Neil Patrick

I have read a great deal recently about why some people think Linkedin is a bad place to find your next job.

And I think there’s some truth in these criticisms. Why do I say this?

  • Jobs on LinkedIn are advertised because it’s a really low cost way for recruiters and hiring companies to reach a lot of people. Advertising on LinkedIn starts at $2 a click. So getting your job in front of 500 targeted candidates costs from $1000. That’s cheap in advertising terms.
  • This is good news for recruiters but bad news for candidates. For candidates, the old problem of being a small fish in a big pond hasn’t gone away. In June 2013, LinkedIn reported it had 259 million registered users worldwide… 
  • LinkedIn’s revenues depend heavily on recruitment advertising. In 2012 this was $84.9m. I don’t yet have the 2013 figures, but growth forecasts are in the 25% - 45% range. The point is that LinkedIn will for sure be focussing hard on further growth in this sector and we’ll see more initiatives in this area of activity by LinkedIn. 
  • Many jobs I have seen advertised on LinkedIn have a list of required qualities and experience that are so great, you’d need to have at least 50 years of experience to get close to what is being asked for. And typically the salary range is rarely shown… 

So, just like jobs boards and all online recruitment, you are forced to play a numbers game, and the odds are stacked against you right from the start.


LinkedIn is facing some business challenges

In essence, LinkedIn is a highly attractive medium for recruiters, but overcomes few of the hurdles faced by jobseekers. Result - more and more jobs are being posted on LinkedIn. And growth of the LinkedIn user base means competition for jobs advertised there must grow too. This isn’t good news if you are job hunting.

But there’re some headwinds for LinkedIn as a business too. Many analysts on Wall Street believe that we are witnessing the development of a social media bubble, citing for example the near doubling of Twitter’s equity value on the first day following its IPO.

Linkedin has a key weakness too in its user base. It isn’t getting much use by the real captains of industry. In fact there’s an argument that the more senior you are, the less you will use Linkedin. Like all social media, Linkedin also faces a challenge to grow its revenues. As it progressively introduces more and more initiatives that help achieve this, the positive user experience is difficult to maintain.


But it’s still really valuable for job hunting

Having said all of that, I still think LinkedIn is a key tool for job hunting and this goes back to two things which were part of its founding principles:

  1. The fostering of networking between professionals across the globe. 
  2. It’s ability to facilitate the sharing of information between people who would probably never meet in the real world. 



Baby Boomers need to understand a whole new world

Baby boomers grew up and built their careers in a time where there was no social media. The whole world operated on hierarchical structures – from heads of state to voters, from media owners to readers, from archbishops to congregations.

And of course in the business world from CEOs to workers and consumers.

Power and influence was exercised generally in a top down fashion with just the occasional acquiescence to taking up ideas and wishes from the bottom up.

The world of digital media has demolished this model. Social media scales laterally. Influence spreads from peer to peer. It fosters collaboration.

It’s a genuine social revolution. Just look at how the Arab Spring gained momentum – people in repressive dictatorships found that they could spread their influence to their peers rapidly and almost for free. And critically they could do this with absolutely no approval from their hierarchical superiors.

This characteristic of the social web is difficult to come to terms with for a generation that has grown up in a hierarchical world. I think many baby boomers like the communication tools of the social web. They see it as convenient and cheap, but they haven’t really grasped that its biggest change isn’t a technological one, it’s a societal one.

For Gen Y who have grown up with social media and digital technologies, this isn’t a change at all. For them, it’s always been this way. And for Gen X, it’s a change that they’ve been part of during most of their adult lives.

So baby boomers have a double disadvantage, the most obvious is of course that they are not as savvy with the technology as younger generations. But this can be overcome with a bit of application and persistence. The bigger problem in my view is that it requires a whole different world view. The shift from a hierarchical frame of reference to a lateral and peer to peer one requires a 90 degree rotation of your perspective.


Understand the power of networks and you’re halfway there

So to get back to the title of this post, the power of Linkedin for job search isn’t that it’s a new medium for finding job adverts. As I outlined at the start, this is really an illusion anyway and it helps recruiters and hiring organisations much more than it helps applicants.

No the real power of Linkedin is how it allows us to build powerful personal networks.

Network theorists identified the power of networks as early as the 1970s. Mark Granovetter and his paper “The Strength of Weak Ties,” and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi were pioneers in the understanding of network theory. Long before Linkedin was even set up, they identified why social networks have such tremendous reach and power.

Granovetter showed that people were more likely to get jobs from friends of friends, rather than immediate friends. The logic is that we know the same people our friends know and therefore if they know about a career opportunity, we probably already know about it, too. But your friend’s friends are more likely to know people you don’t know who know about career opportunities you haven’t heard about.

Let’s say you have ten close friends. That’s not much of a network, but if we also assume that each of your ten friends also has ten friends, your accessible network is now 100 people. If each of those ‘second degree’ friends also knows ten people, your reach is now 1,000…

But critically LinkedIn can multiply this reach many times over. If you have say 600 LinkedIn connections and these people all know a little about who you are and what you do, suddenly your reach is at least 6,000 people and probably much more.

The open sharing of information about ourselves, peer endorsement and shared community of online networks builds a sense of camaraderie and trust between members. Because LinkedIn focuses on people, it not only expands the scope of your search, it creates a network with trust created between members. Someone who is referred by someone you know (or someone who knows someone you know) is much more likely to be a helpful and valuable connection. This creates a connection that is psychologically more conducive to positive interaction.

Why it pays to be a ‘weak’ link

Most of us are or can easily become members of several different networks. The people who connect the unconnected are called “weak links.” This isn’t the same thing as “The Weakest Link” on TV. The weak link in network theory is where you start to get really powerful information flows because weak links connect previously unconnected people. LinkedIn has an extraordinary ability to enable you to be your own weak link, connecting you to people and potential career opportunities beyond your immediate network.

Looked at in this way, it’s an extraordinarily effective resource for career change, industry information, and employment opportunities.

So the real power of Linkedin for your job search isn’t the job ads it carries. It’s its extraordinary ability to empower you to build your network faster and more easily than ever before. Across countries. Across continents.

Once we start to think about our personal networks as being lateral not hierarchical and scaling them laterally, suddenly the way we think about and carry out our career development activities is transformed.

It’s a genuinely new age…thankfully without the need to buy crystals.



How (not) to get a six-figure salary job


By Neil Patrick

If you are going after the highest paying jobs around, it’s really important you do your homework and here’s why…

A little while ago I was approached by a head-hunter about a job.

At first I wasn't especially interested. It's not unusual for this to happen. But I looked into the job and it soon became clear this job was a great match for my skills and experience and I knew I’d be able to make a big contribution. It was a board level job in a plc. with a solid track record. It also had a very large salary and bonus attached.

I managed to extract from the head-hunter who the client was. Then I went to work. I mean really went to work. I got hold of every news report, annual accounts report and company statement I could find. I tracked the share price history. I used LinkedIn and other social media to discover the name and background of every senior person in the business. I researched their competitors. And their competitors’ strategies. I made notes on all the market sector reports and analysis I could find.

This research suggested to me some strategic weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the business. I was restricted of course in the information I could access, but I was certain the business was in a much weaker position than its headline results suggested. Which posed an interesting question. Should I raise these questions and risk appearing foolish or negative because I couldn’t access all the information I really needed, or should I present my analysis and queries for discussion?

Rightly or wrongly, I opted for a compromise. I compiled a list of key questions about the business, the job and the business’s strategy touching on what I thought were the key weaknesses, but not actually digging into them too hard.

The problem with this approach was that if I was offered and accepted the job, I’d be getting into a business I had serious strategic worries about. And as the newest member of the exec team, I might be at risk of alienating myself from day one if my view was in conflict with theirs. I decided to worry about that question only when and if I was ever offered the job.

Appear keen whatever reservations you may have

I told the head-hunter I was interested in the job. Very interested.

After this, I agreed to meet up with the head-hunter and we talked for a couple of hours over lunch about my background and the role in question. The meeting went well and my interest level increased. The head-hunter explained to me that it might take a while to hear anything further as he was having a dozen or so meetings like the one he’d had with me, then he’d need to go back to his client and review the candidates he’d found and decide who to invite for interview.

I waited for several weeks but kept in touch with the head-hunter once a week or so. Things did as he’d anticipated take a while to progress. The reason was that his client was the CEO and he was having big difficulties getting a slot in his diary to meet and decide who to select for interview.

Then about a month after our first meeting, the head-hunter called me. I’d been selected for interview by the CEO along with two other candidates.

Prepare, prepare, prepare

So I went back to intensive preparation. I wrote down every question I thought I might be asked, from the deceptively simple ‘tell me about yourself’, to the testily specific ‘what’s your take on the regulatory frameworks in the market’. And everything in between. I scripted the best answers I could come up with, polished them and learned them as mini-scripts so I could more or less recite them word perfectly.

But I didn't just prepare answers, I prepared almost as many questions. I wanted the interview to be as much of a discussion as I could make it. And for that, I needed good questions. This would not only take the pressure off me a little, it would show if I chose the right questions, that I had really done my homework.

All in all, I think I spent about five full days of work preparing. But at the end, I felt I was so prepared and ready, that I would put on my best possible performance. When the day came and I sat in the reception area, waiting to go into the interview, I was calm, focussed and actually looking forward to the interview and having the discussion.

I was surprised that the interview was just between the two of us. Perhaps this was a preview, before the final panel interview? I never did find out. But I did put on just about the best performance I was capable of. And at the end, I left feeling satisfied that I’d done the best job I possibly could.

Then wait, wait ,wait

As usually happens, I waited. And waited. After a couple of weeks the head-hunter contacted me and told me I was the second choice. And the first choice person had been offered the job. And accepted it. Naturally I asked what the reasons for the decision were. He said it was because the person they selected came from within the same industry and I did not.

This may or may not have been the whole truth. I will never know. Head-hunters are people too and they will usually select the reason they think will be the simplest and least hurtful to the applicant. Which of course actually isn’t the most helpful information the applicant can receive.



Why failure isn’t the end, it’s the beginning…

But here’s the interesting part of the story. A short while ago I picked up the business section of the paper and on the front page was a big headline about the firm in question. Their share price had collapsed to about 10% of the price it had been when I was interviewed. The business had not posted their annual report and accounts. The chairman said there was no realistic prospect the business could recover its revenues.

It was a tale of corporate catastrophe. My concerns about the business’s vulnerabilities had been borne out even faster than I’d imagined possible.

And I could only imagine what the daily experience of working at the business would have been like. Pure misery I suspect.

Which leads me to what we can learn from this.

1. Time spent on company research is never wasted

I still don’t know if I would have accepted the job if I’d been offered it. Before accepting, I think I’d probably have asked for a further meeting to talk in detail about the concerns I had and only then would have made the decision.

But quite apart from this aspect, the detailed preparation filled me with confidence about my capability to do well at interview. Nerves were not a problem and I actually enjoyed the experience.

2. All that glitters is not necessarily gold

It would have been easy to be blinded by the status and reward package on offer. But I actually feel I escaped a near miss rather than experienced a failure. And the fact that I spotted the vulnerabilities that subsequently came to cripple the business has boosted my confidence in my own judgement.

3. Trust your instincts and research

By carrying out all the due diligence I could before the interview, I not only felt I was very well equipped to handle the interview, if I had have been offered the job, whether I’d accepted it or not, I’d have made the decision with full knowledge of the critical facts.

4. Don’t rely on everything a head-hunter tells you

My experience proved again that you cannot rely on head-hunters to tell you the truth. I’m not saying the head-hunter was deceitful or not acting in good faith - but they are in the business of simply finding the best people for a job, not carrying out forensic evaluation of their client’s businesses. That's down to us.

5. Failures may lead directly to your next endeavour

Had I been offered and taken this job, I certainly would not have started this blog. And I certainly wouldn’t be enjoying the company of all the great people around the world it’s put me in contact with. The course of my professional life would have been totally different. I think it’s no exaggeration to say this interview failure has turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise.


What to say to employers to get hired into the hidden jobs market



If you are looking for a job, how many times have you called a company to ask if they have any job openings and the response has been something like, ‘Not right now, but please send us your resume and we’ll keep it on file and let you know if something comes up’?

I don’t think I can say it’s never happened, but I have never heard of anyone being called back after their resume has been sent in to a firm and put ‘on file’.

It might as well be filed in the bin. Sometimes, I am sure it is.

To avoid this happening to you, you need totally different tactics.

As I talked about in this post here on the hidden job market, the secret is not to ask people if they have any job vacancies. It’s to become a detective and use research to discover firms that have a problem that you can help them solve.

As with so many aspects of successful job searching, the key to your success is in working smarter, not harder. And thinking of yourself not as a job seeker, but a solution to other people’s problems. Find the problems and you’re half way there.

If you want to know how you can do this, how to find the right organisations to approach and exactly what to say to them, this great clip from sales expert Jill Konrath, spells it all out for you.




Interview Failure: Next Steps



BY MARCIA LAREAU

Interviewing is a skill that takes practice.

This is perhaps the most difficult part of the job search process. After the exhausting roller coaster of emotions that surround the interview process, receiving the bad news is particularly difficult. For help on managing the emotional trauma, consider the blog series: Unemployment: The breeding ground for rejection (February 2012).

What should you do? Here is a list for your consideration. 

When you receive the news: 

Be professional and gracious:

“Thank you for calling. I’m disappointed but I’m grateful you considered me for this position. Is there anything you can tell me that will strengthen my next interview?” (See the note below on this.)

“Thank you. I appreciate your help. If there are other opportunities with ________ (Name of Company) in the future, I hope you will contact me.”


Take time alone or with trusted friends to process the news.

You may wish to tap into your personal support network to ensure your self-belief is not affected by this outcome. Or you may choose to deal with the situation on your own. Whichever you choose just remember, the decision about this job has absolutely no bearing, influence or relevance to the next job you are interviewed for.

Do not allow this outcome to diminish your estimation of your value

We all know that decisions about who is hired and who is not are driven by a multitude of factors. And your personal quality may very well have been greater than all the other applicants even though you were not offered this particular job.

Create a communication plan: 

  • Communicate the news professionally, and maintain your dignity.
  • Write thank-you notes to the company contacts. Indicate something personal that you appreciated during the process. Keep it short and encourage further interaction. Include your contact information.
  • Use a handwritten format for small to mid-sized companies, formal businesses (law firms, libraries, local government, etc.) Use email for large companies, corporations, and recruiters. 

Identify lessons learned and record changes for future opportunities: 

  • Reconsider your dress, mannerisms, and verbiage.
  • Make a note of any of the interview questions you may not have been prepared for.

Track your personal thoughts about your interview and review past thoughts in light of the current information:

  • Remain positive, move to the next step in your Employment Action Plan. 
  • Stay focused.
  • Identify what works for you in this situation.
  • Avoid “beating yourself up”. (This is a new skill that takes practice.)
  • Maintain your commitment to the process.
  • Monitor your thoughts and avoid negativity triggers.

Should you ask for feedback? 

Unless the source is trusted, I usually advise against this. I make exception if you are in the first five years of your career. 

If you didn’t get the position and you ask for feedback, the person will feel obligated to respond with some element that was problematic. They might be concerned that a lawsuit could follow…so they may make something up or relay false information that has no credibility, causes pain, and adds unnecessary apprehension in your next interview.


Called a Creative Thinker, Career Futurist, and a person of unusual solution, Marcia LaReau founded Forward Motion, LLC in 2007. Since that time, she has become a recognized leader in the employment industry, and Forward Motion has spread across the United States and abroad to help jobseekers find jobs that fit.

Website: http://forwardmotioncareers.com/
Blog: http://forwardmotioncareers.com/category/blog/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ForwardMotionUS



How a blog will explode your work opportunities


By Neil Patrick

If you are looking for work, or wish to boost your profile, you may have seriously underestimated the value of having a blog. Or you may have thought it is too difficult without technical skills. Or it’s too time consuming. Or any other excuse.

Well, don’t debate it, don’t think about it, just do it!

It’s quite possibly the best investment in your professional prospects you’ll ever make.

How long do you spend currently online each day? And wouldn’t an hour or two a day of that time be a better investment if it boosted your personal profile in your area of expertise and show cased your knowledge and professionalism to the people YOU need to influence?

And it’s much, much easier than you’d ever believe. What’s more, one of the most common reasons recruiters and hiring companies discriminate against older workers is that they believe that older professionals don’t have up to date IT and digital media skills. Doing this destroys that prejudice at a single stroke!

So don’t wait or even think about it too much.

Just do it.

You’ll boost your profile, showcase your talent AND prove not only that you are technically savvy, but also that you know how to take the initiative.



Oh, and if that’s not enough, you’ll learn a heap of valuable new things and grow your contact network too!

Here’s Jill Konrath, who spells these points out brilliantly as usual. Everything you need to understand about why and what you should do to set up your blog is here...not all the little details granted, but all the vital fundamentals to get you started are covered in less than 10 minutes!

This really is all you need to know to get started and to start building your online asset base.

Oh and if you want me to help you with my own tips and experience about this topic, just let me know!




Why it’s a lie that UK employment is at 'record high'


By Neil Patrick

It's spin time again folks!

UK government ministers and some parts of the press have seized upon the latest UK Office for National Statistics employment figures showing that the number of people in work in the UK has increased by 155,000 to its "highest level since records began in 1971".

Sounds good doesn't it? But sadly this isn't quite such good news as it appears. Yup, it’s a true statistic, but it’s the wrong statistic to use. In fact, it’s one of the simplest deceptions in the book of statistical trickery.

In this case, it capitalises on the fact that UK population has grown massively by over 400,000 in just the last year alone.

So when we look at the official employment rate, i.e. the percentage measure of the number of people in paid work, this is still a whopping 2% off where it was in 2008 before the recession hit, falling to 71.7% from over 73%.




Sure 2% doesn’t sound much, but in real life, it means that at least half a million more people would need to get jobs before the employment rate returns to its pre-recession peak. The number of people in work is indeed at the highest level ever - but so too is the number of people in the UK.

The absolute numbers of people in work in the UK have been pushed up by population growth and immigration. The UK's population soared by 419,900 to 63.7 million between between June 2011 and June 2012.

Martin Beck, UK economist at Capital Economics said: "The government would prefer to use employment levels rather than percentages but… the rate is still about 2% below 2008. It's mainly due to population growth and a bit of migration from the European Union."

So the ‘true’ figure, the unemployment rate, measuring the amount of people who are actively seeking work, remains at 7.7% and has not fallen below this level since mid-2009.

Graeme Leach, chief economist of the Institute for Directors, said the ‘recovery’ was "job-lite".

I’d go further; the ‘recovery’ if it can ever be called such, is currently creating mainly low paid jobs, many of which are being taken up by young immigrants to the UK.

Consequently, wage growth still remains weak - total pay for employees rose by just 0.7% in the year to August 2013. And this remained below the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate of inflation of 2.7%, so wages are actually getting lower in real terms.

Employment minister Esther McVey apparently doesn’t agree with me, saying: "I think this is very positive news, because that's more than a million people who have got jobs since the general election." Hmmm...

So as usual, the employment figures are getting spun by the government. Once you strip away the thin façade of misused statistics, there really is no UK jobs recovery, let alone any growth in incomes. And if ministers are really looking at absolute job numbers as their key progress indicator, then they are not only misleading us, they are deceiving themselves. I’m not sure which is worse.



How to Brand Your YouTube Account for Your Job Search


By Heather R. Huhman

YouTube is the largest video-sharing site on the planet, but it’s often overlooked as a platform on which to build your personal brand. Job seekers carefully craft their Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn pages to portray their professional selves, but often they overlook the power of the video.

If employers want to really get a sense of who you are, video is simply more effective at communicating this than words on a page. YouTube can be an excellent resource to point recruiters to you, so they can get to know you during the job search. Check out these tips for successfully branding yours.


Decide how to brand yourself. If you’ve already been branding yourself as an expert or professional in a particular field, continue with that theme on your YouTube page. Click on your username in the top right corner, and select “Settings.” From here, you can link your account to your Twitter and Facebook (ideal for video sharing), customize your URL, and manage your videos. Use this page to adjust your settings and learn the ropes when it comes to privacy, playback, and monetization.

Customize it. Click your username and select “My Channel” from the drop-down list. Select “Channel Settings,” where you can customize your bio and layout. Include a professional avatar and customize your page to make it consistent with your other social networking sites by uploading your own background image. Under the “Info and Settings” tab, give your channel a title, add a description, and include tags with keywords so others can find you, such as “marketing,” “finance,” or any other words to suit your personal brand.

Create quality videos. The most difficult part of creating a YouTube page may be coming up with the content, but chances are you already have a breadth of knowledge you could turn into an interesting and helpful YouTube video. Consider taping an introduction, offering advice in your field, or interviewing a fellow professional. Autoshare your videos on Twitter and Facebook, and link to them on your blog or website. Spend time promoting your videos, but also peruse YouTube for accounts similar to yours, and add relevant videos to your “likes” or “favorites.”

YouTube can be an excellent resource for beefing up your professional online brand, and can allow employers to catch a glimpse of the person behind the website, Facebook, or Twitter. For more information on creating your personal YouTube brand, check out YouTube’s tips here.

How have you worked with YouTube to enhance your personal brand? Share your tips below.


Heather R. Huhman is a career expert, experienced hiring manager, and founder & president of Come Recommended, a content marketing and digital PR consultancy for organizations with products that target job seekers and/or employers. She is also the author of Lies, Damned Lies & Internships (2011), #ENTRYLEVELtweet: Taking Your Career from Classroom to Cubicle (2010), and writes career and recruiting advice for numerous outlets.

Why it’s good to be promiscuous


By Neil Patrick

Last week I sent out a link to my LinkedIn profile via Twitter. It was accompanied with an open invitation to connect for anyone who wished to.

I had an unexpected reply tweet.

The exact words escape me now, but the essence was ‘ Why do this…surely you don’t want to connect with just anyone?’

My reply was unequivocal. Sure I do. Why would I not? I can always say 'No' (but I rarely do).

I had a similar conversation with a professional friend a couple of weeks ago. He has been a (very) late comer to Linkedin and only has about a dozen connections. He recognises the importance of building his network, but he was paranoid that if any of his connections were with anyone that wasn’t an absolute superstar, this might harm his reputation. But of course the people he wanted to connect with that didn’t know him or have any connection with him would be unlikely to accept an invitation from a stranger with only a dozen connections.

Catch 22.

Now if I think for a moment about all the work I am engaged on right now, I have about half a dozen professional projects on the go. How did these come to be? Well every single one bar just one, came about from relationships I have developed with other professionals through social media. That’s right about 83% of them.

And did I carefully target these people? Nope. They came about naturally through them choosing to work with me because they felt I was the right person that could help them out. And they made this choice of their own free will, not because I had targeted them as a ‘prospect’.

Sure I have had plenty of other approaches which I have turned down, but not because they were necessarily a waste of my time or unattractive, more because I have to prioritise and I’m in the fortunate position of being able to choose which proposals I take up and which I politely turn down.

But I have absolutely no way of knowing which connections I make through social media will turn into business relationships and which will not. And more importantly, if I wasted my time trying to second guess this, I suspect I’d nearly always get it wrong.

So I network freely and openly. And despite this ‘promiscuity’ I have not once had a problem with any of my social media connections.

Quite the contrary in fact. I am constantly amazed and humbled at how many people in my network help me out of sheer kindness and generosity of spirit.

All this social media interaction drives more attention. It’s like power to an electronic magnet. The more power, the stronger the attraction field becomes.

Exactly the same principles apply when you are looking to find a new job. If your attraction field is weak, you’ll get found by fewer prospective opportunities.

This principal and much more which it seems is counter-instinctive to many professional people is talked about here by the ever excellent Jill Konrath, who it seems is just as promiscuous as I am!