Who will take ownership of the jobs crisis?

By Neil Patrick

My recent posts have talked about the impact of technology on jobs. But this is far from the only threat to employment and a jobs recovery in the west. Off-shoring is a major progenitor of the jobs crisis. And the biggest problem with off-shoring is that no-one thinks it's a problem....except those who suffer its consequences and can do nothing about it.

The jobs crisis is real. The World Bank certainly thinks so as you can see here.

The problem is that no-one wants to take ownership of it. Just like the old saying, “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan”.

Empires have a habit of crumbling...

Governments have had an easy ride until now. Provide some tax-breaks and incentives to business here, some support for the unemployed there. Survive some rough and tumble with trade union negotiations without too much alienation of the electorate.

None of these things are comparable to the systemic collapse of jobs we now have to deal with in Europe and North America.

Thus, nothing that has gone before has equipped anyone in government with the skills and tools required to solve this problem.

And worse, big business can no longer be relied upon to act as a committed ally in the struggle. Globalization and off-shoring mean that the win-wins that were previously available for governments who acted benignly towards big business have disappeared. Permanently.

And this is why governments must rethink their relationships with big business.

Businesses drive to make the most profit they possibly can. Provided they stay within the law, no holds are barred. That’s the very nature of capitalism and a free market economy.

Big businesses think and act globally. But governments and citizens naturally enough think nationally and locally.

It is this mismatch in scale and geography which is at the heart of the problem.


Offshoring is a genie let out of the bottle

About 35 years ago, western firms started sending low skilled manufacturing work abroad on an ever increasing scale. By the late 1980s this was well established. And it grew. And grew. This mass-migration of jobs was overwhelmingly in one direction: away from rich countries to places where workers with adequate skills were much cheaper.

Shanghai - plenty of jobs here

Whether openly stated or not, lower labour costs were almost always the biggest driver. At first. For many firms, their survival was at stake, since new competitors were undercutting them on price. This usually involved closing plants in America and Europe and moving production to new factories in China, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, or Eastern Europe.

The most commonly cited benefits of off-shoring were fourfold:

• For workers in low-cost countries it would provide jobs and rapidly rising standards of living.
• Rich-world workers would be able to leave the dreary work to someone else.
• For consumers, they’d be able to buy goods at much lower prices than if production was onshore.
• For companies, lower labour costs would bring higher profits.

The trouble is that whilst these are all good things in small doses, what happens when the scale of the activity becomes so great that the migration of jobs elsewhere exceeds the ability of the domestic economy to create new ones at home?

Who cares that they can buy a new TV cheaper than ever before, if they cannot even afford to buy food or fuel?



The jobs are never coming back – even Steve Jobs thought so…

Off-shoring from West to East is now a major creator of job losses in rich countries. And not just for the less skilled, it’s now devastating the middle classes too.

US jobs reduction mirrors off-shoring

When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s captains of tech for dinner in California in February 2011, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.

As Steve Jobs of Apple spoke, Obama interrupted him with a question: “What would it take to make iPhones in the United States?”

Not so very long before, Apple had boasted that all its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold the previous year had been manufactured overseas.

"Why can’t that work come home?" Obama asked.

Jobs’ reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren't coming back,” he said.

Jobs' answer revealed the attitude at Apple and most global businesses. It isn’t just that labour is cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories , their flexibility and industrial skills have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most consumer products.



Government thinks big business is its friend…not anymore

Apple is one of the best-known, most admired and most imitated companies on earth. In 2011, it earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.

However, what vexes Obama, economists and policy makers is that Apple and many of its high-technology peers are not nearly as committed to creating American jobs as the previous generations of US industrial giants were.

In its early days, Apple didn't look much beyond its own backyard for manufacturing solutions. A few years after Apple began building the Macintosh in 1983, Jobs bragged that it was “a machine that is made in America.”

But by 2004, Apple had largely turned its back on the US and moved to off-shore manufacturing. Central to that decision was Timothy D. Cook, who replaced Jobs as chief executive in August, 2011, six weeks before Jobs’s death. Most other American electronics companies had already gone abroad, and Apple, which at the time was struggling, felt it had to seize any advantage it could find.

In part, Asian manufacturing was attractive because the semiskilled workers there were cheaper. But that wasn’t the main thing that attracted Apple.

For technology companies, the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of sources and suppliers. And as automation and AI inexorably increase, so the labour part of the equation becomes even less of a factor.

For Cook, the focus on Asia came down to two things. Factories in Asia can scale up and down faster and Asian supply chains have now surpassed what’s possible in the U.S. The result is that much of America’s manufacturing capacity has become largely obsolete. American manufacturing relative to Asia is now not unlike the Soviet Union was relative to the west in the Cold War era.



How many Apple’s are needed to make one General Motors? 10 actually…

Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s.

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, formerly an economic adviser to the White House.

“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

This used to be US car factory - today, it's a shopping mall

Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s on-site dormitories. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Similar stories could be told about almost any electronics company — outsourcing has become common in hundreds of industries, including accounting, legal services, banking, auto manufacturing and pharmaceuticals.



So who wants to own this problem?

Apple’s decisions reveal why the success of some prominent companies has not translated into large numbers of domestic jobs. “Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers, even when it wasn’t the best financial choice,” said Betsey Stevenson, formerly the chief economist at the Labor Department. “That’s disappeared. Profits and efficiency have trumped generosity.”

Companies and other economists think that notion is naïve. Though Americans are among the most educated workers in the world, they say the government has stopped training enough people in the mid-level skills that factories need. Clearly education alone is not enough to solve the problem.

To thrive, companies argue they need to move work where it can generate enough profits to keep paying for innovation. Doing otherwise risks losing even more American jobs over time, as evidenced by the legions of once-proud domestic manufacturers, including GM and others that have shrunk as more nimble competitors have emerged.

“We sell iPhones in over a hundred countries,” a current Apple executive said. “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.”

So business says it's not their problem and government doesn't know how to solve it. And just like two squabbling children, neither will accept any responsibility. Let alone ownership.

And that’s the crux…business will keep on doing what business does, chasing profits. And government will keep on doing what government does…

This may be the biggest problem facing North America and Europe today, but no-one wants to own it.



Some information in this post was taken from this article in the New York Times: LINK

How to spot character assassins at a meeting

By Neil Patrick

Ever wondered why you come out of some meetings feeling great and others when you feel completely dreadful? In the case of the latter, there’s a strong chance that there’s been some subtle character assassination going on. It’s often hard to spot, but I’ll reveal some of the giveaways in this post…

Yesterday I talked about the shocking story of how some organisations devote 300,000 man hours a year to a single weekly meeting at an estimated cost of £6 million. Today I’m going to look at another insidious characteristic of the meetings culture, which is how meetings are the number one forum for character assassination.

And more importantly, how you can spot when someone you think is being nice to you, is actually out to get you.

Power mongers disguise their tracks

Meetings have evolved to become complex and subtle forums where power plays are an ever present risk. We get so used to how our colleagues behave that the tactics of the power mongers often go unnoticed. But how people say things in meetings betrays their true agendas. And I’ve set out below how to read the subtext of the undermining tactics that the power mongers use to further their self-interest.

A meeting should be constructive, focussed, and extract the maximum value from all concerned. Instead, many meetings display Machiavellian undercurrents that involve obvious and not so obvious tactics by those present to further their own agendas, whilst simultaneously attempting to expose and belittle others. Meetings like this would quite possibly create better outcomes if they simply never took place at all.

If you think you’ve not come across this, think again…

Throughout my career, I’ve observed numerous things people say, which whilst apparently legitimate and innocuous are actually a dead give away that they are out to push themselves ahead while simultaneously putting others down.

And the more senior a person is, the more prone they are to do this. Its seems that seniority carries intoxicants and just like alcohol, the more that’s acquired, the more lax people become about what they say and how they say it.

Over many years I’ve seen what should have been positive and constructive meetings become psychological battlezones where no-one comes out feeling better than when they went in.

And in my book that’s the acid test. If everyone leaves feeling great and eager to get on with all the things that were decided, it’s been a good meeting. If they coming exhausted, stressed and just relieved it’s over, the meeting has been a failure.

So if these are the symptoms, what’s the disease?

If you have a lot a meetings that fail the acid test and you want to know why this is happening, pay closer attention not what people say, but how they say it. If you develop an ear for this, you’ll soon learn to spot who is up to no good.

But it’s important to take these points in context. Remember that none of these examples are absolute no-gos. It’s perfectly possible for any of them to be used legitimately without being evidence of a problem. It all comes down to a subtle blend of context, delivery, relationships and body language.

And the power monger’s first give away is body language. They direct their eye contact at whom they perceive to be the most important person. They more or else ignore everyone else.

But the real evidence is how they say things. They make statements and ask questions which are designed to undermine others whilst simultaneously attempting to elevate their own standing.

Here’s my list of 14 examples with the subtext provided:

“Why do you say that?” The speaker is expressing their defensiveness and probing the strength of your evidence. They are also questioning your reliability at the same time.

“This would be entirely inconsistent with…” The speaker is attempting to rule your view out of bounds by reference to a pre-existing value, policy or premise. It’s a disguised variant of, “That’s not how we do things round here.”

“If we do this, we’ll need to…” A last resort tactic when it seems a decision is going to go contrary to their preference. The speaker is insuring themselves by attempting to both pre-empt a problem and show that they are mindful of the potential negative fallout.

“Have you even thought about…?” The inclusion of just a single word, “even” turns a legitimate question into a complete derision of your statement.

“We don’t need all the details. The bottom line is...” A semi-polite version of “Let’s cut the crap here.” The speaker is implying that you are a pedant, while deflecting the need to involve themselves with trivial details. They are also implying that this is less important than other things they are concerned with.

“Well, these are the facts.” The speaker is emphasizing that they deal with the real facts, while implying that others are being misled by prejudice or invalid assumptions.

“We tried this once before and…(description of negative outcome)” The speaker is attempting to point out their superior experience and knowledge, whilst belittling the present idea by association with a previous action which may or may not be comparable.

“You did a great job on that!” A super sneaky tactic. The speaker is displaying a complementary attitude, while also implying that they’re in a position to judge you.

“Yes but how do we measure this?” The speaker is attempting to score merit points by highlighting that they are results focussed and suggesting that if something cannot be measured, it has no value.

“You might be right.” The speaker is adopting a disguise of open-mindedness while simultaneously patronising your authority and credibility.

“I think we’ve heard enough.” Probably for their own self-interest, the speaker is attempting to cut the discussion short and indicating their impatience to move on, whilst not very subtly highlighting that others are being unduly long-winded.

“I’m interested in knowing more about… Can you get back to us with....?” The speaker is highlighting the virtue of their receptiveness to ideas, while making you do the extra work required.

“I think what you’re trying to say is…” The speaker is attempting to convey that they give credit to others, while also demonstrating that they can articulate a point better than you can. It’s also a handy way to steal other’s ideas and adopt them as one’s own.

“I can see why you might think that.” Could also be phrased as: “I used to think that, too.” The speaker is attempting to veil their disagreement with a sympathetic attitude, while suggesting to the audience that they’ve moved way beyond your comprehension of the real issue.

Of course, a person can say any of these things without being ill-intentioned or wishing to undermine you. Everything depends on context, delivery style and motivation.

And of course, it can be perfectly legitimate to use any of these statements yourself. But they all carry a risk of antagonizing others, so if you are using them, it’s important to mitigate them with other clear qualifiers and cues that show you are not attempting to undermine them.

But to go back to the acid test of how everyone feels after a meeting, if you’ve come out a meeting feeling thoroughly demoralised, I’m willing to bet that you’ve just been exposed to a power mongers’ undermining behaviours.

I’m sure this list could be extended and if you’ve got any more examples to add, please post them in the comments below.

If you’re highly qualified, how come you can’t get a job?

By Neil Patrick

How can it be that so many highly skilled people are unemployed, while employers claim they cannot find people with the right skills?

Over the weekend I was reading The Third Industrial Revolution by Jeremy Rifkin. Although this book is about the economic, environmental, technological and social issues we face today, within its covers there is an explanation of this apparent contradiction.

And understanding this is of critical importance to anyone who wishes to prosper in their career over the long term.

We’re on the cusp of a new industrial era

Jeremy Rifkin has identified that industrial epochs are characterized by two determining factors. These are the dominant energy source and communication media.

So, the first industrial era was powered by coal and the prevailing communication medium was the printed word. Society organised itself around these…coal powered transport and industry and provided heat and light to homes and businesses. Print communicated everything from newspapers and novels to instruction manuals and bibles. All were committed to print.

The second industrial era is now in its death throes. This was driven by oil and the dominant communication mediums were radio, television and the telephone. In case you've not noticed, the oil is running out fast and TV and radio have ceased to be the dominant media they were in the last 60 or 70 years. Oh and it seems telephone landlines are becoming less and less popular too.

Rifkin believes that the third industrial era will be based on green energy and the internet. This change will have massive implications for the types of jobs we all do. The effects of the transformation will impact every one of us, not just those working in energy, communications and media. And there is clear evidence in many of the events that have unfolded over the last few years that he is right.

Rifkin even argues convincingly that the current financial crisis was a symptom of the end of the second industrial era, rather than the cause of it.

We’re all potential victims of accelerated obsolescence

So not only are we currently undergoing a transformation of society itself, the technologies which will define our society in the 21st century are undergoing a revolution too.

And because the pace of technological change is accelerating, very few people can assume that their skills will be current for much more than 10 years or so.

Google didn’t exist in 1995. Back then I would search the internet using a long forgotten search engine called Dogpile. Today, if a business doesn’t rank high on Google searches, it’s increasingly invisible and rightly or wrongly judged as second rate.

The credit industry was dominated by credit cards until 2008 and the financial collapse. Try finding a job today if you’re a credit card professional. Despite the credit crunch starting almost 6 years ago, one of the biggest UK credit card issuers, MBNA has been contracting now for years. It currently employs around 3,000 staff, down from 4,224 in 2011.

Yellow Pages was a huge global business for decades. But despite trying to shift its business online, it’s facing an inexorable decline in its relevancy. Not only that, it fails on environmental grounds too. The Product Stewardship Institute claims local governments spend $54 million a year to dispose of unwanted phone books and $9 million to recycle them. Phone books use low grade glues and are therefore difficult to recycle, and they often clog recycling machinery.

There’s no job security in established businesses either

Of course the decline in the fortunes of businesses is nothing new. What is new is that the speed at which a firm can move from established business and secure employer to contraction or even obsolescence. And if your career is tied up with one of them, your skills can become worthless very quickly.

The U.S. Postal Service suffered 30,000 layoffs in March 2010. Sears/K-Mart layed off 50,000 in January 1993. IBM layed off 60,000 in July 1993. And General Motors layed off 47,000 in February 2009. And these are just some of the biggest. For every one like this, there are hundreds of smaller less well reported downsizings and closures.

Organisations are very good at disguising their difficulties right up until the last moment. Are you really tuned in to the real situation at your employer? You need to be.

So if you are planning to work until you are 65 or beyond, you can fully expect that you’ll need to completely reinvent yourself at least 4 or 5 times over during your career. Note that I say ‘reinvent yourself’ not just change jobs…

Peter Weddle makes this comment on the ASQ blog. This is his take on it:

"Today’s turbulent economic environment has changed the way employers fill their vacant positions. Instead of using their traditional approach — hiring a person who is qualified for a job -they have turned to a new strategy that is best described as “talent staffing.” As a result, tens of millions of decent, dedicated and capable people — men and women who have successfully worked their entire lives — are now unemployed, unsuccessful in their search for a new job and unable to figure out why. No one has told them that the rules of the game have changed".

Do not confuse this with the economic downturn

It’s tempting to think that our recent woes are because of the recession. And that if and when things recover, we’ll all be much more secure in our jobs. Think again.

This isn’t a temporary state of affairs, it’s a paradigm shift which will continue to accelerate over the coming years and decades. It is this speed of change which means that often, skills which were cutting edge as recently as four or five years ago, can be obsolete today.

So you need to keep not just your skills but your TALENT up to date. And that’s the crux. If you are employed, you can fully expect that your employer isn’t going to react very enthusiastically to a request for a couple of weeks off work.  You're asking them to pay for you to learn some new stuff that may very well not be relevant to the job you are doing today, but which may be critical to the job you’ll need in say three or four years’ time…

If you are looking for work, you need to understand that employers will only hire individuals who have all of the skills to do a job and the state-of-the-art knowledge required to use those skills effectively on-the-job. They seek better-than-qualified persons to do a job, and they expect superior performance from them and from their first day of work.

This means they expect you to be the custodian of your talent value. That’s down to you not them.

What is talent?

Ironically, even though millions of people in Europe and the US are now unemployed and looking for work, a large percentage of employers believe there is a shortage of individuals with talent. They are quite wrong to think this of course. But perception is reality whether it is right or wrong.

Peter Weddle defines talent thus:

In practice, employers have defined a person of talent to be someone who has one or both of two attributes:

They have a skill that is critical to organizational success and a track record which demonstrates their ability to use that skill effectively on-the-job.

and/or

They perform at a superior level on-the-job which sets a standard that encourages their co-workers to upgrade the calibre of their work, as well.

The tragic irony is that employers do little or nothing to help their employees develop and hone their skills and talents for the future. So the moment you get hired is the moment your talent value starts to slowly but inexorably erode. You can be sure that your employers will only invest in you if they perceive a more or less immediate return on that investment.

What can you do about this?

Employers want to hire all-stars. Not just people who are good at what they do, but people who are clearly the best at that task. And the only way you can be such an all-star is if you are working with your talent.

First, make sure you know where your talent lies. Talent is not skill. Talent is an inherent capability, a natural capacity for excellence at a particular type of work. Talent is as individual as you are. But it cannot be universally used. No talent is compatible with all work, but every talent can be expressed in more than one career field. It can be developed to perform in one environment today and another tomorrow. But before you can do that, you have to understand precisely what you are talented at.

Second, make sure you are working in a career field and for an employer that enables you to express your talent. Employers aren’t hiring your skill, they’re hiring what they think will be your total contribution to their organisation. And right now if you have a job and your work isn’t allowing you to demonstrate your true talent, then it’s time to be looking elsewhere, even if you think your current job is OK.

Thirdly if you’ve identified your talent then you must do everything possible to nurture it, especially if you are not able to do this in your normal job. Because this isn’t something you can achieve in a few weeks or months, doing this while you are employed is vital.

Finally, you must step back and take the long view. The prospects for your firm and industry affect you. Directly. Whilst it’s easy to think that when Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, it was an unpredictable event, the truth is that there were signs at least one year earlier that the firm was in financial difficulties. Moreover, five years earlier, in 2003, it had suffered an $80 million penalty from the SEC for using its researchers to unduly influence market prices.

Yes, it’s unfair that the rules of the game have changed. And yes, it’s even more unfair that employers never bothered to tell anyone about it. But if you step back and understand what is going on, you’ll be better equipped to deal with the reality. And if you fully embrace the reality, you’ll seek and find and the work you really love and build a sustainable career with it.

Is having a job really the best choice for you today?

By Neil Patrick

Last week I was sent the transcript of a soon to be published book about self- employment as a consultant and how to go about it successfully.

The author asked me if I’d be willing to review the book and provide my reaction to it in the form of an endorsement to be included in the final version when it goes to print.

I was surprised and flattered. Well I’m now reading the book and it’s great and after it’s published in a couple of weeks, I’ll be writing more about it here. But because the topic of the book was essentially self-employment for mature professionals, it got me thinking I really should revisit this topic on this blog.

I talk here a lot about jobs, and how to get them in these hyper-difficult economic conditions.

But there’s another option too of course - creating your own job.

Our generation has been taught to be a bit scared by this I think. We all know of someone who lost their entire life savings when their business went bust or failed to even get off the ground. And yes, the statistics for the failure of start-up businesses are still frightening.

But being self-employed doesn't automatically mean you must risk your savings and your financial future. Quite the opposite in fact.

Not if you choose to take the skills you have acquired over all those years of working and decide to sell them in small pieces to people that need them.

In fact if we accept that getting a job as an employee is now harder than ever, especially once you get past about 45, isn’t it more sensible to choose a life path where our age and experience is actually a benefit rather than a burden?

And here’s the truth: people want and need freelancers more than ever today.

The recession has made businesses really cautious about taking on extra employees. It’s obvious the reason this is happening - why take the commitment of having an extra head on the payroll, month in month out, at a time when costs need to be ruthlessly squashed, when you could get the job done by a contractor with absolutely no long-term obligations attached?

And people will pay top dollar for this too.

You see, the real question clients often face isn't can we afford to pay $500 or $1000 or $2000 a day for a contractor? The fact is that many, many businesses have now slashed their permanent full-time staff to the absolute bone. The moment anything happens (which of course it always does) which means they need some extra resource, they are stuck. Big time. They may also have hiring freezes which means they cannot hire any extra people.

So their problem cannot be solved by hiring new people. But it can be solved by finding skilled and reliable people outside the business to handle it for them. And suddenly if you are on their radar, and you have the skills and experience called for, you are in a strong position to negotiate a good rate. So let’s say they hire you for 6 weeks, 2 days a week, at $1,000 a day. Total cost $12,000 dollars. And their problem is gone.

And you are $12,000 better off in exchange for 12 days of your time. (Okay, I know that’s a gross simplification, but you’ll get the point I’m sure)

And your client’s headcount is still the same. You’re happy. They’re happy.

There’s another thing I like about this choice also. It’s kind of a philosophical point but it goes like this. Remember all those years of toil and torture to get things done for the people you worked for in the past? Sure you do. You’d just rather not think about them usually right?

But here’s the thing – all that sweat and tears taught us a lot. And that’s the point. We can view that as an investment in us. And whilst we may not have exactly enjoyed the process, it makes us what we are today. Which is mature, experienced people who have learned a great deal in our lives.

So what I like is the idea that indirectly, all that sweat and toil is now being rewarded back to us over and over again.

Somehow it feels like justice has been done!

Oh and if you still want to invest all your time in just hunting for a job, remember these realities:

For every great job out there, there are dozens of really soul-sucking, punishing and unrewarding jobs. Just remind yourself about:

1. The feelings of powerlessness experienced daily by millions of employees

2. The lack of job security that now exists for just about every employee

3. The frustrations of having to do what you are told, rather than what you are really best at

4. The requirement of every employer that you work to a rigid schedule like a machine

5. The crazy office politics that demotivate everyone

6. The lack of fulfillment you feel by doing things just because someone tells you you must

7. The increasingly rarity of pay rises when our costs of living continue to soar

8. The daily torture by bad bosses

9. The lack of appreciation shown for all your efforts

10. The fear of making a mistake which will lead to disciplinary action or possibly even being fired.

Let the young people who are less experienced than us have these jobs I say. They need work experience and they need to learn. We've already paid our dues.

Aren’t you infinitely smarter and more experienced and knowledgeable today than when you were 25 or 30? Of course you are. So why would you choose to even think about competing with those people?

Play to your strengths.

Is this career suicide?

By Neil Patrick

We hear so much about the explosion of social media and how it’s changing the world, that it’s easy to think that everyone is involved.

Think again.

Naturally enough I whenever I meet my close personal friends, we inevitably discuss how their work is going. If I think about these guys, all of whom I've known for years (okay, decades) and who are all switched on, well educated professionals, I am constantly perplexed by the fact that they just don’t get social media at all.

I should start by saying that this is a very small and skewed sample. All of them are aged 50ish, and employed. They are all male and they all work in the UK. So this isn't in any way reliable research ‘data’. But they are a good sample of the type of people I am trying to help with this blog.

One is a lawyer, another is a mental health worker, one is a CEO, one is a senior civil servant, one is an accountant, and another works for a medical equipment company. Six middle-aged guys all accomplished professionals in their fields.

Every one of them depends on their job for all or nearly all their income. Sure, some have working partners, but in no case does their partner’s income exceed their own.

Firstly, none of them use Facebook. I actually think that’s fine. I don’t use it either simply because I consider it to be more or less irrelevant to my career interests. You may have a different opinion about Facebook, but essentially I consider it a low priority because I think it is really a platform for friends and family relationships, not professional ones.

LinkedIn is of course the only really serious social media site for professional networking. Of these six friends, only one has more than 500 LinkedIn connections and a 100% complete profile. Two have no LinkedIn profile at all. The other three all have fewer than 100 connections and don’t even have a photo on their profile. They very rarely even look at LinkedIn.

Moving on to Twitter, not one of them has a Twitter account. And you’ll not be surprised either that none of them has a blog.

So these guys are all pretty much not participating in the social media revolution. Even my friend who has over 500 LinkedIn connections is what I call a ‘passive’ user. His use of LinkedIn is really more or less just as a self-updating address book.

So what are the reasons for their decision to not participate?

The most common one, is, “I just don’t have the time for that”. The second is that they cannot see how it can possibly be of value to them. The third is that they generally have no idea of how they can leverage the power of social media.

But slowly (very slowly) they are waking up. What I have found in recent months is that more and more of them have moved on from their default position of the last few years, which was, “that’s a waste of time” and, “I’ve got better things to do”, to “Yes, I know it’s important, but I really don’t know what to do”.

So they are showing signs of acceptance of the way things have changed, but remain in denial, having changed their excuse from, “It’s not important”, to “I don’t know how to do it”.

I find I am having more and more discussions with them about how to leverage their LinkedIn profiles. But mostly, they are carrying on as before, making huge assumptions about how they ought to use social media, and generally getting it wrong in the process.

One of them recently lost his job in a reorganization. He was one of the guys that had no LinkedIn profile at all. Naturally I am doing all I can to help him recover from this situation. But I am sorry to report we have no good news yet.

Can I say that if he’d had a LinkedIn profile he’d not be in this situation? No, that would be naïve. It wouldn't have prevented him losing his job. And it wouldn't guarantee that he would find another one completely effortlessly.

But I am sure that if he had developed a strong personal online brand, a global network of relevant business contacts and a position as a go-to expert in his field, he’d have infinitely better prospects than he has right now.

I actually do consider him to be a real expert in his field. But just about the only people that know about that are he and I. So right now, we are facing an uphill struggle. He’s missed the train and the next one coming is going to be really slow.

He’s a survivor and a fighter though and so I think he’ll recover eventually, but this is sadly a big problem, when it so easily might just have been a little blip, or quite possibly a massive opportunity.

So, he’s now fighting for survival with dwindling personal financial resources and no significant opportunities on the horizon.

In some ways, it’s the stories of these guys and the many others just like them that I know, that have been an inspiration for me in writing this blog. Mind you I know also none of them read it...
plus ça change...

Unemployed Boomers Need Help NOW

By Alinda Tugend

I WAS recently talking to a friend at a party whose husband - in his 60s - has been unemployed for more than two years. While there are many challenges, she said, one of the hardest things is trying to balance hope with reality.

She wonders how to support him in his continued quest to find a job in his field of marketing and financial services while at the same time encouraging him to think about what his life would be like if he never worked in that field or had a full-time job again.

“I wanted to move to what I thought was a healthier place. I wanted to turn the page,” said my friend, who asked to be identified by her middle name, Shelley, since she didn’t want to publicize her family’s situation. “He saw it as vote of no confidence.”

For those over 50 and unemployed, the statistics are grim. While unemployment rates for Americans nearing retirement are lower than for young people who are recently out of school, once out of a job, older workers have a much harder time finding work. Over the last year, according to the Labor Department, the average duration of unemployment for older people was 53 weeks, compared with 19 weeks for teenagers.

There are numerous reasons - older workers have been hit both by the recession and globalization. They’re more likely to have been laid off from industries that are downsizing, and since their salaries tend to be higher than those of younger workers, they’re attractive targets if layoffs are needed.

Even as they do all the things they’re told to do- network, improve those computer skills, find a new passion and turn it into a job - many struggle with the question of whether their working life as they once knew it is essentially over.

This is something professionals who work with and research the older unemployed say needs to be addressed better than it is now. Helping people figure out how to cope with a future that may not include work, while at the same time encouraging them in their job searches, is a difficult balance, said Nadya Fouad, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Psychologists and others who counsel this cohort need to help them face the grief of losing a job, and also to understand that jobs and job-hunting are far different now from how they used to be.

“The contract used to be, ‘I am a loyal employee and you are a loyal employer. I promise to work for you my entire career and you train, promote, give benefits and a pension when I retire.’ Now you can’t count on any of that,” she said. “The onus is all on the employee to have a portfolio of skills that can be transferable.”

People in their 20s and 30s know that they need to market themselves and always be on the lookout for better opportunities, she said, something that may seem foreign to those in their 50s and 60s.

If a counselor or psychologist “doesn’t understand how the world of work has changed, they’re not helping at all,” she said. “You can’t just talk about how it feels.”

In response to this concern, Professor Fouad and her colleagues have drawn up guidelines for the American Psychological Association to help psychotherapists better assist their clients with workplace issues and unemployment. It is wending its way through the association’s committees.

Of course, not everyone who is unemployed and over 50 is equal. For some, the reality is that they need to find another job - any job - to survive. Others have resources that can allow them to spend more time looking for a job that might have the salary or status of their former position.

In the first case, Professor Fouad said, “You need to decide what is the minimum amount of money you can make and how to go about finding it.” In the second case, she said, it’s necessary to examine what work means to you and how that may have to change.

Is it the high social status? The identity? The relationship with co-workers? It is important to examine these areas, perhaps with the help of a professional counselor, Professor Fouad said, to discover how to find such meaning or relationships in other areas of life.

Sometimes simply changing the way you look at your situation can help. My friend Shelley’s husband, Neal, who also asked that I use his middle name, said the best advice he received from a friend was “don’t tell people you’re unemployed. Tell them you’re semiretired. It changed my self-identity. I still look for jobs, but I feel better about myself.”

He also has friends facing the same issues, who understand his situation. Such support groups, whether formal or informal, are very helpful, said Jane Goodman, past president of the American Counseling Association and professor emerita of counseling at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich.

“Legitimizing the fact that this stinks also helps,” she said. “I find that when I say this, clients are so relieved. They thought I was going to say, ‘buck up.’ ”

And even more, “they should know the problem is not with them but with a system that has treated them like a commodity that can be discarded,” said David L. Blustein, a professor of counseling, developmental and educational psychology at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College, who works with the older unemployed in suburb of Boston. “I try to help clients get in touch with their anger about that. They shouldn’t blame themselves.”

Which, of course, is easy to say and hard to do.

“I know not to take it personally,” Neal said, “but sure, I wonder at times, what’s wrong with me? Is there something I should be doing differently?”

It is too easy to sink into endless rumination, to wonder if he is somehow standing in his own way, like a cancer patient who is told that her attitude is her problem, he said.

Susan Sipprelle, producer of the Web site overfiftyandoutofwork.com and the documentary “Set for Life” about the older jobless, said she stopped posting articles like “Five Easy Steps to get a New Job.”

“People are so frustrated,” she said. “They don’t want to hear, ‘Get a new wardrobe, get on LinkedIn.’ ”

As one commenter on the Facebook page for Over Fifty and Out of Work said, “I’ve been told to redo my résumé twice now. The first ‘expert’ tells me to do it one way, the next ‘expert’ tells me to put it back the way I had it.”

Some do land a coveted position in their old fields or turn a hobby into a business. Neal, although he believes he’ll never make as much money as in the past, recently has reason to be optimistic about some consulting jobs.

But the reality is that the problem of the older unemployed “was acute during the Great Recession, and is now chronic,” Ms. Sipprelle said. “People’s lives have been upended by the great forces of history in a way that’s never happened before, and there’s no other example for older workers to look at. Some can’t recoup, though not through their own fault. They’re the wrong age at the wrong time. It’s cold comfort, but better than suggesting that if you just dye your hair, you’ll get that job.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/your-money/unemployed-and-older-and-facing-a-jobless-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What Mark Carney should be telling you about your career plans

By Neil Patrick

Unless you are particularly interested in the financial markets or economics (as I am) you probably didn’t pay too much attention to the news that the Mervyn King shaped hole at the head of the Bank of England had been filled (partially at least) by Canadian Mark Carney.

Mr Carney has a very good record we are told, having steered Canada’s economy skilfully around the economic crisis that swamped the US, UK and the Eurozone from 2008 onwards.

He’s wasted no time either in putting his stamp on the way the Bank of England conducts itself, and the first of his measures is the announcement that from now on the Bank will issue what he calls ‘forward guidance’ on its plans for interest rates.

Carney used the same ‘trick’ in Canada. On the face of it, it’s no bad thing; it allows businesses and markets to get a greater level of confidence over the medium term environment and consequently plan better and have fewer short term shocks to cope with. So in principle, I think this is a good thing.

But in practice, right now in this climate, it’s quite another. That’s because he’ll almost certainly be telling us all to expect near-zero interest rates for many years to come.

What he should be saying is that interest rates will have to rise one day, that the government is too deep in debt to keep most of its promises and that as soon as the cheap debt disappears i.e. as soon as any sort of economic recovery starts to happen, real wages will not rise for years.

So was Mr Carney really the saviour of Canada whilst the rest of the west fell into recession? The Bank of Canada first used the forward guidance idea in 2009. Carney slashed interest rates promptly but also pledged to Canadians that this low rate environment would remain in place for a long time to come.

The policy was credited with helping Canada steer its way around the recession and paved the way both for the creation of Carney’s reputation as one of the world’s cleverest central bankers and ultimately him getting the transfer deal from Ottawa to London.

But I suspect that the true value of Mr Carney’s measures have been massively over-hyped. The reality I think was that Canada’s salvation was as much due to the innate conservatism of its banks, high commodity prices and the fact that Canadians carried on happily spending and borrowing, as it was by anything that the central bank said.

To put it another way, are we really sure we are comparing apples with apples here?

So whilst I think this question remains open to debate, I am quite definite that this forward guidance obscures the emergence of a really dangerous situation for most working professionals.

Let’s not forget that 0.5% interest rates are an aberration. They have not been this low for the last 300 years. At some point in the future they MUST rise again. So if you’ve become used to paying your mortgage or business loan or whatever at today's rates, try doubling or trebling that monthly cost and ask yourself how comfortable you’d be in that situation?

If the answer is 'not very', you need to start doing something about it right now.

Next, let’s not forget either that the Bank England does not control the prices that you pay for the financial products and services you buy. UK banks have had a hard time as we all know, and whilst you may smugly argue that they got what they deserved, the fact remains that they will be using every trick they can muster in the coming years to generate profits again. The demise of free banking is already on the horizon and you can fully expect that as central bank base rates rise, customer prices will rise at least as fast and probably faster.

The next point is that as we all know, the UK government is in a state of near cataclysmic debt. It has the biggest deficit of any country in the developed world and simply cannot expect to continue without huge future reductions in spending. And as you’ve probably guessed, this means you can expect to see the costs of pensions, education and healthcare increasingly passed on directly or indirectly to you.

Last but not least, the growth of the last two decades in the UK was based mainly upon debt and house price growth which meant almost everyone felt they were getting richer. We weren’t, it was an illusion and only the ongoing supply shortage and of course the latest government house buying subsidy madness is keeping house prices from collapsing to their true value.

Only one thing really creates real wealth growth and that is rising productivity, and whilst some recent reports point out that this has increased slightly in recent months, it’s a far cry from being any sort of major turnaround. So, without the artificial stimulus of rising debt, real wages are unlikely to rise any time soon and may even continue to fall.

Couple this with the outlook for living costs I’ve outlined above and you can see that if you want to see any sort of improvement in your standard of living, or even just maintaining the one you have now, you’ll need to have a plan to earn a great deal more money over the coming years.

Of course no-one in the government or the Bank of England wants to highlight these points – after all who wants to hear this sort of truth? The reality for most of us is that we will have to work harder, save more and spend less. That’s the sort of forward guidance that Mark Carney ought to be giving us.

Australia shows the way ahead to keep older workers in the workplace

By Terry Hayes

The issue of how to take advantage of the skills and experience of older workers is becoming more important as baby boomers age and leave the workforce. All that experience "walking out the door" is a loss for any business. And many older people simply don't want to retire at the age of 65 (or earlier).

SMEs in particular don't need barriers raised to them employing mature age workers; after all, many of them are family businesses that highly value the input of older more experienced family members.

The federal government recently launched the Australian Law Reform Commission's report, Access All Ages - Older Workers and Commonwealth Laws. In the report, the commission identifies legal barriers to older persons participating in the workforce and made recommendations across superannuation, social security, employment, insurance and compensation law. Several recommendations were to the effect that the social security and superannuation systems should not discourage or prevent workforce participation.

ALRC president Professor Rosalind Croucher said the recommendations had been developed in the light of six interlinking principles – participation, independence, self-agency, system stability, system coherence, and fairness – that assisted in balancing a range of competing priorities. The ALRC suggests a combination of legislative and regulatory reform is needed, together with measures to increase education and awareness and address perceptions and stereotypes surrounding mature age workers.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus acknowledged there were "enormous opportunities" that come with an ageing population, including a more experienced workforce and the availability of mentors for younger workers. If laws need to be changed to take advantage of those opportunities, then many would argue that should be done.

Employment Minister Bill Shorten noted the government has also abolished the Super Guarantee maximum age limit, enabling employees aged 70 and over to contribute to their retirement savings for the first time. He said the government would consider the recommendations made.

The government says that for more than five million baby boomers, there's a realistic chance of 20-30 years of life after work, but it said around 60% want to keep working beyond 65 for a range of reasons, with most preferring a phased withdrawal from the workforce. No doubt many SMEs would agree.

In its 36 recommendations, the report recommended:

• the work test for superannuation be reviewed;
• the legislation that provides for government co-contributions to be payable only for people aged under 71 years should be repealed;
• the Government review the "Transition to Retirement" rules. The report said the review should determine what changes, if any, are required to ensure the rules meet their policy objective. Among issues for review would be the relationship to the concessional superannuation contributions cap;
• mature age workers be provided with longer periods of notice for termination of employment;
• the Australian Human Rights Commission should, in consultation with key insurance and superannuation bodies, develop guidance material about the application of any insurance exception as it applies to age under Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation; and
• the Guide to Social Security Law should be amended to provide that undertaking paid work for fewer than 30 hours per week will not trigger a review of qualification for Disability Support Pension.

The other recommendations in the report are specific strategies in the implementation of a national plan, designed to provide:

• a coordinated policy response to enable mature age workforce participation;
• consistency across Commonwealth laws and between Commonwealth and state and territory laws to support mature age workforce participation;
• a reduction in age discrimination;
• a greater awareness of mature age workers' rights and entitlements;
• support for maintaining attachment to the workforce for mature age persons;
• work environments, practices and processes that are appropriate for mature age workers.

The value for a business in harnessing the skills and experience of an older worker is obvious. It's a shame that over the years, too many obstacles have been put (mostly unintentionally) in the way of that.

The age-old idea of an older worker moving on to make way for younger people is not of itself unreasonable, but that doesn't mean that "older head" is no longer useful – quite the reverse. Perhaps this latest report will spur some concrete action on the part of governments to rectify this. SMEs could be a winner from such action.


Terry Hayes is the Editor-in-Chief of tax news reporting at Thomson Reuters, a leading Australian provider of tax, accounting and legal information solutions.
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/superannuation/055909-superannuation-older-workers-baby-boomers-ageism-and-workplace-participation-reforms.html

Five Tricks that Turned this Introvert into a Master at Networking Events

By Dumont Owen

 

I have struggled with being an introvert all of my life. Yet most people who meet me in a networking situation would assume that I’m an extrovert. Why? Because I have developed this little bag of tricks that I use to make it easier for me to attend networking events with confidence.

The fact is that introverts not only can network effectively; it’s a job search technique at which we can excel! So before you give up on this valuable resource, try a few of these tricks and see if they make networking events a little less intimidating and a little more effective for you.

Remember why you’re attending the event. The purpose of a networking event is to meet contacts that can become champions for your cause and/or gain you access to key individuals you need to meet to further your career campaign. Don’t “waste” time trying to meet everyone…one or two in-depth conversations with the right people can yield better results than ten “surface” conversations.

Check attendees. This is one of my favorites. Many of the events I attend list the people who have RSVP’d. I look over the list and research the attendees. I pick three to five individuals (knowing there will be some no-shows) and send them an e-mail telling them I’m looking forward to meeting them and why. This is similar to turning a “cold call” into a “warm call.” The person is expecting (even hoping) to meet you. You’ve already “touched base” with them once.

Look at the nametags. Often they will list the company or occupation of the individuals registered. If there are no nametags, you can often find a time when the registration table isn’t busy and ask the organizer or registration volunteers for recommendations on who you should meet. I’ve often found that they’ll even volunteer to introduce me.

Help others! If you can facilitate an introduction for someone you meet, offer to do so. The person you are helping may not be in a position to help you directly but they may know others who can. Paying forward by helping others in their job search will return your investment many times over.

Follow up the next day to arrange a personal meeting where you can talk on a one-to-one-basis. I love meeting people over coffee where I’m much more comfortable than in a large group setting. It’s a chance to really deepen the relationship and convert that contact into the raving fan that’s going promote my cause.

Networking is the most effective of way of creating new opportunities for employment. If you’re an introvert who’s avoiding networking events, don’t give up on this valuable resource! Try a few of these techniques from my little bag of tricks and see if they make networking easier and more productive for you in your job search.

www.linkedin.com/in/dumontowen/

This Is How You Get On A Recruiter's Radar — Even If You're Unemployed

By Vivian Giang

It definitely ups your ante as a potential job candidate to be represented by a headhunter, and if you know you have a good job and are good at it, you might already be on their radar.

But how do you end up in a top headhunter's database when recruiters are typically only interested in representing people who are currently employed?

Martin Yate, former director in Training & Development at Dunhill Systems, career management coach for the past 35 years and author of "Knock 'em Dead 2013: The Ultimate Job Search Guide," tells us there's a "huge misconception" when it comes on the correct way of reaching out to a recruiter. 

Yate tells us headhunters get paid 10 to 30 percent of a job candidate's salary, on average, by the employer, so the higher profile the person is, the more the headhunter will get paid. And very rarely are high-profile people unemployed.

If this all sounds despairing for those of you who are currently unemployed, don't lose hope yet. Here are some ways to effectively reach out:

1. Focus your résumé. This means that if you've had two or three jobs with different specializations, you should create two or three different résumés before trying to get it in a headhunter's property.

Yate says that your résumé is going to "disappear in the database until a position opens up," then the recruiter will start typing keywords into their files to find the right person. So if your résumé has skillsets that are too different, you might not be discovered.

2. Research the headhunter. This one is obvious, but Yate says you need to do a deep search into Google by plugging in different keywords, such as "accounting headhunter," "accounting consultant," etc. Find out which headhunter works in your desired field before sending out your résumé. If you need a job, Yate says you need to invest two-to-four hours per day, twice a week researching your headhunter before you use other online job resources.

3. Be active in LinkedIn groups. This means you need to join groups and post "intelligent" things. Ideally, Yate recommends joining groups with professionals 1, 2 and 3 levels above you because these individuals are the ones who will be able to hire you.

"Take the time to agree, or disagree, with a comment, start a discussion on your own, post an article or blog that would be of interest to the people in your group or even post a question, asking for advice," Yate tells us.

"Headhunters will visit these groups, and you'll become visible to them."

As for the recruiting business, Yate says they're not going anywhere.

"[Headhunters] are the most sophisticated sales people in the world. It is really hard to survive as a headhunter … you have to make both parties happy, not just one."

"In an economy like the one we live in today, [the business has] shrunk a lot because of the recession, but we're not going anywhere. Business is going to change, shrink, grow, but it's a very effective way for people to find jobs."


http://www.businessinsider.com/former-headhunter-this-is-how-you-get-on-a-recruiters-radar--even-if-youre-unemployed-2012-7

Why you used to be a genius

By Neil Patrick

I have posted before about the struggles that governments are having dealing with the global economic jobs crisis.

This RSA Animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA's Benjamin Franklin award.

Here Ken explains how our education system has become disconnected from the needs of the modern global economy and hence how at an individual level, we are poorly equipped as individuals to deal with it when disaster strikes us. Whilst the topic of school education may not at first seem to be directly related to the jobs crisis, as mature professionals, we are a product of our education system. Intelligence and education are totally separate things and this film explains why regardless of our educational achievements, we all have a great deal more innate intelligence and ability than we may have been led to believe.

I am a firm advocate of the need for job hunters to think outside the box and much of what I post here is provided to help people do that. One positive message you can take from this film is that you have a very great deal more capacity to turn your situation around if you forget about what you were taught in school and university and instead engage your creative ability and harness all the learning that you have acquired through your life.

Oh and you’ll discover too why you used to be a genius!




The RSA is a 258 year-old charity devoted to driving social progress and spreading world-changing ideas. For more information about the RSA and its work, visit http://www.thersa.org.

The #1 Most Important Job Search Activity: Are You Tracking It?

 

By Lisa Rangel

 

With all the job search activities a job seeker has to do in this employment marketplace to conduct a successful job search, it can easily become overwhelming.

Submitting resumes to job postings, going to networking events, reaching out to your contacts and introducing yourself to new people at target companies—and we have not even included social media interactions, interview preparation and many other actions.

It’s enough to make your head spin, if you let it.

Through my years of recruiting and job search consulting, I have boiled all of the activity down to one real job search activity metric that needs to be tracked. Tracking this metric each week provide a litmus test for you to determine if all of your social media interactions, in-person venues, online research time and phone activity is purposefully focused or just plain busy work. You ask, “What is this one metric, Lisa?”

The metric to track is:

How many conversations are you having each week with people that can help you with your job search?

(to be clear, I define a ‘conversation’ as a back-and-forth dialogue about your job search among two or more people that can happen over the phone, in person or in email.)

Yes, that’s it. That is what all of this activity comes down to, in my opinion.

The number of conversations per week in an active job search can vary based on the person’s situation—but I would say any active search with less than 5-10 conversations will experience slow progress. Ask yourself, is all of this social media posting, resume submission, networking event attending, coffee meeting, lead generation, online research and blog writing activity getting you qualitative conversations with the right people who will lead you to getting hired?

I pose this question to job seekers often. This is often the pivotal point missing from the job search when people are experiencing lackluster results and bordering on job search burnout. Diagnostic conversations I have with frustrated job seekers who are not seeing results can often go like this:

JobSeeker: I am spending 10-30 hours a week on my job search and I am not receiving many (or any) calls for job interviews. I am getting really frustrated.

Me: What activities are you doing for your job search?

Job Seeker: I do all this research on line for jobs and I have submitted to over 150+ job postings over the last three months. I have received 2 phone calls for interviews and I am frustrated.

Me: How many conversations have you had with people at the companies or people who can introduce you to hiring managers are these companies during the course of those 150+ submissions?

Job Seeker: Well, I do not really talk to anyone at the companies directly at this point. I hope they call me when I submit my resume… I mainly submit through job postings and attend job seeker support groups.

Me: Are you speaking to contacts that are employed, as well? Are you asking your network at these events you attend who they know at those companies to help you gain an introduction?

Job Seeker: Not really. In hindsight, I am asking if they know of open jobs that I can apply to….

You see it all comes back to the conversations you are having to gauge if the activities you are doing are moving your job search forward. Here are other ideas to help you audit your effectiveness:

-         Are you posting on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter but not getting much from it? What do your profiles look like when people find you? When was the last time you reached out to a person from these mediums to speak on the phone or meet for coffee in a public place? Use social medium as a gateway to conversations.

-         Not see much activity after a networking event? Are you following up properly after a networking event with people who can provide you introductions or be a conduit to other influencers? The job you find won’t probably come directly from the networking event—you need to follow up with people after the event to find those gold nuggets.

-         Are you researching for hours? Feeling like you are not getting anywhere? Ask yourself how many outbound calls or emails to PEOPLE did you make/send as a result of that research. Sending emails to job postings do not count as communication activity. People hire people…so reach out to people and track it accordingly.

-         Submitting to job postings? I wouldn’t say stop, but for each submission you make, spend time finding a possible hiring manager to introduce yourself to and/or find contacts that can help you with an introduction to the firm.

The goal of all your job search activity is to generate conversations that advance your job search. Ask yourself before your next job search action, “How is this going to help me chat with a person about my search?” to help you stay focused on the right activities to pursue.

This post originally appeared here:

http://www.business2community.com/human-resources/the-most-important-job-search-activity-are-you-tracking-it-0395277#2ix6RhQIJaEvIfFY.99

The U.S. 2013 Employment Outlook –Some Good News

By: Russell Ruggiero

Rather than listen to the banter on how the Texas job market is doing I decided to pack my bags and see for myself. After spending over two weeks in Texas and Louisiana I feel the reports were correct, this part of the country is experiencing strong job growth across the board. For example, one of the suburbs north of downtown Houston is putting up a Whole Foods along with high end shops that cater to an expanding market niche. I travel the country from coast to coast and have never seen more hiring signs on employer windows while than on this trip. This part of the country may not be the most accurate indicator of the current U.S. job market, but it does substantiate the fact that there is healthy job growth in certain parts of the country.

 The Current Landscape

There are currently over 12 million people out of work and many more working part-time that would like to work full-time. The national unemployment rate stands at near 8%, and the U.S. GDP is expected to grow at 2% in 2013. Not great by historic standards, but far better than 2009. It is also better than places like Brazil or Italy where I have many family members. Regarding the job market some places are doing better than others. Case in point: San Jose is doing much better than here in New York City. The job market in the Big Apple was moving along slowly in 2012, but Hurricane Sandy has affected job growth in places like Queens and Staten Island. Again, like housing markets, job markets must be looked at in the same manner. Drivers must be in place to create job growth like technology in San Jose or oil & gas in Houston.

Houston & New Orleans

Places like the Vintage in north Houston are indicators of the vibrant growth. New homes and high-end shops in a newly build mall really showcase the vibrancy of the area. Luxury goods, along with amenities (e.g., spa, health club, etc.) are all located in a one mile radius. One evening I had a chance to dine at Perry’s, which matched my reference experience at the Chicago Chop House. An infrastructure like this does not exist unless there is strong growth, which seemed to be the case in Houston. A number of people explained that there was great demand for engineers in fields related to aerospace, along with oil & gas. Yet another group told me about the ever expanding healthcare industry, which is hiring at vigorous pace. All one has to do is travel along 45 and 10 to see vibrancy of the area.

I decided to travel east on 10 to Baton Rouge and then on to New Orleans. This was my first trip to New Orleans, which was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. I recently toured the Lower East Side in Manhattan after Hurricane Sandy and was bracing myself for the worst. Staying only a few blocks from the Super Dome I was surprised to see a clean and lovely city.

The French Quarter is an American gem, and all one has to do is visit Royal Street to substantiate this last statement. The architecture is very interesting and the food from Mother’s to Herbsaint spectacular. Tourists from around the world were all about the city from Christmas to the New Year. Businesses seem to be doing well and the city seems to have healed well after the terrible event of 2005. On my way back I had a chance to stop off in the Lake Charles region and speak to people about the employment picture. While not great, one woman was glad she moved from Pittsburgh to Louisiana because of the stronger job market.

The only time I have seen such a strong job picture was in California in the late 1990’s. Very impressive to say the least.

My trip to Texas and Louisiana was like a breath of fresh air after listening to all the negative news regarding the Fiscal Cliff. The one big takeaway was hope. It demonstrated that healthy job growth, along with a strong housing market does indeed exist in America today.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-u-s-2013-employment-outlook