I love this little application.
You can do your own here http://www.wordle.net/
Friday, July 03, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
If you want something you must work for it.
Isn’t this a crazy maxim? What on earth is the point of working hard for something when there is an inverse correlation between material wealth and the amount of time one has to enjoy that wealth?
Time is the only thing that is finite to us. Surely what any sane, rational person should be doing is looking for ways to extend the amount of time they have control over? Instead we have made ourselves slaves to work, and therefore we give away our time to something that brings us no pleasure.
Now before you start telling me that you love your job and would choose to do it even if you didn’t earn anything for it, then all I can say is you are sadly disillusioned.
Nobody would choose to do what they define as work whatever it is.
Do you think Bill Wyman would rather be touring with the Rolling Stones or trudging across a field with his metal detector? I’ll tell you. He’d rather have his wellies on.
Do you think that Ken Livingstone would rather be trying to win back the GLA or breeding newts? He’d rather be with his little creatures, of course.
What nobody seems to understand is the compromise and the point at which they are paying too much. The cost of earning is time-loss. Every extra hour of work you do means less time to enjoy your life.
Now, lets say you need to feed, clothe and shelter yourself, you could probably do that for £8,000 per year. OK, that doesn’t take account of your dependents who will obviously incur additional needs. So, I reckon a family of four probably costs £16,000 (there are economies of scale and shared services that bring the costs down – it pays to be a family).
You need, therefore, to earn £16k just to survive, and this doesn’t allow you any income in which to enjoy your hobbies. If you just want to spend the rest of the time sitting around and doing nothing, then that’s all you need. If you have expensive hobbies or you want to send your children on school trips then you need to work more.
If you can earn your £16k by working one day a week (about £300) then you have 4 days a week to do nothing – to self-actualise, or be the person you really are.
If you want to earn more in order to indulge your hobbies or to travel then you may need to work an additional day or two.
But why work more than that? Economically it makes no sense because the time you spend working when you don’t need to is surely much more expensive to you than the time you work the other one or two days? That’s time that is not delivering any benefit for you. The income is of no use to you because you don’t need it and you can’t spend it anyway because you’re working.
In other words, the marginal value of each additional hour you work over and above that which funds your lifestyle diminishes rapidly.
Furthermore, there’s a very good argument for taking up cheap hobbies here, because they are actually much better value for money than expensive ones. Walking is virtually free. You could easily live the perfect life on the income of someone without a grain of responsibility as long as your hobby is walking, and you’d be able to do a phenomenal amount of it.
Consider the Cesna pilot, on the other hand. She must work just about every hour she can, and probably in a very stressful job, and for what? So that she can spend a couple of hours a week flying her plane around.
Now, the real trick here, and that which I have dedicated my working life to, is to find the job that pays the most for the least effort, time and responsibility. This would allow me to enjoy expensive hobbies, a luxurious lifestyle and for minimal effort and responsibility.
If someone knows the answer to that one, I’d be interested to hear from you. Meanwhile, just ask yourself if you work too had for your needs.
Time is the only thing that is finite to us. Surely what any sane, rational person should be doing is looking for ways to extend the amount of time they have control over? Instead we have made ourselves slaves to work, and therefore we give away our time to something that brings us no pleasure.
Now before you start telling me that you love your job and would choose to do it even if you didn’t earn anything for it, then all I can say is you are sadly disillusioned.
Nobody would choose to do what they define as work whatever it is.
Do you think Bill Wyman would rather be touring with the Rolling Stones or trudging across a field with his metal detector? I’ll tell you. He’d rather have his wellies on.
Do you think that Ken Livingstone would rather be trying to win back the GLA or breeding newts? He’d rather be with his little creatures, of course.
What nobody seems to understand is the compromise and the point at which they are paying too much. The cost of earning is time-loss. Every extra hour of work you do means less time to enjoy your life.
Now, lets say you need to feed, clothe and shelter yourself, you could probably do that for £8,000 per year. OK, that doesn’t take account of your dependents who will obviously incur additional needs. So, I reckon a family of four probably costs £16,000 (there are economies of scale and shared services that bring the costs down – it pays to be a family).
You need, therefore, to earn £16k just to survive, and this doesn’t allow you any income in which to enjoy your hobbies. If you just want to spend the rest of the time sitting around and doing nothing, then that’s all you need. If you have expensive hobbies or you want to send your children on school trips then you need to work more.
If you can earn your £16k by working one day a week (about £300) then you have 4 days a week to do nothing – to self-actualise, or be the person you really are.
If you want to earn more in order to indulge your hobbies or to travel then you may need to work an additional day or two.
But why work more than that? Economically it makes no sense because the time you spend working when you don’t need to is surely much more expensive to you than the time you work the other one or two days? That’s time that is not delivering any benefit for you. The income is of no use to you because you don’t need it and you can’t spend it anyway because you’re working.
In other words, the marginal value of each additional hour you work over and above that which funds your lifestyle diminishes rapidly.
Furthermore, there’s a very good argument for taking up cheap hobbies here, because they are actually much better value for money than expensive ones. Walking is virtually free. You could easily live the perfect life on the income of someone without a grain of responsibility as long as your hobby is walking, and you’d be able to do a phenomenal amount of it.
Consider the Cesna pilot, on the other hand. She must work just about every hour she can, and probably in a very stressful job, and for what? So that she can spend a couple of hours a week flying her plane around.
Now, the real trick here, and that which I have dedicated my working life to, is to find the job that pays the most for the least effort, time and responsibility. This would allow me to enjoy expensive hobbies, a luxurious lifestyle and for minimal effort and responsibility.
If someone knows the answer to that one, I’d be interested to hear from you. Meanwhile, just ask yourself if you work too had for your needs.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Sometimes Redundancy Does Mean Poor Performance
There's a little fiction that we outplacement consultants perpetrate on a regular basis. We tell clients that have been made redundant that it's not them that has been singled out but their role. We explain that companies are going through change and they no longer need the skills that each individual offers, or they no longer need that function to be carried out.
In other cases we tell them that the recession has forced companies to cut costs and that in these circumstances they again try to work out which roles they can do without. In a market where the client base is contracting, a large team of account managers become a burden rather than an asset. If business is slow the work can be spread out among fewer people thus enabling departments to take out whole chunks of staff. We tell them, therefore, that it is not a question of competence that has led to this outcome, it's just that they happened to be in the wrong role at the wrong time.
They say, "but why me?" and I tell them that it could be that the particular work they did was easiest to dispense with, or that they may have been quite an expensive resource to hold on to if they were senior, or that they were cheap to let go if they were junior or a recent recruit (last in, first out).
And yet this is not always the start and end of it. After all, if someone is really talented isn't the employer going to do whatever they can to find a way to keep them on board? Very often, yes. They'll invite people to re-apply for the few jobs remaining and the best will get them or they'll create another job somewhere else in the organisation to keep them.
So let's admit it. Some people, maybe as many as 10% are made redundant because they are not seen to be as good as their colleagues.
However, it's not all bad. One of the consequences of a redundancy programme is that it often starts with a request for volunteers and those volunteers tend to be the most competent, confident people. the ones who think they'll not struggle to find another job and would quite like the pay-off. Being amongst this group may not be so bad. When you are asked why you left it's pretty convincing to say that the company was looking for volunteers and you jumped at the chance.
If this is not the case and you did not choose redundancy and you feel it is because you weren't as capable as others who kept their jobs it's important to get your story about why you left straight.
That doesn't mean you should make something up. The truth is that everyone is competent. It's just that they are only competent in the right job. When you were recruited to the organisation it was because you were considered capable, so what's changed?
Well, for one thing, it may be that the role has changed and you are no longer able to be at your best because of those changes. Another possibility is that the company , or senior management, has changed, and you no longer fit the ethos or culture and therefore your motivation is suffering. When you talk about being made redundant at interviews it is important to be open about how you accepted the opportunity as you felt that you were ready for a change. Look them in the eye and don't be shy as you say it. It's probably the truth isn't it?
There are certainly some people out there who attach the stigma of failure to redundancy and if you are to overcome those people you have to show them that in your case it wasn't about your failure or weakness, but about the failure of the relationship between you and the role.
That said, there's much less of a stigma about redundancy here in the UK than in other parts of the world. I was talking to a client recently who is looking at moving to India. His view is that over there redundancy definitely implies poor performance. This is almost certainly because in the UK we have strict regulations surrounding redundancy and it's accepted that people are the victims of change rather than singled out. In other parts of the world it is much easier to pick and choose who is to lose their job under circumstances where cuts or re-organisations need to be made.
If this is the situation you find yourself in, again, it's important to front it up, and explain it in terms of a mutually agreed parting of the ways.
It's not always easy but it's better to plan for this conversation carefully, than to pretend that everyone thinks that everyone made redundant has just been unfortunate. Companies do manipulate the situation in order to remove dead wood. It's up to you to demonstrate why you are not dead wood and how you can make a positive contribution to the next organisation. That's about understanding your strengths, and articulating them with examples of your achievements.
In other cases we tell them that the recession has forced companies to cut costs and that in these circumstances they again try to work out which roles they can do without. In a market where the client base is contracting, a large team of account managers become a burden rather than an asset. If business is slow the work can be spread out among fewer people thus enabling departments to take out whole chunks of staff. We tell them, therefore, that it is not a question of competence that has led to this outcome, it's just that they happened to be in the wrong role at the wrong time.
They say, "but why me?" and I tell them that it could be that the particular work they did was easiest to dispense with, or that they may have been quite an expensive resource to hold on to if they were senior, or that they were cheap to let go if they were junior or a recent recruit (last in, first out).
And yet this is not always the start and end of it. After all, if someone is really talented isn't the employer going to do whatever they can to find a way to keep them on board? Very often, yes. They'll invite people to re-apply for the few jobs remaining and the best will get them or they'll create another job somewhere else in the organisation to keep them.
So let's admit it. Some people, maybe as many as 10% are made redundant because they are not seen to be as good as their colleagues.
However, it's not all bad. One of the consequences of a redundancy programme is that it often starts with a request for volunteers and those volunteers tend to be the most competent, confident people. the ones who think they'll not struggle to find another job and would quite like the pay-off. Being amongst this group may not be so bad. When you are asked why you left it's pretty convincing to say that the company was looking for volunteers and you jumped at the chance.
If this is not the case and you did not choose redundancy and you feel it is because you weren't as capable as others who kept their jobs it's important to get your story about why you left straight.
That doesn't mean you should make something up. The truth is that everyone is competent. It's just that they are only competent in the right job. When you were recruited to the organisation it was because you were considered capable, so what's changed?
Well, for one thing, it may be that the role has changed and you are no longer able to be at your best because of those changes. Another possibility is that the company , or senior management, has changed, and you no longer fit the ethos or culture and therefore your motivation is suffering. When you talk about being made redundant at interviews it is important to be open about how you accepted the opportunity as you felt that you were ready for a change. Look them in the eye and don't be shy as you say it. It's probably the truth isn't it?
There are certainly some people out there who attach the stigma of failure to redundancy and if you are to overcome those people you have to show them that in your case it wasn't about your failure or weakness, but about the failure of the relationship between you and the role.
That said, there's much less of a stigma about redundancy here in the UK than in other parts of the world. I was talking to a client recently who is looking at moving to India. His view is that over there redundancy definitely implies poor performance. This is almost certainly because in the UK we have strict regulations surrounding redundancy and it's accepted that people are the victims of change rather than singled out. In other parts of the world it is much easier to pick and choose who is to lose their job under circumstances where cuts or re-organisations need to be made.
If this is the situation you find yourself in, again, it's important to front it up, and explain it in terms of a mutually agreed parting of the ways.
It's not always easy but it's better to plan for this conversation carefully, than to pretend that everyone thinks that everyone made redundant has just been unfortunate. Companies do manipulate the situation in order to remove dead wood. It's up to you to demonstrate why you are not dead wood and how you can make a positive contribution to the next organisation. That's about understanding your strengths, and articulating them with examples of your achievements.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Job search success: Asking for Feedback
Feedback from unsuccessful applications is really important if you job search campaign is to end up successful.
1 It enables you find out how you can improve your approach
2 It warns you if your expectations are unrealistic
3 It enables you to keep the dialogue going with the employer / recruiter thus staying top of mind.
The problem is, most feedback is of little real use. It's usually a throw away comment along with the all important "Thanks but no thanks" and when we hear those words we just want to get out of the conversation as quickly as possible. Rejection is very harsh and it's hard to stay with it to find out what really let us down.
We therefore usually end up with feedback like "You were very impressive in many ways but someone else was more experienced" or, "they liked your personality but the successful candidate had a better match of skills".
This is not much use to you. Obviously it's good to get something positive but it's the negative that you need detailed information about because that's what you're going to have to work on.
Ask specific questions such as "What exactly let me down?" or "In what particular areas did the successful candidate have more experience than me". Not only will these questions allow you to re-evaluate your suitability for the role and other similar roles, but they will also give you something to go back to them with if you disagree with the assessment. While this will almost certainly not change their mind immediately, if the successful candidate does not accept the offer or if they end up not succeeding in the role, you may be the person the employer or recruiter gets back to next.
1 It enables you find out how you can improve your approach
2 It warns you if your expectations are unrealistic
3 It enables you to keep the dialogue going with the employer / recruiter thus staying top of mind.
The problem is, most feedback is of little real use. It's usually a throw away comment along with the all important "Thanks but no thanks" and when we hear those words we just want to get out of the conversation as quickly as possible. Rejection is very harsh and it's hard to stay with it to find out what really let us down.
We therefore usually end up with feedback like "You were very impressive in many ways but someone else was more experienced" or, "they liked your personality but the successful candidate had a better match of skills".
This is not much use to you. Obviously it's good to get something positive but it's the negative that you need detailed information about because that's what you're going to have to work on.
Ask specific questions such as "What exactly let me down?" or "In what particular areas did the successful candidate have more experience than me". Not only will these questions allow you to re-evaluate your suitability for the role and other similar roles, but they will also give you something to go back to them with if you disagree with the assessment. While this will almost certainly not change their mind immediately, if the successful candidate does not accept the offer or if they end up not succeeding in the role, you may be the person the employer or recruiter gets back to next.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Keeping the Pipeline Full
It's very easy to be lulled into a false sense of optimism when job searching. A couple of good pieces of news, even as slight as a note acknowledging an application has been received, or more likely that you have been shortlisted for interview, can be enough to encourage you to slow down on the job search activity.
It's natural in a way. One doesn't want to have to do more work than is necessary and if these opportunities, which you may be very keen on, do come off then you won't want to be tidying up a bunch of loose ends elsewhere. More than this, it's very easy to become over-confident at this stage and to feel that you are, as you suspected all along, ideal for the role and that it is more or less "in the bag".
I once had a landlord who used a phrase that couldn't be more appropriate for this situation: "there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip" he would say.
Securing an interview is great, but it's nowhere near securing a job offer and even further from accepting one. Even following the last interview there are hurdles to clear such as authorisation and negotiation.
It's therefore really important not to stop the job search. Always keep the pipeline full with new applications and networking meetings. Apart from mitigating against the need to start from scratch should your hopeful opportunities turn to dust, keeping busy, staying proactive, stops you dwelling on the stuff you can't control.
Without a routine of activity it's very easy to fall into the trap of waiting for the phone to ring, or the postman to arrive, or an email to pop into your inbox with good news. This is a demoralising waste of time. Once an application is out there other people will take care of it. An occasional reminder or nudge is all that you can do. the rest of the time, get on with something else!
This way, hopefully you'll find yourself in the wonderful position of being able to tell people, "Thank you, I'm now withdrawing my application because I have accepted an offer of employment".
It's natural in a way. One doesn't want to have to do more work than is necessary and if these opportunities, which you may be very keen on, do come off then you won't want to be tidying up a bunch of loose ends elsewhere. More than this, it's very easy to become over-confident at this stage and to feel that you are, as you suspected all along, ideal for the role and that it is more or less "in the bag".
I once had a landlord who used a phrase that couldn't be more appropriate for this situation: "there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip" he would say.
Securing an interview is great, but it's nowhere near securing a job offer and even further from accepting one. Even following the last interview there are hurdles to clear such as authorisation and negotiation.
It's therefore really important not to stop the job search. Always keep the pipeline full with new applications and networking meetings. Apart from mitigating against the need to start from scratch should your hopeful opportunities turn to dust, keeping busy, staying proactive, stops you dwelling on the stuff you can't control.
Without a routine of activity it's very easy to fall into the trap of waiting for the phone to ring, or the postman to arrive, or an email to pop into your inbox with good news. This is a demoralising waste of time. Once an application is out there other people will take care of it. An occasional reminder or nudge is all that you can do. the rest of the time, get on with something else!
This way, hopefully you'll find yourself in the wonderful position of being able to tell people, "Thank you, I'm now withdrawing my application because I have accepted an offer of employment".
Monday, February 23, 2009
If you don't make a difference at work, what do you do?
Are you one of those poor people who can't really talk about achievements in their CV and at interviews because your job doesn't really give you the opportunity to do so? I know the problem. You have one of those fairly straightforward jobs where you just go in and get on with it, you do whatever you do, and you can't really say how it affects the business because the impact is not measurable.
Think again. That response, I'm afraid, just shows that you haven't put the effort into understanding how you make a difference.
Everyone makes a difference at work. If you don't, what do you do for your employer? What are they paying you for?
I can't tell you here how you make a difference but everyone makes a difference in one of the following ways.
1 You increase income (e.g. by selling things)
2 You save money (e.g. by finding a cheaper supplier for something)
3 You complete tasks within the expected time period (another form of saving money)
4 You complete tasks within the anticipated budget requirement (saving money again)
5 You meet or exceed quality standards.
Think about what you do on a day to day basis and think about things you've done on your own initiative. Then think about how it might be measured according to the above five ways.
It shouldn't be too difficult to recognise how you achieve benefit for your employer and then it's only a quick step to expressing this on your CV.
Think again. That response, I'm afraid, just shows that you haven't put the effort into understanding how you make a difference.
Everyone makes a difference at work. If you don't, what do you do for your employer? What are they paying you for?
I can't tell you here how you make a difference but everyone makes a difference in one of the following ways.
1 You increase income (e.g. by selling things)
2 You save money (e.g. by finding a cheaper supplier for something)
3 You complete tasks within the expected time period (another form of saving money)
4 You complete tasks within the anticipated budget requirement (saving money again)
5 You meet or exceed quality standards.
Think about what you do on a day to day basis and think about things you've done on your own initiative. Then think about how it might be measured according to the above five ways.
It shouldn't be too difficult to recognise how you achieve benefit for your employer and then it's only a quick step to expressing this on your CV.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Why people fail at interviews
OK, a sweeping title. There are many, many reasons for people failing at interviews and it's only working with individuals that one can get to the bottom of a particular case. That's why I don't believe in "career success" books. That said, there are some themes in all of this.
Although I've been coaching people for job interviews for well over a decade now, I'm still regularly surprised at how intelligent and highly competent people waste their opportunity to impress at interviews. It's not just junior people, or people who have worked for the same organisation for many years and are therefore unfamiliar with the interview process. I see real heavyweights, senior people from big organisations, who really struggle to make their mark at interviews.
What's so crazy about this is that it's really easy to standout from the crowd. Leave aside all the hygiene factors like getting there on time, making sure your clothes are straight and creating a good first impression. All those things are important but unlikely to set you apart from anyone, except in the wrong direction if you get them wrong!
I'm talking about preparation. The thing is, most people think they know what they are going to say because they feel on top of their careers. They know they are competent enough and believe that they'll be able to handle any questions that come their way.
Big mistake.
Here are just three common problems.
Preparing in your head is not the same as practicing out loud. People think they know what they are going to say, but it never comes out the way they imagine it. They tend to think while they are talking, and this leads to waffling and losing the thread. Often, by the time they finally finish talking they can't remember what the question was, and the interviewer has no idea what they are talking about.
Second, even 'though people only think about questions looking at competence, they often don't know how to give answers to even those questions. Answers that are clearly structured with examples of past performance. Answers that demonstrate how they made a difference.
Third, there are nearly always predictable questions that most people struggle to answer. Examples include "Tell me about your main weakness", "Tell me about yourself", "Where do you see yourself in 5 years from now?", "What would your last boss say about you?", familiar questions? Of course, they come up all the time. And yet most people don't know how to answer them well. If you do answer them well you'll score massively in an interview. What's more, these are not difficult questions. In fact I would say no interview question is difficult if you are prepared for them and if you understand why they are being asked.
Let's look at that in more detail. There are, essentially, 3 types of interview question and almost all questions will fall into one or more of these categories. If you can work out which category a question falls into you are already halfway to a good answer.
a) Competence: can you do the job.
b) Motivation: do you want the job for a reasonable length of time
c) self-awareness.
The "weaknesses" question, for example, is about self-awareness, not, as many people think, competence. Knowing that, you can see the importance of getting it right. Instead of thinking the interviewer is trying to find out if you are incapable of doing the job, you can now see how the question is really aimed at how you learn from, and avoid repeating, mistakes.
That's just one simple example, but it all comes down to preparation. If you've done your research you can usually predict quite accurately what they are going to ask, and if you know what they are going to ask, you can prepare the answers you are going to want to give.
One last point for now. The real trick to succeeding at interview, perhaps more important than the questions themselves, is to create and build rapport. That's how the fourth element of what they are looking for is established. The fourth element is "will you fit into our team / organisation?". You can be the most competent, the most motivated, and the most self-aware person in the job market, but if you can't create a relationship with the other people in the room the chances are you'll not be asked back.
Although I've been coaching people for job interviews for well over a decade now, I'm still regularly surprised at how intelligent and highly competent people waste their opportunity to impress at interviews. It's not just junior people, or people who have worked for the same organisation for many years and are therefore unfamiliar with the interview process. I see real heavyweights, senior people from big organisations, who really struggle to make their mark at interviews.
What's so crazy about this is that it's really easy to standout from the crowd. Leave aside all the hygiene factors like getting there on time, making sure your clothes are straight and creating a good first impression. All those things are important but unlikely to set you apart from anyone, except in the wrong direction if you get them wrong!
I'm talking about preparation. The thing is, most people think they know what they are going to say because they feel on top of their careers. They know they are competent enough and believe that they'll be able to handle any questions that come their way.
Big mistake.
Here are just three common problems.
Preparing in your head is not the same as practicing out loud. People think they know what they are going to say, but it never comes out the way they imagine it. They tend to think while they are talking, and this leads to waffling and losing the thread. Often, by the time they finally finish talking they can't remember what the question was, and the interviewer has no idea what they are talking about.
Second, even 'though people only think about questions looking at competence, they often don't know how to give answers to even those questions. Answers that are clearly structured with examples of past performance. Answers that demonstrate how they made a difference.
Third, there are nearly always predictable questions that most people struggle to answer. Examples include "Tell me about your main weakness", "Tell me about yourself", "Where do you see yourself in 5 years from now?", "What would your last boss say about you?", familiar questions? Of course, they come up all the time. And yet most people don't know how to answer them well. If you do answer them well you'll score massively in an interview. What's more, these are not difficult questions. In fact I would say no interview question is difficult if you are prepared for them and if you understand why they are being asked.
Let's look at that in more detail. There are, essentially, 3 types of interview question and almost all questions will fall into one or more of these categories. If you can work out which category a question falls into you are already halfway to a good answer.
a) Competence: can you do the job.
b) Motivation: do you want the job for a reasonable length of time
c) self-awareness.
The "weaknesses" question, for example, is about self-awareness, not, as many people think, competence. Knowing that, you can see the importance of getting it right. Instead of thinking the interviewer is trying to find out if you are incapable of doing the job, you can now see how the question is really aimed at how you learn from, and avoid repeating, mistakes.
That's just one simple example, but it all comes down to preparation. If you've done your research you can usually predict quite accurately what they are going to ask, and if you know what they are going to ask, you can prepare the answers you are going to want to give.
One last point for now. The real trick to succeeding at interview, perhaps more important than the questions themselves, is to create and build rapport. That's how the fourth element of what they are looking for is established. The fourth element is "will you fit into our team / organisation?". You can be the most competent, the most motivated, and the most self-aware person in the job market, but if you can't create a relationship with the other people in the room the chances are you'll not be asked back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
