I've spent the last several weeks assessing myself and what I want to do with myself going forward. I've attempted to network with anyone I can, in order to solicit help in that - and I've been able to find some answers.
Utilizing my experiences and expertise, I feel best suited to do something with business operations. I've had a knack of seeing what is going on in a company I have been involved with and finding better ways of doing things, while saving money at the same time. There have been times I've been successful - such as fixing the cafeteria system when I was on the school board or overhauling the operations of the store I was most recently at (to the most my boss would allow).
However, as basic as this sounds, I want to be able to do the job that I was hired to do! I don't mind being given direction, tasks or other things in order to accomplish my goals, but don't stand in my way. Don't ask for my input and then blatantly ignore what I have to say. Don't prohibit me from doing things that make a positive difference! You hired me to make the change! Stopping me from doing that only reflects negatively on yourself.
Along those lines, I also want to work for and with others that know what they are doing! I'm not saying that myself or anyone else has to be the smartest person in the room - but at least know what's going on. Know your strengths and weaknesses. I want to work with others that know when to step back and let others handle situations. Is that asking too much? Probably - but it's something to strive for.
That being said, where do I end up? Middle management for a company? Seems like a logical place, but I also want a path for advancement. Consulting appears to be a good path as well - but I need some contacts there.
I'm also willing to travel and work remotely. Living in Pensacola yields few opportunities locally (let me know if you know of any!), but we have good air service here and I have a great Internet connection, so there are no problems there.
I'm networking pretty much non-stop now, so feel free to contact me! Let me know not only if you are able to help me, but if I am able to help you! Spread the word and I look forward to hearing from you soon!
Showing posts with label Human Resources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Resources. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The coverup is worse than the crime, Part II
A few weeks ago, I wrote about how former Arkansas football coach had an issue with credibility. Sure enough, there is another situation, that has some similarities to what I wrote about.
This time around, it was announced yesterday that the Scott Thompson, CEO of Yahoo, has been caught padding his resume. Today, the board member in charge of hiring Thompson is not going to run for re-election to the board. There is only one step left in this story to have yet happen.
Thompson must resign from his position or the board should fire him.
As it stands, Thompson has zero credibility with any of his employees. Or at least he would have none with me if he were my CEO. His deception is telling all of his employees that it is OK to lie to get ahead.
While it appears on the surface that he is qualified to be the CEO of a large company, if he is willing to lie about the credentials that he has, what else is he willing to lie about?
Yahoo has been a company that has been in trouble for a long time. They need a leader that not only people within the company can depend upon, but those outside. Thompson is not that leader.
This time around, it was announced yesterday that the Scott Thompson, CEO of Yahoo, has been caught padding his resume. Today, the board member in charge of hiring Thompson is not going to run for re-election to the board. There is only one step left in this story to have yet happen.
Thompson must resign from his position or the board should fire him.
As it stands, Thompson has zero credibility with any of his employees. Or at least he would have none with me if he were my CEO. His deception is telling all of his employees that it is OK to lie to get ahead.
While it appears on the surface that he is qualified to be the CEO of a large company, if he is willing to lie about the credentials that he has, what else is he willing to lie about?
Yahoo has been a company that has been in trouble for a long time. They need a leader that not only people within the company can depend upon, but those outside. Thompson is not that leader.
Monday, May 7, 2012
What a company doesn't say, says everything
I had the opportunity earlier today to speak with Jessica Miller-Merrell about the "resume black hole." She was soliciting feedback from job seekers for a column she was writing and wanted to know if someone had any experience with this issue.
While I don't know what her column says in it's entirety, I would like to talk briefly about this and one other issue where those who interview for a position, never hear anything back from the company after that interview. I've experienced both situations, and those are both things that reflect poorly on the company.
When applying for a position for a company, I almost always receive an automated e-mail acknowledging that the company has received my application. What happens next is always disappointing: Never hearing anything ever again regarding that position.
I understand I'm not always the best candidate for a position. I understand I'm not always going to be asked to interview for a position. But if this is the case, at least send me an e-mail telling me that I will not be asked to interview.
The same thing goes for the second issue I am talking about: Interviewing for a position and that is the last you hear from the company. This has happened to me on a number of occasions, but I'll detail perhaps the worst.
I traveled out of state to interview with a well known company. They told me I was going to be meeting with eight different people, and the process would take most of the day. Not a problem. I was all set.
So the interview comes and goes and everything seemed to go great. I know I was not the only person considered for the job, but I felt confident about my chances. After I returned home, I sent out thank you notes to everyone that I had interviewed with. Then nothing.
No response from anyone. No acknowledgement that the company had ever made a decision either in my favor or against.
When either situation happens, it makes me wonder if the company can't even appropriately deal with potential employees, how do they treat their current employees? It certainly can't be all that well and it tells me a lot about that company - and it is not good.
Doing the simple things goes a long way towards making your company look great. Just by properly informing candidates that they are no longer being considered for one position, makes it much more likely they will come back to you when you have other positions available.
While I don't know what her column says in it's entirety, I would like to talk briefly about this and one other issue where those who interview for a position, never hear anything back from the company after that interview. I've experienced both situations, and those are both things that reflect poorly on the company.
When applying for a position for a company, I almost always receive an automated e-mail acknowledging that the company has received my application. What happens next is always disappointing: Never hearing anything ever again regarding that position.
I understand I'm not always the best candidate for a position. I understand I'm not always going to be asked to interview for a position. But if this is the case, at least send me an e-mail telling me that I will not be asked to interview.
The same thing goes for the second issue I am talking about: Interviewing for a position and that is the last you hear from the company. This has happened to me on a number of occasions, but I'll detail perhaps the worst.
I traveled out of state to interview with a well known company. They told me I was going to be meeting with eight different people, and the process would take most of the day. Not a problem. I was all set.
So the interview comes and goes and everything seemed to go great. I know I was not the only person considered for the job, but I felt confident about my chances. After I returned home, I sent out thank you notes to everyone that I had interviewed with. Then nothing.
No response from anyone. No acknowledgement that the company had ever made a decision either in my favor or against.
When either situation happens, it makes me wonder if the company can't even appropriately deal with potential employees, how do they treat their current employees? It certainly can't be all that well and it tells me a lot about that company - and it is not good.
Doing the simple things goes a long way towards making your company look great. Just by properly informing candidates that they are no longer being considered for one position, makes it much more likely they will come back to you when you have other positions available.
Monday, April 16, 2012
40 hours a week is enough
CNN has an interesting article out today regarding Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. The article goes on to explain how and why it is OK to have a tech job, yet only work 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
This is something I have been thinking about, not only based on what I see others post about on Twitter, but my own experiences.
I've come to the conclusion that outside of a few exceptions, there is no good reason to work beyond 40 hours a week. It doesn't matter if you are the CEO of a major corporation, in an entry level position or somewhere in-between.
Those exceptions could include some kind of disaster to the place of work (fire, flood or other natural disaster) and many many hours are needed to get the business back up and running. Or there is a chance to add a client or other business to your company and you want to make a great first impression.
But these should be exceptions and not the rule. If you are putting in more than 40 hours a week, you need to examine why. Is your boss being unreasonable? Do you need to hire more people to handle an increased work load? Can you not trust the people who work for you and as a result, you need to put in more hours (and replace those you can't trust)?
If you are working more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis, what is that doing to your life outside of work? It's widely reported that people need eight hours of sleep per night, so right there, that is 1/3 of the day. Then you have to not only get to the job, but get home (assuming you don't work at home). After that, what about family life, friends, and anything else just to maintain a normal sense of balance.
The more you work, the more all of that gets cut into. A quick google search will tell you about the lives and families that have been destroyed because someone worked too much.
Think about it. You only live once. Do you want to live to work, or work to live?
This is something I have been thinking about, not only based on what I see others post about on Twitter, but my own experiences.
I've come to the conclusion that outside of a few exceptions, there is no good reason to work beyond 40 hours a week. It doesn't matter if you are the CEO of a major corporation, in an entry level position or somewhere in-between.
Those exceptions could include some kind of disaster to the place of work (fire, flood or other natural disaster) and many many hours are needed to get the business back up and running. Or there is a chance to add a client or other business to your company and you want to make a great first impression.
But these should be exceptions and not the rule. If you are putting in more than 40 hours a week, you need to examine why. Is your boss being unreasonable? Do you need to hire more people to handle an increased work load? Can you not trust the people who work for you and as a result, you need to put in more hours (and replace those you can't trust)?
If you are working more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis, what is that doing to your life outside of work? It's widely reported that people need eight hours of sleep per night, so right there, that is 1/3 of the day. Then you have to not only get to the job, but get home (assuming you don't work at home). After that, what about family life, friends, and anything else just to maintain a normal sense of balance.
The more you work, the more all of that gets cut into. A quick google search will tell you about the lives and families that have been destroyed because someone worked too much.
Think about it. You only live once. Do you want to live to work, or work to live?
Why is everyone so offended?
There is a trend going on that is confusing to me. It is something that seems to have been building over the last 10 years or so, and in my opinion, is just out of control.
Everyone takes offense to anything anyone says anymore.
Got that? It's a bit of a mouthful, but let me give an example about what I am talking about, why I think it is happening and what can be done about this problem.
First, Person A gets asked a question about something, or is talking about something that either directly or indirectly attacks person/group/organization B.
Second, Person/group/organization B, or people who are affiliated with or identify with B get all up in arms about what person A said, claiming it to be amongst the worst thing they have ever heard and want boycotts or that person to resign/be fired from their position.
Third, Person A backtracks by giving a half-hearted apology (or if it was 'agregious' enough, they do resign) and then Person/group/organization B is largely over it.
But finally going forward, you usually hear Person/group/organization B taking shots at Person A whenever they get mentioned.
Why is this happening? It is largely a culture of the 24-hour per day news cycle and the explosion of social media. News organizations need material to fill their shows (and to justify their existence). Everyone has smart phones, so anything that used to be said in private or in confidence, ends up on the Internet almost immediately, which then gets picked up by the major news organizations.
In addition, with major cuts being done in the media, plus the rush to 'be first,' many in journalism just go for the lowest hanging fruit. Making scandals seem much more of an issue than what they really are is something that helps keep people going.
The most frequent thing I see, is in politics, whenever a politician or someone in the political arena says something and it manages to 'offend' someone else. The Hilary Rosen 'controversy' from last week is just the latest. I'm sure there will be two or three new things to come along this week, and what Rosen said last week will be forgotten before too long. Sports and other newsmakers are also areas that attract a lot of this type of attention.
So what can be done? First, grow a backbone! If you are in the public eye, you better have some thick skin. If you don't you are in the wrong place. I know people say stuff about me behind my back (even sometimes in front of me) and I just don't care.If it's a difference of opinion, I respect that. If people try to offend me it won't work, because I don't get offended easily. I like to think I have a thick skin and other people need to develop one.
In addition, as I said earlier, a lot of what people say now gets made public. People have been saying these things since the dawn of time, but with technology, people now know about it. It won't change going forward, so just get used to it.
Finally, don't worry about the latest controversy! If you have nothing better to do than just worry about what someone in the public eye said that might be interpreted differently, then maybe you need to find something else to do with your time. Perhaps even work to expand your horizons and views! Don't worry. At the end of the day, everything will be okay!
Everyone takes offense to anything anyone says anymore.
Got that? It's a bit of a mouthful, but let me give an example about what I am talking about, why I think it is happening and what can be done about this problem.
First, Person A gets asked a question about something, or is talking about something that either directly or indirectly attacks person/group/organization B.
Second, Person/group/organization B, or people who are affiliated with or identify with B get all up in arms about what person A said, claiming it to be amongst the worst thing they have ever heard and want boycotts or that person to resign/be fired from their position.
Third, Person A backtracks by giving a half-hearted apology (or if it was 'agregious' enough, they do resign) and then Person/group/organization B is largely over it.
But finally going forward, you usually hear Person/group/organization B taking shots at Person A whenever they get mentioned.
Why is this happening? It is largely a culture of the 24-hour per day news cycle and the explosion of social media. News organizations need material to fill their shows (and to justify their existence). Everyone has smart phones, so anything that used to be said in private or in confidence, ends up on the Internet almost immediately, which then gets picked up by the major news organizations.
In addition, with major cuts being done in the media, plus the rush to 'be first,' many in journalism just go for the lowest hanging fruit. Making scandals seem much more of an issue than what they really are is something that helps keep people going.
The most frequent thing I see, is in politics, whenever a politician or someone in the political arena says something and it manages to 'offend' someone else. The Hilary Rosen 'controversy' from last week is just the latest. I'm sure there will be two or three new things to come along this week, and what Rosen said last week will be forgotten before too long. Sports and other newsmakers are also areas that attract a lot of this type of attention.
So what can be done? First, grow a backbone! If you are in the public eye, you better have some thick skin. If you don't you are in the wrong place. I know people say stuff about me behind my back (even sometimes in front of me) and I just don't care.If it's a difference of opinion, I respect that. If people try to offend me it won't work, because I don't get offended easily. I like to think I have a thick skin and other people need to develop one.
In addition, as I said earlier, a lot of what people say now gets made public. People have been saying these things since the dawn of time, but with technology, people now know about it. It won't change going forward, so just get used to it.
Finally, don't worry about the latest controversy! If you have nothing better to do than just worry about what someone in the public eye said that might be interpreted differently, then maybe you need to find something else to do with your time. Perhaps even work to expand your horizons and views! Don't worry. At the end of the day, everything will be okay!
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The coverup is worse than the crime
It's said that character is defined by what you do when nobody (or most people) are not watching.
For those that don't pay attention to sports, former Arkansas coach Bobby Petrino was fired on Tuesday. In the world of sports, most coaches get fired for the team not doing well. Quite the opposite in this case as Arkansas was one of the top teams in the country the past several seasons.
So why would a university fire a coach who was doing so well? By lying to his boss about the details surrounding a motorcycle accident he was involved with.
Sure, it was embarrassing that it was discovered he was riding with a woman half his age, while his wife and four kids were some place else. But a lot of people in high profile positions have affairs and survive.
But when the boss started investigating and asked Petrino what was going on, Petrino should have told the truth, but he didn't. Then when it was revealed that Petrino hired the woman he was having an affair with, over 158 other applicants, that raised some serious red flags (not to also mention the throwback to the days when the boss would hire the secretary who couldn't type).
At that point, the athletic director didn't have choice but to fire Petrino. Having been discovered that he hired his mistress would have probably come out at some point (if not publicly, people within the program would have found out - if they didn't know already). But the athletic director was also lied to about what really happened.
Had Petrino come clean to his boss early in the investigation (or even before one was started), he may not have saved his job. But he would have been able to at least take the high road - if there was much of one in this case. By trying to cover up his actions, it made the final decision to be fired that much easier.
As the links to the articles above showed, his character was largely questioned already. By now, his character is in tatters and he may never coach again. Learn from this, so that you don't kill your career. The lesson, as always, is that the coverup is indeed worse than the crime.
For those that don't pay attention to sports, former Arkansas coach Bobby Petrino was fired on Tuesday. In the world of sports, most coaches get fired for the team not doing well. Quite the opposite in this case as Arkansas was one of the top teams in the country the past several seasons.
So why would a university fire a coach who was doing so well? By lying to his boss about the details surrounding a motorcycle accident he was involved with.
Sure, it was embarrassing that it was discovered he was riding with a woman half his age, while his wife and four kids were some place else. But a lot of people in high profile positions have affairs and survive.
But when the boss started investigating and asked Petrino what was going on, Petrino should have told the truth, but he didn't. Then when it was revealed that Petrino hired the woman he was having an affair with, over 158 other applicants, that raised some serious red flags (not to also mention the throwback to the days when the boss would hire the secretary who couldn't type).
At that point, the athletic director didn't have choice but to fire Petrino. Having been discovered that he hired his mistress would have probably come out at some point (if not publicly, people within the program would have found out - if they didn't know already). But the athletic director was also lied to about what really happened.
Had Petrino come clean to his boss early in the investigation (or even before one was started), he may not have saved his job. But he would have been able to at least take the high road - if there was much of one in this case. By trying to cover up his actions, it made the final decision to be fired that much easier.
As the links to the articles above showed, his character was largely questioned already. By now, his character is in tatters and he may never coach again. Learn from this, so that you don't kill your career. The lesson, as always, is that the coverup is indeed worse than the crime.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Self sensor...but to a point
There is a ton of information on the Internet regarding your online image. Everyone has heard about not putting anything 'risky' on your Facebook, Twitter, ect. accounts. But how far should you go with not making certain information available?
I think we all can agree that putting pictures of yourself doing who knows what at that kegger you attended while in college is not the best of ideas.
But what about your personal thoughts and opinions? This blog post is my own opinion on the subject, and I'm sure there are people who will disagree with what I have to say in it. Should it disqualify me from a potential job as a result?
No, and here is why. I'm a person, not a machine. I have thoughts, opinions, dreams and desires. The whole package that is me is unique. Nobody else is the same. Sure, I have similar thoughts on things as other people, but nobody thinks the exact same way on all subjects as I do. It is what makes me an individual.
As a result, I don't mind sharing my thoughts on the latest political happening, sporting event or news making item. If I make a snarky comment about a politician, or a team that is the rival of my favorite team, why should that matter to an employer? If I have to be a drone and keep those thoughts to myself, chances are, I'm not going to be happy at your place of employment (and you likely have an unhappy group of employees).
Keep in mind, I'm not going to be showing up to work on a daily basis and telling everyone and their brother what I thought about last night's election results or my latest thoughts on religion. There is no need for that in the workplace. Idle water cooler chat about a team blowing a 3-run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning? That happens everywhere all of the time and to pretend it doesn't happen at your place is naive at best.
As a manager or HR director, if you run across a potential candidate who may share some political/sports/news opinions on social media outlets that are different than yours, don't dismiss them out of hand. You likely already employ someone who has different opinions than yourself and they are a good employee. If you are a good manager or HR director, you will know before you hire them how they will fit within their organization based on many many other factors then some random thoughts on social media sites.
I think we all can agree that putting pictures of yourself doing who knows what at that kegger you attended while in college is not the best of ideas.
But what about your personal thoughts and opinions? This blog post is my own opinion on the subject, and I'm sure there are people who will disagree with what I have to say in it. Should it disqualify me from a potential job as a result?
No, and here is why. I'm a person, not a machine. I have thoughts, opinions, dreams and desires. The whole package that is me is unique. Nobody else is the same. Sure, I have similar thoughts on things as other people, but nobody thinks the exact same way on all subjects as I do. It is what makes me an individual.
As a result, I don't mind sharing my thoughts on the latest political happening, sporting event or news making item. If I make a snarky comment about a politician, or a team that is the rival of my favorite team, why should that matter to an employer? If I have to be a drone and keep those thoughts to myself, chances are, I'm not going to be happy at your place of employment (and you likely have an unhappy group of employees).
Keep in mind, I'm not going to be showing up to work on a daily basis and telling everyone and their brother what I thought about last night's election results or my latest thoughts on religion. There is no need for that in the workplace. Idle water cooler chat about a team blowing a 3-run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning? That happens everywhere all of the time and to pretend it doesn't happen at your place is naive at best.
As a manager or HR director, if you run across a potential candidate who may share some political/sports/news opinions on social media outlets that are different than yours, don't dismiss them out of hand. You likely already employ someone who has different opinions than yourself and they are a good employee. If you are a good manager or HR director, you will know before you hire them how they will fit within their organization based on many many other factors then some random thoughts on social media sites.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Here is how to lose a large pool of potential candidates
In an effort to network and reach out to others, I participate in a few Twitter chats. I do this not only to learn about what other people are saying and thinking, but to also share a few nuggets of knowledge that I have.
I was in one last night and notice some excellent answers being given by someone who works in HR at a US based automaker. Following the chat, I exchanged a few tweets back and forth with her, and she provided a link to the career website for that company.
After not having the best experience at the last conglomerate that I worked for, I was not expecting to find much of anything that I may have liked. However, I encountered a major problem before I could even see what kinds of jobs they had to offer.
When I pulled up the webpage, I noticed that nothing was formatted correctly, poorly laid out and just a major mess. Since I use the Safari web browser, I occasionally encounter this problem. So, I tried Firefox, since that will fix all problems I come across with Safari.
Except I then had the exact same problem.
Since I was not sure quite what the problem was, I sent a tweet to my contact at this company, and explained the problem. Her response: "Hi Rob, currently our ATS for job openings works best with Internet Explorer right now."
Seriously? This immediately brought back my failed attempts to apply for another major company that handles prescription drug plans when I had similar issues with viewing and applying for jobs within their company.
But with web browser usage somewhere around 53 percent being Internet Explorer...these two companies are missing out on up to 47 percent of their talent pool by letting their jobs sites be only accessed by IE. I'm not sure who is making these decisions within the companies, but if I were CEO, and I discovered this, someone would have some explaining to do!
So if nothing else, make sure your job website can be accessed by multiple web browsers. If this was 1997, I might understand. However, being 2012, access by multiple browsers over multiple platforms is a requirement!
I was in one last night and notice some excellent answers being given by someone who works in HR at a US based automaker. Following the chat, I exchanged a few tweets back and forth with her, and she provided a link to the career website for that company.
After not having the best experience at the last conglomerate that I worked for, I was not expecting to find much of anything that I may have liked. However, I encountered a major problem before I could even see what kinds of jobs they had to offer.
When I pulled up the webpage, I noticed that nothing was formatted correctly, poorly laid out and just a major mess. Since I use the Safari web browser, I occasionally encounter this problem. So, I tried Firefox, since that will fix all problems I come across with Safari.
Except I then had the exact same problem.
Since I was not sure quite what the problem was, I sent a tweet to my contact at this company, and explained the problem. Her response: "Hi Rob, currently our ATS for job openings works best with Internet Explorer right now."
Seriously? This immediately brought back my failed attempts to apply for another major company that handles prescription drug plans when I had similar issues with viewing and applying for jobs within their company.
But with web browser usage somewhere around 53 percent being Internet Explorer...these two companies are missing out on up to 47 percent of their talent pool by letting their jobs sites be only accessed by IE. I'm not sure who is making these decisions within the companies, but if I were CEO, and I discovered this, someone would have some explaining to do!
So if nothing else, make sure your job website can be accessed by multiple web browsers. If this was 1997, I might understand. However, being 2012, access by multiple browsers over multiple platforms is a requirement!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)