Is anger justified in the workplace or interviews?

When a little bit of temper might just be your friend!

Human beings as a species have come to dominate the planet for a number of reasons, not least is our ability to co-operate; together we can achieve more than we can individually. Groups who can co-operate in their use of the ‘opposable thumb’ have the edge over those that don’t (or evolutionary advantage). But within the group slightly different rules may operate and total co-operation may not always be the best tack. Being co-operative in your ‘tribe’ or within your workplace has many benefits and having a reputation as a ‘good team player’  is no bad thing: but as I have consistently said this is not about being a pushover. People who are perpetually angry and shouting, create stress in others, people who run others down and are negative about their peers don’t win a lot of friends. But being sweetness and light all the time can also work against you.

The trick of course is knowing when to reveal you that you have some teeth and can be out to win. When it comes to winning that sale, holding back and saying to the competition ‘after you’ is not going to get you in the boss’ good books!  In the sales environment having  some hunger and a desire to be better than the rest or out front rather than one of the crowd is key to success.

In the debates about company strategy, there is a time for competition and a time for co-operation. Once the debate has been had and the boss has decided the way forward it’s time to cooperate. All that  is just common sense?

But what about in the interview process, surely that is another place where it is essential to be seen as a good team player? Well apparently it is not quite as simple as that. An experiment carried out by Dr Victoria Brescoll at Yale showed that candidates who demonstrated some anger at the loss of a client and blamed their co-workers were rated more competent  than the candidates who expressed sadness.  The ones who behaved less well, were deemed to be better able to cope with a position of high authority.

In a similar study at Rutgers University the social psychologist, Corrine Moss-Racusin discovered that men who were modest were judged weak and less likeable than vain or arrogant candidates. She says this is because they were behaving in line with strict expectations for masculinity.

So how should you present yourself in an interview? Should you show your anger?  Well there are a clear set of circumstances when no one would criticise you for expressing a strong emotion. Even the mildest mannered person can share an impatience and anger with poor performance, with low quality, inefficiency or wasted resources.  Passion for excellence can only be seen as a virtue.  I would counsel more caution with blaming others, consistently blaming others would suggest someone who does not take responsibility and has sloping shoulders. It might also suggest someone who can’t learn from mistakes or failures.

Anger needs to be used very sporadically and carefully because although it can be seen in some western cultures as an expression of toughness and resolve in other cultures, particuallary in Asia, it can be seen as loss of control.

I struggle to advise candidates to be arrogant or vain:  but be confident and assertive, being proud of your achievements and hungry for new challenges are a more attractive way of presenting. There is a real need not to be overly modest or diffident. You need to be able to command respect in leadership positions and have authority, so energy and self assurance are important. And lower risk than appearing vain and arrogant.

So what does all this research demonstrate? Well not having read it in detail I may be disagreeing with it out of ignorance!  But I think that interviews are very complex interactions and there are many variables, maybe research that identifies one and suggests that it may be a determinant would be wrong.

How good are you at deciding whether to make a job application?

When we are looking for a job or looking for a promotion it is usual to look at the  person specifications and considering whether  we meet it. Often coachees will ask me: should I apply for this? Others will come with a vacancy and go: I am going to apply for this, what do you think?

Being realistic about your own prospects of success is quite difficult. People who are out of work may consider that they have nothing to lose in casting their net widely and having a punt. (This rather ignores the depression that can set in with the law of diminishing returns) So if they fancy the role they will have a go. When I’m coaching people my work is to support them and not to poor cold water on their ambition: although there will be times when I do counsel and more focussed or targeted approach.

So I was really interested to read about the Kruger-Dunning effect, in 1999 they hypothesized that the more people know the less confident they are , whereas the less people know the more they overestimate their abilities.

 For a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.

Having gone on studying this cognitive bias they have deduced (2008) that poor performers do not learn from feedback suggesting a need to improve. They lack the skill and experience to enable them to know what they don’t know.

The caveat of this is that they were testing humour, grammar and logic rather than the ability to solve complex problems or lead organisations. But it is an interesting principle: we don’t know what we don’t know.

So how can people make sensible decisions about whether to apply for a role?

There is a lot of subjective judgement about your own abilities, but you can reduce your margin of error. What is that Dunning and Kruger say: you can’t know what you don’t know, and the people who over-estimate their abilities don’t listen to feedback. So get on with your research, find out what this job is really about, what skills it really needs and then ask the following questions.

Well clearly the first test is to look at the objective criteria: do I have the right qualifications, right experience?

Secondly look at the person specification and ask yourself ‘if I were recruiting for this role what would my ideal candidate be doing now?’ Does this describe you?

Thirdly, ask ‘if I were recruiting for this role and could not have my ideal candidate, which of these criteria would I be willing to give up?’

Fourthly, given that you now know what the ideal person looks like and what they are doing now, does such a person exist? Are there lots of them? What have I got that would be really useful that this ideal person may not have?

Fifthly, am I 80% of the way there towards meeting this specification? If the answer to that is yes then it may be worth the punt…This is somewhere that the real subjectivity kicks in: but pay attention to the numbers in the job description and the significance of the expereince they are asking for. If it is a fundraising job, running a Race for Life may not be want they want... yes you worked hard but just how much will they be expecting you to raise? that will give you some clues.

 And finally, treat the writing of the application as a test. If it flows easily and you are finding that you have the right examples and it is easy to feel confident then you are probably in the right area. If you are struggling and not sure that your examples are of the same depth and breadth as the tasks in the job... then that struggle is an indication to you.  

Find out what you don’t know about the job and then find out what you don’t know about yourself. Ask for feedback… maybe your coach will give it to you!.

If you like me repeat what i say! being effective in meetings

Getting your message across in a meeting can be a real challenge. Often it is hard to get into the conversation and then your idea may not be picked up. Skillful influencers can have a few tricks up their sleeves.

• Firstly you might want to warm the attendees up a little before the meeting. Make sure that whoever is chairing it is clear that you will be presenting an idea. Get them to give you the platform to speak. If the person in charge gives you the space people will be more likely to listen to you.
• Have your arguments ready. Know what it is that you want to say and be clear and direct
• Anticipate the objections.. this is easier if you knw the people around the table, but even if you don't you can guess at what others might think of your idea and you can pre-empt their arguments before they voice them.
• Find allies in advance, win people over before the meeting
• Take a friend with you! what can the friend do? they can repeat your idea back to the group.
• Researchers have found that hearing the same thing twice is sufficient for participants to alter recall the idea as the main agenda or theme for the meeting, regardless of who brought it up. 
• So if at first no-one picks up your idea; say it again.. get someone else to repeat it and you could be in for making a powerful impact!
  
  for more help, expertise and advice on developing your career success visit: www.maryhopecareersuccess.com

Job Search Employment Outlook According to the Manpower Employment Outlook Survey Q1 2012, 6% of employers expect headcount to increase, 8% forecast a decrease and 84% anticipate no change, the result a net Employment Outlook of -2%.  The significant difference in employment rates across regional labour markets has resulted in recent trends being mixed, however across the spectrum was a major commonality; the bleak report on the future of the economy.   With the news of budget cuts, growing inflation rates and organisation freezing pay, the level of job security continues to fall. The Acquisition and Retention in the War for Talent survey showed that 37% of employees frequently think about quitting their jobs, 66% intend to search for a job in another organisation next year and only 44% feel valued by their employers.  The disheartening employment outlook reports have amounted to declining employee engagement levels across industries as such the number of employees seeking new roles has increased making the job market highly competitive.  Job seekers are now utilising alternative routes to the traditional methods to increase their chances of finding a new role.  Social Media and Career management are amongst the growing trends in the job search market. LinkedIn's Q1 2012 financial results stated that its Hiring Solutions amounted for over half of its revenue; this confirms there are many job opportunities available from tapping into Social Media.  The Acquisition and Retention survey also showed that 41% of employees use their social media network when making career decisions.  One thing is certain, to maximise the chances of securing a new job in the current state of the economy, job seekers to need to stay abreast of growing trends and utilise the alternative routes to the job market.

Synopsis thanks to Connaught Executive Ltd,

Job hopper or career strategist.

Job hopper or career strategist.

When I coach people, particularly those who have been made redundant I find that attitudes towards finding a new job vary enormously, from the  ‘I’ll do anything that pays the bills’ to ‘I am not prepared to take a step down in status or less money’. Some want to get even further up the promotion ladder. Some may need the money but their desire for status stops them considering anything less than their former role. So some are hopping from job to job and some are planning what they do.

Is there a right or wrong approach?

As a coach I don’t judge.. people need to do what is right for them, I am not in their shoes or living their life so who am I to judge their needs and or wishes. What I do is try to help them unpick what is driving those desires and whether they are genuine motivations or constructs that they have adopted because they think that they ought to feel that way.

Fundamentally there are lots of trade offs in finding in a new job: some people realise through coaching that actually they would be happier in a more local job that paid less than their old one but which allowed them to get home to read a story to the kids at bedtime. Can you put a price on that? Others are driven by such a genuine desire  to make a real contribution to improving the lives of others that they are striving for maximum influence across  maximum area.

In the post WW2 years Edgar Schien analysed what motivated people at work – I find his research interesting as it was done on US servicemen.. note the ‘men’.. he did not find that there was a group of people who go to work for social reasons. Schien said that people were motivated by the desire to:

·         Exercise Technical/Functional expertise, to be seen and respected as an expert

·         Be a General Manager– to run an organisation,  to synthesise the efforts of others

·         Have Autonomy/Independence – to do their own thing and not have to answer to others

·         Have Security/Stability – to have routine and predictability in life

·         Exercise Entrepreneurial Creativity – to create something which will enable them to leave their mark

·         Provide Service/Dedication to a Cause – to do good for others and improve their lot

·         Enjoy Pure Challenge- to do anything that is new and exciting and demanding- and I mean just keep doing new stuff!

·         Enjoy Lifestyle- to have a job where the ability to balance life and work, to come home with energy not exhaustion.

These are not exclusive, people will be driven by two or maybe three. One woman I was coaching was very clearly motivated by the need to exercise her technical knowledge, we spent about 4 months of procrastinating as she tried to motivate herself to apply for jobs back in her former profession. Was just not happening. She is now working part time as a lecturer and loving it!

Another coachee started off talking about status and money and realised that actually he could do more good (Service) by being a service manager and that he could do with less money than he thought for that sort of job.

More recently Chiumento  have come up with new research, done largely in the private sector: they did not identify altruism as a driver!  Yet I find many of my clients are driven by that very desire. Chiumento suggest that people are either:

·         Socialisers – working for the pleasure of the social interaction and that good colleagues is a key satisfier.

·         Protectionists – who place more importance on job security and a stable environment, routine and regularity.

·         Achievers who thrive on challenge and variety.

·         True Believers who have faith in what the organisation does and delivers and gain their satisfaction from being part of that enterprise (I think public sector altruism could fit here)

·         Materialists who seek material gain and reward.

So what is the difference between a job hopper and a career strategist?

It is not in what they do but in how they understand what it is they want work to do for them, how they come to understand what work plays in their life and choose their options in line with that understanding. They make deliberate choices about which jobs they will apply for or accept because they understand what they are doing. They understand what they want their lives to be about and what role will play in that. 

I have a questionnaire based on Schien to help you work out what is driving your career; please get in touch mary@maryhope.co.uk or read my book www.topcareerstrategies.info for more thought provoking and educative tips.

Interview questions that spell danger.....

Interview questions that spell danger.....

When you apply for a job you fill out a form or maybe prepare a CV, you do a covering letter  or sometimes a longer ‘supporting statement’. You send it off and if you’ve been persuasive enough on paper you get to an interview. So you set off in best suit and shiny shoes and someone; maybe an employer or maybe a recruitment consultant sits you down and says:

So give me a quick trot through your career... or tell me about your career, or give us an overview of your career, what have your career highs and lows been.

And this is a dangerous question because your answer can say more about you than you realise.

Now the sharp and alert candidate may just be tempted to say ‘you’ve got my Cv, need i say more?’ But interviews are very disempowering to  individuals (all the power seems to be on that other side of the desk) and I’ve rarely come across someone who responded in that fashion.

But why do the interviewers ask that? May be they have not read the paperwork. It does happen that the person who screens the applications is different from the one that is interviewing.  I did once go to see a recruitment agency/consultancy and discovered that actually they had not read the Cv properly and seemed to have started reading at page 2 and thought I was working in a job I’d left 10 years before!  So help them out with a précis.

The way you answer can, just as your CV and letter does, reveal a lot about you that you may not have intended to reveal. My heart always sinks when a candidate starts with job number one and then takes me through their life history brick by brick. Dry, tedious and full of information that i already have infront of me. (and I do read the paperwork) It often takes forever. So top tip number one, clarify with the interviewer if you can, is this a bio-data interview or a warm up question.  And the best way to do this maybe to ask ‘where would you like me to start?’ If they say at the beginning it is more likely to be  the former and then they will be looking for a detailed analysis of what you did where, what you achieved and why you changed jobs. If it is a bio-data interview the interviewer should be probing and prompting, giving you a steer about the sort of detail they want.  If the latter they will be listening to what you select to mention and include.

So what can emerge from ‘the trot through the career ? patterns about why you moved on;

·         repeatedly being made redundant  (smokescreen for sacked?),

·         deciding to leave because of differences of policy, (awkward customer does not get on with people?),

·         looking for ‘new challenges’ when the moves have been between similar jobs (low boredom threshold?)

·         moving around very quickly for more money (no loyalty)

·         staying a long time in jobs (lacks appetite and drive)

There are numerous permutations and not all of those are negative indications. A thirst for variety is no bad thing in a job that offers considerable variety or an organisation that does not expect people to stay long.

But you also reveal how you look at the world. If you take a linear approach and describe  each job etc you are suggesting that that is your approach to life. It’s linear, it’s detailed, it’s prosaic. If you give chapter and verse on every employment when not specifically asked for it, you really do risk boring the interviewer to death!

So if you are grey hair/no hair, going for a senior role and someone asks that question, what is it that they really want to know?

Well they may be trying to understand your career drivers or motivators, what is it that makes you tick ? are you the sort of person they want on board? Do your motivators align with their values.

They may be looking to see if you can helicopter and identify themes and patterns. Well of course you can and you can ensure that they are the ones you want them to hear about!

If they are looking for someone with strategic thinking ability, give them a strategic answer.

Most interviewers have read your cv and don’t want to hear it all again they want to hear more and different so think about what you want them to hear.

The danger is that you take the interviewer too literally and ‘trot’ them through your career until all they want to do is put you out to grass. Take a thematic approach and you can be enthusiastic and energetic, succinct and enlightening whilst retaining their interest. If they want to probe they can do so but please, what ever you do: be interesting!

The UK is loving Linked -In

As if you had not realised; the UK has embraced Linked in in a very big way. London is the busiest place on earth for Linked In. But the most astonishing stat is towards th end of the article.. who knew there were so many???
Jorgen Sundberg writes:

• 150 million worldwide members of LinkedIn
• 8 million UK members
• Almost two thirds of all professionals in Britain are on LinkedIn
• Almost a third of members use LinkedIn to grow their business
• 64% year on year membership growth
• 82% use LinkedIn for business purposes
• 74% use LinkedIn to network with other professionals
• 30% use LinkedIn to look for a new job

Conclusion: Brits have taken to LinkedIn in a very big way. Unlike France (Viadeo) and Germany (Xing), this country never really had a professional network contender to LinkedIn and it's showing in the figures.
I hear on the grapevine that it's actually closer to 9 million UK users of LinkedIn, most of them are based in London. In fact, London is the no.1 city on LinkedIn in terms of user activity. That means the royal capital has more logins, clicks, comments etc than any other place in the world (including Menlo Park, CA where LinkedIn are based).
Two thirds of all professionals on LinkedIn is very good going, looks like we're almost on par with the Dutch who have the highest rate of LinkedIn users per professional capita.
It's no surprise that most users use LinkedIn for business purposes; to grow their companies and network with professionals. If you want to use social networks for that very purpose, LinkedIn is definitely your best bet.
Finally, 30% use LinkedIn to look for a new job. That figure might seem low to you but I believe they mean these people are currently looking for a job. Yes, most folks will use the professional network for job search at some time or another but at any given time about a third are looking for a new opportunity.
The rest of us are known as 'passive' candidates - meaning we're probably open to hearing what jobs are going but will only move for a spectacular opportunity.
LinkedIn is in my book moving away from being about careers and more about giving you a professional identity online. It's going mainstream and becoming an essential for most people that work in an office. Having said that, remember that there are about 110,000 recruiters on LinkedIn in the UK so there will be plenty of jobs coming your way in future via LinkedIn.