Monday, April 19, 2010

LinkedIn Tip: Premium Account Elevates Job Seekers

LinkedIn announced this week a new paid account exclusively for job seekers called the Job Seeker Premium Account. The upgrade, LinkedIn says, is intended to help LinkedIn members stand out from the crowd, reach out to hiring decision makers and manage their job search more effectively.

This is the latest feature LinkedIn has added to its site that is tailored specifically for job seekers. Last month, LinkedIn announced a free tool that matches users to job openings.

As a member of the premium account, you will be moved to the top of the hiring manager's list as a "featured applicant" when you apply to jobs on LinkedIn. When hiring managers log in to their LinkedIn accounts and view who's applied for a job, "they're highlighted and displayed in a more eye-catching way than a non-featured applicant," says Parker Barrile, director of product management at LinkedIn. Hiring managers, Barrile says, have responded positively: "These job seekers stand out to hiring managers because they've invested extra time and money to make their job search successful, so they know they're serious about it."

The premium account also lets you to send InMail messages directly to hiring managers, even if they reside outside your network, and you have access to the Profile Organizer, which lets you save profiles, add notes to the profiles and keep track of contacts from your job search.

As a paid account member, you also have access to tutorials and videos on how to use the premium features such as InMails and the Profile Organizer (which are also part of the standard upgrade account) in a way that can help you in your job search.

There are three account tiers you can choose from: basic, job seeker and job seeker plus.

Basic: The basic account costs $19.95 per month. You're allotted five folders in your Profile Organizer and can view 100 profiles of hiring decision makers per search. You're also allowed 10 introductions to inside sources at companies.

Job Seeker: This account costs $29.95 per month. You're allotted five InMails that let you contact hiring managers directly and ten folders in your Profile Organizer. You can view 250 profiles of hiring decision makers per search and you're allowed 15 introductions to inside sources at companies.

Job Seeker Plus: The Plus account costs $49.95 per month. You're allotted 10 InMails, 25 folders in your Profile Organizer and can view 500 profiles of hiring decision makers per search. You're also allowed 25 introductions to inside sources at companies. All three accounts come with a webinar on looking for jobs on LinkedIn.

Staff Writer Kristin Burnham covers consumer Web and social technologies for CIO.com. She writes frequently on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Google. You can follow her on Twitter: @kmburnham.

Original Article

Saturday, April 17, 2010

10 Guerrilla Job Search Tactics That Work

by Nicole Crimaldi

In my opinion, there are two things job seekers do wrong: they are too general and they are too boring.

I frequently write about the #1 problem of entry-level candidates: lack of focus. If you want to get hired today, you have to be a perfect fit. It’s OK to adjust your marketing materials (resume/CV) to show that.

But why do I feel most candidates are boring? Because they do what everyone else is doing.

The vast majority of job seekers conduct their job search solely online. Just like everyone else.

As I said in a post last week, 80% of job seekers are applying to 20% of open jobs. Career experts claim that only 20% of open positions are posted online. So if you want to get a job faster, become part of the 20% that is seeking 80% of the jobs (which aren’t posted online).

Step 1 is to take your job search offline!

But how?!

Get Guerilla

What does “guerrilla” mean in terms of a job search? It means get creative and do things differently. Engage your audience and surprise them. Here are ten guerrilla marketing tactics you can use in your job search.

1. Pick up the phone. Isn’t it lame that I have to even include this in a list which is meant to consist of creative and unique networking tactics? The truth is, I bet only 1% of people actually pick up the phone to introduce themselves, ask for a coffee meeting or start a conversation. You aren’t cold calling for an interview or a job, you are simply starting a conversation. Don’t over think it!

If you decide to pick up the phone, let the person know who referred you to them or how you know them. Did you meet at a networking event? Did you get his card at the bar? Did you look her up in your sorority alumna directory?

Chances are they won’t answer or be interested in talking to you the first time you call. Follow up again via email and make one last attempt by emailing them a week or two later referring to your first attempts. Don’t worry, you can do this without sounding desperate.

2. Stop job hunting and start company hunting. The beauty of a guerrilla style job search is that your efforts will be very targeted. You’ve researched industries, companies and even people. You know what you want and who you want to talk to. This is not a reactive job search where you apply to 50 jobs online and sit by your phone and wait. Find companies you like, then look into their competitors and their vendors. Target companies, not jobs.

3. Send a coffee mug. I first heard about this idea on an awesome podcast series called “Secrets of the Job Hunt” and have since run into this idea many times. Sending a coffee mug helped former job seeker Janet FritzHuspen land a job within two weeks.

  • If you find out about an open position you’d like to apply for, send a coffee mug along with your resume and cover letter in a box via FedEx/UPS ground so you can track the package.
  • In your letter, state that you’d like to set up a time to discuss how you can contribute and add value to ABC Company as their (title of position you are inquiring about).
  • When the package arrives, give the person a call about 20 minutes later and say “you just got my package” and go from there.

This tactic will not work every time, but word on the street is that it works almost every time. This tactic is better suited for more creative industries and positions rather than for a legal or banking positions.

4. Send an article. In this tactic you are simply sending interesting articles about the company, industry, or competition. You can put a sticky note on the printed article that says, “I thought you might be interested in this.” Also, make sure to include a note that lets the hiring manager know you like their company, what you are interested in and how you could contribute to their firm. Set up free Google alerts to stay on top of the newly published articles of interest.

5. Get in touch with ex-employers. Most people only look at the future when conducting a job search. Therefore, you should look behind you. Hopefully you left your previous positions on good terms and can send a short email saying hello and letting them know you are on the market. That’s it. All you have to do is let them know you are available. They have tons of clients and contacts, and perhaps they even need you back.

Read Tips 6-10

Friday, April 16, 2010

How to print yourself out of a job

When a techie gets a call for a print job that won't print, he finds a basic error made worse by the user's unprofessional behavior

I was working in the tech department at an upscale law firm, and as sometimes happens with support issues, I had gotten quite a few calls for one area. This time the calls concerned printers and printing.

One incident stood out: A legal secretary called and said several jobs that she had sent to her printer had not printed.

I asked her some questions over the phone and decided I needed to view her settings in person to see how she was choosing to print her documents.

I got to the user's desk and asked her to send a document to the printer so that I could see if the user was doing something different or changing the default printer. I noticed she had her resume up on the screen, a nice cover letter, and five different store Websites on her PC that all displayed coupons.

I don't normally say anything about what people are printing, because when they aren't printing the personal stuff, they are printing legitimate work. I just needed to resolve the issue.

The user began minimizing all of these windows, then chose an email with what appeared to be funny pictures from a very rowdy and scantily clad pool party to test print.

The user asked me to "not look at the pictures, just find out why the printer isn't printing them."

She sent the job to the printer using the print button. The job spooled, and the printer confirmation window quickly popped up and closed. I just barely saw the name of the printer, and it was not the same name as the printer she was printing to.

I asked her to open her printers and fax folder, and sure enough, she had changed her default printer to a different printer.

I told the user, "Oh no biggie. The problem is that it's printing to a different printer. Do you know where this HP LaserJet with the name ‘AttorneyYouWorkFor' is?"

The user went completely pale and said, "Oh no! That's the printer in my attorney's office! He asked me to print documents to his printer last night."

She looked at me frantically and said, "Pull them back, pull them back!" All I could say was that the printer had already spooled them and they were printing.

The user jumped up and disappeared around the corner, and I went back to the help desk and closed the ticket.

Later that day a memo was released to the firm from the human resources department, restating office policy regarding personal use of office equipment:

Computers and Printers that are in use at the firm are for work product and that which generates income for the firm. Please use printers and computers for work-related materials only. Please also confirm you know what printer you are sending print jobs to and what you are sending to avoid embarrassing yourself and others.

About a week later I was setting up a new legal secretary at this same user's desk. I wonder what happened.

This story, "How to print yourself out of a job," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Read more crazy-but-true stories in the anonymous Off the Record blog at InfoWorld.com.

The Do's and Don'ts of Using LinkedIn to Find a Job

Pervin Shaikh

Everyone who is anyone in the business world is likely to have a profile on LinkedIn. It does pay to have a profile on LinkedIn because more than a quarter of the people on the site are senior executives, with every Fortune 500 company represented. LinkedIn is not just used for job hunting, but more and more people are turning to the site to research before sales calls, asking for advice, and compiling information on companies or individuals and clients.

People are no longer relying on traditional avenues to seek employment, such as sending out resumes or CV’s to companies and agencies, or applying to jobs advertised in local or national newspaper job classification sections. Instead, people are being enterprising and inventive in seeking employment through other channels, such as social networking sites LinkedIn.

The rules of job hunting have changed considerably since bygone days when the process was more formal, secretive and reactive, and the candidates were more passive. Instead, as a result of technological innovations, social changes, changes in the workplace and globalisation, individuals are more empowered due to their ability to connect with others at a click of a button.

Facebook for Grownups

LinkedIn is also known as the “Facebook for grownups” and it gained momentum since its inception over a decade ago. Its founder, Reid Hoffman, believed LinkedIn would provide a unique professional platform for millions of people across the world. At present, the professional networking site has over 60 million profiles and there are ambitious plans to move the platform into more ambitious and profitable territories.

Facebook created headlines for social networking, but LinkedIn is now making global headlines. A recent article in Fortune Magazine, How LinkedIn Will Fire up Your Career, highlights the example of the accounting and consulting firm, Accenture, who believes 40% of their new hires over the next five years, will come from social networking sites such as LinkedIn.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Even With a Recovery, Job Perks May Not Return

Workers have seen everything from 401(k) contributions to educational reimbursements cut by their employers during the recession. While some companies are slowly restoring some benefits, experts say workers shouldn't expect a return to pre-2007 levels any time soon.

"Those days are gone," says Tim Prichard, head of BridgeStreet Consulting, a benefits administration consulting firm. "Benefits across the board are no longer sacred cows."

A survey of 522 human resources professionals conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management in February 2009 found that fringe benefit offerings—which include stock options, paid family leave and business class airfare—have decreased significantly since 2005.

And some firms are still cutting. An October 2009 survey of 371 companies by SHRM found 39% of respondents were either "somewhat likely" or "very likely" to reduce benefits offerings in the next six months.

As long as unemployment remains high, there will be little incentive for employers to bring back perks that have been lost, experts say.

From "past downturns, we know that benefits come back slowly when the economy recovers and the labor market gets tight—competition for labor does it," says Peter Cappelli, a professor and director of the Center for Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "So until that happens, the [benefits] may not come back."

Education reimbursement and training are often cut early. Companies who offered reimbursement for undergraduate and graduate education decreased by 4% and 5% respectively, according to SHRM.

Mr. Prichard says that he has seen companies cap tuition reimbursements at $2,500 for employees who just a few years ago would have had their master's degrees almost entirely paid for. A survey conducted by the Graduate Management Admission Council, which administers the GMAT admission test for M.B.A. students, found the percentage of U.S. employers offering tuition reimbursement or scholarships to recent M.B.A. graduates declined to 29% in 2009 from 37% in 2008.

Visteon Corp., for example, an automotive supplier based in Michigan, suspended its tuition-assistance program, which had helped fund undergraduate and graduate degrees for 50 employees, in October 2008, seven months before it filed for bankruptcy. The program remains suspended as the company focuses on emerging from Chapter 11, a spokesman says.

Companies offering adoption assistance also fell, from 20% to 10%, according to the SHRM study. And so far, few are adding the benefit back, experts say.

"I had one client who had a very progressive adoption program where they provided reimbursements for adoption expenses," says Carl Mowery, managing director of LECG, a corporate consulting firm. "When they started cutting back, that program was cut." The company, with 1,000 employees, shed $100,000 in annual costs by eliminating the program and has no plans to restore it.

Other popular and relatively inexpensive perks that had been expected to grow, have declined or come to a standstill. For instance, as telecommuting technologies have became cheaper and more accessible, many workplace advocates believed the number of companies that would allow employees working remotely would rise. But instead, over the past five years new telecommuters have been offset by employees returning to the traditional workplace, according to a June 2009 report by International Data Corp., an IT consulting firm.

The report also found that some businesses have "reined in support for alternative work arrangements, with new initiatives essentially on hold and existing programs under review."

Employees are more hesitant to work away from the office when they are anxious about losing their job, says Justin Jaffe, an IDC analyst. "When times are tough, telecommuters will take refuge in the corporate office, maybe feeling vulnerable or exposed in not being where the action is."

From 2007 through 2009, the percentage of private industry workers with access to flexible workplace benefits remained steady at 5% according to the National Compensation Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Some firms are trying to soften the blow of salary freezes or benefit cuts by adding voluntary benefits, says Chris Hill, CEO of PerkSpot, a Chicago company that administers voluntary, or employee-paid, benefits and discount programs for companies and public institutions—which cost the firms little or nothing.

Mr. Hill recently worked with a large national retailer who added a voluntary auto and home insurance program, along with access to discounts with merchants like Dell and Target Corp. Mr. Hill says the number of employees using these programs increased by 113%, to nearly 372,000 in 2009.

The SHRM survey points to one thing that might be gone for good--or a very long time: Holiday parties. The percentage of respondents who said that their company held a holiday party fell from 87% in 2006 to 81% in 2009, with 15% saying that they have plans to reduce or eliminate them in the next year.

Employees at the law firm of Fennemore Craig in Arizona had gotten used to lavish holiday parties held annually at a fancy hotel. But the recession prompted the firm to cancel that party in 2009 and instead throw a potluck in its offices.

"Will there come a point where we will bring back the big large-scale holiday parties? Maybe," said James Goodnow, an attorney and chair of the firm's retention committee. "I think we are cautiously optimistic that things will continue to improve, but no one knows what's going to happen with the economy."

Still, one benefit that is showing signs of life is matching contributions to 401(k) plans. Many companies suspended that perk over the last few years. But in February, the benefits consulting firm Hewitt Associates surveyed 162 mid- to large-sized U.S. companies and found that 80% planned to restore matching contributions in 2010.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 24% of the 2.4 million employees affected by matching suspensions since 2008 have seen the suspensions lifted. Still, some companies have only partially restored matching funds. At FedEx Corp., matching contributions were halted in early 2009. When they were restored in December, the contribution was half of what it had been prior to the recession.

Original Article

The Forbes Fictional 15 - Our annual ranking of fiction's richest.

It's a great time to be imaginary.

Global markets are rapidly recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, and so are the fortunes of the fictitious. There are six new characters on the 2010 edition of Fictional 15, our annual ranking of fiction's richest, with an average net worth of $7.3 billion. In aggregate, the nine returning members are worth $79.8 billion, up 9% since we last checked in on them.

Topping the list this year is newcomer Carlisle Cullen, patriarch of the Cullen coven of vampires in the Twilight series of novels. Cullen, age 370, has accumulated a fortune of $34.1 billion--much of it from long-term investments made with the aid of his adopted daughter Alice, who picks stocks based on her ability to see into the future. Low-key and undead, Cullen has spent recent years posing as a mortal doctor in a small town in Washington State.

Chuck Bass, the brooding, manipulative heir to deceased New York real estate legend Bart Bass, makes his Fictional 15 debut this year with an estimated net worth of $1.1 billion. The Gossip Girl star and fashion icon (daywear, the three P's: Purple, Plaid and Preppy; nightwear, the three V's: vests, velvet and Valentino) recently sat for a Forbes Fictional Interview.

In Pictures: The Fictional 15

Also new to this year's list: Sir Topham Hatt ($2 billion), the railroad tycoon from television's Thomas The Tank Engine & Friends, Lucille Bluth ($950 million), the matron of the dysfunctional Bluth real estate family from Arrested Development, and the Tooth Fairy ($3.9 billion), who has blown several previous fortunes 50 cents at a time. Jay Gatsby, the shady Long Island dandy from F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, returns to the list after an absence of several years with a billion-dollar fortune.

Uncle Sam is the highest profile drop-off this year. The crusty frontiersman and former U.S. Army recruitment officer had the largest net worth swing in Fictional 15 history, from an estimate of "infinite" last year to less than a billion today. Yes, he has the ability to print money--literally--but how much exactly is that money worth? Gordon Gekko, the hero of the forthcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, drops off the list after a stint in federal lock-up. We also mourn the passing of Jabba the Hutt from the Star Wars universe. The crime lord was found dead late last year under salacious circumstances.

Fictional 15 perennials Scrooge McDuck ($33.5 billion) and Jed Clampett ($7.2 billion) had banner years, reflecting surging gold and oil prices respectively. Only Richie Rich ($11.5 billion) and Thurston Howell III ($2.1) billion have seen their fortunes decline over the past year.

To qualify for the Fictional 15, we require that candidates be an authored fictional creation, a rule which excludes mythological and folkloric characters. They must star in a specific narrative work or series of works. And they must be known, both within their fictional universe and by their audience, for being rich.

Net worth estimates are based on an analysis of the fictional character's source material, and valued against known real-world commodity and share price movements. In the case of privately held fictional concerns, we sought to identify comparable fictional public companies. All prices are as of market close, April 12, 2010.

We reserve the right to bend or break any of our own rules--so yes, we know Uncle Sam and the Tooth Fairy are folkloric.

In Pictures: The Fictional 15

My Favorites - Thurston Howell III, Jed Clampett, and Monty Burns

Original Article

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Google Hiring Committee Stories

Google's engineering hiring is unique as far as I know. Patterned after faculty hiring by top universities, Google engineering had no hiring managers. None. This meant that all the usual job search advice by any number of books and web-sites didn't apply to Google. Bypassing HR and trying to get to a hiring manager didn't do any good. About the only thing that could have been useful would have been to get a strong employee referral (i.e., get an employee who thought the world of you to say so when he submitted your resume). The interview process went like this: you would interview with a panel of engineers, who would then write feedback to an internal database, which would then go to a hiring committee (also composed of engineers) to evaluate the feedback and provide a go/no-go decision. Since engineers might have to live with the code (and personality) of a bad hire, the hiring committee tended to be conservative on hires. Phone interviews and in person interviews were conducted almost exclusively by engineers, with directors brought in only if the candidate requested a meeting with a manager explicitly, or if the candidate himself was interviewing for a manager/director position.

For reasons explained in my book, I ended up on the Site Reliability hiring committee. At that time, the hiring committee was composed out of relatively senior engineers: Lucas, Ben, Bogdan, and various engineering big-wigs like Bill and Urs. Frequently, when the committee found feedback on hiring to be ambiguous, it would assign another interview to an engineer well-known to be decisive (i.e., someone who would be willing to stick his neck out and say "hire" or "no-hire"). This happened surprisingly frequently because many people dislike rejecting people, and occasionally, someone would write feedback that wasn't really informative enough.

We didn't always have the luxury of a second-interview, however, since some folks had to be flown in from far-away places. Google was truly a global company, and in its pursuit of talent would consider resumes from literally anywhere in the world. Now, I didn't think that Google's interviews were particularly hard, compared to startups and other well-known firms in the industry. In general, quality companies reject a large number of engineers because most people who call themselves programmers can't code.

A few incidents came to mind as being particularly funny:

One day, I came to the hiring committee and started reading feedback from interviewers. One of them turned out to be a candidate I had interviewed earlier in the week. I was doing as much as 5 interviews a week at this time, so I didn't always remember the candidate by the time I got to the committee. Lucas's feedback for the candidate started with, "I spent the first five minutes of my interview calming the candidate down after his interview with Piaw..." When the others got to this part of the feedback there was a lot of laughter. I think that was the moment I realized that Bogdan and I would get along, because he high-fived me across the table. The candidate was a no-hire, but I don't think it was because I was particularly harsh.

At one point, we came across a candidate who had to be flown over from the other side of the world. Since we knew there was to be no chance of re-evaluating this candidate if the feedback was insufficient, we asked the recruiters to make sure that we had decisive, experienced interviewers for this candidate, who seemed pretty senior. She replied, "How about Piaw, Ben, Bogdan, and Lucas?" When he heard this, Bill put his head in his hands and said, "Why don't we just save ourselves and the candidate some time and just send him a rejection letter now?" The room burst into laughter.

Our committee took hiring seriously. We agonized over many hiring (and no-hiring) decisions for many years, learned the idiosyncrasies of many interviewers, and tried to match them up to candidates as well as possible. It was very high intensity work, and on one or two occasions I had to go head-to-head and argue my case in front of VPs because I felt strongly about one candidate or another. I didn't always win, but at every point everyone's opinions were considered. I'm sure we made mistakes, but looking back, I'm not sure I would have found a better process. I for one think that the decisions the committee made were far better than the decisions each of us individually would have made.