What I Meant to Say Was

So I got interviewed--yep, they were that desperate--for an article about the job market outlook for librarians. I gave them some of my usual blather about how new librarians should think about their transferrable skills, not waste their time in a saturated market and look in areas where there are fewer entry-level librarians--i.e. not in a town with a library school--and that new librarians should also consider looking for work in special libraries and not get so hung up on working in public and academic libraries. So,I thought I would take the time to say what I meant to say.

The Brass Ring

When I was in library school, the brass ring was the academic library. Everybody wanted to work there and the cool kids were strongly encouraged to apply. Public libraries were ok, especially if you were going to work in children's librarianship since that is where you can wreck...er, mold young minds, but I wanted to work with adults, and even before it was modestly cool, with newcomer populations, a special population the library. And the minute you say special, library schools don't really know what to do with you--unless you're going to be working in a music or a law library. There is not that much assistance for looking for work in special libraries and the library school kept pushing the academic or public library as the only options. This is not to say that they are not great options--I did my internship in a public library and I sometimes look back on that time with deep, longing sentimental sighs--but it would help to have professors speak positively about all types of libraries.

If this is not the case at your library school, or things have changed, realize that I am speaking from my own experience and perception.

Transferrable Skills

So no one knew what to do with me. Luckily, I was a bit older and not so prone to take career direction from people who had stayed with the same employer for most of their adult life. I also knew that I had to take charge of my own job search and not wait for someone to find a job for me. I realized that there are multilingual newcomer populations in both academic and public libraries and that I could tailor my project and my interviews to describe all of the skills that I had acquired in my volunteer work and apply that to the library world. It is what got me my internship, talking about my transferrable skills: I had teaching, classroom management and public speaking skills, in addition to customer service and a deep knowledge of about serving this specific population--in addition to my promiscuous reading habits, which is the only time that you can say promiscuous and have it mean good things for an employer. And a practiced with ways to describe how all of these skills would be useful, which is what you are supposed to do when prepping for an interview: learn to talk about yourself with depth and describe your unique abilities in relation to the employer's needs.

A Library Degree is the Minimum

While on the topic of transferrable skills, when I was at the ALA career fair, a light bulb went on for me in my first interview. My epiphany was this: the library degree is the minimum. When you are called into an interview, the employer checks this off and then talks about everything else you can possibly bring to the table, so you can't focus constantly and exclusively on your library school experience.

Library students hate this: when I mention this in any presentation I give about careers, I get this look of "don't dis my degree". I am not dissing the degree; I learnt a lot and paid a lot for my degree too, but I have stopped kissing it before I went to bed every night. It is the ticket to ride. Without it, there is no interview. But you are more than your degree and you need to learn how to explain how much more you are.

Everyone Can Move

Well, not everyone. People who have homes that they can't sell, aging parents or family members in care who need them, or children whose needs can only be met in that community, they can't move. Everybody else is fair game.

I know you are comfortable, you have your books on your shelves the way you like them and damn, but you think you can make something out of your current relationship, but you are going to be unhappy, have to sell your books and it's tough to nurture a relationship when you are broke and constantly whining about your job search.

If you aren't getting offers in your current labor market, you have to move to get the job you want. It is tough, but it has to be done. And once you do it, it gets a bit easier to move again, and even move back, once you have some experience or get courted back. It can happen, but you have to get unstuck to get the experience.

The other option is telework, but that may take you out of libraries entirely--which might not be a bad thing, provided that an employer will accept what you do as transferrable. You also can't give up on libraries, of all types, so you need to stay in touch with librarian friends and build up your network. Which you should be doing anyway.

Become a Specialist

Library school will make you a generalist: you leave with enough tools to fit in any library and what you make of what you have will determine who hires you. Maybe you should become a specialist.

Working in a special library will make you a specialist. You will learn a lot about engineers and scientists if you work in special library in an oil and gas company, for example. You will answer specific reference questions for them, deal with their information needs, find information delivery solutions for them, catalog, develop collections specific to their industry or sector. You will also have to pretend that this stuff is fascinating even if you left science or engineering to become a librarian because it didn't fascinate you as much anymore, or if science has always left you cold, and faking fascination is not a bad skill to cultivate. All of the skills you develop in that library are transferrable to the science library on an academic campus, or even in a public library that needs someone to find science fair projects. You just need to explain how to transfer your specialization to that potential new employer.

What about not working in libraries?

What happens to the people who can't get a job in a library? And this can happen--the trick is to get busy doing something, but not waiting for phone calls. If you have to take a year and write business plans for people, you can still use those skills in a business library in an academic, public or special library, you just have to talk about how it is related. Like how you questioned your client and interacted with them, how you researched the market, the process of writing the plan and how successful each plan was and what resources you would provide to a client that needed similar assistance. See, transferrable.

Sadly, there is one thing you can't do: you can't convince a library employer to interview you if you spend too much time out of library work. For you, this means lots of frustration unless you can network your way into an interview, either through contacts or by volunteering (which you should be doing BEFORE you leave library school). Worse than working out of libraries however, is being the wallflower of the labor market and not doing anything. Long periods of unemployment are probably hardest to deal with, so it is important to do something with dignity and that is transferrable.

It is also important for people responsible for library hiring to see how applicable that work outside of libraries is to people who are patrons of the library and for them to see that a person who is determined to work will also be determined to work hard for the library.

Back to B-School, Winter 2011 edition

No recommendations?

Since I spent the weekend reading What's Mine Is Yours, I am interested in the concept of generating an online reputation. From a collaborative consumption perspective this reputation would generate: how good a buyer/seller and loaner/borrower you are, all available in the online.

Using reputation, making an introduction or a referral is not new and recommendations were and are based on character as well as caste. Using an online community to make recommendations may allow us to circumvent the caste aspect of the recommendation--I can see and write a recommendation for my plumber, for example, a person who may not live in my neighborhood or have gone to college with me, but which my social network can access and decide whether or not to hire him, or let him couch surf in their house in London, a privilege not available to previous generations of plumbers.

There are systems in place to keep track of reputation: eBay's star system for buyers and sellers, is just one example. In the realm of business networking, LinkedIn has a reputation manager, the Recommendations field which allows users to write recommendations for people who are in their LinkedIn network. You can vet any recommendations written for you and hide them if you don't want them to be visible, revealing them again when you think they might help. But should an employer be able to stop employees from writing recommendations for their network connections on LinkedIn? Workforce Management has an article on when and why to craft a LinkedIn referral policy, but I think writing referrals, in the age of "collaborative consumption" is much bigger than the people we work and have worked with, and it may not be possible to forbid a person from writing a recommendation, considering the varied places where a recommendation can be input and our coming ability to search and sort individual reputation.

Rachel Botman's TED talk about collaborative consumption and what it might mean

Go [Reverse] Chronological

Laurie Ruettimann of Cynical Girl wrote a blog post about the best resume format type: chronological. Kill the functional. Her argument is that Applicant Tracking Systems don't love the functional resume anyway, so your resume will be overlooked in the database (another commenter pointed out that an ATS can parse the dates from a functional resume--if you bothered to add any). I think the post answers a common question and many of the comments fill in additional information as to why a [reverse] chronological resume is the better choice--even if you don't have much relevant professional experience.

And really, you don't have to cry about the loss of functional resumes: they are usually crappy and infomercial in tone. If I want to read good writing, I'll pick up a good book. I just need the facts.

Facebook Marketplace Job Posting Poll

The Origin of Job Interviews

Where do you see yourself in 50 moons?

Crap Detection 101, review

Howard Rheingold, the author of Smart Mobs, looks at several different media literacy issues: determining authority, avoiding scams and getting good information. Crap Detection 101 is also an expansion of an article that he wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle (and which is still available online). He uses examples and tells brief stories to illustrate his point. He is also very kind: he know these topics are difficult and when people are sucked in, they feel stupid, as well as vulnerable.



I would recommend this resource to anyone who is timid about using some of the services on the Internet that make us more efficient, but who is worried, either because of a past mistake or because of the media, that they will be conned. His tips could also be applied to looking critically about corporate information and job scams. Crap Detection 101 may also help Internet risk-takers, though Rheingold's low key manner may not be enough to grab their attention.

#jobsearchTweet and #EntrylevelTweet

Happy About Books has experimented with creating Twitter-style books of career advice. The books are limited to 140 statements and each statement is limited to 140 characters, similar to Twitter.

#jobsearchTweet is for any-flavor of job seeker from the entry-level to the laid off. The author, Barbara Safani, is the owner of Career Solvers, and the author of another Happy About book, Happy About My Resume. On the whole, I found most of the advice to be highly relevant and actionable, but one suggestion--add a chart to your resume--I think is an absolute no-no. Not only would an Applicant Tracking System not know what to do with your pretty chart, I can easily see an employer laughing about a well-meaning, My Awesomeness chart. Charts like these are better suited to a portfolio, revealed at the interview, and in relation to a specific question. If you use a chart, make sure it is relevant, objective-as in not about personal information, but about a project or sales data--and uses no confidential information from a previous employer.

#entrylevelTweet is for beginning job seekers and though I really liked the structure and progression of the resume advice, I thought the author, owner of Come Recommended, opened the book on a weak note by suggesting that the reader write a bunch of lists, seemingly for the purpose of listing-stuff. Yes, I know you could use them on a resume or to answer interview questions, but I don't think the new job seeker is going to get it. College students respond to suggests to write lists about themselves with put-upon eye rolling: they hate it, everyone tells them to do it, they never do, or get frustrated over what this magic list was supposed to do. Despite the weak start, the resume tweets were well done and I could see college-age students eagerly eating those up.

For both these books, I think they would have been better as ebooks only; personally I feel their layout is a waste of paper, and they also probably look better on a cell phone screen. I would recommend them for career counsellors that have thought about tweeting out advice and were not sure how to do it, succinctly and with relevance. I also think that frustrated job seekers, tired of too much advice, would find the format refreshing.

The Trouble with Best Places to Work Lists

Laura Vanderkam, appearing on BNET, writes about Best Places to Work Lists and why they aren't the best way to go about picking a place to work.

Now, though those points are true and that each of these lists vary by criteria, I would also argue that at least the HR people are making an effort to make their workplace known to candidates outside of their geographic region, which gives them a wider pool of applicants. Yes, it has the benefit of making the company look good and add a Best Places to Work logo to their job board, but these may also advertise companies in regions a job seeker may not have even considered as a possibility, and further research will broaden their horizons.

The OUTLOOK for hiring

According to a story on CNN Money, the outlook for hiring is on a 12 year high. Now, I don't want to be a grump, but "outlook" is like looking into a crystal ball--it's not actual hires.

NBC blamed layoffs on the winter weather and last week's Business Week suggested that private enterprise won't start to hire until they are sure the recovery is real.

Women less interested in competitive pay structures

According to a study from the University of Chicago, women are less likely to apply for positions where the pay structure involves a competition with other employees--unless local wages were less than what the position offered as a base rate.

Can you work in those shoes?

Another article devoted to women's attire in the workplace, complete with a cleavage appropriate measuring device and some requisite fat-ist, ageist hate from a Gen-Y mean girl:

"If I want to flaunt what I’ve got, I’ll do it, and I don’t care if some old-fashioned or overweight female employees can’t handle it."

Fashion advice for women in the workplace usually sounds like a soft audition for the Taliban: showing skin is not respectful so cover yourself from collar bones, writes and ankles--like Maggie on the Simpsons; the microwaves from your unbound mermaid hair will tempt men; and your boobs look like the slot from a credit card reader. Personally, I find this advice to be obnoxious and unrealistic:

• Have you seen what they sell in clothing stores? What are my choices? It's belly button or nipples, even in some business attire. I guess they think we all work in banks.
• Why don't men get this fashion and body control advice? How about: tuck in your pelvis when you're talking to clients, or I can see your nipple rings through that dress shirt, or quit touching yourself and buy some boxers that fit already?
• Get your [figurative] hands off of my shirt--if I can work in what I wear and it is clean, unwrinkled and no holes, does it really matter?

So the real question is: can I work in what I wear? Honestly, if I need to climb under desks to fix the mouse, if I have to play Wii tennis with the seniors gaming group, or my car may break down in freezing winter weather while I visit all of the partner libraries in my district, why can't I wear jeans and a sweater? Why can't I wear flip flops if my feet are clean and well-groomed? When did wardrobe become short hand for how capable I am at my job, especially when I am dressing to deal with the job? Shouldn't I get points for pragmatism? Instead, the stereotype for my career is "dowdy" which according to this article is just as dangerous to a salary increase as "sexy".

And yes, whenever I read these articles I am extremely grateful to work in libraries where I have seen blue hair, pierced lips, permanent tattoos on necks, jeans and shirts that don't enclose collar bones--and they let us work with children! We haven't broken the flip flop barrier yet but I hold out hope.