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.

I want to be an academic librarian

"To become an academic librarian you will have to wait for someone to die"
"I am very patient."

"Bad Career Advice" from BNET

Caution: Bad Career Advice Ahead from the Evil HR Lady on BNET is filled with great examples of when to ignore advice--especially when that advice flouts common sense or is unjust.