For most people most of the time, references are no problem.
Indeed, bosses, subordinates, and peers are your greatest source of career opportunity. Your current boss may promote you. Co-workers' comments may help move you ahead. And former associates may lead you to outside opportunities.
It's nice to be well spoken of. And I'll bet you are...almost all of the time, by almost everyone. But when you're being "referenced," you want to make doubly sure the right impression is given. Here are some suggestions:
Your first step in job-changing is to get in touch with your references.
Begin any job campaign by reaching out to your work-related personal contacts, past and present. Ask for a reference rather than a job, and achieve all the advantages.
With a little effort you'll soon have plenty of pertinent people whose enthusiasm you've tested...and re-stimulated...either face-to-face, or by long-distance phone. Interviewing potential references advertises your availability. And it lets you know who's enthusiastic, and who's lukewarm.
Don't "wear out" your references.
Even though you know from the start precisely who you want potential employers to talk to, do not accompany your resume with a list of references. Neither recruiters nor employers expect such information until you're about to get a job offer. And you're better off not providing it.
Your references feel most enthusiastic and least imposed upon the first time they're asked about you. If they have to respond several times, fatigue and boredom set in. Their answers become perfunctory. And after a while they begin to wonder why lots of people have investigated you, and nobody has hired you.
Whose names do you give?
Since you're being considered for employment, almost all of your references must be work-related. Moreover, your potential employer wants to know how good you are today...not how special you were a long time ago.
So if you're employed, you must open a window on your current reputation in your present company. And if you're "between jobs," you've got to show how you were regarded in the job you've just left. The number-one person your potential employer wants to talk to is your current boss, if you're employed. Or your most recent boss if you're not.
Normally, of course, you can't deliver your present boss as a reference on an outside job. And no one will expect you to. But do try to come up with two or three people whose confidentiality you can rely on, and who know first-hand how well you're doing now. Perhaps a trusted subordinate. Maybe a peer. Possibly the head of a department or function who works closely with you...and ideally, with your superiors and subordinates too.
Anyone discreet who's recently left your company is a good bet to maintain confidentiality. She doesn't care whether you leave or stay, and chances are she won't be in touch with the people who do. An outside supplier or customer who works closely with your organization is another possibility. He too observes your situation. He isn't quite as knowledgeable, but can be helpful nonetheless.
If you're employed you can, of course, refuse to allow contacting of anyone in your current company. But "stonewalling" will raise doubts. Every competent and commendable human being makes at least a few friends among the people he or she works with. If there's nobody you can trust, your potential employer will surely wonder why.
On the other hand, when you're out of work, there's no logical reason why your would-be employer can't talk to your most recent boss. So even if you parted on the worst of terms, you'd better prepare for the inevitable. Much as you'd like to, you probably can't substitute your favorite boss for your most recent one.
There's safety in numbers.
The more open and helpful you are in allowing yourself to be checked out, the stronger you look right from the start...even before a single person is contacted.
So when you're about to be hired, and the time for serious referencing has finally arrived, either hand over, or volunteer to prepare, a comprehensive list. Say something like this:
"When I'm hiring, I like to learn as much as possible about the person I'm considering. I'll put together a list of names and phone numbers, and you can call anyone you want to."
Then, taking the confident "my-life's-an-open-book" approach, supply a list that covers all of your recent jobs and includes a generous sampling of bosses, subordinates, peers, and maybe even customers and suppliers, if appropriate. Provide home as well as office phone numbers, if your references are willing to receive calls at home.
Since your list is fairly extensive, you can edit. You must include the person for whom you've done most of your most recent work, even if the parting was unfriendly and the evaluation is likely to be negative. Omitting him or her would sound a warning. But you can make sure that person's opinion is in context of others who will be objective.
Maybe, if you're lucky, the person you're worried about won't be called. Or won't be available. "Negative" references tend to avoid returning calls. Moreover, today most companies have policies restricting commentaries to nothing more than dates of employment. Potentially "negative" references tend to cite the policy and clam up, whereas "positive" references often ignore it and enthuse at length.
With a "safety-in-numbers" long list of references, even if the worst occurs...your nemesis is called and treats you unfairly...your potential employer has right at his or her fingertips the names and numbers of additional people who will balance the bad words with a far more fair and favorable account.
Consistency is the key.
When an employer or a recruiter talks to a reference, he wants to hear the same story he heard from you. Suppose you say:
"I've always got along well with all my bosses, and Sharon was no exception."
But when Sharon's called about you, she says:
"Frankly, the chemistry wasn't good, and the constant bickering got to be a drag after a while."
Now you've got a problem. Much better to have provided a safety-in-numbers list of references and forewarned:
"I've always gotten along well with all my bosses and all my coworkers too. Sharon was the only exception."
Don't go overboard anticipating problems and raising negatives that may not come up. Most people like to be gracious and upbeat when called as references. Even the boss who just fired you will probably feel guilty and want you to find a new job quickly and to think and speak well of him in the future.
But don't fail to lay a little groundwork, if there's a negative you're absolutely sure is coming. Above all, referencing probes the consistency of your story. Are things really the way you presented them?
But suppose you were fired for cause. There was a problem. Then control damage by using the "reference statement."
If you've been fired and the pertinent people have good reason to take a dim view of you, then the outplacement firms urge you to move in quickly with a reference statement.
Within the first day or two after you're fired, they say you should draft a concise statement...no more than one page...stating your tenure and performance in terms as favorable as possible to your future employment. Present it to your former boss. Will he or she go along with it? If not, negotiate until you have a written statement you can both live with. Then line up two or three additional references who are pertinent and hopefully more favorable to you. Negotiate written statements they too can live with. And make sure a consistent theme links all versions.
These statements become the "party line" when anyone inquires about your departure...former co-workers, customers, suppliers, and potential employers. The actual written statement is never handed to anyone; it merely becomes the agreed-on script for conversations about you. Here's an example:
"Dale Jones was with us eleven years, and rose from Plant Superintendent, to head of Quality Control, to chief of Plant Engineering, to Vice President of Manufacturing, his job for the past three years. As Vice President, he was responsible for three plants employing 1,800 people, and he reported directly to me as President. He left because he saw the company pursuing one course and we saw a different one, and he felt his career would be better fulfilled elsewhere."
That's not a terrific reference. But at least it leaves out the fact that your employers were scared to death that the bigoted and boorish behavior they continually warned you about would eventually provoke a law suit charging the company with discrimination and/or sexual harassment.
You can survive this reference and find another job. The main thing is to have a consistent and not too damaging story told by all three or four of your current-company references. If what we've just seen is what the person who fired you will say, and you've managed to line up some other observers who will be more expansive and generous, you'll probably do fine.
If you're in enough trouble to need a "reference statement"-and most people never are-the important tactic is to move quickly and take personal charge of the story that will be told about you. Don't wait passively until weeks later, when a prospective employer is about to phone your references. By then the situation will be out of control. The rumor-mill will have filled the vacuum. And the word on you may be a lot worse than the consistent and only-slightly-negative story you could have negotiated earlier.
Frankly, as an experienced recruiter, I'd smell fish immediately, if I called even a couple references and got nothing beyond strategically brief, consistent remarks. But this is the prescribed method for damage control. I'd be very surprised-and disappointed-if you should ever need such a strategy. But if you do, at least you know the defensive steps to take.
What about purely personal references?
If some of your most admiring friends are also friends of your prospective employer, you may want to drop their names into your interviewing conversations. But don't list non-business acquaintances as business references.
And don't suggest your pastor, priest, or rabbi. He doesn't observe you in the office. Moreover, people who are truly moral or religious feel no compulsion to prove their virtue. And experience teaches us to suspect anyone who does.
Also, don't bring up that college or military friend you've kept in touch with for 25 years. He or she is not an on-the-job observer. Moreover, friendship has destroyed any objectivity.
Who else should I talk to?
Before we drop the subject of references, here's my best tip for checking someone else's references. After you finish talking to each person whose name you've been given, ask if there's anyone else who would also know about the person you're checking. Who would have an even closer vantage point?
Unless you're on the phone with the reference's direct boss for the past several years, you'll surely get additional names that are even more pertinent. If the candidate has already provided those same names, you know that she's open and self-confident. The unflinching relevance of her list is, in itself, an excellent reference.
If, on the other hand, the names you've been given are rather off-target, call them anyway, to compile a list of bull's-eyes. Don't phone the more-relevant people you've identified...especially if you've agreed not to go beyond a specific list. Instead, merely go back to the candidate and ask permission to contact the further people you've found. Now the whole story will spill out:
Should you reply to newspaper ads?
This is a more interesting question than it might seem at first glance. And the answer is:
It depends on who placed the ad.
If it's signed by a corporate employer attempting to fill its own opening, go right ahead. Employer-signed ads are always authentic. And the attractiveness of the opportunity often stems from the prestige of the company that's asking you to consider working for it.
But be careful if the ad is signed by a recruiting firm. Retainer firms almost never advertise. On the other hand, contingency firms always do. Indeed, advertising attractive jobs that may or may not exist is the main way they get new people for their files. If you're an entry-level or middle manager seeking a toehold, the contingency firms are very helpful. And these days, they may have surprisingly high-level listings. You will, however, be self-interestedly vigilant.
The recruiter-signed ad to really steer clear of is the one with only a newspaper or post office box number for replies...no address and no phone number. A relatively new and disturbing tendency has developed among, let's hope, just a few corporate personnel departments to place ads under phony names designed to look like executive recruiter partnerships. The purpose is "to find out what's available in the market place," without revealing that the company has openings. Answer one of these little beauties, and you may be writing to your own employer. They're just one more reason why, if you're anywhere near $100,000, you should approach newspaper ads with extreme caution, unless they're straightforwardly signed by corporate employers, or by reputable recruiting firms that include their address and/or phone number.
What to send, if you're sending anything, is easy. Send the same thing you'd send for a direct mail campaign. But who you send it to may be a different story...
In answering newspaper ads, never do as you're told!
When Mega-Merger Corp. advertises that they are looking for an executive to take charge of their XYZ function, that's a solid gold job lead.
Found gold, as a matter of fact, because the nugget is right out in plain sight. You don't have to network for it, or cultivate recruiters, or mail letters. Just open the paper!
However, if you're going to be successful in picking it up, you'd better not bend over as instructed in the ad. Do not send "a complete resume and salary history" to "Box 1996" or to the "Corporate Director of Recruitment and Staffing."
Instead, find out where the job is, and who it reports to. Suppose it's Director of Laser Engineering. By networking and phoning directly into Mega-Merger, you can readily determine that all of their laser development activity is handled in their West Coast R&D lab in Sunnyvale, California, which is headed by Shirley Steele, VP -Electronic Technologies.
Now your task is simple. Is there anyone who knows both you and your professional abilities and Shirley Steele well enough to introduce you? If so, great!
If not, merely address your standard mailing to Ms. Steele, and bypass the entire screening procedure in the Personnel Department. Now they get no chance to decide you don't meet specifications...and, even if they think you're right-on-target, to shuffle your papers into a big stack of "qualified applicants."
You've reached the decision-maker days and perhaps weeks ahead of the deluge through proper channels. If you're excellent, as demonstrated by a "sales representative" resume, yours will be the achievements that later arrivals are measured against. Maybe you'll even be met and hired before the responses to the advertisement have been culled and forwarded.
"But," you ask, "don't I risk offending the Personnel Department by going over their heads?"
Not if you don't refer to the ad in your letter. And of course, you'll never volunteer that you've seen it. Let it be. You’re sending to all the likeliest companies happened to hit Shirley Steele at just the right moment.
There's No Harm in Asking
When you're phoning to check name-spellings, title, address, etc., there's absolutely no harm in asking what the person likes to be called:
"Does she prefer Suzannah, or Sue, or what does she prefer?"
"I notice his name is William. Does he go by Bill or Will, or something else?"
The answer you get may surprise you.
"He's the finest dearest person you can imagine, and we all love him. But he's from the old school. People who don't know better will sometimes call him Bill. He's so polite, he just doesn't say a word. But inside you know he's seething. Nobody here ever calls him anything but Mr. Kennedy...to his face or behind his back."
Now you know something important that others will not know.
Your objective every time you reach out to a potentially helpful stranger is to establish communication, congeniality, respect, trust...perhaps even a relationship, as customer, mentor, employer, friend.
But be careful. Don't go too fast. Everyone is surrounded by zones of privacy...their own space, ringed by invisible barriers at inner distances known only to them.
As they gradually accept you, they drop one barrier after another, inviting you each time to come a bit closer. Unfortunately they relax and stiffen those barriers subconsciously. And even more unfortunately, they expect (again subconsciously) that you'll recognize each new freedom to come closer without offending. And if you don't proceed, you seem like a wimp!
But beware. There's another barrier right inside the one that just went down. If you barge through the next one prematurely, you're an insensitive, pushy boor!
Become a wimp or a boor, and your progress with this person-potential customer, mentor, employer, friend-is set back, maybe ended. I'd love to write a whole book about that. But for now, these tips:
Get on a First Name Basis Right Away
Be alert. Go "first name" as soon as you politely can. Suppose you're entering Mr. or Ms. Big's office. He or she is very prominent and powerful...and perhaps the key to a major new job or customer relationship. With warm handshake and sparkling eye-contact, the Great One says:
"Hi, Bill, I'm delighted to meet you. Sit down."
Surprise! You expected formality, standoffishness. You expected to always call him Mr. Big. Instead, here's your chance to go right onto a first-name basis. Seize it:
"Thank you. I'm delighted to meet you, Mr. Big; may I call you Ken?"
If he hadn't been so spontaneous and warm, you couldn't have done this. But at this moment, it's hard for him not to grant you first-name permission, after so buoyantly using your first name. Awkwardness and ambiguity are ended. To you he's "Ken," today and forever.
Notice how much weaker your position becomes with the passage of time. Suppose Mr. Big never again uses your first name during the
If not, merely address your standard mailing to Ms. Steele, and bypass the entire screening procedure in the Personnel Department. Now they get no chance to decide you don't meet specifications...and, even if they think you're right-on-target, to shuffle your papers into a big stack of "qualified applicants."
You've reached the decision-maker days and perhaps weeks ahead of the deluge through proper channels. If you're excellent, as demonstrated by a "sales representative" resume, yours will be the achievements that later arrivals are measured against. Maybe you'll even be met and hired before the responses to the advertisement have been culled and forwarded.
"But," you ask, "don't I risk offending the Personnel Department by going over their heads?"
Not if you don't refer to the ad in your letter. And of course, you'll never volunteer that you've seen it. Let it be an accident that what you're sending to all the likeliest companies happened to hit Shirley Steele at just the right moment.
This suggestion, of course, applies only to those rare times when you're conducting an all-out job campaign. Then you're knocking yourself out on personal contact, recruiter liaison, networking, and direct mail. You're doing everything possible to get a few people to dial that number at the top of your resume.
And when someone does call, what happens? Your line is busy!
He calls back 15 minutes later...still busy. Then 20 minutes later he calls again...and no answer.
Frustrated, he may try again tomorrow. Or you may never hear from him. The impulse to call after reading a resume is fragile and fleeting. If your reader has an urgent need and if yours is the only plausible resume he's seen in weeks, he'll surely keep trying. But if you've merely reminded him to think about a potential replacement for someone who'll retire three years from now, your reader probably won't attempt another three calls tomorrow.
What almost all unemployed executives fail to appreciate is that the calls they want to receive at their homes will be placed by executives who are accustomed to calling employed people in offices. Every single call to such a person is answered...if not by the person herself, by her secretary or a receptionist, or by an automated "voice mail" unit.
One call always works for your reader...until she tries to reach you. If she can't at least leave word on a machine, your image takes a nose dive. She starts out trying to phone an impressively-credentialed executive. After just one or two aborted calls, she gives up trying to reach a hapless out-of-work person, who probably shares the family phone, and isn't even resourceful enough to establish reliable telephone linkage with the outside world!
In fact, however, you're the one causing most of the congestion, by making outgoing calls. But somehow that's not how the situation is interpreted. When we call a home we envision what's on the other end of the wire in terms of our own homes...not an office.
So here's an appropriate telephone policy for a typical family when Dad's...or Mom's...all-out job campaign is in progress:
- Get an additional telephone line installed in your home. It becomes your "business" line, and its number is printed on your personal stationery and at the top of your resume.
- Insure against anyone ever being thwarted by a "busy signal" on that line by purchasing "Call Waiting," the system that warns you an incoming call is being attempted.
- Or better still, get two new lines. Hook a Fax machine to the second and put your "Fax number," too, on your stationery and resume. Then you can make out-going calls on your fax line and, if you wish, simultaneously screen incoming "business line" calls with an answering machine. A Fax machine can hand someone your resume almost anywhere in the world in a couple minutes, and hand you job specs just as fast. Get one if you can afford it.
- Put a first-class answering machine on your "business line"...one that takes messages of any length and can be phoned for playback when you're away. You'll have the equivalent of "voice mail." And by calling your unit three or four times a day, you can respond to business-hours phone calls almost as promptly as any busily-employed executive. Indeed, even if you are employed, you can use this set-up for a secretive job campaign.
- Make sure every family member knows who should answer your "business line"...you, your spouse, and poised, responsible teenagers...no one else under penalty of early bed and no supper! And make sure your "business line" answers incoming calls 24 hours per day. The call you're hoping for may be placed by an executive in another time zone, or stuck some night in an airport or a hotel room, or at home some evening or on a weekend.
This direct mail technique was the subject of a very successful book about executive job hunting that flourished in the '60s and early '70s, then went out of print for many years, and now has been reintroduced...helped along by a strong plug in a popular paperback job-hunting book.
What it says, basically, is:
- Send out a very brief letter that makes one or two exciting claims, which will surely get you an interview. Do not enclose a resume.
- Go to your interview. Do not bring a resume. Find out what sort of person and what background the employer wants.
- Go home and write a special resume proving you have exactly the right stuff. Mail it with your "thank you" note.
- Enjoy your new job, for which only you...among all the people the employer has seen and talked to...seem pre-eminently qualified.
Maybe this guy did a terrific job...and maybe he did a rotten one...we can't tell. However, since he's obviously looking for work, we suspect it was the latter and not the former. How fast were sales of competitive the interview and...failing to get it...should ask you to take home and fill out one of those "Application for Employment" forms normally required only from lower-echelon people, which will smoke out your chronology. But if she doesn't, "Caveat emptor," as they say. "Let the buyer beware."
But now let's assume you have nothing to hide. Let's look at the long letter as a communication device, in comparison to a brief covering note and a "sales representative" resume. There's no contest. The two-, three-, or four-page-long letter lacks the crisp introduction a brief covering letter provides, and is not scan-able the way a traditionally blocked-out resume would be. Because the long letter lacks visual organization and isn't broken up into familiar segments, it's more bothersome to the reader. It's less inviting to enter, harder to plow through, and raises naggingly negative presumptions as well. If you don't need it, don't use it.
Right now you're reading my "loose-ends" chapter. This is the spot for material that, while potentially very helpful to the person who needs it...and not everyone will...is, nevertheless, not one of the dominant themes of Rites.
Certainly that's how I regard the following suggestions for polishing the $100,000+ executive exterior. These days corporations are a lot more diverse in what they expect their executives to wear to the office than they were when Rites first came out in 1988. As a result, you'll find today's comments a lot less dogmatic than in even the 1992 printing.
But still, how you look does make a difference. Executive "casting" can be a lot like the theatrical kind. Often, "You won't get the part unless you look the part."
Look as if you don't work too hard.
The company may demand all your time, but it doesn't like you to look as if it's getting it. Women, when your schedule becomes particularly hectic, keep that hairdresser appointment and use Estee Lauder's latest magic. Fortunately, men, with "ozone layer" depletion and its UV dangers widely discussed...plus new lesions being scraped off CEOs every day...you are no longer obliged to stay tan all year long. But don't look pallid. And please, men, never ever experiment with cosmetics. When you wear a "bronzer," your golden opportunity turns to lead.
Suit the situation.
Women, you now have a wide range of "power looks" to wear to even the most conservative office. Pinstripe and flannel suits with bow-tied scarves are strictly for airline attendants these days. Your jacket is now in a fabric and cut a man wouldn't wear, and your good dresses and quality sportswear are also fine.
Men, at many companies you too now have a lot more latitude in what you can wear. But wherever you are, it's important that you "fit in." Some corporations which used to insist on classic "bankers' suits" now tolerate sport coats and slacks, perhaps even with a turtleneck occasionally replacing tight-collar-and-tie. But if you're going on a job interview, don't take a chance. Determine the dress code before you show up looking all wrong. Ask the recruiter, if there is one. Or call friends at the company. In a pinch, you can probably get a fashion report by telephone from a kindly operator or receptionist. Just say, "I expect to be in there for an important meeting in a couple weeks and want to dress appropriately. What do your executives wear?
Forgo wash-'n-wear.
That is, of course, if you go to a very "establishment" office. In that elegant setting, limp-collared home-laundered shirts and blouses are an economy no Corporate-Person can afford. A smart woman can get away with some of today's easy-care synthetics that mimic silk perfectly. But for the man in the ultimate up-tight corporation, crisp starch on shirt collar and cuffs is essential; it even does wonders for button-down oxfords.
Many executives use a computer for the first time when they're job-hunting, and produce Ugly Word Gap, when they could easily reach for a book, look up "hyphenate," and say, "Computer, meet your boss."
Signing Letters
Remember when you and the other kids used to write your signatures every which way, trying to make them impressive? Girls dotted I'S with circles. Boys swooped up to cross f's. Swiss bankers, I'm told, are required to have an illegible signature. U.S. physicians too?
How you sign does make a difference.
Surely there's no harm in a confident, legible signature. (In Europe handwriting is often analyzed; here it's not.) But even more important than how you write is what you write. And judging by the mail I get, at least a third of all executives give no thought to the impression their signature makes.
They write, hoping for a friendly reaction...ideally a phone call. Indeed, they may even imply friendship or at least warmth by starting out, "Dear John." But look at their signature! It's "Wendleton P. Wellington III." Or "W. P. Wellington." Or "WPW." And maybe even with their secretary's initials added, to further stress that the reader is utterly insignificant.
Maybe these folks are not as arrogant as they appear. But it's obvious who they think is the lesser party in an as-yet-unformed relationship. Is that because I'm a headhunter? No, they probably write to CEOs the same way.
Please don't make their mistake. You're too nice a person to behave like that.
The One Best Way to Sign
Here's a simple rule for signing job-hunting letters to strangers: Sign informally; using the first name you'd like the recipient to call you.
If you sign Richard P. Smith, how can anyone know whether you go by Richard, Dick, Rich, Richie, Rick, RP, Bud, or Pete? Same with entire meeting. Now try to look him in the eyes and ask, "May I call you Ken?" How pushy...and even weird!
Suppose on the other hand that he goes on to use your first name several more times, and you continue calling him "Mr. Big." Your subservient role becomes etched in stone. Now you can only hope he'll voluntarily pull you up off your knees, saying "Please, call me Ken." Will he?
Suppose instead that he keeps using your name, and you self-consciously avoid calling him anything. Now you pipe up and ask for equality. It'd be a devastating put-down to refuse, and Big's not a sadist. But surely he'll think, "What a Milktoast! I never gave any indication that he couldn't treat me as an equal, and now he asks permission. I doubt he's got the guts to take over that division."
Who Are You Dealing With?
Mr. Big was a convenient example, because he's clearly more powerful and prestigious than you are. But don't get me wrong. Just because someone has the power to hire you or to sponsor your progress does not mean you must ask permission to use his or her first name.
With someone anywhere nearly equivalent to you, use their nickname without asking. Indeed, you'll look like a wimp if you don't. On the other hand, if you want to do a subtly flattering and respectful genuflect, just leave out the preliminary "Mr." or "Ms." and still ask permission:
First-Naming on the Phone
Never is it easier...nor more important...to get onto a first-name basis than when your initial conversation with a stranger occurs on the phone.
Why? Because, there'll be follow-up. Whether it's your new-business proposal or a letter-and-resume, chances are you'll put something in the mail almost as soon as you hang up. Handle yourself right, and your letter begins, "Dear Lisa" or "Dear Adam." Fumble, and you wind up feeling and looking far less confident as you write to "Ms." or "Mr."
Actually, first-naming is easy over the phone. If there's no need to be deferential, you just start using the person's preferred name if you know it, and inquire if you don't. If that feels awkward, you'll get another chance when you wind up the call and offer to mail something:
Find Out and Remember Names...and More
Before you head off to any important business or social event...and especially to any series of job interviews...always find out and commit to memory the names and backgrounds of the key participants.
Names, above all, you must nail down. Personally I'm no good at those "have-an-amazing-memory" courses that tell you to sear the letters of "George" into your brain by picturing a Giraffe Eating an Orange. But whatever works for you, do it. Nothing else so simple is so pleasing to people as knowing their names.
But Please Don't OD on First-Naming
Have you had formal sales training? If so, you're in danger of becoming one of the many people who've overdosed on the instructor's exhortation to repeatedly say the other person's first name. That gambit is now so common-and so obviously phony-that it's deeply offensive to almost everyone. You know the script:
"Well, John, that's another achievement I'm very proud of. You see, John, folks have always told me that I have great people skills. And beyond that, John, I was fortunate enough to have been sent to this sales training course-you know the type, John-the kind that not only makes you a great persuader, John, but also a truly wonderful warm, caring person. And that, John, is another reason I've been so successful."
Hang Up "Sir" & "Ma'am" with Your Uniform
Here's some advice I've had to give again and again to men and women who've spent a long while in military service...or who grew up attending one of those otherwise superb military prep schools. Please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop calling people Sir and Ma'am. Affirming with every utterance that "you're-above-me" is not necessary in the outside world. Until you break that ingrained habit, you'll never be accepted at the executive level in business.
This is a book of plain talk.
So I've purposely avoided using two terms that are often misused and misleading..."search" and "the hidden job market." But you'll confront them almost every day. Hence, these explanations:
"Search"
"Search" shouldn't be a problem. It has a plain meaning everybody understands... looking for something, when you don't know where it is.
If people in the recruiting business would use "search" to mean what you and I assume it means, there'd be no confusion. Unfortunately they don't. Even worse, they treat the word as if it has a special meaning. And, worse yet, that special meaning is different, depending on who you talk to.
So far, you and I have avoided confusion by using only one word, which has only one obvious meaning, for bringing people into an employer's organization: "recruiting." And when it comes to different ways of performing that function, and of getting paid for it, we've been specific about the distinctions. Therefore, you now know everything necessary to unravel the meaning of "search," no matter who uses the term and what they mean by it.
At one end of the market, you have the contingency recruiter who tells you:
"We also do search"
She means that, besides submitting resumes and getting paid only if and when one of those people is hired, she's also willing to accept a retainer and be paid for her efforts while she attempts to fill the job. And since she's assured of payment, she's presumably going to look harder and longer...hopefully right up to the point of finding the person you want.
However, it's nothing new or remarkable for a contingency firm to "do search." For over 20 years, the agencies have stopped calling themselves agencies and have stopped waiting for people to come in and "register." They still advertise attractive "come-on" jobs in the newspapers. But they also call up employed executives the very same way the retainer firms do.
So in the sense of looking-for-something-when-you-don't-know-where-it-is, the contingency recruiter has long been "doing search," and today he does it on both his contingency and his "search" assignments. Of course the first place she "looks," regardless of payment method, is her files. And if the answer is there, it's not necessary to look further.
On the other side of the market, you have the retainer firms. They pioneered the idea of looking for happily-employed executives rather than waiting for the unhappy and unemployed ones to "register." They too have massive files of resumes...mailed-in, and from people they've interviewed. Sizable retainer firms boast of having anywhere from 50,000 to 150,000 resumes. And the first place they "look" is their files. They too may find it unnecessary to look further.
The ultimate irony occurred in 1982, when the professional association of retainer recruiters changed its name from Association of Executive Recruiting Consultants, Inc. (AERC), to Association of Executive Search Consultants, Inc. (AESC).-.thus abandoning the "recruiter" terminology which originally differentiated them from the employment agencies. The idea was to separate the Association by name from the contingency firms. Impossible! There are about an equal number of contingency and retainer firms. And almost twice as many contingency firms are using "search" in their names as are retainer firms. Moreover, among the contingency firms using either word, "search" leads "recruiting" by a 2-to-l margin.
So what does the word "search" mean, when applied to the people business? Your guess is as good as mine. Contingency recruiters use it when they want to be paid on retainer. But they also use it...justifiably...to describe what they do when working on contingency. Both contingency and retainer recruiters may do it when they look for executives. But then again neither may do it if, by "search," you mean looking for new people they don't already have on file.
And of course individuals, and outplacement and executive marketing companies, also use "search" to mean the seeking of employment, rather than the seeking of employees.
So if you tell me you want to go "search" for gold, or oil, or buried treasure, I'll say that's a good idea...and I may even come along. But if it's "search" that involves employment, "Thanks, but no thanks." It's too much bother to figure out what you mean.
"The Hidden Job Market"
This intriguing phrase...obviously invented by a copywriter, rather than merely plucked from the dictionary like "search"...is likewise used by people to mean different things.
The most prevalent and legitimate meaning is the shadowy world of job openings not yet referred to recruiters or advertised in the newspaper. However, some users expand the expression to include jobs-that-aren't-jobs-yet...situations where there's nagging dissatisfaction with the incumbent, but not yet a firm decision to fire. Also, where a need to add a new position is felt, but not yet formalized as an empty box on the organization chart.
Obviously, it's a good idea to discover such situations before others have beaten a path to them. And as long as "The Hidden Job Market" is merely a sexy way of saying "go-straight-to-the-employer-and-quickly" through direct mail and networking, it's certainly a valid concept, even if overly hyped.
The problem comes when executive-marketing and outplacement companies try to extract big money from you or your employer because they propose to "Introduce You to the Hidden Job Market." The clear implication is that there's an undisclosed supply of real jobs which they know about and you don't. And you'll never find those jobs unless they tell you. And they won't tell you unless they're paid a stiff fee.
After all that build-up, "The Hidden Job Market," being such a little idea with such a big bold name, becomes deceptive...or at least very disappointing. You feel "ripped off," when your "introduction" inevitably turns out to be nothing more than a description of networking and direct mail techniques.
