Social Networking Sites Are "In" with Those "In the Money"

A recent ExecuNet newsletter cites results from a Luxury Institute Wealth Survey revealing that "60 percent of wealthy Americans with an average income of $287,000/year and net worth of $2.1 million participate in online social networks, compared to just 27 percent a year ago." It was found that on average they had joined about 2.8 networks. Affluent individuals with $300,000 or more in annual income were even more avid participants, belonging to 3.4 social sites. If successful people are this enamored with online networking, it bears our attention.

There are 100 or more social networking sites, some purely for recreation and personal socializing, and others dedicated to professional or business interaction. (For a list of notable sites, visit Wikipedia.)

Computer World did an analysis recently comparing the features and advantages of the two most prominent sites, LinkedIn and Facebook. They formulated 6 business scenarios to solve, and assigned writers to compare results on Facebook and LinkedIn. As might be expected, each site excelled in different areas, and neither was the clear overall winner. Scenarios tested include Looking for a Job Without Your Boss Knowing, Finding Information about a Job You're Interviewing For (LinkedIn was the winner in both of these), Solicit Ideas and Discussion from Team Members (Facebook won this one hands-down), and Keeping Track of Former Associates (yielded a tie).

So which site is best, and should you join more than one? There are so many, but for professional and business purposes, LinkedIn seems to be winning the war for members right now. I encourage my executive clients to maintain a LinkedIn profile as part of their ongoing professional networking as well as for building a digital signature. A web presence is becoming increasingly important in job search, as candidates are commonly googled--often before a recruiter or hiring manager initiates the first contact.

In executive circles, it seems to be almost an assumption now that you maintain a profile on LinkedIn. Adding to its utility for career management and job search is its recent integration into the Simply Hired job search engine, as pointed out by Louise Fletcher in a recent Career Hub blog post. What could possibly be more convenient? You search for a job, and then click on a button to find out who in your LinkedIn network may have an "in" at that company. Although Facebook has recently moved from being strictly a social tool to a business tool as well, it seems to be the preferred platform for social interation with family and friends. Its wider range of services and third party applications concern employers as a likely distraction for their workers.

While online networking is an increasingly important part of an overall career management strategy, one thing to watch for is devoting too much time to joining every "hot" new site with a flashy interface, maintaining your profiles, building your contact lists, and interacting with your networks. As with most things in life, there is a danger of "too much of a good thing." The ExecuNet article highlighted a Global Secure Systems estimate that employers in the UK lose 3 weeks per year of work time on employees' social networking activities during business hours.

******

Are You Over the Job Market Hill?

A concern frequently expressed by my executive clients and prospects is regarding the age factor. Many fear that they are going to be subject to age discrimination as early as age 40, and either be let go by a current employer in favor of a younger hire or passed over by potential employers who want fresh, young talent that they can mold in the company’s approach and methods. Just this afternoon, I spoke with a dynamic young executive who was concerned that his age at 45 was going to close the doors to many opportunities.

A recent Herman Trend Alert explores the age issue, with news that I think should provide some encouragement to job seekers who fear they may be “over the hill.”

Approximately one million people reach age 60 each month, and as the baby boomer generation ages, it is estimated that the number of workers in the U.S. between the ages of 55 and 64 will increase by more than 50% by 2010. With life expectancy now at 77 and many enjoying better health during their increased longevity, many more people are staying in the workforce long past the traditional retirement age of 65. This is driven in good part by boomers’ realization of the potentially high health care costs they face as they age and the fact that many have insufficient savings to fund a lengthy retirement.

Both government and industry do appear to be waking up to this reality, with AARP observing that an increasing number of major employers and government agencies are actively seeking to hire candidates 50 years plus. The wealth of experience and skills that older workers can bring to a workplace are seen as increasingly valuable, as well as their maturity of judgment, stability, and turnover rates lower than typical of younger workers.

It would seem that employers' increasing interest in and appreciation of these older workers combined with the smaller pool of talent in the “baby bust” generation cannot help but benefit those workers in their 40s and 50s by altering perceptions of exactly when one makes that trek “over the hill.” According to an AARP-commissioned report from last year cited by Workforce Management, "Replacing an experienced worker of any age can cost 50 percent or more of the individual's annual salary in turnover-related costs, with increased costs for jobs requiring specialized skills, advanced training or extensive experience--qualifications often possessed by 50-plus workers." That’s a powerful financial incentive to keep aging workers on the payroll.

Unless You're a Purple Squirrel, Update Your Online Resume!

"Purple squirrel" is recruiter-speak for a candidate whose qualifications are rare and for which a recruiter can charge a higher fee to the company due to the difficulty of the search. When sourcing candidates, recruiters will look first at resumes posted in the last 1 to 2 weeks and will generally not look at older resumes, unless they are searching for that elusive purple squirrel.

Looking at it from the recruiter's perspective, you can understand why this is so. Recruiters are playing the odds, and they cannot afford to waste time contacting candidates who have already found a job or for some other reason are no longer in the job market. Time is money, and this is particularly so in the recruiting profession.

The take home on this? If you have posted your resume online, be sure to tweak or otherwise refresh it at least once a month, preferably every two weeks. Otherwise it will effectively become invisible to most recruiters, like those billboards you see on the highway that have become blocked by overgrown trees.

******

How to Sabotage Your Job Search with Your Resume

An article entitled "25 Things You Should Never Include on a Resume" published a few days ago over on HR World's blog made me chuckle. Not because most of the items on the list seemed so unbelievably obvious and stupid for a job candidate to include in a resume, but because of the fact that I have actually seen most of them at one time or another in the thousands of executive resumes I have reviewed over the years. I notice that HR World's blog writers took some flack in a few of the comments on that blog entry because of the common sense nature of their advice. It's unfortunate, but I think that most of the "don'ts" mentioned seem to somehow escape the "common sense radar" of a fair number of folks out there.

About the only category I would disagree on is hobbies. Certainly you do not want to clutter your resume with irrelevant or frivolous interests. But many a door has been opened and many an interview set on the right track, prompted by the interviewer's noticing that the candidate has a similar interest to theirs (for example, avid amateur golfer) or particularly unusual or outstanding hobby or skill that is a good conversation starter (such as climbing Mt. Everest, circumnavigating the globe in your own sailboat, competing and placing in triathalon events, etc.).

The only one out of the 25 that I cannot recall having seen in a resume is blatant expression of a prejudice. So, while the items on this list may be obvious to most, clearly there are some folks out there who would do well to pay them heed. You can view the full list at HR World.

****

Beware of "Career Marketing" Predators

Recently the topic of career marketing firms came up as I was talking with one of my executive clients, who indicated he had been contacted by several and wasn't sure what to think. He said, "I was contacted by Bernard-Haldane, McKenzie-Scott, and Montgomery-Gray Associates. They all have the exact same tactic. Fear. They build fear about the career situation, tell you the resume is horrible and then they have the answer."

After I e-mailed him my thoughts on the subject, he observed, "I did my research on ExecuNet and the horror stories were in parallel to what you have said. You must publish [this], because it is exactly how I felt." So reprinted below are some things executive candidates will want to consider before engaging a career marketing firm:

"It's important to realize that these firms are NOT recruiters. They are retail outtplacement or direct mail firms. I receive inquiries from many clients about this type of firm and have always advised them to be very cautious and make sure exactly what you are getting for your money before signing any contracts. I've accumulated a number of horror stories over the years. I have yet to work with a client who felt the $5,000, $10,000, or more spent for one of these types of marketing services was well spent.

60 minutes and other news outlets have done multiple exposés over the years. I have had clients come to me defeated and depressed after having spent as much as $25,000 (yes, that's 3 zeroes) on "marketing campaigns" with not a single response. The quality of the delivery of the services is highly variable from firm to firm and market to market.

You may want to consider the following fact: A recruiter will get from 20 to 33% of a candidate's first year salary as a commission for placement. This is industry standard. If a candidate is worth say $100K a year, then he's worth a potential $20,000 to $33,000 in commission. If he or she is worth $200K, that’s a $40K to $66K commission. So why don't these firms just go after the real cash for placement? I mean, if they know where the jobs are, then they should know where the money is.

Some very savvy clients have asked me about these services, flattered at being contacted and mistakenly thinking these were high caliber recruiting firms eager to represent and place them. I have also had clients for whom I've prepared excellent resumes meet with them, only to have their professionally prepared resume ripped to shreds. Fortunately, they have enough confidence in what I've done for them to see through this tactic. I've also re-written many resumes for clients who had inferior, boilerplate 1-page resumes or "marketing letters" prepared by such firms and then spent well into 4 or even 5 figures having themselves "marketed" (mass mailing), for little or no response.

Career marketing scams are not new, but the number of complaints against these companies has increased dramatically in recent years. A quick search on Google will verify this fact. If anyone promises you that they have access to "the hidden job market" and to "hiring decision-makers" that will allow you to bypass normal job interviewing processes, run, do not walk away. It is well known that any legitimate recruiter will be paid by the company, not the candidate.

The Web has info and resources for people who have been burned by career marketing firms and executive marketing firms, also called retail outplacement or advance-fee placement firms. There are discussion groups for well-known firms such as Bernard Haldane, McKenzie Scott, and ProSavvy. Complicating the issue is that the most aggressive of the career marketing firm scammers continually morph into new companies and change their names to escape the bad press and law enforcement interest they have generated.

The appeal of a firm that tells you they will do all the marketing for you and find you a fantastic new job is obvious. However, the reality of job search is that it is work, takes time, and that there are no guarantees even for the most qualified person with the best resume in the world. For higher level positions, the standard formula for many years has been that it takes approximately one month per $10K of expected salary for the search, and although that has thankfully decreased somewhat in the current market, it is still not far off the mark.

Candidates who actively build and heavily leverage a professional network in their search are generally the ones who land a new position most quickly, as well as those who pursue a variety of approaches to the search (traditional and e-networking, cultivating recruiter contacts, efficient use of job boards, researching and individually contacting a selected group companies of interest to them, etc.), rather than depending on one avenue.

You'd think I don't have a very good opinion of career marketing firms, wouldn't you ;-)? All of this is certainly not to say that there are no reputable firms out there. I would just be very circumspect before agreeing to work with one. If you decide to go with one of these services, I strongly urge you to get in writing exactly what they will provide for the money, and especially the terms for a refund. You should have a contact assigned to you and should deal with that person exclusively. That person should be reasonably accessible. You should inquire about their contacts and track record in your career field. And ask if they will prorate the fee if you find a job quickly on your own."

Following are just a few articles and resources that provide further information on career marketing scammers. (Beware that there are some pretty unhappy consumers commenting on some of these sites, and their language may be offensive.) If you do a quick Google search, you will find much more information.

http://www.rileyguide.com/scams.html http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/teeth20031013.htm http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/gv010822.htm http://www.pissedconsumer.com/consumer-reviews/employment-agencies/mckenzie-scott-complaint--employment-services-2007040196582.html

There is also quite a bit of commentary and discussion in the blogosphere, such as the following: http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2006/03/rest-of-mckenzie-scott-saga.html

Please understand that I do not personally endorse what is said on any of these sites and that I have not personally had a bad experience with any of these firms. However, I feel that the consistent negative experiences related to me by clients and prospective clients over many years, input from numerous career transition professionals in my network, along with articles written by career experts whom I consider reputable and reliable make it incumbent on me to make sure my executive clients are aware of the potential dangers out there.

****