Friday, February 27, 2009

How to Negotiate Salary Like a Pro

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

A recent discussion on LinkedIn -- in the "Answers" area -- prompted some thought on our part and a response that was tagged as "Best Answer" to the question.

The question: "You are about to receive a job offer – how do YOU negotiate salary…?"

Posted by Dennis Abenanty, founder of KareerKit in preparation for an upcoming article on salary negotiation.

That article is now published on KareerKit and well worth a read -- nice format, easy to assimilate, great advice.

Here are our negotiation points, reformatted from the LinkedIn answer.

Negotiating for permanent, direct-hire positions is a bit different than for contract or contract-to-hire. In either case, an approach based on "total compensation" is generally better thinking than relying on salary alone. Not that salary isn't important; total compensation is simply better.

A caveat: When looking at "benefits" and "total compensation," don't give too much -- or any weight to benefits requiring three years or more tenure to achieve. At least not in the initial negotiation / calculation. Most of us change jobs so frequently and companies change hands or policies so frequently that getting to "five weeks paid vacation" after six years is not something we're likely to actually see.

Before we go into what's on the table for total compensation, a brief comment on "value."

One thing every job seeker should know and understand is their "value proposition." Many of us make the mistake of simply listing education and experience on our resumes without making the jump to defining ourselves in terms of value to the business. This puts us at an extreme disadvantage in any negotiation.

Our value proposition must be a part of our resume (perhaps the most important part), our "elevator pitch," our interview checklist, and the basis for our negotiation. That value proposition must be quantifiable and verifiable. For more on that, Google "value proposition" and "resume." Mine is here or here for comparison.

What's on the table in terms of total compensation?

A few total compensation items from our personal short list.

Base Rate
  • The salary component of the equation
Alternative Compensation
  • Signing bonus
  • Performance bonus
  • Stock options
  • Profit sharing
  • Other annual bonus
Benefits:
  • Disability Insurance
  • Dental/Vision Coverage
  • Health insurance
  • Paid time off ( Sick leave, Personal, Holidays, Vacation, Maternity / Family Leave)
  • Flex Time and/or Alternative Schedules
  • Work from Home
  • 401K matching
Other:
  • Education (stipends, paid, or time allowed)
  • Training: (In-house provided @ no cost; Outside allowed and/or reimbursed)
  • Company equipment: (cell phone, laptop, blackberry, transportation, use of corporate facilities, and the like)
  • Relocation expenses
  • Personal travel assistance
This is a fairly comprehensive list but not all-inclusive.

If the position is contract or contract-to-hire, another option is to take some of the hourly rate as per diem. For the employer, per diem is not "wages" -- ditto for the employee. In other words, a better tax situation for all.

Some of us are genuine "Type A" negotiators -- extroverts who love to compete. Others are less so and not as comfortable in the negotiating chair.

If we are in the second category, we may need help... professional assistance. Training and counseling is available to develop or hone our skills. Toastmasters International is one excellent example venue to train and hone those skills. Professional recruiters, agencies, and "head hunters" can do some of that for us as well. Those of us who simply can't bear the stress of negotiation or who are admittedly ineffective at it should seek assistance.

There are other requirements in the build-up to successful negotiation -- more than just a laundry list of total compensation items.
  • We must research potential employers -- know them well, talk with employees and ex-employees, research the company financials... and especially know their compensation history and reputation.
  • We must research and understanding the current market -- know what we are worth in terms of median salaries in the area and comparable positions.
  • We need our (quantifiable, verifiable) value proposition down pat.
  • If we are not comfortable as a negotiator, we should get assistance from professionals as needed.
Now add the items under total compensation and we can negotiate like a pro.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Experience + Agility + Methodology = Value

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Blatant bit of marketing but a good read: Slide show featuring the value proposition for my consultancy.

Senior Consulting Program / Project Manager.


Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Innovation: Alive and Well

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

A lot of gnashers (as in the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" bunch) have worked the death of innovation angle over the past few years. We won't dig around in that morass for examples but readers may, if they so choose, Google those swampy waters and find plenty of slimy opinion on the subject.

Some dis-innovation gnashers are on the stump simply because, in the world of 24/7 instant media, "if it bleeds, it leads." The birth of innovation or the continued health of innovation doesn't have the appropriate air of crisis and impending doom necessary for a lead story.

Some seem to be conspiracy theorists with a faulty GPS. They are temporarily lost in the woods but will return again to greener conspiracy pastures as soon as they re-establish contact with the mother ship.

Others are obviously looking for quick, easy excuses to answer questions like "why my business failed," "why my career fell off a cliff," and "why life isn't as good/easy as I thought it would be."

Then again, to put the best face on it, perhaps gnashers are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
  • What if the place where innovation comes from today is radically different than where it came from yesterday... or decades ago?
  • What if the very definition of innovation -- what it looks like, how we recognize it, how it's done -- is undergoing a radical change in the twenty-first century?
  • What if, from the perspective of the 19th or 20th century, innovation as it exists now is unrecognizable?
  • Is it possible dis-innovation gnashers are digging for grubs under the wrong rock?
Maybe; maybe not... But there are other opinions, facts we haven't heard, and even a breath of fresh air for those consumed by the noxious fumes of the morass.

Enter: Marc Andreesson. Marc is probably best known -- or made his first splash -- as co-founder and the technical mind behind Netscape: the creator of the Netscape browser. There is a lot more to his bio, he's done a lot more since, and Marc is re-framing the discussion around innovation with a very positive voice.

Marc interviewed this week on Charlie Rose. It's in the must-see category for anyone interested in innovation, the next big thing, or gaining a rational perspective on the current crop of technological start-ups. It's a paradigm-shifting interview if not life-changing for those who only get the negative side of the innovation conversation.

Marc has a lot to say and we should listen closely -- either to the video or by reading the transcript here: Charlie Rose interview with Marc Andreessen.

Be sure to click the "Watch full episode" link: Do it.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Saturday, February 21, 2009

More: Jobs and Wages

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Wow.

Let's just say we received some interesting feedback on the previous post (Jobs & Wages: Whose Price is Right). We appreciate, as always, all comments and opinions but we are especially appreciative when they are intriguing, thought provoking, and lead to new understanding. So... Thanks!

In the spirit of clarification, continued refinement, and spirited response to the opinions of others, here's more...

It is not difficult to understand the situation of people who are caught in a wage squeeze. More to the point, there is deep understanding and great sympathy. After all, we are in the business of IT and compete in that wage market as well. Let's just say it's personal but there is value in stepping back and taking a larger view of the situation.

Let's go back to the housing part of the wages and compensation formula for a moment. If we review the history of home prices in the US, perhaps that will clarify the previous post. It is an eye opening experience.

Take a look at this graph from a New York Times article. It shows housing prices from around 1900 up to the start of the housing price bubble.

There are ups and downs. After all, cycles are the norm in the natural as well as man-made world. Looking at the trend line is a different matter. Over the hundred year (+/-) time period from about 1900 through 1997 - 1998, the median price of a single family home in the US kept up with inflation -- no more than that.

For a hundred years, our home was one of the safest investments we could make. Homes held their value... Returns were not at stock market levels but we got back what we paid for our home plus inflation which is a better return than if we had kept our money in CDs.

In 1997 - 1998 that changed. The bubble began, fueled by a global hunger for asset based credit and real estate backed investments. We're now on the downside of that bubble but nowhere near reasonable or sustainable levels.

In order for the housing market to "get healthy" again, the price of homes should settle, after some fluctuation, to at or slightly above 1997 - 1998 levels. If it does not or if it is propped up artificially, the consequences are dire. There is a tawdry, catastrophic history of what happens when prices are kept at artificially high levels. Been there; done that.

This bubble had and still has a huge impact on our perception of fair wages. The cost of purchasing and maintaining a home is a significant part of our employment and financial survival strategy. When home prices fall back in line with historical trends, our perception of wages and compensation will improve along with our standard of living.

The market will take care of that but, since government is intervening, the process may take longer.

On wages...

There is no dispute that wages in a particular field or job classification are directly affected by the number of qualified candidates on the market... both upward and downward. The previous post made that point clear. That is supply and demand.

One point we did not specifically call out in our previous post -- apologies tendered -- is that wages and compensation for engineering and technical jobs have been on a bubble just like home prices but for different reasons.

Even with increasing numbers of US college graduates in engineering and technical fields since the 1950's or so, median salaries for those fields have increased disproportionately compared with wage increases in other fields. That is indicative of a supply / demand imbalance.

The US is at the bottom of the list in terms of the percentage of 24 year olds holding a degree in an engineering or technical field when compared with the rest of the world. In 2007 the US was 5th from the bottom, just above Kyrgyzstan. We are not, despite the disproportionate wage differential, a powerhouse in producing engineering and technical professionals.

Reference for wage statistics (MIT paper).

Yet our future is highly dependent on just this type of talent. Bill Gates, and others, are generally correct in their assessment that more technically skilled labor is needed than we produce in the US.

In the cyclical nature of things, corrections occur... sometimes they are over corrections. In the area of engineering and technical salaries, a correction is in progress and it should be allowed to progress. The market is, in this case, working and working well. Included in that "working well" assessment is the assistance of a large and highly available global pool of skilled labor.

Until we -- the US -- can produce engineering and technical graduates at a market stabilizing level, businesses will continue to use that foreign labor pool. They should, in our opinion, be allowed to do so freely. As mentioned in the previous post, keeping wages "off a bubble" is a direct driver of lower prices for everyone in the country. Artificially propping up wages is an exercise in disaster with plenty of history to show the dire consequences. Again: Been there; done that; don't go there again.

Granted: At a personal level, we can't eat averages, markets, or cycles for dinner or pay our bills with them. Adjustments and changes are uncomfortable and sometimes we can't agree on what, at a personal or national level, should be done about being caught on the downside of a correction. However at the personal level, adjustments are essential even if we can't agree on a cause.

We can, at a national level, agree on defining what the real, underlying problems are and begin to address them instead of taking one symptom at a time and treating each symptom in a way that hinders our overall recovery. That is the point and conclusion of the previous post.

Gnash it!

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Friday, February 20, 2009

Jobs & Wages: Whose Price is Right?

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Workers in the US loudly lament the low cost of offshoring technology with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Software development and related costs are the ones we hear most often (because that's our business) but there are other areas as well. It's disturbing. That teeth gnashing sound in particular.

Gnashers claim offshoring is lowering US wages and causing highly educated people great financial difficulty even to the point of loosing the ability to adequately support their families. Other doom-and-gloomsters make a slightly different point: That wages are being "globalized." They mean some kind of world-wide equalization of pay is occurring. The standard of living for everyone in the US is, according to the doomsters, moving smartly along in the proverbial hand basket on its way to mud hovels and pointy sticks.

We've all heard this before, albeit for different reasons at different times. There's always a "great menace" growing out there in the dark just waiting to overwhelm us while taking out the trash.

Despite copious quoting of statistics and vehement rhetoric from the gnashers, they substantially miss the point. Perhaps they should give up gnashing in favor of a more wholesome, comprehensive approach. That's not happening yet but perhaps we can help point out the obvious.

The "problem" isn't wages. Wages are symptomatic but not the problem. A guy who just had an on-the-job accident at a construction site with a piece of pipe embedded in his forehead isn't given a couple of aspirin and told to "get over it" because he's complaining of headache. Symptoms are recognized, aggregated, analyzed, and integrated to arrive at a comprehensive diagnosis. At least that's how intelligent people do it.

Where does thinking like this come from?

From the same place and people who brought us this classic: Since wheat costs six dollar a bushel (or whatever it is), bread should cost about three cents a loaf. Or conversely, since bread cost three dollars a loaf (or whatever it is) and the farmer gets three cents for the wheat in a loaf, the farmer should get more for their wheat... or bread should only cost three cents a loaf depending on who is doing the gnashing. We've all heard that or something similar and offshore wage gnashing is based on similar logic... or, lack thereof.

Businesses that manufacture and sell cars pay for a lot more than steel. Ditto breadmakers and their wheat. We won't go cruising through Excel spreadsheets, overhead costs, or operating expense reports here but, suffice to say, steel and wheat are only part of the story. Everyone can easily understand and appreciate that fact but that's just where the gnashers get it wrong. They select specific bits and pieces of a story and ignore the rest -- especially ignore anything that might cast doubt on their preordained conclusion.

Gnashers already have an opinion (always a negative one) and are only going to tell us things that back their negativity even if they have to make it up as they go. Kind of a reverse play on the scientific method.

That's how intelligent people develop theories; the scientific method.

The complete structure of how and why wages are what they are over the entire planet, solar system, and known universe is not quite in scope for this blog entry. We can, however, broaden our horizons greatly and take on some of the most important, overlooked aspects of wages. We are heading into a space beyond gnashing.

In any particular place and time, there is a cost associated with becoming qualifed by education to take on a specific job. Let's leave aside the question of whether or not we are capable of or have the potential, assume we do, and look at our cost.

Our "qualification cost" could be the cost associated with apprenticeship programs or indentured labor or working with the old man in the family business as a cobbler starting out with sweeping floors. Apprenticeship and internships are still currently viable -- indentured servants in the US disappeared a few centuries back. Currently, for the majority of us, the cost of becoming qualified for a particular job involves educational expenses at a college or university: Tuition, fees, books, and living expenses.

Suppose after some research we determined that earning the average annual starting salary for our chosen job over a five year period allows us to live comfortably within our means and pay back our total cost of education including any loans.

Is that a good deal?

Sure it is. We'd do it. A lot of people have... sometimes flooding a particular market with new candidates.

Suppose after similar research we found that, for a different occupation, it takes 20 years or more to break even on our education cost.

Is that a good deal?

Not so much.

Suppose we found out that earning at the top of our profession, we could never recoup what we paid for the degree.

Bummer, huh. Some people would probably still do it but that's another discussion. There are gnashers out there working on this right now.

The lesson here is that there is a very close relationship between education cost and wages, especially from the workers perspective. The math is simple: If if costs us more to get the job than we can make from it, we probably won't go there. That has an effect on wages in the supply and demand world.

There are further complexities to this relationship but this is enough to go on for now. The cost of education is not the only thing affecting wages and compensation.

Apartments in Boston and New York city cost a lot more than apartments almost anywhere in Kansas or Oklahoma -- just an example; no disrespect intended to any city, state, or apartment building.

Lemons are commercially grown in only the southern most parts of the US. Shipping produce long distances has a cost. Lemons probably cost more in Quebec than in San Antonio, TX or San Diego, CA. Again, no disrespect intended.

Some states have income tax; others don't. Hospital district, school, and property taxes vary a great deal from place to place. Homes and property values: Ditto.

It all adds up to COL -- cost of living. Another term for it with a little different twist is "lifestyle" although lifestyle includes more and implies choice, which COL doesn't... Unless we move.

COL has an relationship on several levels with wages and compensation. For one thing a locally owned, small business operating in a very poor nation with a very low COL isn't seeing much in terms of total sales dollars and total profits compared to a similar business in a wealthier nation. The prices for their goods and services are low (definition of low COL). Therefore since their financial resources are less, their wages are as well.

COL may seem like one of those "relative things." However, for any particular person -- a potential employee earning wages, it is a local thing.

The equation here is a simple one and there are some caveats but in most comparisons, a lower COL = lower wages. COL, as a general rule, is directly related to wages and compensation in any specific area. From the standpoint of a potential, qualified employee under most circumstances, we won't take a job unless the odds are pretty good we'll at least cover COL.

The global relationship is more complex but... well, let's press on for now.

The mega equation, in English, now reads: Education Cost and COL affect and/or are related to Wages and Compensation. There are other market forces at work here but education cost and COL are huge drivers.

The other huge driver is the limited ability of any business to pay wages at a particular level and remain competitive. Yes, businesses are constrained... there are hard stop limits and understanding (quantifying) those limits becomes increasingly complex and global when we get away from the locally owned, small business scenario. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll keep it focused on the local level but keep in mind that local examples, with some caveats, scale to the global level. Gnashers pay attention to that last sentence; it's important.

In addition to cost of goods or cost of materials, businesses have fixed expenses, operational expenses, taxes, upgrade and maintenance expenses, and a whole host of other quantifiable cost factors in addition to wages. Despite that fact, wages represent a large portion of any business outlay -- something on the order of 30% but it varies from sector to sector. Human beings count a lot in producing goods and services despite gnashings to the contrary.

Because wages and compensation are such a large part of the overall operating budget, businesses focus on them and focus carefully. Suppose we are selling shoes from a store front in Omaha, Nebraska and paying $30 an hour for staff while the competition in Omaha is paying minimum wage. While that $30/hr might seem like the "dream job" for our new hire, it won't last long. We are doomed because we have to sell our product at no greater than market prices (+/-) and pay the same overhead and expenses as every other shoe store in town as well as compete with internet retailers. So much for that dream job in retail sales.

The lesson at this point is that wages and compensation aren't paid for out of some magic bucket of money -- the money comes from the goods and services we produce. So... the wages we make can't be more than sales can cover. Put another way, total wages and compensation can't be more than the remainder after all other expenses of doing business are subtracted from the gross receipts. This is a hard stop constraint on wages. Yes gnashers, that is a simplistic statement but accept the truth of it and move on.

So if a potential employer is constrained by market conditions to a certain pay range and a qualified, potential candidate demands something in excess of that, they won't get the job. Another piece of simple math to gnash on.

Our new mega equation for wages and compensation for the prospective employee now includes
  • Education Cost
  • COL affect
  • Current business budget
Some of us may be more scientifically inclined and work feverishly all night to put that in the form of a quadratic equation. Let's leave it to the folks at The Economist and move on.

A fellow from India says that the entire cost of his advanced degree (tuition, fees, books, and living expenses) was the equivalent of US $100. Education cost is obviously low in India. So is COL. Those two things, if our equation is working today, should mean wages in India are lower than in the US.

Yep; just checked: They are. Other places as well for roughly similar reasons.

Assuming the fellow from India produces as well as similarly educated workers in the US -- most people agree that is the case but if anyone has heartburn over it just read on anyway -- what does that mean to workers or "the system" in the US?

Well, it doesn't mean that wages are a problem or that wages are being globalized. It means that education in India is largely subsidized, for one thing. It's not the "wages and compensation" part of the equation that's out of whack, it's the "education cost."

The "hundred dollar guy" from India was talking about costs when he went through college... A while back. Currently, in India, the total cost of a good degree (tuition, fees, books, living expenses -- everything) is about the same as the cost of one year in a local community college for tuition alone. One (1) year; tuition alone. Now that's something to gnash about.

We're not going to fix the disparities between offshore and US sourcing of products, service, or resources by driving US wages up or price fixing. Attempts to do so or impose tariffs, embargoes, or other protectionist firewalls only makes matters worse.

Why?

Because not one of those things will drive the cost of education down in the US and it's the cost of education that's out of kilter. Education costs continue to spiral upward and only exacerbate the problem.

Education costs are not included in COL calculations. COL is based on:
  • Housing: Includes purchasing, renting or maintaining a house or an apartment.
  • Food: Standard basket of food purchased in the place.
  • Utilities: Includes electricity, gas for heating, telephone etc.
  • Health: Expenses related with health.
  • Transportation: Includes expenses like auto insurance, gas for vehicles, maintenance and repair, transportation etc.
  • Miscellaneous: Other costs associated with daily living.
Two things on that list really stand out: Housing, and Health. We've been in a health care cost crisis for some time and are now experiencing the gruesome effects of a housing cost crisis as well -- bubble and burst.

We can substantially reduce the COL without negative impact to our "lifestyle" by reducing the cost of housing and the cost of health care. This isn't about wages, it's about COL. Reducing COL has the effect of giving everyone a big, fat raise. For workers in the US, wages are not the problem, COL and particularly housing and health care costs is.

We can gnash about whether or not businesses should source from the lowest cost suppliers no matter where their location. We can ponder the US corporations moving offshore or loosing markets to foreign competion. We can gnash about whether solutions are best delivered by government programs, market forces, or some combination of both. But before we talk about solutions, we'd better get set on the problem.

Feeling the pinch from falling wages and compensation is a symptom. Offshore enterprises gaining market share in the US is a symptom. US businesses relocating on foreign soil is a symptom. Competitors for jobs in the workplace willing and happy to work for less than half of US wages is a symptom. A couple of aspirin won't do it here, gnashers.

Education costs and COL are problems.

This is a good time to point out that the cost of housing needs to continue going down, not stabilize or go up. That should set the gnashers off for sure.

We're better off focusing the rhetorical, public, and political debate on reducing the cost of education, health care, and housing where solutions will actually do some good.

Gnash it!

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Job Posting: Most Bizarre

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Yesterday while checking feeds from major job boards, we noticed what must be one of -- if not the most bizarre job postings ever seen.

Someone at an agency posted publicly what appears to be an internal memo. A quick check later in the day showed the posting had been removed.

All identifying pieces of the posting are replaced with XXXXXXX, but otherwise it's reproduced below as found.

Enjoy...

We need to start resourcing folks with the following experience.

We need Business Analysts, PM*s, Functional resources.

This is for our direct client.

Client is XXXXXXX. Try to get US Citizens . Comm skills must be 10/10 NO Excuses

Project is scheduled to get going in three weeks.

Client location is XXXXXXX. It is a pretty reasonable place to live in. So use your negotiation skills. We don*t have detailed job description as yet.

please shoot me resumes asap to XXXXXXX @ XXXXXXX

Thanks
XXXXXXX

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Match Game: Are You What I Want?

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

In the wonderful revolving door of what I refer to as "resume roulette" -- job hunting to rest of humanity -- emotions run the gamut and humor is one of the most common. I suppose it's due to my nature (somewhat laid back and almost always cheerful) that I see things as funny when others may not.

It's not that I don't appreciate the serious nature of whatever thing it is we're collectively in the midst of... I do. Especially if we're out of work and lacking good prospects.

I just don't see complaining and griping about it as a way forward -- a way out. And, it's probably not the end of civilization as we know it no matter how bad it seems at the moment. And, if it is the end of civilization, whatever little problem is on our plate right now really won't matter. I'm not Chicken Little. I'm not hooked up that way.

There is some healthy grieving that goes along with any change but, as a contract / consultant project manager, I've seen a lot of change both personally and as an affected observer. And that is especially the case for ups and notable downs in job markets.

Over the years, as a consequence, I've reinvented myself several times. Yes, with a little grieving, but more with a healthy sense of adventure and heightened sense of taking on a new challenge. A little reinvention is good for the soul.

I admit it: I've been a hiring manager. Sometimes in a consulting role assisting a functional manager with project resources, sometimes as a lead forming teams of other contractors / consultants; sometimes as a functional manager myself; other times as the owner of the business. Yep, the secret is out; I admit it.

Those of you who have filled this role yourself know the process of combing through resumes, due diligence, phone interviews, sitting through excrutiating face-to-face interviews, and working through a sometimes intractable HR department to finally get the thing done. If you haven't, you know the game from the other side of the table.

I've seen a lot of resumes and people put weird stuff on their resumes. A Tweet from a recruiter the other day noted a resume received that included a three month gig in professional sports about 15 years ago for a candidate applying for a technical position.

It's sad but also humorous -- not in the "laughing at you" way but... well, I've seen worse and funnier.

I once had a gentleman tell me in a interview -- this was probably 1998 or 1999 -- that he had fifeteen years experience using Microsoft FrontPage.

Long pause.

I probed a bit to make sure we were talking about the same thing and he stuck to his guns. I made absolutely sure that FrontPage guy was telling me he started using this (code-chopping WYSIWYG) web editor in or around 1983 -- at about the same time Tim Berners-Lee completed writing a notebook program, "Enquire-Within-Upon-Everything", which allowed links to be made between arbitrary nodes.

In fact, Microsoft released FrontPage in 1996 so it was relatively new at the time of the interview.

FrontPage guy got some laughs from our group later... And not in that nice, "laughing with you" way either.

The lesson there is don't make stuff up when you don't know enough about it to fake it. FrontPage guy might have been a dynamite technical writer but he certainly wasn't joining my team -- I can't work with people like that and my team doesn't deserve that kind of grief either.

Another, even worse, thing I see people do a lot is apply for positions where the requirements don't match their skillset. They do this on purpose and with malice aforethought. I mean this seriously: It's a very bad thing to do and leads to no good outcome for you. Do not do this.

If the job requirement says, "Advanced Degree Required," and you don't have one, forget it. No matter what you might think about whether or not that degree is really necessary, it's wanted; it's a job requirement. If you don't have it, you are not wanted... Stay away. Move on.

If the posting is for a "development manager with enterprise software experience" and you are a project manager with experience running web development projects, keep your resume out of the pile. Even if you think you could become the best development manager on the planet, they are not looking for you... Don't do it. Move on.

If the hiring manager, the VP and the Director all decide they need a resource with 15 years experience and you don't have that experience, don't do it. No matter if you think you can do the job better than anyone on the planet and are dead certain they have the requirement wrong, don't do it. Move on.

Why? Because this is a very, very small world and not getting bigger.

Your reputation as a responsible, reputable professional is based on your actions. When recruiters and hiring managers in your market get to know you as the kind of person who continually displays this kind of arrogance and callous disregard, they will shun you. You can't get that back. Once it's done, it's done forever.

Remember Frontpage guy? Do you think I would seriously consider him again for any position in any organization?

No.

I don't know why he did what he did but if his resume came up again, I would chunk it without a second thought. If you play FrontPage guy frequently enough and in enough of your market, your career is over. You couldn't get an interview taping thousand dollar bills to your resume.

Now that last paragraph may not jibe with my casual, laid-back, happy-go-lucky attitude thing earlier. That's OK: I still think FrontPage guy is hilarious... and, the three-month sports guy... and, a lot more like them. But there's a serious side here as well.

I don't want to see people do things because of fear, insecurity, or frustration in a down economy that could hurt them for years to come.

Be honest about yourself... represent yourself wisely and responsibly... don't become a joke around HR or with your market recruiters. Play the Match Game with integrity.

And if you see FrontPage guy, tell him that opening is filled.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Six Ways to Make Web 2.0 Work

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

The McKenzie Quarterly recently published this landmark report on Web 2.0 adoption from consumers to the enterprise and six ways to make it work. A good and important read.

Exhibit 1: Web 2.0 is the next wave of corporate-technology adoption.
Exhibit 2: Participatory technologies can be categorized into five groups.
Exhibit 3: Six new management capabilities can be unlocked by participatory technologies.

Do it now: Six Ways to Make Web 2.0 Work

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Value Proposition: Got Yours Handy

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

I posted this over on my blog at door64 this morning. Reworked a bit for this format...

Every recruiter, head hunter, or consultant in the HR/Recruiting sector hammers the "value proposition" in our resumes. There's a ton of good reasons for that and... Well, it just makes sense.

In the workplace and "on the market," we offer a certain value to our employer. We are not, as people, exactly a commodity in this sense but, to a current or future employer, there is a cost/benefit calculation to the role we play, the training and experience we bring, and our ability to convert that experience into dollars for the business.

In some ways that value is quantifiable but in every way it is essential that we remain keenly aware of and can accurately state / communicate our personal value proposition. This applies whether we are seeking advancement, a career change, or a new position.

So... got your value proposition handy?

I do.

As a project manager, I'm comfortable with quantification, communication, and putting things into executive form. I'm not saying my value proposition is the best ever or that it can't be improved, just saying that I'm comfortable hashing it together quickly... perhaps more so than most folks. Also as a project manager, value propositions are a part of my daily inbox.

My value proposition is a part of my resume, my elevator pitch, and my interview script. Here's what it looks like.

Value Proposition
Organizational skills, leadership ability, and repeatable methodology successfully delivered cost savings and ROI in excess of one billion dollars over past ten years in complex, enterprise-level project environments with disparate stakeholder groups primarily within financial services organizations.

Strong communication skills, extensive experience in multiple environments, solid soft skills, excellence as an influencer and negotiator, coaching and mentoring experience, background with PMI/PMBOK, and PMO leadership experience means ten things to your organization:


  1. Saving effort and cost through proactive scope management
  2. Better solution fit the first time through better alignment & planning
  3. Resolving problems more quickly
  4. Resolving future risk before problems occur
  5. Managing expectations more effectively
  6. Building a higher quality product the first time
  7. Improved project financial management
  8. Stopping 'bad' projects more quickly
  9. More focus on metrics and fact-based decision-making
  10. Improved work environment through team building & success

Now there's one more point to make about the value proposition: It must be verifiable and real. Moreover, it should show that you are capable of self assessment and that you understand what your value is to the business.

In a resume, the value proposition must integrate or synch with recommendations, references, and background so it's not just hanging out there by itself. You have to back it up with solid stuff.

I have my value proposition memorized.

How about yours?

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Input Needed: door64 Tech Fair for Companies

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

door64 is an Austin, TX based high-tech forum, resource, supporter, proponent, and community. The mission over at door 64, in brief, is "door64 is community of over 4000 Central Texas high-tech professionals. We're all about helping you become more well-connected with your industry peers and with the local high-tech scene." You can read The door64 Manifesto for more and I suggest you do.

The founder of door64 is Matt Genovese. You can view Matt's LinkedIn profile, and I suggest you do, by clicking the link on his name. You can read more (do it) about the founding of door64 -- and the reason for the name -- on the Mission page.

door64 does a lot in the way of providing, supporting, and promoting events. The latest concept is a good one -- a "Tech Fair" for companies to show off their latest and greatest high-tech toys. It's still in the concept phase but won't be for long. Here's the scoop from Matt.

"This will be an engineering trade show where local tech companies (from big companies to start-ups) come out to show off what they are doing from a technical / engineer's perspective. It is different from a job fair. Rather, it is a way to gain exposure in the local tech community, and help the tech community find you. What you do with that exposure is up to you, depending on your company's current goals (hiring, sales, investment, etc.)."


"The plan is to hold this event on the same date/location as the IEEE 125th Anniversary / Austin Brain Party held in Austin, Texas on Thursday, April 30th. That party happens in the evening, and this Tech Fair would lead up to it in the very same space. The exact times of this day time Tech Fair are not yet solidified, but it would lead into the Brain Party."

Matt and the door64 community are seeking input from interested companies about the scope and format of the proposed event. If your company is interested in participating -- getting some good PR, meeting potential customers or financial backers... maybe some local talent as well -- there is a quick form for your input. If you know of someone at your or another company that might get interested -- pass this along.

Do it: Fill out the form now.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Microsoft: The New Retail Giant

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams



Coverage of Microsoft's move into retail space is a bit amusing in spots... especially the Wal-Mart angle but, overall, the recent announcement naming a Corporate Vice President of Retail Stores raises a couple of questions.

One: Why hasn't Microsoft done this already?

They've had concept stores on the Redmond campus for quite some time and Apple has been wildly successful with their retail stores. It's rather amazing that the leadership at Microsoft didn't wrap this up with bows and icing years ago.

Microsoft operated a store inside a movie theater complex in San Francisco (1999) but did not sell, only showcased their products. That venture lasted two years. What did they learn from that experience and why the long lag time?

What is different about the market, retail climate, the competition, or Microsoft's strategy today that makes moving into bricks-and-mortar land a good play? How does their Windows 7 strategy work with the retail concept?

Two: What about Microsoft's retail partners?

Microsoft has relationships of long standing potentially at risk with big box guys like Best Buy and CompUSA. They've been in brick-and-mortar land with Microsoft as a partner quite a while.

This is a risk that may be manageable but at what cost?

Surely from the Best Buy perspective a new competitor who was/is your retail partner can't be viewed as friendly action. Best Buy is, so far, refusing comment.

Three: "Me too" Apple?

Unlike Apple, Microsoft doesn't have any computers to sell and little hardware to speak of outside Zune and Xbox. What's on the shelf at the local Microsoft Quick Stop?

If it's computers -- and it has to be computers but might include cell phones running MS products in addition to Zune and Xbox, which hardware vendor will Microsoft choose to stock the shelves running Windows 7 at the store? Or, is Microsoft planning to produce their own computer brand? HP is, so far, refusing comment. Ditto for Dell.

Can't wait for those comments: This will only get more interesting and generate more buzz about Microsoft in the next few months.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Recession Driving LinkedIn Expansion

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams



From TechCrunch


As layoffs continued to pound the economy in January, one beneficiary was job networking site LinkedIn. According to the latest January data from comScore, the LinkedIn’s U.S. unique visitors shot up 22 percent to 7.7 million, up from 6.3 million in December. Total minutes spent on the site doubled in January to 96.8 million, from 47.6 million in December.


Read the full story here: http://snurl.com/bvlew

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Impressive Virus?

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams



I was recently in the vicinity of Llano, TX -- a beautiful spot in the Central Texas Highlands known as "The Hill Country" -- around lunch time. This usually means my meatatarian side kicks in and, sure enough, that's what happened. I stopped in at Cooper's Barbeque -- a good, honest Central Texas answer to a meat craving.

I picked out a couple of things at "the pit" and proceeded through the line and out into the dining area. Seating at Cooper's is family style -- pretty popular in these places -- and I found a spot on one of the benches. It's rows of picnic tables and you just sit where you can find a spot... elbow your way in if you have to and talk with your neighbors if they're talkative.

The television was tuned to CNN and a couple of working guys at the same table were discussing the latest news. Stimulus package talk mostly and their most common comment was, "It'll never work." However, it was a conversation at the table behind me that riveted my attention.

Three guys gathered at one end of the table behind and to the left of me. I could see them out of the corner of my eye and managed to make out most of their conversation with a little effort.

These guys are solid working folks in blue jeans, overalls, and shirts faded from many washings. They are the ones lining up when a "shovel ready" project kicks off.

One of the guys -- his back toward me -- settles in with his tray and, as a conversational opening says, "Boy, that virus on Bill's computer sure impressed the heck out of me."

Actually he didn't say "heck," it was something a bit coarser but I've edited the conversation for family consumption.

The conversation continued about Bill's computer and I finally got the gist of it and understood why the virus was impressive. Apparently the program was malware and used Bill's computer and internet connection to pass itself along... along with some very personal information. You know the type of thing.

No one at the table was sure how Bill came up with the thing or how he was going to get rid of it but "the stuff that thing can do is just amazing."

Yes, they were all impressed and that's the scary part to me. I guess, in a way, they impressed the heck out me, too.

I'm wondering how common this attitude is. Are hackers and creators of malware the new Bonny and Clyde? John Dillinger? Hole in the Wall Gang? Is taking down Bill's computer now viewed the same as Pretty Boy Floyd taking down a bank?

If so, where's the "Robin Hood" in the deal? There’s no payback for anyone except the hacker and Bill is getting the raw end of the deal. This isn’t “getting back at the man,” it’s causing grief, frustration, and a lot of expense to the common man.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Job Talk: How You Can Help

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams



I've been travelling the last few days -- with more trips upcoming -- and haven't focused on the blog enough. A recent conversation, however, is worth an entry.

I was chatting with a friend of mine Tuesday morning; a senior recruiter with one of the major firms. It was our first face-to-face but we have spoken frequently on the phone and traded a few emails. I like this person -- their "values" are good... but that's a different entry.

What caught my attention was a recent job req. for an IT project manager. It contained the usual specificity that many of us find troubling. Suffice to say that this requirement was very specific.

In an ordinary job market filling this kind of request might take several weeks and perhaps several months. Winnowing the resumes received to those who actually qualified based on the requirements would leave an available pool of two or three for the interview process. But, this job market isn't ordinary.

In the course of a few days, thirty-eight qualified resumes were received for the opening. Any of these thirty-eight could interview but the client / employer (by request) wanted only three. The best of the best.

You'd think my friend, the senior recruiter, would be overjoyed at the overabundance of talent available for their client. On the contrary, they were struggling.
  • Concerned about how to be fair in the selection process
  • Concerned about how to tell obviously qualified candidates they didn't make the cut
  • Concerned about their inability to place highly qualified people obviously in need in good jobs in a stagnant market.
I didn't have any answers for my friend and... well... let's just say they are doing the best they can with it.

I don't know how many resumes were reviewed to cut the total down to thirty eight qualified applicants. I do know the ratio of qualified applicants to spots at the interview table is almost 4:1.

In "glass half-full mode, that's not as bad as it could be and, I've seen worse. In Houston following the dotCom bubble burst and 911, I saw a guy under a bridge with a sign saying, "Will write HTML for food." True story.

In "half-empty mode," there are not very many project managers qualified for the requirements of this position -- probably something less than a tenth... maybe just one percent or so of the available pool. To have 38 qualified applicants from a small metro area (Austin, TX) actively seeking employment is not a good sign... no matter what you think of IT project managers.

To those currently seeking jobs: Don't give up. There are positions available and if you keep shooting, you'll hit the target. There are not many and it will take time so plan for that and don't overlook a single option. The good news here is that three people will interview and one of them will get the job.

To those currently working in stable jobs: Give your unemployed friends and connections a break. Support them; make referrals; write a recommendation; pass their resume around. You never know what little thing that you can do with minimal effort is the one thing that makes a huge difference in the life of someone close to you.

Pick one person you know who is out of work, qualified, and looking. Do something for them -- refer them to a friend, write a recommendation for them on LinkedIn, take them out to lunch or for a drink and talk to them -- ask questions and figure out what you can do to help. The good news here is that, if we work together, every one of us can make a significant difference to an individual and to the community at large.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

Monday, February 2, 2009

Drug Screens for the Boss

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

My friend D. experienced a certain amount of turmoil in employment over the past year -- I'm sure most of us can relate, if not personally, at least by association. Suffice to say that D. was involved in some bizarre situations and witnessed some rather extreme behavior on the part of management recently.

D. stopped me on the way to lunch the other day, looked around to see who was watching, and whispered in a conspiratorial manner, "Next job offer I get, I'm going to ask the management team to take a drug screen before I accept." Whispered quickly and then, after cautious -- not to say paranoid -- glances at passers-by, D. continued walking without a backward look.

It left me wondering what kind of interview or piece of workplace insanity D had just experienced. I found out later but... that's a different post.

What about drug testing the management team? Does this idea have any traction?

What if, at the end of an interview where the interview was successful and the offer made, we could say, "OK, I'm on board but only if you and the senior managers pass a drug screen."

Friends and acquaintances say, "No way" pretty much unanimously and, I suppose, I have to agree. Still... it's an interesting fantasy... only in dreams.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe

What Price Leadership?

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams


The tone of conversation around the espresso bar over executive compensation -- we might call it "Bonusgate" -- is pretty vehement these days. Downright vindictive at times and getting more so by the hour especially where tax payer dollars are involved.

We all have a pretty good idea about the value of administration, and its red tape pitfalls. Most of us have an understanding and acceptance of the fact that for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, state, and federal agencies require a ton of strategy, process, procedure, meetings, and paperwork in the course of the business year and someone has to do that stuff. Give the devil his/her due, eh.

But... No one gets a six (or sixty) million dollar bonus for doing paperwork. At the highest level, that kind of work pays well but it isn't what "adds value" to the company, the stockholders, or to the employees in a way that's worth millions. Bonuses like that are outside the realm of administrative paperwork and generally come down to "leadership;" that's where the value is.

There's also a lot to be said, in terms of value, for people who can influence and negotiate at the highest level. Ditto for people with top-of-the-line organization skills. Throw in some proven entrepreneurial attitude and it's a winner. If a top notch leader also has the other attributes and skills just mentioned, the chances of success for their organization increases enormously compared to organizations with less qualified leadership. That's where the money is: Leadership.

Leadership, on its own, is difficult for some to define -- especially those who lack the trait. Really good leadership is rare and there seems to be something of a sliding leadership scale among humans.

A great many, but not all, are capable of (at most) occasional fits of leadership. Very, very few are capable of "great" and continuous leadership. Most of us are between the two extremes. The numbers of people with great (world class) leadership ability who have the other traits mentioned (also in the great / world class category) are very rare, highly valuable, and amount to something less than 1/10th of 1% of the population.

From great to the small, organizations under perform -- sometimes to the point of failure -- without great leadership. It's not the only one but it is a requirement for success in any business. Because they know this, the board of directors is willing to pay the very few who qualify a great sum of money to bring successful leadership, along with those other traits, into their organization. It's the difference between performing well and performing poorly... or between success and failure for the business.

It's those "great sums of money" creating talking points around the espresso bar and headlines in the media. Especially paying out great sums of money for something most people can't even define and don't really understand well. Especially in times where most people are not so happy about their salary and not so sure about job security. Especially when it's our money -- tax dollars.

In the bad times... when things get tough and the balance sheet is bleeding red; at the point where, arguably, leadership is needed most: What is the price of leadership?

When everything is rosy and all that is touched turns to greenbacks, the cost of leadership isn't discussed much. Leaders take their money to the bank without much comment. When ordinary workers are losing their jobs, homes, and more; when every penny is hard fought and hard earned; when our families are at stack, questions about value will be asked. Answers are expected; good ones.

It is trying times that require leadership the most. You know... step up to the plate and hit a home run; show us what you're made of; leaders should be... well... leading. Instead, those we trust to lead are cowering in fear, obfuscating, and making excuses.

If you're a top dog, act like one.

Contract or no contract, board of directors notwithstanding, find the ethical backbone necessary to do the right thing. Refuse the bonus; give it back. Stop the bleeding and start the healing.

Do your job: Lead.

Add to Technorati Favorites Subscribe