I'm not a very strategic person, although I do not lack goals, determination and plans on how to reach my goals. I wrote one of my Master's theses on strategy, and originally specialized in security policy in part because I was so fascinated by Sun Tzu's and Clausewitzs' books on strategies in wars (surreal time-warp feeling while I type this, as I now work in such a different field).
It's strange to be interested in strategy, but lack skills in it. I still lack the ability to understand that other people have motivations - personal and organizational, and that I need to take these into account when working with people. After ten years of working, it's strange to still have "aha" moments when I realize that we do not all work for the same cause, in the same way. We compete in an awfully large number of issues, even when working on one single small project.
Strategic thinking - understanding also the moves of your "enemies" (in war), or "colleagues" (hmmm - what a parallel…) - is probably vital to success in the workplace. It's about knowing how to wiggle through, how to feeds some of others' needs while sticking to your own, knowing how to avoid constantly running into walls or creating counter-productive reactions and in-fights….
In part, it's about understanding people's actions in a more objective way. I tend to emotionalize, and react emotionally. "Why is someone trying to ruin my problem, and be mean?" When in real life, most of the time a more strategic person will think: "Some of our goals conflict. How can we compromise, trade, avoid larger conflicts, and still attain our goals?"
(Although sometimes people - also colleagues - are just plain mean and evil, trying to ruin projects and others just because they can, or enjoy doing so! And they can join my "never trust this person" list, and will stay on it for a very, very long time. And they will never transition from the "strategic colleague" group to "a friend beyond work" list.)
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Thank YOU
A quick note to say a heart-felt thanks to my blog readers. It touches me each time someone mentions they read a few posts now and then. It's a lot of (rather repetitive) rambling to follow, and as a blog has something like a "mass mail" feeling to it, reading blogs is a bit like skimming through to find something relevant or interesting. I have to admit that I don't regularly read any blogs, but simply for one reason: my friends do not write any, or give up quickly (poo poo!!). I read blog entries mainly to find information, e.g. on a specific topic through a google search. But I'd love to read more by people I know….hint hint, nudge nudge.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Salary "Negotiation" - Upfront or at End?
When I applied for my last "office job", I was unsure whether I would - as a mom of three and with a commuting husband - be a very productive employee. My biggest worry was that I wouldn't manage the juggle - or that I wouldn't have control over all of the balls. It all worked out very well in the end, and I would say that I was just as productive - if not more - than I would have been without kids. I worked at a fast pace during the day to ensure I'd get things done. And I invested work time in the evenings when necessary - and when I felt like something was important or I wanted to clean my to-do plate quickly.
But when I applied and interviewed for the job, I had many self-doubts. I wanted the job (content-wise), and decided to try my best. But at the back of my head, I was worried about one big factor: the job had been advertised without a salary. This is usually, but not always, a bad sign. In this case it was a horrible sign. I interviewed and interviewed, and finally found out what the salary would be. I literally cried, because it was the lowest I had ever earned. I accepted the job nonetheless, thinking I would find other fulfillment and rewards, and hopefully climb the ladder (or jump!) quickly.
I'm currently in talks with another company, and have been asked for a salary expectation. I've been open this time around, and have stated my expectation. In return, I have asked whether this is at all in the ballpark that they can budget. No response. Talk first, pay later.
I understand that it makes sense for a potential employer to "lure" candidates in. Some employees may never consider a company or position if the salary is stated publicly. I sure would not have with my previous position. An interview process is relationship-building in some way, and an investment on both sides. An employee may feel like all that time and effort energy invested into interviews would be lost, just because the salary is much lower than expected in the end. The company may get a good deal this way, or may have sold themselves on other factors - making an employee realize that they are willing to take a cut.
On the other hand, I'm more and more starting to think that interviews are like sunk costs. No matter how much time and energy I invest, this doesn't justify taking a huge cut in the end. The expectations are simply too far apart if the financials are not even on the same planet. It's simply been wasted time then.
I think the best strategy is to try to compromise. If an organization is unwilling to make public their poor (or amazing?) salary package, I'm willing to give them a benefit of doubt - for a while. But after a while, I don't think it's worth anyone's time to go through lots of interviews without knowing whether you'll be driving a scooter or a Porsche. It does make a difference, and sometimes there are bills to pay, a life to live, and there's no option to take huge pay cuts.
In short: I'm all for transparency and up-front salary information. But I understand that it's not always in a company's interest - it rarely probably is, unless "truly competitive package" means exactly that, and not "absolutely appallingly embarrassing package".
Any thoughts or experiences - please comment or email me!
But when I applied and interviewed for the job, I had many self-doubts. I wanted the job (content-wise), and decided to try my best. But at the back of my head, I was worried about one big factor: the job had been advertised without a salary. This is usually, but not always, a bad sign. In this case it was a horrible sign. I interviewed and interviewed, and finally found out what the salary would be. I literally cried, because it was the lowest I had ever earned. I accepted the job nonetheless, thinking I would find other fulfillment and rewards, and hopefully climb the ladder (or jump!) quickly.
I'm currently in talks with another company, and have been asked for a salary expectation. I've been open this time around, and have stated my expectation. In return, I have asked whether this is at all in the ballpark that they can budget. No response. Talk first, pay later.
I understand that it makes sense for a potential employer to "lure" candidates in. Some employees may never consider a company or position if the salary is stated publicly. I sure would not have with my previous position. An interview process is relationship-building in some way, and an investment on both sides. An employee may feel like all that time and effort energy invested into interviews would be lost, just because the salary is much lower than expected in the end. The company may get a good deal this way, or may have sold themselves on other factors - making an employee realize that they are willing to take a cut.
On the other hand, I'm more and more starting to think that interviews are like sunk costs. No matter how much time and energy I invest, this doesn't justify taking a huge cut in the end. The expectations are simply too far apart if the financials are not even on the same planet. It's simply been wasted time then.
I think the best strategy is to try to compromise. If an organization is unwilling to make public their poor (or amazing?) salary package, I'm willing to give them a benefit of doubt - for a while. But after a while, I don't think it's worth anyone's time to go through lots of interviews without knowing whether you'll be driving a scooter or a Porsche. It does make a difference, and sometimes there are bills to pay, a life to live, and there's no option to take huge pay cuts.
In short: I'm all for transparency and up-front salary information. But I understand that it's not always in a company's interest - it rarely probably is, unless "truly competitive package" means exactly that, and not "absolutely appallingly embarrassing package".
Any thoughts or experiences - please comment or email me!
Friday, May 16, 2014
Work (for free) even before you interview
I've come across a very worrying trend: working (for free) even before interviewing for a position.
Recently, a friend asked me to support a job application of his, as he needed to prove that he has a network in the field I work in. He's a lovely guy, and good at his work, so I agreed and passed on my CV. Shortly afterwards, he let me know that he had pulled back from the application, because the organization he had applied for had sent him a list of questions to answer - as part of the selection process - which was around a task list for 6 months of work.
This organization then contacted me - as they had my CV - for a talk. I always try to keep all doors open, and although I don't have time for new larger projects at the moment, you never know what may come up down the road. Note that I didn't know what exactly I had applied for, nor have any information on the conditions of the position. In the first few minutes of the talk, I tried to find out what exactly the position would be, and whether it would be compatible with the time I have available. I received rather vague answers, but instead got interviewed for an hour. Alarm bells ringing after my friend's story from before, I was careful with what information I was sharing. I requested to find out more about what exactly is on offer.
Shortly afterwards, I received a message to ask whether I'd be willing to answer some written questions - and that information on the "contract" would follow afterwards. The tone got nastier when I replied that I'm happy to provide input once I know what the job is like, and whether the conditions would work with what I offer…
Worryingly, I've had a simliar experience over a year ago. Although not this blatantly exploitative, I at the time wondered whether to complete a written task - which required a day of research and work - for a position that I had applied for. At the time I really wanted the position, and the task came at the end of the interview process. I was also willing to "work pro bono" for one day for this organization and for the cause, even if not offered the position in the end (I was). But even then, I wondered how convenient it is for an organization to "interview" 20 candidates, and save a few week's worth of work this way.
It's very sad to know that many people are so desperate for jobs that they will fulfill these tasks, in the hope to get a position. Which, to be paranoid, may not even exist? Or be paid so poorly that no-one would accept? Strategically, a brilliant move for an organization, which hopes to reap free manpower. In the long run, I hope that all such organizations get shamed and that these stories spread, as this is simply pure deceit towards applicants, no matter what the motivations of the organization is. They may not have funds, and are hoping to build expertise, even hoping to hire some staff this way. They may be working for the most worthy cause ever.
But NOT like this.
Recently, a friend asked me to support a job application of his, as he needed to prove that he has a network in the field I work in. He's a lovely guy, and good at his work, so I agreed and passed on my CV. Shortly afterwards, he let me know that he had pulled back from the application, because the organization he had applied for had sent him a list of questions to answer - as part of the selection process - which was around a task list for 6 months of work.
This organization then contacted me - as they had my CV - for a talk. I always try to keep all doors open, and although I don't have time for new larger projects at the moment, you never know what may come up down the road. Note that I didn't know what exactly I had applied for, nor have any information on the conditions of the position. In the first few minutes of the talk, I tried to find out what exactly the position would be, and whether it would be compatible with the time I have available. I received rather vague answers, but instead got interviewed for an hour. Alarm bells ringing after my friend's story from before, I was careful with what information I was sharing. I requested to find out more about what exactly is on offer.
Shortly afterwards, I received a message to ask whether I'd be willing to answer some written questions - and that information on the "contract" would follow afterwards. The tone got nastier when I replied that I'm happy to provide input once I know what the job is like, and whether the conditions would work with what I offer…
Worryingly, I've had a simliar experience over a year ago. Although not this blatantly exploitative, I at the time wondered whether to complete a written task - which required a day of research and work - for a position that I had applied for. At the time I really wanted the position, and the task came at the end of the interview process. I was also willing to "work pro bono" for one day for this organization and for the cause, even if not offered the position in the end (I was). But even then, I wondered how convenient it is for an organization to "interview" 20 candidates, and save a few week's worth of work this way.
It's very sad to know that many people are so desperate for jobs that they will fulfill these tasks, in the hope to get a position. Which, to be paranoid, may not even exist? Or be paid so poorly that no-one would accept? Strategically, a brilliant move for an organization, which hopes to reap free manpower. In the long run, I hope that all such organizations get shamed and that these stories spread, as this is simply pure deceit towards applicants, no matter what the motivations of the organization is. They may not have funds, and are hoping to build expertise, even hoping to hire some staff this way. They may be working for the most worthy cause ever.
But NOT like this.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Preparing for the Launch - and wondering whether there will be a take-off...
It has been a busy couple of weeks. For once, not because the kids are constantly ill (knock on wood!), but because my work projects have been time-intensive. I'm finishing off my project that I started early this year - which has, after a lot of ranting, gone surprisingly well the past weeks. Either it helped to be clear on what my colleagues can expect me to do in terms of "crap work", or I had simply front loaded all such work, and there's none left…
My next project is launching in early June, and there has been a fair amount of preparation going on. With the support of my funder, we are filming a launch clip this week, and I have been putting together the content, and coordinating a group of people who will participate. As the project is about families and careers, it has been important for me to ensure that the film clip is not just about me. I'm simply the coordinator, and trying to pull together different voices on the matter. It has been a lot of work, and I have a great team to keep pushing me to think about what story I really want to tell (at this point) - I therefore hope that it not only launches, but also takes off!
Thanks to all of you who have already contributed incredibly useful advice, contacts and thoughts. And thanks to all who have spent hours on end talking to me about this issue. In terms of funding, this project is currently a one-woman-only show (and even that not full-time), but so far, I have felt like there are really many people working and helping to support me - and most importantly - this project. Grateful.
My next project is launching in early June, and there has been a fair amount of preparation going on. With the support of my funder, we are filming a launch clip this week, and I have been putting together the content, and coordinating a group of people who will participate. As the project is about families and careers, it has been important for me to ensure that the film clip is not just about me. I'm simply the coordinator, and trying to pull together different voices on the matter. It has been a lot of work, and I have a great team to keep pushing me to think about what story I really want to tell (at this point) - I therefore hope that it not only launches, but also takes off!
Thanks to all of you who have already contributed incredibly useful advice, contacts and thoughts. And thanks to all who have spent hours on end talking to me about this issue. In terms of funding, this project is currently a one-woman-only show (and even that not full-time), but so far, I have felt like there are really many people working and helping to support me - and most importantly - this project. Grateful.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Life with a couple of jobs - simultaneously - and the luxury of vacation
A couple of months ago, life was somehow frustratingly empty. I managed - and enjoyed - to do the crossword in the paper each day! I asked for life to get slightly more exciting (I have low blood pressure, lack of excitement makes me lethargic). Now I'm juggling two rather time-consuming work projects, my normal life as a mom, and all the little tidbits and favors that I've been offering to people on the side, because I've had time to help. One way I notice I am busy beyond belief? I don't find time to blog regularly. I don't manage to read the newspaper. Forget the crossword puzzle.
I have managed to enjoy the Easter and May 1st breaks, though. This is the huge luxury of having quit a full-time office-based job. I may work full-time, but I can decide to take all of my vacation. All the bridge days, all of the time off that I want.
It's the biggest luxury in life. To have work, in order to have vacation. I am paraphrasing Pippi Longstocking, if you know the series where she decides to go to school, in order to have vacation…
I have managed to enjoy the Easter and May 1st breaks, though. This is the huge luxury of having quit a full-time office-based job. I may work full-time, but I can decide to take all of my vacation. All the bridge days, all of the time off that I want.
It's the biggest luxury in life. To have work, in order to have vacation. I am paraphrasing Pippi Longstocking, if you know the series where she decides to go to school, in order to have vacation…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)