Whistle while you love the work you do!

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Love Your Job Enough to Marry It?

Let Me Count the Ways
Do you love your job? Depends on your age and where you live, a new survey finds.
By ANDREA COOMBES MarketWatch

Since most of us will likely spend more hours at work than romancing a loved one this Valentine’s Day, perhaps it’s as good a time as any to consider: Do you love your job?

More specifically, if your job were a living, breathing person, would you marry it?

That’s the somewhat tongue-in-cheek question of a new survey assessing how much people love—or hate—their jobs.

Only 9% of respondents said they love their job so much they’d marry it, while 34% agreed they like their job enough that they’d “date it seriously.” Another 43% agreed their daily grind is O.K. and they’d “date it casually,” 9% said they don’t like the job and it “won’t last long.”

And 5% said they hate their jobs and “want to break up immediately,” according to the survey of 1,215 full- and part-time workers conducted by Harris Interactive for Taleo, a Dublin, Calif.-based consulting firm and maker of staffing-management software.

“Employers could be doing more to make sure their employees are getting the love they want with their jobs,” said Alice Snell, vice president of Taleo Research.

Work “is a relationship and it is a partnership,” she said. “Employers have the opportunity today to really provide support for their employees’ career goals, provide more regular feedback on performance, to offer things like mentoring to make sure they’re rewarding performers and to hold up their end of the relationship,” she said.

“In turn, employees will hold up their end of the relationship,” Ms. Snell said, noting that job satisfaction is linked to higher productivity.

West Coasters, Southerners report higher job satisfaction

People who work on the West Coast were likeliest to say they like or love their jobs, with 48% of respondents agreeing, compared with 39% of workers in the Northeast, 40% of workers in the Midwest, and 45% of workers in the South.

But Northeasterners were likelier to say their job is O.K., with 49% agreeing, compared with 36% of workers in the West, 45% of workers in the Midwest, and 42% in the South.

Meanwhile, West Coasters, at 16%, were likeliest to say they hate their jobs and want to break up immediately, compared with 12% of workers in the Northeast, 15% of workers in the Midwest, and 13% of workers in the South.

The survey did not ascertain the reasons behind these geographical differences, but Ms. Snell said the results might relate to with the concentration of various industries in different locales, or even cultural differences.

Half of older workers like their job

Older workers are more likely to say they love or like their jobs, with 53% of workers 55-years-old and older agreeing, versus 37% of 18-to-34-year-olds.

Forty-one percent of 35-to-44-year-olds said they loved or liked their job, as did 46% of 45-to-54-year-olds. And 19% of the younger workers said they don’t like or hate their jobs, compared with just 7% of the older group. Among those aged 35-to-44-years-old, 16% disliked their jobs, as did 10% of those aged 45-to-54.

While younger workers are “new in the career cycle,” Ms. Snell said, “the older age group may have more found their comfort level for their work over time.”

Similarly, 50% of married respondents agreed they love or like their jobs, versus 29% of single workers. And 9% of married workers said they don’t like or hate their jobs, compared with 24% of single workers.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that workers who earn more are likelier to report higher levels of job satisfaction. About half of those earning more than $75,000 said they like or love their job, versus about one-third of those who earn less than $35,000.

Still, money doesn’t solve everything: 13% of workers earning more than $75,000 said they don’t like or hate their jobs, not much different than the 16% of workers earning less than $35,000 who said that.

Andrea Coombes is MarketWatch’s assistant personal finance editor, based in San Francisco.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120300361292668609.html

Monday, January 28, 2008

Are You Your Own Worst Enemy?

Maybe the reason you’re not reaching your goals is … you. How to know, and simple ways to stop sabotaging yourself.
By Hallie Levine Sklar
“Everyone knows someone who does it—the coworker who whines about not getting a promotion when she’s chronically late, or the woman who complains she’s not getting enough attention from her husband even though she’s constantly sniping at him,” says Carol Kauffman, Ph.D., assistant clinical professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School. “These people are forever working toward some goal that seems elusive. In fact, their own actions are sabotaging them—they’ve become their own worst enemy.”

While it may seem obvious to everyone else, the person engaging in this kind of behavior is usually clueless. “Most of the time, we don’t even realize it,” says Jay Jackman, M.D., a psychiatrist and career consultant in Palo Alto, CA. “We unconsciously respond to stressful situations in ways that hurt us.” A study published by Jackman and his wife, Stanford economist Myra Strober, Ph.D., in the Harvard Business Review found that people tend to sabotage themselves in five major ways: denial, brooding, jealousy, fear of feedback, and procrastination. Sound familiar? Read on.

http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsoul/personalgrowth/articlegh.aspx?cp-documentid=2747612&GT1=10822

Friday, January 25, 2008

Career of Your Dreams, Career of Your Genes

Twin studies show that the career of your dreams may be the career of your genes.

In 1979, identical twins Dean and David Kopsell took part in a study I conducted on cooperation and competition between twins. They were 9 years old at the time, a highly compatible pair who worked together on their puzzle task with skill and motivation. The smiles on their faces reflected the joy they felt in a job well done. Their IQ scores were well above average and perfectly matched.

Today, at 29, Dean and David are both finishing doctoral degrees in horticulture at the University of Georgia and are seeking similar research positions at the same institution.

How did the Kopsell twins come to walk the same career path? What has made me a researcher and not an investment banker, another person a teacher and not a ditchdigger? And why do some people find their jobs gratifying, while others experience only the daily grind? Since we spend most of our waking hours in the workplace, these questions are key.

Increasingly, researchers have been turning to identical and fraternal twins for answers, with dramatic results. They are finding that genetics, in addition to familial interests, educational, social and other environmental pressures, have a considerable impact on how we choose what we do--and how happy we are with that choice.

Twins reared apart, one University of Minnesota study showed, chose jobs that were similar in terms of complexity level, motor skills and physical demands. In other studies, twins have been shown to have similar tendencies when it comes to “enterprising,” “conventional” and “artistic” undertakings; they also share basic interests, be they science, the pastry arts or public speaking. In both sets of measurements, the similarities between identical twins are greater than between fraternal twins.

Is Everybody Happy?

But it’s not only the content of our work that is influenced by genes. Studies with twins have shown us that our satisfaction on the job may be at least 30% attributable to genetic factors. This finding is intriguing because it seems to be related to “intrinsic job satisfaction"--questions of challenge or achievement--rather than “extrinsic” factors such as work conditions or supervision. In other words, internal rewards that come from teaching students or composing music, for example, affect the twins’ job satisfaction in more similar ways than working late hours or having an irate boss. This makes it easier to understand why identical twins reared apart chose similar occupations--their matched genetic predisposition probably steered them toward tasks at which they both excelled and which brought them joy, pride and satisfaction. People in general may, therefore, better understand their level of job satisfaction in terms of how well their abilities and opportunities coincide.

People bring a unique predisposition or set of expectations to the workplace that may be harder to modify than previously thought. And though tinkering with the lighting or buying a better printer or hiring companionable staff may improve job satisfaction, it may not help as much as one might hope. These same genetically influenced tendencies, in more “satisfied” types, may help explain why some people persist at interesting or fulfilling jobs even when they offer only modest pay or slim hopes of advancement. When we like what we do we may be more tolerant of troubles that arise from time to time in any work.

Job satisfaction may also partly be affected by our characteristic happiness levels. Recent twin research showed that the genetic contributions to happiness and stability are about 50% and 80%, respectively, while life events have only a transitory effect on happiness. How does this work on the job? A bonus may momentarily elevate the satisfaction of an upbeat worker, but is unlikely to sustain it. Longer coffee breaks may lighten the loathing of a despondent employee, but won’t alter his outlook for long. Moreover, two individuals with equally well-matched talents and tasks may vary in job satisfaction if one is typically happy and the other is typically depressed.

Hitting the Road

Have you been with your company 20 years? Changed employers every six months? It may be partly in the genes. In twin studies, genetic factors explained 36% of why individuals switch jobs, and 26% of why they change careers.

Formal studies define the factors affecting job choice and satisfaction. They cannot, however, capture the unique personal decisions and unforeseen events that all of us face when fashioning our careers. An in-depth look at the lives of prominent identical and fraternal twins may help bring these fascinating details into sharper focus.

The Unplanned Presidents

“A Pair of Presidents Keep It All in the Family” was the headline of a 1995 New York Times article. As I read, I found fascinating and compelling beyond words the rare matched achievements of Harold T. Shapiro, president of Princeton University, and his brother, Bernard J. Shapiro, principal (the Canadian equivalent of president) of McGill University in Canada. Becoming a university president is a position held by so few people that to find it repeated by identical twins suggests that the twins’ genetic abilities and personalities were contributing factors.

I met Harold in his office at Princeton University. His warm and gracious manner promised sincere and thoughtful dialogue on his twinship and career. His office was the epitome of neatness and order, strikingly different from the typically cluttered halls of academia. I saw only one other such office--the one belonging to Bernard. Bernard also welcomed me personally, showing the same friendliness and grace. Opera music played in the background, an interest the twins share. Bernard believes his twin has more natural talent, but said, “I was a better musician because I practiced.”

Indeed, more than their differences, the Shapiros, like many identical twins, presented unique versions of the same score:

o In 1961, both twins entered top graduate schools, but in different fields. Harold attended Princeton University in economics, and Bernard attended Harvard University in education. Both chose statistical specializations, prompting Harold’s comment: “Something is going on here. I recognize long odds when I see them.”

o Harold earned his Ph.D. in 1964, becoming assistant professor of economics at the University of Michigan. Bernard received his Ed.D. in 1967, becoming assistant professor of education at Boston University The twins served as university provosts in partially overlapping years, Harold at the University of Michigan and Bernard at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. Harold initially declined the presidency of Princeton, and Bernard initially declined the presidency of McGill. Both universities pursued their candidates, who eventually accepted second offers. Both twins also are the first Jewish presidents of their universities.

Challenge and change draw many people to new jobs. However, the Shapiros never mentioned status as a factor affecting their career choices, something many people would consider important. I also noticed that neither twin expressed regret at sacrificing his personal research programs for administrative responsibilities, something many academics (including myself) find surprising.

Paradoxically, the Shapiros’ different routes to university presidency were similarly unconventional. Neither twin sought the highest post in his academic institution, but opportunities came their way. A boyhood friend observed that while neither twin entertained presidential ambitions, they probably asked the same important questions when the offers came: Is this job interesting? Could I make a contribution? Would I do it well?

Physicians, Not Farmers

Drs. Judith and Julie Swain replay themes brought out by the Shapiro twins. Each holds the chair of the cardiology department in her respective university, a demanding position that few people--and fewer women--attain.

Judith and Julie Swain were born in 1948 in Cypress, Calif., the only children of Joe and Christine Swain. The twins’ father was a salesman and their mother was a librarian. In 1994, at the age of 45, Judith became the only female chair of a major university’s cardiology department, at the University of Pennsylvania, and the first female president of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. She is currently a professor and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford University in Palo Alto. Julie, her older sister by five minutes, was the first female chief of cardiac surgery in an American medical center, Louisiana State University, and is chair of the Food and Drug Administration’s committee on circulatory system devices. She is currently a professor and associate director of the Kentucky Heart Institute at the University of Kentucky in Lexington.

The Swains saw their mother as a role model, someone who set high standards for her own accomplishments. According to Julie, “If we were farmers, we would be good farmers.” They agree that their parents were not responsible for their medical interests, only for the high motivational levels that each twin brought to these interests. Indeed, each credits her career choice to the television shows Dr. Kildare and Ben Casey, in which fictional doctors saved lives. However, because parents provide both genes and environments for their children, the twins’ motivations probably reflect a blend of both.

The twins’ separate medical programs led to their only major career difference: their medical specialty. (Judith studied cardiology, Julie, cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.) But both told me that their medical areas are reflections of their mentors’ interests and that each could easily imagine doing what the other sister does.

Personality parallels as well as similar skills seem to be driving the twins. Both work in their offices and laboratories from early morning until evening. Both twins chose not to have children, opting to care for cats instead. Some people might prefer a less frenetic lifestyle, but the twins thrive on this schedule. Clearly they chose careers commensurate with their outstanding intellect, boundless ambition and unlimited energy. (They both set aside time on weekends for sports activities, especially golf and polo.)

Julie’s remark, “If we were farmers, we would be good farmers,” is worth a second look. I believe she meant that both twins would do the best job possible regardless of the job. I agree, except that the job would have to fit the drive and direction that is essential to both twins’ satisfaction. It may be no accident that the Swain sisters are not farmers.

Twist of Fate

Most people do not know that a twin walked on the moon. On April 16, 1972, identical twin Charlie Duke Jr. departed the Earth’s atmosphere as a lunar module pilot on Apollo 16, becoming the 10th individual to reach the moon’s surface five days later.

While Charlie was in transit, his family was allowed into mission control. When his brother Bill entered the medical laboratory, several staff members who did not know Charlie was an identical twin were shocked, believing he was thousands of miles away and hurtling ever deeper into space.

Why wasn’t Bill buckled in along-side his brother? While it may be only part of the story, one physical difference between the twins had crucial consequences for their early development, twin relationship and professional goals: Bill was born with a heart defect. His shortness of breath and reduced exercise tolerance precluded his participation in active team sports. He also believes that his restricted physical activity and frequent medical visits explain his desire to become a physician.

The case of Charles and Bill Duke demonstrates that a major environmental event can alter genetic predisposition, leading twins to very different career paths. Bill’s inability to join Charlie in athletic pursuits casts a shadow on their twinship. Bill resented being restricted from sports events and sensed parental favoritism toward his more physically fit twin. Their relationship included close moments, but was marked by friction.

I was fascinated by Charlie and Bill as twins because their apparent differences in occupation and life events disguise their fundamental similarities in intelligence and personality. Both twins obtained top grades in their (separate) high schools. They see themselves as “inquisitive, studious and goal-oriented, dedicated to doing the best job possible.”

Charlie says he could imagine doing what his brother does because being a doctor would be “interesting and rewarding.” Bill, on the other hand, realizes that his condition “colored” his world, making it “hard to say” if he might otherwise have joined his twin in space.

Same Nurture; Different Nature

Fraternal twins (who share approximately half their genes) present an informative contrast. Because they are raised in the same environment but are not genetically identical, they help us see the influence of environmental factors. David and Bill Koch are a marvelous lesson in just how modest family influences can be.

Brown-haired David Koch is a chemical engineer and executive vice-president of Koch Industries, the second largest closely held company in the United States. The diversified company, founded in 1940 by his father, operates oil refineries, manufactures chemicals and refining equipment, and owns large cattle ranges. David’s fraternal twin, strawberry-blond-haired Bill, also had been involved in the company until business disagreements led to a series of courtroom battles between the brothers.

David and Bill Koch were born in 1940 in Wichita, Kan. Their behavioral differences emerged early. David was gregarious and athletic, Bill withdrawn and awkward; David was a good student from the start, Bill blossomed in high school and college; David’s interests in people and activities were “mainstream,” Bill’s were “unusual.” The boys competed in many ways, often engaging in unhealthy conflicts.

The twins’ college years at MIT were their friendliest. Both majored in chemical engineering, like their father had; both joined the same fraternity and lived at the fraternity house; both also played college basketball. By 1963, both had received their master’s degrees and by 1971, both were working for the family firm. But by 1980, they were no longer speaking--a far cry from the intimate and ongoing bond that many identical twins share.

“We could not be more different in our behaviors, personalities and interests,” David said. “If the environment has a major influence we should be similar, but we are more different than alike.”

Some people eagerly anticipate their daily work activities, while others spend hours watching the clock. Some people are a blend of the two, embracing certain aspects of their job and avoiding others. If we are dissatisfied with our work, it could be that our genetically influenced predisposition conflicts with the content and rewards of the job. If we want to be happy with our career, twin studies strongly suggest we pay close attention to our inner yearnings.

http://health.yahoo.com/work-overview/career-of-your-dreams-career-of-your-genes/pt--Psychology_Today_articles_pto-19990901-000038.html

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Dreams About Work Can Be a Nightmare

CUBICLE CULTURE By JARED SANDBERG
Dreams About Work Can Be a Nightmare
Researchers have found that the brain’s activities during sleep help us see connections and patterns we wouldn’t otherwise make or see. But if they stumble onto the subject of work, you can only hope that they don’t come true.

A recent survey commissioned by Staples, the office-supply giant, indicates that 51% of small-business professionals dream about work. Of those, 70% say that when they wake up, they turn their work dreams into action.

That would have been a little difficult for Christel Hyden, whose work has involved planning academic conferences. She recently dreamed that she had planned a conference at which ‘80s pop star Lionel Richie was to deliver a keynote address titled “Women’s Issues From a Global Perspective.” But, in her dream, Mr. Richie didn’t show up, and she had to find him. He wasn’t in Los Angeles—“That’s where I would normally look for him,” Ms. Hyden says—but in the Australian outback. And after a globe-spanning trip, she located him. “He didn’t put up a fight,” she says. “He came back and gave an unremarkable speech.”

But what she could use from the dream to do her job better escapes her. “I didn’t wake up and grab my to-do list,” she says. “It wasn’t meaningful at all.”

Dreams can come true. But if they stumble onto the subject of work, you can only hope in most cases that they won’t. When dreams don’t involve the final exam you never studied for, they frequently seem to be peopled by random colleagues and involve getting places that are never reached and doing tasks that are never done. And you don’t need Freud or Jung to help you decode another category of work dreams in which your psyche’s message repeats the painfully obvious: You need a vacation or a new job. Thanks, genius, for the heads up.

Carol Anne Buckley, a communications and training specialist, didn’t need to dream about her life in PowerPoint format to know that she was doing too much of it. But she did it anyway, presenting her life to herself in colorless slides. “Of all the possible media you can have in dreams—sight, touch, taste, sound—I’m down to Helvetica bold,” she says.

Similarly, when Anthony Lombardi worked at a brokerage firm in Chicago, he dreamed of a black office telephone two stories tall that was ringing off the hook. He couldn’t dial out or answer the calls in time “because the number buttons were as big as Volkswagens,” he says. The dream told him what he already knew: “I had just been there for too long.”

Even the Staples survey acknowledges that the utility of work-related dreams has limits. The survey asked where small business owners got their best ideas, and it found that 39.4% got them while driving and 14.6% while showering. Only 6.3% got them dreaming or lying in bed. Still, bed was more fruitful than brainstorming sessions (6%) or the workplace itself (only 5%).

It’s true that “a lot of dreams are so pedestrian it almost hurts to listen to them,” says Robert Stickgold, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a consultant on the Staples survey.

But there is a growing body of research that indicates that sleep is a time when we can figure out patterns beyond our grasp during the day. In experiments Dr. Stickgold has conducted with puzzles, people tested one morning performed better the next morning than they did if retested later in the day. And it wasn’t just because of the rest. During sleep, the brain engages in processing that explores connections and ideas in trial-and-error fashion.

“What’s getting activated are connections that wouldn’t normally be activated,” he says. The brain’s sleep activity may be “strengthening some of these and weakening others so that the next day you’re functioning in a better milieu.”

Your dreams may be useful to you simply as reminders that you need to address certain issues sooner than their placement at the bottom of your to-do list would suggest. That’s the case for John Reneski, who works in sales and marketing. “My subconscious is kicking me in the rear end,” he says.

Some argue that the utility isn’t in dreams but in sleep’s processing activity independent of them—and in the way you think about dreams. “The way you interpret tells you something about yourself,” says Jan Born, a memory and sleep researcher at the University of Lübeck in Germany. Dreams are like Rorschach tests, he adds. They “are basically always a report of a memory that is reconstructed while the person is awake.”

Roughly half of all dreams are related to anxiety and fear, some researchers say. That explains why lawyers like Anthony Laporte can have dreams that, he says, are filled with “witnesses who turn into snakes or juries made up of Attila the Hun clones.” But maybe a dream like that helps keep him on his toes? “It has never been helpful,” he says. Still, he worries that if he didn’t have such dreams it would mean he had stopped caring about work.

A dream’s usefulness can be ephemeral. Kathryn Tom Engle, a communications executive, once thought she had a good enough idea in a dream that she wrote it down in the middle of the night. In the morning, she says, she realized “it was awful.”

But putting dreaming about work into perspective, she notes that it bothers her more to lie awake thinking about work. “At least when I’m dreaming,” she says, “it means that I’ve fallen asleep.”

• Email me at . Join a discussion on today’s column. To see past columns, please go to CareerJournal.com.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120035022511289631.html?mod=careers_left_column_hs

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Get Your Dream Job

GET YOUR DREAM JOB

The First Step to Finding Your Dream Job
There’s no formula that works for everyone, so be as specific as you can when figuring out what the job you’ve always fantasized about really is

More Than One Road to the C-Suite
While certain jobs are still statistically more likely to lead to top-level jobs, executive recruiters say more factors are coming into play

Slide Show: The Path to Your Dream Job
From executive chef to chief financial officer, here are 20 enviable occupations and the job paths most statistically likely to lead you there

When the Dream Job Becomes a Nightmare
Yes, it can happen, even when a situation looks like a great fit. Here’s how to probe deeper during the interiew process

Video: A Teacher’s Tale
Robert Pondiscio left his job as BusinessWeek’s communications director five years ago to teach fifth-graders in the South Bronx. The experience led him to his true calling

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Career Change Gaffes

Career Change Gaffes
By Selena Dehne, JIST Publishing

Getting from Point A to Point B in your career path isn’t easy. Along the way, you’ll experience roadblocks and uphill climbs, and there’s a good chance you’ll feel pretty lost from time to time. Like most professionals, you can also expect to face a major fork in the road—the decision to stay in your current career or make the leap to another.

For some, the prospect of a new career is exciting and offers the chance to break free of a job stuck in the doldrums. For others, career change sparks feelings of terror, as though it were synonymous with plunging into an unknown abyss. Either way, it’s a situation almost all professionals are bound to encounter at some point.

In fact, 74 percent of U.S. workers reported they have changed careers at least once, according to a new survey of more than 5,700 workers conducted by Harris Interactive. More than one-third of those surveyed said they are currently interested in a career change.

Of those who were unwilling to pursue a career change, 35 percent did not want to start over in an entry-level position, 39 percent were comfortable with their current career and viewed change as scary, 22 percent expressed financial concerns, and 16 percent said they’d need to receive additional education to successfully change careers. 

Career coach Katy Piotrowski, M.Ed., author of “The Career Coward’s Guide to Changing Career”s (JIST © 2008), believes it’s not uncommon for these fears to hinder people who refuse to change careers or those currently in transition. 

“When faced with a career change, chances are you’re wrestling with a tiny voice inside of you that keeps whispering ‘What if it doesn’t work? Wouldn’t it be better to just keep doing what you’re already doing and not risk failing?’” she says. 

It’s true. Sometimes a career change can be a huge mistake. Imagine leaving a ho-hum career to begin one that’s even more dreadful. Or discovering your bank account’s empty because you were unprepared to deal with a change in your finances. In spite of these roadblocks, a brand-new career could be the very thing you need to revamp your life.

To prevent a career change from derailing your goals, finances and happiness, Piotrowski says to steer clear of the following gaffes:

Gaffe 1: Jumping the Gun

It can be tempting to make a hasty decision when a killer opportunity comes along or the thought of spending another day on the job seems excruciating. Piotrowski, however, recommends taking baby steps to execute a new career strategy.

“Plan a timeline of one to two years to implement your career change. Gather information for four to six months, and then get moving on activities that will bridge into your new specialty over the next few months. Remember, you can make the switch over time. You don’t need to do it all at once.”

Gaffe 2: Skipping Your First Steps

It’s not unusual for people to know they need out of their current career, while having no idea which one will suit them best. In situations like these, Piotrowski encourages people to turn to the Yellow Pages, Internet or books to learn more about specific careers. “Make gathering information your first priority, rather than putting a lot of pressure on yourself to change careers quickly,” she says.

“Spend time looking through industry categories and a variety of jobs to get ideas about new-career areas that may appeal to you. This can open your eyes to a multitude of options you hadn’t considered before.”

Informational interviews—the best-kept career change secret, according to Piotrowski—will also help aspiring career changers come to a solution. The key is to seek people already immersed in a particular career and pick their brains with questions such as, “What training do I need to do well in this job? “What kind of money will I make?” and “What’s a day on the job really like?”

Finally, people should try a few career experiments to test their abilities and build experience to move into a new career more easily.

“A career experiment can be one of thousands of activities that allow you to learn more about a new type of work before you commit to choosing it,” Piotrowski says. Career experiments include shadowing a specialist, volunteering, taking field trips and designing projects to enhance knowledge and skills.

Gaffe 3: Forgetting to Present the New You

It’s true career change rookies are at a disadvantage when it comes to convincing a hiring manager that they deserve to make the cut—they’ve never had a job like the one they’re looking to fill. That doesn’t mean they can’t find a few savvy ways to get around this roadblock.

When writing their résumés, career changers should include relevant information about their background that would appeal to the employer. Piotrowski recommends focusing on functions rather than previous job titles.

Finally, once an interview has been landed, career changers should take a few steps to ensure they have plenty of strengths to talk about, despite their lack of experience. “Brainstorm examples of how your background ties to the new position you want. Next, make sure you’ve got a few powerful stories to share that include What, How, and Proof components to demonstrate your achievements and skills. Finally, create a portfolio to bring along on interviews,” Piotrowski says.
This can include letters of appreciation from customers, pictures or samples of work, training certificates, performance reviews and anything else that portrays you as a powerhouse professional ready to take on a new and exciting challenge.

Selena Dehne is a career writer for JIST Publishing who shares the latest occupational, career and job search information available with job seekers and career changers.

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 10:11 AM

http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=1209&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=6487ddbd017f433987ae0584215245b6-254059223-X0-2

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Blame game: My name made me do it

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
Your name made you do it, albeit unconsciously, suggests new research that finds your name can negatively undermine your goals.
Psychologists in marketing at Yale and the University of California, San Diego studying the unconscious influence of names say a preference for our own names and initials — the “name-letter effect” — can have some negative consequences.

Students whose names begin with C or D get lower grades than those whose names begin with A or B; major league baseball players whose first or last names began with K (the strikeout-signifying letter) are significantly more likely to strike out, according to the report published in the December issue of Psychological Science.

“We found that our own-name liking sabotages success for people whose initials match negative performance labels,” the report says.

Assistant professors Leif Nelson of UCSD and Joseph Simmons of Yale conducted five studies over five years (including one lab experiment) using information from thousands of individuals: 6,398 baseball players (377 had K as either a first or last initial); 15,000 MBA students; 294 undergraduate students; 170 law schools with more than 390,000 lawyers; and 284 participants in their laboratory experiment.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Students | MBA | Leif Nelson
“The conscious process is baseball players want to get a hit and students want to get A’s,” Nelson says. “So if you get a change in performance consistent with the name-letter effect, it clearly shows there must be some unconscious desire operating in the other direction.”

The researchers’ work supports a series of studies published since 2002 that have found the “name-letter effect” causes people to make life choices based on names that resemble their own. Those studies by Brett Pelham, an associate professor of psychology at SUNY University at Buffalo, have found that people are disproportionately likely to live in states or cities resembling their names, have careers that resemble their names and even marry those whose surnames begin with the same letter as their own.

“If this is an unconscious preference, it suggests we don’t really have free will about certain important decisions,” Pelham says. “We don’t really make those decisions for the reasons we thought we did.”

The twist, Pelham says, is that he has believed the name-letter effect would apply only to positive outcomes. Nelson and Simmons, he says, are “showing it applies more so to negative things than positive things.”

In the first study of baseball players, Nelson and Simmons pored over 93 years of statistics for players who had at least 100 plate appearances. The second study looked at 15 years of grades for MBA students, but they did not use F because not all schools use that designation.

The study did find that those with initials of A or B don’t perform any better, though. Another study of law school admissions found lesser-rated schools had a smaller proportion of lawyers with name initials A and B. The lab experiment used an anagram test that confirmed the previous studies.

The researchers say the effect is definitely more than coincidence but is small nevertheless.

“I know plenty of Chrises and Davids who have done very well in school,” Simmons says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-15-name-game_N.htm

Friday, November 16, 2007

Name initials may influence grades: study

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Certain initials may look better than others as monograms but they can also have an impact on how well a person performs in a sport or at school, according to a new study.

Researchers who studied the impact of initials found that baseballs players whose first or last name starts with the letter K, which signifies a strikeout, tended to strike out more often than other players.

And students whose names start with the letters C or D, which denote mediocre marks in some grading systems, did not perform as well as other pupils with different initials.

“Just having the right initial doesn’t spontaneously make you a better baseball player, but it can spontaneously make you a slightly worse baseball player,” said Leif Nelson, of the University of California, San Diego.

Nelson and Joseph Simmons, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, studied the effect of first or last-name initials in situations where letters corresponded to an undesirable outcome.

They found that people whose initial matched a negative label performed more poorly than others. The findings suggest that the unconscious mind finds one’s own initials appealing even when it compromises success, according to the study that will be published in the journal Psychological Science.

The researchers examined the effect in baseball, in academia and in a lab setting where a reward-based test was performed.

“These are domains where people really, really focus on top performance and still this unconscious desire to match their initial seems to be undermining their performance,” Nelson explained in an interview.

In baseball, players aim to avoid striking out. But after looking at 93 years of Major League baseball data and poring over more than 6,000 player names, the authors found that those whose names began with a K struck out more than others.

The effect was the same in a study of the grade point averages of 15,000 graduate students over a 15-year period.

“Cs and Ds do reliably worse than everyone else,” said Nelson.

“All the students are working very hard to succeed as much as possible, it just happens to be that if you find failure less aversive than someone else, you’ll fail slightly more often,” he added.

The researchers said their findings are in line with the name-letter effect, in which a person’s favorite letter is often one of their initials. The favored initial may influence life outcomes, such the city a person lives in or the choice of occupation.

Nelson said the study demonstrates the power of the unconscious mind in controlling behavior in certain situations.

“Certainly, my wife made sure we didn’t name our daughter with a C or a D after reading the paper,” Nelson said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071116/lf_nm_life/initials_performance_dc

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Do-gooders can become the worst cheats

Do-gooders can become the worst cheats
Study: Sense of moral superiority might lead to rationalizing bad behavior
By Jeanna Bryner

Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats.

Stop us if this sounds familiar.

When asked to describe themselves, most people typically will rattle off a list of physical features and activities (for example, “I do yoga” or “I’m a paralegal"). But some people have what scientists call a moral identity, in which the answer to the question would include phrases like “I am honest” and “I am a caring person.”

Past research has suggested that people who describe themselves with words such as honest and generous are also more likely to engage in volunteer work and other socially responsible acts.

But often in life, the line between right and wrong becomes blurry, particularly when it comes to cheating on a test or in the workplace. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people.

In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.

The results recall the seeming disconnect between the words and actions of folks like televangelist and fraud convict Jim Bakker or admitted meth-buyer Ted Haggard, former president of the National Evangelical Association, an umbrella group representing some 45,000 churches.

“The principle we uncovered is that when faced with a moral decision, those with a strong moral identity choose their fate (for good or for bad) and then the moral identity drives them to pursue that fate to the extreme,” said researcher Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington Business School in Seattle. “So it makes sense that this principle would help explain what makes the greatest of saints and the foulest of hypocrites.”

Why cheat? Why not?
Why would a person who thinks of himself as honest cheat? The researchers suggest an “ethical person” could view cheating as an OK thing to do, justifying the act as a means to a moral end.

As Reynolds put it: “If I cheat, then I’ll get into graduate school, and if I get into graduate school, then I can become a doctor and think about all the people I’m going to help when I’m a doctor.”

A competitive playing field, whether at a university or business, can also motivate cheating behaviors.

“Cheating is a way to get ahead in a competitive environment where there are rewards for winning or getting ahead of others,” said Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, who was not involved in the current study. “It seems like there is an increasing desire and expectation in our society to ‘be the best.’ “

Even if a person doesn’t justify his unethical behaviors, “cheating can save lots of time and energy and take advantage of the knowledge and reasoning of others who are more adept, but could be disastrous if one is caught,” Kruger said. He added, “I am not surprised that some of the extreme examples of cheating — ripping the relevant pages out of library books so other students cannot see them — happen in intensely competitive environments, law school in this example (of ripping out book pages).”

Cheating basics
Reynolds and University of Washington colleague Tara Ceranic surveyed about 230 college students with an average age of 21 who were enrolled in an upper-level business course. The survey measured moral identity with 12 questions about the importance of certain characteristics — such as generosity, willingness to work hard, honesty and compassion — and whether things like clothing, books, activities and friends were associated with the moral characteristics.

Students were also asked whether they had engaged in each of 13 cheating behaviors, including using cheat sheets (crib notes), copying from another student and turning in work completed by someone else.

Overall, cheating was rampant.

More than 90 percent reported having committed at least one of the 13 cheating behaviors.
More than 55 percent reported saying nothing when they had benefited from an instructor’s grading error.
Nearly 50 percent reported having inappropriately collaborated on an individual assignment.
Nearly 42 percent indicated copying from another student during a test.
Students who scored high on moral identity and also considered cheating to be morally wrong were the least likely to cheat. In contrast, the worst cheaters were the “moral” students who considered cheating to be an ethically justifiable behavior in certain situations.

“If they think it’s wrong, they’ll never do it,” Reynolds told LiveScience. “If they think it’s OK, they do it in spades.”

The researchers found similar results when they surveyed 290 managers, asking them whether they had engaged in 17 workplace “no-no’s,” including using company services for personal use, padding an expense account and taking longer than necessary to do a job. The managers with moral identities were also most likely to engage in the sketchy office behavior.

“When people have a strong moral identity, they think of themselves as great moral people, their behavior tends to go to the extremes,” Reynolds said.

Cheat-proof tactics
In order to encourage students and managers to forego cheating in exchange for ethical behaviors, Reynolds suggests ethics education. Classes, newsletters and other means of communication should help organizations to communicate which behaviors are morally acceptable and which are not.

The old-school method of rewards and punishments could help. “We learn through rewards and punishments so to the extent that schools crack down when they need to crack down, we’d all be better off,” Reynolds said.

For managers recruiting new employees, just because a person identifies himself or herself as honest doesn’t mean they won’t cut corners.

“If you can recruit people with a moral identity and then train them appropriately, you’ll get some of the best behavior you can imagine,” Reynolds said. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21820808/wid/11915773?gt1=10613

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Music lessons pay off in higher earnings: poll

TORONTO (Reuters Life!) - Those hours practicing piano scales or singing with a choral group weren’t for nothing because people with a background in music tend to have a higher education and earn more, according to a new survey.

The poll by Harris Interactive, an independent research company, showed that 88 percent of people with a post-graduate education were involved in music while in school, and 83 percent of people earning $150,000 or more had a music education.

“Part of it is the discipline itself in learning music, it’s a rigorous discipline, and in an ensemble situation, there’s a great deal of working with others. Those types of skills stand you well in careers later in life,” said John Mahlmann, of the National Association for Music Education in Reston, Virginia, which assisted in the survey.

In addition to the practical skills gained from studying music, people questioned in the online poll said it also gave them a sense of personal fulfillment.

Students who found music to be extremely or very influential to their fulfillment were those who had vocal lessons and who played in a garage band. Nearly 80 percent of the 2,565 people who took part in the survey last month who were still involved in music felt the same way.

“That’s the beauty of music, that they can bring both hard work and enjoyment together, which doesn’t always happen elsewhere,” Mahlmann added in and interview.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/lf_nm_life/music_dc

Monday, October 15, 2007

If Not for Your Kids, Would You Really Be Dancing in Rio?

WSJ CUBICLE CULTURE By JARED SANDBERG
If Not for Your Kids, Would You Really Be Dancing in Rio?

It’s a common lament in the work world: colleagues who say the only reason they put up with the slog of work—the only reason they aren’t out pursuing their dreams as a bandleader, dog breeder or novelist—is because of their kids’ hairy tuition bills.

So many people tell you to “follow your dreams”—from commencement speakers to executive coaches—that it is easy to get the impression you aren’t. But there is scant evidence that people aren’t doing pretty much what they want; and putting the kids through school often tops the dream list.

Pouring money into children-related expenses can feel more like a sacrifice than a choice when you consider what life would be like without children. The very notion conjures jet-setting and filthy richness.

“We’d be able to say, ‘Hey, let’s go to Bermuda for the weekend,’ “ says George Reinhart, who works for a business research organization. But would he actually go?

“No,” he says.

While people may talk about freeing themselves from work once they’re done with the bulk of child-rearing costs, they usually don’t. The Families and Work Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, found that only 3% of parents over 57 years old whose youngest child is between 22 and 25 said they were very likely to leave their job in the next year. And the same paltry percentage said they were “somewhat likely” to leave their job in the next year.

So why do people say it? Fantasies of grand departures can come in handy, says Ellen Galinsky, president and co-founder of the New York-based institute and mother of two. She used to carry around her passport on the off chance that someone would ask her to go to lunch in Brazil.

“It was a ridiculous fantasy. But I completely enjoyed my fantasy, particularly when work was crazy,” she says. Her farthest lunch destination has been midtown Manhattan.

Part of the delusion, of course, is that the bills don’t stop just because the kid graduated from college. Ms. Galinsky is still paying off the second mortgage she took out for her son’s college 12 years after he graduated.

Often, one astronomical cost merely is replaced by others that may not have the same ring of nobility as college costs but are still necessary: “Pensions, 401(k)s and health insurance are the things that are more likely to tie down my professional peers, especially health insurance,” says Tom Archer, a strategy and operations consultant.

“People are as happy as they were 20 years ago,” says Natalie J. Allen, a professor of organizational psychology at the University of Western Ontario. That’s why when people say they are staying on the job only for the benefit of the kids, she says, “I’m not convinced that people mean it.”

According to a Gallup Poll, 90% of Americans are at least somewhat satisfied with their jobs and 75% say they’re satisfied with their pay. Two-thirds would take the same job again “without hesitation.”

Of course, there are tuition-indentured parents who make huge career sacrifices and simply punch the clock. Steven Shore, a financial analyst, has witnessed one organization’s leader languish until the boss finishes paying off the kids’ school. The boss isn’t the only one looking forward to his last college payment, and thus his retirement. “I’m also hoping there are no adolescent factors that delay the cycle being completed,” says Mr. Shore.

But dreams have a way of shifting from adventure to stability. David Eddy, a software programmer and father of a high-school junior, used to have an entrepreneurial dream with two high-tech start-ups—start-ups, he says, “that didn’t” because he hadn’t fully explored the markets. Now he’s dreaming of the predictability of a cubicle job that will help with looming tuition expenses. “Most dreams,” he says, “aren’t market researched.”

Some have managed to find a way to realize their dreams, despite the heady costs of school. Beverley Tucker, a banker in New York and Cincinnati, had no farming in his background of any kind. But that didn’t stop him from buying a cattle farm in South Dakota 11 years ago, when his youngest son was almost done with college.

After overcoming some financial obstacles, Mr. Tucker has moved far away from office life. “It never occurred to me that it would work out this well,” he says.

• Email me at . For a discussion on today’s column, go to WSJ.com/Forums.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Four Steps to a Better…

Originally published as Four Steps to Better Work Boundaries by Heather Boerner for Yahoo! HotJobs, this article pertains to makin a Better YOU! I’ve changed words from the original article, accordingly--the orginal article is posted.

Want a Better YOU? Saying “no” may be the key.

“It’s wonderful to be the go-to person to a point—until you find you’re totally overwhelmed, exhausted, resentful and in a time crunch,” said Susan Newman, author of “The Book of No: 250 Ways to Say It—And Mean It and Stop People-Pleasing Forever.” “Setting (workplace) boundaries means you will be doing better (work) and not spreading yourself all over the lot.”

Here’s how to get there:

1. Track your yeses.
You can’t set a boundary you don’t know you have, so watch yourself for a week, Newman said. Where do you say “yes”?

Do you agree to lunch (with that coworker) on the day of a major presentation?

Do you accept another project on top of the eight you already have?

Do you volunteer to change the printer’s ink cartridge for a harried coworker?

Do you work on the Saturday of your daughter’s recital?

2. Figure out your priorities.
“Every time you say yes, you’re giving up something,” said Newman. So get your priorities straight:

Do you need to be everyone’s best friend or be the last person to leave work each day? Or is it more important to choose projects that will advance your career and give yourself time to do them?

“You should always ask yourself, ‘Are these things moving me forward and gaining me respect, or is it just one more piece of busy work?’” she said.

3. Share them (with your boss and coworkers).
Now that you know, let everyone you work with know in a clear, friendly way, said Debra Mandel, author of “Your Boss is Not Your Mother: Eight Steps to Eliminating Office Drama and Creating Positive Relationships At Work.”

“It’s valuable to inform people that you’re changing your approach to work,” she said. “You can simply say, ‘I know I’ve been overworking myself and so I’m going to start taking a little more time.’”

Scared to say it? You’re not alone. Some changes may be easier than others. Declining lunch with a coworker may be less frightening than declining a project from your boss.

So invite your boss into the decision-making: Of the 10 projects on your plate, which are highest priority? Can you work late during the week in return for having your weekends to yourself? Keep reminding your boss that you’re doing this to improve your work performance.

4. Keep doing it.
Now that you’ve set your boundary, your work is done. Right?

Wrong.

Expect your boss and coworkers to test you. Can’t you come out for drinks after work just this once? Can’t you take 10 minutes—OK, maybe 30—to talk your coworker down from her latest crisis—even though you have work to do? Can’t you take on this one extra project? It’s a one-time thing, your boss swears.

“Keep setting boundaries,” Mandel said. “Usually people want to have healthier relationships, and they’ll adapt.”

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobseeker/tools/ept/printallept.html?post=192&eptTemplete=careerarticles

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Getting Started with FindYourTune

Thank you for visiting FindYourTune! This entry contains helpful resources to help you get the most this site and the related Retirement and Career Managment sites.

Related Sites:
Use the Contact tab above for scheduling coaching support. Our staff responds to issues in a timely manner.

Find Assessments here: RetireDigest.

Learning resources:
RetirePlanet.com
RETIER.cc
ReTiering.com
RetireSuccess.com

Additional Support Resources:
ExpressionEngine User Guide
Knowledge Base
ExpressionEngine Wiki

If you need to hire a coach consider our Professionals Network. You can also place an ad on our Job Board if you prefer that professionals find you.

Love FindYourTune?  Help spread the word and make some spare change with our Affiliates program.

See you on the boards,

Tunerj / The RetireDoc

Find Your Tune

Not to take this FindYourTune musical model too far, but there are four octaves (voices) to this process, and all can be (should be) sung simultaneously.

[1] You need to find your NOTES of value. This is often an uncovering and rediscovering of your natural talents, interests and culture [TICs].

[2] You need to arrange your notes into a MELODY--and, yes, you can have several key melodies.

[3] Then you need to SING your melodies! Let others hear your music.

[4] You then need to decide where you are going to sing for your supper--your VENUE(s).

Monday, October 01, 2007

Four Steps to Better Work Boundaries

Four Steps to Better Work Boundaries, by Heather Boerner, for Yahoo! HotJobs

Want to advance your career? Saying “no” may be the key.

“It’s wonderful to be the go-to person to a point—until you find you’re totally overwhelmed, exhausted, resentful and in a time crunch,” said Susan Newman, author of “The Book of No: 250 Ways to Say It—And Mean It and Stop People-Pleasing Forever.” “Setting workplace boundaries means you will be doing better work and not spreading yourself all over the lot.”

Here’s how to get there:

1. Track your yeses.
You can’t set a boundary you don’t know you have, so watch yourself for a week, Newman said. Where do you say “yes”?
Do you agree to lunch with that coworker on the day of a major presentation?
Do you accept another project on top of the eight you already have?
Do you volunteer to change the printer’s ink cartridge for a harried coworker?
Do you work on the Saturday of your daughter’s recital?

2. Figure out your priorities.
“Every time you say yes, you’re giving up something,” said Newman. So get your priorities straight:
Do you need to be everyone’s best friend or be the last person to leave work each day? Or is it more important to choose projects that will advance your career and give yourself time to do them?
“You should always ask yourself, ‘Are these things moving me forward and gaining me respect, or is it just one more piece of busy work?’” she said.

3. Share them with your boss and coworkers.
Now that you know, let everyone you work with know in a clear, friendly way, said Debra Mandel, author of “Your Boss is Not Your Mother: Eight Steps to Eliminating Office Drama and Creating Positive Relationships At Work.”
“It’s valuable to inform people that you’re changing your approach to work,” she said. “You can simply say, ‘I know I’ve been overworking myself and so I’m going to start taking a little more time.’”
Scared to say it? You’re not alone. Some changes may be easier than others. Declining lunch with a coworker may be less frightening than declining a project from your boss.
So invite your boss into the decision-making: Of the 10 projects on your plate, which are highest priority? Can you work late during the week in return for having your weekends to yourself? Keep reminding your boss that you’re doing this to improve your work performance.

4. Keep doing it.
Now that you’ve set your boundary, your work is done. Right?
Wrong.
Expect your boss and coworkers to test you. Can’t you come out for drinks after work just this once? Can’t you take 10 minutes—OK, maybe 30—to talk your coworker down from her latest crisis—even though you have work to do? Can’t you take on this one extra project? It’s a one-time thing, your boss swears.
“Keep setting boundaries,” Mandel said. “Usually people want to have healthier relationships, and they’ll adapt.”

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobseeker/tools/ept/printallept.html?post=192&eptTemplete=careerarticles