Have you ever sold products? Stood in front of a board of directors and pitched an idea? I have.

In sales, there are two types of salespeople — salespeople whose goal is to sell some ‘stuff’ and salespeople who solve the client’s problem. Guess who is more successful?

Why is it then, when most unemployed executives network, connect, and interview, they focus on selling ‘stuff’ and not solving problems? I call this the Sales vs. Replenishment Model. And it works perfectly when looking for a job.

Replenishment is just what it means – you are there to replenish an open position. And you try your hardest to fashion yourself in a cookie-cutter way to fit into that replenishment model. What happens? You usually fail. Most accomplished account executives know that you can only replenish inventory for so long until your client smartens up (or someone else pitches them a better solution) and cuts/eliminates your order.

True Sales is the ability to listen, learn and understand what issues, problems, and opportunities your clients have and then try to help them solve them with one of your inventory. This clearly applies to your job search. You need to do a massive amount of research prior to your meeting, ask a lot of questions during the initial meeting, and then (and only then) do you present possible solutions to your lunch partner’s issues. One might say that this is a cookie-cutter approach to — but there is a lot less shoving a square peg into a round hole.

Bottom line — if you try to replenish, you lower yourself to every other salesperson out there hawking their stuff. If you endeavor to solve one of the company’s problems or present an alternate way to do things – you will instantly catch their attention and make a major impression.

Your chances to get that job have now risen dramatically.

More than 130,000 advertising professionals have lost their jobs in this Great Recession. Lemonade is about what happens when people who were once paid to be creative in advertising are forced to be creative with their own lives.

www.lemonademovie.com

How is your job search going? Not too good? Why not try something new?

Get Tough! The Best Jobs Are Never Advertised™ is a powerful workshop that will not only change HOW you search for a new position in this economy, but how to motivate yourself when you hit the frustrating ʻdipsʼ in your search. You will:

• Understand the critical factors that are impacting your job search right now.
• Access and employ bullet-proofing strategies against the economy.
• Ramp up every aspect of your marketing with techniques that will reshape the landscape of your search.

Rich will be working closely with Margo Meeker, Connecticut’s premiere Psychotherapist and Life Coach — together they will present a compelling workshop that will deliver clear strategies on how to find a job coupled with ideas on how to break through the simple obstacles that hold us back while unemployed.

Currently scheduled for:

Central Connecticut State University (only Rich)
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
5:00 PM to 6:00 PM

Temple Beth El in Stamford (Rich & Margo)
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM

Fairfield Library in Fairfield (Rich & Margo)
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

In this climate, it’s usually a waste of time to send out resumes. They go to people who can’t actually hire you. You want to talk to people who can. Here’s what you do when you finally meet them. See Part One here to learn about how to connect with them.

When the appointed day arrives, keep the following in mind:

• Your goal is to begin assembling a network, not to ask for a job. You’ve told the person you’re not going to do that, and for this to work, you really must not.
• Every supervisor is always on the lookout for talent. They never know when they will need someone, so you really are of interest to them.
• The first thing to understand is that even in times like these, PEOPLE ARE HIRING.
• The feedback you can get from each person will move you closer to a job, even if it’s just a little bit, so no matter what, the meeting will be beneficial.
• Ultimately, people are hired as much because someone likes them as because they are qualified.
• Each meeting has the potential to bring you one step closer to a job.

When the meeting starts, begin by thanking the person for his/her time. Then begin by asking questions about their background, how they got to that position, how did they come up with the idea of pet deodorant?

Listen carefully and attentively to all responses, and ask follow-up questions. Ultimately, they are going to turn the table and ask about you. You now have them. Tell them what you DO, not what you DID. Answer every question with enthusiasm and always add a positive spin. They will then ask where you are NOW. You then say: “Currently, I’m in transition and looking for opportunities in the _________ area. Do you know of any?”

This is the hardest question — but after you ask it, they usually start rattling off opportunities, companies, or contacts. Let’s get real — they know the game — but you have taken a real interest in them, they will take an interest in you.

At the end the the time, make sure to thank them for their time, and finish with something like this:
“Thank you. This has been incredibly helpful. I will definitely [do something they suggested.] Is there anyone else that you would recommend that I talk to?”

Take down any contact information they give you, thank them, and be on your way. When you get home, immediately write (not email) a thank-you note, and in it, mention specifically one piece of advice that was particularly helpful.

If at all possible (without awkwardness) leave the resume. Remember — it is very important that If you follow this plan and all goes well, at the end of the meeting, you’ve accomplished the following:

• You’ve made contact with someone who could, potentially, hire you.
• Your resume is on the desk of someone who could hire you.
• You’ve made them aware of your qualifications, and demonstrated that you are professional, motivated, and industrious.
• You’ve gotten another name of someone you can speak with.
• You’ve started, from scratch, a network of people who know you–who have seen your face and your qualifications–and who can advocate for you.

Often, however, you get more than this. Often the person you speak with will either:

• Say they don’t have any openings, but they know someone who does, and put you in touch with that person.
• Say they are hoping to hire again soon, and ask that you leave your materials
• Ask if you’d be interested in some part-time work or contract work with the company.
• Start a process by which you can be hired (by asking you to fill out an application, talk to HR, etc.

Sometimes, btw, this happens after they get your thank-you note, since that is such a rare occurrence in today’s world.

I want to be clear–this is not a magic potion that will land you a job immediately. But it is a significantly better use of your limited job-searching time than sending out resumes to people who have never met you.

It is scary, especially the first time you do it, but it really does work. My clients average about 1 job offer for every 5 – 7 meetings.

Let’s be candid — In this climate, it’s usually a waste of time to send out resumes. They go to people who can’t actually hire you. You want to talk to people who can. So here’s what you do:

Step 1: Identify a few companies (start with 3) who employ people who do what you do. Then identify people who supervise those people. It does not matter in the slightest that those companies are not hiring.

Step 2: Do some research on that person. See if they’ve been interviewed anywhere, just received a promotion, or have been connected in any way with the company’s success (new product, release, uptick in stock price, etc.).

Step 3: Carefully construct a letter to each person you identified in Step 1, writing something like this:

Dear Mr/Ms _____________

I just saw your interview in BusinessWeek a few weeks ago and was very interested in your new focus on Pet Underarm Deodorants. It’s quite a new niche for your company and it brought up a number of questions that interest me since I am in a related industry — I wonder if I might have a few moments of your time.

Please understand, I’m not asking you for a job. I’m just looking to talk to a fellow colleague in the marketplace. Your insight would be invaluable and the meeting would be very brief.

I will call your office next week in hopes of scheduling an appointment. I understand that you are very busy. The meeting will take no more than fifteen minutes of your time. I look forward to speaking with you.

Sincerely, [you]

Most important of all, DO NOT include a resume.

When your letter has had time to reach its destination, make the follow up phone call, and pleasantly request the meeting. Reiterate that you are preparing for a job search and are only seeking advice and feedback. Most people are willing to give 15 minutes. (My clients average well over 50-60% of the meetings they ask for.)

If they hesitate, offer to buy coffee at a nearby spot, and remind them how valuable their input would be.

It’s that easy. Tomorrow, we’ll cover what you do when you actually meet them. Stay tuned!

Here’s a fun list that I saw on Madatoms:

Denial
I’ve got plenty of money! I’ll start looking next week!

Anger
Craigslist and Monster sucks! I’ve got a college degree! Jobs should be looking for me!

Bargaining
I’ll just drive around looking for help wanted signs. I hear that Starbucks has health insurance!

Depression
Why did I major in Communications? I have no useful skills.

Acceptance
I didn’t know I qualified for unemployment! I love this country!

Of all the insulting labels lobbed at Wall Street over the past two years, you wouldn’t expect “overconfident” to be the one that hurt. But it has. This week’s New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell on Wall Street’s “psychology of overconfidence” struck a nerve.

By Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker Magazine.

In 1996, an investor named Henry de Kwiatkowski sued Bear Stearns for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. De Kwiatkowski had made—and then lost—hundreds of millions of dollars by betting on the direction of the dollar, and he blamed his bankers for his reversals.

The district court ruled in de Kwiatkowski’s favor, ultimately awarding him $164.5 million in damages. But Bear Stearns appealed—successfully—and in William D. Cohan’s engrossing account of the fall of Bear Stearns, “House of Cards,” the firm’s former chairman and C.E.O. Jimmy Cayne tells the story of what happened on the day of the hearing:

“Their lead lawyer turned out to be about a 300-pound goon from Long Island . . . a really irritating guy who had cross-examined me and tried to knock me around in the lower court trial. Now when we walk into the courtroom for the appeal, they’re arguing another case and we have to wait until they’re finished. Then I see my blood enemy stand up and he’s going to the bathroom. So I wait till he passes and then I follow him in and it’s just he and I in the bathroom. And I said to him, “Today you’re going to get your ass kicked, big.” He ran out of the room. He thought I might have wanted to start it right there and then.”

At the time Cayne said this, Bear Stearns had spectacularly collapsed. The eighty-five-year-old investment bank, with its shiny new billion-dollar headquarters and its storied history, was swallowed whole by J. P. Morgan Chase. Cayne himself had lost close to a billion dollars. His reputation—forty years in the making—was in ruins, especially when it came out that, during Bear’s final, critical months, he’d spent an inordinate amount of time on the golf course.

Did Cayne think long and hard about how he wanted to make his case to Cohan? He must have. Cayne understood selling; he started out as a photocopier salesman, working the nine-hundred-mile stretch between Boise and Salt Lake City, and ended up among the highest-paid executives in banking. He was known as one of the savviest men on the Street, a master tactician, a brilliant gamesman. “Jimmy had it all,” Bill Bamber, a former Bear senior managing director, writes in “Bear Trap: The Fall of Bear Stearns and the Panic of 2008” (a book co-written by Andrew Spencer). “The ability to read an opponent. The ability to objectively analyze his own strengths and weaknesses. . . . He knew how to exploit others’ weaknesses—and their strengths, for that matter—as a way to further his own gain. He knew when to take his losses and live to fight another day.”

Cohan asked Cayne about the last days of Bear Stearns, in the spring of 2008. Wall Street had become so spooked by rumors about the firm’s financial status that investors withdrew their capital, and no one would lend Bear the money required for its day-to-day operations. The bank received some government money, via J. P. Morgan. But Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, didn’t open the Fed’s so-called “discount window” to investment banks until J. P. Morgan’s acquisition of Bear was under way. What did Cayne think of Geithner? Picture the scene. The journalist in one chair, Cayne in another. Between them, a tape recorder. And the savviest man on Wall Street sets out to salvage his good name:

“The audacity of that jerk in front of the American people announcing he was deciding whether or not a firm of this stature and this whatever was good enough to get a loan. Like he was the determining factor, and it’s like a flea on his back, floating down underneath the Golden Gate Bridge, saying, “Raise the bridge.” This guy thinks he’s got everything. He’s got nothing.”

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, there have been two principal explanations for why so many banks made such disastrous decisions. The first is structural. Regulators did not regulate. Institutions failed to function as they should. Rules and guidelines were either inadequate or ignored. The second explanation is that Wall Street was incompetent, that the traders and investors didn’t know enough, that they made extravagant bets without understanding the consequences. But the first wave of postmortems on the crash suggests a third possibility: that the roots of Wall Street’s crisis were not structural or cognitive so much as they were psychological.

In “Military Misfortunes,” the historians Eliot Cohen and John Gooch offer, as a textbook example of this kind of failure, the British-led invasion of Gallipoli, in 1915. Gallipoli is a peninsula in southern Turkey, jutting out into the Aegean. The British hoped that by landing an army there they could make an end run around the stalemate on the Western Front, and give themselves a clear shot at the soft underbelly of Germany. It was a brilliant and daring strategy. “In my judgment, it would have produced a far greater effect upon the whole conduct of the war than anything [else],” the British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith later concluded. But the invasion ended in disaster, and Cohen and Gooch find the roots of that disaster in the curious complacency displayed by the British.

The invasion required a large-scale amphibious landing, something the British had little experience with. It then required combat against a foe dug into ravines and rocky outcroppings and hills and thickly vegetated landscapes that Cohen and Gooch call “one of the finest natural fortresses in the world.” Yet the British never bothered to draw up a formal plan of operations. The British military leadership had originally estimated that the Allies would need a hundred and fifty thousand troops to take Gallipoli. Only seventy thousand were sent. The British troops should have had artillery—more than three hundred guns.

They took a hundred and eighteen, and, for the most part, neglected to bring howitzers, trench mortars, or grenades. Command of the landing at Sulva Bay—the most critical element of the attack—was given to Frederick Stopford, a retired officer whose experience was largely administrative. Stopford had two days during which he had a ten-to-one advantage over the Turks and could easily have seized the highlands overlooking the bay. Instead, his troops lingered on the beach, while Stopford lounged offshore, aboard a command ship. Winston Churchill later described the scene as “the placid, prudent, elderly English gentleman with his 20,000 men spread around the beaches, the front lines sitting on the tops of shallow trenches, smoking and cooking, with here and there an occasional rifle shot, others bathing by hundreds in the bright blue bay where, disturbed hardly by a single shell, floated the great ships of war.”

When word of Stopford’s ineptitude reached the British commander, Sir Ian Hamilton, he rushed to Sulva Bay to intercede—although “rushed” may not be quite the right word here, since Hamilton had chosen to set up his command post on an island an hour away and it took him a good while to find a boat to take him to the scene.

Cohen and Gooch ascribe the disaster at Gallipoli to a failure to adapt—a failure to take into account how reality did not conform to their expectations. And behind that failure to adapt was a deeply psychological problem: the British simply couldn’t wrap their heads around the fact that they might have to adapt. “Let me bring my lads face to face with Turks in the open field,” Hamilton wrote in his diary before the attack. “We must beat them every time because British volunteer soldiers are superior individuals to Anatolians, Syrians or Arabs and are animated with a superior ideal and an equal joy in battle.”

Hamilton was not a fool. Cohen and Gooch call him an experienced and “brilliant commander who was also a firstrate trainer of men and a good organizer.” Nor was he entirely wrong in his assessments. The British probably were a superior fighting force. Certainly they were more numerous, especially when they held that ten-to-one advantage at Sulva Bay. Hamilton, it seems clear, was simply overconfident—and one of the things that happen to us when we become overconfident is that we start to blur the line between the kinds of things that we can control and the kinds of things that we can’t. The psychologist Ellen Langer once had subjects engage in a betting game against either a self-assured, well-dressed opponent or a shy and badly dressed opponent (in Langer’s delightful phrasing, the “dapper” or the “schnook” condition), and she found that her subjects bet far more aggressively when they played against the schnook. They looked at their awkward opponent and thought, I’m better than he is. Yet the game was pure chance: all the players did was draw cards at random from a deck, and see who had the high hand. This is called the “illusion of control”: confidence spills over from areas where it may be warranted (“I’m savvier than that schnook”) to areas where it isn’t warranted at all (“and that means I’m going to draw higher cards”).

At Gallipoli, the British acted as if their avowed superiority over the Turks gave them superiority over all aspects of the contest. They neglected to take into account the fact that the morning sun would be directly in the eyes of the troops as they stormed ashore. They didn’t bring enough water. They didn’t factor in the harsh terrain. “The attack was based on two assumptions,” Cohen and Gooch write, “both of which turned out to be unwise: that the only really difficult part of the operation would be getting ashore, after which the Turks could easily be pushed off the peninsula; and that the main obstacles to a happy landing would be provided by the enemy.”

Most people are inclined to use moral terms to describe overconfidence—terms like “arrogance” or “hubris.” But psychologists tend to regard overconfidence as a state as much as a trait. The British at Gallipoli were victims of a situation that promoted overconfidence. Langer didn’t say that it was only arrogant gamblers who upped their bets in the presence of the schnook. She argues that this is what competition does to all of us; because ability makes a difference in competitions of skill, we make the mistake of thinking that it must also make a difference in competitions of pure chance. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. As novices, we don’t trust our judgment. Then we have some success, and begin to feel a little surer of ourselves. Finally, we get to the top of our game and succumb to the trap of thinking that there’s nothing we can’t master. As we get older and more experienced, we overestimate the accuracy of our judgments, especially when the task before us is difficult and when we’re involved with something of great personal importance. The British were overconfident at Gallipoli not because Gallipoli didn’t matter but, paradoxically, because it did; it was a high-stakes contest, of daunting complexity, and it is often in those circumstances that overconfidence takes root.

Several years ago, a team headed by the psychologist Mark Fenton-O’Creevy created a computer program that mimicked the ups and downs of an index like the Dow, and recruited, as subjects, members of a highly paid profession. As the line moved across the screen, Fenton-O’Creevy asked his subjects to press a series of buttons, which, they were told, might or might not affect the course of the line. At the end of the session, they were asked to rate their effectiveness in moving the line upward. The buttons had no effect at all on the line. But many of the players were convinced that their manipulation of the buttons made the index go up and up. The world these people inhabited was competitive and stressful and complex. They had been given every reason to be confident in their own judgments. If they sat down next to you, with a tape recorder, it wouldn’t take much for them to believe that they had you in the palm of their hand. They were traders at an investment bank.

The high-water mark for Bear Stearns was 2003. The dollar was falling. A wave of scandals had just swept through the financial industry. The stock market was in a swoon. But Bear Stearns was an exception. In the first quarter of that year, its earnings jumped fifty-five per cent. Its return on equity was the highest on Wall Street. The firm’s mortgage business was booming. Since Bear Stearns’s founding, in 1923, it had always been a kind of also-ran to its more blue-chip counterparts, like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. But that year Fortune named it the best financial company to work for. “We are hitting on all 99 cylinders,’’ Jimmy Cayne told a reporter for the Times, in the spring of that year, “so you have to ask yourself, What can we do better? And I just can’t decide what that might be.’’ He went on, “Everyone says that when the markets turn around, we will suffer. But let me tell you, we are going to surprise some people this time around. Bear Stearns is a great place to be.’’

With the benefit of hindsight, Cayne’s words read like the purest hubris. But in 2003 they would have seemed banal. These are the kinds of things that bankers say. More precisely—and here is where psychological failure becomes more problematic still—these are the kinds of things that bankers are expected to say. Investment banks are able to borrow billions of dollars and make huge trades because, at the end of the day, their counterparties believe they are capable of making good on their promises. Wall Street is a confidence game, in the strictest sense of that phrase.

This is what social scientists mean when they say that human overconfidence can be an adaptive trait. “In conflicts involving mutual assessment, an exaggerated assessment of the probability of winning increases the probability of winning,” Richard Wrangham, a biological anthropologist at Harvard, writes. “Selection therefore favors this form of overconfidence.” Winners know how to bluff. And who bluffs the best? The person who, instead of pretending to be stronger than he is, actually believes himself to be stronger than he is. According to Wrangham, self-deception reduces the chances of “behavioral leakage”; that is, of “inadvertently revealing the truth through an inappropriate behavior.” This much is in keeping with what some psychologists have been telling us for years—that it can be useful to be especially optimistic about how attractive our spouse is, or how marketable our new idea is. In the words of the social psychologist Roy Baumeister, humans have an “optimal margin of illusion.”

If you were a Wall Street C.E.O., there were two potential lessons to be drawn from the collapse of Bear Stearns. The first was that Jimmy Cayne was overconfident. The second was that Jimmy Cayne wasn’t overconfident enough. Bear Stearns did not collapse, after all, simply because it had made bad bets. Until very close to the end, the firm had a capital cushion of more than seventeen billion dollars. The problem was that when, in early 2008, Cayne and his colleagues stood up and said that Bear was a great place to be, the rest of Wall Street no longer believed them. Clients withdrew their money, and lenders withheld funding. As the run on Bear Stearns worsened, J. P. Morgan and the Fed threw the bank a lifeline—a multibillion-dollar line of credit. But confidence matters so much on Wall Street that the lifeline had the opposite of its intended effect. As Bamber writes:

This line-of-credit, the stop-gap measure that was supposed to solve the problem that hadn’t really existed in the first place had done nothing but worsen it. When we started the week, we had no liquidity issues. But because people had said that we did have problems with our capital, it became true, even though it wasn’t true when people started saying it. . . . So we were forced to find capital to offset the losses we’d sustained because somebody decided we didn’t have capital when we really did. So when we finally got more capital to replace the capital we’d lost, people took that as a bad sign and pointed to the fact that we’d had no capital and had to get a loan to cover it, even when we did have the capital they said we didn’t have.

Of course, one reason that over-confidence is so difficult to eradicate from expert fields like finance is that, at least some of the time, it’s useful to be overconfident—or, more precisely, sometimes the only way to get out of the problems caused by overconfidence is to be even more overconfident.

From an individual perspective, it is hard to distinguish between the times when excessive optimism is good and the times when it isn’t. All that we can say unequivocally is that overconfidence is, as Wrangham puts it, “globally maladaptive.” When one opponent bluffs, he can score an easy victory. But when everyone bluffs, Wrangham writes, rivals end up “escalating conflicts that only one can win and suffering higher costs than they should if assessment were accurate.” The British didn’t just think the Turks would lose in Gallipoli; they thought that Belgium would prove to be an obstacle to Germany’s advance, and that the Russians would crush the Germans in the east. The French, for their part, planned to be at the Rhine within six weeks of the start of the war, while the Germans predicted that by that point they would be on the outskirts of Paris. Every side in the First World War was bluffing, with the resolve and skill that only the deluded are capable of, and the results, of course, were catastrophic.

Jimmy Cayne grew up in Chicago, the son of a patent lawyer. He wanted to be a bookie, but he realized that it wasn’t quite respectable enough. He went to Purdue University to study mechanical engineering—and became hooked on bridge. His grades suffered, and he never graduated. He got married in 1956 and was divorced within four years. “At this time, he was one of the best bridge players in Chicago,” his ex-brother-in-law told Cohan. “In fact, that’s the reason for the divorce. There was no other woman or anything like that. The co-respondent in their divorce was bridge. He spent all of his time playing bridge—every night. He wasn’t home.” He was selling scrap metal in those days, and, Cohan says, he would fall asleep on the job, exhausted from playing cards. In 1964, he moved to New York to become a professional bridge player. It was bridge that led him to his second wife, and to a job interview with Alan (Ace) Greenberg, then a senior executive at Bear Stearns. When Cayne told Greenberg that he was a bridge player, Cayne tells Cohan, “you could see the electric light bulb.” Cayne goes on:

[Greenberg] says, “How well do you play?” I said, “I play well.” He said, “Like how well?” I said, “I play quite well.” He says, “You don’t understand.” I said, “Yeah, I do. I understand. Mr. Greenberg, if you study bridge the rest of your life, if you play with the best partners and you achieve your potential, you will never play bridge like I play bridge.”

Right then and there, Cayne says, Greenberg offered him a job.

Twenty years later, the scene was repeated with Warren Spector, who went on to become a co-president of the firm. Spector had been a bridge champion as a student, and Cayne somehow heard about it. “Suddenly, out of nowhere there’s a bridge player at Bear Stearns on the bond desk,” Cayne recalls. Spector tells Cohan, “He called me up and said, ‘Are you a bridge player?’ I said, ‘I used to be.’ So bridge was something that he, Ace, and I all shared and talked about.” As reports circulated that two of Bear Stearns’s hedge funds were going under—a failure that started the bank on its long, downward spiral into collapse—Spector and Cayne were attending the Spingold K.O. bridge tournament, in Nashville. The Wall Street Journal reported that, of the twenty-one workdays that month, Cayne was out of the office for nearly half of them.

It makes sense that there should be an affinity between bridge and the business of Wall Street. Bridge is a contest between teams, each of which competes over a “contract”—how many tricks they think they can win in a given hand. Winning requires knowledge of the cards, an accurate sense of probabilities, steely nerves, and the ability to assess an opponent’s psychology. Bridge is Wall Street in miniature, and the reason the light bulb went on when Greenberg looked at Cayne, and Cayne looked at Spector, is surely that they assumed that bridge skills could be transferred to the trading floor—that being good at the game version of Wall Street was a reasonable proxy for being good at the real-life version of Wall Street.

It isn’t, however. In bridge, there is such a thing as expertise unencumbered by bias. That’s because, as the psychologist Gideon Keren points out, bridge involves “related items with continuous feedback.” It has rules and boundaries and situations that repeat themselves and clear patterns that develop—and when a player makes a mistake of overconfidence he or she learns of the consequences of that mistake almost immediately. In other words, it’s a game. But running an investment bank is not, in this sense, a game: it is not a closed world with a limited set of possibilities. It is an open world where one day a calamity can happen that no one had dreamed could happen, and where you can make a mistake of overconfidence and not personally feel the consequences for years and years—if at all. Perhaps this is part of why we play games: there is something intoxicating about pure expertise, and the real mastery we can attain around a card table or behind the wheel of a race car emboldens us when we move into the more complex realms. “I’m good at that. I must be good at this, too,” we tell ourselves, forgetting that in wars and on Wall Street there is no such thing as absolute expertise, that every step taken toward mastery brings with it an increased risk of mastery’s curse. Cayne must have come back from the Spingold bridge tournament fortified in his belief in his own infallibility. And the striking thing about his conversations with Cohan is that nothing that had happened since seemed to have shaken that belief.

“When I left,” Cayne told Cohan, speaking of his final day at Bear Stearns, “I had three different meetings. The first was with the president’s advisory group, which was about eighty people. There wasn’t a dry eye. Standing ovation. I was crying.” Until the very end, he evidently saw the world that he wanted to see. “The second meeting was with the retail sales force on the Web,” he goes on. “Standing ovation. And the third was a partners’ meeting that night for me to tell them that I was stepping down. Standing ovation, of the whole auditorium.”

The U.S. economy is not only shedding jobs at a record rate; it is shedding more jobs than it is supposed to. It’s bad enough that the unemployment rate has doubled in only a year and a half and one out of six construction workers is out of work.

By Roger Lowenstein From The New York Times Magazine.

What truly troubles President Obama’s economic advisers is that, even adjusting for the recession, the contraction in employment seems way too high. As one administration official said, “This has been a very steep job loss.” One proof, he added, is that the country is deviating from the standard (among economists) jobs predictor known as Okun’s Law.

In the 1960s, Arthur Okun, a prominent economist, claimed to have discovered a mathematical relationship between the decline in output (that is, goods and services produced) and the rise in unemployment. It held up pretty well until recently. But this time around, although the decline in output would have predicted a rise in unemployment to 8 percent, the actual jobless rate has soared to 9.5 percent. So this recession is killing off jobs even faster than the things — like automobiles, houses, computers and newspapers — that jobholders produce.

The Federal Reserve now expects unemployment to surpass 10 percent (the postwar high was 10.8 percent in 1982). By almost every other measure, ours is already the worst job environment since the Great Depression. The economy has shed 6.5 million jobs — nearly 5 percent of the total, far outstripping the 3 percent that were lost in the early ’80s. Economists fear that even when the economy turns around, the job market will be stagnant. Keith Hall, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sums it up as “an ugly picture out there.”

Explanations for the collapse of the great American job machine begin with the marked absence of what is called labor hoarding. Usually during recessions, firms keep most of their employees on the payroll even as business slows, in effect stockpiling them for better days. In the current downturn, hoarding seems to have gone into reverse. Not only are firms laying off redundant workers, but they seem to be cutting into the bone. Hall says the absence of hoarding means that firms do not expect business to pick up soon. This is supported by other evidence, like a doubling in the number of involuntary part-time workers (there are nine million of them) and the shrinking workweek, now 33 hours — the shortest ever recorded. Presumably, before companies start to rehire laid-off workers, they will ask their current employees to work more.

Those who hope for a rebound argue that employers, frightened by the financial shocks and the credit crisis of last fall, effectively panicked. That is, they cut deeper than necessary. And that may be.

But layoffs are only part of the story. The problem isn’t just that so many workers have received pink slips but also that companies are failing to hire. And this, unfortunately, has been a trend for most of the past decade (unnoticed, perhaps, because the mortgage bubble was papering over latent weaknesses). At the end of the Clinton era, which also marked the end of a decade-long boom, companies that were opening or expanding operations added nearly 8 workers for every 100 already on the payroll. During the recession of 2001, the figure dropped to 7 per 100: optimistic firms were a bit less optimistic. The surprising fact is that when the recession ended, the percentage stayed at 7. “We never got our groove back,” asserts Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com. In the current recession, the rate has fallen to 6 per 100.

It’s hard to give a definitive explanation for this trend, but among the reasons are a decline in innovation in the aftermath of the tech boom, leading to fewer new businesses, and the aging of the population. More people have dropped out of the work force, and a smaller work force tends to dampen job totals. The percentage of adults who are working has fallen from 64 at the end of the Clinton era to only 59.5 now. Some of those dropouts are retirees, but some may be responding to the economy’s declining dynamism. Traditionally, it was a mark of Americans’ resiliency that, when times were tough, they relocated from state to state and region to region. Now, according to the Census Bureau, mobility is at an all-time recorded low. Perhaps people with underwater mortgages cannot afford to move. Perhaps the areas they used to move to, typically the Sun Belt, are too devastated by foreclosures. But the vaunted ability of the U.S. economy to renew itself seems a little tarnished. Maybe it’s no accident that this time around, folks on the unemployment line are staying there longer.

In terms of its impact on society, a dearth of hiring is far more troubling than an excess of layoffs. Job losses have to end sooner or later. Even if they persist (as, say, in the auto industry), the government can intervene. But the government cannot force firms to hire. Ultimately, each new job depends on the boss’s belief — or hope — that sufficient work will materialize. It’s a bit of black magic also described as confidence. Over the years, it is why America has not only attracted immigrants (whose arrivals are now slowing) but also generated more opportunities and — favorite word of politicians — hope for those born here.

The administration’s tilt toward so-called sustainable new jobs, in green energy and such, shows that it understands what is at stake, both for the country and for its political fortunes. Whether its plans will bear fruit is, of course, another matter. Along with double-digit unemployment, the country is facing a second potential scare headline: falling wages. Even during recessions, businesses don’t like to lower pay, because it reduces morale. But layoffs are also a downer. And in this recession, employers ranging from the State of California to publishers (including this newspaper) have cut back on pay. In effect, job losses have been so severe that businesses have been forced to spread the pain. In June, overall wage growth was zero. Zandi thinks the United States could see negative wage growth.

How would Obama, not to mention Congress, respond to declining employment and falling wages? The pressure for another stimulus (and greater deficits) would be intense. So would that for demagogic solutions like trade barriers. Robert Reich, the former labor secretary, says most lost jobs are not coming back. The huge question is when — or whether — new ones will take their place.

Roger Lowenstein, an outside director of the Sequoia Fund, is a contributing writer for the magazine.

That’s my mantra. And I make all my clients tattoo it on their arms. Why? Because it works.

It all comes down to ACTION
You can plan all day — and that’s a good thing. But planning isn’t everything. In fact, most executives do have some type of plan — either zipping around in their head or on a piece of paper buried on their desk. Unfortunately, execution is the real culprit. They are afraid or they don’t know how to take that first step to begin the process. That’s where I come in:

Make It Happen
Take the first step. Do Anything. It really doesn’t matter what you do first — what does matter is that you do something . . . immediately. I liken it to entering a pool for the first time — you can go in slowly and get used to the water (we all know how that feels) or just jump right in and the shock of the temperature is gone within seconds. If you need to do a series of informational calls to key executives, call one right now! Don’t wait to plan — don’t procrastinate to build a talk track — ring them up and start talking! You will surprise yourself.

Get It Done
Check it off your list — complete it. So many people take a half-step into an activity and decide that it’s too hard, will take too long, or it takes them too far out of their comfort zone. Here’s where my coaching comes in — stop being a baby. You are an adult — with adult responsibilities. You must get it done. You are not in school anymore where a teacher will say “it’s okay – you don’t have to do that”. You HAVE to do it. And the faster that you get it done, the faster you can move on to the next step.

And here’s the best part: Once you start down this path, it gets EASIER. Trust me, it always happens.

Not moving forward? Get It Done. Make It Happen. No Excuses.

Watch out, baby boomers. The Millennials are coming for your jobs.

By Nancy Johnston at The Baltimore Sun

This generational warfare is the story developing in the media, and as with most trend stories, it does have a kernel of truth. The baby boomer generation – born between 1946 and 1964 – has had a stranglehold on nearly every arena in American life, including politics, economics and the culture wars, since I was born. Even President Barack Obama, who campaigned on a promise to leave behind the boomers’ old campus feuds, is, technically, one of them.

But with the rising technological wave changing the way we live, the way we work, and the way we think about the world around us, today’s younger work force, born 1980 and after, is threatening the status quo. Even now, a coalition called 80 Million Strong is planning a D.C. summit in July to highlight this younger bloc, demanding that American leaders better serve this country’s youth, both politically and economically.

“Today’s 20-somethings are likely to be the first generation to not be better off than their parents.” This is the first line of Economic State of Young America, a report released by Demos, a nonpartisan public policy think tank in New York City. And that’s a troubling thesis for a generation that grew up being told they can do and be anything.

Sure, it’s no surprise that with college tuition rising and job opportunities plummeting, the future isn’t looking too bright for the youth of America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, after factoring for inflation, the average young white man in 2005 earned $35,100 a year, compared to $43,416 in 1976. While tuition at public universities has doubled since the 1980s, income has declined by 19 percent.

Those who can’t afford college in the first place, or can’t find employment after earning their degrees, have also helped raise the unemployment rate for Americans in the 16-24 age range 9 percentage points higher than the general population. Insurance and pension benefits are steadily shrinking, and no one my age labors under the belief that the dollars we send to the Social Security Administration over in Woodlawn will be waiting for us when we retire.

This recession isn’t good for anybody. But blaming baby boomers for staying at the workplace at the expense of Millennials, or insisting that the youth are stealing jobs from their more experienced counterparts, are arguments far too simplistic to explain the destruction of the American dream.

If there’s anything I’ve learned from the no-limits nature of the world that the Internet has wrought, it’s that we do not live in a zero-sum society. We must foster an economy that provides jobs for everyone. From the traditional manufacturing and service jobs that have built the American middle class since after World War II, to the new “green” jobs and cyber-focused industries the Obama administration has declared a priority, there can and should be opportunities for everyone.

Yes, we need to make hard decisions now to address the problems the young and those not yet even born will inherit – climate change, Social Security and Medicare, the national debt. But setting them up as flash points in an ageist conflict between the me-generation boomers and the supposedly altruism-minded Millennials isn’t going to accomplish that. The only way to solve those problems is to create an economic and social order that is fair to all – and the only way to agree on those hard choices is to embrace a political order in which all ages have a seat at the table.

You’ve gotten pretty far in a job discussion. You like them. They like you. And it’s getting down to the nitty gritty.

by Marci Alboher at Yahoo.

Then your prospective employer pops the question you’ve been dreading: “So what are you making now?” (or some variation like, “What were you making in your last position?”) You freeze. You know that answering the question can only hurt you. It might peg you at a salary you feel you’ve outgrown or that you improperly negotiated. And you know that you’re always supposed to let the other person name a price first in any negotiation.

So what do you do?

Avoid revealing your salary. Never reveal your prior salary, says Ramit Sethi, creator of the blog, IWillTeachYouToBeRich, and author of the recently published book of the same title. He is clear and unequivocal. “It’s just none of their business,” he told me. “You’re focusing on a new job and if you reveal what you made previously, two things happen. First, you’ve laid out all your cards. Second, you’re admitting that you are inexperienced in interviewing and negotiating.” (That last bit was particularly painful for me to hear since I’ve made the mistake of revealing a prior salary and I’m in the business of advising people about how to manage their careers.)

Focus on your value. If the employer persists, Sethi suggests steering the conversation to the value you’ll be bringing to the position. If you can focus, say, on the hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue you’ll help the company generate, it becomes harder for them to focus on the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars you might be haggling over. If your position doesn’t have a clear connection to the bottom line, Sethi says to emphasize how your job will allow your manager to do his or her job more effectively. In the end, it’s all about how you’re going to help the organization achieve its goals.

Discuss salary ranges. If you get the prior salary question, steer the negotation to why you should be at a certain number or range, says Carol Frohlinger, managing director of Negotiating Women and author of the book, “Her Place at the Table.”

One instance where it’s fine to reveal your salary is when you feel like your current salary is in a reasonable range and you are only seeking a slight bump–say around 10 percent–according to Susan Cain, president of The Negotiation Company.  “If you’re not there, which is often the case, then you’ll want to deflect at least until they love you and don’t want to lose you,” says Cain. “At that point, you can say that you don’t think your current employer would be comfortable with your disclosing what you earn.” If you ultimately feel you have to disclose, Cain says you should just explain, in a non-defensive way, why you think it’s low and why you should be in a higher range. She recommends saying something like: “I’ve had various training and experience and am now looking for a position that will reflect my acquired expertise.”

Know your worth. When you do sit down to talk numbers, make sure that you do your homework so that you know what the range should be for the position. “It’s not just what the job pays, but what does it pay in your geographic area, in a company of the size of the one you’re looking at, in the same industry,” says Frohlinger. “And also think about what there is other than salary, what other things people have gotten for a total compensation package.”

Do your homework. In order to build a picture of what a job is worth, canvas your entire network, looking especially for people who have left a company you’re talking to. In addition, check out sites that offer comparative salary details, like Vault, PayScale, Salary.com and Glassdoor. If you work as an independent contractor or freelancer, ask your peers what they charge. “Talk to at least five people,” says Sethi, “since not everyone charges properly for their work and you might get a range of anywhere from $30-$200 an hour.”

What if you reveal too much? So what if you’ve messed up and revealed more than you wanted to? The best way to recover, says Sethi, is to start collecting evidence of your success on the job and immediately plan for an opportunity to sit down with your manager about how you’re doing. You’ll have to let some time pass–Sethi suggests about six months–but it’s important to let your manager know far in advance that you are preparing for a conversation that will include revisiting your compensation as part of it. In fact, Sethi says that by the time you have that conversation, your manager should fully know that you’re seeking a raise since you will have been laying the groundwork and showing off your accomplishments along the way.

Most people don’t realize the power of personal connection on the job.

I have many clients today that have lost their jobs and are looking for new employment. Unfortunately, they have worked at their respective companies for a very long time and they find themselves unable to get back that one specific position.

Even though I do coach them to ‘reach for the stars’, there is a law of diminishing returns. After a certain amount of time (let’s say 4-6 months), one needs to be realistic about their search. If you are busting your butt getting interviews and not getting that position, it may be time to click your search down a notch and focus on easier pickings. This happens frequently with C-Level clients that NEED to have another C-Level position. Honestly — they’re not many C-Level (or others of that ilk) spots out in business-land today.

My suggestion — instead of beating your head against a wall — take a lower position that will be easier to attract/lock-in. When you get into the invite-only party, show them you’re able to do much more than you’ve been hired to do. Most likely, they will see your capabilities over time and offer you increased responsibility or a better position (with increased pay).

But this scenario only comes with a successful and clear set of personal connections in the new job (I will talk about building personal connections later this week). And you will only get those if you are On The Job.

So don’t be so picky and go get that position. Good things sometimes don’t come to those who wait.

When Kathy Siever, an event planner, was laid off earlier this year after nearly 15 years with GE Capital, it helped that the company gave her a month’s notice — enough time for her and her husband, David, to work out a plan for both of them to use their Rowayton home as their new joint workplace.

By Margaret Farley Steele at the NYT

Mr. Siever, 65, had already laid claim to the basement, where he runs an investment banking business that raises capital for clean and renewable energy projects. So his wife, 58, settled on a spare bedroom on the second floor, which she set up as an office with new furniture, and began working on her own business plan. Having the middle floor between them is ideal, so they are not in each other’s face — or space — all day, they said.

As layoffs rock families across the country, many professional couples like the Sievers are getting reacquainted from 9 to 5, sometimes because one partner already works from home or because both spouses find themselves unemployed and needing a home office. Sharing work space and toiling side by side can radically alter the dynamics of a relationship, said A. Susan Brenner, a marriage and family therapist practicing in Westport and Manhattan.

Nationwide, unemployment has soared to 8.5 percent. In Connecticut, where 58,000 workers have lost their jobs in the last 12 months, the jobless rate is 7.5 percent. As the ranks of the unemployed grow, more couples will feel the need to redefine their roles and boundaries at home. And those in tight quarters may have a harder time than couples able to spread out in a large suburban home, Ms. Brenner said.

For couples who have successfully dealt with hardships before, job loss can bring the couple closer together. “They partner up and get stronger helping one another,” said Resa Fremed, a marriage and family therapist practicing in South Salem, N.Y., where she sees many Fairfield County couples. But if communication skills are already rocky, a job crisis will exacerbate problems, she said.

Jeffrey H. Roberts, who runs a real estate business out of his Stamford home, said it was a huge adjustment when his wife, Tina, was out of work for seven months a few years ago. “The only thing that kept us sane is we had two computers,” he said recently at a networking group in Stamford for at-home workers. Mr. Roberts, 50, said he was less social than his wife, 41, and by the second day he had to close the door to his home office because of her talkativeness. “Honey, if my door is closed, it’s inviolate. You have to think about it before crossing the threshold,” he told her. It took a month for them to develop a system that worked, he said.

When a spouse is unemployed, roles shift, Ms. Fremed said. “The change could be positive or it could cause resentment,” she said. It’s nice if a father can step in and pick up the kids, but it may be uncomfortable for him. “The women go out for coffee, but look at a stay-at-home dad as a misfit. It’s not easy,” she said.

Good communication is essential to get through this period, experts said. “Sit down and really have an open conversation with each other,” Ms. Brenner said. “‘What is it going to be like for us? What can we share or take care of separately? What do we expect of each other?’ It’s like renegotiating a contract.”

Job-hunting is a full-time job, and access to phones and computers can be a source of friction if both partners need these tools and have to share them. Those who can’t afford separate phones and computers should devise a mutually agreeable schedule for using them, Ms. Fremed suggests.

Finding “alone” time is important too. Some folks retreat to the local library; others sign up for networking groups or classes.

For the millions of Americans who work at home, the perks include the freedom to labor when and how they please — perhaps with documents strewn across the floor, a TV blaring in the background or in clothing that makes casual Friday attire look formal. Quirks like those can raise the eyebrows of someone who is used to a quiet, dignified office and that in turn will raise the hackles of the spouse no longer working in splendid isolation, say the experts.

These days, Ms. Siever is often at her desk first thing in the morning — but in her pajamas. “For David, the downside is, I don’t put makeup on any more, maybe just a little lipstick,” she said.

In busy households, maintaining an air of professionalism can be a challenge. Holli and Glenn Horine of Fairfield are both at home much of the week. She lost her part-time job in March; he lost a job as senior vice president of Velocity, a sponsorship and event marketing agency in Norwalk, in 2008 but still teaches at Iona College in New Rochelle, N.Y. He is trying to build a consulting business in the sports and entertainment field from his home.

Two children and two dogs in the house are a distraction. After school, Ms. Horine, 48, who worked at a promotion/marketing agency, said her husband “barricades himself in his office and I try to keep the kids and dogs quiet.” If anyone needs to reach him, they have to call his work phone.

“If the home phone rings, I won’t answer it,” said Mr. Horine, 46. “I’m in work mode and have to stay focused or my day is shot.”

Believing that optimism helps, many couples try to look on the bright side. Debbie Roberts, a landscape designer in Stamford and no relation to Jeffrey Roberts, said when her husband, Nick, was unemployed, he seemed blind to the fact that she had a set routine and work hours. “He was always asking, ‘What should we do today?’ ” she said. But to his credit, “he was much better at being a stay-at-home mom than I ever was. The laundry was done on a regular basis,” she said.

“It’s a stressful time for any marriage, but there is always a silver lining if you are open to finding it,” said Ms. Roberts, 46.

For the Horines, the silver lining is more family fun with their children. “We take advantage of the fact that we do have a little extra time,” Ms. Horine said. For Ms. Siever, “If there’s good news to share, he’s right there,” she said.

Watching my son’s baseball game last night, I saw the coach do something that I didn’t like, but I know he had to do. They were down 2 runs and it was the last inning – they had to somehow stack the deck to even the score. What did the coach do? The sides changed, my son was about to be up at bat, and the coach made the decision to move the batting order around (they are allowed to do that) to favor some of the more heavy hitters. What happened? They tied it up and eventually won the game.

Now to your career. Sometimes when faced with an immovable obstacle, one needs to change what they are doing. The more hard-headed one is – the bigger the obstacle will become.

Try something new — either go around the obstacle or don’t deal with it at all. Some suggestions:

• Job boards and recruiters are not helping your job search – try networking and connecting with influential people.
• Someone on your team keeps complaining about their work — give them one of your projects to work on — they might shut up.
• Feel stuck in your position — build your potential — read books, go to lectures, take a course. Start a blog! Expand your horizons.
• Continuously at meetings all day — stop attending 1 or 2 of them. See what happens. Leave early/show up late.
• Have an open door policy? Nice guy — no time to do anything else. Limit your exposure to the troops. Close that door.
• Current contact list not delivering that job? Time to make a new contact list — get out there and meet some influential friends. Do you know your mayor? Your representative? You should — they are well connected individuals — call them for an appointment today.
• Boss not listening to you? Try another communication method. If email is getting lost in the shuffle, pick up the phone or even better, stop by his door for a quick 2 minute discussion.
• Resume not getting any response? Time to update it with better keywords, action verbs and most of all – Be Concise! Still not working? Try a resume writer (call me for the best ones).

Bottom line – stop hitting your head against the wall. Changing your game — even a little bit — might make all the difference. You might hit a home run.

I hear it all the time from my clients when hiring — “I can’t find someone that is “just right” for the position.” Or “They don’t meet all the qualifications for the job.” Well – they’re wrong.

It’s a big mistake to expect that the possible candidates have to own ALL the qualifications for the said position. Why?

1. It’s unrealistic. Even in times like these, where there are a lot of people on the street, the system of finding the right person with the perfect qualifications is slim to none, and slims out of town. What happens is that the recruiter or HR associate puts unrealistic demands on every candidate at the start and rarely lets anyone with real potential in. They focus on capabilities and not on personality.

2. It’s not long-range thinking. Think about hiring for a bank manager. If you hire a previous bank manager with all the qualifications for the position, they’re going to be pretty bored within six months doing the same thing that they did at their last location. Once you learn how the company ‘works’ and all the people’s personalities – the job gets pretty basic after awhile. Then they get bored, sloppy, or start bothering you for a promotion.

You need to STRETCH your new people. The basic rule is to hire at least one grade below the stated position to ensure that you are challenging that person. What will happen? For at least the first year while they step out of their comfort zone they will push themselves and build new potential. In addition, when you stretch your pick, you might find that they do things differently from the previous manager — who might find innovative ways to attack their position and motivate their troops.

For those that are in the market looking for that position, use this info as a retort to the interviewer’s response that you might not have the requisite experience for the position (by the way – a frequent excuse used ALL the time). Tell them that it’s better to hire someone where it is a stretch – they will have more content employees that are consistently challenging themselves and doing things differently.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this – feel free to leave your feedback in the comments section below. Thanks!