Loading ...
Recruiters and Networking, Part 3 of 4
Dear SafetyXChange Members:
Before we resume our discussion of the eight rules of 21st century job searching, I want to clear up a typo from the previous installments. My colleagues, Tucker Mays and Bob Sloane, who created this list, are not executive recruiters. They're executive coaches. In the world of executive recruiting, the distinction between recruiters and coaches is an important one.
Okay, let's get back to the eight rules. Remember Rules 1 through 3:
- Don't Lead with Your Résumé;
- Don't Place Too Much Reliance on Recruiters; and
- Networking Works Best with People You Don't Know.
Rule 4: The Tighter the Objective, the Shorter the Search
In a competitive job market, it may be tempting to widen the scope of your job search to uncover as many opportunities as possible. But a broad approach to job searching generally fails for several reasons. As discussed in Part 1, job specifications nowadays tend to be tight and quite specific. Employers are willing to consider only those with the most relevant skills and experience. So, unless your credentials match the position, pursuing the opportunity is basically a waste of time.
Bob and Tucker say that the average executive job seeker wastes three months attending "courtesy" meetings with recruiters, companies, venture capitalists, private equity firms and networking contacts that have little or no interest in hiring him or directing him to those who can. Three months of lost income is very costly when major expenses like mortgages, healthcare and college tuition have to be paid.
Rule 5: Think Small
Big corporations don't want you. Smaller companies need you.
According to Dun & Bradstreet, in the United States there are five times as many companies in the U.S. with revenues under $500 million as there are above that figure. Smaller companies tend to care less about the age, job-hopping and the eclectic background issues senior executives face than larger companies do. In fact, smaller companies value fresh ideas and seasoned perspectives. So they tend to be more open to hiring mature, experienced persons with varied backgrounds.
Conclusion
That's five down, three to go. I'll wrap up the series next week.
Wishing you career success,
Lauryn Franzoni
ExecuNet, www.execunet.com
DRUNK DRIVING
The Impact of Lowering the Drinking Age
By Glenn Demby
 |
| Should the drinking age be lowered? |
When I was a teenager, the drinking age in my state, New Jersey, was 18. Today, the drinking age is 21 in all states. But some are arguing that it should be reduced. One agency that is not a big fan of the idea is the National Transportation Safety Board. According to the NTSB:
- In 1982, before the drinking age was raised to 21, 56% of teenage drivers killed in traffic accidents had a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit;
- By 2005, that figure was reduced to 23% - still way too high, but less than half the 1982 rate; and
- Raising the drinking age to 21 has prevented an estimated 25,000 teen driver deaths through 2005.
Even with age 21 laws, alcohol remains the leading cause of death among teenagers in highway crashes. Among other things, drinking makes teens less likely to wear seat belts.
In short, lowering the drinking age would likely increase highway traffic accidents and kill not just more teenage drivers but innocent drivers, passengers and pedestrians who get caught up in their wrecks.
Email This Post
Print This Post
TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
