CAREERS IN TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT
with Elizabeth New, Scott Carter, and Gloria Regalbuto Bentley
Hosted by Paula Foster
June 2001
The following Guest Speaker Discussion originally took place on WRK4US in June of the year 2001. Because WRK4US has a confidentiality policy, all names and email addresses have been altered or removed, except for the moderator's and some of the Guest Speakers'.
The discussion can be read in two ways- by simply scrolling down and reading the whole thing, or by clicking on the topical links below, which take you to specific places within the discussion. The discussion can also be printed out in its entirety for your reading convenience.
Special thanks to Kathy Camp who volunteered her time to edit this discussion and prepare it for posting on the web. If you are interested in editing a future discussion, your help will be much appreciated; email Paula Foster, WRK4US List Manager, at pfchambers@sbcglobal.net
Introduction
Paula Foster
Elizabeth New
Gloria Regalbuto Bentley
Scott Carter
Getting into training & development
Job hunting vocabulary and T&D employers
T&D internships
Full-time work vs. contract employment
Corporate universities
Learning organizations and knowledge officers
On-line training and web site design
Salary range for T&D jobs
Teaching vs. training (and the teacher as cop)
Multiculturalism, reflective practice, and T&D
Value placed by companies on T&D
Educational psychology, acting, and T&D
PhDs and the corporate world:
Whether or not to use the "PhD"
Conducting work-related research
Writing and publishing while working
The culture clash between academia and the corporate world.
LIST MANAGER PAULA FOSTERS INTRODUCTION TO CAREERS IN TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT
Hello WRK4US,
By the time most of you get this, it will be Monday, so let me be the first to say good morning and welcome to the WRK4US Guest Speaker Discussion that begins today. Our topic for this week is "Careers in Training and Development." Three Guest Speakers are now with us: Elizabeth New, Scott Carter, and Gloria Regalbuto Bentley. All have graduate degrees in humanities disciplines and all have forged successful careers in training and development. Each Speaker will post his or her self-written introduction sometime this morning; then Q&A will begin, and the discussion will continue until I close the discussion on Friday.
Allow me to say this one more time before we begin: if you have any problems with the list, any problems at all, please do not send your query to the entire list. Send it to me, privately, off-list. Thanks so much.
Have a great discussion,
Paula Foster
WRK4US list manager
ELIZABETH NEW
FROM HUMANITIES TO HIGH-TECH
My name is Elizabeth New and I currently work as a consultant in training and technology-enabled learning for Dell Computer Corporation. In this message, I will cover briefly: 1) my background and how I transitioned from academia to business, 2) the resources I used to accomplish this, 3) what my typical workday is like, and 4) the positives and negatives of working in the corporate environment, i.e., am I still satisfied with my career change?
Now for a little background: I obtained my Ph.D. in French and Applied Linguistics with a specialization in technology-enabled learning from Vanderbilt University in 1994. That fall I started out as a tenure-track professor of French / Applied Linguistics and also the director of the beginning and intermediate French language program. In addition to teaching my own courses and working on research and publications, I was responsible for creating the French curriculum at the lower levels, managing the several hundred students taking French classes and training the 6-10 graduate students who taught these classes. One of my main goals at the time was integrating technology into the curriculum at all levels to enhance the learning experience. It was a lot of work but it was fun.
After 4 or 5 years of this, however, I realized that something was missing. A lot was missing actually. Although I very much enjoyed the interaction with students--undergrads and grads--and the myriad opportunities to make a difference, as well as the chance to be immersed in subjects I loved, there were other parts of the job that I did not like--illogical administrative tasks and committees, the lack of significant resources (particularly problematic in the Humanities), the petty politics, working seven days a week (or feeling the pressure to do so), the low pay, the lack of leadership and management skills among administrators, etc. Several times, I thought about changing institutions and departments but realized that I did not want to spend years trying to find the lone department free (or somewhat free) of these issues.
By January of 1999, I had not yet decided what I was going to do. The thought of getting out of academia was pretty scary--what kind of work could I do?--but the thought of staying in was becoming intolerable. To demonstrate that you just never know where the answer will come from, I happened to go to a party and chatted with the husband of a friend who ran his own training and consulting company. He had several projects for big high-tech firms going and needed some help with instructional design and test writing. We agreed that I would help out with one of the projects on a trial basis. Basically, the work involved synthesizing copious amounts of material on new technology products and putting the key info into a learning / testing format.
Long story short, the project was a great success--the work was relatively easy and it paid well--and over the next year a half, I did bigger and bigger contract projects for him and for another firm. I used those experiences to begin interviewing for a full-time position in training. Given my background, it seemed that training was the most logical and rapid way of getting my foot in the door of the corporate world. I accepted the job with Dell in June of 2000.
There were two keys to obtaining both the contract jobs and my current position with Dell. The first was translating my CV into a good resume. Putting your experience into terms that corporate America understands is essential. Many, I repeat, many of the skills used in academia translate perfectly into the business environment. It is all a matter of how you say it. For example, in interviews and on my resume, I used training more than teaching, courseware and module for class, instructor, trainer and facilitator instead of teacher or professor. I employed terms like managed and directed for my work with the French language program. You get the idea. To get inspiration on resume language and format, I scoured the web for pertinent job descriptions and I bought a few resume-building guides from the local bookstore, taking note of terms and expressions that really applied to my experience.
In addition, it is important to put your work experience first. It is tempting, after having spent so many hard and long years getting the Ph.D., to want to put education first on your resume. I would strongly recommend against it! Finally, tailor your resume to each position you are applying for and make sure that you highlight the skills desired by that particular employer and also how they can help that employer succeed.
Now for the really difficult part--whether or not to put Ph.D. after your name. This topic has already been discussed at length on WRK4US. My response is to go with your instinct. If you think that making it visible will tip the balance in your favor, include it. If not, leave it off.
The second key to making my transition was--you guessed it--networking. I made sure to tell friends and acquaintances that I was looking for a corporate position. I attended local meetings of professional training, development and performance improvement organizations. Very often, these groups have special career mentoring groups or activities where job leads are exchanged, resumes reviewed and so on. As I mentioned earlier, my break came at a party--a party that I very nearly did not attend. Opportunities can come from the least likely places.
So, now that I have a position in the corporate world, what is a typical day like? At Dell, that is hard to answer since no day is typical. Because Dell still has the mentality of a start-up in the body of a large corporation, lots of initiative, as well as a high tolerance for ambiguity, are needed to get things done. On any given day, I work on a variety of training projects for our internal audiences, mostly the sales force. Our team handles the training strategy (i.e., how is this learning initiative going to help meet business goals and objectives?), the delivery format (instructor-led vs. technology-enabled individual training) and the course content. Moreover, Dell wanted to implement some certification programs to measure baseline knowledge around products and technology; I was hired to develop tests (multiple choice) and learning curriculums around the gaps in the tested knowledge.
How do we get things done? Dell is a big proponent of using email and the web to streamline workloads and processes. Therefore, I spend quite a bit of time on the computer. Dell can also be a very meeting-oriented culture so some days are spent in meeting after meeting. All in all, it is a very exciting environment--fast-paced, social, results-oriented--and I am surrounded by very bright, interesting and fun individuals.
Having been at Dell a year this month, am I still satisfied with my career change? Yes, a resounding yes! In spite of two recent layoffs at Dell and an uncertain economy, the benefits of being in the corporate world are many. Here are just a few:
- challenging and interesting work
- dynamic environment
- control of my career and my career path
- control of where I live and work
- more options for advancement and career development
- (much) better compensation and benefits
- more resources to get the job done
- ALL conferences, travel, books and resources paid for by the company
- good feedback and mentoring on a regular basis
- fewer hours, leaving work at work (not having to take work home)
- no nasty politics (ok, people are people so there is some jockeying for power but it is not as nasty and as petty as academic politics)
- warm, supportive colleagues who have interesting lives and pursuits
Are there some not so positive aspects? Sure, companies have always been and will always be most interested in the bottom line. In addition, tenure does not exist so one has to be prepared for changes and shifts in an organization (keep that resume updated and professional networks well-greased). What about intellectual stimulation? I would say that there are some aspects of my job that are stimulating intellectually. Too, my present vantage point is informing my research and scholarship (which I continue on the side) in ways that I never would have dreamed.
In summary, what I find in my current situation is incredible FREEDOM. And that has been the biggest benefit of all. At this point, I believe we shift over to the question-and-answer format. I appreciate this opportunity to contribute to the WRK4US training discussion and will be happy to answer any questions I can.
Elizabeth
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
My name is Gloria Regalbuto Bentley. I have a Ph.D. in Social Science (Organizational Communications) but I have both BA and MA in the humanities. I am considered an expert in the design, implementation and development of corporate universities. (I've designed 8 of them.) I've been referred to (by an individual whom I know was sober at the time) as a "luminary" in the field of Performance Improvement (a.k.a. Performance Technology, a.k.a. Human Resources Development, a.k.a. Training and Development). I've been in the field for over 20 years and have been active in the field's two primary professional societies, The American Society for Training and Development and the International Society for Performance Improvement. I don't quite fit the list's profile, but I think my experiences in shifting from an academic to a corporate working world may be of interest.
I set out into the world with a Master's degree in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, and minors in social science, cinematography and biology. Because I was absolutely unable to get work (other than selling shoes) within six months I was applying for graduate school and in search of a Ph.D. program in something other than the humanities.
I started at the University of Pittsburgh with a dual major in Interpersonal Communication Theory and Creative Writing (poetry), but since they'd just invented the dual major it wasn't working so well and I managed to transfer to The Ohio State University's Communication Department (which was then in the School of Social Sciences). There, I did, in fact, complete my Ph.D., but with new skills and knowledge in social science research, communication theory, organizational development, small group communication, children's acquisition of language, and perceptual learning theory. Quite a change from studying the influence of Ben Jonson's works on Wm. Shakespeare.
While working on my Ph.D., I worked at several job as a copywriter, combining my creative writing and communications skills. I wrote advertising copy for industrial magazines. (Ever try to come up with a catchy tag line for a chemical digester?) I also had a job in the summer writing brochures and information copy for the Ohio Department of Energy and even drafted a speech for then-Governor Rhodes.
Once I had my Ph.D., I believed I had sufficient communications experience to enter the world of Corporate America on a permanent basis. I got a job as an "employee information officer". This meant writing policy and procedures manuals, translating employee benefits handbooks into something that could actually be understood, and "SPD's" (Summary Plan Descriptions--for the uninitiated in US Labor regulations). I was later able to parlay this job into an internal training function--my first. Every corporation needs to teach its employees how to follow their particular methods and processes. Many companies still claim to use "on-the-job-training", which consists primarily of pairing a new employee up with an old-hand and having them watch until they figure it out. The more enlightened corporations actually design courses and train new employees to perform. They may also have to train old employees in new methods or all employees in new policies and procedures, or how to maintain the integrity of the organizations values and brand identification. Having designed courses as a teaching assistant throughout my MA and Ph.D. programs and adding what I'd learned about the difficulties of changing human behavior, I began to understand a new approach to course design which was very behaviorally based. This brought me lots of immediate success.
This is different from teaching in a college or university. There, students come in and go out, maybe you assess their skill level with a grade, but you never know whether they can--or ever get the opportunity to--apply their skills and knowledge in the real world. In a corporation, they go right back to their jobs and the manager is there immediately telling you whether or not they can perform. It's actually a little easier in many cases to operationally define success in a corporate university: salesmen sell more widgets, machine operators produce more widgets, inspectors make fewer errors, consultants get more contracts, and managers make their numbers. If you're really good, the entire organization changes for the better. But no matter what you do, the results are immediately visible. In academia, it's difficult to assess or control teaching quality. I actually made a point of measuring and reporting my results (primarily by measuring the output of changed behaviors). If it's working, flaunt it.
I'd finally found a place for myself in the world. Analyzing causes of poor workplace performance and designing interventions to improve performance required all of my talents: writing skills, diagnostic and hypothesis testing skills, course design, teaching, and even cinematography!
I discovered while starting that first training function, through the International Communications Association that there was an American Society for Training and Development (around 1981). I went to a national conference and sat in session after session. I learned quite a lot, but most of it reinforced what I was already doing and gave me a new language with which to discuss it. It also gave me people to talk to and from whom I could learn more.
I actually got laid off from that first job during a pregnancy leave (Not a strictly legal action, but also not uncommon.) I found a job teaching at a technical college teaching basic writing, speech, small group communication and job search skills. Being back in an academic setting with adult learners helped to sharpen my delivery and design skills and gave me a chance to experiment with new approaches. I then found a job at a glass-manufacturing corporation (Anchor Hocking) in their Consumer and Industrial Division as Division Training Manager, designing and delivering training to all staff members in that organization. I learned just about everything anyone wanted to know about American Smokestack Industry. Much of what I learned I could put into a social science research context. Much of it ripped away the last remnants of my hope that there really might be an American Dream worth striving for. I had to help close a plant and lay off over 600 employees--many of whom had spent their careers with the company and had followed their parents and grandparents into the company.
That experience, while disheartening, also gave me a clear purpose and direction. I realized how ill prepared most Americans are for the world of work. Many of the folks I tried to help re-train were unable to read and had only rudimentary math skills. I began to realize how many Americans had fallen through the education system's cracks and weren't able to obtain a living wage with their existing skill base. It occurred to me that I was actually doing more worthy work teaching in industry than in 2 or 4 year colleges because I was able to reach people who no longer had immediate access to opportunities for learning. I began to offer training in basic skills, as did many other companies. In fact, most folks don't know that "Training & Development" is an over 160 billion dollar per year industry. That's bigger than the nations pre-K through post-graduate education system budget.
In short, there's a lot more teaching going on in the workplace than most people know. At several companies, I've offered courses in creative writing and acting. Many corporate universities (over 20) are actually accredited, degree-granting universities. I could go on, but that's the essence of my "entrance" into the field of training and development. I moved from there to seven other companies (Battelle Memorial Institute, Strategic Performance Systems, Grant Medical Center, William Mercer Consulting, Seafirst Bank, Bath and Body Works, and now, The Ohio Principals Leadership Academy). I also served a term as National President of ASTD and received there top award (Gordon Bliss Memorial) for contribution to the field the community and employers. I am now considered a "master" at the design and implementation of corporate universities.
Sometimes I can't even remember how to spell Ben Jonson's last name--but I still write poetry. I'm certainly not sorry I left academia. I feel that I'm contributing to the education of workers in the location of last resort--the workplace. I do miss being around folks who talk about loft concepts and are willing to mentally play with things other than the numbers on the bottom line.
There certainly is a lot more to tell about my particular experience and probably a lot I could say to folks who might like to enter the field of "Human Performance Technology", as its now called. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have--as long as they're not about Renaissance or Medieval Theatre!
Gloria Regalbuto Bentley
SCOTT CARTER
Hello all. My name is Scott Carter and I'm pleased to be one of the latest guest contributors to the list.
I decided to pursue an academic career for fairly standard reasons. I was interested in philosophy and, in particular, a cluster of issues in metaphysics and the philosophy of language. I also assumed, like everyone around me, that these issues are the private property of academics. Yet for all my love of philosophy, I came to loath the academy. The academy is far too political for my taste, and political in the worst sort of way. It's the politics of pettiness: making friends and enemies--often lifelong friends and enemies--on the basis of odd, territorial jealousies and irrational personal prejudices. By the time I'd completed my Ph.D., I knew I had to find something better.
Initially I targeted jobs in which my philosophical training might pay dividends; e.g., jobs involving writing, editing and analytical skills. I don't know how many such jobs I applied for, but I'm sure it's a very large number and I never received so much as a single interview. This puzzled me for a long time. To some extent it still puzzles me. However, after investigating the source of my difficulties I came to believe that those with the power to hire tend to look for replicas of themselves. For example, if you're an editor in charge of hiring other editors and you got into editing via journalism school, then you will hire people trained in journalism; if you're in publishing and your route into publishing began with a job in a bookstore, then you will look for job candidates with this same work experience. And so on. I'm describing these patterns in an oversimplified way, to be sure; but I found the patterns real enough, and sharp enough, that I knew I had a serious problem on my hands. After all, a Ph.D. in philosophy isn't the obvious first step toward any kind of nonacademic career. It was time for a fundamental change in strategy.
My new strategy was twofold. First, I became a warehouse of information. I devoted hours everyday to gathering information about all kinds of nonacademic job openings. Second, instead of applying only--or even primarily--for jobs that seemed to 'fit' my skills and work experience, I began applying for six or seven genuinely attractive jobs every day, whether or not I seemed a strong candidate for them. In effect, I chose to pursue a 'shotgun' approach to job seeking, rather than the 'Kentucky long rifle' approach usually recommended. And I applied for a lot of jobs. When I say I applied for six or seven jobs everyday, I'm not exaggerating. Of course, I did a lot of this work online, which saves lots of time. Still, if you apply for six jobs every day (including Saturdays and Sundays)--that's 42 jobs a week and 180 jobs a month! (This strategy obviously wouldn't work for someone who's tied to a particular location.)
Not long after adopting this strategy, I landed an interview, and then several more interviews. Finally, after close to nine months, I landed a job as Director of Program Planning for a small company in Reno, NV called The Institute for Management Studies (IMS). It made little sense that IMS hired me for this position, since I had no background in business and no obviously relevant work experience. Don't get me wrong: I'm qualified for the position in the sense that I can do the job and do it well. Yet I'm sure that there are many folks out there who could also do the job well and who have backgrounds in business, finance, management, etc. I'm not sure why I was chosen over the other candidates for my position, and I don't really care. IMS hired me and so far it's working out very well.
IMS puts on professional development seminars all over North America and in much of Europe. Knowing next to nothing about management, I do none of the training. I work on the IMS website, communicate and negotiate with the people we hire to conduct seminars, perform a quality control function by occasionally auditing seminars, and write and edit a lot of the promotional material for our seminars. My job also involves a lot of travel. I spent most of April traveling to a dozen or so cities where I met with IMS regional representatives and representatives from our member organizations to discuss their professional development needs for the year 2002. At these meetings, IMS asked its member organizations, most of which are Fortune 500 companies, what issues they're grappling with and what difficulties they're having. On the basis of the feedback we received at these meetings, we'll try to prepare a curriculum of seminars for our member organizations that's responsive to their needs.
IMS is a small company, which has definite advantages. If you work for a small company, you're unlikely to be stuck doing the same thing all the time, and one thing I like about my job is the variety of things I do. Also, I never feel 'faceless' when I'm at work. The environment is very warm and very personal. As for money, the pay in my field is significantly better than what I could expect in academia.
More generally, there is, at least in my experience, a kind of fairness and reasonableness permeating the non-academic world that you can't count on in academia. Suppose you produce an extraordinary number of first-rate publications as an assistant professor and you're coming up for tenure in a department whose senior members happen not to like you very much as a person. The odds of your getting tenure in that case are slim and, while you can fight a negative verdict on tenure, you're unlikely to win (and if you do win, you're then stuck in a department whose most powerful members will put the screws to you at every opportunity). No doubt something along these lines could happen in the non-academic world as well, but I think it's less common. So long as you're doing your job well and having a positive impact on the 'bottom line', you're making everyone else's life much easier--so much so that they won't *care* what you're like as a person. What matter are results, not personalities. No doubt there are extreme cases in which personality conflicts are so severe that they affect productivity, but such cases are uncommon. It's astounding how few safeguards there are against the abuse of power in the academy.
In conclusion, I suppose my job-seeking strategy was a little unorthodox, but it paid off. I'm very happy with the job I have now, with the people I work with and with my future prospects. I've also found that I have more time for writing and research now than when I was teaching, as well as a lot more enthusiasm for scholarly work.
Please feel free to ask me any questions you like about my job, my job search, etc. I'm happy to answer them as best I can.
Scott
GETTING INTO TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT
SUBSCRIBER CC
Dear List:
I have several questions. If you have very little business experience what are the very first steps you would take in penetrating this area?
Would you recommend using an employment (temp/perm agency)? How do you begin to network from virtual scratch? How would one find out about internships in the field? In my experience trying to find work outside academia, one issue is overcoming the Ph.D bias. How have you dealt with this?
Thanks!
CC
ELIZABETH NEW
CC, I'll try to respond to your questions one by one. First, regarding business experience, I would start by reading business publications--the business section of your local newspaper, the business section of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and/or any of the business magazines in order to get a feel for what is important to companies and what the latest business trends are. Now, when I say reading, I mean just skim and get an overall sense of the dynamics.
Next, you can gain business experience AND great networks from participating in local chapters of professional organizations such as ASTD (American Society of Training and Development), ISPI (International Society of Performance Improvement--or something to that effect), SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management--again something like that) or if you're interested in technology at all, WITI (Women in Technology International). (You can find all of these on the web.) EVERYONE networks this way.
All of these organizations have monthly meetings with featured speakers (great business and company info). They also often have career networking groups where experienced professionals volunteer to help review resumes, talk about job types and keep track of job leads, etc. Internships are also available by this route. I got my second big contracting job at Nortel Networks by attending an ASTD meeting and going to the career networking group.
As for the Ph.D. bias, in the area of training, the Ph.D. gets more initial respect than perhaps in the rest of corporate America. If you can talk about your skills in business terms, then you shouldn't encounter too much adverse reaction to the Ph.D. This is true especially if you can get someone to let you do a project that you can parlay into bigger and better things.
Hope this helps!
Elizabeth
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
I'd like to reply as well. I have to say, having made the transition myself, that you do have to develop new skills. The most transferable ability most academics bring to corporations is the ability to do stand-up instruction. If you've designed courses in an academic setting, the skill set for instructional systems design (ISD) is quite different. ISPI is the best source of skills for ISD and for the "Performance Consultant".
The field is much bigger than just transferring cognitive knowledge. You take responsible for changing behavior, which produces results, which are, at bottom, worth dollars. If you can't produce performances that increase productivity or reduce costs, you won't be able to maintain your job. Training is NOT (emphatically) always the answer to a performance problem. In fact, sometimes you can do harm by training a group of folks who already know how to do the job and are frustrated because something else in the system is broken-and 60-80% of the time, performance problems are NOT caused by a lack of skill or knowledge, but by systemic, process barriers to performance.
Both ASTD & ISPI will help you make contacts and bring you some professional development opportunities. However, I would seek out a "Human Performance Technology" seminar fairly quickly. ASTD offers some around the country. You can also go to consulting firms like the Center for Effective Performance (for the Criterion-Referenced Instruction method, based on the work of Robert Mager) in Atlanta, the Human Performance Technologies company http://www.hptonline.com (based on the work of Joe Harless), and others.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBER GB
Thank you all for your contributions. My question to you, Steve, is about your job search itself. Which sources did you use when looking for a position? I am seeking positions in one location only - Phoenix, AZ - and would love some ideas. Thank you.
GB
SCOTT CARTER
GB,
Well, I don't know if my job search strategy is the most promising one for someone who's rooted to a particular city. However, I can tell you that I looked at listings available on the more familiar job search sites (monster.com, hotjobs.com, etc.), employment ads in numerous newspapers (these are almost always available online), employment agency listings, as well as on the homepages of any companies or organizations that struck me as likely to have interesting jobs available.
Scott
SUBSCRIBER NN
Hi everyone,
This has been a timely discussion for me. I have an appointment tomorrow with the career counselor here who works specifically with graduate students who have decided academe may not be for them after all. I had been thinking consulting - but now I have a whole new area to consider.
I started out life (my adult working life anyway) as a high school teacher, then as a programmer, then entered what I refer to as my 2nd childhood and went back for my PhD in telecommunications (political communication).
My first programming job was developing computer-based training. I really liked it - we interviewed the "subject matter experts" - the folks with the subject knowledge built up over years of experience. We tested ideas with less experienced users. We programmed. We tested the programs with new users. A very challenging job. And in the process we learned a lot about the company ourselves.
I'm excited that companies still see some value in this kind of training - and now it is moving to the web - more new toys to use.
One of the speakers mentioned starting her own training company (sorry I don't remember the name) How did you approach companies to offer your services? Did you just assume that certain kinds of companies needed training that they couldn't offer on their own? Or???
Thanks to whoever runs this list for putting this together.
NN
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
NN,
I was the one who'd started my own consulting firm. I did it after I had been in corporations for quite some time and had lots of contacts and a fairly good reputation in the field. I was already active on a national basis. Most clients came to me by word of mouth. Some came from affiliating with other independents that brought me in on their clients.
I didn't start with a "product" to sell. I started with the service of being able to diagnose training/performance needs and then design intervention to fit those needs. It would have been much harder to get started had I not already been published and a frequent speaker at community events. In fact, I found many clients came to me through those presentations.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D
JOB HUNTING VOCABULARY AND T&D EMPLOYERS
SUBSCRIBER MP
Hi Elizabeth and Gloria,
I really enjoyed your opening statements. Thanks for taking the time to provide such clear, concise information.
I'm presently looking to switch jobs from a struggling Internet company to something more stable, and have been applying for positions that involve custom software training and course development (custom CRM - customer relationship management - applications, mostly). However, after reading your descriptions it seems that I could broaden my horizons away from training centered around computer software.
I'd like to find out which local companies might employ corporate trainers and developers. Do you have any tips?
For example, what department names or personal titles might I look for in a company's information? How might any open positions be described (i.e., what keywords should I be typing in to job boards)?
Thanks,
MP
SUBSCRIBER DJ
MP-
If you are interested in doing technical training and traveling, you should consider working for any of the Big 5 consulting companies (PricewaterhouseCoopers, Accenture, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG). All of them have training practices that focus on CRM and ERP training. You could also try applying to companies like SAP, RWD, Siebel, Clarify, Oracle, Peoplesoft directly. Most of them are trying to build up their training practices. Mind you, this is not internal training; this is training employees of companies who buy these software systems. As I mentioned, the biggest caveat is that you need to be willing to travel to the client site, usually 5 days a week for several months on end.
-DJ
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
MP,
Most training departments are still called training departments and they are usually part of the larger Human Resources Departments. Managers are: Training Managers, Training Directors, Chief Learning Officers, Education and Training Officers, Education and Organizational Development Managers, etc.
Most corporations in the FORTUNE 500 have training functions, if not full-blown corporate universities. Most corporations also have distributed functions (e.g. IT has it's own training department for what I call "shrink-wrapped software" programs-Office, Lotus, etc.; Manufacturing may have a Quality Training department, there may be Executive or Management Development functions-all within the same corporation.) That's not the best way to do it, but many corporations are structured that way.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
ELIZABETH NEW
MP,
A few additional thoughts in answer to your questions. Here are some of the terms that I type in when researching job sites (in no particular order of importance):
training manager
training director
training consultant
training coordinator (this might be more admin level but you never know)
trainer (this usually implies doing stand-up training only)
instructional designer
instructional (never know what you might hit)
learning
educational
course(ware) development
course(ware) developer
courseware
Elizabeth
SUBSCRIBER GF
Hi,
Thanks to the speakers for all of the great information so far.
Three questions:
- Do companies have interns in the field of training?
- Is this the type of market which will be closed (sooner or later) because of the development of many highly specialized degree programs in the field?
- Are the majority of those working in the field education, cognitive science, or psychology grads? (I am an intimidated English ABD with a Math undergrad degree)
Thanks,
GF
ELIZABETH NEW
GF,
I think there will always be a place for interns in the corporate environment. Full-time positions may see ever-increasing specialization but as for internships, I would doubt it. Regarding the availability of training internships, it just depends upon the company (whether or not internships are part of its culture) and upon the need (whether or not there is just enough work to justify hiring an intern to help out). There is, of course, another option: finding out about companies that have lots of training and development going on and then *you* convincing them to create an internship for you.
As far as your skills (though without knowing the specifics of your background), I would venture that there are bound to be many that translate to the corporate environment.
Elizabeth
FULL-TIME WORK VS. CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT
SUBSCRIBER AE
Hi Gloria and Elizabeth--
Many thanks for sharing some very inspiring experiences in training and development--this promises to be an interesting discussion.
One of the common threads in your postings is that you both seem to work full-time for one company rather than contract out as an independent consultant (except for Elizabeth's first job and perhaps Gloria's experience w/ Mercer). This was interesting to me, because I guess I was expecting the reverse (i.e., that working for one or several companies as courseware specialist, for example, would lead to enough contacts that you could eventually work as an independent contractor/consultant).
So, would you say that your experiences are the norm? Or, to put a number on this question, how much of the $160 billion goes to independent consultants vs. corporate employees (or non-profits etc.)?
Thanks again---AE
ELIZABETH NEW
Good questions, AE. To respond from my own experience first, I did think about pushing the independent contractor route (more flexibility, variety of clients, etc.). However, after contracting for a year and a half, I realized that I did not always want to be worrying about what came next, i.e. would there be a project after the current one? Also, I found that expenses were a lot higher working independently as I had to take care of benefits, insurance, vacation time / holidays, etc. Then, too, you can take a hit tax-wise being self-employed.
As for norms in this arena, I see people always going back and forth from corporate to contracting and vice versa. They like the stability, pay, benefits and corporate association of being with a company and then after a while, the desire to do "one's own thing" kicks in and they go back to contracting.
In addition, the current economic climate with layoffs, etc. is forcing many companies to outsource job functions. Very often, someone will get laid off from a company only to get hired back immediately as a contractor. Outsourcing is huge with companies right now because it gets headcount (overhead) off the books. (It usually costs companies more in the long run to outsource but Wall Street likes it this way.)
Elizabeth
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
AE,
80% of the dollars spent on workforce education are spent by 20% of the major corporations in the country. For example, Motorola spends (a mandated) 5% of payroll. That's exceptional. The average corporation in the US spends only about 1.3% of payroll. (Japan spends more like 3%). Many of those dollars do, in fact go to external consulting firms, but the trend is for small consulting firms to consolidate into larger one (Achieve Global & Provant are two of the biggest).
I did start and run my own firm for about 2 years. I did well-made money in my first year, which is unusual for most start-ups--however, I really dislike spending my time in administrative activities and prefer to do "the work."
Even as an independent, I found myself affiliating with other independents quite frequently in order to garner larger contracts. T&D is labor intensive. You need designers, registrars, evaluators, stand-up instructors, etc. One person can fill all of those functions, but only when the target audience is small.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBER AE
Hi Gloria--
One of your comments was witty and also really got me wondering: who *does* pay for bagels and coffee, esp. if you're an independent contractor? And who sets them up/cleans them up?
Also, to widen the question a bit, who is expected to pick up the costs of materials? Do you negotiate each time out, or do you bill to department overhead? With my group, most of the cost would be billed to training overhead; however, when it comes to budgets, catered food of any kind tends to get noticed more quickly by my supervisor than materials such as pens, paper, highlighters, and copies.
AE
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
AE,
Most corporations accept the cost of catering as part of doing business. Some corporations have their own catering staff, in others, catering is outsourced. If you're an independent consulting, it's built into the overhead costs. I was once taught the formula (33% overhead, 33% materials & production, 33% staff) to calculate the cost of projects in proposals. (Profit, of course, is a whole 'nuther matter).
Of course, this is the same person who, when I asked about pricing services and when you knew you'd hit the right dollar amount said, "You know you've got it right when the client cries while they write the check."...
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBER FT
Hello All,
I'll blame this on being Canadian, but could somebody define a corporate university for me? Do these places offer a full range of course offerings for employees to get a degree? What kinds of qualifications to the instructors usually have?
Thanks,
FT
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
Most corporate universities are not degree granting institutions, although there are over twenty in the US who are. Corporate Universities vary in their function for corporation to corporation. Some simply broker requested training from outside vendors (low-end of the scale). Some design proprietary courses on skills needed to run the corporation (e.g. Hamburger U. at McDonalds teaches folks how to prepare their food, their way). Most corporate universities have consolidated all of the training functions that previously existed as separate entities: Technical Training, Software or Data Training, Executive or Management Development, etc. They are "universities" because they incorporate all of the disciplines required by the organization as a whole. At the high-functioning end of this continuum are the corporate universities responsible for managing the "learning organization". This means managing the intellectual capital of the entire organization, making decisions about who needs what knowledge when, where it should reside (in machines, documentation, or people), how it is disseminated, etc.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OFFICERS
PAULA FOSTER
Gloria et al, can you say a little bit more about "learning organizations"? When I first heard that term, I thought it meant a special type of organization (like a research institute) whose whole job was learning. Since then I have gathered that au contraire, a "learning organization" is simply any organization that sees itself as an entity that collectively "learns" in order to adapt to a changing environment. All organizations do learn, but only some realize that, and it is those which call themselves learning organizations. Is that about right?
If so, then is it also true that learning organizations are more likely to have a Chief Learning Officer or a Chief Knowledge Officer? And could there conceivably be a place for a Humanities PhD either in that position or among the staff related to that position?
Paula Foster
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
Paula,
You've got it right. And yes, organizations that are quick enough to consider the need to become a "learning" organization usually have Chief Learning Officers. "Chief Knowledge Officer" is a little more "iffy" because Information Technology officers (Chief Information Officers) sometimes take that title as well. There is, in fact, some overlap in function that must be negotiated when organizations have both a CIO and CLO.
Yes, it is a good job for someone in the humanities, but it's not a straight shot. There's quite a bit of skill acquisition needed.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
ON-LINE TRAINING AND WEB DEVELOPMENT
SUBSCRIBER TC
Hi Gloria,
You mentioned corporate universities in one of your email responses. That's the direction I'm trying to head now, most especially as a stand-up trainer and instructional designer. Many of the job postings I see mention experience in on-line training. I have helped to create an on-line training program, but I was the one who did the research and fed the information to the HTML programmer. Are most corporate universities looking for a trainer who will actually do both the research and the computer coding (to me, it seems like two completely different types of skill sets)? If so, do you have any recommendations on courses/seminars to pick up the computer programming skills specific to on-line training?
Thank you for your willingness to help us this week!
TC
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
TC,
I was one of the first folk in Seattle to introduce WBT/CBT into our training curriculum. I went for it "big" and took a hunk of my instructional designers and gave them nine months of intensive programming training. Within six month of actually starting to function as a multimedia production team, they were all "stolen" by external multimedia producers. It was also clear to me that they would never be able to keep up with both the technical (software/hardware) skills they needed to program and the instructional design skills they needed to do their jobs.
I settled on a structure that I've maintained since. Internal ISD staff design the objectives, the structure, the navigation and may even specify the media assets (audio, video, graphics) they need at specific points in the navigation, but the programming is outsourced. This allows the instructional designers to focus on instruction and the programmers to keep their skills up-to-date as programmers. Lots of corporations do this, so I don't believe you actually need to know how to program, but you do need to know what qualifies and well-designed multimedia or eLearning.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBER BI
[intro listed below]
The interesting thing in our speakers' posts, I find, is that they have found a satisfactory way to combine their academic background with a stable corporate job. That is truly precious. My Ph.D. is in medieval French literature...believe me, the javascripting I do has nothing to do with that.
My question is this: it seems to me that ex-academics who can program (there was a discussion of the other case before) like me would be able to find jobs in distance learning, and that this would provide a nice combo of academic and technical skills within the corporate world. I live in the Boston area, a hotbed for this type of thing, and get nothing but silence when I send out my resume for this kind of job. Do you know what kind of background corporations providing distance learning (like clicktolearn.com) are looking for, how I can market myself for this type of job?
Congratulations on making a successful jump from the academy to the corporate world, folks. In the current market, panic can easily set in, so I am grateful for words of advice and encouragement...and not dissing!!
BI
SUBSCRIBER HP
Hello,
Could one of the speakers please comment on salary ranges for corporate training jobs, and the range of jobs (entry-level, middle management, etc). In addition, I wonder if one of you might speak to the issue of flex-time, working at home, and the likely salary ballpark for working part-time in the field.
Thanks.
HP
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
A salary survey is published once a year in TRAINING MAGAZINE. I haven't seen one for a year or so, but I can tell you what I expect as a hiring manager for each of the following job titles:
|
JOB TITLE |
ENTRY |
MID-RANGE |
|
Stand-up Trainer |
$35,000 |
$50,000 |
|
Instructional Designer |
$45,000 |
$80,000 |
|
Multimedia Instructional Designer (Computer-Based Training or Web-Based Training) |
$50,000 |
$90,000 |
|
Career Management Specialist |
$40,000 |
$65,000 |
|
Training Manager |
$60,000 |
$80,000 |
|
Performance Consultant |
$50,000 |
$80,000 |
|
Training Director (from 4-5 direct reports at low end to from 30-100 direct reports at the high end) |
$80,000 |
$200,000 (or $300K in very large corps.) |
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
ELIZABETH NEW
Regarding full-time salaries, I would say that Gloria seems right on the mark. As far as part-time or contract work, rates can vary. Performance, training and development companies can charge their corporate clients anywhere from about $65 to $110 or more per hour for instructional design, technical writing, course development, needs analysis, test design, etc.
If you sub-contract with the training company to work on these types of projects, the pay can range from around $35 to $65 an hour. Note that you can be paid for the time you actually "design," "write," whatever, as well as for the time it takes to ramp up on the topic at hand, time spent in meetings, time spent on communication related to the project, etc.
Elizabeth
ELIZABETH NEW
Let me add on to my previous posting and describe "sub-contracting" for those who might not be familiar with this set-up. If you want to use your training and development skills and prefer to let someone else handle the corporate contacts, organization of the work and billing arrangements, then you can work for them as an "independent contractor" or "sub-contractor".
If you already have your network of contacts and leads such as in Gloria's situation mentioned earlier and want to have your own services company, then you can charge the higher rates. It just depends on how much responsibility and risk you want to assume.
Elizabeth
TEACHING VS. TRAINING (AND THE TEACHER AS COP)
SUBSCRIBER MR
Dear Elizabeth, Gloria, and Scott-
As I near the completion of my doctorate in English literature, I am thinking seriously about moving into the corporate realm. Because I love many aspects of university teaching, this decision has been very gut-wrenching for me. However, in the past few years, I have felt very demoralized by some students' apathy about learning, as well as (in my experience) the growing need to address issues of discipline in the college classroom.
Before I sound like a total grinch, let me assure you that I have enjoyed working with many hardworking, delightful students over the past years. I tend to have very good rapport with the folks in my classes, and I find many of them to be truly engaged in our work together. Nonetheless, I have become frustrated enough with my role as "policewoman" in higher education to contemplate a career change.
That said, here is my question, which I want to pose delicately. To what extent do you, as corporate trainers, have to "discipline" the adult learners that you serve? For instance, are learners in corporate settings ever resentful or apathetic about attending the classes that you provide?
My question may sound horribly naive (or maybe even condescending), but I hope you can sense that my motives are good. Basically, I don't want to put myself into another educational situation where I end up facing the same kinds of frustrations that currently distress me. Of course, I recognize that interpersonal challenges can arise in any setting--that in any workplace, one may encounter the occasional difficult person. But I'm wondering if the incentives of the business world diminish the need for a trainer's disciplinary role, to some extent. I have instructed adult learners in university settings and at a community literary center, and I have generally found them to be extremely diligent and enjoyable (often more so than the typical 18-22 year olds), but is that the case in the corporate world?
Thanks for your responses,
MR
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
MR,
What a great questions. One of the great rewards of teaching adults-at-work is that they are most often happy to be in the classroom. That doesn't mean they're highly motivated or that you don't get the student who will fight you on every learning objective. But it is different from teaching in two- and four-year colleges. (I did both.)
If you have designed a course well, its ability to be immediately implemented on the job and the sense that it will simply, improve or enhance their working life, sells the training. I have to add that even a poorly designed course if often well received because it means you're not working that day-and you get bagels and coffee.
However, these are adult learners and they are adult learners in a specific work setting. They are very demanding students. They will challenge you if they don't see immediate application for the skills and knowledge you're providing. They will, frankly, tell you when you're full of it and walk out. (I taught police officers as an independent consultant. They were armed.)
This is not a setting that permits you to walk into a classroom unprepared. You've got to study the job and make sure that the skills are truly transferable to their work site. You've got to know ahead of time what the barriers to implementation of their skills will be and help them find ways around those barriers--even if it means going to their supervisors and asking them to work to remove the barriers.
If you do all that, you'll have an excellent experience. You'll get something you don't get in academia-students who call you on the phone right after class and say, "I tried what I learned and listen to what happened!" Actually, one of the nicest set of calls I received was after a class I taught on "Running Effective Meetings". Eight out of ten direct reports of one my students called to tell me how grateful they were that their boss didn't bore the heck out of them and waste their time with stupid meetings anymore!
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
PAULA FOSTER
I would like to second what Gloria said about the differences between training students and academic students. I have only a smidge of training experience, but judging from that smidge, my perception is that adult learners in workplace learning situations are very different from college students in academic learning situations. The audience itself is different, but perhaps more importantly, the assumed relationship between you and them is extremely different.
In the academic classroom, the assumption (however naive or old-fashioned) is that you are the professor and therefore the chief repository of knowledge. In a sense, it's true, even in collaborative, de-centered, Freirean classrooms: no matter how brilliantly, consistently and sincerely you de-center your classroom, your institution requires you to evaluate the students at the end, so your opinion is the one that "counts" (to them, and to the institution).
In the training classroom, it's the other way around. You do know some things, and of course it does help build your credibility in their eyes if you know quite a bit about your subject, but from the first moment, it is really *they* who have the authority, *their* knowledge that has center stage, and *they* who have the decision-making power to modify their knowledge and their performance, or not, as they see fit. Institutionally, they are the ones who evaluate *you*--sometimes with written evaluations right after the class (which amount to, "how much did you like this training?"), but more eloquently, with their own job performance after they return to the workplace. If your training made a difference, it was good. If it didn't make a difference, it wasn't worth it.
Undoubtedly, that is a very oversimplified view, for as I said, I only have a smidge of experience as a trainer. Would any speakers like to complicate my perception? What differences do you perceive between classroom teaching and workplace training?
Paula Foster
SUBSCRIBER CG
Paula-
I found the interest in the difference between 'academic' students and 'corporate learners' interesting. I help train students, faculty and staff in software applications, and it is always rewarding to see the 'instant gratification' of knowing a participant has 'gotten' a point. On the flipside, I find that I sometimes am put in the position of 'selling' the application to unwilling learners (i.e., grumpy WordPerfect users forced to switch to Word). Not so different than nineteen year-olds disinterested in the process of composition! However, they do have a boss saying 'learn it', while most first year students have no such power figures looming over them (well, parents may complain about bad grades, but they won't associate it with the 'training opportunities' they wasted in their sleepy attendance of Basic Composition!)
I'm still straddling academia and training by hanging out and doing training and documentation in a university setting, and I love it! It's hard to be disciplined to do research, but having library resources on hand helps...
This discussion makes me feel good because, if you're in training or corporate work and DO happen to try to keep up with research and attend academic conferences...you may find what I have, an inner sense that you need to 'justify' your non-academic career...I sometimes envy my friends' positions at universities, and then I think about trying to get a job in academia, and I shiver....
Thanks for our contributors for a lovely discussion!
MULTICULTURALISM, REFLECTIVE PRACTICE, AND T&D
SUBSCRIBER SE
Gloria, Elizabeth, and Scott,
Thank you all for your insightful and personable comments; I have particularly enjoyed the tremendous voice you have all brought to the discussion. I feel as though I'm involved in a real conversation.
I am nearing the completion of a Ph.D. in English Education, and yet, as many people have said, find myself struggling with a gut-wrenching decision to move away from the academy and into other realms of professional endeavor. Money is a large concern; I have a family with three wonderful boys. Aside from that, my own interests in education seem to find very little real support in the practical and very political realities of academic life. I am deeply invested in multicultural education, and have already published a couple of books on it as well as conducted professional development seminars for teachers around the country, yet I have gotten little or no notice from my own program.
One of the things I am trying to do is develop an understanding of professional practice which actually draws on multiple cultural influences, rather than make practice more "multicultural" by simply adding a book or two to a reading list.
To that end, my dissertation is focused on developing a Taoist approach to reflective practice, developing a way of understanding the dynamic interaction between the personal and the professional. As a profession, teaching is very personal, and it has been interesting to read in several posts how "the bottom line" seems to be far more important than who you are. I wonder if personality is really so irrelevant.
On that basis, I have several questions:
How do you see the issues and demands of multiculturalism being defined in the workplace?
How is "training" being developed to meet these demands?
Does the concept of "reflective practice" have a large role in corporate cultures? If so, in what way?
Is training really so impersonal? How much of a trainer's personality contributes to the successful character of his or her training style?
Finally, given the information I have supplied, can you offer any ideas or insights into how my experiences might be useful in meeting the needs of corporate training or education in the workplace?
Again, thank you for sharing your ideas and experiences!
SE
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
Many, many corporations and consulting firms are dedicated to the issues of the multicultural and global workplace. Stephen Rhinesmith, the former director of the American Field Service, is one of the best-known independent consultants. There are also corporations like Global Lead in Cincinnati and J. Howard Associates (a subsidiary of Provant Corporation) are very well reputed corporations. These are just two, there are many, many more. Most of them are focused on what boils down to cross-cultural communication issues, where "culture" is defined very broadly in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, occupation, thinking styles, etc. The goal is for corporations to be able to function in multicultural, global environments and for them to manage in-house staff relationships in ways that respect and value diversity.
To your second question, yes, much of training succeeds on the basis of the personality of the presenter. I believe that to be true of all educational endeavors based in the classroom. However, a well-designed program of instruction is only enhanced by the skills and personality of the presenter. It's not dependent on that personality. Most corporate programs require broad distribution across geographic boundaries. In most cases, that distribution is accomplished through "Train-the-trainer" programs. You can't depend on personality to get the course to work in those cases.
But I think you're really asking more about the value system of individuals and corporations. There is in fact a need for corporations to remain "humane". Many of my friends who are strategic planning consultants (Roger Kaufman at Florida State University) work with corporations to make sure that they incorporate working toward the "global good" into their mission and vision. I don't know that there are many corporations who do this. There are some. Those are the ones I seek out as employers.
And, no, reflective practice hasn't hit corporations yet, as far as I know. Corporations are primarily behaviorally and performance oriented. They tend to stay away from messing with the stuff inside the "black-box" of your cranium. There is a reason for this. It may sound strange, but it makes a lot of ethical sense to me. A corporation pays for your time and your labor. It does not pay for access into the "black-box" which is your own set of values and beliefs. It does have a right to require that you behave a certain way on the job regardless of your beliefs. If you are a stone neo-nazi who believes clearly in white-supremacy, that's your right and the corporation has no right to try to change your value system or philosophy. It does have a right to ask you to behave with respect to all of the folks you interact with while you are on the job. Some corporations are also willing to extend that to "...and whenever you are in a position to represent the corporation off the job." but that's shakier ground.
I once had the opportunity to sit down with a woman named Barbara Walker who started one of the first in-house multicultural, "valuing diversity"/"inclusion" programs when she worked for Digital Equipment. Barbara, who is African American, told me that valuing diversity meant that she should be able to sit down at a table with a racist and hold a reasonable conversation in which neither party tried to hold power over the other and both genuinely attempted to understand the other's point of view and even to find value in that point of view. Ultimately, however, she admitted that most of the issues around inclusion are, at-heart, about power and status--who has it and who doesn't. So, the goal isn't to create some homogenous group who can all get together, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. It's much more difficult than that. It's about learning to cherish and protect the loose canon, the kooks and weirdoes--or at minimum, behave as though you do. Luckily, (for my personal biases) behavioral modeling theory tells us that after a while, their behavior may actually begin to change their minds.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBER AK
SE,
I wonder if the kind of reflective capacity you are describing might be addressed by coaches who work one-one-one with executives and/or in programs (not necessarily business or industry-based) that attempt larger goals of personal "transformation."
I definitely take Gloria's about the black box and the corporation's ethical position. However, I suspect that there are places where training and development activities cross into the personal/professional dynamic you mention. Perhaps these activities take place on more neutral ground, such as in private institutes, rather than in programs directly sponsored by the corporation.
I think your expertise sounds extremely valuable--and very definitely marketable.
AK
PAULA FOSTER
Just for fun, here's a brief story about an employer who tried to get into the black box. At a large public university a couple of years ago, the high-level person who was in charge of about 1,500 non-faculty employees (e.g., custodians, air conditioning technicians, campus police, reprographics people, etc.) decided he wanted to get all the employees "speaking the same language." So he brought in Steven Covey for a very expensive talk (mega-thousands of dollars) and proceeded to have his six-person training staff deliver umpteen hundred five-day training classes in the Covey way of thinking and living (aka "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People"). All employees were to go through this class, from the most skilled to the least skilled. Some of the employees did enjoy the training, but a sizeable minority just *hated* it, bitterly resenting the intrusion into their black boxes. The religious people in particular had a serious objection to being "indoctrinated" into a system of personal values.
So Gloria is right for yet another reason: not only is it ethically safer to stay away from the black box, it is also better business, from the standpoint of employee-employer relations. In addition, it is cheaper. I shudder to think how many hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to "train" these people in the seven habits--with mixed and largely intangible results.
Carry on,
Paula Foster
VALUE PLACED BY COMPANIES ON T&D
SUBSCRIBER CJ
Hello all. I have a question about how corporations perceive the importance of training and documentation. I have worked as and editor, writer, and project manager at a consulting firm specializing in custom software training, and I have friends who work in human performance at the Big 5 consulting firms. My small company often had trouble convincing corporations of the value of training, and even in the larger companies, training is the first to go when the budget needs to be cut. Also, especially in the Big 5 firms, the human performance teams are often seen as "touchy-feely" types who create Powerpoint slides and lead icebreaker activities for meetings. Their work is often not seen as important to the success of a software implementation, and the process and technology people often do not respect their work.
In my experience, if you know the software and are very good at developing training and if the clients feel they have learned a lot from the training, then you do eventually gain respect. (And I say "feel they have learned" for a reason: companies often don't want to pay or take the time to evaluate the success of the training through more objective or longer term measures.) But nevertheless, it is often an uphill battle, one that has to be fought on every project.
Now for the specific questions: Have any of you experienced similar situations? If so, how have you handled them? Do you know how training and human performance departments are faring in the recent corporate layoffs?
Thanks to everyone for an interesting discussion this week.
CJ
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
CJ,
Sorry to say, it has always been thus. Most of the "warm/fuzzy" and "touchy/feely" reputation is deserved. Many folks in training have focused on affective or cognitive learning objectives and have not focused on behavioral and performance objectives geared to obtaining results (e.g., I can actually go back to my office and use the software with a diminishing amount of user support. Or sales did increase, or customer complaints declined, etc.)
That's one of the driving forces behind the shift from focusing on "training" to concentrating on "performance improvement". I can train people all day. Spend a lot of dollars in course design, materials, catering and lost labor hours and not change anything but make folks "smile" when they come out. If you want respect from corporations, you have to effect the bottom-line and not waste people's time. Wasting time in class is primary reasons participants give for resisting attendance--they have better things to do.
Improve some processes and reduce costs, increase efficiency--that will get you respect--and it will be deserved.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
ELIZABETH NEW
CJ,
To answer your questions: "Now for the specific questions: Have any of you experienced similar situations? If so, how have you handled them? Do you know how training and human performance departments are faring in the recent corporate layoffs?"
Training, like almost any expense, can be seen as a non-essential, depending on how it's presented or used. However, once training outcomes are tied to resolving *specific* business issues and objectives, those in corporations making the decisions on whether or not to fund training are much more open to adopting those programs. This is true especially if positive outcomes are also tied to something personal for the decision-maker(s). For example, if the training works fabulously and results in a huge increase in sales or other benefit for the company, the decision-maker(s) will look good and get a promotion or a raise or something else positive.
Of course, it is very important that participants in training feel like they have gotten something out of the learning experience, having management buy at the highest levels will almost always ensure a successful training experience.
With regard to the current economic climate and lay-offs, training and HR are being affected. However, as a senior account executive here at Dell said to me recently, "you can't lay-off your way out of a difficult situation. Providing sales makers and revenue-producing personnel with the skills they need is critical to moving forward and out of a slow economy" (something to that effect).
Elizabeth
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, ACTING, AND T&D
SUBSCRIBER DE
Gloria, Elizabeth and Scott,
I am a graduate student in the Educational Psychology Department. Currently I am ABD and have started working on my dissertation. I am looking at different job options and I think that at this point I have decided not to stay in the Academia. I am interested in seeing if there is Anything out there in the corporate world for someone with my background. Given that you all have worked in this environment, do you have any ideas for me? In your interactions, have you met or worked with anyone with a degree in educational psychology? I have a lot of experience in test design, statistical analysis of results, group training - my problem is that I do not know where to start. All we ever here in Graduate school is how to become a faculty member - little resources, assistance or guidance is provided for choosing a different career path.
Thanks in advance. Hearing your experiences has been of great help.
DE
SUBSCRIBER FY
DE,
In your own backyard there at PSU you have one of the best (if not THE best) Instructional Systems Programs and Adult Learning Programs in the country. I think that they would be an excellent resource for you, and depending on your cognate load/requirements, you might be able to take some of their classes. As far as the educational psychology background, if you look at the training literature, you will find that I/O psych is beginning to not only look at but also apply principles of educational psychology in praxis and research. Topics like cognition, motivation, and self-regulation of learning formed the basis of my dissertation research in a setting that was focusing on workplace training. Best wishes. I think it promises to be an exciting pursuit for you.
FY
SCOTT CARTER
DE,
I can't comment on your situation in too much detail, I'm afraid. While I've researched countless jobs and occupations, it's never been from the standpoint of an educational psychologist.
Interestingly, however, a good friend of mine was a student of Ed Psy and he landed an excellent job in 'ergonomics' studying the interactions between people and various (usually computer related) technologies. My guess is you've already explored this a bit, but I thought I'd mention it, just in case.
Scott
SUBSCRIBER YD
Hello Gloria,
What a treasure trove of information! I am struggling with some of the same issues. A brief bio: professional actor for 20 years, stage and film with an exceptional resume. I also have been teaching English pronunciation (not ESL!) privately and at the college level, on the side for the past 6 years to non-native speakers. My curriculum encompasses how English works, production of sound (my voice training kicking in) articulation, placement and because of my theatre background, presentation skills, improvisational dialogue, sequential and lateral thinking and speaking skills.
I also did in depth work with a professional speaker who needed help with "presentation" i.e. "Acting", gestural language, effective vocal delivery and body language and ended up scripting a 20 minute role play exercise for her to do at her own workshops with call centre employees. I inadvertantly saw the invoice for the current session she was working on, and I was staggered! I quickly realized that my hourly rate for her was disproportionate to say the least. I created a clear and confident speech workshop for poets who were unable to get beyond the fear of the microphone and needed to understand the dynamics of engaging the audience.
I decided to do my masters for various reasons and have just completed my MA in Drama here in Toronto, Canada. Yes, I'm south of the border. The door to PHD'dom has been thrown open to me with funding and I will begin that journey in the fall. Call me crazy, call me wacky! I will most likely be exploring performance theory.
My questions? I feel somewhat naive, but I had never heard of the "corporate university" (does that exist here in Canada, or does it come by another moniker?) although I had a gut feeling that there must be a place for someone like me as a "trainer", or facilitator with my qualifications. (I ascribe to the truism that whatever I need to call myself, it all boils down to the same thing. Different arenas have different jargon, and all "cultures" have a "speak" which is their own.)
I understand that the term "Human Performance Technology" has a much broader application than what I described in my own experiences, are there associations here that mirror those you described in the States? Can I market myself as a "performance specialist" to the corporate world? Do I need to upgrade my tech skills i.e. power point etc? Do I bang on the Human Resources and Development departments? The bottom line is that I am an actor with considerable skills coupled with the discipline of higher education. The academic world is a strange one for me and I am not adverse (I think) to teaching at the end of all of this...I really want to explore this as I toil thorough the next few years. Apologies for the length of this email and perhaps the vagueness of my queries, but this discussion has really started me thinking that this is a viable road for me. Any thoughts?
Many thanx,
YD
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
YD,
Your definition of performance is, indeed, different from that of corporations. They use the terms in contexts like, "economic performance", "manufacturing performance", "performance assessment", etc.
However, (have I got a surprise for you) there is indeed a place for you in the field. There are many, many consultants who do presentations skills, communication skills, media relations skills. Many executives are not good public speakers and yet they must make presentations to stockholders, sales presentations and answer questions by the media. A good example to look at is a corporation called "Communispond". They specialize in teaching presentations skills, but are also one of the few companies to teach executives how to conduct themselves during a media interview.
Also, there are other companies who do what amounts to improvisational theatre. For example, in a sexual harassment class, actors will play out a scene in which behavior may or may not be seen as harassment. The facilitator will ask the audience to script the next piece of dialog (e.g. "How would you respond to a statement like the one you've just heard?") The actor speaks the line and their fellow on stage must improvise a response that will help the audience understand the effects of their speech on others.
And yes, there are corporate universities in Canada. I actually helped counsel some folks from a bank (Westminster?) start theirs up quite a number of years ago. Both ISPI and ASTD are international organizations with substantial numbers of Canadian members.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
WHETHER OR NOT TO USE THE "PHD"
SUBSCRIBER CD
The subject of whether or not to indicate that you have a PhD when looking for a job in the corporate world was mentioned briefly. I'd like to hear more about the advantages and disadvantages of putting this on the resume.
I worked in business for 22 years before getting my PhD in linguistics, and I rarely encountered anyone with a PhD during that time. I know that people view it differently, but I'd like to hear our guests' perspectives.
Thank you.
CD
SCOTT CARTER
Hi CD,
I think it's true that having a Ph.D.--and especially a humanities Ph.D.-- can work against you, though I base this merely on my own anecdotal experience. Why might it work against you? I'm not sure. Perhaps because those doing the hiring inevitably look for what is common and familiar rather than for what is uncommon and exotic. I think there are also a lot of people out there who harbor anti-intellectual, anti-academic prejudice, just as there is a lot of prejudice in academia against more 'worldly' folk. In any case, don't be surprised if your Ph.D. turns out to be a liability on the job market, but don't let this crush your spirit, either. If you're willing to put in the time and the effort, I think you will find a good job. And there are some non-academic jobs that actually require a Ph.D.
Scott
SUBSCRIBER CB
I don't think it is necessarily the degree that works against people, so much as the "training" that humanities Ph.D.s must unlearn as they transition into the non-academic world. I used to work for a private investigation company whose owner took great delight in reading the writing samples of Ph.D.s who applied for work at her firm. In the world of investigation reports, words like "problematic," "hybridity," "totalization," and paragraphs with twenty-two sentences make a very bad impression. I still remember her sitting with her feet on the desk, belly laughing while reading that kind of stuff. "CB!" she used to guffaw. "How come you don't write like this???" I didn't write like that because I went to graduate school later in life, and never saw the post-modern emperor as anything but buck naked.
But you can use your Ph.D. to good advantage in your cover letter. Whatever kind of job you are applying for, emphasize some aspect of your study that relates to it. I told PI firms that I was good with government documents as a result of my doctoral dissertation research. That plus a writing sample that didn't have words like "discursive" in it got me my first job. I never liked working for PIs, but it paid the rent while I turned my dissertation into a book.
CB
CONDUCTING WORK-RELATED RESEARCH
SUBSCRIBER MD
Greetings,
I've been following the conversations since the beginning and now find myself needing to add to the discussion and ask one question.
I am somewhat different from many of you in that I started in corporate American and switched to academia. I worked as a technical writer for close to 10 years (with a BA in Communications -- no advanced degree). I left the corporate world because I became bored. Ten years of pouring my labor into documentation that, if I was lucky, would end up holding up the short leg of someone's desk became frustrating. So, I earned my masters in education and became a high school English teacher. (Thus my chuckles when college instructors/professors gripe about apathetic, disinterested students). Teaching, however, raised many questions for me and at the urging of a former professor I returned to academia for my PhD.
I love the research, coursework, readings, and discussions with my colleagues. I hate the politics, power plays and clubiness rife within the academy. Even though I have tendencies toward workaholism, I am wary of the workload I see carried by my mentor.
I have concluded that no matter what environment I choose to work in when I complete my PhD, I need to decide which "evils" I can live with and which are unacceptable. There is no perfect world; there is only the world that best fits your needs at a particular time in your life. It seems to me that the academic life is much like the clerical (religious) life (and I hope I am not offending anyone with this analogy); it is a calling and a lifestyle -- not a job or even a career. I don't write this to sound highhanded or to raise academia to some ethereal level, rather I am trying to make the point that the academy is so consuming or involving that you have to make it your life. So the question I find myself having to answer is, do I want to live the life of an academic or do I want a job and then forge my "life" elsewhere.
Now for my question: The "speakers" have mentioned several times that they have been able to pursue their own research and scholarly agendas. Research is why I returned to academia and all other things being equal, I would never go back to the corporate world if I could not research. Therefore, these questions are key for me. Do your research projects mesh with what you're doing at work, where do you publish (or what do you do with the results of your research), and who owns your research? If you are publishing, where do you publish and as someone outside the academy do you have a hard time getting your research accepted or taken seriously. Does your research involve human participants or are you doing "desktop" research? If you're working with people, how do you gain access and what legal protections do you have in place (like RSRB approval)?
Thank you to all for an interesting discussion.
MD
SUBSCRIBER TH
MD,
Penn at least (where I did grad work) has a *very* restrictive set of clauses over ownership of intellectual property, as result of research. At least on paper.
Right up there with the corporate world. And it's become no laughing matter in the last several weeks: Lucent successfully won a criminal lawsuit against two men re: ideas for product line it had itself cancelled!! Garnered an indictment against these men, who had utilized the knowledge/underlying research (of which hey may actually have been originators, while at Lucent, for all we know) - but which in any case had been used by these two outside of the Lucent context to produce the same results at another company
-TH
SUBSCRIBER TC
Hi MD,
I've been in the corporate world for over 10 years. In my experience, many of the research projects I have done have also ended by holding up the short leg of a desk. Corporate seems to jump from fire to fire, and assigns research projects for the blaze of the moment. By the time the work is completed, the management has moved onto a different fire. Therefore, the final results of my projects have often received a quick read (or less), but were seldom integrated into the workflow. The projects I find that work best are the "business process improvement," or "BPI" assessments that I instigate myself. I noted the current process for something, figured out a cheaper and better way to do it, presented it to management and then (with the help of others) made necessary changes. BPI hits the bottom line of a department and ultimately the company - a major emphasis in the corporate world.
TC
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
TC, MD and Others Interested in Corporate Research:
I thought I should jump in here. I believe there are many venues for legitimate research in corporations, however, it's easier to find non-juried publication venues than juried. (Performance Improvement Quarterly published by ISPI is juried.)
More likely places are Training and Development Magazine (ASTD), Training, and Performance Improvement (ISPI). I have published in these venues because I believe it's a good idea to disseminate best practices.
Articles in non-juried magazines are much more practical in nature and much less research oriented, but they are useful to people starting in the field or moving into new or unfamiliar territory. However, I was trained as a social scientist and I am sometimes appalled at the loss of rigor, validity and reliability in this type of research. As a graduate student, I would have given just about anything for access to the kind of data I stumble over in corporations on a daily basis. The problem is that you really don't have a whole lot of time to build in the rigor you'd like and it's not generally necessary. It's been my experience that it's more important to manage perceptions than reality--because corporations act on their perceptions. They don't usually have time to wait for detailed analysis to make decisions. If they do, the competition will kill them. Cycle time is everything and a good, calculated guess is a fine thing.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SCOTT CARTER
MD,
I'll address your questions below...
> Do your research projects mesh with what you're doing at work,
No, not at all.
> Where do you publish (or what do you do with the results of your research), and who owns your research?
I publish in the same places I published when I was still teaching--and I own it, though ownership isn't really a huge issue for me. I'll never be collecting Stephen King-size royalties on anything, and frankly I find the idea of 'owning' an idea very strange.
> If you are publishing, where do you publish and as someone outside the academy do you have a hard time getting your research accepted or taken seriously.
If, for example, I'm submitting something to a journal, I don't ordinarily identify myself as someone outside the academy; on the contrary, for some time I've exploited a purely nominal connection I still have to a university.
Scott
ELIZABETH NEW
I'll take this opportunity to jump back into the discussion...
I look for opportunities to publish in both juried and non-juried formats--there is value-add for both. Obviously juried publications are more difficult to get into and tend to include more rigorous research. So far, I have collaborated on research with colleagues who are still in the academy so I assume their academic links help here. In addition, I seek out journals whose publishing record includes articles by independent scholars or consultants, as well as academic professors and scholars. But, as Steve mentioned, a link to a university, however tenuous, will probably be very helpful.
Elizabeth
SUBSCRIBER WA
Hi MD and TC (and others):
After spending almost 25 years in academia (including many years as a researcher and some adjunct teaching), I accepted a one-year contract as a research/management consultant for a private U.S.-based knowledge management company in 2000. In part it was out of curiosity about how things worked differently in the corporate sector. My assessment of what is called "research" in this company is consistent with what you both have described: a lot of short-term thinking and not much value attached to the research process or products if they didn't lead immediately to new sources of income.
It seems that compared with academia, the sheer pace of change in the private sector is so intense that there is no time for reflection or "good research." And yet many bad business decisions can be made if everything is decided in an atmosphere of extreme haste. I have found that to be frustrating because I've always taken great pride in careful, well-conceived research projects. For some people, however, the speed in the private sector can be exciting after you've worked in academia--if the company is stable and well-managed.
If you are working in the private sector but love academic or scholarly research, you might want to consider "moonlighting" as a part-time faculty member at a local college or university. With tenure-track positions in academia being so scarce, this might allow you the best of both worlds.
Hope that's helpful,
WA
SUBSCRIBER TU
Dear WA,
Could you elaborate on the process through which you got your job as a researcher/management consultant? Do you work independently, or in a team? What's a typical day like?
Thank you!
TU
SUBSCRIBER WA
Well, for the sake of the list discussion format, I'll be relatively brief. I was hired after a lengthy "courtship" from the company's CEO last year, because they very much wanted to have a Ph.D. on staff as their "brain trust". Most of the other corporate staff in the organization held MBAs but lacked the knowledge about academia, even though that was their intended market. The job was desirable because it paid well and it allowed me to draw upon my many years of academic, research, and online experience to help the company decide how to develop and position a variety of knowledge management products and services. I was hired in a full-time consulting capacity but as an independent contractor.
As far as typical days, there really haven't been any typical ones. Each day, or each week has had a variety of different projects, including competitive market intelligence, product development (search engine analysis and testing, etc.), and a lot of time examining the demand within the academic arena for online research and knowledge management tools and services. A major "plus" was the freedom to work online from home. The director held conference call telephone meetings every Friday afternoon and about half of the personnel worked from their homes--telecommuting from locations other than the main location of the corporate offices. Some work was individual, some was in pairs, and some in larger teams, but all was done via e-mail, telephone, and research report generation/distribution. In such a context, it's vital to have an effective communications system (as well as a strategic plan for the business) so everyone knows from week to week where we're all heading.
WA
SUBSCRIBER TU
Dear WA,
Thank you very much for your comments--they were very helpful and insightful! I find it particularly interesting that you have been able to work at home for some of your projects.
I have just one last question: how did you come upon this "courtship"? To be courted by a CEO as a PhD is encouraging (and generally quite rare)-though I know that now many management consulting firms are big on hiring PhDs to bolster their "intellectual capital" Did you submit a resume to the company cold, or were connections made through networking, etc?
Thanks!
SUBSCRIBER WA
Hi there:
Just a reply to your last question: We had met this CEO at an academic conference we attended back in 1999 and he seemed quite interested in our collaborative work in online education and graduate affairs (we're advocates for graduate student success and we had been invited to give a keynote at the conference that year). Early into last year, this CEO contacted me and said he was quite interested in further discussions about our ideas for online scholarship and graduate education research. One thing led to another, and soon he was coming up to visit me and hinted at a job offer. Our discussions went on for about 4 months while I negotiated with the company for an optimal work situation before I was willing to "take the plunge".
I would say this kind of hiring scenario was more common in the late 1990s when venture capital was easier to be obtained by small businesses. This year, things in the online education environment (private sector, at least) have tightened considerably, and jobs are much less plentiful. If you're ever interested in working for a company, try to do research on it ahead of time--financial circumstances, corporate structure, strategic plan, backgrounds of the management team, etc. You can locate quite a bit from the Web if you know where to look. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission has a master index of corporate annual reports for all public companies available at its EDGAR search feature:
http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
WA
WRITING AND PUBLISHING WHILE WORKING
SUBSCRIBER BT
As a humanities Ph.D. working outside the university, I'm always encouraged by stories from those who are pursuing satisfying non-academic careers--and the posts by Elizabeth New, Gloria Regalbuto Bentley, and Scott Carter certainly fall in that category.
Both Elizabeth New and Scott Carter mentioned that they continued to pursue scholarship on the side. When do you find (or make) the time? Elizabeth, do you find you have more or less time for scholarship than when you were in academe? Does not having summers free from teaching responsibilities make much of a difference to the amount of research you're able to get done?
BT
ELIZABETH NEW
BT,
It's hard to say if I have more or less time to do research now because I found my time in academe eaten up by so many things other than research--even in the summertime. Right now, my opportunities for scholarship come in fits and starts rather than in a steady stream. And I'm OK with that. While the production process may be slower overall, I find that when I actually sit down to write, I have more creative energy to focus on these topics since my mind is not tired of them by doing them all day long every day (teaching classes, working on departmental curricula etc.).
As for access to resources, this past spring I was asked to teach an organizational behavior class at a local business school. (Having the Ph.D. and corporate credentials made the hiring a snap!) The faculty ID gives me access to a university library, interlibrary loan, etc. It's a very handy for continuing the research agenda...
Elizabeth
SCOTT CARTER
BT,
I find that I have more time for scholarship than when I was teaching. True, I work a long day, but when I come home my time is my own. There are no papers to mark, no exams to grade and no committee work.
Scott
SUBSCRIBER JL
Mr. Carter,
It was very interesting to read your story from the bowels of academia to your current success outside of that world.
I am a graduate student, a semester away from getting my M.A. in Creative Writing. All I know is writing...it's my identity--it's who I am...it's what I'm known as. I think you get my point. However, as you experienced (and "beat"), life after the degree becomes/will become a struggle. Even as a graduate instructor for two years, I've experienced the ugly politics that occur within academia. Since I began teaching at my university (CU-Boulder), I realized that academia life wasn't for me, but have been struggling about what to do afterwards...
The trick, for me, is to find a job that will support a modest lifestyle, while allowing me to write and publish my first book. Can you give me any advice on how to go about "living" as a writer....as one (at least not many) cannot pay the bills even by getting a book published.
I'd welcome any thoughts on the issue.
best,
JL
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
JL,
I feel a deep affection for you already. I'm sure you've heard about the interview with James Dickey in which he was asked (I'm paraphrasing): "If one of your students wants to become a writer, what do you do?" His response was something like, "You do everything you can to talk him out of it. If you can't, you dedicate yourself to taking care of him the rest of his life."
I am a published poet (not widely, of course) and I've won two Ohio Arts Council Fellowships for poetry. I would have much preferred to spend my life writing, but my father was a sculptor and I learned as a child that, although ART is the only thing in life worth pursuing, you can't eat it (especially poetry in the US).
I hate to say this, but you will NEVER find a job that will "permit" you to pursue your novel. You will write the novel because you must no matter what the barriers. My husband is also a poet. He stayed in academia but has been teaching part-time to supplement our income. We made a choice. He was the better writer and didn't have the burden of constant financial insecurity that I seem to carry. We decided that I would work and he would write. He just won an NEA. I write maybe two or three "decent", but not great poems a year and that's a struggle.
I'm answering this at length because it's so very important to me: If you're a writer, be one. Don't do anything else unless you absolutely have to. Don't do what I did. Corporate America eats up all of your creative energy and leaves you with very little. I survive by editing the poems my husband sends me daily via email. If I wasn't able to get art vicariously, I'd shrivel up and die. There isn't a single day that goes by--and this is despite the undisputed success I've had in corporations, the considerable amount of money I've made, and the fact that I do love my job--that I don't regret the loss of time I needed to hone my skills as a poet.
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBER JL
Gloria,
Thanks for your candid reply. Your answer is the one I'm dreading!, but I do recognize the reality and constraints of the situation of being a writer. As I haven't yet entered "the real world," I'm scared to death by just what you said--[paraphrasing] that life in corporate America drains the energy out of you...the energy you need to write. I guess I'll have to find a way to make a modest income AND have the necessary time and energy to write....obviously no easy task. I have no delusions about becoming "rich" from my work, but if I couldn't write, as you said, I would shrivel up and die.
Again, thanks for your input.
JL
SCOTT CARTER
Hi JL,
Well, I don't believe that having a job is enough, all by itself, to prevent a writer such as your self from developing his/her full potential. However, I do believe that pursuing your passion will require a lot of discipline--which goes without saying, I suppose, since it would require lots of discipline even under the most optimal circumstances.
I don't know how anyone can live without paying the bills (barring various unlikely scenarios like winning the lottery). My advice is to pay your bills and then sit down and write for a few hours. And don't let those in the academy convince you that this can't be done, that you'll never have time or energy for creative work after putting in a full day on the job. I think this is a romantic story that academics tell themselves in order to make up for the disappointing reality of *their* situations.
Scott
SUBSCRIBER CN
Hello,
Your comments, Steven, seem wise. I would just emphasize that after a full days work, doing some creative writing could be a very rewarding diversion. In fact, JL, I would suggest that you could view creative writing as a hobby to be done for pure enjoyment, no matter what job you find yourself doing.
CN
SUBSCRIBER PP
CN & Steven,
I know this comment is (seemingly) off the topic of this discussion but I would still like to jump in. Having many artists friends and living with one, I see how very hard it is to be creative after a full day's work in the corporate realm - and that it does reflect back on your self-understanding and influences your work not always in positive ways.
The attitude with which people advise artists (or Ph.D. candidates in literature like me) to pursue their interests on the side and to do something "real" during the day, is unfortunately very common. I don't even want to start on the political implications, which we find mirrored in constant cuts of funding for the arts & humanities etc. The ideology behind this questions the value of any work that does not show an *immediate* "output" for society, thereby ignoring the very idea of a humanities education.
Apart from this, I find it very difficult to accept that somebody who put himself through grad school for thousands of dollars and has valuable intellectual assets should do what he loves as a "hobby". I have encountered this somewhat condescending attitude all too often, and I don't think it helps communication.
Lastly, If you don't expect "fulfillment" from a job, like BP wrote (and I second that) why bother at all?
PP
SUBSCRIBER TM
Thank you, Steve, for your insightful and cheerful comments. As an ABD who just recently moved into the world of textbook publishing, I had to articulate for myself why I was unhappy in the academic world. I finally decided that, for me, it wasn't a "calling." To some it is, and I respect and support that. Textbook publishing is also not a calling for me, but it gives me more time to pursue outside interests, have happy relationships, and sleep and eat well. Oh, and I am proceeding much more effectively on my diss now that I do not have the market hanging over my head. Living well and being happy for me are a calling. I don't think I'm a lesser person because of it.
TM
SUBSCRIBER JL
Just a quick note...and I don't mean to be disrespectful to the folks who have brought up the issue, but the mere idea of my work as a writer as a "hobby" is quite simply insulting. Aside from the numerous politics involved in both of the "worlds" that this discussion has been focusing on, isn't it about time that our society put a "bit" more focus and funds for artists?...now, I know that that is a "pie in the sky" thing to say, but it certainly is true. As a graduate student in creative writing, it disgusts me every time I open the newspaper to find that my state's legislature has just awarded the science/engineering part of the university several millions of dollars (and this has occurred many times, I'm sorry to say), while giving zero dollars to the arts and humanities. Our department practically had to beg the university to hire even one professor this past semester (after three retired in the past year). There are only two university funded literary magazines (which is pathetic, considering the size (30,000 students) of my university), and you better believe that the funds are barely enough to put anything together. I got so upset at this fact that I founded a literary journal of my own during my first semester, recruiting other grad students to help me select and edit submissions, etc. I of course had to "beg, borrow, and steal" enough money to produce the 400-500 issues we put out each semester. I think you get my point...
Oh, and by the way, do any of our guest speakers (or anyone else for that matter), have any idea about how one with a M.A. in creative writing could go about getting on staff at a major or semi-major literary journal. That would be the ideal job for me, and would also allow me to pursue my "hobby"....ahem....my passion....ahem...the reason I get out of bed every morning.
I apologize if this Email comes off as being very antagonistic, but there are very few forums like this--a place where one can "vent" his/her frustrations...while asking for advice and assistance at the same time.
best,
JL
SUBSCRIBER CN
Hi PP,
I certainly did not intend to sound condescending. I just think that one's self definition can include much more than what one does to earn a living per se. The term "hobby" is probably too simplistic and evidently did not convey what I really meant. I know lots of people who pursue artistic and intellectual endeavors outside of their regular job for the pure enjoyment of doing so. For example, I have a friend who is a librarian and engages in historical research and publishing on the side because he enjoys it. I have another friend who works in the corporate realm, but also has a well-developed acting career. He finds that his acting career is a nice diversion from his job (which he also usually enjoys). I was not trying to trivialize the effort that one puts in to finishing grad. school - my own student loan is already high enough! I just believe that personal satisfaction can be found in places other than one's immediate job. Let's face it, no job is perfect anyway. I was just agreeing with Steve that it should be possible to balance a job (which is hopefully fulfilling and needed in any case to pay bills) with one's other passions and interests in life.
CN
SUBSCRIBER HW
Hi,
JL, you're absolutely right... the dichotomy between the humanities and Sciences is incredible. But it always has been this way and it always will be unless both Arts and Sciences majors start to appreciate both sides of the 'sword' and try to find links to eventually narrow that gap.
As far as writing being a "hobby" is concerned, it certainly isn't - it's a talent, just like inventing something new or even writing a dissertation! They all have the element of 'creativity' and research in common! I live in an environment where engineering and medicine are vocations for the 'gifted' while anything to do with arts is for 'losers'. Very frustrating indeed, but I like to think of that as a 'traditional' and backward outlook, so just like everything else is progressing, so will this, because in the end, we're going to be leading businesses, schools, universities, industries, etc, right? :o)
All the best,
HW
SUBSCRIBER LW
Most people would consider the major activity in one's field -- in your case, writing -- to be professional activity. The same goes for writing articles, publishing books, writing symphonies, creating artworks. I have recently discovered that even if you DON'T have an academic affiliation, you are still eligible for certain awards such as the Fulbright. However, substantial professional activity and achievement are essential if you an independent scholar.
LW
SUBSCRIBER GM
A British perspective on this one if I may. There are only two Master's courses in creative writing in GB universities, and I'm not aware of its being taught anywhere here as an undergraduate option. (Recently, and I realise that this is off-topic but I've already strayed quite far, Annie Proulx made me chuckle with her opinions on undergrad creative writing teaching. "Write what you know? What does anybody know at that age?").
There is a clear reason why state grants to sciences are higher, and that is because the return to the state is higher in terms of qualified engineers & c. Not to mention that scientists want ever costlier toys.
> Oh, and by the way, do any of our guest speakers (or anyone else for
> that matter), have any idea about how one with a M.A. in creative
> writing could go about getting on staff at a major or semi-major
> literary journal.
Literary journals, generally speaking, are not state-funded either, nor would we want them to be.
GM
SUBSCRIBER JL
HW,
Thanks for your comments. I agree completely that there needs to be a serious and drastic narrowing of the huge gap between science and art. Just as the science/engineering/etc. community looks down upon artists as "dreamers that will never make a living at it so why bother" type of response, this reminds me of that insulting word mentioned earlier, that art is merely a "hobby." But on the other side of the sword, the artist community (and I take full responsibility and blame for often feeling this way--and I'm only speaking for myself, of course) tends to look down upon the science/engineering/etc. folks as "number crunchers," "corporate drones," and quite frankly, a community that I often link to our deplorable political system (i.e. our politicians)...in which bureaucracy, power, and ego are the mainstays.
Wouldn't it be great if both communities could narrow that philosophical gap--to somehow find a meaningful way for both sides to benefit?
I'm not holding my breath.
best,
JL
SUBSCRIBER JL
GM,
As far as state funding for literary journals goes, that's not quite the point. The point is the huge gap in funding. When I say "funding," I mean more NEA money, more money to English/Writing departments. You misunderstood the idea completely. As far as the funding for the science/engineering community goes....i realize its necessity for making our cell phones and whatnot the size of our index fingers, but can't you admit that the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS gap between arts and sciences is ridiculously unfair. By simply accepting it, you're adding to the problem by going with the majority of people's opinions that art is for the artists....that art doesn't serve a function in society....that the dumbing-down of society with regards to the arts is okay....after all, who needs artists anyway? They don't make the establishment richer, so why bother. To hell with books...unless they're User's Manuals, eh?
best,
JL
SCOTT CARTER
PP,
In at least one sense I agree with you. If given the opportunity to pursue my scholarly interests without the burden of having to support myself, I'd jump at it. Unfortunately this isn't likely to happen. It is possible to live on the edge, to work sporadically, live austerely and devote as much time as possible to scholarship, art or whatever happens to interest you. But this way of life takes a heavy, heavy toll. I led this sort of existence for a while and the burden of having to budget every nickel and dime took a psychological toll on me that made it next to impossible for me to think about scholarship.
We're in total agreement that the arts and humanities ought to receive more funding. If a person is committed enough to the arts to study for years on end and refine their skills, then I'd like them to be free to pursue their art. However, this isn't the world we actually find ourselves in. We should of course work to make our world more like this one and perhaps, if we're lucky, we will see some success over decades or generations. But in the meantime we have to decide how to combine our interests with our need to support ourselves financially. I believe that if a person is sufficiently committed to their art or their studies, then they will always find time for them. Nor do I believe that this relegates one's studies to the status of a 'hobby'. The fact that I'm not paid to pursue my philosophical interests doesn't weaken my commitment to them; why should it?
It is sometimes hard to be creative after a full day's work in the corporate realm, but it's no harder than being creative after a full day's work in the academic realm. If having a non-academic job has a negative impact on many people's self-understandings (and I agree with you that it does), I think this is because people are too inclined to think that, if you're not paid to do scholarly work, then your scholarly work can't really be all that important. It must be a mere 'hobby'. But this is just baseless--at least in my view.
Scott
SCOTT CARTER
CN,
I agree completely with what you say here, and think it's important. I'd also like to add one thing. While I do pursue my scholarly work outside of job, it's worth emphasizing that I get something very valuable from my job. I work for a small company and I get along very well with my colleagues. It's extremely satisfying to work as part of a friendly, hard working team on *anything*, whether it's training, building a house or academic research. In fact, when I'm able to satisfy these sorts of social needs on the job, it's much easier for me to sit down and write at home.
Scott
SCOTT CARTER
JL,
No need to worry about sounding antagonistic. Like you, I think it's obvious that the arts and humanities should receive more funding...a lot more funding. But the shortage of funding is an old story and it doesn't seem likely that it will end any time soon. In that case I believe we have to do everything we can to keep our creative work alive *in spite of* the lack of public support. And I don't mean that we should encourage people to pursue their art or their research as 'hobbies'. 'Hobby' has a pejorative ring to it. A 'hobby', at least to my ear, is something one does casually and that one doesn't take all that seriously. It certainly isn't the kind of thing that one's life is oriented around or that's integral to one's definition of oneself. Before I'd tell you to turn your creative writing into a 'hobby' in this sense, I'd just tell you to give it up altogether. My suggestion would be that you allow your creative writing to be far more than a hobby, even if you don't receive money in exchange for it. Why are we always so inclined to think that legitimacy comes from *being paid*?
Scott
SUBSCRIBER TH
Dear colleagues,
I agree with both the assessment of PP below, *and* with the brilliant ideas about work not necessarily always being one's calling, yet feeling fulfilled. The one *vital* element here is that every one of us - those hearing ideas and those invited as speakers - comes from a graduate background in the humanities and/or arts.
So *we* are not any of us guilty (nor do I imagine any guilt is imputed) of condescending; merely seeking / advising of / means to happiness in a complex and so often unforgiving and unappreciative world.
On buses in Israel, the one country in the world where people would brag "I have a [insert: trumpet player; 'cellist; marimba player; violinist] practicing in my building" like a badge of *honor* - the thrill of having a great musician from one of the orchestras in one's own building -- nonetheless was the unbelievable site where one day, a little lady say my instrument case as I stood on the bus, and said "are you a musician?" I said "Yes, in the Israel Philharmonic" and she responded "how wonderful! And what do you do for a living?"
I still smile at that, and am still appalled that my uncle suggested, when hearing I was doing a few chamber concerts series', that I could really make some good money playing 'concerts' in "xyz" restaurant in Chicago - one imagines - to the tinkling of dessert dishes.
(This was the luxury endured by Mozart and Haydn.)
Nonetheless, one did tire, as you eloquently pointed out, of struggling to make ends meet during every off-season. 25 years was my limit. Taken me several years to repair my lousy credit history as well.
-TH
THE CULTURE CLASH BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND THE CORPORATE WORLD
SUBSCRIBER BP
Am I the only humanities Ph.D. listening in on this discussion who finds the very term "training" (as in "diversity training," "training manager," or almost anything else "training") repugnant? How does a scholar, or writer, or artist, or intellectual--those who used to be welcome in the Academy, before the academic administrators started emulating CEOs of business corporations--turn into a "trainer?" Or a "manager;" or "coordinator;" "director."
It is this corporationization of academe which has caused the employment crisis for humanities Ph.D.'s--the replacement of full-time faculty with part-timers to save money, which has secondary effects such as that of the rude and lazy college students who don't respect scholarship and education but only "training" which will result in big paychecks for them, and cutthroat tenure reviews as faculty compete for fewer spots. Do you really believe humanities Ph.D.s can find fulfillment within any such corporations, however much money they offer? Nothing the contributors have described as characterizing their jobs appeals to me.
SUBSCRIBER MS
BP: surely part of the purpose of all of this (extremely helpful to most of us!) on-line dialog is to discuss the best ways for those of us who ARE interested in corporate teaching to present ourselves to corporations! If we need to use corporate language in order to do so, that does not seem to me to be in any way offensive. How can you communicate what you have to offer to a corporation without using terminology that has meaning to them?
More generally, I found your comments about college students surprising, and perhaps a little 'misplaced'. Just because some of us choose to devote our lives to study and research for its own sake, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that others choose to take advantage of what universities can offer them in the form of 'training' for the real world. Why should this shock you so much? The better training that we can offer those very undergraduates, the more likely they are to return the favor by pushing for greater corporate funding and making personal donations to their alma maters. That is a major source of the money that pays for those faculty positions that you aspire to.
With thanks to the many contributors to this on-line information sharing exercise,
MS
SUBSCRIBER FA
Actually, BP, you are not the only humanities' PhD who finds the ubiquity of "training" repugnant. I also find it peculiar that academic "politics" is what several people have claimed drove them away from academia. It was entirely absent from the last two discussions--about museology and about non-profit sector work--which leads me to believe that this is a case honi soit qui mal y pense. Living in Seattle has made me privy to many stories of corporate terpitude, particularly when it comes time to call in the chips. I have not been there myself, but I have family that have and there is no way that academia is worse. It is, however, underpaid...
Comparing academic politics to those of the corporate world is probably the kettle calling the pot black. At the very least, it is comparing apples and oranges. It does seem clear that some people who started PhDs are indeed happier in the corporate world. Nothing wrong with that. I myself will probably always be of the party that when it hears terms like "training & development" will reach for a red marking pen. They seem to be as much about acculturating as they are about communicating. At least most academic jargon is shorthand for long arguments and can be identifiably traced to schools of thought (however hard it is admittedly for the common reader to parse). Most corporate jargon seems to be simply about "re-branding". I do not see myself being re-branded any time soon (still nursing the scars of my general exams, I guess).
FA
PAULA FOSTER
Good people, let me remind you that the tone of this list is supposed to be supportive and helpful. Dissent is perfectly fine, but I would like to ask that disagreements be expressed in a respectful, considerate manner. Whatever your own personal reaction to the concepts being discussed or the worlds being described, our guest speakers have given generously of their time to tell us their stories and share with us what their experiences have taught them. We are in the humanities; let's be humane.
Paula Foster
SUBSCRIBER IG
No, you're not the only one, BP. Although I'll have to wait a while longer to see, it looks to me as if this list is basically for people who don't like academia anyway and drool at the thought of getting into the 'real world' of the corporations. As for me, I'd rather die than become a corporate drone. I think your diagnosis of what's happening in academia is a fair one. At least in the University where I occasionally get to teach, we still call the students 'students.' The current head of department is anxious to set as corporate a tone as possible, though, so I guess I'll soon be told that I'm actually dealing with 'clients.'
IG
SUBSCRIBER BI
OK, Corporate Drone speaking here.
This discussion is getting a little off-topic, I think. I bailed out of academia, officially, last month, although I've been working in an internet startup as a web developer for the last year. It would be helpful if we could concentrate on the helpful advice offered by our three speakers rather than bash each others' sometimes wrenching career choices. Our panel is trying to help those people who want to make a successful and satisfying transition from the academy to the corporate world. Can we please concentrate on this aspect for the moment?
[question listed above]
BI
SCOTT CARTER
BP,
You might not find fulfillment in training, academia or in any other field of professional endeavor. What I would encourage you to question is the assumption that one's fulfillment has to come primarily from what one is paid to do--from one's job.
Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that training is boring, menial and devoid of any intrinsic value. Why should this spell defeat for you as a person? I've never liked the tendency to categorize people in terms of their occupation, in part because it usually comes along with very questionable assumptions about which occupations are 'noble' or 'worthwhile' and in part because it always comes along with the obviously false assumption that a person is exhausted by what he or she does to pay the rent. If you one day get a job as a trainer rather than as a professor or a brain surgeon, your thoughts will continue to be as deep as they ever were and your life will have just as much value.
I mean this reply to be cheering so I hope it comes across that way.
Scott
SUBSCRIBER SE
Hmmm, it seems to me a pretty good study could be made of how aversive reactions are generated by a discussion of the relationship between the corporate and the academic...
Of course, who would fund it?
SE
SUBSCRIBER BP
Scott,
I find your reply thought-provoking, which is actually all I meant my query to be (and not "unspeakably rude" as SF stated--is he living in the same uncivil century and country I am? I mean, "unspeakably rude"? Anyway, I'm flattered to be paired with FA--he sounds like a nice guy).
Per my original statements--I was questioning just how realistic it really is to believe than many humanities Ph.D.s will fit into business corporations, given the vast chasm I perceive between intellectual curiosity, scholarship and artistic endeavor and the philosophy and mechanics of corporate training. I am also bothered by the whole academic community's having given up and in to what I called the corporationization of academe--which I also believe is destroying academe as well as causing the unemployment of its Ph.D.s who are thus desperately seeking survival elsewhere.
In response to Scott's suggestion that there may be an inherent fallacy in my expecting "fulfillment" from a job which occupies much of my living time, I can only say that in my personal experience it is necessary for me. I suspect it is also necessary for other people--intellectual and artistic types, maybe, but I would include far more of the population in those categories than some would. I believe you become what you do, and the old observation that most people lead lives of quiet desperation is unfortunately becoming more true as the postindustrial raison d'etre of training productive workers takes over.
SUBSCRIBER WK
I was a tenure-track English professor for four years. I left, voluntarily, to take a corporate position, which I liked very much and found an excellent fit with my intellectual predispositions. It was a more challenging, stimulating, and open-minded environment by far than the liberal arts college where I had held my faculty position. I found the work highly relevant to my academic specialty as well. My PhD is in rhetoric & composition, and in my job as Senior Editor, I worked on teams alongside visual designers, researchers, engineers, project managers, subject matter experts, etc. It was fabulously interdisciplinary.
I've had many good experiences working in corporate contexts, and, of course, some that were not so good. But overall I prefer the freedom of working outside academia.
Based on my experience (20 years of working in a mix of academic, nonprofit, and for-profit settings), academics tend to oversimplify and underestimate what is possible in the corporate world, and corporate people tend not to understand what someone with a PhD can offer.
Personally, I believe that there is a tragic lack of public dialogue on this topic. I don't think academics work hard enough to educate the public about the value of what they do or how their work could be relevant to what other people are trying to accomplish.
Could the guest speakers, and others, comment on this issue?
WK
GLORIA REGALBUTO BENTLEY
Well, I've held off entering the melee and am somewhat bemused.
I used the term "training" with this audience only because I believed it to be a term you would find familiar. I can't speak for my colleagues on the panel.
In fact, the term "training" is no longer in use in my field, which is now better referred to as "performance consulting". It's not used because it's too limiting. We don't just supply folks with the skills and knowledge needed to do their jobs, we look at the entire system and design interventions to remove barriers to performance. That is more like a continuous quality improvement function than a human resources function.
My job is to get the skills and knowledge needed where they're needed when they're needed. The skills and knowledge need not even be embedded in the heads of people. Often, the knowledge should reside in an information or expert system. Part of what I do is sometimes called, "knowledge engineering".
And, no, this is not what the academy is for. The problem, as I see it, is that you're confusing functions. Teaching in industry has one primary function of interest to most organization, the production of effective performance. The fact that many corporate universities have also offered courses in the humanities, as I have, has to do with providing easy access to opportunities for education previously unavailable to people at work. This is a benefit--a perq--designed to increase employee retention and job satisfaction.
It is NOT the job of corporations to educate--teach folks how to think critically about the broad universe. That's the job of the academy. The problem is that lots of blurring has occurred because of the introduction of technical colleges and joint vocational schools. There is a lack of role-clarity that I find disturbing. I work with pre K-12 principals on a daily basis and I can tell you that there are in a state of confusion about their "role". Are they preparing folks for the workplace, for the academy, both? The dialogue is important because I think all of the stakeholders need to stick to their core competencies. I wish K-12 would give students the basic skills they need to function in the workforce or in academia. Academia needs to provide students with a liberal education. Corporations best invest their funds in providing the proprietary skills needed to do the work of that particular organization. I have had to provide basic skills education and liberal arts programs because the "systems" responsible for that work either failed (in the case of basic skills and K-12) or have not been responsive to the needs of adult learners in the workforce (under and post-graduate education).
Gloria A. Regalbuto Bentley, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBER CB
People in the academy tend to look down on corporate employment. Although humanities departments, for the purposes of luring graduate students into their pyramid schemes (otherwise known as PhD programs), emphasize that PhDs can transition into corporate work, most humanities professors regard corporate life as anathema to their own environment. Words like "drone" and "mindless" get bandied about rather, well, mindlessly, when corporate employment comes up.
Actually the academy flatters itself to think its own pursuits devoid of such characteristics. While getting my PhD, I often noted how uncritically students embraced the theoretical frameworks of their professors. I recall sitting in on a reading group about the ideas of Lacan. It consisted for the most part of cultural studies graduate students who had decided, pretty much in advance, that they were going to turn themselves into Lacanians, write Lacanian dissertations, and go out on the market as Lacanian PhDs. They sat around dutifully attempting to comprehend Lacan and his mirror stage, etc., completely uninterested in the question of whether Lacan's ideas made sense. Their professors liked Lacan, lots of departments embraced Lacan, and so would they as well, by golly.
Replace Lacan with Kuhn, Foucault or any number of academic deities and you get the same outline: an original thinker surrounded by drones. In fact, in the corporate world, all kinds of lively debates, fights and struggles take place over the direction of companies and industries that are decidedly undronelike. These struggles all take place, of course, within a context that recognizes the moral legitimacy of corporations. As a PhD in search of alternative employment, my problem is that I am opposed to corporations, which I regard as enemies of democracy. But academics are kidding themselves to think that what happens in the academy is comparatively freer than corporate discourse. As someone who has worked in lots of different places, I can't imagine any environment more hierarchical than the academy, save perhaps prison yards and military installations.
I'll join in again when we get to transitioning to government agencies and non-profits.
CB
SUBSCRIBER NK
Scott,
You wrote to BP:
"Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that training is boring, menial and devoid of any intrinsic value. Why should this spell defeat for you as a person?"
Because, unfortunately, one's work is what one does with the bulk of one's time, largely determining the effective limits of one's experience. Few people can be enthusiastic about the prospect of spending the bulk of their lives boing work that is 'boring, menial and devoid of any intrinsic value.'
Doing such work is inevitably going to demoralize a person, because most people aspire to meaningful work, sometimes regardless of whether it's well-paid or not. I don't think you can compartmentalize work as something separate from life. Therefore, the issue of what one does to make a living goes right to the heart of what one does with one's life.
NK
SCOTT CARTER
Hi NK,
I agree that, when deciding between jobs, it's always better to have one that isn't boring, menial and devoid of intrinsic value. My point was just that, if a person isn't able to find a job that they find interesting and valuable, this doesn't have to stop them from pursuing the things that do interest them on their own time. In other words, while you're quite right to point out that we can't compartmentalize our jobs as things separate from our lives, we also shouldn't think of our jobs as things that necessarily exhaust who we are.
Scott
SUBSCRIBER BP
The Notorious BP speaking here: I find WK's description of her job as Senior Editor within a corporation of interest! Perhaps even appealing! Please tell us more about how you effected this transition from academe to corporation, WK.
SUBSCRIBER WK
I had a background in publishing from before I went to graduate school, and I had stayed in touch with some old friends. One of them came recruiting me, and one thing led to another. There was no strategy involved on my part whatsoever--but there certainly was on hers!
The moral of this story is found in a song my grandmother taught me as a child, you know the one: "Make new friends, but keep the old...."
WK