3. Describing Experience
A. Appropriateness of Academic Titles
Subscriber JM:
It has been brought to my attention that the inclusion of "Dr." in my e-mail name comes off a bit haughty. I honestly hadn't even thought about this. But the comment has me thinking about when and why I started using the title. (I will spare you the boring details). If I have offended anyone, I sincerely apologize.
JM
Subscriber OS:
I don't get this. It certainly didn't offend me. I didn't even give it a nanosecond's thought.
OS
Subscriber NB:
I would love to have a conversation about when and why using the title can be helpful in making transitions into nonacademic fields.
For instance, if i am applying for a development associate position, or something like that, should I put the Ph.D. after my name?
NB
Subscriber AB:
Perhaps the following passage from Tom Wolfe's latest novel could most succinctly elucidate this issue:
"Dr Lewin? Excuse me--"
"Yes?"
"My name's Charlotte Simmons. I'm in your class."
A dry smile. "I'm well aware. By the way, here at Dupont we don't use 'Professor' or 'Doctor.' Everybody is 'Mister'-or 'Miz' or 'Mrs.' Unless you're referring to a medical doctor."
"I'm sorry...Mr. Lewin...I didn't know that."
"Oh, it's just a harmless bit of reverse snobbery, actually. The idea is, if you're teaching at Dupont, of course you have a doctorate. Anyway, that's the custom" (103).
AB
Subscriber EU:
Holy flying catfish, aren't most of us here Ph.D.s, and the rest supposedly somewhere en route to one? I certainly don't require such an apology. I'd really like one from whomever suggested such a thing to you, though.
EU :)
Darryl Stevens:
I actually have pretty strong feelings about this. I am currently in a job (Ph.D. Career Counselor) in which my Ph.D. has a role. Add to this, that much of my teaching and research career included work in the area of career development. So, I do use my “degree” status, but I almost never use Dr. Darryl Stevens. It sometimes happens out of my control. I am sometimes introduced as Dr. Stevens or have things addressed to me as Dr. Darryl Stevens. Erstwhile Ph.D. students always refer to me as Dr. Stevens, but I always say the same thing, “I prefer to go by the title of my first graduate degree.” They look at me quizzically and I say, “Master.” Occasionally an international student doesn¹t quite get the irony and they refer to me as Master Stevens for the remainder of our time together.
I strongly believe that Ph.D. is not a title, but a designation of the highest relevant degree that you have earned. I stress RELEVANT here. I am the president of a local non-profit board of directors and have been an officer for the past four years. My name is on the letterhead, but it does not say Darryl Stevens, Ph.D. because for this community arts agency, my degree is not relevant. I also think that signing one¹s name with Ph.D. or having a resume heading that says “Jack Doe, Ph.D.” are off-putting, unless the company, agency, institution is looking for someone with an advanced degree in your area.
I am sure that there is no one on this list who is arrogant or snotty or self-centered, but I happen to run into a lot of folks who have Ph.D.¹s...relatively obscure areas...who cannot bear to be addressed without inclusion of what they see as a their birthright.
More to the point. If your Ph.D. is in Comparative Literature or Political Science and you are applying for a development associate position with a school of humanities or the National Association of Political Scientists...then perhaps the Ph.D. is okay. I am not sure that a Ph.D. in one of the humanities is relevant to the application for a development position at a non-profit agency for domestic violence.
Darryl
Subscriber OS:
Just for a bit of semi-levity, I go by Dr. at work because there are three [people with my name] in my department, and it's really hard to know who said what. I don't use it because I'm trying to make a statement.
OS
Subscriber AP:
The only thing that I think should be said is that there are cultural differences and considerations that need to be taken into account. the doctor degree, not m.d., and arguably higher than a Ph.D.(because you usually need a Ph.D. before you apply) does exist in the world, and for a Ph.D. to call him or herself doctor would probably offend some of those that actually have that degree.
AP
Subscriber VG:
As soon as I get my Ph.D., I certainly AM going to use it in my name in professional environments. (We are all professionals here, right? I still expect people to call me by my first name, and knowing my personality it would be clear that this is the case. If it isn't, I'll TELL them to call me by my first name.) If an M.D. can use it in his/her name, why can't I? I've worked hard for it. It's not that I am putting people down, because I will bend over backwards to do the opposite. People's own insecurities cause them to think that they are being insulted. I just want to show that I'm proud of my work, and that it defines an important part of who I am and what I've worked for. (Telling someone they should not be using Dr. or Ph.D. is like saying they shouldn't give their job title or that they should somehow be ashamed of what they've worked for.) I've tried so hard for too long to cover it up that I am earning a Ph.D., in order to protect other's feelings. (Isn't that a form of arrogance in and of itself?) Why shouldn't I be proud of the fact that I will have a Ph.D. in two months and continue to be exactly who I am, an enthusiastic and down-to-earth person? My opinion: Add the Dr. or Ph.D. to your name if you feel like it, and don't apologize for your hard-earned success.
VG
Subscriber PF:
When I started here at Children's Hospital and Health System, the IS team had my email account set up so that “Dr.” would automatically appear on my outgoing emails. To minimize any possible confusion with the system's M.D.s, I had that changed, and now simply use the Ph.D. in my e-signature. Placing it there can certainly have “political” advantages (and it was helpful on the resume, too).
PF
Riall Nolan:
This is interesting; can you give me an example of a "doctor degree" that requires people to have a Ph.D. before they get it? Were you referring to the older French distinction between "doctorat du troisieme cycle" and "doctorat d'etat?" Or something else?
Riall
Subscriber CY:
In the former Soviet block countries, a Ph.D. is just a stepping stone to a "doctor degree" which requires years of research and teaching at a university. A Ph.D. cannot use the title Dr. I believe this still holds in Russia.
CY
Subscriber AP:
you can still find them in the Scandinavian countries and at some German universities. It is usually undertaken 5 years or so after the Ph.D., much like the habilitation system. You can look them up on the web.
AP
Subscriber CH:
I'm watching this debate re: the use of "Dr" with interest because here at [organization name], there is a huge tension between physicians and people with Ph.D.s. Many scientists, bioethicists, historians etc. with Ph.D.s DO insist on being called "Dr" because they want to level the playing field with physicians. I can and do joke about this as do many of my colleagues who are not as interested in using their credentials as part of their name---but I have noticed that there is a core group for whom this issue of title is very important and for whom this is not a funny issue.
I actually find it rather off-putting when people insist on it when they introduce themselves. I'd find it off-putting if a physician did it when I was meeting him or her in the context of a meeting or work. I deal with lots of physicians and people who are MD/Ph.D.s (Dr Dr's) and most of these people shake my hand at the beginning of a meeting and say simply "I am Fred Jones." Later, I will discover that Fred has a Ph.D., MD or whatever---but only if it's relevant to what we are doing in terms of work.
I prefer (as do many of my colleagues) to use the title only when it is directly relevant to a need to indicate to someone that I do have advanced training in my field (for my job, it's a credential; if I became a Public Affairs Specialist, it wouldn't be a credential so I'd probably not use it ever in that context). It's on my business cards (because it is a credential for this job) but I prefer to have people call me [by my first name] and if they begin a conversation by addressing me as Ms. [surname] that's fine as well. Most people here have a similar attitude.
I understand the temptation to want to use the title, however, after you have earned it (I made a restaurant reservation for "Dr. [surname]" right after I got the Ph.D.!). But you do want to think of how others might view it. I agree with Paula here. Absolutely put it on your resume but don't use it when introducing yourself as it may alienate people who have some doubts about themselves or who are worried about hiring a person with a degree which is more advanced their own.
And you know...in terms of all this...we might want to remember that lawyers actually possess juris doctorates. But here in the US, it's not the custom for lawyers to call themselves Dr. And in general, here in the US, it's not the custom for Ph.D.s to call themselves Dr. The Tom Wolfe comment may be on target in saying that the tendency of Ph.D.s to not insist on the title is a form of reverse snobbery but this is a part of the culture and you don't want to alienate people who conform to that culture when applying for a job.
And finally, in my office, because I find the stuff about MD and Ph.D. so silly, I have a framed New Yorker cartoon in which a restaurant maitre de' is saying on the phone "Certainly. A party of four in the name of Dr. Jennings. May I ask whether that is an actual medical degree or merely a Ph.D.?" The physicians who come by love it...and so do many of the Ph.D.s! And the lawyers (with their JD degrees) often snicker appreciatively as well!
CH
Subscriber OO:
There's a degree in Russia and Eastern Europe which is of higher level than a Ph.D. A google search revealed the following: http://www.idc.asm.md/idc/moldova/sci-edu.html
"Doctor Habitat is the second degree in Moldova, approximately equivalent to the title of professor in other countries. Doctor of Science is the first degree, approximately equivalent to a Ph.D. degree."
That being said, my opinion is that it would be rather silly of a degree holder from somewhere else to dispute the right of a U.S. Ph.D. holder to be called "Doctor" in the U.S. Abroad, things may be different...
OO
Subscriber CY:
I didn't make myself clear in the last message about "doctor degree" in Russia. After you get your Ph.D., you get hired as a prof by a university. Only after that you work on your "doctor degree" which can take a life time.
CY
Subscriber BE:
While anyone who has earned a Ph.D. is certainly entitled to use it whenever they want, and be called Dr., I think the point everyone has been making on this list is that you need to be aware of the message that it sends to others.
If you don't care what others think, then do whatever you want. But if you are looking for a non-academic job, you should care about what message it sends to potential hiring managers. What's more important, putting Ph.D. at the top of your resume beside your name or getting an interview for a good job? Also, when you are in that non-academic environment, you have to be aware what message it might send to others in your field, at the company, etc. good or bad.
In presenting myself to someone for the first time, whether on a resume or at a networking event, I have a particular idea of what I want them to know about me. What defines me at a professional level? My research and analytical skills; my ability to learn and communicate complex concepts; my years of experience in research; the varied topics that I've researched and written about; my drive to achieve and learn; (and for networking) how I am helpful and knowledgeable and always willing to share and discuss information.
Having a Ph.D. is more an outflow of all that, than a defining characteristic of me. In cover letters I've explained it as evidence of being a high achiever, for example. So, as Paula mentioned, on my resume the Ph.D. is under education. And when relevant discussed in my cover letter somehow in a way to make in relevant to the job at hand.
When I meet people professionally in my current industry, I have two sets of business cards -- one with Ph.D. after my name, and one without. Mostly I hand out the Ph.D. one now that I've been in the industry for a few years and feel comfortable speaking as a semi-expert. But in some cases I don't, especially if I think it will either be a distraction, or a hindrance toward developing some sort of relationship with that person (they may be someone with whom I need to trade information, has a reputation of being insecure, etc.).
BE
Subscriber WN:
To pitch in, for everyone's informational amusement: The educational system in Russia, for example, which is a rigorous one when it comes to academia (so don't let its perception in the news fool you), refers to the equivalent of the American Ph.D. as "Candidate of sciences", whereas a doctorate requires a whole other dissertation, which needs to be published and defended. Imagine, not one, but two doctoral dissertations!! And I bet the Germans would have something to say, with their "Dr. Dr. Dr." titles :) But I don't find it offensive, even with this knowledge, that someone with a Ph.D. would refer to themselves as a "Dr.". Being in a Ph.D. program, I know just how "hard-earned" this success would be.
WN
Riall Nolan:
Yes, I'd forgotten about the "habilitatus" system in some places. Well, I agree with KT that it's probably not essential to worry about whether someone in another country would take issue with someone here about the term. Personally, I think it's a bit of a non-issue almost anywhere. There will be times when it's appropriate, and times when it's irrelevant, and most of us can tell the difference.
Objecting to how someone else does it strikes me as about as useful as objecting to their choice of hairstyle. We all have better things to do. [a propos -- I once worked with a woman who had TWO doctorates. And -- wait for it -- she insisted on being addressed, always and everywhere, as "Doctor Doctor so-and-so." I asked an Austrian colleague about this in later years, and he said, without batting an eyelash, "Oh, yes, that's very common here."]
Riall
Subscriber AP:
My only real point in bringing it up was to point out that in some places in the world a doctor is different than a Ph.D. and to some people and cultures, it does matter and we just have to be aware of that in many situations, even when it might not seem to be important at all, because overqualifying yourself is usually frowned upon, and since we don't always know the situation in enough detail to be aware of details where this might arise(unless you never work in the international arena), then erring toward specificity is best. A Ph.D. is called a Ph.D. everywhere in the world, though it means slightly different things in certain contexts.
I don't think there is very much reason to be concerned overall and it doesn't bother me, but it has been brought to my attention by people who hold doctor of literatures and doctor of arts degrees in the past, when i did not know that there are in many places 'higher doctorates' that get the honorific Doctor. anyway, my sole point was to say that in some contexts it matters.
AP
Subscriber RB:
Just to add more cultural information to the discussion :)
Austria:
Getting a master's degree takes 4 years, usually a little longer (exam and master's thesis required to graduate) Right after your master's degree you can start your studies for the Dr. title (dissertation!)- usually takes two years or forever (also depending on field).
RB
Subscriber MP:
Please do not apologize for using the title that you rightfully earned after hours, days, weeks, semesters, and years of difficult, introspective, taxing work. You are free to use that title whenever and wherever you want [without consulting Ms. Manners or anyone else]. Leaving the academy for work that works 4US doesn't have to include leaving the title behind. The press and Capitol Hill suits all seem to refer, in person and otherwise, to Dr. [Condi] Rice and she hasn't been at Stanford for years. Tell the next offended ignoramus to spend some time on his or her cover letter instead of flaring up at you.
MP
Riall Nolan:
There are clearly some situations in which you might not want to do it. As someone said, however, keep it in your resume for sure.
But with the Ph.D. title, it's really a matter of what Erving Goffman the sociologist termed "impression management" -- you pull out different parts of your act at different times for different people, and if it works, use it. If you think it'll put people off, don't. It's partly intuitive, I think.
Think of it as a really nice suit. With apologies to Darryl, I have about ten suits and (gasp) I wear one nearly every day. I don't really want to, but I do, because that is what is expected of me, and I don't care enough about it one way or the other to make a fuss. (believe me, when I retire, you will probably never again see me in a suit) But my wife thinks I look handsome in them, and I have to admit, every now and then I catch a glimpse of the dashing fellow I know I am underneath it all.
But although I go to work in one, I don't go shopping in one. Or to the movies. And when I introduce myself to people, I have to decide how to do that, and sometimes I use the Ph.D., and sometimes I don't. Mostly don't.
Except for one situation. When I call my doctor's office. I ALWAYS do, because it produces a very marked difference in the way that tired and bored HMO staff deal with me. And when they find out I'm actually an anthropologist, they chuckle. One of them said to me the other day, "It''s nice to talk to a doctor who isn't an MD all the time."
Go figure.
Riall
Subscriber DL:
JM, no apologies necessary!! You should be proud.
And to join the discussion of titles, I do not include my Ph.D. on my resume after my name or even when I sign my cover letter. It is listed on my resume in the Education section (which Paula correctly reminded us, should not be the first thing on your resume!). My Ph.D. does appear on my business cards and on my work's email signature and I use it only when necessary (don't need it when I sent a quick note to a colleague). Nor do I run around insisting that people call me Dr. I do think that since I work in an academic environment that people around me - whether it be students or office mates (who do not have Ph.D.s) are comfortable working with people with Ph.D.s. However, when you move out of the academic environment, I wonder if that dynamic changes - people might be resentful that someone with a Ph.D. might come in and expect to be treated differently by virtue of the degree itself.
And for all of you would be Ph.D.s out there, hang in there, regardless of what you do with your Ph.D., its a great feeling to have it.
DL
Subscriber MM:
“I strongly believe that Ph.D. is not a title, but a designation of the highest relevant degree that you have earned. I stress RELEVANT here.”
Not only does Darryl believe this, but this has been my experience in the academic and non-academic worlds. When I worked for a dot-com about 5 years ago and a publishing company before that, I never indicated that I had an advanced degree on any correspondence, not even my business card. Most of my colleagues had just completed bachelor's degrees, and a number of my contacts outside of the company did not have college degrees.
However, my Ph.D. was quite relevant when I started applying for mid-level positions in university administration. Once I started working in this field, I introduced myself to everyone -- staff, faculty and students -- by my first name, but I always included the Ph.D. in the signature of my email. I felt that was the most effective way to not intimidate or appear haughty to the students and staff but convince the faculty that I knew something about higher education (as you can see, I have a Ph.D.).
MM
Subscriber EU:
I fully acknowledge the need for some discretion in professional contexts where it's appropriate to use the Ph.D. or the title "Dr." I certainly don't use either in casual or personal contexts ( except, as Pres. Jed Bartlet -- (Ph.D., by the way) said, "for the turn-on." ;)
It just seems to me that in this forum, there's just something completely inappropriate and repellent about carping at each other about it. Don't we have enough problems?
EU
Subscriber AK:
Re: this discussion of the use of titles and honorifics like “Dr so and so”) I've noticed ever so subtly here the tendency to assume that the insecurity is on the part of others out there who might be intimidated by our titles, academic prowess, etc., which I think is an error, as it confuses the fact that the real insecurity here is on US, the holders of the Ph.D.'s. Think for a second about the use of the word RELEVANT, which Darryl and John have discussed. I think they bring up a crucial point.
Why should it ever be necessary to make such a distinction if not because haunting us all is the fear (and actual knowledge) that it might in some cases be IRRELEVANT to hold this distinction. Hence our fear and insecurity, because to that extent it is purely functioning as an honorary title and nothing, something that in no way speaks to a qualification. In other words, it borders on outright imposture. So, in a sense, to throw around the Ph.D. title when searching for work outside of academia is to carry a huge chip on one's shoulder, and therefore, one should be very careful to minimize it at times I would think.
AK
Subscriber ZA:
A large part of my motivation for finishing my degree was the fear of being branded with the mark of Cain--"What, you spent X years working on a degree and didn't finish? LOSER!" Rather than arrogance, using the Ph.D. can be a defensive mechanism. Those TEN years (as it finally turned out) were not in vain!
ZA
Kate Duttro:
You're right about that fear and using it as a defense mechanism, but doesn't it also mean that continuing with the degree was at least bearable and (I would hope) somewhat interesting to you!?
It's one thing to be developing other interests while you're in grad school, and wondering about life "outside," but it's something else if being in grad school is a total drag (finances, health, family) and a series of stressful events when you have no idea of what is next. I wondered about it too, and I probably did have some of that need to "finish," drilled into me because of social pressures, but I also really liked being in grad school. (I still consider it one of my favorite "careers.") And, that made "finishing" more of an anticlimax, rather than being the primary goal. But, for some, the balance weighs heavier on the negatives (that they are experiencing in their lives at that time), and for those, the value of "finishing" may not be nearly as important as getting out of a bad situation as quickly as possible. Ah, AK, your next post just came through, and you make a REALLY good point here, where you say. "My question for you would be, "Can you think of a dissertation topic that interests you enough IN AND OF ITSELF to put in the effort?" If not, I don't think you will be able to keep up the momentum. It would be like being married to someone just because you are supposed to be married." I think that not being excited about a dissertation topic can make everything else you have to do twice as hard, because the pressures are external to you. Sometimes that makes you come face to face with the question of who's running your life anyhow. When you WANT to explore the dissertation topic, the pressures forcing you onward are internal, and you ARE in charge. THAT may be the important point for making that kind of a decision.
Basalla gets at that, too, in her book So What Are You Going To Do With That? Kate
Subscriber AK:
I hear you there. That Ph.D. title can sure be a nice punctuation mark. And there's no question about it - it IS validation. But only from the perspective of having chosen to pursue it in the first place, which, as Darryl pointed out, will NOT be universally recognized as having been a prudent choice by others who don't share academia's ideals (in other words, viewed from the standpoint of self-interest that the world generally operates by). It must seem to those on the "outside" (a concept only for us, who set ourselves apart in this way) like you have membership in some strange secret society, one with a notoriously cruel initiation process to boot. People will have a mixture of curiosity, suspicion, intimidation, and perhaps a little jealousy towards it (sensing they must have missed out on something, yet not really knowing what). So, that's why I suspect there can be some danger in making the title TOO prominent. Many others will have no earthly idea what you went through in getting that degree, so in a way the "victory" here is a purely private one.
AK
Subscriber CH:
Just to build on what AK said about the business of insisting on using your degree...I was thinking about this last night and why I said (and feel!) that I don't like it when people insist on identifying themselves in this fashion.
I think the reason I dislike it is because I feel that the person is playing a game of one-upmanship. A Ph.D. is, as we all know, an amazing achievement and when someone insists on using the title in a context in which it has little or nothing to do with relevant work experience, I feel that they are rubbing my face in their accomplishment. Ironically, I say that as someone who has one of these degrees! I can't imagine how I would feel if I did not have a Ph.D. and I was constantly encountering people who had one and who insisted that I see them as "Dr."
The best and most high-ranking people I work with use just their first names...and these people have multiple titles...Rear Admiral...Deputy Surgeon General...Dr. Dr. etc. I think they do this because they are super comfortable with who they are. I notice that the lower level people are the ones who insist most on their titles (yesterday afternoon, I dealt with a PHS officer who was pretty much insisting on my calling her "Captain" throughout the conversation---I had a strong visceral reaction to the woman and I have [not a good comment on me!] a suspicion that I will drag my feet slightly over what she wants me to do because I see her as wrapped up in herself and her achievements).
I think that there are two ways you can see a Ph.D.'s not using the title: a form of reverse snobbery as Wolfe would have us believe or evidence of someone who is really comfortable with who they are. And...if it helps maybe we should see our other achievements in this light as well...for ex, I ran (and finished!) a marathon...but I don't call myself "Marathoner CH" (although it's tempting!). However, if I were to complete a form which asked for my running experience or athletic background, I'd put down "I ran a marathon which gave me x skills."
And reading Darryl's comments on grad school...I have to remember the slogan I heard about running a marathon. Marathoners say it's a 26.2 mile trip to hell and back. Maybe that applies to grad school as well?!
CH
Subscriber AF:
I work in state government with a number of people who have Ph.D.s , none of us use the title Dr. in conversation. It's on our business cards, and is a valid mark of the effort and accomplishment involved in obtaining one.
My two cents on this thread is that hiding your degree and feigning false modesty is disingenuous so putting it in print matter-of-factly is the best course of action. If someone thinks it's relevant they'll ask about it, if not it won't come up. Using Doctor as a title, outside the academy, is pretentious and off-putting so unless you're in a context where it's common practice (e.g., my degree is in psychology, in many clinical settings it would be expected of me) leave it alone, you'll only succeed in having people snicker behind your back anyway since most people only associate the title Doctor with physicians and academia.
AF
Subscriber BT:
I've been following the discussion with great interest, seeing as I'm a Ph.D. in Music(ology) who has never stopped performing (though grad school seemed bent on killing my love of music and of singing). I'm currently balancing work in both worlds: earning part of my living as a singer (generally considered a non-academic field) and part of it in a "day job" at a think tank/foundation (operates quite like academia as it is peopled with Ph.D.s). I've even started putting in place the seeds for my own non-profit focusing on promoting through performance, lectures, recordings and publications operas composed by women. In this sense, my graduate education (it only took six years in my case) is definitely becoming part of the "real world." Working at a foundation, moreover has given me a better understanding of what grant makers look for in an application than I had during grad school (and I applied for/received fellowships every year of grad study).
But what actually motivated me to write was the discussion about using the Ph.D. title. I do pick and choose when to use the title. On my singer resume, I put it way down in the bottom under "Education" (because I did do something in those years after my BA). On fellowship and grant applications, I put it up front and center on my letterhead. And to respond to AK's statement about sometimes the title being a private victory, hey, I'll take any victory I can get. Surviving is part of the challenge and fun in life. :-)
BT
Paula Foster Chambers:
Several people including myself have touched on the subject of customizing cover letters, but I think this aspect of the process merits deeper discussion. Those of us who have applied for academic jobs already know the basic concept, but it works somewhat differently, I gather, in the nonacademic world. Speakers and others with experience are invited to comment on the following suggestions, which I make based on my own (not TOO extensive) experience on both sides of the hiring desk:
* Definitely show that you know a lot about the organization you are applying to. (Easily done through web research.)
* Even better: show that you understand the basic mission or mandate of the department or group you are applying to.
* Emphasize the types of problems you can solve for them. In other words, don't just refer to your past experience and assume they will see what an asset you would be because of it. Connect the dots for them by stating very explicitly how this or that experience will solve a problem for them if they hire you. Don't know their problems? Think hard. Imagine yourself in their shoes. What might go wrong for them on a frequent basis? What probably absorbs a lot of their time? What probably costs them a lot of budget money? Your intelligent guesses will probably be close to the mark, and that, in turn, will impress them.
* I usually close my cover letters with a polite but slightly pushy statement along the lines of, "I look forward to hearing from you soon to set up an interview. You may reach me at [phone number]. If I do not hear from you by X date, I will call to make sure you have received my application." I do this because it shows self-confidence and is consistent with my working style. However, opinions may differ on this and I would love to know how others recommend closing a cover letter?
Any comments or expansions will be much appreciated.
Paula
Cathy Wasserman:
I'm with you Paula on most of what you said and like Darryl, I think cover letters are THE key to an application, although all recruiters don't feel that way. I see them as a wonderful opportunity to show your understanding, connection and excitement about an organization (first paragraph), to share the uniqueness of your background (second paragraph) without just repeating what you've written in your resume and then to offer what you can specifically contribute to the organization without sounding pushy (third paragraph). I very much agree with Paula in that you do need to connect the dots for organizations in showing how you can be of benefit and you want to put yourself in their shoes, but my experience in the nonprofit world is that you want to be careful about how you do this. I don't recommend directly saying you can solve a particular problem for them, for example, but rather to connect what they are looking for (as written in their job posting) to something you have done in the past and excitement you have for applying this skill or experience to their organization.
I'm also not a fan of folks writing anything directly about an interview in the fourth and closing paragraph and many of my colleagues in the nonprofit world share this view. Instead, I recommend saying something like you'd would love to have the opportunity to explore the position with them in person. Nor do I like the “I'll call you if I don't hear from you” approach. It's better just to send an e-mail to make sure your app. was received or if you don't have the e-mail address to call after a month to double check, but no need to mention that in the cover letter.
Ultimately, I think the key to writing a great cover letter is being really clear on what your skills are and are not, why you're excited about an organization and what you would are passionate about contributing to their organization. I often recommend that folks do lots of prep work before writing the actual cover letter, where they clarify and refine the unique thread that links all of their professional experiences as well as their career arc and what exactly they are passionate about. For me, the biggest turn-off in a cover letter is one where it's clear that the writer is just writing what they think you want to hear rather than writing what is authentic for them. This is closely related to someone just trying to sell themselves; I see cover letters and resume as tools to build relationships and to connect and as soon as you go into selling mode it's easy for a reader to feel pressured and then disconnect from you.
Cathy
Subscriber NB:
I have a general question about what to do with the 'B" job while you are trying to get the 'A" job? I will hopefully have a 'job' after next week, but it is just a means of income, not a career choice, though it will help me in the long run in terms of skill development/stepping ladder. Do I acknowledge this new job on my resume after, let's say, 4 or 6 months working there? At this point, I have no work experience on my resume for the past 3 years (none of it is relevant, so i don't have it listed).
NB
Kate Duttro:
You want to mention up front whatever is relevant to the job you're applying for. If the current job is no way relevant, find a way to de-emphasize it, by separating your work into categories, such as Relevant Experience and Other Experience. That way, all that work that is relevant, is collected in one place, and you should have room to list your accomplishments within that. The Other can be listed briefly, with no explanation in most cases, with simply title, name of organization and the dates.
This is an important point because if the non-relevant job is the current job, you want to avoid a straight reverse chronology in your resume because that non-relevant job will come to the top. When you consider that the Internet makes it possible for you to be competing frequently with hundreds of others, you want to give your resume all the chances of being seen as potentially relevant within about 10 seconds. Remember, an online application means that someone is using a search function to sort through the applications/resumes and when a human does see the sorted stack, they have to see, very quickly, that your skills match their requirements.
Another VERY important point - Don't assume that you have to call your resume categories "Work" or "Employment." You may have considerable related skill-based activity within your volunteer work or in some other activity. It doesn't have to be paid experience to be useful on a resume, but you do have to get their attention, so they'll recognize it, preferably on the first page, if it is truly useful.
Kate
Subscriber NB:
Let me redirect my question a bit. What if a new job is relevant to the "dream job" you are currently looking for but not something you want to do long term because of the organization/work hours, etc. After what period of time working there can it go on the resume? What is a good period of time to work a job before (1) you should even put it on your resume, and (2) you should consider jumping ship? I think this latter question is going to be somewhat dependent on the person. So if a person has a work history that is choppy, 4 months here, 8 months there, it wouldn't look good if yet again he/she is changing jobs If she is a consultant or independent contractor, however, it won't matter. But what about someone who tends to stay put at a place for multiple years. How long is long enough at a job to "demonstrate" the skills for the dream job, if they are in the same field, for someone who has a very stable work history? I know that many job adverts give years worth of experience, but what about the ones that just say "experience desired"?
NB
Kate Duttro:
(1) Technically, it can go on the moment you are hired, but there is no "should" limitation here, in that it will depend on the specific situation.
(2) Again, it's going to depend on the situation. If you hate the job, you'll want to jump as soon as possible, but I can't even guess at the possible permutations - and I see that you are beginning to answer your own question here.
“So if a person has a work history that is choppy, 4 months here, 8 months there, it wouldn't look good if yet again he/she is changing jobs If she is a consultant or independent contractor, however, it won't matter.”
Again, you're thinking as you write here - that's good, and what you should be doing. Right. I've helped with a couple of resumes in which the subject had a choppy early work history, so we called it "Early Work History" and described the whole collection of 4 or 5 as I remember, as customer service and retail. They were not relevant to the job in question but she wanted to demonstrate a constant work history, and those scattered jobs were the beginning.
“But what about someone who tends to stay put at a place for multiple years? How long is long enough at a job to "demonstrate" the skills for the dream job, if they are in the same field, for someone who has a very stable work history? I know that many job adverts give years worth of experience, but what about the ones that just say "experience desired"?”
There's just no generalizing here, at least not with much utility. When one is "demonstrating" skills, it depends on the skills. One might do it in classes just as well as in a job, too. Usually the clue to answer a question like that is in the job description. There is no magic time for demonstrating skills. But there is a certain skill in reading a good job description and explaining how you got those skills if it was in a situation other than doing that job in the first place.
To answer the last question, it usually means that they are willing to make an exception for the right person. The committee who wrote the job description may recognize that the perfect person for the job may not exist, or may not find their advertisement. So, because they can't wait forever to fill that job, they are willing to take a person who has most of what they want, if they show enthusiasm and the ability to learn fast and who they think will fit in and be able to play with the others who are already working there.
Kate
Subscriber YS:
This discussion couldn't have come at a better time for me, and I appreciate the willingness of our discussion panelists to share their advice with us all. I don't know how typical I am of non-traditional, returning students, but now rather find myself in the 'no commercial experience' bind. I went back to school at age 41, have earned an AA, two BAs, an M.A., and now, almost twelve years since beginning, am ABD in English. Before returning to school, I ran a home daycare for ten years in order to be home with our own children and did a great deal of volunteering, and before that, was self-employed in a number of capacities. All through school, I worked part-time (financially necessary--student jobs on campus and then TAing) and finished raising my family, on top of a 3-5 hour commute, therefore having literally no time for volunteer or student activities or unpaid internships, useful though they might have been.
I am now 52, with health problems and basic computer skills, in a market flooded with humanities/English degrees, and place-bound by family responsibilities, including aging parents. We just moved to this small community a year ago, so I am starting from scratch developing a local network. I've begun tutoring at the local community college (who aren't even hiring adjuncts at this point); joined a church; volunteered with the Girl Scouts; and put up flyers in logical places for private tutoring/editing, with no responses as yet. I'm not k/12 certified, and the local districts also have no current openings, even for subs, nor do any of the other private schools, university branches, or tutoring centers.
I've met with advisors at the Career Center at school, taken the 'dependable strengths' workshop, attended career week seminars, read everything I can get my hands on, and am starting to make contacts for informational interviews with government agencies and through the alumni network. All of my previous attempts to make 'sideways' moves into administration met with no success, always losing out to candidates with more specifically applicable skills or experience. I am frustrated, depressed, out of funding, and in need of income! Even a 'B' job would be a welcome start...identifying what my dream job would be at this point seems far beyond practical, since I can't even get a non-dream one to tide me over! Sorry for the rant, but thanks for letting me vent--and any suggestions more than welcome! Where do I go now??
YS
Subscriber NB:
The job interview I have next week is entry level, with a major focus on customer service (it requires a masters but it is a call center). I spent holidays for 6 years working in a call center. I then spent holidays for 3 years working in social services, which required some customer service.
How many years of experience do I have in customer service? How do you deal with those summer/winter break jobs? I thank god i had such great jobs to get me through grad school, but how much "experience" do they really count as?
NB
Darryl Stevens:
Do not simply focus on call center type work. Some aspects of dealing with students is customer service. I encourage people to think of it as "client service" so as to include a wide range of problem-solving positions. Typically, it is the problem-solving, troubleshooting skills they are looking for.
Darryl
Subscriber NB:
Yes, I agree, but this still leaves the question of counting holiday jobs in terms of years of experience.
NB
Cathy Wasserman:
I very much agree with Darryl; the troubleshooting and assessment skills (figuring out what a caller or grad student really needs) are what's really important. The exact number of years of experience you have in "customer service" is not as important. You can let them know that you have considerable experience in assessing and troubleshooting people's needs and directing them to resources (if you feel that is accurate) and then give a few specific examples in your cover letter that relate directly to what they are looking for.
Best!
Cathy
Darryl Stevens:
Try something like this:
1998-2004 Call Center Representative, Big Time Call Center Philadelphia, PA Handled wide range of service requests, contract issues, and client Problems during high volume holiday season. Maintained accurate records of requests and actions for later audit. Blah, blah, blah.
This clearly tells them that you were working during holidays and that the agency/organization trusted you enough to have you back. It also gets at the critical issue of skills and "learning curve." From my perspective, you have six years (or more) of experience. You may wish to state it as six years of temporary employment or seasonal employment, but again, I would not make that big a deal out of it one way or the other.
Darryl
Kate Duttro:
I basically echo Darryl on this one, too, but just a couple of points.
You might squeeze a bit more credibility out of this by adding some of the details, and it's relatively easy to slip in a few numbers. What WAS the volume (average # of calls per hour or day? or your own high point?) Can you, in a few words, describe the kind of, or range of, problems? and how many records were in the database being maintained? This kind of information gives the reviewer an idea of the size of the operation, and especially if it's bigger than theirs, you'll come off as more experienced.
The question of "how much time" can be important. If you counted up all the holiday time over those years as weeks, how many would it be? If that brings the total to less than 5-6 months, I'd consider making it clear that it was holiday time over 6 years (or whatever). You don't want to even appear to be mis-representing yourself, because it is grounds for dismissal. Getting that in without stating numbers may be a compromise.
If you were doing a federal job application, you would find that you were asked to tell them exactly how many weeks (hours, even) you had in your various kinds of experience, and they would use it to determine whether you had what they required, especially when years of experience are used to make up for education, or vice versa.
I guess my basic question, is whether this is a job you actually want, whether you'll continue to look for other work, and how long you plan to be in it. Just checking.../ Kate
Subscriber NB:
Thank you Darryl and Kate.
Actually this isn't a job I really want, but I have been looking since Sept and this job will at least get me into student services (which is one of two possible tracks i am thinking about). The hours are awful, but the money is o.k.. I am looking at it as a foot in the door, a chance to pick up some direct experience in a field I am interested in, while making some money job. I had hoped to start somewhere else, but I guess this is where I must begin. If all goes well and I get this job (if they don't decide i am too "qualified", for instance), I will keep looking for other jobs, but I would like to stick it out there for 8-9 months.
NB
Kate Duttro:
Good, NB! Don't get enmeshed by accident in a job/place you don't want to be in, and even while working, keep your eyes open for other possibilities within student services. If this job will allow you to do any volunteering, or take any relevant training (even short workshops), you'll be demonstrating your intentions of getting the skills that will help you keep moving in that direction.
Best, Kate
F. “3 to 5 Years Experience Required”
Subscriber IT:
I'm at the end of earning a M.A. in Literature and I'm looking for options beside teaching. I'd like a position emphasizing writing and/or editing (would love an editor position) but I keep running into the "must have 3-5 years experience" wall. I've got some editing experience and very strong writing skills but I don't know how to convince an employer to take a chance on me.
I'm really starting to get frustrated so any suggestions would be great.
IT
Subscriber AP:
You may want to check publishers lunch http://www.caderbooks.com/, they usually have a few starting jobs, you can also get internships at some presses.
AP
Subscriber RY:
The consensus from the informational interviewing I've done about editing/publishing is that the path to an editorial position at a publishing house is pretty steep--you'll almost certainly have to start out in low-paying positions with little responsibility (on paper, at any rate). Everyone I've spoken to emphasized this. Which makes editing/publishing like many other fields, of course, but the hierarchy seems to be fairly hard and fast in this case.
That said, there are several ways to get some of that elusive "3-5 years experience" now. (BTW, my experience is with academic editing/publishing--other types of publishing almost certainly operate according to a whole different set of practices and principles...)
* If you can afford it, try to get an internship position at a publishing house. They're often short-term and unpaid, but they can give you some great insights into the field. An example--I know U.C. Press here in the SF Bay Area regularly advertises unpaid internship positions. On the non-academic front, I've also seen internships regularly advertised at a local press specializing in travel writing.
* Get on the board of a graduate student journal and do some editing. it will help if you say you've edited somewhere concrete (and publicly available), at so-and-so journal. If there are no journals on your campus, see if there are some on nearby campuses. Sometimes enthusiasm will count as much as affiliation. Or start a journal yourself. Maybe there's a gap in your field/area of interest you and a few others could fill. (And don't forget e-journals.)
* Apply for internship positions at campus-edited journals. Sometimes these are available in lieu of teaching positions. (Although perhaps if you're at the end of your degree this may extend your on-campus time more than you'd like.) I worked as an editorial assistant at a journal based on my campus for two years. I found it a fantastic way to get a fly-on-the-wall perspective into academic press editing as well as some solid hands-on experience.
I'd also hazard a guess that very strong writing skills are simply a given criterion for these sorts of positions, rather than a plus that will make you stand out from other applicants--sadly!
RY
Darryl Stevens:
I am afraid that the short answer is that there is no way to convince an employer to take a chance on you. More to the point, even really bad HR departments usually understand the level of skill associated with a certain number of years of experience. Part of the reason to include experience standards is to have folks self-select OUT of the process. Your presence in the applicant pool is likely to gather notice for your inability to read the requirements...not a distinction you wish to have.
I would like to suggest a strategy, but I have a question first? (Rhetorical, BTW) Do you know what an editor does? If the answer to this is yes, then it can only be because you know someone who is an editor and you have watched them work. Otherwise, how would you know you would love to perform the skills, competencies, tasks, and responsibilities of an editor. So, if you answered yes because you actually know an editor...then talk to that friend and ask them how to step on a path toward an editorial position.
If you answered no to the above question, then it is likely that you either do not know someone who is an editor or you know someone, but have never watched them work. If this is the case, then you probably would not love being an editor as much as you would love doing a job that comprises your idea of what an editor does.
MY SUGGESTION. The next time you see an advertisement for an editorial job that requires 3-5 years of experience, find out who is the hiring manager. Write this individual and explain that you are a recent M.A. grad and you noticed the announcement for an opening. Indicated to him or her that since you do not have 3-5 years of experience, you would like to gain appropriate experience to be competitive in the future. Ask him or her specifically what kind of experience he or she was seeking.
Darryl
Subscriber BE:
Before everyone frets that every job that requires 3-5 years experience in anything is out of reach (even if this editor position in question is too large of a stretch), I'd like to suggest that some academic grad school experience is transferable into non-academic job requirements. Perhaps our panelists could comment on that. For example, I applied and got my first post-academic job that required "supervisory experience." I used my experience working with 40 students all writing research papers at once as one of my examples -- ensuring they had a plan, monitoring their progress, giving tips along the way, and working with them near the end to produce a good final produce. I had a couple others -- all were a stretch, but it worked; I was hired and did well, moved up quickly in the company. Another example, current job I required 5 years experience as a researcher-writer. I think I said I had 8 years experience. I included grad school since that was what I did 40-60 hours per week (and when I was on scholarship I was "paid to do it" at that). I also had some other professional experience but much of it was short term contract work. Again, no I didn't have 5 years experience as an in house researcher- writer in the private sector, but from researching what the position involved, I knew I could do the job in question. I didn't lie (anyone reading my resume should have been able to figure out many of the 8 years were grad school) . I got the job, and everything has worked out well.
BE
Subscriber NQ:
Although not guaranteed to work, an idea to bear in mind when accumulating experience is to make it look as long as possible. So if you're doing temporary, contractual or short terms work, if possible try to negotiate it so it straddles a year, say by offering to provide Christmas cover.
On a CV
6/99 2/2000 JOB X…… looks at first glance like a years experience whereas
2/99 12/ 99 JOB X….. looks like less than a year.
Of course you may not survive the second glance but when it gives you a chance of getting an interview if you've got 32 months and are going for a 3yrs + post.
NQ
Kate Duttro:
You are right in wanting to get into the interview, but be careful of overstating experience too.
If you are applying for a government job and you have to fill in the long application form, you must actually count the number of weeks within a year that you worked in a particular situation. Again, the emphasis is matching the job description with your experience, but they go through those applications with a view to making sure the applicant they choose to interview has exactly what they want in experience.
Kate
Subscriber NQ:
I'm not arguing for over stating- just reflecting a comment that came back to me when I once handed in notice to end my employment on 31/12 - the PR manager made the simple suggestion that ending on 1/1 looks longer on a cv and why was I trying to underplay the amount of time spend with them. Fair advice - although as you say doesnt work with application forms.
NQ
Riall Nolan:
I'll go out on a limb here and make a couple of suggestions in an area I'm not sure I know very much about.
You've got "some" editing experience and "very strong" writing skills, so highlight these. If other people have said so, then let them speak on your behalf as you prepare to meet the market. If, in other words, you've done editing work for someone, can you ask for a reference letter or just a blurb that you can put in your portfolio. If your writing skills have been praised by, say, an editor, a writing teacher, or a work supervisor, can you get them to put it in writing? Offering convincing proof of what you've already done in the words of others is always a good idea.
Second, if you are getting the message that you need more experience in some areas, can you get that experience by offering your services free, or at greatly reduced cost? That is, can you offer to write, or edit, in your hometown, so that you deepen your record of having done those things?
My point here is that it does not matter -- to put it bluntly -- what you think of your abilities, it matters what someone else thinks of them. Grades are a reflection of your skills as a student, but one glowing letter from the editor of the local paper about what a great job you did with an assignment will count, I think, as much or more than any grade point average.
Think of a career arc, as someone suggested, and ask your informational interviewees how to get started on the arc, even if it means doing things for a short while that you thought were behind you.
Riall
Kate Duttro:
Just thought I'd mention that I once applied to write for a campus magazine (Liberal Arts, I think), and I had been teaching for a couple of years in the English comp series. I was astonished to learn that the editor considered the grading of papers for a couple of years to be worth a couple years of editing experience. Think of it, grading 8 papers per class with 25 students, times 3 classes per term, for 6 terms. I think she was right - that was editing, and you had to be able to articulate your reasoning. I think you could make a case for editing experience if you've done anything like that. Yes, it may depend on the publisher, but what they are looking for is someone who can do the editing they need to have done. It may not count as enough for a publisher of graduate physics textbooks. but that is something you can find out from information interviews with editors.
cheers, Kate
Subscriber IT:
I've got two years experience as the Fiction editor of the literary anthology at my current University as well as 2 years experience as a Developmental Writing tutor.
I know what the position of editor entails - I've done it and am currently doing it. I suppose I'm looking for strategies to make the experience I have more appealing to HR managers. Something to make my resume stand out from all the other English majors with the same background. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.
IT
Riall Nolan:
Sounds like you have a very solid background and preparation for what you want to do. So I really have only two suggestions for you.
First, think about how you want to portray your editing and writing tutor experience. You can simply state it on your resume in a line, but why not "unpack" both of those jobs and analyze what you actually did there, and try and find some way to get those different things into the resume, or at least into a cover letter. See my remarks about Bolles and the wait-person a little earlier.
Second, you mentioned "HR." Ugh. HR people are gatekeepers, the last people on earth who will help you get a job. Yes, I know your resume probably has to go to them eventually, but if it comes directly from you to them, it may not fare well. Nothing personal, but they get dozens, they check 'em off, they file 'em. If on the other hand your resume comes down to them from one of the senior editors with a note saying "spoke to this person last week, looks impressive, please add to our short list for the upcoming position," you are ahead of the pack.
People hire people. So once you've decided how to portray your considerable experience to best advantage, seek out, not the HR people, but the people who you would be working with or for, and arrange to talk with them.
Riall
Darryl Stevens:
I think that you might want to check in with an editor in the publishing business. It is a much different job outside of the academy. It includes maintaining a list, soothing the hurt feelings of authors, babysitting deadlines, marketing, working with a variety of literary agents who pamper and protect their client writers.
I think that this is the kind of experience they are looking for. Being a good writing instructor and editing a section of an annual or semi-annual anthology gives you some basic building blocks, but it is not likely to substitute for understanding the "market."
The end of your post, however, is what I would like to address. I realize that each of you hear the following mantra from career counselors and friends. "You need to make your resume stand out from all of the others." Over the years people have tried all manner of things to make themselves stand out. Pink paper, fancy fonts, resumes on CD, etc. I have never been convinced that any of that works. I have hired many people, both in academic and non-academic settings. I have made a few mistakes, but overall I have become pretty good at determining what I need and finding ways to ascertain whether or not a candidate fits those criteria. I think that most managers have had similar experiences and, if they are good managers, they figure out a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. While this is an oversimplification, I would like to create an axiom of standing out. It is as follows: "Candidates who doctor their resumes to stand out are seldom outstanding." The Management corollary to this axiom would be: "Any hiring manager who is fooled by attempts to doctor a resume is likely to be a manager for whom you will not wish to work."
VX, I realize that you not asked to "doctor" your resume nor have you suggested that that you wish to present a false view of yourself. PLEASE do not read that into what I have written here. However, often on the list I see requests that are something like, "I know I can do this job. How do I get them to see who I really am?" It is not the hiring managers job to see who you really are. It is their job to hire the person that best fits their organization with the least learning curve possible. So, while your graduate degree and work on an institutional publication is not without merit, it will likely be buried beneath a sea of resumes from others who have been in the publishing industry for years. It is also likely that hiring managers will have had the experience of working through mistakes that they have made in the hiring process and have their own rather esoteric method for skinning the cat.
This gets at the second (and most maddening) level of the search process. Despite all of the tomes written, seminars given, and emails conveyed on the subject, the fact remains that we seldom actually know why someone was hired or passed over. Last week, I sat down with a student to review her resume. It was a chatty narrative full of bullet points and boxes. Visually it made me carsick. Having worked with her on a earlier version, I asked, "Why the change?"
"My friend hers like this and got a job right away?"
"What kind of toothpaste does she use?"
"Huh? I don't know. Why?"
"Well, maybe she changed toothpaste. Maybe that's why she got a job."
"Come on. Be serious."
I went on to tell her that it made as much sense to credit toothpaste to getting a job as a change in the formatting of a resume. We have no idea why the hiring manager chose what he or she chose. I firmly believe that no one ever got a job because of their resume, but many people do not get jobs because their resumes are sloppy and/or disorganized.
Before I started this response, I did a quick tally of the hires I have made since my first supervisory job in 1981. Over the last 23 years I have hired 50+ individuals and have participated in the hiring of another 30 or so. That's a bit more than 3 per year. (On one particular hiring binge, I had to select 6 master's level counselors for a federal grant in a period of four days. I think that 4 of them panned out and 2 were DOA.) As indicated above, resumes have meant little to me. I am a cover letter guy. A well-written, individualized cover letter gets you in my door. (As an aside here, letters of recommendation mean little to me...no one asks for a letter from someone who will not write a glowing summary.)
Having said all this, remember that others doing hiring may have a different set of experiences or a different calculus. I have gotten jobs that I never expected to get and was not interviewed for jobs that were an obvious perfect fit. I always enjoy seeing a doctoral student here for the first time because they have typically been given completely different advice by every member of their committee and every student in the program. At some point, you have to decide what it the most appropriate, professional presentation of your skills and experiences. It should be consistently drawn, well-organized, and without filigree.
I actually have a post coming that may address some of this, but the fact remains there are no secrets to standing out.
Darryl
Subscriber OS:
Some people have asked about what to do regarding "holes" in a resume where there isn't work, and ways have been suggested to address that. I have the opposite problem. Although I've dropped things off of my resume over time, the long and short of it is that for however many years I go back, I have programmer, software engineer, technical trainer who teaches programming, blah blah blah. And I've got all those bullet-point things for showing how I did this and led that and developed this other thing. I wonder if this all is a problem when I apply for a job in another field because the potential employer says "he's a techie, and I don't need one of those," such that skills embedded in those jobs, even though I'm highlighting them with bullets and putting them in cover letters, don't matter. I've been thinking that this is one reason my C.V. is totally ineffective. I don't want big gaps between school and applying for a teaching position, but what's in the middle is IT, which is not only irrelevant, but probably makes most potential employers worry because at least in the commercial arena, that means salaries well over twice what an assistant prof would make anywhere. I wonder if the same applies to other kinds of positions. Do I need a statement in my cover letter to the effect that "I've been in IT many years, but I am looking to make a transition to xyz, and I'm really interested in the work, so the potential reduction in salary doesn't matter"? Thanks.
By the way, I've never put my Ph.D. in my cover letter, but it's in the education section of my resume and has led to interesting conversations during interviews a time or two. At my current job, it was definitely a plus, being that my degree is in New Testament and I work at a Christian liberal arts school. So I would not make a big deal of it, but I wouldn't hide it either. You never know what the interests of the interviewer might be.
OS
Kate Duttro:
Before I can respond, I need a little more information. From what you say, I just can't picture this CV (or resume).
1. Are you using a CV for all your applications?
(What kinds of organizations are applying to?) How long is the CV?
2. Are you using a resume also?
3. Is this CV or resume in reverse chronological order? Have you used a functional resume at all?
Kate
Subscriber OS:
Sorry for any confusion. I have both a C.V. and resume. I use the C.V when I apply for academic jobs and the resume for everything else.
My resume is in reverse chronological order. I also have that on my C.V. but the employment history is compressed to just company, job title and dates, unlike my resume that goes into lots of detail with bullet points to bring out important things.
OS
Kate Duttro:
Good start. I wondered if you had tried a semi functional format, in which you basically divide your experience into categories and do the reverse chronology within each category. The two most common categories probably are Relevant Experience and Other Experience, but you can be more explicit, too, much as in a CV, with Teaching, Research, Project Management, Pilot Training and whatever categories are relevant. The irrelevant stuff should be at the bottom - and if it's really irrelevant, it will fall off the page naturally.
There's enormous variation in the way folks do resumes, even among my professional resume writer friends, and there is no golden resume format. Get a good, recent book on resumes that gives explanations that describe the theory of resumes. (The resume books that merely have examples from different fields are usually too cook book like and usually depend too much on appearance, whereas, these days, content is far more important.)
Of course, the point is to present your experience that is most relevant to the job in question FIRST. (In a reverse chronological format, the most relevant job may have been several years ago, and will be that far down the page.) But you want reviewers to see what is at the top of the page. (Because we read left to right and top to bottom, the important stuff should be on the left and at the top). For that reason, too, don't organize a resume with the dates to the left, as they are less important than the content, which is what you want to be noticed.
The same goes for putting either your title or the organization you worked for in bold. If the organizations you've worked for are well-known, it won't hurt to begin the line with them and follow with your title. If your titles have been meaty, you may want to start with them. (But, choose and be consistent throughout.) I've seen successful resumes done both ways.
Incidentally, among the tons of resume books out there, I'd suggest Martin Yate's Resumes that Knock 'Em Dead, Regina Pontow's Proven Resumes, Tom Washington's Resume Power and Susan Whitcomb's Resume Magic.
best, Kate
Subscriber RY:
I'm wondering how to best present periods of self-employment on a resume. I'm thinking about the gamut of self-employment, from the editing work lots of us humanities grads do to attempting to start a home business designing widgets of some sort or another Obviously a lot of experience comes out of this sort of work--the nature of self-employment itself garners a certain skill set (e.g. starting/running a small business). But I'm concerned that without being able to say you worked for X organization, or worked full-time for x number of months, periods of self-employment run the risk of looking like unverifiable padding--especially because, as some of the panelists have commented, employers initially will be reviewing resumes at lightning pace. What are the best ways to present this sort of work?
RY
Kate Duttro:
A good question that begs for some creativity (not to imply deviousness or misrepresentation). One approach could be to bullet some of your skills in a Qualifications section at the top of your resume. For this, it is important that your qualifications actually parallel the important elements in the job description, and you can "translate" loosely if the terminology of your field is different from the job description, but it has to represent you accurately.
Then, in the more descriptive section, you can list Self-Employed as if it were a job. (Nice if you had a business name and were formalized, but you can also go DBA, Doing Business As "Your Name," and give dates and location as if it were a job. Then, list information about the experience, depending on how it relates to the job you're applying for - for example, by project, and here you can list the names of companies, if you contracted with companies, or list things like "completed 15 product brochures for X company - on time and under budget," or "editorial management of all marketing materials for Z company," or "edited six 40,000-word manuscripts in X weeks, with less than 2% error rate," or --- however you can characterize the work you did, so that it is in the same ballpark, descriptively, as the job requires.
In all cases, you have to understand the job description from the inside, which is the reason for all those information interviews and the people you talk to about the kind of work you want. When you understand what the job is, then you can explain in their own words, how it is that you can help them - and you can do it very efficiently on the front page of a resume. THAT may get you the interview. THEN you have a chance to talk, and again, to demonstrate, by telling stories about your work, and, one of my favorite tools is of course, the career portfolio. (But, at this moment, it's nearly midnight and I'm going to sign off - more tomorrow - and promises to keep)
cheers, Kate
Darryl Stevens:
I had an independent psychotherapy practice for over 15 years. While it was part time, it brought in a fairly substantial amount of income (and kept me alive during my doctoral program). This experience, however, is a mere blip on my resume or CV. As a hiring manager, I am often suspicious of those who have had long periods of self-employment. My reticence has to do with the fact that I generally have wanted to hire someone who "plays well with others" and it capable of carrying out a task that may be personally meaningless, but of importance to the organization. Sometimes, people who have been self-employed did this because they had their own vision of how things should be done and had difficulty getting along.
I am not saying that self-employment is pathological in and of itself. Nor am I suggesting that periods of self-employment be eliminated from your resume. Rather, I AM saying that you should have a good, results-oriented description of your self-employment for your resume, as well as a good reason you began and/or ended this type of work.
Finally, it is not uncommon in my field to find someone applying for a permanent position who also lists a part-time independent practice. I am loathe to hire such an individual and if I do, they are told in an offer letter that working for the "agency" or "clinic" is their primary responsibility and they will not be allowed to transact "private" business during office hours. This goes for consultants, teachers, etc.
Darryl
Subscriber JM:
I would like suggestions on how to handle being overqualified.
JM
Subscriber PF:
If you can get hired for a position you're clearly "overqualified" for, that can actually serve you well as you switch careers - at least on a short-term basis. You'll probably need to swallow a low-end salary, initially; you'll need to be extra attentive to office politics (among other things, you might need to help your supervisor understand that you're really not hell-bent on usurping her/him); and you'll need to establish with colleagues across the board that (despite all of the tiresome stereotypes) you really aren't an ivory-tower prima donna.
So, you might by now be wondering, why in the world bother? Well, I truly believe you can leverage being "overqualified" for long-term career-transition success. A personal example: I returned to my grad school alma mater for my second position in advancement research, one for which everyone saw I was radically "overqualified." Despite a drop in salary from Research Job #1, I had compelling personal reasons for taking this position, and I saw a genuine opportunity for "growing the role." Gradually, through steady but diplomatic brainstorming, I managed to get my duties expanded (e.g. more and more writing), my title upgraded (from Research Assistant to Assistant Director of Research), and my salary boosted. At the same time, I networked like crazy, and became very involved in helping to lead the local chapter of the relevant professional group, APRA-WI. Eventually, I was recruited by a competing organization (my current employer), and was able to turn all of that "growing the role" (and, yes, networking/professional development) experience into another significant salary-increase.
Bottom line: Being "overqualified" is probably never pleasant, but - with enough patience and persistence - it can have decent long(er)-term payoffs.
Hope this helps - PF
Subscriber JM:
I am interested in student affairs and think that academic advising is a superb way to gain experience in that area. As a graduate assistant, instructor, and interim director of a small university program, I have advising experience. However, I have been unable to get a full-time advising position. Most of the postings are for entry-level advisors. A couple of times, I have even been told that I was “overqualified.” How does one work around this? Should it be addressed in the cover letter? Is it appropriate to e-mail the director/manager of the program in which the position is open? Most of the time the application materials are to be sent to the human resources department. Is finding the name of the search chair and contacting that person directly to emphasize your interest and perhaps explain your “over qualifications” helpful or hurtful? Though the business community seems to reward aggressiveness, I have found academic institutions shun such behavior. All ideas and suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
JM
Subscriber IS:
I've been taking workshops at the local workforce center. I was told to match my prior experience to the tasks being advertised and offer to stay in the position for a certain length of time, if the position I'm applying for SEEMS like something someone with less education might ordinarily apply for, as opposed to me, whose degrees appear to make me overqualified for the position. The tight job market means there may not be an "appropriate" position available.
If you actually feel you ARE overqualified, then perhaps stating that you are willing to begin at an entry level position and expect to advance might work.
IS
Subscriber OH:
PF gives a useful example of how he "leverage[d] being 'overqualified' for long-term career-transition success" once he obtained the position for which he appeared overqualified. What I'm wondering is: How did he get that position in the first place? Can you enlighten us about that, PF?
OH
Subscriber PF:
Probably each such circumstance will have its own variations and challenges. In the instance I referred to, I had 2 graduate degrees from the institution I was interviewing at, and - far more importantly - I had already met the position's supervisor at a professional meeting. There was a group interview, followed eventually by a one-on-one (with the supervisor) - and things simply "clicked." Does that help to clarify ... ?
PF
Subscriber NP:
Thanks to everyone for such a stimulating and interesting discussion thus far! I think this question has been addressed before this list, but I'd appreciate hearing feedback from our panelists (and others who have experience). I've spent the last 5 years as a grad student, earning relatively meager wages as a TA or RA. A number of non-academic positions, though, ask for salary histories as a part of the application process. What is the best way to approach this? I guess that my broader question pertains to the importance of such a question. Does it actually play a role in the hiring decision--either pro or con? Academia tends not to have much flexibility when it comes to salaries, so I'm a little unsure how to approach requests for salary histories and their overall importance in the application process.
NP
Riall Nolan:
Your network will be able to give you important tips on how to approach this question, since it varies a lot from one organization -- or employment sector -- to the next. US government jobs, for example, routinely ask for salary histories, and they mean it. And yes, your years of penury will put you at a disadvantage. Outside government, however, people are more open-minded. My adive -- sure to be controversial -- is to not respond to a salary history question, not until you have done two things: researched the salary range which actually exists for your type of job within that organization; and two, figured out your comparative advantage vis-a-vis the profile they are looking for.
If pressed, develop a polite, firm, and professional reply: "I was a graduate student/monk/Peace Corps volunteer/etc for years in order to build up my skills and experience. Everyone knows these jobs don't pay well, and they shouldn't be used to determine my salary level with you."
When you negotiate for your salary, you can approach this in two basic ways:
1. Pay me what's fair -- that is, pay me the same as everyone else with my job description.
2. Pay me more because I'm exceptional -- my additional skills and unusual but highly relevant experience put me ahead of your other employees.
Choose whichever one you think you can stay with. Option (1) is very safe, particularly in our current culture of litigation. Option (2) can be more exciting, and in some organizations, it's the only way to go.
Riall
Cathy Wasserman:
I don't think Riall's advice is controversial, but maybe that's because I share it! It might be helpful to know that most nonprofits don't ask for salary ranges. I agree that even if they do, it's best not to respond unless you‘re very clear on what the range is for the kind of job you're applying to AND figured out where you fall in that range.
Whenever you negotiate salary, I think it's best to be very clear on what your bottom-line is, but focus on what you realistically hope you can get. That is, if asked what you're looking for, give the high end of what's realistic given the field and your level in the field.
Best! Cathy
Subscriber UX:
Does anyone (panelists or others) have thoughts on or experience with job placement/recruiting/head-hunting companies? Are such companies reliable resources or able to deal with the placement of candidates with advanced degrees? Or is it better to go the traditional route (resumes, networking, etc)?
UX
Riall Nolan:
There are different types of firms out there that do different things, and it's important to know the difference.
One type is a temp firm, and I would highly recommend temp work for people with advanced skills. It's not just for typists or receptionists, there are some very interesting jobs to be had, it's a great way to network, and you get to try stuff out on a largely risk-free basis.
Another is a job-placement firm that charges you money. My advice is not to deal with them.
Headhunters, or professional recruiters, are quite another matter. They get their fee from the company doing the hiring, not from you. They are VERY choosey, but again, if you have specific skills, I would get in touch with them, send your resume and a cover letter, and see what happens. It can't hurt. I've worked with half a dozen of them, and had good experiences each time.
Headhunting firms are often highly specialized themselves (academic, nonprofit, healthcare, etc) so it's a good idea to survey the field before you start writing to any of them.
They recruit for relatively senior jobs, they take their work very seriously, and you should be absolutely straight with them, because otherwise, they won't call you back.
The best things about temp agencies and headhunters is that once they are part of your network, and they have your resume on file, you may get called again, later on, for another position.
There are books out there which talk about how headhunters work, and all of them have websites, which is a good way to see what kinds of jobs they are recruiting for.
Riall
Subscriber OS:
These kinds of outfits are fairly prevalent in IT, so I can speak to this from that perspective. These can be useful in that, if you can fit the requirements more or less, a head hunter can get you an interview you might not otherwise get because they know the name of the actual hiring manager, while you have to just hope that HR does the right thing.
On the other hand, often recruiters are hired because of difficulty in finding some one very specific set of skills that the company cannot otherwise find, in which case they might not be very useful.
Also, some are reasonable, in asking for you to fill out an online form perhaps and send in a resume. Others will make you come to their office, where they make you fill out a form instead, give a little blah-blah-blah speech about what they will do for you, and you never hear from them again, so I don't ever deal with the latter anymore. I wasted a whole morning going into San Francisco for this useless activity, but not again.
If they ask you for money up front, move on. There's no good reason for that these days. They should get paid by the recruiter. Some recruiters will do a good job of making sure you are the right fit, and interviews are meaningful. Other times, I've had my time wasted for a phone interview for something that I was just not that close to.
I've never tried to work with a recruiter outside of my specific niche. I'm not sure how it would work to seek out a recruiter if what I have are a general skill set, not experience in the recruiter's area. I'd guess that wouldn't work, but there may be exceptions out there.
OS
Subscriber ZD:
Right before the start of our panel discussion, WRK4US members were having an informal discussion about networking and its place in the non-academic job hunt. The topic has since come up wthin the panel discussion, but I was hoping the panelists would be willing to tease out that networking thread a bit more.
Context: I am employed in academic corporate/foundation fund-raising, and I have no intentions to be on the job market in the immediate future. I've heard the conventional wisdom that NOW is when I should be building a professional network and making informational interviews---because it will allow me to position myself for further career growth without even the slightest hint of "please hire me!" undercurrent coming into my information-gathering.
I can see the logic in this idea, but I don't know quite what to do next. I dare say I've the usual bunch of anxieties---I'm somewhat introverted, afraid of being a bother, afraid of making that first cold call to some random informational target, and even if I do get in the door with the forenamed info target, I'm not sure I've figured out the right questions to ask....
What would the panelists' advice be about how best to get on the networking train and make it a professional habit during and between nonacademic job searches?
ZD
Cathy Wasserman:
Yes, yes, indeed networking should be on-going! I very much agree with what you've heard- it's not something just to do when you're looking for a job, indeed, that creates a lot of extra pressure and can get in the way quite a bit because as you point out, it's hard to avoid constantly thinking: I'm networking so that I can get a job. Networking isn't directly about getting a job AT ALL, getting a job or contact that leads to a job, however, can be a wonderful benefit! It IS about intentionally building relationships.
If you're not looking for a job now, then it's really important to decide what outcome you're looking for in networking. Perhaps, it's literally as simple as, just building your network in your current career area, or perhaps, you'd like to start building your network in a related area. Whatever, your goal, I always recommend starting to network with your immediate network first. This can be particularly helpful for folks like yourself who are a bit hesitant about networking in the first place. You might want to send a brief e-mail out or call (when appropriate) friends and close associates and let them know how you're trying to build your network and ask them if they know of any conferences, networking groups, associations, or people with whom it might be useful to connect. It might relieve your anxiety to continually remember that networking isn't about selling yourself, but growing your connections and learning as much as you can about a particular field, issue, job etc... As such, it should be reciprocal; you should always try to see how you can be of service to the other person as well.
A special note, if you're not looking to leave your current organization, it's often a great idea to network with the colleagues that you have right now! They can be tremendously helpful in connecting you to other great people, events, and organizations and you can also assist them. Not only will this build your network, but it very well may also build your effectiveness in your current work.
Don't forget that the web is also a great way to research networking groups, associations and networking opportunities!
In order to keep the momentum up on the networking train, it can be really helpful to make a semi-official commitment to it. For example, having a mentor or friend periodically check in with you about it. Or joining a group that has regular meetings. It's likely that, after perhaps some initial resistance, you will willingly stay on the networking train because you'll experience the direct benefits and simply not want to get off!
Much good luck! Cathy
Subscriber FH:
Just another thought on this "networking" discussion --
It actually can be fun! And if you aren't specifically job hunting, it can also be less organized and sort of coldly strategic than is being suggested here. I am currently employed and not presently looking for anything else, but my philosophy generally is to say "yes" anytime I'm invited anywhere for anything. This gives me a chance to meet people all the time -- both at my work and in my life -- and keeps my network growing (in a somewhat random way, admittedly) while being easy and enjoyable and social at the same time. This means that I have tended in my job to say "yes" to requests to be on campus-wide committees, "yes" to joining the local administrative women's networking group, "yes" to going out to lunch with people I meet who say "we should go to lunch sometime," "yes" to joining a book group with women I did not previously know. For me, networking is more of a stance toward life than a calculated plan with a specific goal in mind.
And even this rather casual approach has paid off for me. I got my current job through a connect made at the book group I was asked to join. The book group was utterly unrelated to my work -- just a group of intelligent women who like to read -- but it gave me a chance to talk with someone who, a few months later, knew of a job that was a good fit.
Just a thought to take some of the "work" out of "networking."
FH
Cathy Wasserman:
FH makes great points! I didn't mean to imply that networking should be coldly strategic at all. Actually, in order to maintain it over time, it needs to be fun. And at the same time, adding in a dash of strategy can also be very helpful. I really do believe that we're all networking even when we don't think we are- indeed, most communication is some form of networking or another. Combining formal with informal networking is a terrific way to go.
Best, Cathy
Subscriber OS:
Do you have networking tips for those of us who are somewhat introverted in social situations or find the thought of deliberately schmoozing a bit uncomfortable? I'm "conflicted" over making contacts at social gatherings when it's purely utilitarian. I realize that's how the game is played, but I can't say that it sounds very "fun" (as in the movie Top Gun, "Is this your idea of fun, Mav?").
OS
Cathy Wasserman:
I can relate; even though I've facilitated hundreds of groups, I am an introvert and I actually don't personally love networking in large or even medium-sized groups. I've found that the best use of my energy is to do more one-on-one networking with individuals with whom my more intimate circle connects me. Having said that, I do attend larger networking events when they are a great fit with my interests and I feel I could greatly benefit from making some contacts with members. Still, after 35 years of being myself, I know myself pretty well (!) and I know that I have more or less energy for certain kinds of activities.
Of course, you also know yourself best and you'll know when a particular networking event feels like a worthwhile investment for you and whether it's worth moving past your comfort zone. As I said in my last post on this, it really is helpful when you look at networking as a mutual activity rather than simply that you need something from the other person. Further, it's important to bear in mind that networking is a process: relationships take time to build and so the first real step in networking is just about getting to know people, nothing really beyond that. When I first meet people at networking events, I really try to tap into my innate curiosity about people, issues, and the world and just simply try to learn about what issues the folks there care about, what they do, why they do it, etc.. Once you start getting to know someone, there is some context for further exploration which may lead to additional contacts and resources.
One last point, if you're feeling really conflicted for whatever reason, then it's probably not best to make the contact because your mixed emotions will come across in some way and will probably not yield benefits to you or the other person. The more comfortable you can feel with networking as a natural part of just getting to know folks, the easier it may get for you! As hard as it still is for me, there's not doubt that it feels les onerous when I re-frame it as, ultimately, just developing relationships!
Best, Cathy
Paula Foster Chambers:
“I'm ‘conflicted' over making contacts at social gatherings when it's purely utilitarian.”
That's exactly the problem. It's *not* purely utilitarian. What it's about it meeting people, enjoying their personalities, and having interesting, enjoyable conversations with them. Or not, as the case may be. If you don't get along with a person despite a few minutes of effort, by all means move on to someone else. If the conversation is going well, stick around a while longer and see where it goes. Learn what you can about them and if you still like them in a few more minutes, get their contact info at the end so that you will be able to call them should a need come up later--like, for example, if you find something they are looking for, you can pass it on to them. It's not always about them helping you--very often it can be you helping them! Which, in turn, builds the relationship further.
Imagine for a moment that networking didn't matter and was totally unimportant to your career. You'd still meet people by chance in places like supermarkets, parties, the gym, etc., right? Would you totally ignore all people 100% of the time? I don't think so. I think you would strike up conversations here and there. Some of them would take off, others would stall after a few sentences. Some people you would like, others less so, and so on. Does that sound like a relief to you? Well, my friend, this is exactly the way it really is. You meet people naturally and strike up conversations naturally. That IS networking. I feel one's behavior should be pretty much the same regardless of whether you think of it as "professional networking" or not. You would still want to be gracious, interested in the other person, and willing to share information about yourself and your interests. It's the same thing.
That's how I see it, anyway. I love to meet people, so for me there is no difference between networking and just living. Maybe I am blessed.
Paula
Darryl Stevens:
The notion of "networking" as "deliberate schmoozing" should be more than a bit uncomfortable. In fact, networking can be one of the smarmiest activities around, if done in only a utilitarian way. Let me make a few suggestions for the externally challenged among you.
1. Sometimes simply being there is enough. I don't think that it is important to engage in frilly repartee from the time you enter a social situation until you leave. Several years ago, when I was a professor, I got a call from a graduate student at another institution. She was looking for support in obtaining an internship at my school. She began our conversation by saying, "You probably do not remember me, but I attended your seminar at the International Career Development Conference..." She was right, I did not remember her, but chatted about the conference for a few minutes and then I called the director of our career center on her behalf. I found out later that she had, in fact, been to my seminar, but had never said a word because she is so shy.
2. Email is a great focal point for networking. I did my dissertation back in the days of BitNet. Almost no one had email and very few even had BitNet, but if they had an Internet address, I emailed them. One of these contacts was a Professor at Auburn University. After occasional correspondence for three or so years, I let him know that I had applied for a job at a nearby state university. I had never met him face to face and I did not ask for any help, but he made a few calls, talked with some folks and then sent me an email about the department and the cast of characters.
3. Committee work is a distilled networking. Over the years, I have been a wide assortment of boards, planning committees, event committees, etc. Heck, as a graduate student the only way that I could afford to attend most conferences was to go as a student volunteer. I am currently serving on the program committee of a large international conference that will be held in Southern California next Fall....guess what I get for my efforts...you got it...the $400 conference fee and several important relationships I would not otherwise have.
4. I never intentionally go to a meeting or gathering to "harvest" contacts, but there are times when I begrudgingly go because I know that it is important to do. It is kind of like eating your veggies...they are not always the tastiest thing on the plate, but they are good for you.
5. Don't worry about being "smooth." Worry about being genuine. Smooth is annoying after a while, while authenticity stands the test of time.
6. You are networking whether you do it intentionally or not. I am always surprised at the people that I meet who know somebody or something that I know.
Darryl
Subscriber HG:
Cathy, your suggestion to network with one's colleagues touches on something weighing on my mind. I currently train legal professionals how to use law-related software like Lexis. I'd like to learn more about other job/career opportunities in legal research. Because of my training function there's tons of people I could do informational interviews with to get this information. But I've hesitated out of fear that it might get back to my employer that I'm looking for another job (which I'd honestly like to do by next winter).
Do you or anyone else have any advice on how to handle this? I'm thinking that perhaps I can really focus on networking in the sense you and FH described: as a way to learn about the field and to simply network without a calculated plan. But any other specific advice on how to be open about my networking, without making it seem like I'm dissatisfied at work, would be greatly appreciated!
HG
Kate Duttro:
I wanted to mention that your current work and your interests are so close that I would think it would be useful for you to know more about legal research in general, and therefore it would be a natural extension of work for your employer. I'm not suggesting that you use your employer's time to do "information interviews," but there must be professional associations where you could find people you could talk with about other kinds of opportunities. And that could be considered professional development for you and should not concern your current employer. But, you would still have the opportunity to find the information and make the connections that you need to become part of the network.
Kate
Riall Nolan:
HG raises a very important and troubling question: how to check out career options if doing so will have negative consequences in your present job?
Unfortunately, there are bosses out there who take a very dim view of this, and I have known (and worked for) a few who, should they hear that you're looking, would fire you on the spot. Yes, I can hear the gasps from the audience, but believe me, it happens.
So the costs can be real. What to do? There's no easy solution. You just have to be very, very discreet. That means knowing who to trust (not always apparent) and when to say something. Fortunately, the Internet makes it possible to gather a lot of information fairly anonymously, but at some point you will have to speak to people.
Having a mentor (I will send a post on this one in a moment) helps, in the sense that this is a person who can give you a lot of information, and who will also respect your need for confidentiality. But these kinds of bosses aren't really good for you in a long-term sense. I can understand why someone would not want to lose you, but getting dinged for looking around isn't a very good management strategy if you want to inspire trust and loyalty. On the other hand, you haven't actually said that there would be negative consequences, and perhaps you're assuming a reaction that isn't really likely. If you feel comfortable enough, you might bring this up -- not with your boss, but with a co-worker who's been there a while -- and ask what happens to people who start looking around. If there have been negative consequences, you'll hear about 'em, fast.
Riall
Paula Foster Chambers:
Since we have touched on the issue of prejudice among academics against people who are interested in nonacademic jobs, this would be a good moment to mention, as an aside, that this is exactly why I founded this list with a confidentiality policy that remains in place to this day. For some of us, there may be an element of risk to be subscribed to WRK4US. Someone may "see" you on the list and mention, even casually and without malicious intent, to an academic colleague that you are on it. Then words gets around and you are suddenly known within your department as a PWIIINC--a person who is interested in nonacademic careers--whereupon your reputation takes a hit, small or large. Granted, this is a rather extreme scenario, but some departments really are like that, so thank you all for continuing to respect list policy in this area. WRK4US subscribers do not tell people who else besides ourselves may be subscribed to WRK4US and we do not forward other people's postings off-list without permission.
It's sad to me that we have to have this policy at all, but these things are sensitive in some academic environments and I really want subscribers to feel safe.
Paula
Subscriber CH:
About networking and the difficulties involved in it which OS mentioned. I think most people (about 99.9% of the world!) have difficulties approaching strangers and going to settings where they don't know anyone.
A friend here told me that when she moved here, she was determined to meet people and she joined lots of organizations for single people (truly the hardest thing to do!). She set herself a goal-saying she would speak to 3 people at each event and then leave. She said the contact could be as minimal as "nice weather, I see you have a soda; do you know where I can get one?" She often found to her surprise that she wound up talking to these people longer than she had anticipated and sometimes she walked out having "met" four people or five. Sometimes she saw these people again at the next event and that gave her the courage to expand a little on the previous conversation "Not as crowded this time. I like it better when it's small." And so on.
You can develop mechanisms and goals to deal with this. I am seriously shy and so if I go to a meeting where I may not know people, I work on one thing I can say to the person. It's usually a pretty inane comment ("nice weather") but I think people are relieved (because they are also shy) when someone speaks to them. They too are worried about standing around without someone to speak to, so they will eagerly respond.
There is also a lot to be said for reaching out to people on a one-on-one basis. When I moved here, I looked for and discovered women like me (single and in their mid to late 30s); these women were also eager to meet others. If I sent them an email saying "I enjoyed talking with you at x; would you want to have coffee sometime?" most of them said "sure!" I also have found people who do that to me. It's flattering and nice. I didn't always have a lot in common with these women (being single and female isn't enough to build a friendship!) but I made contacts and even some friends this way.
I guess what I am saying here is: look at people to see what you have in common (the person has a baseball cap which says "Orioles" and you are from Baltimore etc.). Then reach out to them using that as a link. You may discover that the person really does become a friend, not just a contact (loving the Orioles may mean that the person loves Baltimore as much as you do and you will find that you will discuss restaurants, museums, people you may know in common and so on).
It isn't always easy to see the link but it can be there and it can establish a strong connection. One of the secretaries of my boss, for example, will do a lot for me because I noticed her last name was Greek. I am half Greek and so I play up this whenever I talk to her and it's been a great way of getting help and having her see me as a person (not just someone putting demands on her!). And...you know...it's actually been fun for me as well because she has given me some good tips on Greek restaurants here (we're both very fussy about these!).
CH
Cathy Wasserman:
HG, I agree that it can be quite tricky to network with colleagues and it's crucial for you to assess how open you can be before beginning. Here's a thought: if you feel comfortable, it might be helpful to frame your questioning of staff in the context of trying to learn more about how all the pieces of your organization's puzzle fit together and/or how your training fits in to exactly what staff do in a given day. This way, you will be gathering information that can be helpful to you, while at the same time getting a deeper understanding of staff's needs, which might help you be more helpful to them! Indeed, it sounds like you intend to be at your org. for almost another year, which is a good chunk of time and chatting more directly with staff to get a sense of what they do could truly benefit your organization.
Good luck!
Cathy
Subscriber OS:
Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions. Part of my perception of the networking process comes from going to big meetings to do just this and what came of it.
Academic: every year I travel to some place (usually some place with much less desirable weather than I'm used to in southern California in November), in large part to be seen at my subject area's national meeting (last year I read a paper too, but spent much more time there than needed to read a paper) and tried to meet people, and I can't say I have ever come back from one of those feeling like I made a friend or even a particularly useful contact, and I never really turn the brief interactions into anything. In fact, the most valuable conversation I had in that context was with someone I corresponded with in email first!
Nonacademic: There's a networking group in the Bay area called C-Six that is a networking group for people laid off from high-tech jobs in the Bay area. I went to several meetings, got names, sent email, yada yada yada. The purpose of the group was to help others find jobs. I passed on names of people I knew and other people gave me names. I don't know about their experience, but I never had anything really come of these meetings either. I'll admit up front that this reflects again a utilitarian attitude, but I sense that everyone else was there for that too (or they were tired of sitting home just sending out resumes via Craig's List).
By the way, if anyone doesn't know, there are online networking groups, like Ryze, that you can join. I have joined two, though these are a bit harder to use effectively I think. Maybe I'm going to the wrong networking events?
OS
Subscriber CH:
I think what I am suggesting is a little different and a little more informal. I am not sure that a group which is specifically created to network will be very good because it is completely utilitarian in nature which means that the contacts will be limited. I find I do better with my informal contacts than I do with my formal contacts and even then, and I think this should be stressed, not every contact has provided me with what I wanted---it is a gamble.
But and this is why I continue to make the gamble, I have been surprised by the casual and on the surface "useless" contacts I have made. Here's an example: I met someone at Quaker meeting (during the coffee hour---it's painful and difficult for me to stay for this as I go to the Meeting alone and it is and can be about families but I force myself to stay and have a cookie before I leave). I attend Quaker Meeting b/c I like it, not because I am looking for networks. This person I spoke to briefly there (she had made the cookies and so I said "oh, these are good!") then invited me to a party at her place. I went even though I had to go alone and I wouldn't know anyone there (I said "okay, I can say 'I have to leave at 4PM so I have an out'). I go to the party even though I feel stupid (going by myself) and shy. I briefly talk to someone who is interesting. I leave after about an hour. I then run into that person at the public library two weeks later. She asks me to go out for coffee and I figure "what do I have to lose?". We go. I mention that I am interested in writing a book for a popular press when she asks me (as people do) "what exactly do you do for a living?". The person then says "oh, my friend is X and she did this. Do you want to meet her?" I say yes.
This is the kind of networking which does not occur in formal settings. It does not occur overnight (and I am still amazed by how quickly that one happened). And it is not done with any specific thought in mind (the original person in all was an engineer---with whom I had nothing in common professionally; the second person in this was a stay at home mom with whom I had nothing in common---I never imagined this would play out into a good contact). Craigs' List and all that can be great but sometimes it's good to just do what gives you pleasure (i.e. you coach a Little League team not because you are looking for contacts but because you love Little League) and you may discover some surprising opportunities...or you may not.
It's a long and difficult road and speaking to someone at Z conference may be one way of doing this but this is not the only way to do this (speaking to someone at the party given by your wife's boss may be a better and more effective tool, for example). Moreover, you should not expect immediate pay-offs (and maybe not even a specific and definite pay off within the next 10 years---or ever!).
CH
Subscriber BE:
Here's a different approach, advocated by the author of a book about networking (called the Frog and the Prince, or something like that; I haven't read it, just the quotes from it occasionally run in the local paper). Networking is finding ways that YOU can help someone else.
I like CH's idea of saying you will talk to 3 new people at every event as one goal to get started. The bold idea above might help you steer the conversation, or give you something to think about when you are in conversation with someone. The more people you can do favors for --and they might only take 30 seconds, like sending them a URL or e-mail address of someone --the more people out there pre-disposed to help you.
BE
Kate Duttro:
Excellent advice - just what I was trying to get across in my last post - but in about 2000 fewer words!
Good find, BE! (By the way, is there any chance you could find the exact name of that book?)
cheers, Kate
Subscriber BE:
Here's a link to the website and the book of the same name "Frog and the Prince: The Secrets of Positive Networking" by D'arcy Rezac and Judy Thompson. The link contains ordering information: http://www.frogandprince.com/index.cfm
On the website there are more resources about networking, and you can sign up for an e-mail "positive networking tip of the week."
BE
Subscriber HY:
Thank you for your wonderful advice about the importance of keeping in mind the informality of networking.
I'm also somewhat shy and find myself either mildly uncomfortable or abjectly terrified at the prospect of attending anything ranging from informal social situations to professional meetings. Often, I find myself paralyzed by the thought that I'll say the wrong thing, won't be witty or interesting enough, and just generally make a fool of myself in some way. BTW, this has rarely if ever happened, but fears are often not dissuaded by a rational evaluation of past performance. I very much appreciate CH's advice about keeping in mind that networking can be informal: most people that one meets for the first time are probably not going to appreciate an extended exposition on your personal and professional hopes and dreams and how they might assist in their fulfillment. I also like CH's own strategy of setting realistic (and very doable) goals of speaking to X number of people at a particular function, even if it's just simply to make comments about food, weather, or the speaker you've just heard. I'm attending a professional conference next week, and will definitely make my networking both loosely goal-oriented and informal.
Thanks to all of you on this list for your advice about networking. It has greatly helped me assuage some of my fears about meeting—and talking—to people either/both socially and professionally.
HY
Kate Duttro:
I think CH has written some very perceptive posts in the past, and this is no exception. Her advice parallels very much a workshop on networking I attended once. That speaker suggested also finding an area of common ground, and if nothing obvious showed up, to comment on something the person might be wearing - an unusual piece of jewelry, or tie, or sweater or whatever.... just to start the conversation. That's why many trainers (whose presentations rely on interaction among strangers to be successful) begin their program with the dreaded "icebreakers." There's a reason they're called that!
While icebreakers often work, I feel like I'm about to be thrust into a cold shower whenever they are announced. It's too artificial and superficial for me, although I usually come out of it feeling a bit more a part of that group, whatever it is. Because of that, I think that the networking on the social level is not as useful for (and I'm going to generalize dangerously here) academics. For that group (and I count myself among them), I think intentional "networking" is most effective when done along professional lines, and I'm more inclined to call it "making professional connections," to emphasize that part of it.
By "professional connections," I mean that you generally want to talk to someone else about mutual interests, as in sharing information about that interest. It means that you want to make your connections primarily at events and meetings where professionals in the field you want to enter are gathering to talk about that subject of interest. For example, if you are interested in editing as a potential profession, you look up all the groups you can find which revolve around editing. (This means both national groups with local chapters and totally local groups.) Find out if non-member guests can attend meetings (You're almost always welcomed as a potential member, although sometimes there is a meeting fee.)
Go to as many meetings as you can before you have to sign up or be gone, so you can judge how useful the information is that you've collected and whether the group "feels right" to you (and that includes the speaker, and the others you've talked with about that topic area). One of the goals you have is to see if you can imagine yourself happily doing the kind of work that they do. So you can ask questions - on the lines of, "I'm not a member yet, but I'm interested in (the topic) and I'd like to find out more about what the members do - can you tell me about your work?" Something like that usually can be the beginning of a long conversation, and you can get a great deal of information in the process.
I think that you need to plan your own agenda before attending these events, for example, to find out what this group does (if they have a website, examine it carefully before you go, so you can ask intelligent questions) and to talk with at least two or three people at that event. You may be able to set up information interviews at that first meeting, and then when you're doing information interviews, you should always ask for the names of at least two more people to talk to (because it's much easier to get to talk to folks when you can say, "So-and-so suggested that I talk with you....").
If the group is involved in the kinds of things you would enjoy, consider volunteering to help them - even if it is stuffing envelopes or sending email, or doing the website or advertising meetings. That activity 1) is useful to you in learning what they do, 2) is helpful to them and 3) allows them to see you exhibiting mutual interest, acting competently, being responsible and demonstrating your willingness to contribute to the mutual interest.
These activities will get you started in the mutual-interest network. Unlike many who see networking as a social activity, I see it as being centered on the sharing of mutual interest. That's why it becomes social, but I think the focus needs to be on the mutual interest itself. When a person finds someone who shares that mutual interest, he or she is eager to share and to bring that person into the group BECAUSE OF THE SHARED INTEREST.
Another point here is that it is useful for grad students to have business cards, just so you can give one to the person you've just talked to about this mutual interest, SO THEY CAN FIND YOU AGAIN. (This is not an ego thing, but a practical aid to making connections.) Likewise, always ask, "Do you have a card?" (business card implied) Yours probably should identify you as master's degree candidate, or doctoral, and must have at least phone and email, and business address. It may have the college/university logo along with the name, and you may be able to get them at the school's printing office, or locally, or by Internet. (My school sells them to grad students, but only if they clearly identify themselves as students, so as to not imply that they are faculty or staff, and they can get the official logo that way. It's a big deal with the legal offices.)
Kate
Subscriber CH:
At the risk of boring everyone, this is another-and perhaps better example of how a network operates. Better because you will see how slowly this played out and how many people it passed through before the contact really came together.
My boyfriend, Ben, went to a bookstore he loved. He fell into a conversation with a guy there. They discovered that they were, as they put, "two nice Jewish boys from Boston hanging out in a bookstore in DC on Shabbes looking at books on Judaica and not going to shul." Jonah, the guy, played racquetball (as does Ben) so they met a couple of times to play. Jonah then introduced Ben to a friend of his, Ray (Jonah knows Ray because Jonah works with Adele, Ray's wife). Ray plays racquetball as well. Ben ultimately realized he didn't esp. like Jonah but he did like Ray. He invited Ray to have dinner with the two of us. Ray came with his wife. I felt shy (as always) but I liked Ray and his wife. We slowly built up a friendship over a two year period. Suddenly, in September after I have known them for 2 years, Ray said to me "I met this old guy at my synagogue who said that he was in the Public Health Service. He was some sort of Admiral. Do you want to meet him?" Me: "yeah, sure." Ray and his wife have the guy over for dinner and Ben and I go as well. I realize midway through the dinner this guy is amazing-he worked with and has known C. Everett Koop since the 1950s (in a hospital in Philly as well as w/ the PHS) and he tells me stories etc. that I have never heard before about Koop. I also discover that this guy oversaw a major initiative in the PHS in 1988.
End of the story: I did an oral history interview with this guy a few weeks ago. He provided me with amazing and radically different insights into Koop. As I had agreed, last August (before Ray mentioned any of this), to give a paper (due next week!) on Koop I am ecstatic. My paper has some great and radically new material in it because of Rear Admiral Len Bachman's comments. Pretty amazing when you realize that all of this came out of Ben's decision to speak to someone in a bookstore three years ago (and for the record, Ben will also tell you that he is surreally shy---but Ben is a serious bibliophile so he will and does speak to people in used bookstores because they share his love of collecting and all of this goes back to the point about doing what pleases you and not thinking directly about contacts as opposed to networking in a formal way).
CH
Kate Duttro:
Another excellent post from CH. And, I think it also really supports the way of looking at networking as simply connecting with folks who share mutual interests. It is that interest that should be the focus. It is the interest that draws the shy people outside of themselves and allows them to engage with others about the interest. It is the interest that has to be the focus.
Kate
Subscriber FH:
One other thought about networking -- for those of us out there who are shy (I consider myself among them in many ways!): one great way to overcome your shyness and keep conversation going is to keep the focus OFF yourself and generate conversation by asking the other people you meet about themselves. 95% of people love talking about themselves and will do so almost indefinitely if you keep throwing questions to them. Thinking of questions is not hard -- especially if you don't know the other person at all -- what do you do? how long have you been doing it? what were you doing before that? what brought you to North Carolina? Now hopefully, they will return the favor and prod you along by asking you questions (most people are actually terrible at this, however), but even if they don't, you come away from the conversation having learned a lot about someone and, perhaps, about the world (work and otherwise) in which they operate. This is a great tactic learned from my dad, a minister who can pry more information out of people in a 10-min conversation than you'd think possible.
FH
Kate Duttro:
Yes, this is a good way to start, too, and it also fits into the "mutual interest" area. That person is almost interested in him or her self, and if you are interested in what they are doing, the conversation will evolve naturally. In a sense, you are doing an information interview without the formality of "interview," and without the necessity of asking for one.
Also, I wanted to mention that information interviews can be very brief - sometimes busy people can give only 10-15 minutes (and they are more likely to accept if you ask only for 10-15 minutes - have your questions ready), but at a gathering (professional or social), you may find out a great deal about their work by simply asking. If you discover a mutual interest, it can be the beginning of a connection.
Kate
Subscriber JS:
I don't want to interrupt the guest speakers, but since networking is the topic of many posts at the moment, I'll throw out an article I wrote for the Chronicle a few weeks ago about how networking looks from both sides of the fence. It also includes tips: http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/01/2005012001c.htm
JS