Book Review: Don't Bother with These Rags

After such a good run on job search and professionalization books, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I've hit a stretch of FAILS. But, I'm still disappointed and irritated. So to save you from similar headaches, let me recommend against the following books.

Why Good Girls Don't Get Ahead...But Gutsy Girls Do: Nine Secrets Every Career Woman Must Know by Kate White (1996). My first clue of this book's merit might have been its lack of a table of contents. From what I can tell, this book would be better called "Why Kate White is Awesome." Anyway, its targeted audience seems to be women who want to be CEOs. Which is good and all, but us folks at the bottom of the ladder need more relevant advice beyond "give away grunt work" (p.95). Lois Frankel covers much of the same advice that Kate White offers, but Frankel's book is much easier to physically navigate and it offers real solutions. Read Frankel, not White, if you want help for being more assertive in the workplace or getting raises/promotions.

Job Notes: Networking (Princeton Review) by Meg Heenehan (1997). This book is pitched towards high schoolers and undergrads. It's okay, but is almost too simplistic. One problem I had with it is that I actually have real skills that I've been using for many years (writing academic and nonacademic text, doing analysis, conducting historical and qualitative research, writing grants, editing, organizing people for a shared goal, etc) and this book is really for undergrads whose biggest or only asset is a BA degree. Read quintcareers.com's material on networking and informational interviewing and you'll essentially get everything that Heenehan covers.

Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap--and What Women Can Do About It by Warren Farrell (2005). The rage I feel every time I open this book can not be put into words. A lot of his points may be correct (women tend to go into HR and not marketing jobs, marketing jobs deal with money, HR with office climate, jobs focusing on the company's "bottom line" are paid more), but dude misses so many "big picture" elements. Also, his book has very little practical advice. Essentially he says women should go into engineering. That's fine, but since I don't have an engineering degree, now what? He says to do our "woman" jobs in "high risk fields" (like combat military) to make more money. Plus, did I mention that his book works exclusively from the premise that women are heterosexual and want a man to protect them? He says we're responding to our biological impulses--that's why we want a strong man to make money while we stay at home with the kids. Steer clear of this book. Not worth it.

I found these books through references in other books, in the "career corner" at my university's undergraduate library, and in the career shelves (Dewey Decimal area 650.14). One reason they are all older books is because newer books are non-circulating at the library. The cooler and newer books were, of course, the non-circulating materials in the "career corner," but even that selection had some obvious duds. I picked up some other books from my library forays and am really hoping that they are more useful than the three above.

Still working on that "please give me a job" email... once I have it all set I'll show you the different drafts and explain the genre (I finally understand how it works!).

Book Review: What Color is Your Parachute?

First, since this is my blog and I can do whatever I want, I want to thank you all for your positive energy and good thoughts these past few weeks. A month long family emergency seems to finally be “un-crisising” slowly, but surely. Thanks again for your support and understanding as I've cancelled many plans and commitments. Not to linger too long in the sappy, but your support has meant a lot to me. Thanks.

Luckily, this last week has not been a 24/7 kind of emergency week, which gave me plenty of time to finish reading Richard Nelson Bolles's “What Color is Your Parachute?” (WCIYP) and continue avoiding my dissertation. This is the definitive job hunting book, according to a gajillion university career centers and websites. It is pretty badass. I have two copies on order: one for me and one for an undergrad who I am afraid will end up living with Honey and me if he doesn't read this book [D: if you are reading this, you can crash as long as you like, you just can't stay forever]. [Readers: sorry for the oversharing, see above about this being my blog...]

Anyway. Why am I dropping $18 on this book? Because it has tons of websites, reviews of websites, and suggested reading lists. It breaks down the job search into manageable nuggets (“Ch 8: How to Pick a New Place to Live,” “Ch 11: The Three Secrets to Finding That Dream Job of Yours”). WCIYP has more self-assessment quizzes than a year's worth of Cosmos. Enough “learn about yourself” exercises to help even the most insecure person make a decision or two. Plenty of “employer perspective,” so you know what you're getting into and what creative possibilities exist for you (job sharing, anyone?). Advice on negotiating salaries!

Now, I was reading the 2007 edition, i.e. a pre-Recession version. I have a feeling that the 2010 printing will be sympathetic but ultimately do little in response the Recession. Because I think Bolles's position will probably be the same: 1) there are jobs out there, you just have to look to find them. 2) take advantage your lack of current employment to figure out what you want to do 3) do something you love because getting stuck in a bad-fit job just isn't healthy. 4) you have to WORK for your awesome job. This means you have to work to figure out what you want to do, you have to work to figure out where you can do what you love, you have to work to get there.

The main message I am learning from all these job books/websites/etc is that finding work, takes work. Sigh. I'll let you know when I figure out how to get a job without effort.

Like I said though, the book breaks down the steps to finding a job, and the self-reflection work it suggests you do should be enlightening. I haven't done many of the exercises yet, but the one or two brief ones I looked at made sense to me. And for all of you who are “outside the box” and “beyond the box” and unclassifiable. Fine, but it still helps to know how the rest of the world (i.e. hiring world) thinks of itself. I don't feel wedded to the schematics, but I think we can productively use them as guidelines and suggestions.

Awesome tidbit from WCIYP I keep remembering, several weeks after reading it: “small organizations create up to 2/3 of all new jobs” (p.66). “With a small organization, you don't need to wait until there's a known vacancy, because they rarely advertise vacancies even when there is one. You just go there and ask if they need someone” (66). Granted, I'm currently very interested in working at a small organization, but with 80% of all private businesses employing 50 or fewer people, our odds are pretty good with the small organization.

These odds are especially good for those of us with limited “real world” work experiences and/or interview experience. Small organizations are much more forgiving and much less bureaucratic.

Now, the one thing that may turn off Leadfoot readers is that the author is pretty hardcore Christian. He's not bible-thumping, gay-hating, proselytizing. But he is upfront in his acknowledgments that God is using him to help people find jobs. The last chapter is also religious-esque. However, he says from the get-go of the final chapter that he's writing from his perspective as a Christian and that he hopes his readers translate his comments into their own religious terms. Now, Leadfoot of five years ago would have been turned off by all of this and probably dismissed the book outright. Don't do this, even if you find the last chapter and the last paragraph of the acknowledgments to be offensive, privileged, etc (the rest of the book is nonreligious). I personally think Bolles has a point that we have to do some reflection on our personal “missions” and what that mission (i.e. morals, goals, limits) are. Still, I only skimmed the last chapter and definitely flipped past the sections that dealt with “sin”. If the God talk isn't your bag, then don't read the last chapter and you'll still find the book to be incredibly useful.

Check this book out from the library. Buy a copy. It is worth the money and the real estate on the bookshelf.

As a PS: You'll see in the next few weeks a lot more book reviews. This isn't because I think books have all our job-hunting answers, but more of a reflection of where I am right now and what I'm capable of doing at the moment. Besides dedicating a ton energy and time to family and traveling (for family), I am also beginning the transition from college town and teaching world to alt-academic life in a (bigger) City. I just saw the fabulous Career Services folks today and got lots of advice on how to network in City--I'll be sharing those tips soon. Of course, I'll be able to tell you what works and doesn't work, once I actually try them out in City. So sorry for the snooze if book reviews aren't your thing. More "real world" job hunting trials and tribulations to come, I promise.

Application Strike-Out, Still Job-Hunting

Hello Friends. Yesterday I found out about that awesome, amazing, perfect-for-me job that I applied for. Yeah, didn't get it.

Such is life. I'm actually more disappointed about the prospect of having to really do my dissertation now, than the fact that I didn't get an offer. Oh the lengths we go to, to avoid writing...

I found out from the rejection letter that there were 110 applications for 4 positions! Yoozers. People are hungry.

A friend of mine who has played this game in the academic world said that if you don't hear from the job people by the noted deadline (in this case, May 1st-ish) then you are likely not their top pick. However, until they lock in their candidate(s) they want to make sure they have everyone else still available, in case any "A-listers" back out. Since I hadn't heard anything by May 10th, I figured I was part of the "B-list." This is good to know for future job applications and also softens the blow of the rejection (i.e. by last week, I kinda figured I wasn't an A-lister).

After receiving the news via email (I don't think anyone sends hard copy letters these days) I sent update/thank you emails to my references (to let them know to not expect any emails from the job people) and emails to friends who have been cheerleading me the entire time and who had read my letters and given suggestions. I also sent a separate email to the Retired Colleague (RC) who had given me the inside scoop. In responding to my thank you email, she was very gracious and suggested I still look up Application Screener once I move to City. It sounds like I can use her name when I contact him.

Now, a word on the thank yous. I totally disregarded my own advice, and every job book's advice, and did not immediately send a thank you card to RC after she and I spoke back in April. I did send her an email that day, but not a real card. I finally sent her a hard copy note by post Monday night, May 10th. In my note I said I still hadn't heard from the screener, but I wanted to thank her anyway for so generously sharing her time and for giving me such great advice. Since the note will take a day or two to get to her, RC actually received my email before she received my thank you card. I dated the card, so whatever. It's the thought that counts.

On the whole, I'm not very disappointed. Really. I am pretty psyched still about asking that policy center for an internship or coffee making and photocopying duties. Plus, this means I might be able to really stick to my plan of finishing my degree in the fall (uh, although I'm really going to have to make up for lost time).

So have no fears friends, Leadfoot is still job-hunting and still blogging. I'm almost done writing my "hi remember me? can I work for you?" email to the policy center. I'll share that text here once I'm done. I also am nearly finished reading "What Color Is Your Parachute" which I strongly recommend. I'll be reviewing it in the next few days. Stay tuned for more.

Guest Blog: Networking Seminar Write-Up

People, right here is pure gold. By e-touching this guestblog entry, you will have, by the transitive property, touched Maggie Debelius. Aka, co-author of The Bible. It doesn't get any better than this. Thanks to my best bud in this postacademic journey for attending Maggie's east coast talk last week and for providing us with such extensively awesome notes. 1000 points to alt-acad bud.

Last night, I attended a talk by Maggie Debelius, co-author (along with Susan Basalla) of what our dear Leadfoot affectionately refers to as "The Bible" (and it's not just Leadfoot -- everyone seems to hold this text in equally high regard). She was invited by a group of postacademic hopefuls to talk about America's favorite pastime -- networking. I was so excited to have the chance to meet Maggie because she has done so much to destigmatize the idea of pursuing a postacademic career. Granted, I still feel the guilt that comes with defecting from the academic cult and I'm not looking forward to breaking this news to my committee members, but "The Bible" lets me know that I am not the only one struggling through this process and it offers concrete advice for making the transition. So I really was looking forward to this -- and Maggie did not disappoint.

Although the theme of the evening was networking, Maggie began with some general comments about postacademic careers. Much of what she said in her introductory remarks can be found in "The Bible" (and actually a lot of the networking advice can be found there as well) but it is worth repeating some of what she said here. She explained that she and Sue invented the term “postacademic” because “non-academic” seemed pejorative and implied that there were only two options -- either one succeeded in academia or one failed to make it to TT Promise Land. Instead, she explained that the term "postacademic" opens up the possibility for multiple paths and can be framed as a proactive choice rather than an unfortunate fate. Of course, getting those within the academy to use this term and accept it as a positive outcome will take time.

Maggie reviewed some of the critical "Don'ts" for academics and grad students pursuing postacademic careers:

• Don’t assume that your credentials speak for themselves – In academia, credentials speak for themselves (e.g. on the CV), but outside of this bubble, credentials can’t carry the burden of proof for you – you have to make your own case

• Don’t mistake a CV for a resume -- CVs speak in precise terms while resumes speak in generalities -- no one cares what you taught; they only care that you taught and it's up to you to explain what skills you gained from this experience that might be valuable to a potential employer

• Don’t overlook your outside interests – these can be the things that get you a job. Maggie provided the example of a woman whose experience leading summer backpacking trips got her a job because it showed that she could be a team player. Many employers assume that grad students/academics can’t work/play with others, so this outside interest proved to be the thing that put this particular candidate over the top. And then there is the woman who wrote a dissertation on representations of midwives in medieval France who now works as a midwife (or something to that effect – it’s in “The Bible”) – she never dreamed that things would work out that way! You just never know.

• Don’t assume that your dissertation is your biggest accomplishment. It’s a big accomplishment to be sure, but you have many skills that employers are looking for – believe it or not, the ability to research complex material is a really valuable skill that comes naturally (perhaps after many years of training) to us!

Maggie then moved on to the main topic for the evening -- networking. If your initial reaction to this is "yuck," then you're not alone. Maggie has given dozens of talks on networking and said that nobody likes it -- well, there's one in every crowd who does (and indeed there was one these freaks in our crowd last night), but mostly everyone hates it. So don't worry if you hate it. But, sadly, just because you hate it doesn't get you out of doing it. We all have to do it. And we have to do it all the time -- even after we get that elusive job -- because networking takes time (lots of it!) and you never know what you'll (want to) be doing next. So get started now and expect a long, long road. Maggie explained that she and Sue both are in jobs that resulted from two years of networking. [Leadfoot editorial interruption: WHOA.]

That's right, it was two years from the time they made initial contact to the time they started in their respective jobs. So, patience and persistence are key.

Fortunately, Maggie offered concrete tips for making this networking business happen (really, would we expect anything less from her?). Her "tips for making networking less excruciating" (which is not to say enjoyable) began with researching your ideal job -- we've all heard this before, but it is important to understand the company or organization you want to work for and the kind of job you would like to have with them. The best way to learn about this is to...network!

• Look up as many contacts as you can find who may be related to this job, even tangentially. Even the slightest connection could lead you to that critical contact (perhaps several contacts down the line), so cast your net widely.

• Check alumni databases for possible connections within the company, the industry, the region, etc. As Leadfood has indicated, people really do want to help us, and looking to fellow alums is a really safe place to start.

• Find staff names on pages of target companies/organizations and Google them. Look for any kind of common interest/link. For example, if they have a PhD, then you can ask them about making the transition to a postacademic career. Or, maybe you find that they just completed a marathon and you can mention that you share an interest in running. Find any kind of common interest and use that as an entry point.

Once you have found contacts, you should send them a brief email to introduce yourself and request an informational interview (see Leadfoot's excellent entries on these!). In the email:

• Make sure to cite your common interest

• Ask two questions

  • Ask if they would be willing to meet with you briefly to talk about how to “break into the field.” Using this phrase assures the reader that you are not asking for a job – you’re researching the field.

  • The other question may have something to do with asking about training programs that might give you an edge, or more specific questions things relating to your career change in that particular field/organization.

Once again: Don’t ask how to get a job there, and be sure to avoid other questions that are equally ridiculous and inappropriate. (These inappropriate questions should be pretty obvious, but if they are not, then I recommend that you consult "The Bible" (esp. 85-87).)

If you don’t get a reply within a week, then Maggie suggests that you send your message again. Your message might have gotten lost in a flooded inbox and the second email will serve as a reminder. If you don’t get a response to the second email, then you should probably let that contact go.

After your informational interview, be sure to send a thank-you note in which you tell them your next step and ask if you can touch base with them again in a couple of months. Because it is critical that you stay on their radar! This sounds to me a bit like professional nagging, but you have to check in now and then and let them know that you’re still interested. How to do this?

• Keep them up to date on changes in your life. Avoid anything too personal, obviously, but notify them of a new email address or contact info, or let them know that you have completed that training program they recommended.

• Pass along articles/links that you feel might be useful to them. This lets them know that you are really interested in the field and shows that you would be an asset to the organization.

It is important to be persistent but polite. Try to find a way to contact them every three months or so. Maggie explained that Sue did this with a woman who held her current job (an organization called Arts and Sciences in Baltimore). She kept sending notes and articles to the woman to stay on her radar and eventually she got a call from her saying that she was moving to Chicago and that she thought Sue would be the perfect person to fill her position. This would not have happened if Sue had stopped after the initial thank-you note; it was her persistence that paid off.

To help stay in touch, an audience member also suggested creating a Google/Yahoo alert for your contacts (along with a possible junk email account specifically for such alerts [Editorial interruption: here's how to set up an RSS feed]) to keep track of what they are up to. I'm a little unsure about this because it borders on creepy-stalker behavior, but I see how it could help give you something to talk about when you check in every three months. For example, if you learn that they had given a talk or presentation somewhere, then you might mention that in your email. (I’ll leave it up to you to decide where the line is between creepy-stalker and devoted-professional.)

To help get started with networking, Maggie recommended the book Making A Literary Life, by Carolyn See. This book is intended for writers, but Maggie finds the idea of sending “gracious notes” to be a useful exercise in learning how to write networking emails. She suggested that we send three “gracious notes” (i.e. fan letters) to people who truly inspire us. This can be anyone! It could be the person who designed that little gadget for your mountain bike that has completely changed your life, your favorite author, the maker of your favorite microbrew – anybody! The idea is that if you choose someone who truly inspires you, then you will be able to express sincere enthusiasm. And this will help you when you’re drafting those networking emails. These “gracious notes” should be brief – only three sentences (why you’re writing, what inspires you, and end by asking what they’re doing next). And maybe you’ll get a response, which is nice, but that’s not really the point. The point is to get used to the idea of writing these kinds of gracious notes. And, you might even learn something about yourself and your interests – pay attention to who you are writing to and the common threads/themes that they share. If you write 20 of these, then you’ll start to see commonalities and begin to zero in on what you are truly interested in.

Maggie’s networking bottom lines:

• It’s slow – don’t expect success in the immediate term – expect it to take two years before you start to see results

• Create possibilities – the burden is on you

• Don’t try to figure it out all at once – making the transition to postacademic life is a long and emotional process, so allow yourself time to work through this

• Networking is contagious – connections naturally breed connections (but don’t be afraid to ask for connections!)

• You are not likely to find a job in the classifieds (this includes everything from the back page of the Washington Post to Monster.com) – the unfortunate reality is that your job will come from networking

In the end, Maggie emphasized that getting that first postacademic job is the best thing you can do to find the perfect postacademic job for you. She encouraged us to be open to taking a job that is just an ok-job because it will give you experience that will make it so no one ever questions your (academic) background again. This will make it easier for you to move on to other jobs – and eventually to that perfect job (well, until the next perfect job comes along). And, having experience doing an ok-job will also help you focus and figure out what you do and don’t like to do. After all, what does a “consultant” actually do, anyway?? You can’t know until you’ve tried it. Maybe you’ll like it; maybe you won’t – just get in there and try it.

And don’t be afraid to start low and work your way up quickly. Maggie acknowledged that this is controversial advice, but she and Sue stand by it because they feel that it is better to do this than to go in overqualified. If you start low, then people will generally be nicer and more helpful to you as you learn a new job/field than they will if you go in at a higher level where people will expect you to be the expert already [Final editorial interruption: Leadfoot concurs with this advice based on her limited real world work experience]. But keep in mind that you may have to really convince an employer that you want to start low and work your way up, because many will assume that you are overqualified. However, this doesn’t mean that you should remove your PhD from your resume to get a job for which you might be slightly overqualified because you won’t want to work for a company that does not value your PhD. Your employer should value your PhD, even if it doesn’t translate to more money for you.

Applying for a Job or, How to Work Your Networks

So about that job application I mentioned two weeks back. No word yet. But my fingers are still crossed. And let me tell you why.

I found out about this job through wrk4us--a contributor posted the ad to the list (as regularly happens). The wrk4us post happened on April 6th, the application was due the 16th. I had to hustle. The job is a seven month contract research gig co-sponsored by the American Folklife Center, the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture, and the American Folklore Society. They were looking for 4 researchers to essentially catalogue the nation's archives and collections on the 1950s-'60s Civil Rights Movement from May 2010-November 2010. It's a $25,000 gig. (For the record, I've never made $25K in a year, much less in 7 months. The money is quite appealing.) The job ad wanted researchers with experience working with archives, conducting oral histories, and familiarity with databases. It just required an application letter, my CV, and contact info for 3 references. This job was written for me.

Initially I debated applying. I really do want to finish my dissertation soon and this FT job would clearly delay completion. Also, I really would like to charm my way into that policy center I info interviewed in March and they are kinda expecting me to call this summer. Knocking on their door next year is not ideal.

But after talking to newly employed and long timed employed friends who work in and out of academia, everyone said to apply. In fact, many folks couldn't understand my hesitation. Yes, your dissertation will be delayed by 7 months, but so what? Think of all the connections you'll make in these various organizations! Think of the real-world work experience! Think of what $25K can buy! Upon further investigation I realized that the application screener lives in my soon-to-be new home. Even if I don't get this job, I need to get on his radar for help finding a job in City. What better way to introduce myself than through a job letter?

So, okay. I was game. But as an anthropologist, I thought I knew nothing about folklore. (See what disciplinary gatekeeping does? Anthropology=folklore. Duh.) At my hourly "real" job, I asked a coworker if she knew the screener (who she would potentially know professionally) and if she could give me any tips on writing the letter. Out comes a book on the history of folklore as a profession and the suggestion I talk to a retired colleague. Retired Colleague (RC) just happens to know the screener, and oh, btw, is a board member of the Folklife Center.

We're cooking with fire now. Coworker emails RC and sets up a meeting for us. RC and I meet several days before the app is due and she tells me the history of this project and gives a few recommendations on my letter. 10 points for Leadfoot. Also, she casually mentions that she will be seeing screener the following week at a board meeting. 5 bonus points. That book competition I whined about a few weeks ago? Folklore-related, meaning that my immediate boss works with the application screener on the logistics of that project. Obviously, boss is one of my references and my work on that book competition totally showed up in the job letter. 10 points for Leadfoot. My hourly job uses a database (though not the software specified in the job ad). I nicely asked the database manager at my job to look over my paragraph on database familiarity and help me beef it up. Which she did. 5 points for Leadfoot. Oh and my hourly job, yeah, application screener published a book with them several years ago. 1 extra point for Leadfoot's email signature line which mentions Job and 2 extra points for Leadfoot's job app paragraph that talks about work experience in the context of Job.

This is what all those job books call "working your networks." Now I realize in this instance this is a special, stars-aligning-in-the-sky kind of network. But I think elements of all of this is certainly there for all of us. It's just about asking the right people for help. Everyone, and I mean everyone, at my hourly job were falling over trying to help me--giving me suggestions, talking me up to RC, devising reasons to contact the screener and in their bs email mention me. People, even folks we barely know, want to help us find jobs. Accept their help, send a thank you card, and pass on the love when you can.

But I wasn't going to rely on my professional networks alone. I had two very awesome friends/fellow job hunters also look over my letter. Their suggestions made it 1000 times stronger. Seriously. If you want to see the before and after I will gladly send you the pre and post versions. I will also happily look over any letters of yours. Those extra sets of eyes really do make a difference. So in addition to figuring out your professional networks, I realized from this experience that we need buddies in this game who will drop everything to look over a letter and return it hours later. (My job hunting buddies are incredible. Thanks friends!)

So I got all this professional help/networking from my workplace, my buddies made writing improvements on the letter. I sent in the materials. Then the wait began. I continue to wait.

Now, I didn't think this ad was very well publicized and my boss/reference thought it may be an inside job. But last week I found out from a coworker who talked with RC, that the screener received over 100 applications. Over 100 apps for a 7 month gig! People must be hungry. We all assume the screener is still reading through and sorting applications.

Hope burns eternal. I will keep you posted.

Lessons learned from this round:

--Keep your eye open for openings. Be willing to flexibly change future goals and plans if worth it.

--We must work our networks.

--You never know who knows who or how your world intersects with others' worlds.

--People are happy to help. This includes coworkers as well as friends.

--Send your materials to your references ("In the happy event you are contacted as a reference for this job, I thought you'd like my application letter and the job post in hand. Please find them attached").

--Treat your CV as a resume. I totally rewrote my CV now that I understand how effectively resumes can support/backup your letter. While I kept the same categories and basic format before, I added specifics "I supervised 35 student ethnographic projects over 15 weeks". I also cut unimportant stuff and emphasized important stuff. So in my job duties under my hourly job I cut "make photocopies" and replaced it with "taught self how to build and design Filemaker Pro 7 database".

--Tell lots of people about the job. Their positive energy keeps you going and always comes just as you are in the depths of "woo is me, I suck. I'm no good for this job. I'm not even good enough to flip burgers" moment.

--Patience, patience, patience. As my Honey reminds me (now on a daily basis), "these things always take longer than they expect."

Stay tuned!