I have hosted two employment-based talk radio shows in my career and have appeared as a guest on countless shows across the country. Quite frankly radio hosts (including myself) are not usually all that excited to have another “job search expert” on the air. The waters have been muddied time and again when a “job search expert” (quotes intended) comes on that air to warn job seekers of the same old mistakes.
The radio show
I was once ‘set up’ by a syndicated radio host who, just 5 minutes prior to our going on air, had his producer email me his resume and then proceeded to ambush me live by having me critique it.
The opening exchange went something like this:
Host: “I had that resume professionally written two years ago and I haven’t had a single call to interview.” (He was not a happy camper and was prepared to take it out on me.)
Me: “I’m not surprised. I see all kinds of things wrong with it. I know who wrote it.”
Host: “I paid $550 for that.”
Me: “No. You paid $750 for this.”
Host: (Getting really flustered with me) “I had that done by one of the national job sites.”
Me: “I know—and I’m not going to mention them on air…”
Host: He mentioned them on air.
Me: “I know!”
So what did I know the 'experts' didn't?
You write your resume not for yourself but for your audience. While my radio host was rightly proud of several of his major personal accomplishments, to the reader of his resume—the employer—he had missed the mark badly and the nationally-recognized website reshaping his resume had missed the point altogether.
The truth? Many times those “experts” writing your resume are actually people seeking fulltime employment themselves who are working part-time for said job board or outplacement organization. They have gone through the company process and, after writing 2 or 3 resumes for their own use, are deemed worthy of representing themselves as "official resume writers" by and for the organization. (This is not to say there may not be some genuinely talented people providing the service.)
I hired a locally “famous” home builder
Early in my (previous) commercial real estate career I was in need of a facilities manager and placed an ad. In response I received a number of resumes but only one from a person who was truly qualified. For the sake of this discussion I will call this person Mike—since that was his real name. However Mike also happened to be a well-known local home builder. I had seen his name on billboards around town for years.
Not having any other qualified candidates to pursue I somewhat reluctantly set up an interview feeling the time spent would be wasted.
Mike arrived and after we got past the pleasantries I asked him point blank why would I want to hire him? He had a great reputation for building homes over the past several years; he was well known in the community—why should I hire him?
At this point you might be wondering why I wouldn’t want to hire Mike. And if so, you are, like so many job seekers, NOT thinking from the point of view of your potential employer. At the top of my mind was the idea that Mike wanted to go into the office-development and leasing business. I was not particularly interested in training my future competition. Remember now—that was MY mindset.
The lesson? Keep your audience in mind.
Still thinking Mike and I would be potentially competing in the next 2 or 3 years he gave me what was probably the only answer I could accept at that moment in time. He told me that he was tired of making payroll every week and then taking nothing home for his own family. In short Mike wanted a steady paycheck.
4 words that will kill your resume
So what are those 4 words that were on the radio host’s resume and by default on Mike’s resume as well– and on countless resumes? Founder, CEO, Entrepreneur and (Business) Owner. My radio host/interviewer had started a trucking company and been hugely successful generating some $800,000 in sales his first year! HE, was rightfully proud of this accomplishment but he couldn’t get a call back from a potential hiring manager/business owner because who, in their right mind, is going to hire a CEO? Think about that. The reasoning goes that you can't manage someone who has been the boss. That and CEO is a very broad term in the spectrum of small business to big business. CEO of Johnson & Johnson or CEO of Joe’s Auto Supply? Get my drift?
Radio host and I reworked his resume to indicate he was the General Manager of his trucking company (along with several other similar changes I made throughout his resume) and I returned to his show a couple of months later to learn how his ‘new and improved’ resume had been received. He had gotten 11 calls to interview within the first week of sending it out. His skills were in demand—just not as the boss.
You have to have a reason why I should hire you
I have a hard and fast rule that you do not lie or misrepresent on your resume. During the course of the interview my clients declare (come clean?) re: their actual position with the(their) company. The difference now is they must be prepared to express to their interviewer the reason they told this little ‘white lie’ during the application process. PS It would also be important to make certain that any other media (LinkedIn, company website, etc.) be changed to reflect your ‘general manager’ title. And if they Google, you? Well, you better be prepared to explain to them along the lines of what Mike did for me above.
BTW, I hired Mike. He was a great hire who eventually followed me into the GM position when I moved on.
Rick Gillis is a nationally recognized careers expert who specializes in personal promotion on the job. A onetime workplace radio and TV host, Rick is a speaker and the author of five books including PROMOTE! Your work does not speak for itself. You do. Visit rickgillis.com.
Originally posted on Linked IN by: Rick Gillis
Contact John Assunto for all of your Education Recruiting needs! Johna@worldbridgepartners.com or 860-387-0503
The vision of "education reform" coming from the Trump administration and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos entails cutting direct aid to students, especially those from low-income families, in order to expand the private sector's financial footprint in education.
That at least is what's reflected by a leaked budget document obtained by the Washington Post.
As the Post reports, deep spending cuts – a net $9.2 billion or 13.6 percent – called for in the document sever funding to many "long-standing programs" and federal government supports that largely serve children and youth from low-income households. At the same time, more money would go to incentivize "alternatives to traditional public schools" at the K-12 level and increase the costs of college loans, a federal program with significant ties to the financial services industry.
A glaring example of this pivot to the private sector is the plan's cuts to programs that make public schools attractive options for parents, especially in low-income communities, while boosting federal support for "school choice" that incentivizes parents to turn to charter schools and private schools instead.
For instance, $1.2 billion for after-school programs would be eliminated – so would $2.1 billion for teacher training programs that lead to class-size reductions in schools. Funding that supports arts education, international studies, and foreign languages get the axe. Federal help for educating Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students and gifted students are killed. A $400 million fund to pay for an array of school-enriching services and academics – such as mental-health support, anti-bullying programs, and advanced courses – gets zero. Even money for Special Olympics education programs would be gone.
Also under the proposed budget, schools would get a lot less money from the federal government for technical education, adult basic literacy instruction, and a program started by the Obama administration to support for children in needy communities.
In the meantime, Trump and DeVos would take $1 billion out of the federal government's Title I funds – money sent to the states to support educating poor children – to pay for a new grant program that incentivizes those states to fund the competitive privately-operated schools such as charters and religious schools. The grant program, the Post explains, is called Furthering Options for Children to Unlock Success (FOCUS) that only goes to school districts that "agree to allow students to choose which public school they attend – and take their federal, state and local dollars with them."
This proposal, often called "Title I portability," was proposed by Republicans during the Obama administration and met significant opposition from Democrats. The Center for American Progress called the scheme "Robin Hood in reverse" and declared, "Portability actually drives resources away from high-poverty districts and into more affluent ones."
Nevertheless, Title I portability is based on the general principle that education funding should "follow the child" – a misguided practice many Democrats espouse also – so it continues to live on in the foundation of all school choice initiatives.
In addition to this diversion of K-12 public tax dollars to privately-operated schools, the proposed budget provides "$500 million for charter schools, up 50 percent over current funding," and an outlay of $250 million for grants that would ”pay for expanding and studying the impacts of vouchers for private and religious schools.
As the Post reporters explain, "It’s not clear how much would be spent on research versus on the vouchers themselves." But what's also unclear is how one studies the "impacts" of an initiative simultaneously as it rolls out. Rather than a research endeavor, this additional money sounds more like it's for a marketing program.
For higher ed, "The proposed budget would also reshape financial aid programs that help 12 million students pay for college," the Post says.
The "reshaping" includes cutting loans and work-study programs for disadvantaged students and ending subsidized loans for students still in schools and the program that forgives college loans for students who eventually take jobs in the public sector.
Eliminating these student loan programs means "the government could eventually make more money off of student loans" the Post reports in a sidebar to its main article. But not only is it ethically problematic for our government to treat college students like cash cows; it's also just another way to ensure more money for education is directed to the immense financial empire that profits off servicing those loans, refinancing the debt, and collecting on loans that go into default.
Not many people who've already had a chance to comment on this education budget, including Post reporters who brought it to light, think it has much of a chance of getting through Congress.
The circus of scandal that is sidetracking the Trump administration's plans for tax reform, healthcare, and infrastructure may thwart any progress on his education plan too. But let's be clear that this budget reflects the education values that have guided, for years, an agenda to privatize public education.
[Originally published at the Education Opportunity Network.]
It’s been almost eight years since Captain Chesley Sullenberger miraculously landed US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River. It began on a chilly day in January 2009 when his plane encountered a flock of geese upon departure from New York’s LaGuardia Airport. Both engines lost thrust, putting 150 passengers and 5 crew members at serious risk. Roughly four minutes later, Sully ditched the plane on the Hudson River. Every soul aboard survived.
As one who thinks about navigating uncertainty, I was immediately struck by the decision prowess of the pilot. I wanted to find out what led Sully to flourish amidst such radical uncertainty and pressure. Sullenberger’s book, Highest Duty, and Sully, the new Clint Eastwood film about his triumph, helped me understand why he was the right person for the job.
Here are three things I learned from Sully’s story.
Use checklists as tools, not rules. Checklists are an important tool in a pilot’s arsenal. And with good reason: they help to reduce human error in aviation, just as they do inmedicine. Sully himself is a checklist advocate. As he wrote in Highest Duty, his wife has to remind him: “Sully, life is not a checklist!”
Sully and his co-pilot Jeff Skiles made careful use of checklists when things began deteriorating. But the situation was unprecedented, making strict adherence to the checklist’s script a liability. As Sully wrote, “Not every situation can be foreseen or anticipated. There isn’t a checklist for everything.”
In the movie, we see investigators interrogating Sully and his co-pilot about the steps they took. They have to explain why they did not follow the standard emergency protocol, which, while useful in the abstract, was not appropriate for the situation at hand. So while the standard protocols checklists codify are useful, they are not rules that leaders must follow at all costs. As Sully eloquently summarizes: “Compliance alone is not sufficient. Judgment…is paramount.”
“There isn’t a checklist for everything.”—Chesley SullenbergerKeep advisors on tap, not on top. Soon after both engines fail, Sully and Skiles relay their status to an air traffic controller who offers an emergency landing at LaGuardia. Sully responds that the plane may not make it and might land on the Hudson. The pilot also proposes New Jersey’s Teterboro Airport, where the controller quickly secures him a runway. Throughout this conversation, Sully notes, the controller did not try to steer him in a particular direction: his “choice of phrasing was helpful to me. Rather than telling me what airport I had to aim for, he asked me what airport I wanted. His words let me know that he understood that these hard choices were mine to make, and it wasn’t going to help if he tried to dictate a plan to me.”
Twenty-two seconds after Sullenberger proposes Teterboro, he abandons the possible destination, quickly concluding a landing on the Hudson is likely to save the most lives. Even after Sully's decision, the controller keeps offering suggestions, unable to stomach the thought of a water landing. Ditching a plane on water is a risky maneuver, one best avoided if possible.
At this point, Sullenberger tunes him out: “I knew that he had offered me all the assistance that he could, but at that point, I had to focus on the task at hand. I wouldn’t be answering him.” Too often, we let trusted advisors take the wheel, thereby abdicating our responsibility as leaders. Sullenberger succeeds in part because he knows how to leverage his advisor without ceding control.
Too often, we let our trusted advisors take the wheelQuestion assumptions. The drama of Sully revolves around the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation of the incident. Initially, investigators believe that the plane’s engine could have restarted and pilot error was to blame. And computer simulations suggest that Sullenberger could have made it to LaGuardia or Teterboro instead of landing on the water. To convince the NTSB that he made the right decision, Sully arranges for human-operated simulations of these scenarios to be streamed live at the hearings. When those don’t go his way, he argues—convincingly—that neither the computer nor human simulations are using realistic assumptions.
He asks how many times the pilots in the simulator had practiced. The answer, which is met with a great gasp: “17.” Sully and Skiles hadn’t practiced once. The lead investigator then asks for new human simulations under more realistic assumptions. This time, the pilots must wait 35 seconds after the bird strikes before turning back to LaGuardia or Teterboro. Under these more realistic conditions, they crash, vindicating Sully and Skiles.
Today, we are all too ready to trust the apparent conclusions of computer simulations or controlled social-scientific experiments without questioning how valid their application is to the real world. While Sully may have exaggerated the antagonism between the investigators and the pilots, the film is a useful parable about the creeping propensity to trust models over human testimony, despite the fact that the models themselves are irreducibly human as well.
Models themselves are irreducibly human.Sully is the quintessential leader. He is respectful of procedure while acknowledging its limits. He takes responsibility without being overconfident. And he tackles moments of radical uncertainty with composure and appropriate judgment. We can all learn from him.
Vikram Mansharamani is the President of Kelan Advisors, LLC and the author ofBoombustology: Spotting Financial Bubbles Before They Burst (Wiley, 2011). To learn more about him or to subscribe to his free mailing list, visit his website. He can also be followed on Twitter @mansharamani or by liking his Facebook page.
Originally posted on Linked IN by: Vikram Mansharamani
A few months ago I had the opportunity to assist a number of students at the Indian School of Business in reviewing their resumes. In the process I noted some good-practices in writing a resume, which I shared with the entire class by way of an email. I thought that email could also benefit some others in a wider audience. So sharing those points below, with my LinkedIn network.
--start of email--
These are some things that came up when conducting the 1-to-1 reviews with the students I met. I thought I’ll write that which could be written down to circulate to all of you. Consider them as a few rules of thumb about your resume. Entertain the points below, chew on them, use them if you like, and reject them if you think differently.
1. First seek to be understood, then seek to impress. Frame every sentence and phrase in the resume with this in mind especially if your work is technical in nature. Because the work you have done needs to be understood by the person shortlisting the resume (perhaps a HR person) and also the hiring manager (the person who interviews you), and neither of them may be highly familiar with your past work domain.
2. What is the feeling about you that you want the recruiter to have after reading you resume for 60 seconds? Write down the words and sentences that describe that feeling. Write this answer down repeatedly for a few weeks, refining it and evolving it until you begin to identify closely and intensely with what you write here. Once done, consider this to be your crisp, chiseled Executive Summary/Profile.
3. The content of each of your various work experience sections must answer these three questions
A. What did I do?
B. Who did I work with?
C. Why was it important?
That's it. While it is easier to write on A and B above, C is a challenge for some students.
4. ‘Why was it important’ can be highlighted by mentioning one or more of the following about your work:
6. Ultimately the purpose of your Resume is to be a conversation starter. You can't have a conversation with someone you can't understand. And people like people who they can talk to and can understand. This holds true for recruiters and hiring managers as well. So your resume needs to have a few phrases and words that act as hooks that will stay in the mind of the recruiter for when s/he first speaks to you. These words could also be emboldened. Another way to look at it is this: The words and phrases you embolden are the reasons you want to be shortlisted for.
7. To the extent possible, complete a bullet point in one line or if the sentence rolls over to the second line then use the second line well. Don't leave an orphan word or two in the second line. You waste an entire line for one or two words if you do that. Don't use too many font variations. Stick to 1 or 2 font styles. Use italics sparingly. Prefer circular and square bullets over ticks and stars.
8. Company name, Designation, Location and Duration of employment need to be clearly and unambiguously presented. They should have enough space/line break in between them to make each of them stand out distinctly.
9. Keep healthy gaps between different sections of the resume. Mind the spacing before and after all the headings and bullet points in the resume. Make sure the line spacings and paragraph spacings are consistent and elegant. There is such a thing as good white space and bad white space. Just like the right pauses and silences enhance a piece of music, the right kind of spacings between the lines embellish and enhance your resume.
10. As a concluding point, write only what you can back up and justify. Write about the work you are proud of, or found interesting to be a part of...something that you can tell a story about. To get a shortlist is not the goal. What you want to ensure is that once you do get shortlisted, then you speak about your work with such conviction and ownership that it leaves the recruiter richer for having spoken to you.
Hope this helps.
Originally posted on Linked IN by Nishant Pandey
Why do some people succeed and others fail? In this video and article I get into the 7 signs you are going to be successful.
Great coaches, mentors, and CEOs are all very good at having a certain intuition where they know which player, talent, or future leader to bet on. There’s something about them. Somehow they know who’s going to be successful. They get credit for choosing and putting their money on the right people.
Think about it. What if there was a technology for you to be able to tell that Arnold Schwarzenegger would become who he is today when he was only 14? How about Michael Jordan, Alexander the Great, Mohammad Reza Shah? What if you could figure it out ahead of time? Think about it. I mean, Mohammad Reza Shah was given Iran at the age of 21. Alexander the Great conquered two million square miles of the world. Can you tell ahead of time if somebody’s going to be successful?
I’m here to tell you that there are seven signs that you’re going to be successful in life.
#1: Super Competitive
Let's start off with number one. Number one is that the people that are going to be successful in life are absolutely super competitive. It doesn't matter what it is. They have to do it faster, better, bigger than everyone else. Their one desire is, "I'm going to do it better than you."
And in the world of capitalism, it's all about competition. Competition is what makes capitalism work. It's what makes sports work. Politicians that go to the top are typically the ones that are most competitive. They want to figure out a way to do things better.
There's a first place person in every office, every team. Even if the team sucks, there's somebody that's the best on that team. Then you get a new cat that comes to town. Whether it's a work environment or a team, if the new guy's competitive, he puts the guy that's higher than him as a target. He wants to beat him. This impacts everything he does - diet, work ethic, the time he comes in - everything. Why? Because he's super competitive. And eventually, he'll pass the top guy up. It's simply how it is.
#2: Finish Things
Next, people that are going to be successful like to finish things. Let me explain. When working a puzzle, they can't stop until they finish the puzzle. If they play a video game, they can't help themselves; they have to finish the game. When reading a book, they have to finish it.
Guys, this is a sign. When I see people that only read the first chapter or two of a book and then ask the question, "Pat, what do you think, man? I have 30 books that I've started that I haven't finished." Well, that's a sign you don't like to finish things. You like things to be given to you easy. The people that finish things always finish things. And that's a sign they're going to be successful.
#3: Circle Out-Earns Them
The next sign that someone's going to be a success is that their circle out-earns them. The people they spend time with are bigger than them. It's a formula. It's not an accidental thing. That's why you'll notice that some of the people that don't achieve success always want to be around smaller people because it makes them feel bigger. The people you meet that are super successful, they always put themselves in situations where people are bigger than them. Why? Because it's the next platform, the next level they're getting to.
#4: Mind Never Stops
Next, one way you can tell that a person is going to be successful is that their mind never stops.
#5: Credible People See You Going Places
Another sign that someone's going to be successful is how credible people view them. Let me explain. Let's say I meet John. And John's principal, football coach, uncle, and boss all say, "This guy's going places. He's going places." If those guys gave authentic, real answers, that cat's going places. Why? Because those people have spent endless hours with him. They know his flaws and habits. They know whether or not he finishes things if he spends time with people that are ahead of him, and how competitive he is. So if a lot of credible people say that someone's going places, that's a sign he'll be successful.
#6: Always Learning
The next sign that someone's going to be successful is that they won't stop learning. They can't stop learning. They can't help themselves. There's a desire to get better at everything. So they want to be a better student and learn more.
#7: Extremely Obsessive
And last but not least, the people that are going to be successful are extremely obsessive. If you could dissect the mind of an obsessive person, it would concern a lot of people. You might ask, "Does this person really think that way?" They do. They really do think that way. They're very good at getting what they want because they have to have it. They're obsessed with it. And anytime they're obsessed about it, they start figuring out creative ways to get what they want. Whether it's a girl, business, position, accolades, a certain place or lifestyle they want, they'll figure out a way to get it because they're obsessive. They're just wired that way, and they have to have it.
So those are the seven signs that if you see, you can tell someone's going to be successful.
By the way, there's no 100% to any of this. No one's ever going to be 100%. But you want to be at least 70 or 80%. Because if you do this right, the majority of the time you'll put together the most incredible team in your business so you'll grow and go to different places.
The post is inspired by a video by Patrick Bet-David.
If you think you possess these 7 qualities, join us in building one of India's finest tech products. And if you have any questions or thoughts on what was covered in today's article, please comment on the bottom.
I am Aditya Ruia, an undergrad student at BITS Pilani, one of India's premier engineering institutions || CEO and Founder of Quorg, a messaging app for business communication, simply said, a Whatsapp for Professionals. Follow me on LinkedIn or drop a mail at firstname.lastname@example.org Subscribe for product launch at quorg.in
Oringinally posted on Linked IN by:Aditya Ruia
Contact John Assunto for all of your Education Recruiting needs! Johna@worldbridgepartners.com or 860-387-0503
I saw this picture posted above by Wendy Zdeb showing a very low turnout at a recent MSU job fair for new teachers. She said it broke her heart to see this because in the 80's and 90's this event would have been packed with new teacher candidates looking for teaching positions. I also ran across a video (https://www.facebook.com/ATTNVideo/videos/1684951141809840/) on Facebook yesterday where it stated that enrollment in teacher training programs is down 35%, and then it went on to explain some reasons why that may be so.
As a 31 year veteran teacher, I know we are currently facing very challenging times in education. I've heard many teachers and other educators say that they are encouraging family members and others to avoid going into teaching as a possible career choice. This is where I disagree.
Now, more than ever, we need to be attracting strong, determined teaching candidates that will be up to meeting many of the challenges we currently face. Too much is at stake! Our schools need to remain strong if we are to have a strong future in our country. To do that we need to continue to staff our schools with the best teachers we can. Teachers that continue to have passion, purpose, vision and integrity to model to their students each day as they help prepare them to become successful and productive citizens and adults.
I believe we need to create a team of educators that still love and believe in this profession that are willing to come together as ambassadors for teaching. This team could go out to help recruit and retain strong teaching candidates that are willing to come in to teaching with open eyes ready to take on and conquer the many challenges we face in education today and any future ones we may face.
As I prepare to retire soon from teaching, I would like to dedicate the next 10-20 years of my life working with such a team to help recruit and serve future teachers. It would be an honor to go out and share my love and passion for teaching with those thinking about joining one of the most challenging and rewarding professions I can think of.
Working together, I am confident we can fill the hallways at MSU's next job fair for new teachers and many other teaching job fairs around the country!
Originally posted on LinkedIN by:Bill Cecil
U.S. Sees One of the Poorest Salary Growth Recoveries of All Developed Nations; Canada Sees Best --Emerging Markets See Highest and Lowest Recovery Rates. Let's Take a Look at the Latest Benchmarking Pay Data From Korn Ferry Hay Group
A new analysis by the Hay Group division of Korn Ferry shows mixed salary recovery figures across the world, eight years after the fall of Lehman Brothers signaled the beginning of one of the worst global recessions in history.
Pay data is drawn from Korn Ferry Hay Group’s PayNet database, which contains salary and job data for more than 20 million workers in more than 25,000 organizations across 110 countries. Economic data (CPI and GDP) is from the Economist Intelligence Unit.
According to the study, the U.S. suffered one of the worst salary recoveries among developed nations in what is known as the G20, which denotes the world’s top economies.
Adjusted for inflation, salaries in the U.S. decreased 3.1 percent on average since September 2008 – despite a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 10.2 percent. Canada’s salary recovery is the best among developed nations, with a 7.2 percent salary growth on average, with a GDP gain of 11.2 percent.
Other developed nations experienced flat to modest salary growth, with Australia at 5.9 percent, France at 5.2 percent, Germany at five percent, Italy at 2.4 percent and the U.K. down 0.1 percent.
Emerging markets saw the best and the worst salary growth. China, Indonesia and Mexico had the largest salary growth at 10.6 percent, 9.3 percent and 8.9 percent respectively; and Turkey, Argentina, Russia and Brazil had the worst at -34.4 percent, -18.6 percent, -17.1 percent and -15.3 percent. Growth in all developed nations landed in the middle.
Global talent shortages and lack of training seem to be having the biggest impact on salary levels. “While overall, global economists point to this recovery as one of the worst in history, there are political, economic and social reasons for the disparate salary fluctuations in different countries,” said Benjamin Frost, Korn Ferry Hay Group global product manager – pay. “In the countries that are seeing tremendous salary growth, the issue is supply and demand. With countries like China seeing a whopping 75.9 percent GDP growth since the beginning of the recession, universities and corporations simply can’t train people fast enough. This leaves an acute talent shortage and points to the reason skilled employees are seeing steep pay increases.”
Unbalanced Salary Growth In U.S.: Lower-End Jobs See Nearly 15 Percent Drop
In the U.S., the Commerce Department recently released figures that show the pace of the current expansion has been by far the weakest of any since 1949.
In terms of salary growth, employees with lower paying, entry level titles — such as clerical, network analyst, payroll coordinator or production line supervisor — experienced a 14.8 percent inflation-adjusted drop in wages on average since the start of the recession.
Those in professional mid-level roles, such as a brand / product manager or network administrator, fared much better with a two percent inflation-adjusted salary growth. Senior managers, such as an IT manager or chief accountant saw a 3.5 percent salary growth on average.
“Imbalances in supply and demand are behind the differences in pay growth at different job levels in the United States,” said Mr. Frost. “For lower level jobs, technology and offshoring are among the factors causing an oversupply of people – and driving weak pay growth. At the top end, key leadership and technical skills are in short supply, causing much stronger increases in pay.”
Salary Gaps by Level More Tempered In Other Developed Nations
The upward swing in salary increases for more senior level roles is not nearly as dramatic in other developed nations compared to the U.S. For example, in the U.K., lower level employees experienced a 2.9 percent decline in inflation-adjusted salary, and senior level managers experienced a 1.7 percent growth.
In some nations, people with lower-level jobs actually saw higher pay gains during the past eight years. In France, lower level employees experienced a 5.1 percent salary increase since the beginning of the recession, while senior managers experienced a 4.7 percent growth. In Italy, lower level employees experienced a 1.6 percent growth rate and senior managers experienced a 1 percent decline.
“Several factors help to achieve pay parity across levels in European nations,” said Mr. Frost. “Firstly, many governments regularly increase minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, and labor laws usually favor employee rights. Also, strong unions bargain on pay and conditions, and in recent years, public pressure has kept senior manager salaries in check amid a call for everyone to ‘share the pain’ on the road to economic recovery.”
A separate recent Korn Ferry Hay Group ‘Salary Forecast study’ found that workers are expected to see wage increases of 2.5 percent, the highest in three years. “This year’s global salary forecast shows that for the majority of countries real wage increases are set to be the highest in three years,” said Philip Spriet, global managing director for productized services at Hay Group. “Differing macro-economic conditions means there are stark variations globally, but overall decent pay increases, coupled with extremely low (and in some cases, zero) inflation, mean that the outlook is positive for workers.”
ADP’s recent ‘Workforce Vitality Report’ found that the U.S. labor market maintained its trend of growth in wages in the second quarter, however at a slower pace. Gains in the second quarter were driven by growth in hours worked and employment. Wage growth for full time workers varied across industries during the past four quarters.
“The positive trend in wage growth over the past few quarters suggests that wages may finally reflect the tightening labor market,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and head of the ADP Research Institute. “Employers are continuing to provide raises to their workers for retention.”
Willis Towers Watson found that pay raises for U.S. employees are expected to hold steady at three percent in 2017. The survey also found that employers will continue to reward their best performers with significantly larger pay raises as they look for ways to retain their top talent and strengthen existing pay-for-performance cultures.
“Given the continued low rates of inflation and the ongoing pressure on profit margins, employers remain cautious when it comes to budgeting salary increases,” said Laura Sejen, managing director, rewards, at Willis Towers Watson. “While most companies are feeling little pressure to increase budgets relative to what we’ve seen in recent years, many are starting to question how those budgets are spent and whether their conventional approaches to salary planning are delivering a good return on that three percent investment.”
Scott A. Scanlon is founding chairman and CEO of Hunt Scanlon Media. Based in Greenwich, Conn., Scott serves as Editor-in-Chief of Hunt Scanlon's daily newswires, its recruiting industry reports and Executive Search Review.
This blog first appeared at http://huntscanlon.com/
Originally posted on LinkedIN by: Scott A. Scanlon
Jessica Hagy wrote the book on being interesting.
It all started with a piece she penned for Forbes a few years ago, entitled, How to Be More Interesting (In 10 Simple Steps). The article works not only because the advice is timeless (including recommendations like "explore ideas, places and opinions" and "hop off the bandwagon"), but because the simple illustrations are perfect complements. (Hagy's also an artist whose work has been translated into more than a dozen languages.)
The article went viral. So, naturally, it was turned into a book.
But Hagy's advice got me to thinking:
There's a single action one could take, that actually rolls all ten of Hagy's steps into one. I've done it for years and people repeatedly point to it as a major strength, one that they both appreciate and have learned from.
What is it?
Assume that everyone else is interesting.
How it WorksWhen you assume others are interesting, you're naturally drawn to learn more about them.
You ask questions--not in an invasive or nosy way, but out of the most innocent of motives: curiosity. Where are you from? Where did you grow up? Where have you been? Just three variations of one simple question, that could lead to hours of potential conversation--and easily draw an individual out.
When you assume others are interesting, you don't dismiss their thoughts or opinions as wrong, or strange (even when everyone else does).
Instead, you endeavor to understand why the person thinks and feels the way they do. In doing so, that person is naturally intrigued about you. As a byproduct, the other person is more open to hear and consider your thoughts and opinions--even when they disagree.
When you assume others are interesting, you explore ideas, places, and opinions (just like Hagy encourages us to do in that original essay), by viewing everyone you meet as an opportunity to learn. In turn, the other person naturally reciprocates--allowing you to share your own experience.
When you assume others are interesting, you also "minimize the swagger," as Hagy recommends. "Egos get in the way of ideas," she points out, correctly. "If your arrogance is more obvious than your expertise, you are someone other people avoid."
In contrast, showing an interest in others keeps them at the forefront, and, ironically, makes you the person everyone loves to be around. (Because who doesn't enjoy talking about themselves?)
Assuming others are interesting isn't easy in the beginning. But as with everything else, you get better with practice.
And in time, you no longer have to assume. When you assume others are interesting, you become more interesting.
Because you become one of the few who have figured it out:
Everyone has a story, and each of us can learn something from the other.
Now that's what I call...interesting.
What do you think of my method? Do you have one of your own? I look forward to reading your comments.
A version of this post originally appeared on Inc.com.
As an author and one of LinkedIn's Top Voices, I share my thoughts on business best practices and emotional intelligence weekly. If you're interested in tips on how to make emotions work for you instead of against you, subscribe to my free monthly newsletter by clicking here or contact me via email using jbariso[at]insight-global.de. (You can also reach out here on LinkedIn or via Twitter: @JustinJBariso.)
I also write for Inc. and TIME. Some other articles you might enjoy:
Originally posted on Linked IN by: Justin Bariso
Meet the Team
WorldBridge Partners earned the Best of Staffing®Award for providing remarkable service quality. Fewer than 2% of all staffing agencies in the U.S. and Canada earned the 2015 Best of Staffing Award for service excellence. With satisfaction ratings more than three times higher than the industry average, the Best of Staffing winners truly stand out for exceeding expectations. This award identifies the staffing industry's elite leaders in service quality.