Needle, Meet Haystack

In case you guys are not aware, Chuck Klosterman is one of the greatest pop culture writers of all time.  If I could siphon off a bit of his genius every time I wanted to do an extended metaphor, I would be so happy.  And by bit I mean sliver.  Like a tenth of a microgram (I’m too lazy to look up the proper measurement).  In case you haven’t read any of his books, buy them now.

Now that the literary gushing is over, let’s digress to the topic at hand: method actors and groupthink.

During a very strange interview with actor Val Kilmer of Batman Forever and Top Gun fame, Klosterman asked him about his experience in the movie Tombstone, which led to this exchange:

I ask him about the “toll” that he felt while making the 1993 western Tombstone. He starts talking about things that happened to Doc Holliday. I say, “No, no, you must have misunderstood me. I want to know about the toll it took on you.” He says, “I know, I’m talking about those feelings.” And this is the conversation that follows:

Me: You mean you think you literally had the same experience as Doc Holliday?

Kilmer: Oh, sure. It’s not like I believed that I shot somebody, but I absolutely know what it feels like to pull the trigger and take someone’s life.

You understand how it feels to shoot someone as much as a person who has actually committed a murder?

I understand it more. It’s an actor’s job. A guy who’s lived through the horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He’s some punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that’s why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn’t get on the football team, couldn’t finagle a scholarship. They didn’t have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than a guy who was there.

Although this assertion seems a bit (okay, very) strange, it’s possible that Kilmer is on to something.

In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, author James Surowiecki offers the theory that groups can be more knowledgeable and accurate than experts.  So if Val Kilmer changes his example from talking about himself to talking about groups, it might be accurate.

When we work in groups, it can be a frequent source of aggravation and stress.  But given that groups pull from a variety of competencies, experiences, knowledge bases and skill sets, there’s much more to be gleaned from working with others towards a common goal then against them.  While some may feel that they best fit a particular niche in the group, collaboration with others can (and often does) produce better results.

Employers are often looking for team players, people who will fit into established groups and who will hopefully step up to lead them, if need be.  Even work-at-home positions require group collaboration.  And since the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it stands to reason that your group may know better than you.

Collaboration isn’t a four-letter word, but it is difficult to accomplish when egos, pride and presumptions get in the way.  By working with your team and acknowledging their separate and combined power, you will be able to achieve better results than if you try to fly solo.  Or explain method acting.

Oh, come on, like you’re actually going to bother applying for jobs at the beginning of a four-day weekend.  That’s just silly.

Be thankful if you have a job.

Be thankful if you got out of a bad job.

Be thankful that unemployment has given you a chance to rediscover what’s really important to you.

Be thankful that you bought a turkey.

Whatever it is you’re thankful for, relax, enjoy the day, watch a parade, gorge yourself on autumn-related foodstuffs, or take a nap.

Thanks to all of you who’ve been reading.

And go ahead, have that extra piece of pie.  I won’t tell.

Click the link to read the original post about interviews from the interviewer’s perspective.

Yesterday, I gave an interview of a different sort: for a freelance (re: temporary) position.  Since the criteria, competencies and job itself are different from a more permanent position (that was discussed in part 1), this post is to serve as a reference point for those wondering what their interviewers may be thinking during an interview for a contract job.  Here are a series of tips based on what I found out during the interviews:

• Asking more questions is a good thing, but don’t steer the conversation.  Since the position is time-sensitive and there are a lot of details that you need to know about quickly, it’s all right to start asking questions almost immediately.  But if you start trying to steer the conversation, it might go in a direction that you don’t want it to.
• You can bring up money on the first interview, but back up your numbers.  If you are pitching for a job of a certain type and ask how much the competition is charging, your interviewer may give you a large range (ours had a difference of over $100,000 from lowest to highest bids) that won’t really help you determine how much to ask for.  But if you are throwing out a number, use facts, previous projects, client testimonials and any materials at your disposal to show that you are worth your asking price, or else you may come across as cocky and overpriced.
• Be prepared to get an offer for something you didn’t come to meet about.  My company has several projects in the pipeline, and we found that one of our candidates was better-suited to working on a different project than the one he came to interview about.  Despite changing the conversation to reflect the other position, he kept clinging to the first project, and lost out on actually getting the job we could have hired him for.
• Don’t make assumptions about your employer’s business, especially if you haven’t done your research.  The same interviewee had not bothered to look up any information about our company, and jumped right into his assessment of a project that we were showing him – but that project was completed months ago, and was actually quite successful.  He put his foot in his mouth so severely that it left a bad taste on the rest of the interview.
• Speaking of that, make sure to do your research.  It helps if you know what a company does, has done, what its competencies are, what its limits are, and so on.  This way, you can tailor your approach (and payment figure) to the specifications that will make you seem more attractive, qualified and employable to interviewers.
• Speaking “business” is not as essential, but make sure you sound socially competent.  A number of interviewees for the position are technical workers, and as such, did not understand much business jargon or many of the results-driven terms that were used during the interview.  But that’s okay – it’s almost like speaking another language.  However, being able to understand what your interviewer is asking you (and what they want the person they eventually hire to do) is critical, so ask for clarification if you need it.
• Don’t make your knowledge gaps apparent.  If you start trying to lead the conversation, the interviewer may touch on certain points that expose weaknesses in your experience or knowledge.  If asked if you know something, or about it, at least show more interest or learning potential than saying “no.”  That makes you seem unpleasant and unwilling to compromise.
• Leave a great last impression.  I was one of two interviewers yesterday, and although I did not do the majority of the talking (the other interviewer did, as he understands technical stuff better), my assessment is still a part of determining if someone is hired.  When one candidate left, they forgot to acknowledge me or shake my hand, doing so only with the other interviewer.  As a result, I was less impressed with this candidate.

If you’re going to enter the freelancer’s world, make sure that you are armed with the right knowledge to get the best results from your interviews as possible.  The tactics that work when applying for full-time positions don’t necessarily apply.

A few posts ago, I mentioned the Peter Principle, and a few readers have asked me to clarify what that is and how to combat it.

The Peter Principle* is the theory that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence, a point best illustrated by Michael Scott on The Office (or David Brent to those in the UK).  Although realistically, both bosses would have been fired long ago by their respective companies, their continued employment not only shows further evidence of the Peter Principle in action, but also that the same incompetence exists among their superiors.

However, after considering my personal experience and reading Penelope Trunk’s book, Brazen Careerist (specifically the chapters on managing one’s boss), I’m not so sure that the Peter Principle can exist for long in any setting.

While the promotion of people past their point of efficacy does happen, it tends to be less frequent.  Whether through extensive training, a strong vetting process or required examples of matching core leadership competencies, promotions to managerial positions are made through a more exact and detailed process than being based simply on current performance.  And the option of demoting those who show themselves to be incompetent leaders is always open.

As companies become more wary about offering promotions due to expanding costs and shrinking returns, they may alleviate problems within their organizations by adding additional responsibilities or finding new ways to offer employees benefits instead of giving promotions.  As a result, promoting employees becomes a greater undertaking and it becomes more critical for them to ensure that they are choosing the right candidates.  So in cases where companies do not have room for expansion, the Peter Principle can be a deadly mistake.

While Michael Scott could become a manager in a real-world office setting, it’s unlikely that he would stay as one for long.  His standing as an avatar of the Peter Principle would move him quickly from “world’s greatest boss” back to sales.

* Not to be confused with the Dilbert Principle, which states that “leadership is nature’s way of removing morons from the productive flow.”

I feel old.

Physically, I’m young.  But when I realize that the shows I loved as a kid are “retro” today, and that some of them haven’t been on the air for the past 15 years (except in syndication), I get the nagging urge to buy some ribbon candy and listen to old records on my gramophone.

It doesn’t help that one of the touchstones of the Saturday morning TV block (which doesn’t exist anymore, another sign of age) has been stirring up a lukewarm bit of controversy.  Or more precisely, Screech from Saved By The Bell is trying to ruin my childhood.

Dustin Diamond doesn’t have it out for me personally.  But when he decided to ditch out on the cast reunion, I had to wonder what’s changed for him.

In this 2002 interview, Diamond seemed to have made peace with his child star past.  But his attitudes in recent years have soured.  When he came to perform at my university in 2007, he became upset and enraged when people would shout out his character’s name or mention the show.  Then again, he’s gone on to follow the former child star path pretty well over the past few years (reality TV, adult film, tell-all book).

Whatever you may feel about his post-SBTB pursuits, Diamond’s actions are an exaggeration of a more common affliction found in those with a fear of being pigeonholed in a certain role, destined to only be remembered for one thing.  And while it’s important to have marketable skills, especially some sort of specialized ones, it’s vital that you not let yourself become defined by those skills.

Rather, you need to continue to cultivate and evolve your professional image and, if possible, continue on the successful path that you’ve started.  Your past experiences have helped shape who you are, but if you let them control you, for good or bad, you will never be able to move on to greater acclaim and success.

If you read Diamond’s old interview, it seemed that he was content with becoming well-known in the chess world and was happy to have the chance to establish himself musically.  Instead, he has chosen to regress to what made him popular in the worst way possible.  When dealing with your professional image and personal brand, you should only use your past as a springboard to the future, not a crutch to hamper your development.

If you want to see a positive example of reconciling your past with your current life and projects, take a look at what another Bayside alum did.

So some of you may have noticed that weekend posts have been getting a little scarce.  Rest assured, they haven’t stopped completely, but I’ve started using weekends to work on some cool stuff that should be ready for you all early next year.  So apologies to those who enjoy the links and job-bashing that usually come with the onset of the weekend.  There will be some sporadic updates of those, and they will return in full force when my dastardly plot sees fruition.

Please note that regular updates will still continue to be posted every Monday through Friday.

So the eagerly anticipated new movie about abstinence vampires and the women who love them comes out today.  And I’ll admit, I’m not a fan.

I tried reading the books (well, the first one, anyway).  I couldn’t get past the first 100 pages.  I tried watching the first movie, and wound up leaving the room after the first hour*.  I wanted to understand this trend; I really did.  But I’m just not in the demographic that enjoys this sort of thing.

Maybe my problem lies in the central conceit of the story’s romance between the two characters, which has been elaborated on many times, most notably in this review, this analysis and on a couple of lists (as number one and number six).  But it basically boils down to this: pretty people can get away with anything.

The female lead falls in love with the male lead, who is constantly referred to as an “Adonis,” and forgives his trespasses of being a creepy vampire (more details in the links from the last paragraph) because of her love for him and his sexy, sexy sparkling vampire body.

But then again, being attractive can get you in anywhere.

A  study from Rice University determined that pretty people appear more trustworthy to others.  A survey from London Guildhall University indicates that those seen as attractive earn more money.  The APA released a paper that shows physical appearance is a key determinant in success.  And these standards are global.  So if you’re more likely to get a job, a raise, a promotion, the attention of your boss and so on because of your physical characteristics, how can you turn this to your advantage?

One of the points made in many of these papers is that confidence from recognizing one’s own attractiveness is a vital component of the resulting success.  Similarly, beauty is subjective.  So if you project confidence and look your best (through personal grooming and appropriate attire), you can achieve more success at work, regardless of your personal feelings about your own attractiveness.

We’ve been told our whole lives that beauty is something inside, to never judge a book by its cover, to not blindly follow someone because they are attractive.  But then again, the story is that the ugly duckling turned into a beautiful swan, not that the beautiful cygnet (baby swan) became an ugly duck.  And before you start blaming society, consider that many of these predispositions towards attractiveness come from evolutionary (re: genetic) imperatives.  Really!  It’s in those links!

Whether you’re on Team Edward, Team Jacob or Team Why Am I Here, you will deal with shallow assessments of physical attractiveness.  And though being judged on beauty is an unfortunate fact of life, that doesn’t mean that you can’t use it to your advantage.

* Movie theaters will refund your ticket if you leave the movie if you walk out in the first 45-60 minutes.  Since most movies are around 90 minutes (based on an average I made up), this is ample time for one to make a fair assessment of the film.  I apply the 45-60 minute rule when I’m watching something I rented.

My dog has been playing tricks on me lately.  She’ll sneak up on me when I’m working on something that has my complete and total focus (I don’t know how she knows) and demands a belly rub.  Or to be scratched behind the ears.  Or to get that one spot on her back that she somehow can’t reach.  And then, it becomes a game of “find the spot that actually requires scratching.”  And whatever I guess that spot to be, I’m always wrong.  Sure, there are some body language cues (flopping tongue, thumping, etc.) but I never know quite what spot she’s talking about.  Even after owning her for 12 years, I’m still clueless when it comes to my dog’s belly rub/ear scratching desires.

But then again, most of us don’t really know anything.  Sure, when it comes to certain areas, we might be particularly adept, or even some sort of expert, but it’s not like we understand the whole of much anything.  Hell, everyone’s favorite research resource has some holes in it (other than edits consisting of “butts lol”).  But it’s not like we do it on purpose.  Human beings are not designed to perfectly comprehend, interpret and contain all of the collective knowledge of our species, or even of our own lives.

So when it comes to having a featured post on Brazen Careerist or finding what types of posts would land me the most hits, I’m a bit clueless.  But luckily, this problem doesn’t occur during the job application process.

If you’re looking up online job postings, there’s a very clear list of what the business is looking for from an ideal applicant, what qualities and competencies they want the most, and their expectations for you, should you get the job.  Unlike more complicated pursuits, like dating, there is a specific road map that you can use to assess your compatibility with the company, your viability as a candidate and how to tailor your application to the greatest amount of success.

With the guidelines provided, you should be able to determine what you need in your application and what you don’t.  You’ll be given multiple options on how to communicate directly with your potential employer.  In short, you’re being given the tools to successfully achieve at least an interview right from the get-go.

So even if you’re like me and have trouble finding the “special spot” when you’re giving your pet a belly rub, you’ll still have the clear indicators on how to get a job.

Wow, everyone sure seems to love failure this month.  And the homeless.  And outer space.

It’s 10 PM on a Sunday.  You and your team have a presentation on Monday at 9 AM, and yet, you’re the only person working on it.  The rest of your team, if they’re physically present, is not mentally “there”.  And come Monday, no one will know that you did the lion’s share of the work.  It’s not fair…or is it?

Group members will  never completely function at the same level of competency or productivity.  But when one member is doing most, if not all of the work, there’s something very wrong with the group dynamic.

Or it could be that your group is composed of selfish, lazy stupid jerkholes (except for you), but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that that’s not the case.

Regardless of the touchy-feely lessons you may have been taught in your youth, everyone is not equal.  We each have particular strengths and weaknesses that characterize us as achievers in certain areas and failures in others.  And as such, some of us excel at organization, leadership and self-motivation, while others do not.  So if you find yourself in the position of being the sole organizer and motivator for your group, perhaps you need to step into a leadership role as well.

No one sets out to be disruptive when they have something big to (lose or) gain by (not) participating.  We don’t want to procrastinate and be counterproductive, but if our accomplishments and contributions are overlooked, indifference and laziness begin to seep in.  And while this may not be true in all cases, it’s a better way to start looking at the actions of one’s teammates.

Regardless of if you can do something better than the others on your team, you should still make sure that everyone has individual responsibilities and duties to perform.  In addition to ensuring that everyone feels that their contribution is essential, you’re taking the stress off of doing everything (in addition to organizing and leading) off of yourself.  After all, successful leadership is more about delegation than doing things for others.

So if you find yourself in a situation where you’re doing all of the work for your team, it might be time to rethink how to work with them to get better work results.  Who knows?  You might pull off that rare balancing act known as “teamwork.”