Dan Erwin

Are You a Workholic? 25 Questions

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a timely article on the difficulty some/many have relaxing on vacation.  As the article suggests, relaxing on vacation is hard work.

Attached to the article is a 25 question quiz from Bryan Robinson's book, Chained to the Desk, which sorts distinctions between being a hard worker  versus a workaholic.

This is the time of the year when a bit of a heads-up on the art of vacationing is apropos.  Robinson's quiz is called simply Work Rules?

Are you a hard worker or are you a workaholic?  Rate yourself on the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) using a rating scale of 1 (never true), 2 (sometimes true), 3 (often true) or 4 (always true).

1. I prefer to do most things rather than to ask for help.
2. I get impatient when I have to wait for someone else or when something takes too long.
3. I seem to be in a hurry and racing against the clock.
4. I get irritated when I am interrupted while I am in the middle of something.
5. I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire.
6. I find myself doing tow or three things at one time.
7. I overcommit myself by biting off more than I can chew.
8. I feel guilty when I m not working on something.
9. It's important that I see the concrete results of what I do.
10. I am more interested in the final result of my work than in the process.
11. Things just never seem to move fast enough or get done fast enough for me.
12. I lose my temper when things don't go my way or work out to suit me.
13. I ask the same questions over and over again without realizing it, after I've already been given the answer once.
14. I spend a lot of time mentally planning and thinking about future events while tuning out the here and now.
15. I find myself continuing to work after my coworkers have called it quits.
16. I get angry when people don't meet my standards of perfection.
17. I get upset when I am in situations where I cannot be in control.
18. I tend to put myself under pressure from self-imposed deadlines when I work.
19. It is hard for to relax when I'm not working.
20. I spend more time working than socializing with friends or on hobbies or leisure activities.
21. I dive intro projects to get a head start before all the phases have been finalized.
22. I get upset with myself for making even the smallest mistake.
23. I put more thought, time and energy into my work than I do into my relationships with loved ones and friends.
24. I forget, ignore or minimize celebrations such as birthdays, reuinion, anniversaries or holidays.
25. I make important decisions before I have all the facts and have a chance to think them through.

TOTAL:_______

KEY.

• 67 -100: You are considered highly workaholic.  It could mean you're on your way to burnout, and research suggests that family members may be experieincing emotional repercussions as well.
• 57-66: You are considered mildly workaholic, but there is hope.  With acceptance and modification, you and your loved ones can prevent negative lasting effects.
• 25-56: You are probably a hard worker instead of a workaholic.  You needn't worry that your work style will negatively affect yourself or others.

When taking quizzes like this, there are a couple things to remember.  These kind of self-appraisals should be viewed as a statement about yourself at this point in time.  In other words, they are merely snapshots.  Six months from now, your responses might be somewhat different.  I don't expect huge changes, but even quizzes like the Myers-Briggs change over time.

I view these self-appraisals as "pointers" to what's going on in our lives, rather than trustworthy, stable statements about who we really are.

Alan Blinder: "Collateral Damage in a Successful War Against Financial Armageddon."

If you'd like new insight into how to vent your spleen with fascinating venom and deeply felt hostility, I suggest you skim a few of the more than 110 comments attached to Alan Blinder's opinion essay in this morning's Wall Street Journal.  The article is aptly titled Government to the Economic Rescue.  (I think that if you don't have a subscription you can pull it up by following my link.)

Blinder, you may know is former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton.

My first response was that the WSJ was once more, to my delight, playing against type with a more progressive opinion article.  But then, they do that regularly.  Besides, it's good for reader attention.  As you can guess, I'm not at all cynical.  At least I own an expensive subscription.

Aside from all that muckety-muck, the article was quite informative, filled with two indisputable facts.  As Blinder writes, both the financial system and the economy are in far better shape today than they were in the dark days of January or February 2009. 

Blinder points to three policy landmarks, two of which remain terribly unpopular and "probably account for the (President's) negative polling results."  TARP, in which voters believe government spent $700 billion of their money.  Not true. Most of it was a loan that's already been repaid.  When the chips are down, the more accurate $50 billion to forestall a cataclysm will seem like a bargain.  (Have you ever listened to some of the aged talk about how serious and awful the depression of the '30s really was?)

The second policy landmark was Obama's fiscal stimulus package signed into law early in his presidency.  The real problem was that the White House's forecast was too optimistic.  Still, as Blinder says, try to imagine any government spending a massive sum like $862 billion without creating or saving millions of jobs. 

The third policy landmark, says Blinder, were the "stress tests" for big financial institutions.  The Fed was in a magnificent bind--to put it colorfully.  If it declared bank needs too large, then ("My God! It's hopeless!) or too small ("My God! It's a government whitewash!)  That's a clear no win for the Fed--at least from the standpoint of the public. 

Well, you'll make your own decision, but at least I'm calling your attention to some of the issues.

A Book I Can't Put Down: "Being Wrong," by Kathryn Schulz

It's rare to read a review as glowing as Dwight Garner's which had me from the start with its title, "To Err is Human.  And How! And Why!", and was published June 10 in the NYTimes.

Garner's introduction gets it right:  

Despite their titles, the two books in front of us today — “Being Wrong,” by Kathryn Schulz, and “Wrong,” by David H. Freedman — are not biographies of Alan Greenspan. They’re not accounts of the search for Saddam Hussein’s W.M.D. They’re not psychological profiles of Nickelback fans or the imbibers of chocolate martinis, either. 

Here’s what they are instead: investigations into why, as Ms. Schulz writes, with a Cole Porterish lilt in her voice, “As bats are batty and slugs are sluggish, our own species is synonymous with screwing up.”

Rarely do I head for Barnes and Noble that quickly, but when I get hooked, I get hooked.  And though it's been in my possession little more than 24 hours, I grab a few pages whenever I can take a break.  I'm not completely certain why it is so intriguing.  Admittedly, the subject of screwing up has been an interest of mine.  I have a PhD in failure processes, which means I know all about the subject--but not as much as Ms. Schulz.  I did learn, however, that the best way to learn is to fail, and learn from the failure.  But, like many narcissistic males, it wasn't easy to admit failure early on.  Still, the ability to make that admission can grow on you.  That's why I laughed at the title of a previous book, Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, a statement attributed to Henry Kissinger.  That it might have come from Kissinger was never a surprise.

Schulz' writing is, well. . . smart and fun.  Take this comment: In short, the experience of being right is imperative for our survival, gratifying for our ego, and, overall, one of life's cheapest and keenest satisfactions.  This book is about the opposite of all that. . . . Of all the things we are wrong about, this idea of error might well top the list.  It is our meta-mistake: we are wrong about what it means to be wrong.

As Schulz suggests, it may be that I like this book because she realizes that it's so very gratifying to be right.  She not only spells out what's right about being wrong, but what's right about being right. 

And, as Schulz spells out, it's not only our senses that are often wrong, but just as often our minds. It's really our beliefs that are the broader and more interesting category.  I just realized that I think I know why I'm especially interested in this subject.  I've been working with two teams, one from law and another from architecture, focusing on how to successfully challenge wrongheadedness and get buy-in.  One of the delights of both consulting gigs is that I'm constantly getting messages from the members that our approach works.  In this instance, what I like about dealing with the wrong is being right! 

7 Characteristics of a Successful Mentee

Nearly all effective and successful leaders have had significant mentoring at key points in their life and career.  As a result mentoring ought to be a high agenda for the ambitious.  But most of the time when businesspeople talk about mentoring, the conversation is largely about the mentor, not about the mentee.  In this blog, I'd like to flip the conversation and talk about what makes for a truly successful mentee.  After all, mentoring is a two way street.  Furthermore, there are some important personal characteristics that make for being a better mentee and for getting a lot more out of the process.

Here are 7 important characteristics of 21st century mentees:

1. They understand that their network is their mentor.  Usually when people think of mentoring, what comes to mind is that they need to find a senior manager who'll give them time and input.  Those experiences will be few and far between.  There are very few well-rounded business people with enough experience who will also be willing to give someone a lot of time.  Business demands don't usually allow for that.  As a result, think always of your mentor as a network of people.  Success means that you've found a person in your network who can asssist you for 4 - 6 sessions with a just a couple objectives.  That's more realistic, and you're also more likely to find a manager willing to give you that amount of time.
2. They look for mentors who are no more than two, at the most three levels above them.  Finding a mentor is tough enough.  Getting a senior manager may well be impossible.  Furthermore, once a person is much more than two levels above you, she won't be able to either identify with you or your issue very well.  Nor will she be able to give you very understandable information.  The further up the ladder, the more difficult to talk with in language you'll understand.  The higher you go, the more implicit assumptions and abstract talk.
3. They set their own concrete objective.  When you get ready to talk to a potential mentor you should know exactly what you want.  Think about that, and work at it until you can write down your objective in 8 to 12 words.  One of the most important characteristics in a persuasive proposal is that you can reduce the entire proposal to 8 to 12 words.  If you can't do that, keep thinking and writing until you get down to that small number of words.  Single subject, single predicate and a few adjectives or adverbs in the sentence. After I'd talked to my protege, Liam O'Dea, and decided that he was the one I was looking for, (yeah, I was looking for a Gen-Y mentor) I put my objective into these few words.  Here's the deal: "I'll coach you if you'll edit my material."  Count 'em.  Eight words.  I'm certain I got the better deal, but he disagrees.  That's a happy relationship.
4. They ask very effective questions.  Although questioning and listening are the two most basic relationship skills, they're both very difficult to become expert at.  On numerous occasions people have told me that I'm a very gifted questioner.  I either ignore the comment with a warm "thank you." or give them the straight skinny, which goes like this: "What planet are you on?  I worked my ass off putting these questions together, and I have them right in front of me in my notes!  Gift has nothing to do with it."  (It's always said with a smile, not a snarl.)  That's not only enlightening, but it's often a very effective form of coaching which few ever forget.
5. They have the willingness and ability to challenge their mentor.  My rule is that if a mentee is not occasionally challenging my ideas, either I'm very boring and irrelevant or he's tuned out.  I have a great deal of satisfaction as a result of coaching a team yesterday for two straight hours, no potty break, etc.  I had to butt in to stop the hot conversation every 15 minutes, summarize, double check that everyone was in agreement, and then turn them loose as they challenged me and each other.  They all viewed it as a howling success.  They did most of the challenging, not me.  We came away with a terrific set of conclusions and action objectives.
6.  They follow through on their commitments.  The best way to put an end to a mentor relationship is to fail to follow through on meeting commitments.  As a mentor, I expect them to come back at the next meeting with specific examples of commitment work, to assess in front of me what went well (and why), what needs to go better (and why) and what they're missing or don't understand.  No general notions, please. Bring data in the form of highly descriptive behaviors and language.
7. They make a contribution to their mentor.  As a mentor or coach, I rarely have to ask for a contribution, doesn't matter how much experience or ability the other has.  They stick it in front of me.  On occasion I may need to ask for a unique  contribution and it's always there for me.

Wow! Mentoring and coaching continue to make me a highly fortunate and unbelievably happy person with a lot of what Erik Erikson labelled "integrity."  Integrity is the ability to look back on your contributions and have a great deal of satisfaction about them.  In the worst of situations, (and if you've read my blog on my wife's Alzheimer's disease, you know what I'm talking about) I continue to find a great deal of satisfaction in life.  I've met plenty of mentors and coaches who will agree very strongly with that!

(FYI: Liam didn't edit this.)

Quotation of the Week: Steve Jobs

I don't want to see us descend into a nation of bloggers.

--Steve Jobs, speaking at the Wall Street Journal's digital conference in California, June 2

In an onstage interview with Walt Mossberg, WSJ's well known technology guru, Jobs emphasized the role of a free, healthy press with educated journalists in a thriving democracy.  Although Jobs has a great deal of self-interest in promoting top newspaper content for the sake of the IPad, it is a profoundly important issue.

Although not well known, Google, too, is trying to figure out how to pay for top journalistic content and keep a few newspapers in business.  It's a tough issue.  Newspapers still lack a successful business model. Actually, no more than three or four newspapers can be counted on to deliver content of significance.  It's damned expensive. 

Candidly, I read WSJ for capitalistic content, technology, the arts and books, with occasional forays into the opinion pages.  But sorting the nonsense on WSJ's heavily biased pages can be problematic. Sometimes, like Cheney, it's obvious that WSJ is really attempting to create reality, not admit to it.  Still, I dare not skip WSJ. 

There's little doubt that the NYTimes has the finest journalists in English speaking world.  Contrary to what some seem to think, the Times' stable of journalists represents the entire spectrum of perspective, right to left (or whatever model you choose).  What some seem not to understand is that the Times is an urban newspaper, not a liberal newspaper.  Although urban/liberal have overlaps, they're not synonymous characteristics.

Of course, running a tight second is the Washington Post, family-owned, with a mission of significance.  And last, the DesMoines Register still has great journalism, but lacks the coverage of the Post or the Times.  If you check out the bylines in most newspapers, you'll see that a huge percentage are syndicated from the Times, the Post or WSJ.  I confess.  I quit taking our local McClatchy newspaper, the StarTrib because the significant material was from the Times, WSJ or the Post, and I could pick up the local events of importance to me from Minnesota Public Radio (easily the best public radio in the nation--in surprising contrast to Boston or New York.  Chicago's pub radio runs a pretty close second to MPR.  Although I can't vouch for it, a friend of mine in the business tells me that nearly half of all public radio content is generated through Minnesota Public Radio and its business wings.  E.g. Southern California's pub radio is an offshoot of MPR.)

All this is to say that picking up trustworthy news from the Web, outside of those few newspapers and NPR, is tough sledding.  Much of what goes as news belongs in People Magazine, etc.  Assessing content's accuracy becomes a very difficult task for most of us, and I have no simple recommendations as to how to resolve that problem.  Few are willing to take the time and put out the bucks to read the more sophisticated or academic journals.  They want instant news.  But instant news, without intelligent comment, often is not only misleading, but more oriented to creating readership than offering wise analysis and comment.

I'm well aware that this blog is a rant!

So, what do you think?

Can You Really Change Your Personality?

This is a question that surfaces periodically among new clients.  The answer?  It all depends on how you define "personality."  Personality differs from skills or competencies.  Skills are tools for getting jobs done.  Personality is that set of deep, basic traits that uniquely determine how we perceive experiences and influence our motivations and behaviors.

Researchers generally agree that personality can--and does--change until about age 30.  There's a lot less agreement about what happens then. 

Researchers usually agree that--at a basic level--five main aspects of personality stay fairly stable throughout our lives.  Think of these aspects as tendencies.  Sometimes the tendency is small, other times moderate, other times very strong. 

Neuroticism--persons who score high on this trait tend to be anxious rather than calm.  They're also more likely to be angry, depressed, self-conscious, impulsive and stressed.  Not all of those at the same time, but one, maybe two characterize a person's personality.  I have one delightful client that I've known and worked with for years.  He's highly impulsive and all of his people know that, and factor that into how they relate to him.  He knows it too, and since he's the boss he doesn't work at becoming less impulsive.  He knows everyone of importance knows.  On occasion he's asked me to warn people about his impulsiveness.  BTW: He has a highly successful history and his people make the adjustments for him.  

The other end of the continuum of neurosis is psychosis.  The difference between the two at the extreme is obvious: neurotics "see" more than is really there, and psychotics don't see what's going on at all.  There's plenty of neuroticism among business people, but psychotics don't last long in any career.

Extraversion--high scorers are friendly, outgoing, assertive, energetic and optimistic.  I'm an extrovert and I enjoy extroverts.  But I wouldn't want to be on a team or in a group that is filled with extroverts.  The noise would drive me nuts.  Introverts leven the field and make a very significant contribution to the workforce.  If I were a team leader, the first choices I'd want would be a couple smart introverts.

Openness to experience--a high score indicates a vivid imagination and an appreciation of art and beauty.  Such persons welcome new ideas and may question traditional values and beliefs.  Low scorers tend to be conservatives who accept authority.  Where would you place Dick Cheney on that continuum?

Conscientiousness--persons strong in this area are competent, orderly, self-disciplined, motivated and careful.  High scorers may become workaholics, while low scorers may lack ambition.

Agreeableness--high scorers in this area tend to demonstrate a high level of trust, honesty, altruism, compliance, even modesty and concern for others.  In his theory of development, Erik Erikson argued that trust was the first stage of human development, but that there needed to be a tension between trust and mistrust.  Low scorers may be quite cynical.  Too much agreeableness, represented by beling overly trusting and compliant, can impact your creativity and entreneurialism.  Of course, identifying the line between too much and too little agreeableness can be tough, requiring long-term feedback and personal observation.

These characteristics are relatively stable, particularly after age 30.  They are most likely determined by both nature and nurture.  That leads me to suggest that personality change can come about.  Some researchers think that it occurs through the "crystallization of discontent."  What happens is that isolated negative events gradually get connected in our thinking.  That could include tragedy, recurring negative feedback, a series of failures, etc.  Change happens when that vague discontent gets focused. 

After a discussion of this sort with clients, one question usually follows.  What is the best set of personality characteristics for business success?  Certainly the extremes can cause difficulty.  But in the right situation even extremes can work to your advantage.  Quite a few years ago, a law firm engaged my services as a last ditch effort to assist a partner in dealing with his angry outbursts.  During the second coaching session, the lawyer told me that he'd struggled with paranoia (a neurotic condition) for years, worked with a psychiatrist on numerous occasions, and he was fearful that his outbursts couldn't be managed.  I was clueless about whether they could be managed and told him that.  But I was also curious as to what he saw as the "upsides" of paranoia.  He was shocked by the question and quickly responded that there was no upside to paranoia.  I disagreed strongly, especially in his career as a corporate lawyer.  His most basic task was to keep clients out of difficulty.  That required a great deal of insight as to what are all the possible bases on which a client/firm might be sued or challenged and end up in litigation.  My assumption was that aside from his education and intellectual ability, his paranoia was a highly useful disease.  He had no difficulty seeing more danger than was probably there.  That single insight was almost immediately liberating.  It was a thought that had never crossed his gray matter.  Obviously the insight was exceedingly useful.  He continues as a partner in his firm and has rarely had an episode in the 15 years since.

Can you change your personality?  Yes, but slowly and with great care.

Jobs Report for May

US employers added 431,000 jobs to nonfarm payrolls in May, but 411,000 of those were temporary census workers.  Most economists had expected more than 500,000 new jobs, but. . . .

Bloomberg said that there was one encouraging sign.  Indeed,com, a search engine for job listings, reported that listings were up in all the 12 industries the company tracks, with the biggest jumps in tyransportation, retail and hospitality listings.

I don't think this should be much of a surprise.  Companies are dealing with the huge related questions of the BP catastrophe, and that's not just about oil and its directly related industries.  It's also about the multi-billion dollar fishing industry.  Firms also have concerns about the European Union and its financial problems.  Not only Greece, Spain and Portugal, but add Hungary to the list of financial concerns.  And U.S. unemployment claims have hovered in the 450,000 range for weeks.

One bright sign.  The unemployment rate fell to 9.7% from 9.9% in April.

This is an economy that's going to move slowly. 

Quotation of the Week: Yossi Klein Halevi

Israel and the rest of the world seem to be speaking dissonant moral languages.

--Yossi Klein Halevi, Fellow at hte Sahlom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem

This morning's Wall Street Journal has a strategic policy piece by Klein Halevi, explaining the boycott issues from an Israeli viewpoint.  The opinion piece is entitled appropriately, Israelis Wonder: Has the World Lost its Mind?  The author distinguishes the Israeli outcry, which cuts across political lines, from the outrage expressed abroad.  The appeal by anti-Israelis to the world's conscience forces Israel to choose between self-defense and acceptance by the nations.  Israelis of all political perspectives assume that Israel was right to stop the flotilla, and for that matter, to maintain its sieg on Hamas-led Gaza.

The Israeli concern is over tactics, not morality.  One Israeli liberal columnist wrote, "It's not enough to be right, one also needs to be smart."

For a background approach to the issue, David Makovsky  (see his blog post of June 3) of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy lays out the issues in the Christian Science Monitor. 

• In 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza, Israelis were told that if they stopped occupying foreign land, they would be more secure.
• Between 2005 and 2008, the Israelis absorbed 3,335 rockets aimed at their homes, and border towns became uninhabitable.
• There was never a single UN Security Council session to discuss those attacks.
• The blockade was necessary to curb the rocket attacks.
• Hamas has shown itself untrustworthy for lifting of blockade.
• The Financial Times reported a supply glut of goods smuggled through the tunnels, not catatastrophe.
• Egypt has become Israel's silent partner in supporting the blockade.  It refuses to open up its Rafah border crossing to Hamas.  The Arabs have no trust for Hamas or Hezbollah.

Makovsky concludes that while there is an argument to be made about the terms of the blockade, that shouldn't be confused with normalizing the role of Hamas itself. 

Unemployment Claims Fall Again, But Slowly

If you're watching the economy--and your own future--here's the information on the best barometer. 

WASHINGTON — New claims for US unemployment benefits fell to 453,000 for the week ending May 29, according to government data published this morning, in the latest sign of a slowly improving job market.  Claims fell by 10,000 in the week ending May 29 from the previous week's downwardly revised figure of 463,000, the Labor Department said.

Most analysts had expected claims to fall to 450,000.  Whatever, it's clear that the labor market will be healing rather slowly.  This long, slow recovery is reason to stay personally watchful.  Watch your company's strategy results.  Pay attention to your company's basic financials.  Above all, pay attention to what's happening in your industry and especially your chief competitors.  With this information you can make decisions about your future and especially the kind of learning for your toolkit that will be best.

Once again, here's Mark Zandi's astute analysis:  Only when claims head down to 400,000 will the economy be creating enough jobs to maintain stable unemployment.  Closer to 350,000 will lower the unemployment rate and mean that the recovery is evolving into an expansion.  When we get to initial weekly unemployment claims of 300,000, boom times are back.

Although there are numerous economists and pundits vying for attention, two have the track record as the best predictors: Mark Zandi and Larry Summers.  Periodically, if I fail to see comments on the economy from them I do a quick search to check to see whether they have new insights.  In today's world you really need to keep up unless, that is, you want to end up on the streets.  Obviously, BP is not helping the situation.

 

So, College Grad, Do You Really Think You're Going to Get a Job From Social Networking? Guess Again.

I've set my title question up for the obvious answer.  NO!  I was not surprised to see research supporting that conclusion.  An MSNBC blogger, Eve Tahmincioglu, says that CareerXroads, a staffing and recruiting company, found that less than 1% of external hires--including positions filled by people who are not in-house--could be attributed to social media sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.  (Ummm. I post on Twitter and Facebook, and have a largely ignored my site on LinkedIn.)

Sandi Guy, parner and national director of human capital at BDO, the major accounting firm, says they use social media merely as supplementary to their recruiting processes. She recommends the following: 

• Go directly to company websites to get information about firms and apply for jobs.
• Post your resume on job boards.
• Take advantage of campus recruiting efforts.
• Join associations and go to events.
• Have a page on social networking sites such as LinkedIn.

But, she says, if you have to cut one out of that list, the social media piece would be the least important.

Still, if your interest is in organizations that rely heavily on social media such as marketing, public relations or the media, some suggest you should have a portfolio online.  One writer says that if you're looking for an IT or marketing job, involvement in social media or blogging is a definite plus.  Maybe, but no research supporting that notion either.  I wouldn't ignore social media sites, but I'd not get caught up in the media hype or even the personal branding hype.  When it comes to branding as part of your job search credential, remember that it's the customer who creates your brand, not you.  You may want to check out my non-conventional blog on that subject here: Second thoughts on personal branding.

Why do you think the return from social networking is so limited?  Here's my take.  First of all, nothing beats the face-to-face network.  Admittedly, most graduate from college without having developed a quality network and that's your real disadvantage.  Networking studies show that the best jobs nearly always come from network relationships (face-to-face).  Think about it, if you have something of importance and want something from someone, you're not going to get it from a letter or email.  At least the possibility of that kind of success is seriously limited.  It's like direct mail on phone or web.  I hang up or delete immediately.  Pathetic return on investment. 

As a consultant, for example, I rarely use the email for more than 3 sentences.  Social media, in my mind, is little more than interactive email.  If something is important, I won't even use the phone.  I always set up a face-to-face appointment.  And if necessary, I'll get on the plane to see the person.  It tells the other person that he/she is very important.  It's also the only way we have for gaining real commitment, feedback, insight or collaboration.  I want to be able to recognize those non-verbals so I can get a sense of what's really happening, and respond intelligently to make my case.  In any setting other than face-to-face, the other guy has nearly complete control and I can't really engage.  Electronic media and phone make it possible for the other guy to filter everything out.  It's like the very expensive public relations and advertising materials from 25 years go.  It's really just a waste of money and time.  I get all my business by word of mouth and reputation.  And that's the best way to get a job.

Here's the original post on MSNBC.com.  Social networking seldom gets new grads hired.