Dan Erwin

Unemployment Claims DOWN for the Week Ending November 20

To the great surprise of nearly everyone in government and economics, initial unemployment claims went way down last week.  The adjusted figure was 407,000.  That's a whopping 34,000 fewer than the previous week.  There were 542,492 initial claims in the comparable week in 2009.  Now that's significant.

Typically, I would be skeptical of these figures this time of the year, considering them to be a response to holiday hiring.  But most importantly, the Department of Labor said nothing about the typical Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday.  Instead, it looks as though many firms are cutting back on layoffs.  That's real good news.

Again, it's important not to pay too much attention to a single week.  So it's appropriate to be cautious about those figures for several more weeks.  Remember from previous analyses that Mark Zandi is probably the best predictor (along with Larry Summers) of the economy and has written on numerous occasions that initial unemployment claims is the best statistic for the state of the economy. 

Again, the statistical summary from Zandi can be interpreted in this fashion:  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.

 

However, I've also noticed that there is an emerging consensus on the part of most of the leading economists of all stripes that by the middle of next year the economy should be on the way upward. 

One of the more intriguing insights I've gained over the past couple weeks is that economies that are doing well, especially Germany and China, build their domestic product out of exports.  In striking contrast, the U.S. economy builds its domestic product out of internal consumerism.  If you've got more insight on that issue, I'd appreciate your comment, and even some references.

There is also an exceedingly thoughtful article in the latest Fortune  on the highly influential Jim Chanos--the guy who called the Enron bust early on--who's betting that China's economy is about to implode in a spectacular real estate bust.  Although emotionally, there are a few who'd like to see China slow down, or even fail, a real estate bust and its aftermath would hurt a lot more than the Chinese.

Whatever, the economic news ought to support Thanksgiving shopping and make for a Merry Christmas for all.

Most Enjoyable Quotes of the Week--On the TSA Body Scan

These quotes from today's NYTImes made my Thanksgiving morning and brought a huge laugh.

“If it’s going to keep me and others safe, I’m all for it,” said the Rev. George Oberle, a Lutheran minister who said he had gladly submitted his body for a scan on his way to New York from Detroit. “I’m 50,” he said. “I’m proud of what I’ve got.”

“We’ve had 10 years to be desensitized; I’m not sure why people are freaking out now,” said Dr. Janice Manjuck, 50, a physician from San Francisco who was traveling with her husband and 11-year-old son to Norfolk, Va. Dr. Manjuck said she doubted the efficacy of the pat-downs and body scanners, but did not particularly object to them."

“We’ve got terrorists coming over wearing explosives in their clothing,” said Jason Moody, a 34-year-old X-ray technician in the Army, who was reading a novel during a layover in San Francisco. “The T.S.A. did not just dream this up.”

Joe Murphy, 76, a retired consultant who was flying to Washington, was not impressed.  “Protesters?” he asked. “There were more people selling tickets to my grandson’s high school football game.”

And then, of course, this: “We’re from San Francisco, so we’re used to nudity.”

- - - - - -

Ruth Marcus' article in yesterday's Washington Post eviscerated the issue:  "Don't touch my junk?  Grow up America."

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Does Social Media Make You Anti-Social?

Well . . . No.  And yes.  The issue surfaces regularly in management situations.  It sounds like this:  "This guy is great with social media, software and applications.  He knows how to work online with other people.  He understands social networking.  But get him or her in front of people and it's a disaster.  So I can't promote him.  Get him out of the cubicle and he's lost.  He doesn't know how to read people."

In what seems to be a rejection of the above, Penelope Trunk makes the point that Gen-Yers are better communicators than the rest of the generations.   She supports her idea with research from Stanford writing classes.  The research finds that texting and tweeting makes them better communicators.  It teaches them rhetorical adaptability, the ability to make adjustments to their "reading" audience.  All well and good.  And obviously true.  I'd have to be brain dead not to realize that Gen-Yers are better at electronic communication and that the near instant feedback teaches them quickly adjust their messages.  But Penelope pushes the envelope too far in arguing that they're better at face-to-face communication than their elders.  Better?  I doubt it.  Equal to?  On some occasions, perhaps. 

But a very important issue that both Penelope and the research on writing skills omit is the high impact of the nonverbal.  The research is about written rhetoric, not about oral rhetoric.  In distinct contrast, research on oral communication indicates that more than 90% of face-to-face communication is nonverbal.  That includes the impact of context, verbal tone, posture, gesture and eye contact.  And it's all those nonverbal messages that take a lot of time to learn.  You can text from now to doomsday and you won't learn, for example, what silence in a given conversation means.  I've watched people lose their jobs as a result of the simple failure to understand silence in a given context.  And when you ask, you're asking for trouble, unless you know how to ask in a way that doesn't evoke defensiveness.  And to be blunt, it's hard enough to learn what the real questions are in your thirties and forties, much less in your twenties.  It's even more difficult to learn how to ask those questions effectively in a face-to-face situation when a lot is riding on the answers.     

I'm not a Luddite.  I think texting and tweeting are great.  I do it myself.  Gen-Yers are inherently superior at it than the other generations.  Keep it up!  But don't get fooled.  On its own, it's horribly inadquate.  If you want to succeed in today's world, you're going to need world-class expertise in a new rhetorical technology: SMART TALK.  Effective talk that's face-to-face and can manage both the verbal AND the nonverbal.  The demands of new contexts put people in situations they wouldn't have dreamed of just 15 years ago.  As a result, I spend days and weeks teaching Gen-Yers, Gen-Xers and even Boomers how to manage face-to-face in today's complex, complicated and volatile world.

Does social media make you anti-social?  NOPE.  It's just plainly inadequate for the demands of the 21st century.

A Question from the Middle East: "How Do I Improve My Business Writing Skills

The other day I received a question from one of my readers in the Middle East. He's a Gen-Yer with an MBA for whom English is not his first language. He'd found that in professional life writing skills matter a lot and was very keen to develop those skills. He went on to say that he was always very impressed and attracted by outstanding emails or articles written by professional personnel. He knew that one could not learn those formats and writing skills overnight, but wondered whether I could give him some tips for improving his writing. Here's my response to his question.

_________________________

You're absolutely correct.  It takes a lot of time to learn to write more effectively, especially in a second language.  But, since English is the world's business language, it will stand you good stead to learn how to write well in English.   (As an aside, I was surprised to learn just yesterday that more Chinese are studying English than the entire 300 million population of the U.S.--so they'll have more opportunity in the business world.) 

Improving writing skills  

Here's what I'd do to improve your business writing.  If possible, start with several native English speakers in your firm, preferably at your level or one level above, who would be willing to give you feedback on your writing.  If you can't find native English speakers, look for several who write well.  I suggest coaches at your level or slightly above because if you get people who are too high above you in the hierarchy, they may not understand the level of detail you need.  (An important rule for accessing coaches and mentors is to remember that the higher we get in an organization, generally the more difficult it is to give feedback to someone with lesser experience.  Higher level managers tend to give information in more abstract form and forget the necessary details.)  Get several coaches, if possible.  Few business managers will take a lot of time with someone.  But if you ask for occasional input, they'll help.  That's why several coaches are an advantage.  Remember this rule: your mentor (or coach) is a network, not an individual. (I weigh in on that subject in a blog here: http://tiny.ly/mVT6.)  You'll need to figure out how to pay your coaches back.  I'm not talking about repayment in the form of money, but I'll write about that in the future.  

Gaining feedback

Show your coaches a few paragraphs of what you're writing and ask what you've done well, and what needs to be written better.  And listen, listen, listen!  Then follow with a paraphrase:  "so what you're saying is that I need to . . . ?"  And listen some more until you're certain you understand.  Pay attention to what your coach says you're doing well,  and keep doing that.  But also pay attention to what you need to do better.  Ask your coaches to give you examples of what to write if you corrected those one or two small errors.   Keep track of the feedback, watching for just 2 – 3 recurring errors you make.  Work for a month or so on correcting those two or three errors, and ignore the rest of the issues.  Then go back and get feedback to find out if you've corrected those errors.  If so, celebrate.  If not, go back to the drawing boards and continue working on those few errors until you've internalized the correction.  Over the long term, you'll be able to develop what one writer calls "strategic patience"—a very important characteristic of the best learners.  

Rules for effective learning

When you start to add writing skills, it's important to understand that one of the major mistakes most of us make is to take on objectives that are too big.  Research shows that the best way to learn is through feedback and a strategy I call "chunking."  Chunking is the process of breaking a skill up into small bits and perfecting those small bits before moving on to more.  It's a micro form of what's called "small wins," a well-researched strategy for achieving important objectives over time.  I think of chunking as the process of taking baby steps to achieve a major breakthrough.  If you're searching for more information on chunking, Ignore the discussion in Wikipedia.  That's not exactly what I'm talking about.   

Chunking

To chunk is to take any behavior and break it out into small bits that you can master.  If, for example, you're trying to improve your golf game, you might spend an hour with a coach on the subject of putting or hitting long drives.  To chunk putting is to break that single skill into small bits.  You may simply work at keeping your body from moving when putting—the "hit and hold" technique.   Or you might chunk the putting for different lengths--2 feet, 3 feet or 8 feet—and so forth.  Practice without the coach, and then go back to the coach to have him assess your "hit and hold" technique or 2, 3 and 8 foot putts.  As a general rule, the smaller the chunk you're working on, the faster and more effective you become.  So think about chunking as "staggering baby steps."  Chunking is how you tap into the power of the multiplier effect.  Although I couldn't find a useful article on chunking, here's a swell discussion of small wins.  

It's important to read good business writers.  You might look at some of the writing on Harvard Business Blogs.  That writing has been edited and it can provide you with numerous examples of effective writing.  

This is what I do for my writing.  About once every three weeks I give my bright protégé (a 27 year-old college English major who works in finance) a blog to edit.  Sometimes he's ruthless with a red correction pen, but it's always marvelous stuff.  My friends tell me they could never deal with that much feedback.  I chuckle because I know that we really can't learn without practice AND feedback.  The research on expertise building and deliberate practice reveals that feedback is an absolute necessity for real growth.  Practice doesn't really make perfect without feedback.  So I can't express how valuable his input has been for me.

I really, really appreciate your occasional questions.  I'll be happy to respond. 

Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me.

"i looked the man in the eye.  I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.  I was able to get a sense of his soul."  Despite that seeming warmth between Putin and Russia and President Bush, the men did not go on to have a trusting and productive relationship.  And Bush was widely criticized for reading far too much into a seemingly meaninful exchange of eye contact.

When time is very short and we've had no previous relationships with a person, most of us tend to assume that what is communicated through words is all that matters.  The old proverb may well have been the result of that wrong-headed belief: "Fool me once, shame on you.  But fool me a second time, shame on me."   However, new research shows that like President Bush, it's very easy to fool ourselves--and a lot more than twice.  Studies reported in Harvard's December Negotiation Newsletter, asked how the facial expressions of the other person influences us--especially when we've had little relationship with that person.

Some participants were shown a picture of a smiling opponent, and others were shown a frowning, angry-looking opponent.  (The same person was depicted in both pictures, and unbeknownst to the participants, they were simply playing against a computer.) Some of the participants read a message in which their opponent (either smiling or frowning) stated that he wanted to cooperate in the upcoming game. Other participants read a message in which the same smiling or frowning opponent said he wanted to claim as much as he could for himself. 

The results showed that participants viewed the “happy” opponent to be more honest, reliable, and trustworthy than the “angry” opponent, regardless of his message.  As a result of this trust, the participants relied more on the happy opponent’s message than they did on the angry opponent’s message . . . .  A practice often to our disadvantage. 

As the study shows, it’s easy to misread both smiles and other facial nonverbals.  Happy emotions are an imperfect means of judging someone’s true state—and whether they can be trusted.  Think about the many occasions when a nice, friendly, smiling person ended up taking advantage of both you and the situation, all because you believed the facial nonverbal.  For example, you have a new colleague and initially he/she has a big smile in greeting you and sends all kinds of positive nonverbal.  Or, you’ve invited a vendor or a service person to consider for a project, either at work or home.  Don’t get taken in by the smiles or nice conversation in which he/she demonstrates interest in you.  Ironically, one of the best ways in which we attempt to preserve our self-esteem is to “surrender” to the other person and fail to check out the actions of the other before we make a decision on behalf of the other. 

There are immense research findings about this phenomenon.  Appropriately, it’s called self-handicapping.  We want to be seen as a nice guy and we want to believe the other person is a nice guy—especially when that person is all smiles.  But you may very well get suckered.  So what can you do to limit those failures? 

1. Be very aware of our bias to trust smiling, friendly people.
2. As much as possible when you’re engaged in first interactions with other people, prepare thoroughly for that interaction—and along the way, carefully analyze new information that surfaces.
3. Face-to-face meetings are always preferable to email, phone, or even video.  Often other sensory or nonverbal information can outweigh those personal biases.

One of my most impressive clients, a top executive at Ralston Purina, once told me that he always took his time about deciding whether he could trust a new employee or vendor, in spite of that employee's overt friendliness.  He wanted to be able to assess that person’s actions and performance in more depth.  How much time do you take, I wanted to know.  His response?  Two or three months!  That's great when you're in a situation of continuous interaction.  But sometimes, like when interviewing or negotiating, you only have a few minutes or an hour to decide whether you can trust another person. So be very careful.  Seeing is not necessarily the true test for believing.

 Research Abstract here:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.659/abstract     

Jobs Growth for October is Surprisingly Good, But "Not Good Enough."

Job growth accelerated in October to 151,000, largely in the private sector.  That's always good news.  Still, the unemployment rate remained at 9.6%.  This is the third month in a row showing some growth and slowly evolving strength.  Of course, the stock market, as usual, is ahead of jobs growth. 

But once more, how do you make sense of the jobs growth and unemployment claims?   The 4-week moving average was 456,000, an increase of 2,000 from the previous week's revised average of 454,000.  With those figures, it's obvious that the jobs growth is not good enough. 

Mark Zandi, who, aside from Larry Summers (I know some of you don't trust Summers, but in a study of accurate predictions by economists, Zandi and Summers continually lead the pack) tends to be the most the most astute and trustworthy economist today.  He understands that jobs are the biggest issue to most people.  So once more here's the interpretation of unemployment claims for filing away in your gray matter.

Zandi says that the most accurate and timely barometer of jobs and the economy is initial claims for unemployment insurance, a figure that's released every Thursday morning by the Labor Department.  You can get the information from the labor department here.   This indicator measures the number of people who go to unemployment offices and announce that they are out of work.

According to Zandi, here's how to make sense of the numbers.  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.

All of this is to say that it's the economy, stupid!

Quotation of the Week: Peter Orszag

 The notion that the president has all dials at his command that can just reduce the unemployment rate significantly if he just focused on the question is unfortunately not particularly realistic.

    --Peter Orszag, in an interview at The Council on Foreign Relations

Although it's popularly believed that a president can significantly manage employment for millions of workers, the facts on the ground are quite different.  The administration and the congress can actually do very little, and what they can do will be even more limited by congressional gridlock.  Policy can effect employment, but that's tough to deal with in a climate like this.

Orszag lays out what most economists have recommended, either offline or online.  He recommends more stimulus now, more deficit reducation enacted now that won't take effect for two or three years, and dialing down the tension between business and government.  Since the first two require legislative action, they're very unlikely to happen.  The popular myths determine legislative action, so the next year or two are going to be slow growth.

Alexandra Levit: If Something is Needed, Create It

 During this past year my colleague Alexandra Levit served on a national comittee to improve the competitiveness of American employees.  The result is a great new, interactive course for college grads. The course just launched on the web.  I've gone through part of it and know it will be exceptionally useful.  Here's Alexandra. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Those of you who have been reading my blog (AlexandraLevit.com) for a while may recall that I was a complete dud in my first corporate PR job.  My boss despised me and my colleagues thought I was overeager, and it took me two years to get a promotion that people with half my work ethic achieved in six months.

The second company that employed me kindly spent a few thousand dollars sending me to a professional development course that changed my career and my life.  I’d like to think that everything the course taught me about developing a strong reputation at work, being diplomatic with colleagues, and driving my career forward was a good investment since I was much more effective after that. 

The truth is, though, that not every college graduate has access to training like I had, and some really gifted people spend their post-college careers floundering because they aren’t given the chance to learn the skills and strategies that will meet with success.

I got tired of waiting for someone else to fix this problem, so I worked with the Business Roundtable, and Accenture to create JobSTART 101, a free online course that prepares college students to meet and exceed employer expectations when they enter the workforce.  It includes video and workbook components covering topics like how to establish your e-brand and how to problem-solve on the job – basically, all of the information I wish I’d had in my back pocket when I was just starting out.

If you’re a student or recent grad, I hope you’ll check it out for some decent advice, but more importantly, I hope each of you goes into work today and thinks about what’s sorely needed in your company and industry. And then if you can create it, go for it.  The world – and your career – will thank you for it.

Who Really Won the Election? Actually, Neither the Republicans Nor the Democrats.

I've been thinking about the election too long, but my fatigued gray matter surfaced one question yesterday before the results started coming in.  It's not a question I've ever considered before.  So my response--my opinion--is still tentative.  Yet, it's a question I think we all need to address. 

Who won the election?  Actually, the media won the election.  That, of course, means that the businesses which fund the media received payback for their investment.  It's my opinion that throughout this contest, more than in any other since Roosevelt, the media thoroughly controlled the conversation.  Media controls when it is able to structure the social reality.  And this session, it was very clear that TV, the web and print very clearly had control of reality.  They chose the dramas to emphasize and the players to downplay--or put in focus.  But especially, the media selected the conflicts of importance.  Their manipulation of these issues enabled them to achieve audience attention, and ultimately, create the realities which the population and the voters responded to. 

Factually, the issues were often highly deceptive, irrelevant, and not of significant priority.  I always anticipate that, but I was surprised by the amount of ignorance and/or ultimate irrelevance that was front and center in this contest.  More than ever, the public seemed swayed by the media.  I'm certain that was because of fears about the economy, the future of jobs and the future of our nation.  It always takes time for the public to understand when it (they?) have been had.  And I'm not certain how long it will take.  But eventually a major proportion of the population will get it.

I will be curious, however, to see how effective Obama will become from Clinton's tutoring in triangulating.  Republicans in control of the house and democrats in the senate can spell either gridlock, or some genuine activity of significance.  I suspect it'll be time for the Republicans to put up or shut up, and for the democrats to figure out whether they've still got some cojones.  In spite of the naysaying of the pundits and their commitment to gridlock, the country may not permit gridlock.  Too much fear is rampant.  One overall notion, however, may well be true about coming political campaigns.  The next few elections may swing back and forth drastically.  But rather than being helpful, those swings may well be detrimental.

You can laugh, but in the meantime, I'm removing CNN as my home page.  I'll try something less conflicted and irrelevant.  Perhaps the BBC.  Its news is far less sensational.  Well, what do you think about who won the election?  And what suggestions do you have for my home page?