EXCELLENCE THROUGH COLLABORATION -- IT'S MONEY IN THE BANK
(July/August 2004 Issue)

If our job is to have our candidates land their new jobs in a relatively short time, I'd say we all have huge room for improvement. In our industry, our placement/success statistics are not impressive. They're practically nonexistent, first of all; if they do exist, they're in sloppy formats, and often not in a form able to be readily disclosed. In addition, many private practitioners don't stick with their candidates through to the end -- and thus never know how their searches turn out. They wind them up, and send them off to get run over in the cruel streets of the job campaign.

Only two people I know of did much research into the real-life effectiveness/results of our work, Robert G. Wegmann and Robert B.Chapman. Their work, done in the mid-80s, wasn't pretty. All they could find was a set of confusing, unreliable data -- when there was any data at all; it showed no solid evidence that coaching did candidates much more good than going it alone. It is interesting that the biggest key income-producing function of everyone's life is so poorly researched. I'm not well versed in the research area, so if any of you readers know of any good studies out there, I'd be curious to learn about them.

But you don't need research statistics to know how tough it is. Ask yourself: Out of 10 people you work with, how many score a great job in ten weeks or less? Six months or less! Think of how many clients you're frustrated with. They are a mirror to your own development needs. After 25 years in this work, I'm still awestruck at how I can be working for months with a candidate, then overhear at a cocktail party about another bloke who's getting exactly the job my client wants. How did my candidate lose that race?

In an effort to understand this phenomenon, I've begun informally to group my clients in categories. I call mine Eagles, Swans, Ducks, Chickens and Turkeys. Eagles and Swans seem to be snapped up as soon as they hit the market; they don't hire me or need me much. Turkeys are turkeys; they're beyond the scope of advisors' abilities to make a significant difference. The people we work with are Ducks and Chickens: hardworking non-hot-shot candidates. My job is to help them compete and win over other ducks and chickens. Sometimes I wonder: is there more training that would shorten their search and boost their result quotient? Think about it. Aren't we really peddling stale, old-fashioned consulting?

RESUMES: This is an ancient tool, hardly equipped to handle the complexity of a modern job/career campaign. Sure, we make a better than average "results oriented" and attractive resume, but I wonder, shouldn't we -- if we're really top notch -- have a better alternative? And even with this one as it is... do we actually do better than "Resumes for Dummies"? Aren't we telling our candidates to do what everyone else has written about anyway? Where do we offer a competitive edge?

NETWORKING: Here's a Golden Calf we worship! Once you've uttered the platitude... "Networking is the best way to find a job," what new approach do you have to offer? How many career advisors can really put laser-like intention to their candidates' networking? How many think all networking interviews are alike and don't even know there are three phases in the networking process, and that the interview content, objective, and target people change as a job search campaign matures? How many can show their clients how to get hiring decision makers to want to see them?

FOCUS: Fully 70 per cent of my clients still want to know, "What should I be when I grow up?" Sure, some tests can point, generally, to sales, or marketing, or social work, etc. But coming up with a real focus, including industries, functions, duties, career path -- isn't that still an art, not a science? I haven't met anyone with a reliable, duplicable, teachable method to identify this critical issue.

HIDDEN JOB MARKET: We love the statistic, "75 per cent of jobs are never advertised or listed with placement agencies." But can you get every client you work with to understand this, understand why it's so, and understand how to turn "hidden" jobs into real paychecks? One of our career-advising claims to fame is that we help people penetrate the hidden job market. Are you really successful at weaning them off help-wanted ads until those ads are actually 10 per cent or less of their job search effort?

SALARY NEGOTIATIONS: When you get right down to it, the only reason we go to work (vs. volunteering) is money. Does every candidate you work with have their response to "What were you earning in your last job?" down pat? Do you know how to coach their negotiations so you're sure they don't leave money on the table?

REJECTION: Careers, I assert, is the one domain where we experience the most and the most intense rejection of our lives. True personal rejection. You are not wanted! Not to be consoled with the love-life thought "Well, it's not that s/he doesn't love me... it's that s/he's just not 'in love' with me." There's always another lover; there's not always another job. Nope. "I've got one position and five candidates. Four of you will be rejected. We don't want you." How adept are we at getting people past the pain, discouragement, and fear-of-rejection that stops so many campaigns. "Go out there and win one for the Gipper" is not enough.

INTERNET: Ok, Ok, sure, Monster.com is part of the 25% published openings and we want our clients to mostly work the UNpublished job market. But Monster and its relatives are not to be neglected, either. Are you savvy about formats, key words, broadcasting methods, listing methods? Do you know how to use the chat feature to double/triple your networking results compared to cocktail-chatter style networking at association meetings and conferences?

OTHER AREAS: Job interviewing, getting to decision makers behind a help-wanted ad, efficient researching of target companies, getting around the hundreds of sticking points…there's no end to the depth and breadth of career advising competence you can acquire.

HOW? Team up. There's no way you can grow if you're all alone. There's no way your unique piece of the job search methodology puzzle will ever be widespread unless you interact with others and share what you know. I believe every career advisor should belong to a mastermind team, professional peers whom you respect and who are pledged to keep each other on the cutting edge of their field. Read all about mastermind groups in Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich -- the seminal classic of the personal growth field. The broader your competence the faster your results... The faster your results, the more referrals and recommendations you'll get. That all adds up to less time, more money, higher referrals – a thriving private practice. That way you'll personally model the career satisfaction and success your clients want for themselves, and thereby become an even more powerful magnet for clients. To have a thriving private practice, you must "sharpen the saw," as Steven Covey would say. And -- to extend the analogy -- you want a saw that is sharp enough to be on the cutting edge of your field. Find a way to work intensively with your peers in a mastermind group. It pays off in many ways -- including money in the bank.

Jack Chapman is author of:
Negotiating Your Salary: How to Make $1000 a Minute
He is a career consultant in private practice and runs ongoing support and training teleconference sessions for career consultants in private practice.
He can be reached at 847-251-4727 or jkchapman@aol.com