2012/06/03

The Best Way to Land a Job? It's Still Word of Mouth By Chris Farrell on May 31, 2012


The Best Way to Land a Job? It's Still Word of Mouth
Photograph by Mike Powell/Getty Images

Jobs

The Best Way to Land a Job? It's Still Word of Mouth

By  on May 31, 2012
 
Chris_farrell
The college commencement speeches are mostly over. The diplomas are handed out. The parties are winding down. The deadline for repaying student loans looms. Newly minted college graduates are looking for employment, pounding their keyboards and working their mobile phones. Although the job market is slowly mending, it remains grim for young college graduates. The unemployment rate for graduates aged 21 to 24 averaged 9.4 percent over the past year (ending in March 2012), while the underemployment rate was a steep 19.1 percent, according to calculations by the Economic Policy Institute.
Unexploited young talent is disturbing enough. Yet employers consistently say they can’t find qualified workers for open positions. Take ManpowerGroup’s (MAN) seventh annual Talent Shortage Survey.
The employment behemoth surveyed more than 1,300 employers, and 49 percent of them said they were experiencing difficulty filling jobs within their organizations. At the same time, many college graduates aren’t finding the kind of work that builds a career. For example, only two in 10 surveyed college graduates saw their first job as setting them on a career path, according to Chasing the American Dream: Recent College Graduates and the Great Recession. The report from the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University notes that nearly two-thirds of the graduates said their jobs were weakly related at best to their field of study in college.
The experience of stumbling about for jobs and a career path is familiar to anyone who graduated during the recessions of the mid-’70s, early ’80s, and even the beginning of the ’90s. Yet since the 1970s, access to information has exploded. Want to research the job market in the 1960s? Google it. Eager to find a community that shares your enthusiasm for indie rock? Spend time on Facebook (FB). According to the McKinsey Global Institute, for less than $600 you can buy a disk drive with the capacity to store the world’s music. Surely, it should be slam-dunk easy to match potential employees with potential employers considering the expansion of the Internet, powerful search engines, vast social media networks, and Big Data. Apparently not. “We find that in the U.S., information about work and jobs is relatively hard to come by for someone seeking employment,” says James Manyika, director of the McKinsey Global Institute. Adds Adam Cobb, professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania: “The best way to get a job now is the same as in the ’70s and the ’80s—word of mouth.”
A major impact of technology seems somewhat perverse. The barriers to applying for a job have fallen sharply. Once a résumé is created, job seekers can submit hundreds of applications online with zero or minimal extra cost. Companies have responded with crude filtering devices to cut through their overcrowded in-boxes. Taken altogether, it’s a frustrating, toxic mix for both sides of the online employment equation. Says Wharton’s Cobb: “What all of the technological advancements have not done is to overcome the primary barrier to getting a job—which, from the employer’s standpoint, is being able to answer, ‘What type of worker will the applicant be?’”
Many colleges and universities are trying to build better career centers, with mixed success. Graduating students seem to have little idea what kind of jobs are expanding and where the career opportunities lie. Employers are struggling to grasp the qualification of applicants. Training standards and education benchmarks vary greatly throughout the country. A medical research company in the Twin Cities might have a nuanced sense of the abilities of a graduate from Saint Paul College, a community and technical college in St. Paul, Minn. What about an applicant from Glendale Community College in Glendale, Ariz., or Northeast State Community College in Blountsville, Tenn.? “When looking at someone from an elite school with a 4.0, employers know what they’re getting,” says McKinsey’s Manyika. “It’s not the case with many community colleges, for example.”
For the most part, technological advancements don’t help people get a foot in the door. What does matter is a recommendation and personal assessment. A large body of academic research shows that half or more of all jobs come through informal channels—connections to friends, families, and colleagues—according to Limited Network Connections and the Distribution of Wages by Kenneth J. Arrow of Stanford University and Ron Borzekowski of the Federal Reserve Board. “Character is a big deal,” says Art Rolnick, co-director for the Human Capital Research Collaborative at the University of Minnesota. “Character references are always big, and the Internet doesn’t change that.”
Yet much more can be done to improve the flow of information between hirers and hirees. The folks at the McKinsey Global Institute, ACT, the Iowa-based educational nonprofit, and others are calling for much more. On the one hand, how about creating a national database—from welders to medical technicians to software programmers—showing which jobs are in demand locally and nationally. On the other hand, marry that initiative with national standards for certifying the skills of college graduates for potential employees.
Digital technology is transforming many aspects of our society and economy. Websites such as Monster.com (MWW) and LinkedIn (LNKD) are focusing on the jobs and networks. Advances in information technology have made it much easier for job applicants to research companies, track trends, and glean insights. Still, the promise of information technology for playing matchmaker between employers and employees has been just that—a tantalizing promise. Public and private investments in better job information and standardized credentials could go a long way toward narrowing the job gap.

如何改變台灣苦勞經濟?

































最近產業界都談韓國的國力增長與三星的競爭力,以及對台灣產業政
策,方向,競爭力的憂慮和批評. 




有的說產學政策脫軌言,有的也說台灣要如何學習韓國三星, 也有老闆批評
台灣教育及業界沒有一個創新的教育和思維.

每個殺手級的成功產品都源於一個生態系統.
是環境及文化情境成就了成功的產品, 不是只有個人. 




蘋果,三星都是一個Eco-system的產物. 不是一個人或一個老闆,一個xx搞的
出來的.

肯定的是,從以前到現在,台灣絕對不是一個創新的經濟體, 我給台灣的

產業取了一個名子叫"苦勞經濟體". "苦勞經濟生態系統", "苦勞商業模式",
以忠實反應這樣的生活狀態.

這樣的工作型態承伴隨的是工時長,薪資不高或停滯不前,壓力大, 過勞,暴

肝,無薪假. 




對照現在台灣經濟處境,像不像?


;但是,什麼是創新,創意的生活?


到底要怎麼創新?  怎麼做? 怎麼都沒有講清楚? 


觀察這些相關言論抱怨多,卻沒解藥.

創新的生活,簡言之,就是一個健康的生活



生活不正常,常常工作到深夜, 要怎麼創新,創作?

"創造力"

能讓人比較快樂,比較有彈性, 比較少焦慮,比較能平和的去面對困難
解決問題.
的確,工作壓力會把人消耗怠盡. 請問都過勞,暴肝,被Fire 嘞還談什麼創


新?

"熱情"
其實是一種心理能量, 心境上的保護膜, 可以讓工作更持久, 不會讓
人厭惡工作.

而"想像力"和"創造力"是一種"目的感".

如果缺少這種創意的感覺, 就不太可能有同理心了. 這是一種情境 一種企

業文化,一種社會集體的氣氛




沒有這樣的同理心, 其後果就是各人只會炫燿你的財富,崇拜別人的財富,交
一堆損友,盲目追求物慾和空想... 其後果將在人生中浪費生命. 媒體也只會
以這樣的角度來評價一個人的價值.


言淺意深, "心靈空虛請問要怎麼創新和創作"?
真的要摸摸良心問問自己,是否樂在工作?



是否願意少賺點錢卻能得到更多真正的快樂?


當沒工作時, 是否還能追隨你心中的熱情或理想?
你的真正的熱情和夢想是什麼?


還是你已經工作成癮, 只知道一直努力工作, 一直努力工作, 上班下班上班
下班,其他乏善可陳?


創新的路徑沒有規則,也沒有捷徑;


但是可以有一些忠告讓我們知道如何有一個有創意的生活方式.

這些建議,我目前在台灣的各種產業政策報導中所沒見過卻很有理的.
1. 閉嘴,停止批評,責備;  要
觀照內心
一針見血直指台灣目前最大問題, 不管是證所稅, 油電雙漲,產業
問題, 產學脫鉤...幾乎皆適用.

傾聽內心的聲音真的很重要, 創新需要一種內在的精神紀律.

內在的能量真的可以有很多生產和產出. 
電影大師費里尼有句話:" 夢是唯一的現實"
內心產出的作品,可以有很多有價值有意義的東西.

2. 相信自己及自己的願景, 

要對自己的理想和企圖心做個自我宣告. 宣示追
求自己的夢想.

3. 持續學習,終身學習. 永遠保持一種好奇心.
這點比較無疑問, 大老闆應該都講過.

但學習的對象就不限課堂內外了. 不是只說死 K書這事.  
是要去尋良師亦友, 這道理古代就有了.
重點是, 依據主題尋良師; 而不是坐在教室裡打鐘上課考試的那種老師. 

4. 重新定義失敗,及失敗的循環.
一句俗語, '勝敗乃兵家常事' . 像個循環週期. 


要從失敗中學習到教訓與經驗; 從成功裡學不到東西.

5. 要會玩!!

玩中可以的到很多創新, 想像, 想法. 
散步,運動,接觸大自然,學畫畫,聽音樂,攝影,當志工...都不錯.
學習接納聆聽不同的意見和文化. 

多去旅行,長見識. 接觸不同文化,平衡自己的傾向和觀點.

6. 專注於自我反省.  定期自檢.
7. 仍是要一步一腳印. 腳踏實地. 為夢想規劃時程.
的確,以上是台灣產業其企業中缺少的DNA.
如何營造一個創新的環境, 創新導向的社會,創新的文化及企業精神?

反覆看這字裡行間 應有所感. 也許所言還不完整,但皆是調整國家體質的良
藥.


有了這樣的生態系統, 才會有創意作出創新的產品, 才有脫離苦勞經濟的一


天. 

A creative life is a healthy life

最近媒體及產業界都談到韓國三星的競爭力,以對台灣的產業政策,方向,競爭力都有所批評. 有的說產學政策脫軌言,有的也說台灣要如何學習韓國三星, 也有老闆批評台灣教育及業界沒有一個創新的教育和思維.

每個殺手級的成功產品都源於一個生態系統.

是環境成就了成功的產品, 不是個人. 蘋果,三星都是一個Eco system的產物. 不是一個人或一個老闆,一個xx搞的出來的.

肯定的是,從以前到現在,台灣絕對不是一個創新的經濟體, 我自己給台灣的產業取了一個名子叫"苦勞經濟體", "苦勞經濟生態系統".


這樣的工作型態承伴隨的是工時長,薪資不高或停滯不前,壓力大, 過勞,無薪假. 對照現在台灣經濟處境,像不像?


但是,什麼是創新,創意的生活?

到底要怎麼創新?  怎麼做? 怎麼都沒有講清楚?

其實,創新的生活,簡言之,就是一個正常的生活,

不需什麼理由解釋說明; 生活不正常,常常工作到深夜, 要怎麼創新,創作?

創造力能讓人比較快樂,比較有彈性, 比較少焦慮,比較能平和的去面對困難解決問題.


工作的壓力會把人消耗怠盡.


熱情是一種心理能量, 心境上的保護膜, 可以讓工作更持久, 不會讓人厭惡工作.

想像力和創造力是一種"目的感".

如果缺少這種創意的感覺, 就不太可能有同理心了.

沒有這樣的同理心, 其後果就是炫燿個人財富,崇拜他人財富,交一堆損友,盲目追求物慾和空想. 其後果將在人生中浪費生命.

言淺意深, 心靈空虛請問要怎麼創新和創作?

真的要摸摸良心問問自己,是否樂在工作?

是否願意少賺點錢卻能得到更多真正的快樂?

當失業時, 是否還能追隨你心中的熱情或理想?

還是你已工作成癮, 只知道一直努力工作, 一直努力工作, 其他
乏善可陳?

創新的路徑沒有規則,也沒有捷徑;

但是可以有一些忠告讓我知道如何有一個有創意的生活方式.

這些建議是我目前在台灣的各種產業政策報導中所沒見過卻很有理的.


1. 閉嘴,停止批評,責備. 觀照內心


這點真是一針見血直指台灣目前最大問題,  不管是證所稅, 油電雙漲,產業問題, 產學脫鉤...幾乎皆適用.
傾聽內心的聲音真的很重要, 創新需要一種內在的精神紀律.

2. 相信自己及自己的願景, 要對自己的理想和企圖心做個自我宣告. 宣示追求自己的夢想.


3. 持續學習,終身學習. 永遠保持一種好奇心.


這點比較無疑問, 大老闆應該都講過.
但學習的對象就不限課堂內外了.  尋良師亦友, 這道理古代就有了.  重點是, 依據主題尋良師; 而不是坐在教室裡打鐘上課的那種老師.

4. 重新定義失敗,及失敗的循環.


一句俗語, '勝敗乃兵家常事' . 像個循環週期.
要從失敗中學習到教訓與經驗; 從成功裡學不到東西.

5. 要會玩!!


玩中可以的到很多創新 想像 和想法. 散步,運動,接觸大自然,學畫畫,聽音樂,攝影,當志工...都是.

學習接納聆聽不同的意見和文化. 

多去旅行,長見識. 接觸不同文化,平衡自己的傾向和觀點.

6. 專注於自我反省.  定期自檢.


7. 一步一腳印. 腳踏實地


的確,以上是台灣產業及企業中普遍缺少的DNA.


如何營造一個創新的環境, 創新導向的社會,創新的文化及企業精神? 反覆看這字裡行間 應有所感.

有了這樣的生態系統, 才有脫離苦勞經濟的一天. 

The importance of belonging



By Amanda Enayati, Special to CNN
June 1, 2012 -- Updated 2211 GMT (0611 HKT)
Writing the story of your experiences may help you cope with stress, researchers say.
Writing the story of your experiences may help you cope with stress, researchers say.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Social belonging is a fundamental human need
  • Research: One instance of exclusion can undermine well-being, IQ test performance
  • Study enlists subjects as experts to help "others" going through difficulty
Editor's note: Columnist Amanda Enayati ponders the theme of seeking serenity, the quest for well-being and life balance in stressful times.
(CNN) -- You are not alone.
You belong.
And it gets better.
These are a few of a handful of powerful messages that an elegantly designed "belonging intervention" by social psychologist and Stanford assistant professor Gregory Walton conveys to study participants who are going through a difficult period.
In a series of ongoing studies, first published in 2007 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the belonging intervention uses a technique known as "attributional retraining" to help people shift blame for negative events from "It's just me" to "I'm not alone, and there are others going through it."
The goal is to convey to the subjects that when bad things happen, it doesn't mean they don't belong in general.
Why is this important?
"We don't have a word for the opposite of loneliness, but if we did, I could say that's what I want in life." So began a stunning meditation by Marina Keegan, a 22-year-old Yale graduate who died in a tragic car accident May 26.
What is the opposite of loneliness? Is it belonging?
Because as humans, we need to belong. To one another, to our friends and families, to our culture and country, to our world.
Belonging is primal, fundamental to our sense of happiness and well-being.
Belonging is a psychological lever that has broad consequences, writes Walton. Our interests, motivation, health and happiness are inextricably tied to the feeling that we belong to a greater community that may share common interests and aspirations.
Isolation, loneliness and low social status can harm a person's subjective sense of well-being, as well as his or her intellectual achievement, immune function and health. Research shows that even a single instance of exclusion can undermine well-being, IQ test performance and self-control.
Walton's earlier studies demonstrated that a sense of social belonging can affect motivation and continued persistence, even on impossible tasks. That is, if you don't feel like you belong, you are both less motivated and less likely to hang in there in the face of obstacles.
Even outside a research setting, these are valuable lessons we can all draw from as we navigate life's difficult circumstances. Though Walton's research has involved only students, his work has powerful implications for the workplace and other contexts.
According to Rajita Sinha, the head of Yale's Stress Center, stress itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But stress that is sustained, uncontrollable and overwhelming, in which people can't figure out options to solve their problems, wreaks havoc on us.
Walton's belonging intervention has the potential to downgrade uncontrollable stress by allowing people to put a narrative around their traumatic experiences.
It places those experiences in a box, he says, "with a beginning, a middle and an end. As a consequence, the meaning of the negative experience is constrained, and people understand that when bad things happen, it's not just them, they are not alone, and that it's something that passes."
So what exactly does the belonging intervention involve?
In a broad sense, storytelling.
Walton and his colleagues enlist the study subjects as experts to help "others" who may be similarly situated and going through a difficult time.
The researchers provide subjects with statistics, quotations and stories from upperclassmen about their experiences -- how they struggled at first but eventually got through it -- and ask participants to use that information to write about getting through their own difficulties and how it gets better.
The participants, who believe they are writing for the next generation of incoming freshmen -- an audience many of them relate to and care about -- begin to engage with the material and use it to reflect on their own experiences, ultimately coming to the conclusion that no matter how bad they feel, they are not alone.
This is particularly powerful in settings where people have a looming alternative explanation, as in the case of minorities, women and gay youth.
Even though the belonging intervention is a mere 45 minutes, its outcomes have proved to be significant and lasting. In Walton's studies, the intervention increased subjects' happiness, improved their health and reduced cognitive activation of negative stereotypes for several years after the initial intervention. It also prevented them from taking many daily adversities personally and interpreting them to mean that they didn't belong in general.
Walton's research has had a particularly dramatic effect on students' achievement, especially for minority students and women in overwhelmingly male-dominated majors, who may suffer from the dreaded minority achievement gap: the disparity in academic performance that often persists between minority and disadvantaged students and their white counterparts. That may be because these groups, who may traditionally feel more marginalized and less valued, may more readily attribute difficult circumstances to their minority identities and a sense of not belonging.
In one study involving African-American and white college freshmen in a predominantly white university, the intervention, delivered in the first year of college, changed the trajectory of minority students' achievement by steadily improving their grades all the way through senior year. Over the three-year observation period, the African-American students who took part in the study had higher grade-point averages relative to multiple control groups, and the minority achievement gap overall was reduced by a dramatic 50%.
The study participants' change in social construal -- people's perception and interpretation of the world -- was key to this success. During the first week after the intervention in freshman year, students were asked each day about the good and bad events that happened to them and how they felt they belonged at that time. Walton found that the intervention reduced the degree to which students correlated bad days with not belonging by providing them with a nonthreatening framework for interpreting daily challenges.
In a second study involving women in a predominantly male engineering setting, the intervention increased women's ability to handle daily stressors. They had higher and more stable self-esteem and developed more friendships with their male colleagues.
The idea of writing for others versus themselves is important because it steers study subjects away from the sense that the belonging intervention is remedial. "We are not telling people that 'we think you need help, and here is the help we are going to give you,' " says Walton.
Walton observes that in general, people are misinformed about the state of others like them.
"We often operate from very biased information. We have our own experience and can only see others from the outside. Many of us are having these same difficulties, but no one is showing it, and so we can feel isolated and depressed."
It is in those circumstances that you may wish to wield a pen, to reflect upon and write the story of your experiences. Even rewrite your story, perhaps. Place it within a larger framework. Give it a beginning, a middle and a hopeful end.
And recall some powerful truths about being human:
It's not just you.
We are all struggling in one way or another.
Do not judge your insides by other people's outsides.
"It's not quite love," Keegan wrote, "and it's not quite community; it's just this feeling that there are people, an abundance of people, who are in this together."
And so we are.

閱讀地圖

歷史上人為書而瘋狂, 但現實裡, 愛書的人仍有但是越來越難尋. 一切知識的傳播都是靠書, 書靠印刷術的發明的普及與傳播. 書,權勢的權力還是在讀者, 有讀者,書才會有意義..