Hi all -

I want to wish you the very best for a safe and happy New Years Eve and 2012. Thank you for following my blog this year, and for your ongoing support of my work and veterans in general.

Take good care and "talk" to you in 2012!

Best,

Emily

Recruiters: we need your perspective to help us understand. The dialogue that has unfolded over the last week since my blog post entitled, “Recruiters: are you part of the problem?” (http://militarytransitions.biz/blog/#blog140), has given a view into how some former military job seekers experience the civilian recruiting process. However, what’s missing from the dialogue is the recruiters’ point of view. Not in self-defense but in the spirit of learning about a key segment of the labor market and of building a bridge.

As many readers know, I have written extensively on the language gap between civilian recruiters and military job candidates. The solution must be worked on both sides of the fence: former service members need to prepare their resumes and themselves to compete in the civilian job market, AND recruiters need to meet them half way. I have given so many suggestions for doing this; I simply cannot repeat them here.

To the one or two recruiters who have chimed in to this discussion, thank you so much for sharing your point of view which, if they are open to it, will educate military job candidates. I hope that they have taken your contributions to heart.

To the rest of the recruiting professionals out there: please add your voice to the mix, in a constructive way, to raise the awareness of the many former service members who read my blog. These are the folks you will be sourcing, screening, interviewing and hiring or turning away. Wouldn’t you like to have a more prepared set of candidates? This is a chance to be part of the solution.

Following are some of the responses that have come in since my last post on Tuesday. Even though they were posted on LinkedIn, I've removed names and identifying information. For the first installment of comments, refer to that (http://militarytransitions.biz/blog/#blog141).

"I would have to agree….I mean who is the person that writes the job annoucement? I saw where a forklift operator (contractor) needed [min.] a BS!?? Really? Come on, someone needs to proof-read the annoucements."

"That's funny. Perhaps the position required that the applicant actually perform surgical operations with the forklift. I can see how doing something so delicate with heavy equipment could require special training and a BS."

"Thank you for this article. I am a recruiter myself.... I understand your struggle, and I have dedicated myself to finding qualified military veterans who would be an asset to the digital publishing industry. Job fairs are not enough. If you are a veteran, I would recommend working with a career expert at your college or at the unemployment office on making your resumes "HR friendly". We have a hard time understanding many of the terms, but you may see much more responses from recruiters if you plug in civilian terms. Also make sure you are interning in the industry you are looking to work in, and utlitzing the GI Bill to educate yourself. The competition is fierce, and you will be a top choice for employers if you have a degree, industry experience, AND a military background."

"Nowadays companies and government agencies are sponsoring students before they even graduate... and pushing them into clearances, right up to FSP. And assuredly, right into proposals and new contracts, and as instant gov newbies. With little history,there is usually little hindrance to granting those clearances. I suspect the practitioners of polygraphy may ask the same questions used for those who have lengthier work histories, leaving little to uncover for adjudicators. Latent negative attitudes and influences may slip by... something we have recently seen occur with realtime negative results in the military. Same problem on a volume scale. And as everyone knows, all the agencies enjoy ridiculous backlogs on clearance applications. No feeding the problem here..."

"In the one year I've been in contracting work after retiring from the Army, I can relate to some of this. For example, yesterday I did a telephonic interview for a _____. I sent my training certificates to the recruiter for verification of my qualifications. In the phone conversation, it was obvious the recruiter was not very knowledgeable of what qualifications the customer was looking for as he obviously didn't understand the meaning or significance of certain training certificates."

"Emily, this one hits home. I separated from the Air Force in 2008 and spent roughly six months where people shook my hand, said "thank you for your service," and proceeded to explain to me that I was not qualified to work in electronics even though my background was nuclear weapon electronics and electromechanical work for ten years (as well as an instructor for the same material). It was frustrating to say the least. To be quite honest, it is now three years since I've left the service and I still have this difficulty. Thanks for posting about the subject. I appreciate it."

"…no truer words has been spoken. I wonder if any Recruiters are reading this."

"…there are simple more people looking for jobs than there are open jobs, which is true in any industry right now. Recruiters are not perfect, the hiring manager, i.e. person who wrote the job requisition based on the statement of work (contracting)or position description (gov) simply need to work together to pull out the real requirements of the position. Most recruiters are not going to know what all the certificates/training courses mean, there are simply too many and if they were in the military they might not know all the training/certs outside of their career field/service. Intel encompasses a wide range of jobs and skills and recruiters simply can't be held to the fire because they don't know everything. Now given that, if they don't know something they should go back to the hiring manager or a more experience recruiter and ask the right questions and not simply think the candidate isn't a good fit for the position."

"Another point to add is that if you're applying to government positions sometimes it takes a long long long time to finally get hired, I'll give a couple common examples from friends, one applied to the FBI out of college, he did have prior military experience and it took over 2 years from his first interview before he finally got through the entire process and got a class date. 2nd friend applied to NGA, 2 1/2 years later he was brought on board. contracting is typically faster but it's not uncommon to wait a few months there either."

"Not to stray too far from the original topic but have you looked at Think Tanks and University R&D centers that also support the DoD/IC? There are allot of roads into this type of work. Another option to is to hit the major job fairs where the decision makers will be at and get your name out there, recruiters are not the only gate keepers. check out intelligence careers.com as well, not so much for the job ads, they are ok,but they have a nice company directory, it's always best to go direct to the company websites to see what is out there. And another option staffing agencies like KForce, they place allot of people in the DoD"

The other day, I received an email from a friend – let’s call him John -- who had just been blown off by yet another recruiter on the basis of “lack of experience.” John responded, for better or for worse, out of understandable frustration. He gave me permission to use the email exchange in print, knowing I would do so in the spirit of raising awareness and maybe opening someone’s eyes. Here is what the recruiter wrote:

“[John], I reviewed your resume and do not see any sourcing experience in the food industry.
that is a key requirement for this position. Regards, [name].”

Ignoring for a moment the careless typing error which, by the way, sends its own message to candidates about their importance or lack thereof, the message suggests the recruiter didn’t even bother to read John’s resume. You’ll see what I mean when you read John’s response:

“Hello [recruiter’s name], Please note that I was a logistics officer in the US Army for 22 years
and provided thousands of meals/beverages on a daily basis for our soldiers. In addition, I also
provided all the ammunition, clothes and personal equipment for a Regiment of over 3000 soldiers
that spearheaded a battle that ultimately won a war. This surely qualifies me for sourcing food or
any other type of materials within the civilian sector of business. Once again please feel free to ask
questions regarding my logistics and/or procurement experience. Best regards, John”

My first thought after reading the exchange was, “I sure hope that recruiter doesn’t work for one of the many, many companies across the country that have publicly committed to hiring veterans.”

If this story were a one-off, it would be one thing. But the fact is, I have heard it too many times to count. It has to change. Veterans and Wounded Warriors need jobs, and organizations are saying they want to hire them. If progress is being held up by recruiters who are, knowingly or unknowingly, undermining hiring initiatives, we need to do something and fast.

If you are a recruiter reading this, ask yourself honestly, “Am I doing the extra legwork needed to thoroughly vet (no pun intended) military candidates, or do I put them in the ‘too hard’ category?” If you are a manager of recruiters, please provide whatever instruction and accountabilities necessary to ensure staff are doing the right thing for military candidates. We all know military resumes are not (yet) civilian-friendly, we all know they are long and full of acronyms and jargon. That’s not news; it is the state of affairs we find ourselves in. We need to get over it already. Flag waving and platitudes are easy. Following through with effort and action isn’t, but it is still the right thing to do.

Follow Emily King on Twitter: @mymiltrans

I was speaking with a friend the other day about her recent breakup with a boyfriend, and how the holidays make it so much worse. It got me thinking about how the holidays can make just about any negative situation feel so much worse. For me, anyway, the winter holiday season is poignant, whether positively or otherwise. Regardless of what’s happening in life, the backdrop is Christmas carols and advertisements that emphasize abundance and wealth (do people really give cars as Christmas presents??). This is all part of the fun when I’m in the holiday spirit but, when I’m not, they are constant reminders that I’m out of step with “everyone else” and with the appropriate mood for the season. Know what I mean?

That thought quickly led me to wonder how it is for the many service members returning from combat. The USO does a great job of reminding me to think of those still serving in faraway lands at this time of year, but what about those who are back home and struggling with the physical and emotional wounds of war? I’m sure this train of thought was also triggered by tweets from a group I’m now following: Real Warriors (@real warriors). Their posts this week have referenced how to be resilient during the holidays. I really encourage readers of this blog to check it out and pass it along to anyone who may need support right now (or at any time).

As a professional coach and as a person, I guess my blog message today is to know that, if you are feeling alone or “bah humbug” this holiday season, you are in good company. Many feel that way this time of year, and there are resources available for coping with it. Reach out, and don’t let the incessant Christmas carols shame you into feeling worse just because it’s December.

My two cents!

Last Friday’s post, “Hair & Transition,” produced an interesting discussion on one of the LinkedIn groups I belong to. Another member commented that substantial research had been conducted on the cultural transition out of military service and into civilian life, back in the ‘90s. My internal response was, basically, “And then what?” I am unaware of evidence that this work, conducted by behavioral scientists, has been put to work in the service of helping people. Years later, the same transition challenges I first studied in 2000 persist today.

Over the last few days, I have found myself thinking about this quite a bit. My admittedly emotional response is annoyance and even anger. So many individual careers have been stalled or derailed due to the very cultural challenges identified in these earlier studies, attributed to DoD behavioral scientists.

I have an MS in applied behavioral science and one of the most compelling reason for entering the field is the value it places (and I share) on putting discoveries to good use in the real world. It strikes me that the previous research missed the “applied” part, perhaps in place of a purist behavioral approach. In other words, studying behavior for the sake of understanding it, not necessarily moving from insight to action.

As one who has spent the last 15 years working one-to-one with transitioning service members, helping them to quickly adjust to civilian work life and thrive there, I am really disappointed by what looks to me like a missed opportunity to use good research to do real good.

If anyone reading this is aware of resources, programs or initiatives that came out of the DoD research, please respond. Further, if such tools existed at one point, what happened to them? Where did they go?

I look forward to your thoughts on this!

Unemployment is high, we know that. Many sources indicate it is higher among veterans than civilians. However, many private sector organizations are actively recruiting veterans, so I’d like to talk about that for a minute.

As a nation of veterans who need employment and employers who need to fill open job requisitions, we are stuck and need to get unstuck quick. The issue: currently the military is sending veterans out into the civilian workplace with civilian-unfriendly resumes, and civilian recruiters (as a rule) do not know how to decipher a military resume.

The easy solution is to send veterans to a resume-writing service, and employers to the various online cross-walks that map military jobs to civilian jobs. However, this is not getting the job done. More is needed. I’d like to offer a tip to each group: veterans in search of employment, and employers in search of veterans and/or talented job candidates.

Tip for Veterans: Sit down with someone who does not have military experience (as a service member, spouse, child, etc.). Walk through your resume with them and make note of all the things they ask you to define or explain. Plan on a lengthy conversation in which the objective is to work together to translate your military experience into words and concepts that have meaning to civilian recruiters.

Encourage your partner in this activity to ask questions such as, “What does that mean?” and “How did you accomplish that?” and “What did you learn from that experience? What did you teach others in that experience?” The questions may seem basic and the answers obvious but, I assure you, they will not be to a civilian. Ideally, you will find a person to work with on this with vast experience in the civilian workplace, but this is not a necessary criterion. (A bonus tip: read my tip for employers below, as it will give you insight to where they’re coming from.)

Tip for Employers/Recruiters: Ask for the story. Avoid the tendency to focus only on the most recent position held, as it does not represent the previous positions. In other words, a civilian’s chronological resume usually positions the most recent job at the top, which represents the highest level of career achievement (unless they moved backwards in their career). If you asked such a person to tell the story of his or her resume, it would likely be one that progresses logically over time, with the crescendo being the most recent job held.

A military resume is different in this regard. Careers don’t necessarily progress vertically, but horizontally. Meaning: one job doesn’t necessarily lead to or advance to the next job. They may be unrelated in any or every way, from duties performed, oversight of staff and other resources, degree of teamwork versus individual contribution. For this reason, it is really important to look at the resume as a whole and ask questions about various duties and job titles. When you ask a military job candidate for the story of his or her military service, expect to be amazed by the diversity of experiences, skills and knowledge across the various jobs held. For example, if you want to know about leadership experience, you could ask, “Which of these jobs required the most of you from a leadership perspective? Tell me about that,” rather than asking, “I see that you haven’t managed big teams in the last two jobs. Was there a problem with your leadership skills?” (I’m sure you would never really ask this last part, but you might understandably think it to yourself!)

As always, I welcome your thoughts and ideas, and consider this an opening to dialogue. Please let me hear from both sides of the table: veterans and civilian employers, as it will add to the awareness of all.

http://www.ere.net/2011/11/10/interview-questions-for-veterans/

In Part 1 of this blog, posted Monday, I teed up the notion of using informational interviews as a way of overcoming the complaint from employers that they can’t understand military resumes. I listed sample questions you could pose in such an interview, and promised to follow up with what I think of as big-money questions.

The questions are (drum roll please….):
> May I tell you a bit about my military experience and get your perspective on how it maps to the civilian world?
> How would this kind of role [or skillset] fit into a civilian organization?
> How would you define success for someone in such a role?
> Are there other people you know who might be willing to speak with me about this?

I recently posted a blog about the value of volunteering, and how it can actually lead to a paying job. Well, the same goes for informational interviews. They can lead to paying jobs, directly or indirectly. Why? Because there is a priceless dynamic at play: genuineness. The beauty of the informational interview is that you can be yourself, without trying too hard or being who you think the interviewer wants you to be, and the other person can be him- or herself, without having to present the company line or sell you on the opportunity. Being genuine with someone builds trust in a way that the typical job interview does not.

Many years ago, in graduate school, we took a field trip to the Library of Congress. We learned the system, got access cards and instructions for conducting research. It quickly became my favorite place because, I realized, I could go in clueless and go out an expert. Well, maybe not a true expert but close. Spending one day researching a topic with every available resource at your disposal is a powerful thing. I think of informational interviews as being similar to a day at the Library of Congress. You can start out clueless about how to translate your military resume or about how to get into a particular career field and, after several informational interviews, you can end up with a whole lot of insider knowledge and a resume that makes you a competitive candidate in real job interviews.

(Reposted by request, from original post of July 2010)

Every day I hear from frustrated job seekers who have applied for literally hundreds of jobs online, with no apparent result. Resumes are falling into black holes at an unprecedented rate, as far as I can tell. That is a lot of time wasted searching and filling out forms online that may never be read by someone at the other end. Put another way: it is a lousy return on the investment of time.

My response to this complaint is always the same: don’t waste your time there. Focus on networking. Usually, whoever I’m talking to assures me that he or she is networking. We must not be talking about the same thing. Networking is not a passive activity that a computer does for you. Simply posting a profile on LinkedIn or a resume on a job board is not going to do much for you.

Using LinkedIn means data-mining. I’ve literally spent hours on targeted searches based on one person’s profile. Let me show you step by step how it has worked for me and has definitely been time well spent, in terms of the return on my investment of time.

1. Pick one person you are connected to on LinkedIn and open up their profile

2. About mid-way down the page on the right side you will see three gateways to the world. We’ll use me as the example:

a. “Emily’s connections”…this is a list of everyone in my network that you have access to if you are also in my network. Scrolling through this gives you exposure to 500+ (in my case) people from all walks of my life. Each of those people, in turn, has connections. You could spend hours just deep-diving into the profile of each of my contacts to see who’s there. For example, If you see from my profile that I know someone you’d like to meet, or who works for a company you’re interested in or has a job you’d like to have, just go back to my profile and ask me to make an introduction. If I agree to do this, I am giving you direct access to someone who knows me or knows of me; therefore it is a few degrees warmer than a cold-lead (approaching someone you don’t know or have any connection to.)

b. “Emily recommends”…this is a list of people to whom I’ve given my endorsement – people I can personally recommend. When you look through the people and recommendations on this list, you may find someone you’d like to be introduced to or you may get ideas of people who could write a recommendation for you.

c. “Viewers of this profile also viewed”…this is a list of people whose profiles were read by people who read mine. For example, looking at this list in my own profile, I can see that someone who viewed me also viewed Bill Gates. Hmm, I wonder why? Let me click on Bill Gates to see if we have some common interest or experience that would lead someone to be interested in both of us. Now I can see Bill’s profile and – no way! – I find that I am actually connected to him through someone in my network! (Literally – I just discovered it this minute!) If I want or need to be introduced to Bill Gates, I can ask the guy who connects me to him to make that introduction. If he truly knows Bill Gates, then I have a much better chance of getting a response than if I Google’d “Bill Gates” and sent him an email.

Now, there is no guarantee I’ll get that introduction – could be Bill and I are connected by an acquaintance who doesn’t know me well enough to put me in contact with Bill. But…maybe he WILL!

If you spend a lot of time job searching online, this is a much more fruitful approach than being one among hundreds of resumes flowing through some company’s key-word-search filter.

Try it! You can use my profile to start – if there is someone I know who could be of use to you, let me know. Maybe I will make an introduction for you or have another suggestion that could be useful. I realize I may be inundated with your requests but, if you serve or have served in the military, I promise to make my way through them and get to yours eventually!

(For more on this topic, read my blog post from September, 2009, Job seekers: Are you using these resources? )

A standard part of executive coaching is to collect qualitative data about the client from his or her co-workers, staff, superiors, even clients. The purpose of the exercise is several-fold: to solicit candid and subjective information about the client’s impact on others (regardless of his or her intent), engage stakeholders in the solution that coaching represents, generate current feedback to give the client, and to shape goals for the engagement. I’m sure there are others, but let’s start there.

Over the years coaching former military officers and senior NCOs, I have encountered a recurring theme that I’d like to put out there for discussion. I’d really like to hear from all interested parties – former military officers and the civilians who work with them. The theme, specifically, pertains to what I’ll call bullying.

It is common for the initial data gathering interviews to yield comments from an officer’s civilian colleagues to the effect of, “It’s his way or the highway,” “She barks orders at us and we’re kind of afraid of her,” “You have to brace yourself before going in there for a meeting with him,” or “If you disagree with her in a meeting, she just talks over you or waits till you’re done and then steam rolls you in front of everyone.” Bottom line: he or she is a bully.

Now, I don’t hear this from every co-worker of a former officer, nor do I hear it about every officer I coach, but suffice it to say I hear it enough to warrant a closer look.

When I feedback this type of comment to the client I am coaching, I see a couple of different reactions: surprise, dismay, defensiveness, blank stare. The reaction speaks volumes about the individual’s level of self-awareness and skill. When the reaction is surprise and/or dismay, progress is speedy as the client is highly motivated to align actual impact with intended impact. It becomes a very manageable challenge to overcome, with quick and evident results. Basically, a matter of communication style; modifying the military command and control approach to a more relationship-oriented approach to task execution.

On the other hand, when the client’s reaction to feedback is defensiveness or the blank stare, progress can be slow as mud. Why? Because we have to first work on giving legitimacy to the feedback, which means looking at values and priorities. Specifically, looking at the relationship between accomplishing a task and cultivating a relationship. In the military, task (“mission”) come first, without question. But in the civilian workplace, task accomplishment is facilitated by collegial relationships. Or derailed by a lack of them. In such cases, I put on the hat of cultural translator.

In the spirit of brevity, I’m simplifying a complex question here, to be sure. But, for the sake of making the military-to-civilian transition smoother for all concerned, why not take a shot at understanding it better? For the former officer: what constructive insight would you offer on the subject? For readers without prior military experience but who work alongside former officers: what constructive insight would you offer?

I invite you to explore the question with me by sharing your unique experience and perspective, and look forward to learning from your responses.

Last week I gave a presentation to 160 Human Resource professionals from civilian organizations. The subject of the workshop was thinking strategically about hiring and retaining veterans, and my presentation in particular focusd on creating an inclusive workplace.

I was talking about the difference between strong and weak cultures, defining a strong culture as one that can be easily described in a few words or sentences and a weak culture as one that cannot be easily described in a few words or sentences. Culture, of course, referred to an organization's personality; how things really get done and get rewarded rather than what's espoused to be done and rewarded.

It occurred to me to pose a question to the group: raise your hand if your organization's culture can be described in a few words or phrases. After initial laughter, maybe three people raised their hand. I followed with this request: raise your hand if the military culture can be described in a few words or phrases. What do you think happened? A sea of hands were raised. That, I said, is the entire point. That is why military-to-civilian transition can be challenging and why you, the employer, need to become translators of culture rather than expecting veterans to figure everything out in real time.

Hopefully some eyes were opened.

I am so excited to announce my next two-day certification course, offering 12 pre-approved credit hours from the Human Resources Certificate Institute (HRCI). “The Essentials of Hiring and Retaining Veterans” will be held September 22 and 23, 2011 in Fairfax, VA. AFCEA, the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, will host us at its international headquarters.

AFCEA provides the perfect backdrop because, like Military Transitions™, it is committed to advancing knowledge and relationships across public and private sectors of government, military and industry.

During the 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. workday, participants will learn how to:

• Navigate the cultural differences between military & civilian work environments;
• Accelerate learning curve for leaders & accelerate Return on Investment (ROI);
• Distinguish between transition issues and performance issues;
• Lead coaching conversations with veterans, regarding transition & performance;
• Equip line managers to lead, motivate and retain veterans; and
• Create a “culture of retention” for veterans and all employees.

Each participant will receive a sample learning kit for military hires; an audio program called, “Your Military Transition™” (3 full-length CDs); 100+ page workbook of learning exercises; a special edition ASTD InfoLine, “Onboarding Veterans into the Civilian Workplace” and a Certificate of Completion.

Like any valuable resource, recruiting, engaging and retaining veterans can be a challenge for Human Resource professionals. My two-day certification course offers all of the information Human Resources professionals need to successfully hire and retain military veterans.

The two-day certification course with 12 pre-approved credits from HRCI is $1,800 for participants from commercial industry; $1,500 for participants from government. To sign up, please visit http://militarytransitions.biz/services/hiring_and_retaining_veterans. And, don’t hesitate to contact me at Emily@MilitaryTransitions.biz with any questions! I hope to see you in September!

Hi All,

The recent post on resume format received a lot of responses, albeit not on the blog itself (http://militarytransitions.biz/blog) but on the various LinkedIn group discussions to which it was posted. For the benefit of all, I've compiled responses from recruiting professionals into one document so everyone can see the various opinions. If I didn't include yours, it is only because I (perhaps incorrectly) determined that you are not a recruiting professional. No harm intended!

As a refresher, here is the question I posed in the original blog post: "Resume considerations: chronological or functional format?" My premise was that chronological format is preferred, but that functional format also has important benefits. Here's what you said:

Military Officers of the United States of America
"Emily – I have to disagree 80%. While I concur with the basic premise of chronology showing job progresssion/responsibility, etc. At best, I'd recommend combination of functional/chronological. Consider…
- so many people are competing for jobs
- candidate needs to be a perfect fit to make the "A" list after initial review
- are recruiters diligent enough (with so many applicants) to dig out of someone's chronological resume the elements making them "perfect" – I'd say No.

Given this, I recommend of course a unique resume for each application so it can be tailored. And, in order to effectively do that, everyone should keep a separate document of accomplishments, perhaps sorted into technical, leadership, management, etc. categories. From this list the best 10 or most appropriately targeted 10 accomplishments are cut and pasted into the tailored resume for a particular employer/position.

I think a format like this catches the best attention of a recruiter or recruitment team reviewing records:
Objective (tweaked to match position)
Accomplishments (tailored to the position requirements)
Key Skills/Abilities (again tailored, but can be general)
Other credentials (education/certifications/etc.)
Chronology (brief, but showing progression of position, responsibilities, etc.)

I think the chronology does matter when you get to a second review, but to make it to that point in today's market you need to show you have exactly what someone is looking for. Of course if a position says something like "previous COO experience required" then incorporate that into the initial accomplishments with an "As COO" preface."
My 2 cents worth.
Bob Dubek
Posted by Robert Dubek

Tip of the Arrow Foundation
"During my 35 years in contingency recruiting and retained search, I, and my clients, always preferred a chronological resume. In the last 18 months of working with transitioning Soldiers, that has remained consistent.
Hiring leaders like to see what you did for which organization and when. Always a suspicion that a functional resume is hiding the fact that the more relevant and significant accomplishments happened a long time in the past, not recently."
Posted by Robert Deissig

"Chronological is the most clear and direct method of conveying a logical career progression. From the recruiting side of the interview desk, it also quickly reveals if the candidate moved laterally or upward with a focused direction. As Bob cited, functional formats usually convey profession changes that don't correlate with one another. If this is the case for the job seeker, they best serve themselves to set up the chronological format and are able to clearly articulate (on paper and in person) the reasoning behind the changes.

Job seekers are also wise to remember when developing the content for their resume that it serves a specific purpose – to convey how they used their knowledge, skills and abilities to solve specific business issues along with the validated impact of their actions to the business. If a candidate is past their first job in high school it should never read as a job description of tasks. The concept is to provide the opportunity for the resume reader to "picture" the candidate doing similar work at their company achieving similar, positive results. Our TOAF seasoned career coaches and recruiters know and understand this impact. Most of the up front conversations with the job seeker are around drawing out this information and getting them to put it down on paper.

The other key element a recruiter seeks to define is what are the intrinsic qualities about the candidate that uniquely define the way they deliver their skills? It could be that sparkle of a connecting personality that has the ability to create instant rapport (think sales and customer service roles). Perhaps it is a reflective thought process needed for scientific roles. Or, it might be tenacious project management follow through so critically needed for managing multi-faceted, longer term programs.

One of my global clients just completed an exercise this past week in which their leadership team defined the key strengths they would seek out in a candidate for succession, disaster recovery and replacement planning. Across the board, everyone cited specific intrinsic strengths that were a part of an individual's nature – not a learned skill set.

In over 30 years of listening to employer needs and seeing which candidates they selected and why, consistently the decision was based on the candidate's unique intrinsic strengths. Sure, employers want certain knowledge, skills and abilities along with "x" amount of experience. Yet, with all of that being equal or close, it is the way a person delivers them that makes all the difference to the employer. Which brings up the question of culture and overall fit. How important is this? I defer to Emily's far reaching military candidate and employer expertise to share her insights on this key element for job seekers and employers.

One thing we have to keep reminding the military candidate is that this is the perfect time to brag about who they are – what uniquely defines what they can bring to a business to move it forward. There is a tendency to downplay the impact of their accomplishments. When addressing the military job seekers at the recent SHRM annual conference in San Diego, the room was filled with nodding heads on this point. We encourage them to include this up front in the Professional Summary and make certain the language for each job conveys that uniqueness."
Posted by Sherrill Curtis

Military Network
"Chronological is convenient for disqualifying and "labeling" job seekers. Functional is more effective for showcasing what a job seeker has to offer. Over a number of years, it seems consistently true that recruiters like chronological resumes and hiring managers like functional resumes."
Posted by Joy Montgomery

Cleared Connections
"As a recruiter we tend to look at what have you done lately and the skills that are the most up to date. An objective stating what you are looking for will direct the reader to the skills that are required for the position being pursued. Functional can be misleading with out of date experience or skills. Once again it just depends on the position that is being applied for and the audience."
Posted by Dan DeCarlo

"Hey Emily. Chronological without question. Perhaps it is the history major in me or having been in the executive search business for quite some time as you know but what I want to see is most recent job to oldest with your key responsibilities and accomplishments for each. I also like numbers and statistics. If you want to highlight different functional expertise below each job that's ok, but a patchwork of functional information pulled together over a 10-30+ year career can be very confusing to follow.

I agree with Dan's posting as well that a well articulated objective at the top of the resume can serve as an effective guidepost for the rest of the resume. It allows the person to encapsulate their highlights right up front instead of relying on a recruiter who is going to spend 30 seconds, maybe, scanning the entire resume looking for a key word or two to find those highlights."
Posted by Jay Andre

["I am having the same issues in trying to get my current resume re-written. I have been with the same company for 10 years, but don't want to lose the fact that I have done a lot over the last 20 years. I would love to have (and pay for) someone in the recruiting side to help me massage and define my resume that has the necessary "key" words that are required nowadays to get by the first level of consideration. In this current job market is the two page resume still a functional limit?"]
Posted by Robert Atwood

"Robert – No there is not a 1 or 2 page limit on resumes for experienced people, that ended many years ago. I consistently see executive type resumes that are 3 pages, some more, but I would say that 3 pages is very standard if you have a substantive career and experience set behind you. If we are talking a junior/mid-level person then I would say keep it to 1-2 pages, but with 20 years of experience 3 pages is fine in my experience. The general rule of thumb is keep the resume as short as you can, but also keep in mind your resume is your primary and sometimes sole marketing vehicle for you as you look for a job don't short change yourself at the expense of an extra half page, page, or even two.
My two cents."
Posted by Jay Andre

Every day I hear from frustrated job seekers who have applied for literally hundreds of jobs online, with no apparent result. Resumes are falling into black holes at an unprecedented rate, as far as I can tell. That is a lot of time wasted searching and filling out forms online that may never be read by someone at the other end. Put another way: it is a lousy return on the investment of time.

My response to this complaint is always the same: don’t waste your time there. Focus on networking. Usually, whoever I’m talking to assures me that he or she is networking. We must not be talking about the same thing. Networking is not a passive activity that a computer does for you. Simply posting a profile on LinkedIn or a resume on a job board is not going to do much for you.

Using LinkedIn means data-mining. I’ve literally spent hours on targeted searches based on one person’s profile. Let me show you step by step how it has worked for me and has definitely been time well spent, in terms of the return on my investment of time.

1. Pick one person you are connected to on LinkedIn and open up their profile

2. About mid-way down the page on the right side you will see three gateways to the world. We’ll use me as the example:

a. “Emily’s connections”…this is a list of everyone in my network that you have access to if you are also in my network. Scrolling through this gives you exposure to 500+ (in my case) people from all walks of my life. Each of those people, in turn, has connections. You could spend hours just deep-diving into the profile of each of my contacts to see who’s there. For example, If you see from my profile that I know someone you’d like to meet, or who works for a company you’re interested in or has a job you’d like to have, just go back to my profile and ask me to make an introduction. If I agree to do this, I am giving you direct access to someone who knows me or knows of me; therefore it is a few degrees warmer than a cold-lead (approaching someone you don’t know or have any connection to.)

b. “Emily recommends”…this is a list of people to whom I’ve given my endorsement – people I can personally recommend. When you look through the people and recommendations on this list, you may find someone you’d like to be introduced to or you may get ideas of people who could write a recommendation for you.

c. “Viewers of this profile also viewed”…this is a list of people whose profiles were read by people who read mine. For example, looking at this list in my own profile, I can see that someone who viewed me also viewed Bill Gates. Hmm, I wonder why? Let me click on Bill Gates to see if we have some common interest or experience that would lead someone to be interested in both of us. Now I can see Bill’s profile and – no way! – I find that I am actually connected to him through someone in my network! (Literally – I just discovered it this minute!) If I want or need to be introduced to Bill Gates, I can ask the guy who connects me to him to make that introduction. If he truly knows Bill Gates, then I have a much better chance of getting a response than if I Google’d “Bill Gates” and sent him an email.

Now, there is no guarantee I’ll get that introduction – could be Bill and I are connected by an acquaintance who doesn’t know me well enough to put me in contact with Bill. But…maybe he WILL!

If you spend a lot of time job searching online, this is a much more fruitful approach than being one among hundreds of resumes flowing through some company’s key-word-search filter.

Try it! You can use my profile to start – if there is someone I know who could be of use to you, let me know. Maybe I will make an introduction for you or have another suggestion that could be useful. I realize I may be inundated with your requests but, if you serve or have served in the military, I promise to make my way through them and get to yours eventually! 

(For more on this topic, read my blog post from September, 2009, Job seekers: Are you using these resources? )

 Emily

Over the last week and a half, I was invited to attend two important events sponsored by the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) and Corporate Gray. The first was a networking social, and the second was its career fair (more than 1,200 job seekers and 150 employers – what a turnout!).

Both events gave me the opportunity to talk to a large number of individuals who were in the process of transitioning from military service to civilian employment. Two common themes emerged in the conversations and I’d like to share them with you, along with my thoughts and suggestions. (Please note that I do not represent any of the organizations I’ll mention below, nor do I have any interest other than passing along what’s worked for me.)

Theme #1: Is your networking working?
Everybody seems to agree on the importance of networking when it comes to finding a job. More than just showing up at a happy-hour event or social, networking is a proactive, purposeful activity that can and should yield results. By ‘results’ I mean things like: opportunities to practice and hone your elevator speech, hearing another person’s perspective on your industry or career track, feedback on how you’re coming across, job leads, and valuable introductions.

I have found that the most successful networkers engage in conversations from a posture of genuine curiosity and a spirit of service. They don’t approach networking from a one-down position of need (e.g., I need a job. You have an opening. Therefore, I am at a disadvantage in my conversation with you because I need what you have). They understand that all people have a network of family, friends, customers, and service providers who themselves have networks, and so on and so on. You never know what conversation your next job lead will come from.

In addition, rather than purely focusing on data points about professional accomplishments, successful networkers share stories about the impact they’ve been able to have on people and events. For example, when someone asks what I do, I could say:
• I’m an organization development consultant and executive coach.

Or…

• I’m an organization development consultant and executive coach. One of my specialties is helping former military personnel get up to speed in the civilian workplace and accelerate their success and productivity. This helps both the individual and his or her employer.

Which one tells a better story about the value I can add? Which one is an opening for more discussion? The second one, of course. If you can sum up your positive impact in a sentence or two and practice telling anyone who will listen, from your barber to a parent at your kid’s school to the person seated next to you on an airplane, you will be delighted to see that any one of these individuals has the potential to connect you with someone in their own network who can make a difference for you.

On another note, many people approached me with questions about how to use online networking. I always answered them with a question of my own: are you using LinkedIn? Before these MOAA/Corporate Gray events I assumed it was mainstream. What I learned was that, while most people I spoke to were aware of it, many were not taking advantage of its full functionality.

Some of you reading this are receiving it through a LinkedIn group. Are you using it as a job search aid and, if so, how?

After being with Booz Allen for 10 years I went out on my own and had to market my services. I knew of LinkedIn but wasn’t actively using it. Fortunately a colleague took the time to walk me though, step by step. I routinely devote a chunk of time to data-mining on the site, and have to say it has had a measurable impact on my business.

As a result of my conversations at the MOAA events, I see that I have an opportunity to “pay it forward” and help others learn from my experience. For those of you interested, I will be hosting a FREE 30-minute tele-seminar this Friday, September 25th, 2009, at 1:00pm EST. I’ll be talking about how you can access the wealth of data available in LinkedIn and make important connections. Please contact me directly if you’d like to dial in (emily@mymilitarytransition.com). To make best use of this time, please join LinkedIn and post a profile before participating on the call.

Theme #2: It pays to research
During a conversation among a small group of officers, I learned that many of my new MOAA friends had retired from the military some time ago and were now looking for a second or third civilian position. This is fairly common and, if you’ve seen the http://militarytransitions.biz website you know that the most frequent explanation for why this happens is a lack of fit with an organization’s culture. While many former military officers and personnel leave their first civilian job for other reasons, I have worked with more than a few who made a hasty decision at the front end by jumping into a job without fully researching the larger organization.

It’s kind of like buying a house: the realtor is going to show you all of the gorgeous features and leave out the thing about the declining school system and the incessantly barking dog next door. You wouldn’t purchase a house based solely on information from the realtor…why would you accept a job based solely on information from the employer?

If you don’t know people who already work in the organization you are considering and who are willing to be candid about their perceptions, how do you get an accurate picture of what it would really be like for you? I’d like to share some tools I’ve used in the past that might be helpful in your job search. Specifically, I’ll mention three websites that offer information – both objective and subjective – about companies. Most sell reports or subscriptions, but some give extensive information for free.

Wetfeet.com - This website provides a lot of information for free. A search by company name gets you to a high-level description. What’s even more useful is a search by industry. This yields information on industry trends, job prospects, “what’s to love” and “what’s to hate,” major players, job descriptions, and tips for getting hired.

Hoovers.com - This is a Dun & Bradstreet company and, therefore, focuses on financial performance. You can also purchase competitive analyses (to compare companies within the same industry) and information about a company’s executive team, products and operations. There isn’t much free information on this site, but it does offer a free trial so you can check it out.

Vault.com - This website provides information on companies as well, but is known for info from current and former employees. Such information should be weighed carefully, as contributors may use the site as an outlet for venting dissatisfaction. The website offers employer profiles and rankings, results from employee satisfaction surveys, industry blogs, and a job board.

I hope you’ll consider these suggestions and let me know if and how they work for you. Remember to contact me if you’re interested in being part of this Friday’s tele-class.

All the best in your job search!

Emily 

I hope you all enjoyed the holiday weekend.

The following link is to an article in Workforce Management that came out earlier this year. Geared towards recruiting professionals, it has relevance to anyone with an interest in military transition. I’d be interested in your thoughts on it.

http://www.workforce.com/section/06/feature/26/22/15/index.html

After last week’s online dialogue there are so many threads I could pick up on, it was difficult to decide what to address. I’ve settled on two things: an introduction of myself to the community of readers and, later in the week, comments about leadership.

In response to last week’s blog discussion, I made an offer of assistance to one or two individuals whosepredicaments were particularly troubling. They understandably replied with concerns about my fees. This raised my awareness to the importance of formally introducing myself and my interests to this community of readers.

My background is applied behavioral science. Specifically, I have focused on how humans behave individually and in groups in work settings. Some call this “company shrink,” others refer to what I do as organization development, team building, or “people strategy.”

Many years ago, I was asked to analyze and resolve a spike in attrition among staff in a particular segment of a global IT company. I discovered an interesting trend: employees who were quitting were Gen-Xers and their managers were, coincidentally, retired military officers. Employees weren’t leaving the organization so much as they were leaving their individual managers (a phenomenon fully explained in management literature). In the highly competitive labor market of the dot.com era, this was a recipe for disaster. Fast forward through more study, focus groups, interviews, and pilot tests…the result of my work was a set of solutions for the organization that accelerated learning among seasoned officers and positioned them for success with their non-military staff and colleagues.

The result for me personally was a spark, which would develop into a passion over the years to come. I went on to conduct original research at Johns Hopkins University on the key differences between military and civilian leadership, and the challenges of transitioning from one world to another. This led to opportunities to work 1:1 in a coaching capacity with many retired officers who were struggling in their first 36 months of retirement from military service, and with the organizations that hired them.

So, unlike others who talk about military transition, I am not of the military. I believe you have all the military perspective you need upon retirement; what you don’t have is the perspective of civilian organizations that will court and hire you. What I offer is real-world expertise in how to be successful in business. A retired Air Force Colonel recently commended me as having the “Rosetta Stone” for translating between military and civilian cultures, and the ability to create success. High praise indeed.

My clients are organizations who want and need to make their military hires successful quickly. I am not hired by individuals. The purpose of this blog, therefore, is service. It’s a forum for bringing people together into a virtual community that I can “give back to” with insight and experience. Any offer I may make to readers is in the spirit of service. To the extent I can, in the process, raise awareness and appreciation of the need for better solutions in industry and in pre-separation training, all the better; everyone wins.

So, with that said, I invite your questions, comments, and personal experiences. As you can see, I read them all with care and will use them to inform my choice of topics.

Many thanks for reading and for introducing others to the community. I look forward to our ongoing dialogue.

Best,

Emily

Hi all –

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this article.

Best,

Emily

http://www.trainingmag.com/msg/content_display/publications/e3i573ed7d4bca6f9fc0f8a0668c50c1af0

I am often asked by HR professionals why some retired military officers transition easily into civilian employment while others do not. That’s a big question with many facets – too many to get into here. However, it did bring something to mind that may be helpful to readers.

As a behavioral scientist, my interest is related to human behavior in social settings, such as a work environment. What drives behavior? Can behavior change, even deeply embedded habits? If so, how?

Many of my organizational clients find me because the former officers they have hired – at considerable cost – are floundering. Should the organization continue to invest in the development of these folks or resign itself to a limited return on investment (ROI)?

My answer to two of the questions above – can behavior change and should organizations invest in underperforming senior hires – is yes. No doubt about it. The third question – what drives behavior – is a bit more complex but worth the effort to consider.

Some schools of thought believe that emotion drives behavior. So, an external event occurs and, for a variety of reasons, it triggers an emotional reaction which in turn drives behavior.

It has been my experience and that of many behavioral scientists that it is actually thought that drives emotion and behavior. This is why two people can have very different reactions to the same event. Each of us has our own way of interpreting the world around us based on our upbringing and lifetime of experiences.

Let’s look at an example related to military transition. I had a client who was about a year out of his military career, working in a civilian IT organization. He was struggling and I was brought in to turn the situation around if it was possible to do so. The question in the mind of my client – the organization that hired me – was, “Why is this guy so difficult to work with when I’ve got this other guy over here who came from the same background and is a dream?”

By speaking with both men one-to-one, I was able to quickly see key differences in the way they interpreted similar events. Specifically, the “dream” colleague approached the civilian experience with humility and humor; he knew it was going to be very different and that he would probably feel like a beginner for awhile. He conveyed this attitude through light humor and a general request for feedback from seniors, peers and staff so he would learn to operate differently.

Meanwhile, the “difficult” colleague was taken aback by how different everything seemed to be in his new civilian work environment. The job itself was basically the same – definitely in his strike zone – but accomplishing the work seemed to be fraught with political landmines. As a result, he felt defensive and embarrassed by constantly being proven wrong. This in turn led him to behave in an aggressive manner.

You could say that the difference between these two former officers was based on different emotions – one felt humble while the other felt defensive – but you’d be missing step: the thoughts are what triggered the emotions that led to the behavior. The easy colleague went in with one set of thoughts about what it would be like and how he would experience the new situation. The difficult colleague went in with a different set of thoughts about himself as an expert, regardless of context.

My work with this particular gentleman focused on identifying the thoughts and assumptions “underneath” his emotional reactions. By scrutinizing them under the light of reasonableness, we discovered incorrect assumptions and unhelpful expectations that contributed to his reactions. From there, it was a relatively simple process to get things on track and position him for success.