5 Reasons You Didn't Get the Job
With the employment rate still at 9.5 percent in the United States, you may find yourself in the position of applying, interviewing, and still remaining jobless. You may have thought it was a sure thing; you may have left the office laughing and joking with the interviewer. So why was someone else hired and you weren't? These five reasons may shed some light on the situation.
1. You're overqualified
It's not just a cliche--you really can be overqualified for a position. It's especially true in a tight economy. A candidate that is more qualified would require a higher salary and benefits package for a competitive offer and for long-term retention. If someone else interviewed who fit the qualifications but didn't overly exceed them, it might be in the company's best interest to hire him and save the cash.
2. You don't know the right people
You may be great on paper, and you may interview really well--but if another candidate is the employer's tennis instructor's daughter, you might be out of luck. This isn't a reason you can't really avoid. Your best bet is to make sure you follow up with a genuinely appreciative phone call or note. Leaving a positive impression will keep you in that employer's mind if other opportunities arise.
3. You hit it off, just not professionally
Having a good rapport with your interviewer is great--however, if you bonded over your love of tequila shooters, you may have made a friend and not an employer. In a less extreme example, you may be very easy to interview but still not right for the position. While being friendly and personable are two very important traits, they won't guarantee you the job.
4. You came with conditions
You may be a good fit for the job, but if you come with strings attached, you may not get hired. If you can't see yourself sticking to the position long-term, or if prior commitments mean you'll have to work odd hours, it could take you out of the running. If possible, come in condition-free or at least willing to compromise. However, if you have a restriction that is non-negotiable, it's only fair to both of you to bring it up in the interview--there's no sense in wasting time if the situation won't work out.
5. An unpredictable reason
Often, the reason is one you may never know. You may get an unrelated job simply for having a shared interest with the interviewer, or perhaps because you have a skill the employer hopes to learn from you. It may be as simple as two or more candidates being equally qualified, and you lost the coin toss.
It may also be a simple reason like an off-the-cuff comment you probably shouldn't have made, or a more blatant reason like answering your cell phone during an interview (never a good move, no matter how friendly you are with the interviewer!). Be honest with yourself about the interview process--if you can think of a slip up, learn from your mistake and keep it in mind for your next interview.
The bottom line
Whatever the reason, do your best to learn from it and apply it to your next interview. Don't be afraid to politely follow up and inquire about why you weren't right for the position--just make sure you don't come off as sulking. Be professional, and thank them for helping you to understand what you did wrong, or where you can improve. After all, if you made it to the interview stage once, you're likely to do it again.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Feeling Unappreciated??
Feeling Unappreciated??
The next time you feel that nobody loves you, no one cares, or that no one ever notices you, think of this guy:
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Top 10 Swindlers
Top 10 Swindlers
On March 6, Allen Stanford was found guilty of running a massive Ponzi scheme that bilked some 30,000 investors out of more than $7 billion. TIME takes a look at other financial schemers through the years.
Allen Stanford
By Nick Carbone
His philanthropic ways earned him the title "Sir Allen" in Antigua, but to tens of thousands of people elsewhere, Allen Stanford is just a plain criminal. On Mar. 6, Stanford was found guilty of running a massive Ponzi scheme that bilked some 30,000 investors out of more than $7 billion. He was convicted on 13 out of 14 counts, including fraud and conspiracy, confirming to his one-time clients that their investments were simply padding Stanford's pockets. Stanford, 61, lived a luxe life between the Caribbean and southern U.S., filled with mansions, yachts and even a cricket pitch in Antigua. His personal net worth totaled $2.2 billion at its peak. The Texas mogul became one of the nation's richest men through his self-made financial firm based in both Houston and Antigua. But in February 2009, Stanford's lavish lifestyle came crashing down when the Securities and Exchange Commission accused him of defrauding his investors. The feds swooped in to seize his empire, alleging that Stanford's investment portfolios, with billions of dollars in their coffers, promised "improbable, if not impossible" returns. In their indictment, the SEC noted that Stanford's funds engaged in fraud of "shocking magnitude," showing investors massive returns and then engineering financial statements to "report investment income that the bank did not actually earn." The investors that were swindled out of their life savings waited three years for Stanford to meet justice. The former billionaire's attorneys claimed he suffered amnesia during a 2009 prison injury, but after undergoing a psychological evaluation, he was deemed fit for the trial, which began in January. His legal team is appealing the conviction and sentencing won't be for months, but Stanford faces up to 20 years in prison for the most serious charges against him.
William Miller, the Original Schemer
By Erin Skarda
Decades before schemes took the name "Ponzi," Brooklyn bookkeeper William Miller was busted for swindling investors out of their hard-earned cash. In 1899, Miller operated a business called the "Franklin Syndicate," in which he promised 10% interest on contributions each week. Miller — who was nicknamed "520 percent" due to the remarkable rate of returns he promised — claimed that he had an inside window into the way that profitable businesses worked, but in the end, he defrauded investors of $1 million — a sum equal to over $25 million in today's money. Despite the severity of his crime, Miller was sentenced to 10 years in jail for grand larceny and was released in five. Upon his release, Miller steered clear of the financial world, instead opening a grocery store on Long Island.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104992,00.html #ixzz1ob3JVgAL
Charles Ponzi
By Samantha Grossman
Although he did not invent the scheme that later came to bear his name, Charles Ponzi's scam was so extensive and initially lucrative that it brought national attention to the fraudulent operation for the first time. In 1919, the Italian immigrant promised investors they could yield considerable profits by purchasing international reply coupons from other countries and then redeeming them in the U.S for postage stamps. To legitimize the scheme, Ponzi established the "Securities Exchange Company" based in Boston. A steady flow of new clients allowed him to pay existing investors, while pocketing millions of dollars himself. But soon enough, the scheme began to raise eyebrows, eventually collapsing and bringing six banks down with it. Collectively, his investors lost an estimated $20 million.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104997,00.html #ixzz1ob3nryYb
Tom Petters
By Alexandra Sifferlin
In 2010, Minnesota businessman Tom Petters was sentenced to 50 years in prison for fraud, conspiracy and money laundering as part of his $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme. It is considered the second largest Ponzi ring to Bernie Madoff's. Petters was the CEO and chairman of Petters Group Worldwide, a diversified company with assets like Sun Country Airlines and Polaroid. Petters and his partners convinced investors to give money to buy electronics that would be sold to retailers like Costco and Sam's Club. However, Petters instead diverted the funds to support his other businesses and pay back other investors. Petter's lavish living and deception ended when Vice President of Operations for Petters Co., Deanna Coleman, testified to helping Petters with his scheme for 10 years. Since Petters was 52 at his sentencing, he will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104984,00.html #ixzz1ob42pZjv
Norman Hsu
By Alexandra Sifferlin
Former Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu was charged with operating a $60 million Ponzi scheme in 2009. According to the New York Times, big-name politicians like Hillary Clinton received contributions from Hsu, who pleaded guilty to 10 counts of mail and wire fraud as part of his fraudulent operation. Hsu acquired investors by promising high returns, but then paid early investors with funds from later ones, the Times reports. Hsu's scheme began to unravel when it was discovered he had failed to show up for sentencing in California in 1992 for his involvement in another case of defrauding investors. Hsu had skipped court and gone to Hong Kong, later returning to New York in 2003. When Hsu's outstanding warrant came to light, politicians who received contributions from Hsu like Hillary Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo, Barack Obama and Al Franken, all donated the money to charity. Hsu is now serving 24 years in prison.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104985,00.html #ixzz1ob5o89cY
Lou Pearlman
By Allison Berry
The Svengali behind the '90s boy-band juggernaut, Lou Pearlman was not the jolly music mogul he painted himself to be. After a failed career in aviation, Pearlman turned an eye to the entertainment industry. He set out to create other boy bands in the model of New Kids on the Block, which he did to great success, creating the wildly popular Backstreet Boys and 'NSYNC, as well as O-Town and solo pop star Aaron Carter. However, many of those acts went on to sue Pearlman for misrepresentation and/or fraud. But the most egregious claims levied against Pearlman came to light in 2006, when it was discovered that he had perpetrated an elaborate Ponzi scheme, defrauding investors to the tune of $300 million by creating an airline and airline service company which did not exist. He tried to flee, but was caught on the run in Indonesia and brought to court. In 2008, Pearlman said "bye bye bye" to his lavish lifestyle when he was convicted of conspiracy and money laundering and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104995,00.html #ixzz1ob61ZhKb
Albanian Pyramid Schemes
By Erin Skarda
In 1997, the failure of a large-scale Ponzi scheme in Albania not only prompted the European country to fall into financial ruin, but also sparked a mass uprising that toppled the government and was responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 people. A few years earlier, Albania began to transition into a liberalized market economy after years under the strict dictatorship of Enver Hoxha. The rudimentary financial system that was in place became dominated by pyramid schemes that promised participants substantial returns on their investments. More than two-thirds of Albania's citizens fell for the ruse, drawn in by the promise of wealth they had never experienced, as well as the government's endorsements of the funds from some of the largest companies. By January 1997, Albanians had lost approximately $1.2 billion and took to the streets to protest the government, which they believed were profiting from the schemes. As protests raged on, the country fell into a brief state of lawlessness before U.N. forces stepped in to restore order.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104998,00.html #ixzz1ob6TzPxg
Gerald Payne and Greater Ministries International
By Nate Rawlings
What makes the Greater Ministries International one of the most significant Ponzi schemes of all time isn't just the size of the money involved — nearly half a billion dollars — it was the way that Gerald Payne extracted that sum. In the mid 1990s, Payne preyed on nearly 18,000 people by telling them he would double their money through divinely-inspired investments. He invoked scripture to bilk people out of money, promising enormous returns and telling his victims he was investing on gold, silver and foreign debt. In reality, Payne was cashing hundreds of checks for just under the $10,000 reporting limit, which caught the eye of the IRS. When investigators traced their way to the checking account he shared with his wife, Betty, it contained nearly $20 million. When the Paynes were prosecuted, Gerald said that the money had been gifted, not invested. The couple later claimed that their First Amendment Rights as a church were being violated. When they were found guilty of felonies, Gerald received 27 years in prison and Betty twelve and a half.
See TIME's Brief History of Ponzi Schemes
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2105004,00.html #ixzz1ob6bVbyw
David Dominelli
By Nate Rawlings
When David "Jerry" Dominelli died in Chicago in 2009 it took two weeks for news of his death to reach the West Coast, where his financial frauds wreaked havoc on San Diego in the mid 1980s. In 1979, Dominelli opened an investment company in La Jolla, Ca. and promised early investors a 40 to 50 percent return. It was a classic Ponzi scheme, where Dominelli paid early investors with the money from new ones and conned Sab Diegans out of nearly $80 million. By 1983, when he had nearly 1,500 investors, demand for withdrawals led to bounced checks and the whole thing began to unravel. In 1985, San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock was convicted of conspiracy and perjury charges related to campaign contributions from Dominellini's hedge fund. He was forced from office, but he later appealed and accepted a plea deal for a single charge and served no jail time. Dominelli wasn't so fortunate. In 1985, he plead guilty to four felony charges and was sentenced to 20 years in prison, of which he served 10 and a half before being paroled to his native Chicago.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2105003,00.html #ixzz1ob7MA5xq
Bernie Madoff
By Nick Carbone
The modern face of financial evil is Bernie Madoff, the former Nasdaq chairman who was convicted of running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. Madoff, a Wall Street bigwig, used his credentials to gain clients' trust, easily maintaining it with an average 10.5% annual return for nearly two decades. But according to the SEC, the returns made by his self-founded firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC were fudged: Madoff was paying off old investors with money received from new investors. The fraudulent fund impacted not only thousands of individuals but charitable organizations, university endowments, and even publicly-traded banks. After admitting to his sons that he was struggling to pay investors, they turned him in. Madoff was arrested on December 11, 2008 and charged with criminal securities fraud. SEC documents quote him explaining the scheme was "all just one big lie, though he had kept it up since at least 1991. But he said in court, "As the years went by, I realized that my arrest and this day would inevitably come." Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 felony counts and was sentenced to 150 years in prison. "I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done," he added, though his bilked investors likely had little reason to believe him.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2105005,00.html #ixzz1ob7mLSDd
On March 6, Allen Stanford was found guilty of running a massive Ponzi scheme that bilked some 30,000 investors out of more than $7 billion. TIME takes a look at other financial schemers through the years.
Allen Stanford
By Nick Carbone
His philanthropic ways earned him the title "Sir Allen" in Antigua, but to tens of thousands of people elsewhere, Allen Stanford is just a plain criminal. On Mar. 6, Stanford was found guilty of running a massive Ponzi scheme that bilked some 30,000 investors out of more than $7 billion. He was convicted on 13 out of 14 counts, including fraud and conspiracy, confirming to his one-time clients that their investments were simply padding Stanford's pockets. Stanford, 61, lived a luxe life between the Caribbean and southern U.S., filled with mansions, yachts and even a cricket pitch in Antigua. His personal net worth totaled $2.2 billion at its peak. The Texas mogul became one of the nation's richest men through his self-made financial firm based in both Houston and Antigua. But in February 2009, Stanford's lavish lifestyle came crashing down when the Securities and Exchange Commission accused him of defrauding his investors. The feds swooped in to seize his empire, alleging that Stanford's investment portfolios, with billions of dollars in their coffers, promised "improbable, if not impossible" returns. In their indictment, the SEC noted that Stanford's funds engaged in fraud of "shocking magnitude," showing investors massive returns and then engineering financial statements to "report investment income that the bank did not actually earn." The investors that were swindled out of their life savings waited three years for Stanford to meet justice. The former billionaire's attorneys claimed he suffered amnesia during a 2009 prison injury, but after undergoing a psychological evaluation, he was deemed fit for the trial, which began in January. His legal team is appealing the conviction and sentencing won't be for months, but Stanford faces up to 20 years in prison for the most serious charges against him.
William Miller, the Original Schemer
By Erin Skarda
Decades before schemes took the name "Ponzi," Brooklyn bookkeeper William Miller was busted for swindling investors out of their hard-earned cash. In 1899, Miller operated a business called the "Franklin Syndicate," in which he promised 10% interest on contributions each week. Miller — who was nicknamed "520 percent" due to the remarkable rate of returns he promised — claimed that he had an inside window into the way that profitable businesses worked, but in the end, he defrauded investors of $1 million — a sum equal to over $25 million in today's money. Despite the severity of his crime, Miller was sentenced to 10 years in jail for grand larceny and was released in five. Upon his release, Miller steered clear of the financial world, instead opening a grocery store on Long Island.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104992,00.html #ixzz1ob3JVgAL
Charles Ponzi
By Samantha Grossman
Although he did not invent the scheme that later came to bear his name, Charles Ponzi's scam was so extensive and initially lucrative that it brought national attention to the fraudulent operation for the first time. In 1919, the Italian immigrant promised investors they could yield considerable profits by purchasing international reply coupons from other countries and then redeeming them in the U.S for postage stamps. To legitimize the scheme, Ponzi established the "Securities Exchange Company" based in Boston. A steady flow of new clients allowed him to pay existing investors, while pocketing millions of dollars himself. But soon enough, the scheme began to raise eyebrows, eventually collapsing and bringing six banks down with it. Collectively, his investors lost an estimated $20 million.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104997,00.html #ixzz1ob3nryYb
Tom Petters
By Alexandra Sifferlin
In 2010, Minnesota businessman Tom Petters was sentenced to 50 years in prison for fraud, conspiracy and money laundering as part of his $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme. It is considered the second largest Ponzi ring to Bernie Madoff's. Petters was the CEO and chairman of Petters Group Worldwide, a diversified company with assets like Sun Country Airlines and Polaroid. Petters and his partners convinced investors to give money to buy electronics that would be sold to retailers like Costco and Sam's Club. However, Petters instead diverted the funds to support his other businesses and pay back other investors. Petter's lavish living and deception ended when Vice President of Operations for Petters Co., Deanna Coleman, testified to helping Petters with his scheme for 10 years. Since Petters was 52 at his sentencing, he will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104984,00.html #ixzz1ob42pZjv
Norman Hsu
By Alexandra Sifferlin
Former Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu was charged with operating a $60 million Ponzi scheme in 2009. According to the New York Times, big-name politicians like Hillary Clinton received contributions from Hsu, who pleaded guilty to 10 counts of mail and wire fraud as part of his fraudulent operation. Hsu acquired investors by promising high returns, but then paid early investors with funds from later ones, the Times reports. Hsu's scheme began to unravel when it was discovered he had failed to show up for sentencing in California in 1992 for his involvement in another case of defrauding investors. Hsu had skipped court and gone to Hong Kong, later returning to New York in 2003. When Hsu's outstanding warrant came to light, politicians who received contributions from Hsu like Hillary Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo, Barack Obama and Al Franken, all donated the money to charity. Hsu is now serving 24 years in prison.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104985,00.html #ixzz1ob5o89cY
Lou Pearlman
By Allison Berry
The Svengali behind the '90s boy-band juggernaut, Lou Pearlman was not the jolly music mogul he painted himself to be. After a failed career in aviation, Pearlman turned an eye to the entertainment industry. He set out to create other boy bands in the model of New Kids on the Block, which he did to great success, creating the wildly popular Backstreet Boys and 'NSYNC, as well as O-Town and solo pop star Aaron Carter. However, many of those acts went on to sue Pearlman for misrepresentation and/or fraud. But the most egregious claims levied against Pearlman came to light in 2006, when it was discovered that he had perpetrated an elaborate Ponzi scheme, defrauding investors to the tune of $300 million by creating an airline and airline service company which did not exist. He tried to flee, but was caught on the run in Indonesia and brought to court. In 2008, Pearlman said "bye bye bye" to his lavish lifestyle when he was convicted of conspiracy and money laundering and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104995,00.html #ixzz1ob61ZhKb
Albanian Pyramid Schemes
By Erin Skarda
In 1997, the failure of a large-scale Ponzi scheme in Albania not only prompted the European country to fall into financial ruin, but also sparked a mass uprising that toppled the government and was responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 people. A few years earlier, Albania began to transition into a liberalized market economy after years under the strict dictatorship of Enver Hoxha. The rudimentary financial system that was in place became dominated by pyramid schemes that promised participants substantial returns on their investments. More than two-thirds of Albania's citizens fell for the ruse, drawn in by the promise of wealth they had never experienced, as well as the government's endorsements of the funds from some of the largest companies. By January 1997, Albanians had lost approximately $1.2 billion and took to the streets to protest the government, which they believed were profiting from the schemes. As protests raged on, the country fell into a brief state of lawlessness before U.N. forces stepped in to restore order.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2104998,00.html #ixzz1ob6TzPxg
Gerald Payne and Greater Ministries International
By Nate Rawlings
What makes the Greater Ministries International one of the most significant Ponzi schemes of all time isn't just the size of the money involved — nearly half a billion dollars — it was the way that Gerald Payne extracted that sum. In the mid 1990s, Payne preyed on nearly 18,000 people by telling them he would double their money through divinely-inspired investments. He invoked scripture to bilk people out of money, promising enormous returns and telling his victims he was investing on gold, silver and foreign debt. In reality, Payne was cashing hundreds of checks for just under the $10,000 reporting limit, which caught the eye of the IRS. When investigators traced their way to the checking account he shared with his wife, Betty, it contained nearly $20 million. When the Paynes were prosecuted, Gerald said that the money had been gifted, not invested. The couple later claimed that their First Amendment Rights as a church were being violated. When they were found guilty of felonies, Gerald received 27 years in prison and Betty twelve and a half.
See TIME's Brief History of Ponzi Schemes
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2105004,00.html #ixzz1ob6bVbyw
David Dominelli
By Nate Rawlings
When David "Jerry" Dominelli died in Chicago in 2009 it took two weeks for news of his death to reach the West Coast, where his financial frauds wreaked havoc on San Diego in the mid 1980s. In 1979, Dominelli opened an investment company in La Jolla, Ca. and promised early investors a 40 to 50 percent return. It was a classic Ponzi scheme, where Dominelli paid early investors with the money from new ones and conned Sab Diegans out of nearly $80 million. By 1983, when he had nearly 1,500 investors, demand for withdrawals led to bounced checks and the whole thing began to unravel. In 1985, San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock was convicted of conspiracy and perjury charges related to campaign contributions from Dominellini's hedge fund. He was forced from office, but he later appealed and accepted a plea deal for a single charge and served no jail time. Dominelli wasn't so fortunate. In 1985, he plead guilty to four felony charges and was sentenced to 20 years in prison, of which he served 10 and a half before being paroled to his native Chicago.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2105003,00.html #ixzz1ob7MA5xq
Bernie Madoff
By Nick Carbone
The modern face of financial evil is Bernie Madoff, the former Nasdaq chairman who was convicted of running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. Madoff, a Wall Street bigwig, used his credentials to gain clients' trust, easily maintaining it with an average 10.5% annual return for nearly two decades. But according to the SEC, the returns made by his self-founded firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC were fudged: Madoff was paying off old investors with money received from new investors. The fraudulent fund impacted not only thousands of individuals but charitable organizations, university endowments, and even publicly-traded banks. After admitting to his sons that he was struggling to pay investors, they turned him in. Madoff was arrested on December 11, 2008 and charged with criminal securities fraud. SEC documents quote him explaining the scheme was "all just one big lie, though he had kept it up since at least 1991. But he said in court, "As the years went by, I realized that my arrest and this day would inevitably come." Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 felony counts and was sentenced to 150 years in prison. "I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done," he added, though his bilked investors likely had little reason to believe him.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2104982_2104983_2105005,00.html #ixzz1ob7mLSDd
They’ve Taken Emotional Intelligence Too Far
They’ve Taken Emotional Intelligence Too Far
The author of Emotional Intelligence explains how this popular concept has been overused
By Daniel Goleman
Have you heard? They say that your EQ counts more than IQ for success. In fact, they say, EQ accounts for 80% of success. As the person who wrote Emotional Intelligence, the book that put the concept on the map, I can tell you that they are dead wrong.
(MORE: The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books)
This and other myths about emotional intelligence constantly float around the blogosphere and get spouted by management consultants. The misinterpretation started nearly the moment TIME put the question, “What’s Your EQ?” on its cover when my book Emotional Intelligence was published in 1995. And by now we are long past the time when it should be put to rest for good.
Here are the facts. There’s no question IQ is by far the better determinant of career success, in the sense of predicting what kind of job you will be able to hold. It typically takes an IQ about 115 or above to be able to handle the cognitive complexity facing an accountant, a physician or a top executive. But here’s the paradox: once you’re in a high-IQ position, intellect loses its power to determine who will emerge as a productive employee or an effective leader. For that, how you handle yourself and your relationships — in other words, the emotional intelligence skill set — matters more than your IQ. In a high-IQ job pool, soft skills like discipline, drive and empathy mark those who emerge as outstanding.
(MORE: The IQ Gene?)
Companies know this. Corporate surveys find that more than two-thirds of major businesses apply some aspect of emotional intelligence in their recruiting, in promotions, and particularly in leadership development. But that emphasis has created a mini-boom in emotional intelligence consultants who too often ignore what the data tells us to make unfounded claims that will sell their services.
One of these fanciful claims is the often-repeated mantra that such personal skills “account for 80%” of business success. This particular myth may stem from a misreading of the studies I’ve written about in my books that look at how much of career success is accounted for by a person’s IQ alone. Most researchers conclude that IQ accounts for between 10 to 20 percent. That, as I’ve pointed out, leaves room for a wide range of other factors — everything from the family or social status you’re born into, to luck, to emotional intelligence, to name but a few. But people seem to jump to the conclusion that EQ alone makes up that 80% gap — and it does not.
The wish to believe EQ offers a magical alternative to IQ no doubt has multiple drivers. For some, it may be a consolation for poor school grades; for others a code for humanizing the workplace. Still others see EQ as an argument for more women in leadership. All those reasons may, one day, find hard data to support them — but we are not there yet. To be sure, we are seeing a slow aggregation of data supporting the added value of EQ, particularly for leaders, but these are typically small studies. The slow march of research lags far behind the hype of EQ marketers.
Goleman is a psychologist and author of 12 books including Leadership: The Power of Emotional Intelligence. The views expressed are solely his own.
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/01/theyve-taken-emotional-intelligence-too-far/#ixzz1ob1iB700
The author of Emotional Intelligence explains how this popular concept has been overused
By Daniel Goleman
Have you heard? They say that your EQ counts more than IQ for success. In fact, they say, EQ accounts for 80% of success. As the person who wrote Emotional Intelligence, the book that put the concept on the map, I can tell you that they are dead wrong.
(MORE: The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books)
This and other myths about emotional intelligence constantly float around the blogosphere and get spouted by management consultants. The misinterpretation started nearly the moment TIME put the question, “What’s Your EQ?” on its cover when my book Emotional Intelligence was published in 1995. And by now we are long past the time when it should be put to rest for good.
Here are the facts. There’s no question IQ is by far the better determinant of career success, in the sense of predicting what kind of job you will be able to hold. It typically takes an IQ about 115 or above to be able to handle the cognitive complexity facing an accountant, a physician or a top executive. But here’s the paradox: once you’re in a high-IQ position, intellect loses its power to determine who will emerge as a productive employee or an effective leader. For that, how you handle yourself and your relationships — in other words, the emotional intelligence skill set — matters more than your IQ. In a high-IQ job pool, soft skills like discipline, drive and empathy mark those who emerge as outstanding.
(MORE: The IQ Gene?)
Companies know this. Corporate surveys find that more than two-thirds of major businesses apply some aspect of emotional intelligence in their recruiting, in promotions, and particularly in leadership development. But that emphasis has created a mini-boom in emotional intelligence consultants who too often ignore what the data tells us to make unfounded claims that will sell their services.
One of these fanciful claims is the often-repeated mantra that such personal skills “account for 80%” of business success. This particular myth may stem from a misreading of the studies I’ve written about in my books that look at how much of career success is accounted for by a person’s IQ alone. Most researchers conclude that IQ accounts for between 10 to 20 percent. That, as I’ve pointed out, leaves room for a wide range of other factors — everything from the family or social status you’re born into, to luck, to emotional intelligence, to name but a few. But people seem to jump to the conclusion that EQ alone makes up that 80% gap — and it does not.
The wish to believe EQ offers a magical alternative to IQ no doubt has multiple drivers. For some, it may be a consolation for poor school grades; for others a code for humanizing the workplace. Still others see EQ as an argument for more women in leadership. All those reasons may, one day, find hard data to support them — but we are not there yet. To be sure, we are seeing a slow aggregation of data supporting the added value of EQ, particularly for leaders, but these are typically small studies. The slow march of research lags far behind the hype of EQ marketers.
Goleman is a psychologist and author of 12 books including Leadership: The Power of Emotional Intelligence. The views expressed are solely his own.
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/01/theyve-taken-emotional-intelligence-too-far/#ixzz1ob1iB700
Friday, February 24, 2012
ENHANCING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
ENHANCING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
By Ranjit Singh Malhi, Ph.D.
Introduction
Recent behavioural research has shown that emotional intelligence is an important determinant of success in both our personal and professional lives. Emotionally intelligent managers are adept at making their emotions work for them. They are able to handle their emotions in ways that enhance their work productivity and quality of life around them. They use their emotions intelligently to guide their thinking and behaviour. Emotions are strong mental or instinctive feelings such as love, fear, hope, anger and sadness.
On the other hand, there are numerous cases of smart managers with high IQ who behave stupidly in emotionally charged situations. The lack of emotional intelligence often results in their emotions working against them with unproductive outcomes. I once worked under a boss who often shouted abusive and vulgar words at his subordinates in public when overwhelmed with anger. He was also unappreciative and had poor interpersonal skills. Due to his low emotional intelligence, he was greatly disliked by most people in the organization.
Fortunately, our level of emotional intelligence is not fixed at birth. It can be learnt and enhanced. One can become more emotionally intelligent by learning and practising the skills of emotional intelligence.
What is Emotional Intelligence?
The term “emotional intelligence” was coined by psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer in 1990. It was then greatly popularized by Daniel Goleman in his bestseller, Emotional Intelligence.
Peter Salovey and John Mayer defined emotional intelligence in terms of being able to monitor and regulate one’s own and others’ feelings, and to use feelings to guide thought and action.1According to Goleman, emotional intelligence refers to “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships.”2
Simply put, emotional intelligence is the ability to handle emotions in a way that enhances your productivity, personal power and quality of life around you. It involves making your emotions work for you.
Origins of Emotional Intelligence
It can be argued that emotional intelligence is not entirely a new concept. It has its roots in the concept of “social intelligence” which was first identified by E. L. Thorndike in 1920. Social intelligence is essentially the ability to understand others (what motivates them, how they work and how to work cooperatively with them) and to act wisely in human relations.3
Self-awareness, empathy and handling interpersonal relationships which make up the core of emotional intelligence are essentially dimensions of social intelligence. The dimensions of emotional intelligence are also closely related to other concepts of psychological maturity, emotional awareness, empathic listening and assertiveness.
Importance of Emotional Intelligence
Latest research findings show that IQ takes second position to emotional intelligence in determining outstanding job performance. The highest estimate of how much difference IQ accounts for success at the workplace is about 25%. A more accurate figure may be no higher than 10%, and perhaps as low as 4%.4 Daniel Goleman sums up the importance of emotional intelligence as follows: “For star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities.”5 Examples of emotional competencies are self-confidence, self-motivation, persistence, adaptability, empathy and initiative.
At the workplace, there is increasing evidence that IQ gets people hired, but EQ gets them promoted. More careers have been damaged due to poor interpersonal relationships rather than a lack of technical knowhow. EQ also directly affects teamwork and productivity.
Research shows that the careers of many managers were derailed due to poor interpersonal relationships, failure to build and lead a team, and inability to change and adapt during a transition. They were generally perceived as being poor communicators, abusive, manipulative, overly critical and poor team players.6
Major Domains of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence consists essentially of five major domains:7
Self-awareness which is the cornerstone of emotional intelligence. It involves observing oneself and recognizing a feeling as it happens; seeing the links between thoughts, feeling and reactions; seeing the consequences of alternative choices; recognizing one’s strengths and weaknesses; and seeing oneself in a positive but realistic light.
Managing emotions which comprises handling emotions appropriately. It involves keeping one’s anger in check, adapting oneself to change, and taking responsibility for personal performance.
Self-motivation which is primarily chanelling emotions in the service of a goal, delaying gratification, and stifling impulses. It includes achievement drive, initiative, commitment and perseverance.
Empathy which is essentially being sensitive to other people’s feelings and concerns besides respecting differences in how people feel about things. It encompasses understanding others, assisting others in their personal development, and anticipating and meeting customers’ requirements.
Handling relationships which encompasses managing emotions in others and social competence. This domain is critical for developing effective leadership and interpersonal relationships. It includes being a good listener; being assertive rather than angry or passive; managing conflict constructively; and learning the art of cooperation.
Tips for Promoting Self-Awareness
* Take responsibility for your emotions and behaviour.
* Identify your true feelings that greatly influence your behaviour and interactions with other people.
* Recognise your strengths and weaknesses.
* Identify events and behaviour which normally trigger your emotions. For example, identify what kind of situations or events can trigger your anger and what are its early signs.
* Tune in to your senses to pick up information about yourself, other people and different situations.
* Monitor your general behaviour and assess its impact on other people.
Tips for Managing Your Emotions Productively
* Avoid being swept away by your emotions. Remember that you are primarily responsible for your emotions and thoughts.
* Use "I" messages to express your emotions. Examples are: "I feel unappreciated when you take me for granted" and "I feel unimportant when you are late for your appointments with me."
* Pick an appropriate time for expressing your emotions.
* State what bothers you clearly, calmly and courteously. Avoid generalising and don't bring up old grudges.
* Take deep breaths or a time-out to stay on top of your behavioural actions.
* Seek solutions to problems rather than focusing on who is to be blamed.
Tips for Motivating Yourself
* Maintain a positive attitude of "I can do it." Think success, not failure. Establish specific, realistic and time-bounded goals.
* Wake up happy. Start the day with positive thoughts.
* Practise positive self-talk. Talk about your winners.
* Don't worry about things beyond your control. Have faith in God and hope for the best.
* Never belittle yourself. Accept compliments with a "thank you" and a smile.
* Break down formidable tasks into smaller and manageable components.
* Dare to fail. View failures as lessons learnt.
* Maintain perseverance in the face of setbacks. Try out new approaches instead of getting demoralized.
* Maintain the company of nourishing people. Avoid negaholics and "toxic" people.
* Visualize yourself undertaking challenging tasks successfully.
Tips for Empathizing with Others and Enhancing Social Competence
* Treat everyone with respect and dignity. Make them feel important. Remember and use other people's names.
* Be empathetic. Always try to see the other person's point of view. Try to understand why others feel the way they do.
* Be a good listener and encourage others to talk about themselves. Listen attentively with the purpose of understanding what is being said. Maintain eye contact and resist distractions.
* Make others feel good about themselves by giving them sincere, specific and timely praise.
* Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly and politely. Avoid making sarcastic remarks.
* Speak positively of others or not at all.
* Assist others in their growth and development. Share ideas, skills, experiences and pertinent information.
* Avoid personal attacks. Learn to make specific complaints by focusing on the undesirable behaviour of an individual.
* Admit your mistakes. Apologize sincerely and take the necessary steps to correct your behaviour.
* Seek out the good in others and accept them as they are.
* Ignore minor irritations and trivial issues.
* Create "win-win" relationships. Seek mutual benefit in all human interactions.
Notes
1. Cited in Daniel Goleman, Working with Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 1998), p. 317.
2. Ibid.
3. See Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 1995), pp. 45-46.
4. Cited in Daniel Goleman, Working with Emotional Intelligence, p. 19.
5. Ibid., p. 34.
6. Cited in Robert Kreitner, Management (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998), pp. 5-6.
7. The five major domains of emotional intelligence are based on the model proposed by Salovey and Mayer. See Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence, pp. 46-47.
http://www.tqm.com.my/web/05_bookArticle_12.html
By Ranjit Singh Malhi, Ph.D.
Introduction
Recent behavioural research has shown that emotional intelligence is an important determinant of success in both our personal and professional lives. Emotionally intelligent managers are adept at making their emotions work for them. They are able to handle their emotions in ways that enhance their work productivity and quality of life around them. They use their emotions intelligently to guide their thinking and behaviour. Emotions are strong mental or instinctive feelings such as love, fear, hope, anger and sadness.
On the other hand, there are numerous cases of smart managers with high IQ who behave stupidly in emotionally charged situations. The lack of emotional intelligence often results in their emotions working against them with unproductive outcomes. I once worked under a boss who often shouted abusive and vulgar words at his subordinates in public when overwhelmed with anger. He was also unappreciative and had poor interpersonal skills. Due to his low emotional intelligence, he was greatly disliked by most people in the organization.
Fortunately, our level of emotional intelligence is not fixed at birth. It can be learnt and enhanced. One can become more emotionally intelligent by learning and practising the skills of emotional intelligence.
What is Emotional Intelligence?
The term “emotional intelligence” was coined by psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer in 1990. It was then greatly popularized by Daniel Goleman in his bestseller, Emotional Intelligence.
Peter Salovey and John Mayer defined emotional intelligence in terms of being able to monitor and regulate one’s own and others’ feelings, and to use feelings to guide thought and action.1According to Goleman, emotional intelligence refers to “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships.”2
Simply put, emotional intelligence is the ability to handle emotions in a way that enhances your productivity, personal power and quality of life around you. It involves making your emotions work for you.
Origins of Emotional Intelligence
It can be argued that emotional intelligence is not entirely a new concept. It has its roots in the concept of “social intelligence” which was first identified by E. L. Thorndike in 1920. Social intelligence is essentially the ability to understand others (what motivates them, how they work and how to work cooperatively with them) and to act wisely in human relations.3
Self-awareness, empathy and handling interpersonal relationships which make up the core of emotional intelligence are essentially dimensions of social intelligence. The dimensions of emotional intelligence are also closely related to other concepts of psychological maturity, emotional awareness, empathic listening and assertiveness.
Importance of Emotional Intelligence
Latest research findings show that IQ takes second position to emotional intelligence in determining outstanding job performance. The highest estimate of how much difference IQ accounts for success at the workplace is about 25%. A more accurate figure may be no higher than 10%, and perhaps as low as 4%.4 Daniel Goleman sums up the importance of emotional intelligence as follows: “For star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities.”5 Examples of emotional competencies are self-confidence, self-motivation, persistence, adaptability, empathy and initiative.
At the workplace, there is increasing evidence that IQ gets people hired, but EQ gets them promoted. More careers have been damaged due to poor interpersonal relationships rather than a lack of technical knowhow. EQ also directly affects teamwork and productivity.
Research shows that the careers of many managers were derailed due to poor interpersonal relationships, failure to build and lead a team, and inability to change and adapt during a transition. They were generally perceived as being poor communicators, abusive, manipulative, overly critical and poor team players.6
Major Domains of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence consists essentially of five major domains:7
Self-awareness which is the cornerstone of emotional intelligence. It involves observing oneself and recognizing a feeling as it happens; seeing the links between thoughts, feeling and reactions; seeing the consequences of alternative choices; recognizing one’s strengths and weaknesses; and seeing oneself in a positive but realistic light.
Managing emotions which comprises handling emotions appropriately. It involves keeping one’s anger in check, adapting oneself to change, and taking responsibility for personal performance.
Self-motivation which is primarily chanelling emotions in the service of a goal, delaying gratification, and stifling impulses. It includes achievement drive, initiative, commitment and perseverance.
Empathy which is essentially being sensitive to other people’s feelings and concerns besides respecting differences in how people feel about things. It encompasses understanding others, assisting others in their personal development, and anticipating and meeting customers’ requirements.
Handling relationships which encompasses managing emotions in others and social competence. This domain is critical for developing effective leadership and interpersonal relationships. It includes being a good listener; being assertive rather than angry or passive; managing conflict constructively; and learning the art of cooperation.
Tips for Promoting Self-Awareness
* Take responsibility for your emotions and behaviour.
* Identify your true feelings that greatly influence your behaviour and interactions with other people.
* Recognise your strengths and weaknesses.
* Identify events and behaviour which normally trigger your emotions. For example, identify what kind of situations or events can trigger your anger and what are its early signs.
* Tune in to your senses to pick up information about yourself, other people and different situations.
* Monitor your general behaviour and assess its impact on other people.
Tips for Managing Your Emotions Productively
* Avoid being swept away by your emotions. Remember that you are primarily responsible for your emotions and thoughts.
* Use "I" messages to express your emotions. Examples are: "I feel unappreciated when you take me for granted" and "I feel unimportant when you are late for your appointments with me."
* Pick an appropriate time for expressing your emotions.
* State what bothers you clearly, calmly and courteously. Avoid generalising and don't bring up old grudges.
* Take deep breaths or a time-out to stay on top of your behavioural actions.
* Seek solutions to problems rather than focusing on who is to be blamed.
Tips for Motivating Yourself
* Maintain a positive attitude of "I can do it." Think success, not failure. Establish specific, realistic and time-bounded goals.
* Wake up happy. Start the day with positive thoughts.
* Practise positive self-talk. Talk about your winners.
* Don't worry about things beyond your control. Have faith in God and hope for the best.
* Never belittle yourself. Accept compliments with a "thank you" and a smile.
* Break down formidable tasks into smaller and manageable components.
* Dare to fail. View failures as lessons learnt.
* Maintain perseverance in the face of setbacks. Try out new approaches instead of getting demoralized.
* Maintain the company of nourishing people. Avoid negaholics and "toxic" people.
* Visualize yourself undertaking challenging tasks successfully.
Tips for Empathizing with Others and Enhancing Social Competence
* Treat everyone with respect and dignity. Make them feel important. Remember and use other people's names.
* Be empathetic. Always try to see the other person's point of view. Try to understand why others feel the way they do.
* Be a good listener and encourage others to talk about themselves. Listen attentively with the purpose of understanding what is being said. Maintain eye contact and resist distractions.
* Make others feel good about themselves by giving them sincere, specific and timely praise.
* Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly and politely. Avoid making sarcastic remarks.
* Speak positively of others or not at all.
* Assist others in their growth and development. Share ideas, skills, experiences and pertinent information.
* Avoid personal attacks. Learn to make specific complaints by focusing on the undesirable behaviour of an individual.
* Admit your mistakes. Apologize sincerely and take the necessary steps to correct your behaviour.
* Seek out the good in others and accept them as they are.
* Ignore minor irritations and trivial issues.
* Create "win-win" relationships. Seek mutual benefit in all human interactions.
Notes
1. Cited in Daniel Goleman, Working with Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 1998), p. 317.
2. Ibid.
3. See Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 1995), pp. 45-46.
4. Cited in Daniel Goleman, Working with Emotional Intelligence, p. 19.
5. Ibid., p. 34.
6. Cited in Robert Kreitner, Management (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998), pp. 5-6.
7. The five major domains of emotional intelligence are based on the model proposed by Salovey and Mayer. See Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence, pp. 46-47.
http://www.tqm.com.my/web/05_bookArticle_12.html
Dress for Work Success: A Business Casual Dress Code
Dress for Work Success: A Business Casual Dress Code
http://humanresources.about.com/od/workrelationships/a/dress_code.htm
By Susan M. Heathfield,
Your Company's objective in establishing a business casual dress code, is to allow our employees to work comfortably in the workplace. Yet, we still need our employees to project a professional image for our customers, potential employees, and community visitors. Business casual dress is the standard for this dress code.
Because all casual clothing is not suitable for the office, these guidelines will help you determine what is appropriate to wear to work. Clothing that works well for the beach, yard work, dance clubs, exercise sessions, and sports contests may not be appropriate for a professional appearance at work.
Clothing that reveals too much cleavage, your back, your chest, your feet, your stomach or your underwear is not appropriate for a place of business, even in a business casual setting.
Even in a business casual work environment, clothing should be pressed and never wrinkled. Torn, dirty, or frayed clothing is unacceptable. All seams must be finished. Any clothing that has words, terms, or pictures that may be offensive to other employees is unacceptable. Clothing that has the company logo is encouraged. Sports team, university, and fashion brand names on clothing are generally acceptable.
Certain days can be declared dress down days, generally Fridays. On these days, jeans and other more casual clothing, although never clothing potentially offensive to others, are allowed.
Guide to Business Casual Dressing for Work
This is a general overview of appropriate business casual attire. Items that are not appropriate for the office are listed, too. Neither list is all-inclusive and both are open to change. The lists tell you what is generally acceptable as business casual attire and what is generally not acceptable as business casual attire.
No dress code can cover all contingencies so employees must exert a certain amount of judgment in their choice of clothing to wear to work. If you experience uncertainty about acceptable, professional business causal attire for work, please ask your supervisor or your Human Resources staff.
Slacks, Pants, and Suit Pants
Slacks that are similar to Dockers and other makers of cotton or synthetic material pants, wool pants, flannel pants,dressy capris, and nice looking dress synthetic pants are acceptable. Inappropriate slacks or pants include jeans, sweatpants, exercise pants, Bermuda shorts, short shorts, shorts, bib overalls, leggings, and any spandex or other form-fitting pants such as people wear for biking.
Skirts, Dresses, and Skirted Suits
Casual dresses and skirts, and skirts that are split at or below the knee are acceptable. Dress and skirt length should be at a length at which you can sit comfortably in public. Short, tight skirts that ride halfway up the thigh are inappropriate for work. Mini-skirts, skorts, sun dresses, beach dresses, and spaghetti-strap dresses are inappropriate for the office.
Shirts, Tops, Blouses, and Jackets
Casual shirts, dress shirts, sweaters, tops, golf-type shirts, and turtlenecks are acceptable attire for work. Most suit jackets or sport jackets are also acceptable attire for the office, if they violate none of the listed guidelines. Inappropriate attire for work includes tank tops; midriff tops; shirts with potentially offensive words, terms, logos, pictures, cartoons, or slogans; halter-tops; tops with bare shoulders; sweatshirts, and t-shirts unless worn under another blouse, shirt, jacket, or dress.
Shoes and Footwear
Conservative athletic or walking shoes, loafers, clogs, sneakers, boots, flats, dress heels, and leather deck-type shoes are acceptable for work. Wearing no stockings is acceptable in warm weather. Flashy athletic shoes, thongs, flip-flops, slippers, and any shoe with an open toe are not acceptable in the office. Closed toe and closed heel shoes are required in the manufacturing operation area.
Jewelry, Makeup, Perfume, and Cologne
Should be in good taste, with limited visible body piercing. Remember, that some employees are allergic to the chemicals in perfumes and make-up, so wear these substances with restraint.
Hats and Head Covering
Hats are not appropriate in the office. Head Covers that are required for religious purposes or to honor cultural tradition are allowed.
Conclusion
If clothing fails to meet these standards, as determined by the employee’s supervisor and Human Resources staff, the employee will be asked not to wear the inappropriate item to work again. If the problem persists, the employee may be sent home to change clothes and will receive a verbal warning for the first offense. All other policies about personal time use will apply. Progressive disciplinary action will be applied if dress code violations continue.
http://humanresources.about.com/od/workrelationships/a/dress_code.htm
By Susan M. Heathfield,
Your Company's objective in establishing a business casual dress code, is to allow our employees to work comfortably in the workplace. Yet, we still need our employees to project a professional image for our customers, potential employees, and community visitors. Business casual dress is the standard for this dress code.
Because all casual clothing is not suitable for the office, these guidelines will help you determine what is appropriate to wear to work. Clothing that works well for the beach, yard work, dance clubs, exercise sessions, and sports contests may not be appropriate for a professional appearance at work.
Clothing that reveals too much cleavage, your back, your chest, your feet, your stomach or your underwear is not appropriate for a place of business, even in a business casual setting.
Even in a business casual work environment, clothing should be pressed and never wrinkled. Torn, dirty, or frayed clothing is unacceptable. All seams must be finished. Any clothing that has words, terms, or pictures that may be offensive to other employees is unacceptable. Clothing that has the company logo is encouraged. Sports team, university, and fashion brand names on clothing are generally acceptable.
Certain days can be declared dress down days, generally Fridays. On these days, jeans and other more casual clothing, although never clothing potentially offensive to others, are allowed.
Guide to Business Casual Dressing for Work
This is a general overview of appropriate business casual attire. Items that are not appropriate for the office are listed, too. Neither list is all-inclusive and both are open to change. The lists tell you what is generally acceptable as business casual attire and what is generally not acceptable as business casual attire.
No dress code can cover all contingencies so employees must exert a certain amount of judgment in their choice of clothing to wear to work. If you experience uncertainty about acceptable, professional business causal attire for work, please ask your supervisor or your Human Resources staff.
Slacks, Pants, and Suit Pants
Slacks that are similar to Dockers and other makers of cotton or synthetic material pants, wool pants, flannel pants,dressy capris, and nice looking dress synthetic pants are acceptable. Inappropriate slacks or pants include jeans, sweatpants, exercise pants, Bermuda shorts, short shorts, shorts, bib overalls, leggings, and any spandex or other form-fitting pants such as people wear for biking.
Skirts, Dresses, and Skirted Suits
Casual dresses and skirts, and skirts that are split at or below the knee are acceptable. Dress and skirt length should be at a length at which you can sit comfortably in public. Short, tight skirts that ride halfway up the thigh are inappropriate for work. Mini-skirts, skorts, sun dresses, beach dresses, and spaghetti-strap dresses are inappropriate for the office.
Shirts, Tops, Blouses, and Jackets
Casual shirts, dress shirts, sweaters, tops, golf-type shirts, and turtlenecks are acceptable attire for work. Most suit jackets or sport jackets are also acceptable attire for the office, if they violate none of the listed guidelines. Inappropriate attire for work includes tank tops; midriff tops; shirts with potentially offensive words, terms, logos, pictures, cartoons, or slogans; halter-tops; tops with bare shoulders; sweatshirts, and t-shirts unless worn under another blouse, shirt, jacket, or dress.
Shoes and Footwear
Conservative athletic or walking shoes, loafers, clogs, sneakers, boots, flats, dress heels, and leather deck-type shoes are acceptable for work. Wearing no stockings is acceptable in warm weather. Flashy athletic shoes, thongs, flip-flops, slippers, and any shoe with an open toe are not acceptable in the office. Closed toe and closed heel shoes are required in the manufacturing operation area.
Jewelry, Makeup, Perfume, and Cologne
Should be in good taste, with limited visible body piercing. Remember, that some employees are allergic to the chemicals in perfumes and make-up, so wear these substances with restraint.
Hats and Head Covering
Hats are not appropriate in the office. Head Covers that are required for religious purposes or to honor cultural tradition are allowed.
Conclusion
If clothing fails to meet these standards, as determined by the employee’s supervisor and Human Resources staff, the employee will be asked not to wear the inappropriate item to work again. If the problem persists, the employee may be sent home to change clothes and will receive a verbal warning for the first offense. All other policies about personal time use will apply. Progressive disciplinary action will be applied if dress code violations continue.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Can Capitalism Save the World?
Can Capitalism Save the World?
by Patrick Ercolano
Steve Forbes looked every inch the battered capitalist. Before an audience of 300 at his June appearance in the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School’s “Leaders + Legends” lecture series, the media mogul and former presidential candidate opened by mentioning the back surgery he had undergone weeks earlier. Thus, he explained, the large, uncomfortable-looking brace around his neck.
“I just want to show you,” he deadpanned, “I’m feeling the pain of what the economy is going through.”
The recent period of worldwide economic discomfort is hardly the first time the free-market system has been the target of dark humor and derision. And yet, Forbes argued, despite the “ill repute” in which capitalism is sometimes held, it remains “a moral system. It has been the best poverty fighter in human history, the best system that allows for innovation and invention and creativity.”
The case for the virtues of capitalism has been made before. Perhaps it was made most famously by Adam Smith when, more than 200 years ago, he wrote in The Wealth of Nations of the “invisible hand” by which even the most self-interested businessman benefits society because his products are tuned to society’s desires—even if such a benefit was not his intention. “By pursuing his own interest,” Smith wrote of the 18th-century capitalist, “he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
A moral philosopher by training, Smith still couldn’t help but have doubts about this modern system of commerce and investment that had begun to emerge in Western Europe a century earlier, observes one expert on the history of capitalism. “Adam Smith hated the idea that there was this intrinsic materialism in what he would have called economic growth—people buying trinkets and baubles,” says Joyce Appleby, professor emerita of history at UCLA and author of The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism (W.W. Norton, 2010). “But he thought that the new way was so much better than the [pre-industrial] age in which you had no economic progress and people were indolent and the aristocrats and royals who guided society were rapacious and warlike. Smith thought it was worth the moral trade-off.”
The tension within the trade-off between the positive and negative effects of the free market is captured in 20th-century economist Joseph Schumpeter’s well-known phrase “creative destruction.” As the Austrian-born Schumpeter saw it, capitalism “incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” Old industries, old lifestyles, and old cultures are reduced to ash, but from the ash heap grow new industries, lifestyles, cultures. The old order’s pain gives rise to the new order’s prosperity.
And often prosperity is accompanied by another kind of pain, as in the slavery, sweatshops, low wages, monopolies, and environmental degradation associated with economic successes over the centuries. Appleby notes this pattern in The Relentless Revolution, writing, “One cannot celebrate the benefits of the capitalist system without taking account of the disastrous adventures and human malevolence that this wealth-generating system has made possible and sometimes actually encouraged. … ‘Can the globe sustain these capitalist successes?’ has become an urgent question.”
Despite such misgivings, Appleby says she maintains a firm belief in the capitalist system, mainly for two reasons: the freedom it grants individuals to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams, and the creation of wealth that spawns the capital that fuels innovation upon innovation. The difficulty, she states in her book, is to have a thriving system that includes “the moral base of capitalism, which depends upon men and women’s meeting obligations, managing resources prudently, valuing hard work, and treating others fairly.”
Some businesspeople have begun to recognize the necessity of this moral base. They are taking a more visible, more active hand in a social-minded capitalism, consciously creating products and services that turn a profit while also benefiting humanity. Altruism is part of the motivation. But so is the belief that the global marketplace will provide greater profits for businesses if more of the globe’s inhabitants are carrying expendable cash. To these entrepreneurs, capitalism is a positive force, and success is impossible in a failed society.
http://carey.jhu.edu/one/2010/fall/can-capitalism-save-the-world/
by Patrick Ercolano
Steve Forbes looked every inch the battered capitalist. Before an audience of 300 at his June appearance in the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School’s “Leaders + Legends” lecture series, the media mogul and former presidential candidate opened by mentioning the back surgery he had undergone weeks earlier. Thus, he explained, the large, uncomfortable-looking brace around his neck.
“I just want to show you,” he deadpanned, “I’m feeling the pain of what the economy is going through.”
The recent period of worldwide economic discomfort is hardly the first time the free-market system has been the target of dark humor and derision. And yet, Forbes argued, despite the “ill repute” in which capitalism is sometimes held, it remains “a moral system. It has been the best poverty fighter in human history, the best system that allows for innovation and invention and creativity.”
The case for the virtues of capitalism has been made before. Perhaps it was made most famously by Adam Smith when, more than 200 years ago, he wrote in The Wealth of Nations of the “invisible hand” by which even the most self-interested businessman benefits society because his products are tuned to society’s desires—even if such a benefit was not his intention. “By pursuing his own interest,” Smith wrote of the 18th-century capitalist, “he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
A moral philosopher by training, Smith still couldn’t help but have doubts about this modern system of commerce and investment that had begun to emerge in Western Europe a century earlier, observes one expert on the history of capitalism. “Adam Smith hated the idea that there was this intrinsic materialism in what he would have called economic growth—people buying trinkets and baubles,” says Joyce Appleby, professor emerita of history at UCLA and author of The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism (W.W. Norton, 2010). “But he thought that the new way was so much better than the [pre-industrial] age in which you had no economic progress and people were indolent and the aristocrats and royals who guided society were rapacious and warlike. Smith thought it was worth the moral trade-off.”
The tension within the trade-off between the positive and negative effects of the free market is captured in 20th-century economist Joseph Schumpeter’s well-known phrase “creative destruction.” As the Austrian-born Schumpeter saw it, capitalism “incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” Old industries, old lifestyles, and old cultures are reduced to ash, but from the ash heap grow new industries, lifestyles, cultures. The old order’s pain gives rise to the new order’s prosperity.
And often prosperity is accompanied by another kind of pain, as in the slavery, sweatshops, low wages, monopolies, and environmental degradation associated with economic successes over the centuries. Appleby notes this pattern in The Relentless Revolution, writing, “One cannot celebrate the benefits of the capitalist system without taking account of the disastrous adventures and human malevolence that this wealth-generating system has made possible and sometimes actually encouraged. … ‘Can the globe sustain these capitalist successes?’ has become an urgent question.”
Despite such misgivings, Appleby says she maintains a firm belief in the capitalist system, mainly for two reasons: the freedom it grants individuals to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams, and the creation of wealth that spawns the capital that fuels innovation upon innovation. The difficulty, she states in her book, is to have a thriving system that includes “the moral base of capitalism, which depends upon men and women’s meeting obligations, managing resources prudently, valuing hard work, and treating others fairly.”
Some businesspeople have begun to recognize the necessity of this moral base. They are taking a more visible, more active hand in a social-minded capitalism, consciously creating products and services that turn a profit while also benefiting humanity. Altruism is part of the motivation. But so is the belief that the global marketplace will provide greater profits for businesses if more of the globe’s inhabitants are carrying expendable cash. To these entrepreneurs, capitalism is a positive force, and success is impossible in a failed society.
http://carey.jhu.edu/one/2010/fall/can-capitalism-save-the-world/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
