The IT job market appears to be holding steady for now .In the near term the determining factor whether this trend will continue is the larger economy and whether or not we experience a “double dip recession. Earlier in the year there appeared to be a little more optimism and that according to CIO/CEO surveys, but that optimism is marginally declined
If we don’t have the next recession in the near future, then the new technologies like the cloud, SaaS etc. will engender IT job creation. Also, job changing, a traditional aspect of the IT industry, has been stymied since 2009 by the economic slowdown, and that has created a pent-up demand for the job changer. Workers also see moving to another job as one of the few ways to increase their compensation which has remained static since the financial meltdown in late 2008. An interesting aside to the compensation issue is that according a DICE.com hiring survey entry level IT hires have received a five percent decline in their starting salary.
On the other hand, if such macro-economic factors like energy prices continue on their upward trajectory, then that may cause a decline in the demand for new employees, or even significant new rounds of lay-offs. Also, the coming US presidential election in 2012 could make some disgruntled employers wait for the results before hiring trends to trend upward. Lastly, the global economic and political stability or instability could be a factor in the direction of hiring.
How these situations unfold will determine if we experience an increase or decrease in general confidence in the economy. My best hunch based on 20 years of viewing these hiring trends that for the most part hiring will remain stable till the next election. Beyond 2012 we should see more a more pronounced upward or downward movement in IT hiring. One additional troubling factor
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The 2011 (and Beyond) IT Job Market: The Best, The Worst, and The Scary
In the depths of the recession/depression in early 2009, I predicted that the IT permanent job market would start to improve at the end of 2010 or the beginning 2011, based on previous hiring cycles related to stock market fluctuations. Also I predicted this would be preceded, as it usually is in an economic recovery, by a strong uptick in contract IT hiring, which happened in the second half of 2010. All was not so rosy though. In the spring of 2010 it appeared briefly that the IT jobs recovery would happen even sooner, but then the European financial crisis stalled the nascent recovery and for the next four to six months there was a realistic fear that the dreaded “double dip” recession would occur, leading to widespread layoffs circa 2009. However, now such sources as Monster.Com, Dice.Com, “CIO Insight” and “E-Week” magazines have up until recently been predicting renewed and, in some instances, robust hiring within the first half of 2011. Yet in the early months of 2011 escalating political unrest in the Arab world, has led to conflagrations and epochal uprisings that again could send us careening towards the “double-dip” taking the IT and Tech sector down with it. However, for our purposes here, let us maintain a mildly positive outlook for IT hiring prospects in 2011, tossing in a few caveats that could impede short and long-term IT hiring possibilities.
The overall forecast, from both media pundits, economists and the government is that we will still have a near or above 8% unemployment rate until, at least, the next election cycle in late 2012. This is still better than what we have now, but still disastrous for many. In particular, unemployed people in their 40’s or 50’s, or 60’s without a college degree or very specialized training, and urban minorities. Moreover the real rate of unemployment, including those that stopped looking, not on unemployment, or underemployed, will probably stay in the 15% to 20% range for quite some time. So why is IT any different? First, it is generally believed by those in the know, that IT was a major factor in the great explosion of wealth (mostly for a fortunate few in financial services and the upper echelons of corporate America) and productivity for most of the 1990’s and 2000’s. Secondly IT never had a very strong recovery from the dot-com and telecom bombs of 2001 to 2004 like construction and other sectors of the economy did.
However, in the period since the major IT/software downturn, there have been many new innovations and iterations in IT products and services; examples include the rush to open source technology, virtualization, hand held devices (e. g. smart phones and tablets like the IPAD) and the cost saving cloud computing, which brings remote IT resources directly to thr desktop eliminating the need for large datacenters, and cloud related SaaS (Software as a Service). Also, the Web 2.O, with the triumvirate of Linkedin, Facebook, and Twitter are bringing information back in popular favor, perhaps more than in anytime history of information technology. Moreover, the recent celebrity status of Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the generation before him, is indicative that “the buzz” in IT and software development is coming back in vogue. However, the progressive, even revolutionary, implications of the web 2.0 bringing vital information to the oppressed and under classes globally could eventually undermine a jobs recovery here by exacerbating fears of global uncertainty. Excellent examples of this “viral political process” can be found in Clay Shirky’s work “The Cognitive Surplus.” Here, the implications, and applications of these innovations is widening the so called “digital divide.” Now this divide is looking increasingly more like an unfathomable gulf for some sinking out of the middle class, others not having a chance to rise out of poverty, with many others just treading water, fearing they will be left behind as well.
Nevertheless, if things do pick up this year as projected, what are the IT job categories poised for the most growth? According to ”CIO Insight“ magazine, Network Engineers and Business Analysts are the two hottest groups with Software Developers coming in third. In my own experience, I would also include Database Administrators (DBA’s) and Systems, and Enterprise Architects. The Network Engineer category makes sense because the cloud infrastructure implementation necessitates people with a strong network engineering background for WAN (i. e.; Wide Area Network) optimization and deployment, as well as, to facilitate cloud related network capacity build out. Along with Network Engineers, Business Analysts and DBA’s perform enterprise infrastructure and/or in house software applications specific functions, which, at this time, make them less likely candidates for outsourcing. In other words, these people are directly related to day to day operations. Open source-cloud related (particularly SaaS), database, financial service, and medical related developers, as well as Systems Architects, are currently in demand because of the initial phase of new applications development cycle is still the forte of full-time, domestic IT, and software, innovators. However, once these initiatives reach the maintenance phase of the development cycle, many of these jobs are either given to contractors, or are more subject to lower cost outsourcing. Moreover, the higher productivity and significant automization ushered in by these advancements could very well lead to a long term general decline, at least in the US and perhaps globally, of the need for IT workers.
Now this is a guardedly upbeat IT hiring prognosis, at least until this itineration of tech/IT advancements are rolled out. But in its malaise during the previous decade, the American IT industry lost a large percentage of its workforce to lower cost offshore workers. Ushered in by the US inspired globalization trend of the 1990’s, outsourcing has, and still does, lead to the cannibalization of the native, and sometimes non-native, American IT workforce. Perhaps the single most humiliating aspect of the massive outsourcing initiative is when lay-off candidates are directed to train their lower cost off shore replacements for a few extra weeks or months of compensation. Also, this troubling trend seems to contradict the patriotism that many of these CEO’s, and other corporate leaders, vociferously espouse. We still proudly, in the eyes of many, live in a relatively free market economy. However, the increasing lack of protective checks and balances (e. g., unionization as related to job security, strong financial service oversight) were defused with the “gold rush-like” growth of IT at the end of the last century.. Moreover, the recent IT, and other, job losses were, to a large degree, a result of excessive financial service risk taking that led to the economic meltdown of 2008. Also, with the over one third decline of American College students choosing Computer Science, and related fields, as majors since the dot.com bomb in 2001, it is no wonder US corporations are looking offshore for IT talent.
Also, the insourcing of lower cost HI-B workers from India, Eastern Europe and elsewhere continues to take a big bite out of the non-immigrant American IT worker’s pie. This is particularly bothersome because many American IT workers, who built the software industry when they were in their 20’s or 30’s, are shut out of the IT full-time work force now they are 40 or older. Frequently these unfortunate individuals’ plight, at best, is to survive from one uncertain three plus month assignment to another, with drastically reduced hourly earnings from what was the norm five or ten years ago. Ageism in unemployment is rampant, but in IT it may be even worse fueled by the mentally intensive nature of the work and the relative youth of the industry, particularly its management.. Furthermore, certain corporate and political concerns are angling to increase the quota of HI-B’s substantially now a recovery appears to be ensuing, particularly with the looming domestic labor shortage of highly skilled younger IT workers. But to its credit, insourcing, unlike outsourcing, at least keeps IT, and related innovations, in the US which conceivably can lead to more jobs for all. Moreover, insourced workers, in themselves, should not be demonized for this trend. They are only following the uniquely American historical tradition of highly productive, and upwardly mobile, immigrant workers. But while in the past it might take a generation or two for immigrants to achieve an affluent lifestyle .However, today, with IT workers in particular, this process can sometimes occur almost instantaneously for the most talented new arrivals.
In conclusion, the domestic IT job market seems possibly poised for a modest uptick in 2011. This is primarily due to macroeconomic trends and industry innovations such as the cloud, devices like the I Pad and I Phone, other open source initiatives, and the transformation of IT from a cost center to an income generating center. Accordingly, insider publications, like “CIO Insight” and “E-Week,” predict a return to steady, if not spectacular, IT hiring. However, the economy is still mired in a slow growth mode. We are in the midst of a so-called jobless recovery in most economic sectors, and the possibility of a debilitating large scale terrorist event or further, major, European financial difficulties, or the rapidly accelerating unrest is the Arab world could quickly curtail hiring plans Also, continued outsourcing may mute rehiring, with the continuing lack of very little employment related leverage for domestic IT workers. In turn, makes a career in IT even less attractive for US college students
Nevertheless, a commitment to IT staffing growth appears to be slowly crystallizing and gaining a little momentum as we head into the second decade of the 21st century. My deepest hope and concern is that the suffering related to job loss and uncertain futures will wash away in a wave of renewed commitment to excellence, innovation, and cost control. But for this to happen, in my opinion, the US needs, like other industrial superpowers, to develop a strong, and overarching, economic policy that protects the interest of American industries and workers. Unfortunately, in the current climate of sharp political and cultural divineness, and general uncertainty, such major initiatives seem unlikely. Thus the US IT industry could be in the midst of an accelerating and irreversible decline, like large manufacturing sectors in the past, which a modest increase in hiring would only offer a fleeting apparition of eventually dashed dreams.
The overall forecast, from both media pundits, economists and the government is that we will still have a near or above 8% unemployment rate until, at least, the next election cycle in late 2012. This is still better than what we have now, but still disastrous for many. In particular, unemployed people in their 40’s or 50’s, or 60’s without a college degree or very specialized training, and urban minorities. Moreover the real rate of unemployment, including those that stopped looking, not on unemployment, or underemployed, will probably stay in the 15% to 20% range for quite some time. So why is IT any different? First, it is generally believed by those in the know, that IT was a major factor in the great explosion of wealth (mostly for a fortunate few in financial services and the upper echelons of corporate America) and productivity for most of the 1990’s and 2000’s. Secondly IT never had a very strong recovery from the dot-com and telecom bombs of 2001 to 2004 like construction and other sectors of the economy did.
However, in the period since the major IT/software downturn, there have been many new innovations and iterations in IT products and services; examples include the rush to open source technology, virtualization, hand held devices (e. g. smart phones and tablets like the IPAD) and the cost saving cloud computing, which brings remote IT resources directly to thr desktop eliminating the need for large datacenters, and cloud related SaaS (Software as a Service). Also, the Web 2.O, with the triumvirate of Linkedin, Facebook, and Twitter are bringing information back in popular favor, perhaps more than in anytime history of information technology. Moreover, the recent celebrity status of Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the generation before him, is indicative that “the buzz” in IT and software development is coming back in vogue. However, the progressive, even revolutionary, implications of the web 2.0 bringing vital information to the oppressed and under classes globally could eventually undermine a jobs recovery here by exacerbating fears of global uncertainty. Excellent examples of this “viral political process” can be found in Clay Shirky’s work “The Cognitive Surplus.” Here, the implications, and applications of these innovations is widening the so called “digital divide.” Now this divide is looking increasingly more like an unfathomable gulf for some sinking out of the middle class, others not having a chance to rise out of poverty, with many others just treading water, fearing they will be left behind as well.
Nevertheless, if things do pick up this year as projected, what are the IT job categories poised for the most growth? According to ”CIO Insight“ magazine, Network Engineers and Business Analysts are the two hottest groups with Software Developers coming in third. In my own experience, I would also include Database Administrators (DBA’s) and Systems, and Enterprise Architects. The Network Engineer category makes sense because the cloud infrastructure implementation necessitates people with a strong network engineering background for WAN (i. e.; Wide Area Network) optimization and deployment, as well as, to facilitate cloud related network capacity build out. Along with Network Engineers, Business Analysts and DBA’s perform enterprise infrastructure and/or in house software applications specific functions, which, at this time, make them less likely candidates for outsourcing. In other words, these people are directly related to day to day operations. Open source-cloud related (particularly SaaS), database, financial service, and medical related developers, as well as Systems Architects, are currently in demand because of the initial phase of new applications development cycle is still the forte of full-time, domestic IT, and software, innovators. However, once these initiatives reach the maintenance phase of the development cycle, many of these jobs are either given to contractors, or are more subject to lower cost outsourcing. Moreover, the higher productivity and significant automization ushered in by these advancements could very well lead to a long term general decline, at least in the US and perhaps globally, of the need for IT workers.
Now this is a guardedly upbeat IT hiring prognosis, at least until this itineration of tech/IT advancements are rolled out. But in its malaise during the previous decade, the American IT industry lost a large percentage of its workforce to lower cost offshore workers. Ushered in by the US inspired globalization trend of the 1990’s, outsourcing has, and still does, lead to the cannibalization of the native, and sometimes non-native, American IT workforce. Perhaps the single most humiliating aspect of the massive outsourcing initiative is when lay-off candidates are directed to train their lower cost off shore replacements for a few extra weeks or months of compensation. Also, this troubling trend seems to contradict the patriotism that many of these CEO’s, and other corporate leaders, vociferously espouse. We still proudly, in the eyes of many, live in a relatively free market economy. However, the increasing lack of protective checks and balances (e. g., unionization as related to job security, strong financial service oversight) were defused with the “gold rush-like” growth of IT at the end of the last century.. Moreover, the recent IT, and other, job losses were, to a large degree, a result of excessive financial service risk taking that led to the economic meltdown of 2008. Also, with the over one third decline of American College students choosing Computer Science, and related fields, as majors since the dot.com bomb in 2001, it is no wonder US corporations are looking offshore for IT talent.
Also, the insourcing of lower cost HI-B workers from India, Eastern Europe and elsewhere continues to take a big bite out of the non-immigrant American IT worker’s pie. This is particularly bothersome because many American IT workers, who built the software industry when they were in their 20’s or 30’s, are shut out of the IT full-time work force now they are 40 or older. Frequently these unfortunate individuals’ plight, at best, is to survive from one uncertain three plus month assignment to another, with drastically reduced hourly earnings from what was the norm five or ten years ago. Ageism in unemployment is rampant, but in IT it may be even worse fueled by the mentally intensive nature of the work and the relative youth of the industry, particularly its management.. Furthermore, certain corporate and political concerns are angling to increase the quota of HI-B’s substantially now a recovery appears to be ensuing, particularly with the looming domestic labor shortage of highly skilled younger IT workers. But to its credit, insourcing, unlike outsourcing, at least keeps IT, and related innovations, in the US which conceivably can lead to more jobs for all. Moreover, insourced workers, in themselves, should not be demonized for this trend. They are only following the uniquely American historical tradition of highly productive, and upwardly mobile, immigrant workers. But while in the past it might take a generation or two for immigrants to achieve an affluent lifestyle .However, today, with IT workers in particular, this process can sometimes occur almost instantaneously for the most talented new arrivals.
In conclusion, the domestic IT job market seems possibly poised for a modest uptick in 2011. This is primarily due to macroeconomic trends and industry innovations such as the cloud, devices like the I Pad and I Phone, other open source initiatives, and the transformation of IT from a cost center to an income generating center. Accordingly, insider publications, like “CIO Insight” and “E-Week,” predict a return to steady, if not spectacular, IT hiring. However, the economy is still mired in a slow growth mode. We are in the midst of a so-called jobless recovery in most economic sectors, and the possibility of a debilitating large scale terrorist event or further, major, European financial difficulties, or the rapidly accelerating unrest is the Arab world could quickly curtail hiring plans Also, continued outsourcing may mute rehiring, with the continuing lack of very little employment related leverage for domestic IT workers. In turn, makes a career in IT even less attractive for US college students
Nevertheless, a commitment to IT staffing growth appears to be slowly crystallizing and gaining a little momentum as we head into the second decade of the 21st century. My deepest hope and concern is that the suffering related to job loss and uncertain futures will wash away in a wave of renewed commitment to excellence, innovation, and cost control. But for this to happen, in my opinion, the US needs, like other industrial superpowers, to develop a strong, and overarching, economic policy that protects the interest of American industries and workers. Unfortunately, in the current climate of sharp political and cultural divineness, and general uncertainty, such major initiatives seem unlikely. Thus the US IT industry could be in the midst of an accelerating and irreversible decline, like large manufacturing sectors in the past, which a modest increase in hiring would only offer a fleeting apparition of eventually dashed dreams.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Negotiating Strategy (4): The Curious Case of The Non-Negiatior
Our last job offer bargaining strategy consists of not bargaining at all. To be a bit colloquial, this “non-strategy” entails giving up any negotiating power you have to the will of an external source, the hiring company and sometimes a recruiter. It’s easy to write this off as being a passive or even demeaning strategy, because in this scenario you have an opportunity to influence a major part of your future, and you just let the opportunity go by. Is there any value in this seemingly passive approach? Or is it a total surrender tactic? Or, maybe, in certain situations this is all you can do and the best you c can expect? Here we delve a little deeper into this non-negotiable mindset of the job candidate, considering why one would adopt such a non strategy and the long term affect on not negotiating one one’s career success, particularly compensation. Furthermore, because the person who chooses this strategy decides to not actively engage in negotiating job offer, our intention is, unlike in the other scenarios, not to offer “almost” any direct advice. Rather our agenda is to describe and analyze this non negotiating posture as another way one may one receive a job offer.
Well, first of all, in certain governmental, military, educational, day labor and institutional jobs, there really isn’t much room for negotiating the terms of a job: you either take the job or you don’t. In fact I would surmise that there are as many, if not more jobs, in this pre-set non arbitrary pay and benefit policy. Moreover, before the mid twentieth century, very few people had the option of negotiating their compensation and this was the modus operandi, and is still the case in many of the world economies. However, with the rise of the unions and then professional middle class, many employees gained the often empowering capability for compensation negotiation. So the notion that the job offer process always, or at least almost always, includes some negotiating room is always a myth.
In fact, for some people predefined compensation can even provide a sense of security and certainty In his book “The Paradox of Choice” Barry Schwartz says that one of the sometimes most psychological disorienting aspects of modern life is that we have seemingly unlimited choices in our lives. This can evoke a sense of instability and uncertainty if we are indecisive, or perhaps, more commonly, overwhelmed with the universe of things and situations to draw from. So having the certainty of a job with a pre-defined compensation structure could bring a sense of certainty and stability in one’s life. Would this strategy with a negotiable job package lessen anxiety? Maybe in the short run for some people, but generally the knowledge you could possibly negotiate for a better deal, and you don’t, is more disturbing than not.
However, in this venue we are more concerned with people who have an opportunity to negotiate, or choose but simply don’t. What is going on with them? Well you could speculate that when one takes what is offered with no reservation they may have less pressure, because they might feel under pressure to prove their worth to the company. In other words, there is never a risk of over promising and under delivering as is the case of the person of negotiates prom a position of strength or from a more symmetrical vantage point. However, in today’s high stress work environment this advantage may not mean quite, depending on the company and their area of expertise, particularly if their job category is subject to outsourcing. Also, they may be shy or, at times, totally lacking in assertiveness; or the non negotiator may suffer from a relative low self esteem or a negative sense of self worth. Although these psychological issues are common in those avoiding job negotiations- or a in avoiding any anxiety provoking situation” But can the much in vogue, often disempowering, psychological determinism be the major factor in refusing, or being incapable, to negotiate, Then what else could it be? Perhaps they, in some cases, enjoy their work for works sake, and compensation is a secondary issue for work that may intrinsically, or what my Psychology professor in graduate school, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, called flow. However, in a recessionary environment like we have been stuck in for the last couple of years most work has been too precarious to be called flow jobs. Finally, age may play a role in whether one negotiates or not for their job offer. Younger workers with with fewer responsibilities and often more options may be more likely to bargain, while older employees with more responsibilities and fewer options may be less likely to negotiate.
An alternative scenario involves someone who has been out of work for a while, like a person bargaining from a position of weakness. Moreover, this person may be so thankful to have a job that any type of negotiations seems possibly risky. Of course, this could be a function of how long they have been unemployed, or if they are at an age that reduces their hiring prospects. So we might still conjecture that the person had been experiencing anxiety, fear, or depression, but it could be more situational than endemic. With the media, and friends and family all generally having a very pessimistic attitude regarding them taking what you can get doesn’t seem that farfetched. But as with the person who tries to bargain with an inflexible employer from a position of weakness, passively accepting a lowball offer (at least, and usually, more than 5% less than their last or current compensation) can be multiplied over one’s entire career, which can be a significant amount of money easily exceeding six figures of potential lost income (e. g., 7k over 30 years adds up to 210k). So with such a significant amount of money being potentially lost, it might behoove the frightened job seeker to hire a career coach or gom to a job search agency to help them develop, and hopefully carry out, a more proactive strategy.
However, this non negotiation strategy is also utilized by people who are employed; just not as often. It’s easy to make the snap judgment that this person possesses a sense of low self worth so a lowball offer is a self fulfilling prophecy where diminished expectations lead to diminished results. Also unfortunately in a often “survival of the fittest” work environment, this non negotiator may find it hard to gain the respect of management or, in some cases, fellow workers who might be aware of this avoidance approach. In fact, some employees, if aware that the passive job seeker accepts less money for a job comparable to what they do, may feel that this may negatively impact their future bargaining power or job security. However, it is more likely that the non-negotiator may get the smaller reviews in the future and in some cases in a layoff they may even be one of the first let go because of their inability to promote themselves. Converse, this, at times, may work to their advantage because they are more “budget friendly” due to their lower compensation. This, in my opinion, is another more company, and employee, specific determination.
However, there are some people, who despite their passive, non-negotiating, position could be very competent at what they do, and because of good performance they could conceivably be respected and valued once they prove they are assets to their organization. Also a person may feel a bit hopeless from being out of work, but once they are on the job for a while their confidence starts to rebuild and they may start negotiating when review time comes around; or even they realize they are being taken advantage and leave for a more attractive position. In this case their company may quickly realize they are losing a valuable, often bargain priced, employee and offer them a large counter offer that could exceed the external offer and bring them up to what their work is competitively valued. Moreover, if a person chooses not to negotiate during the hiring process, this does not necessarily mean that he or she will be taken advantage of. Somewhere in this process the person will be asked what they are, or were, compensated at their former or current company. From this the employer may have a formula from which they make job offers to a reasonable job candidate, and this formula, at least for a potentially average performer, may not vary appreciably whether the candidate negotiates or not. Consequently, if company is wise enough to recognize that they want an employee to receive some incentive to potentially enhance job performance. Furthermore, when one’s job does not have a direct impact on the company’ s bottom line or involve negotiating, for example as a programmer or a graphic designer, then not negotiating for their job may not appear as much of an issue. On the other hand,. when the person’s job does involve negotiating, like in sales or purchasing, then not negotiating for their job may send a signal that the person does not have the right temperament to succeed at their job,
In conclusion, this last job offer negotiating, or non-negotiating, scenario on the surface may appear counter intuitive to most of American’s aggressive business postures. Moreover, the non negotiator may, in some cases, even lose the respect of their employers by not engaging in assuming a non-negotiating posture. However, if one is employed or nor employed may be a determining factor on whether one negotiates with their future employer: the unemployed person may fear that negotiating may harm their prospects of getting an offer, while an employed person has more options and feels more emboldened to negotiate. Of course, some people may lack the assertiveness or confidence to bargain no matter what their situation, and depending on the employer, the position, and job market this may or may not negatively impact on their job situation once, or even if, they are hired. On the other hand, if the non negotiating job seeker, like the person who negotiates from a position of weakness, does not receive what they perceive as a “fair” offer, then they might be more likely to look for employment elsewhere if the situation presents itself. Furthermore, they in some cases may be more likely receive and take a counter-offer because of their negotiating naiveté and lower salary. Whatever, in this case I would recommend the non negotiator at least consider seeking out professional negotiating assistance (e. g.; from a career coach, some recruiters, and even government sponsored job search skills training agencies), because by following this passive path they may potentially be costing themselves a substantial amount of money over time. Granted, at times, getting a job regardless of negotiating can be a matter of survival, but one may need to not passively sacrifice their self respect and dignity, unless not negotiating is clearly one’s only option. Finally, because non-negotiators tend to be at the low end of the salary scale, they may have a little more job security, particularly in a recessionary job market, because they tend to have lower salaries and be viewed as bargains if they are good performers.
This may be in employer’s best long term interest, to offer the non negotiator a fair offer, if they feel the perspective employee possesses skills that may be in moderate to high demand in a strong job market. However, this remains, because for whatever reason, the employer’s call in a situation where the potential employee may have the greatest opportunity to get a better compensation package than they had elsewhere. Finally, this totally putting power to negotiate one’s compensation in the hands of the employer may be the biggest minus in not negotiating the conditions of a job offer.
Well, first of all, in certain governmental, military, educational, day labor and institutional jobs, there really isn’t much room for negotiating the terms of a job: you either take the job or you don’t. In fact I would surmise that there are as many, if not more jobs, in this pre-set non arbitrary pay and benefit policy. Moreover, before the mid twentieth century, very few people had the option of negotiating their compensation and this was the modus operandi, and is still the case in many of the world economies. However, with the rise of the unions and then professional middle class, many employees gained the often empowering capability for compensation negotiation. So the notion that the job offer process always, or at least almost always, includes some negotiating room is always a myth.
In fact, for some people predefined compensation can even provide a sense of security and certainty In his book “The Paradox of Choice” Barry Schwartz says that one of the sometimes most psychological disorienting aspects of modern life is that we have seemingly unlimited choices in our lives. This can evoke a sense of instability and uncertainty if we are indecisive, or perhaps, more commonly, overwhelmed with the universe of things and situations to draw from. So having the certainty of a job with a pre-defined compensation structure could bring a sense of certainty and stability in one’s life. Would this strategy with a negotiable job package lessen anxiety? Maybe in the short run for some people, but generally the knowledge you could possibly negotiate for a better deal, and you don’t, is more disturbing than not.
However, in this venue we are more concerned with people who have an opportunity to negotiate, or choose but simply don’t. What is going on with them? Well you could speculate that when one takes what is offered with no reservation they may have less pressure, because they might feel under pressure to prove their worth to the company. In other words, there is never a risk of over promising and under delivering as is the case of the person of negotiates prom a position of strength or from a more symmetrical vantage point. However, in today’s high stress work environment this advantage may not mean quite, depending on the company and their area of expertise, particularly if their job category is subject to outsourcing. Also, they may be shy or, at times, totally lacking in assertiveness; or the non negotiator may suffer from a relative low self esteem or a negative sense of self worth. Although these psychological issues are common in those avoiding job negotiations- or a in avoiding any anxiety provoking situation” But can the much in vogue, often disempowering, psychological determinism be the major factor in refusing, or being incapable, to negotiate, Then what else could it be? Perhaps they, in some cases, enjoy their work for works sake, and compensation is a secondary issue for work that may intrinsically, or what my Psychology professor in graduate school, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, called flow. However, in a recessionary environment like we have been stuck in for the last couple of years most work has been too precarious to be called flow jobs. Finally, age may play a role in whether one negotiates or not for their job offer. Younger workers with with fewer responsibilities and often more options may be more likely to bargain, while older employees with more responsibilities and fewer options may be less likely to negotiate.
An alternative scenario involves someone who has been out of work for a while, like a person bargaining from a position of weakness. Moreover, this person may be so thankful to have a job that any type of negotiations seems possibly risky. Of course, this could be a function of how long they have been unemployed, or if they are at an age that reduces their hiring prospects. So we might still conjecture that the person had been experiencing anxiety, fear, or depression, but it could be more situational than endemic. With the media, and friends and family all generally having a very pessimistic attitude regarding them taking what you can get doesn’t seem that farfetched. But as with the person who tries to bargain with an inflexible employer from a position of weakness, passively accepting a lowball offer (at least, and usually, more than 5% less than their last or current compensation) can be multiplied over one’s entire career, which can be a significant amount of money easily exceeding six figures of potential lost income (e. g., 7k over 30 years adds up to 210k). So with such a significant amount of money being potentially lost, it might behoove the frightened job seeker to hire a career coach or gom to a job search agency to help them develop, and hopefully carry out, a more proactive strategy.
However, this non negotiation strategy is also utilized by people who are employed; just not as often. It’s easy to make the snap judgment that this person possesses a sense of low self worth so a lowball offer is a self fulfilling prophecy where diminished expectations lead to diminished results. Also unfortunately in a often “survival of the fittest” work environment, this non negotiator may find it hard to gain the respect of management or, in some cases, fellow workers who might be aware of this avoidance approach. In fact, some employees, if aware that the passive job seeker accepts less money for a job comparable to what they do, may feel that this may negatively impact their future bargaining power or job security. However, it is more likely that the non-negotiator may get the smaller reviews in the future and in some cases in a layoff they may even be one of the first let go because of their inability to promote themselves. Converse, this, at times, may work to their advantage because they are more “budget friendly” due to their lower compensation. This, in my opinion, is another more company, and employee, specific determination.
However, there are some people, who despite their passive, non-negotiating, position could be very competent at what they do, and because of good performance they could conceivably be respected and valued once they prove they are assets to their organization. Also a person may feel a bit hopeless from being out of work, but once they are on the job for a while their confidence starts to rebuild and they may start negotiating when review time comes around; or even they realize they are being taken advantage and leave for a more attractive position. In this case their company may quickly realize they are losing a valuable, often bargain priced, employee and offer them a large counter offer that could exceed the external offer and bring them up to what their work is competitively valued. Moreover, if a person chooses not to negotiate during the hiring process, this does not necessarily mean that he or she will be taken advantage of. Somewhere in this process the person will be asked what they are, or were, compensated at their former or current company. From this the employer may have a formula from which they make job offers to a reasonable job candidate, and this formula, at least for a potentially average performer, may not vary appreciably whether the candidate negotiates or not. Consequently, if company is wise enough to recognize that they want an employee to receive some incentive to potentially enhance job performance. Furthermore, when one’s job does not have a direct impact on the company’ s bottom line or involve negotiating, for example as a programmer or a graphic designer, then not negotiating for their job may not appear as much of an issue. On the other hand,. when the person’s job does involve negotiating, like in sales or purchasing, then not negotiating for their job may send a signal that the person does not have the right temperament to succeed at their job,
In conclusion, this last job offer negotiating, or non-negotiating, scenario on the surface may appear counter intuitive to most of American’s aggressive business postures. Moreover, the non negotiator may, in some cases, even lose the respect of their employers by not engaging in assuming a non-negotiating posture. However, if one is employed or nor employed may be a determining factor on whether one negotiates with their future employer: the unemployed person may fear that negotiating may harm their prospects of getting an offer, while an employed person has more options and feels more emboldened to negotiate. Of course, some people may lack the assertiveness or confidence to bargain no matter what their situation, and depending on the employer, the position, and job market this may or may not negatively impact on their job situation once, or even if, they are hired. On the other hand, if the non negotiating job seeker, like the person who negotiates from a position of weakness, does not receive what they perceive as a “fair” offer, then they might be more likely to look for employment elsewhere if the situation presents itself. Furthermore, they in some cases may be more likely receive and take a counter-offer because of their negotiating naiveté and lower salary. Whatever, in this case I would recommend the non negotiator at least consider seeking out professional negotiating assistance (e. g.; from a career coach, some recruiters, and even government sponsored job search skills training agencies), because by following this passive path they may potentially be costing themselves a substantial amount of money over time. Granted, at times, getting a job regardless of negotiating can be a matter of survival, but one may need to not passively sacrifice their self respect and dignity, unless not negotiating is clearly one’s only option. Finally, because non-negotiators tend to be at the low end of the salary scale, they may have a little more job security, particularly in a recessionary job market, because they tend to have lower salaries and be viewed as bargains if they are good performers.
This may be in employer’s best long term interest, to offer the non negotiator a fair offer, if they feel the perspective employee possesses skills that may be in moderate to high demand in a strong job market. However, this remains, because for whatever reason, the employer’s call in a situation where the potential employee may have the greatest opportunity to get a better compensation package than they had elsewhere. Finally, this totally putting power to negotiate one’s compensation in the hands of the employer may be the biggest minus in not negotiating the conditions of a job offer.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Negotion Strategies III: Bargaining Beyond Weakness
Now we have examined strategies of “bargaining from a position of strength,” and neutral bargaining in job negotiations, let’s consider “bargaining from a position of weakness.” This job negotiation strategy is most common in a recessionary job market like we have been experiencing from 2008 till today in August of 2010. Usually the compromised job seeker is not working. This is often the result of being laid off from their previous position; but, depending on the market, perceived bargaining weakness could be broadened to include entry level job seekers of any age, people who had been sick or institutionalized for an extended period of time… The main theme here is, unlike with the strength job bargainer and the equal job bargainer, the compromised (i. e,. the person bargaining from a position of weakness) job bargainer has less leverage due to not being employed, and consequently is often perceived less attractive to the potential employer. But this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case, and if you have desired skills and/or experience, or inside the hiring company contacts, you can improve your negotiating leverage, but again this may be a largely determined in general or, more specifically in to your job level and/or category. Here we will briefly discuss your perceived market value, and how you might be able to improve it, and negotiation strategies as well as attitudinal adjustments job search tools to do so.
Often when someone is laid off, due to such factors as a recessionary job market or outsourcing, their self image can take a hit. If this is the case, I would work on rebuilding your self image and esteem first, before embarking on a job search. Of course, this depends on if you have an adequate savings. Moreover, I have seen people immediately rush out and seek every possible avenue of finding a new job without being psychologically ready and strategically prepared. Often people that do this can come across as unfocused, unprepared, or lacking in confidence or even appear desperate of depressed, all qualities that can be job seeking deal breakers. Although there are minorities of people, often possessing outstanding qualifications, who can begin their job search at almost any time. In rebuilding your self esteem, anything you can do this is critical. I have seen people get into an exercise regimen, meditation or yoga, if possible travel, get engrossed in hobbies with the aim of building your confidence and focus. Job related exercises might involve taking advantage of outplacement resources, taking classes, certification training. Bottom line, building and maintaining an optimistic, proactive, outlook is essential. One strategy that I have found can assist you in maintaining a positive mindset is to limit your access to negative portrayals of the job market that tend to permeate the media during economic slumps. Also, in some cases state availing yourself of sponsored re-employment services can give you a boost.. These activities can be a significant help in strengthening your resume, enhancing interviewing skills, and even aiding in job offer negotiations. What you want to do is to alter, as much as possible, the potential employer’s often mild to moderate bias against you because you are unemployed, particularly when there is stiff competition for your desired position, including employed candidates.
In bargaining from a compromised position, it is more critical, than in strength bargaining or equal bargaining strategies that basic job search tools like your resume and cover letter are as flawless as possible and targeted to the job you are pursuing. I know there is a lot of controversy regarding resume length and design. My general attitude is that as much of the critical information the employer wants to see should be well laid out on page one, including skills and/or competencies, key accomplishments, career summary, career objective, and at least the most recent jobs that directly apply to what you are seeking. Moreover, if you are a junior to mid level person in your field a one page resume is generally the best idea, while in more senior person’s situation a two page resume is sufficient; but even here, because the rapid fire way hiring authorities often go through resumes, a one page resume is ideal. You don’t have to be overly thorough in presenting your experience. If you can find a tipping point between giving enough information to elicit interest but not too much that you lose your readers attention, waiting to disclose more pertinent details at the interview. Now a cover letter is, in some cases, a dying art. Recruiters, job boards, and social media generally don’t use them, but in certain instances they can be an excellent way to help you stand out from the crowd and accentuate aspects of your experience that make you uniquely attractive to your prospective employer. Also if you choose to have a “minimalist’, short and to the point, resume the cover letter can add some bulk to this bare bones approach.
Also, you need to take a very proactive, rather than reactive, role in finding job prospects. Just putting your resume into the database of a job board, or putting out blind feelers in social media sites, and passively waiting to get back to you is usually not enough. With these resources I would advise you actively pursue opportunities listed in them including calling a contact person. In the on line job search, job aggregators like Indeed and Simply Hired can be particularly helpful because most job boards and many companies jobs are listed here. In social media, where I prefer using LinkedIn, although Twitter has been ginning popularity, which is optimized for recruiters and job searching. With LinkedIn it may be worth getting assistance in putting together your profile, which is basically like an on line resume but less comprehensive.
Depending on the job market, referrals from previous colleagues is often the best way to approach finding new opportunities if you are not, or are, working. You, and your skill level often precedes you, and the referring party gets a finder’s fee, which can work out the best in some job markets. Recruiters tend not to be the best route for out of work individuals, unless you are recently unemployed, are junior with a lower salary, and/or have a skill set in high demand in a weak job market. Often companies feel they don’t have to pay a fee for an out of work candidate because the candidate is looking vigorously on their own. However a career coach can sometimes help provide the structure and accountability to set and follow through in a successful your job seeking campaign. My viewpoint on this is based on many years as a recruiter and more recently working as a career coach and a recruiter.
Next comes, for most people, the greatest challenge in the job search process, particularly for people who have are out of work, the job interview. This is the context where you need to show your best qualities, competencies, and communications skills. Like with resumes, there are many excellent books available to act as your guide. I do think interview role playing and informational interviews can be a good way to get your the optimal interview groove, before you go to a traditional interview with your career often looming in the balance. If you can be relatively relaxed, engaged, friendly, and focused, then this will go a long way in upping your odds to get a job offer, because often there are many people who can basically “do the job.” I think presence, body language, and how you say something as much as what you can say may also be determining factors in receiving a job offer.
Now, we come to the job offer negotiations. Remember that often a company may have negative negotiating bias against out of work candidates unless the candidate has an exceptionally good skill set or have outstanding industry contacts and references. One way you reverse this is to have several good job prospects going at the same time, so the company gets out of the mindset that you may take any job offer that is not too far below what you were previously making, ranging anywhere from 5 to 25% below what your previous salary was. Moreover, I have seen candidates themselves put their desired salary at significantly below their prior salary. The latter usually occurs when the job seeker is at least six months unemployed, thinking that the employer will see them as a “better deal,” when often the employer may then perceive the candidate as “damaged goods.” This strategy, although understandable, is not recommended unless there is a career change or a job in the same industry that is initially lower paying but with more upside potential and/or satisfaction. Instead I recommend that generally, unless the candidate was compensated above industry standard, state what their former salary was and state that they would like at least what the former salary was, but be open to the best reasonable offer. This may be the best way to maintain respect in yourself and in the perception of your employer, and potentially receive the most reasonable offer you can when you are negotiating from a position of weakness.
Here is a less common strategy of negotiating from a position of weakness that, in the long run, could be perceived as a turning a negative into a positive. Recently I worked with a mid level software support engineer who had been out of work approximately a year. He went on dozens of interviews but only three were of any interest. In the process he decided he would much rather be a software developer, so when a company offered him an opportunity in software development, which was more in line with his education and interests, he jumped at it even though he had to initially had to take a 20% salary cut from his prior job. To a certain degree the hiring company was taking advantage of his lack of leverage in making him a lowball offer. However, usually the upside potential for developers is greater for support people. So in a few years he may be more marketable and possibly command a higher salary than in support, and have much greater job satisfaction. Also because his new company is not compensating him fairly in terms of the market value of the work he is performing at a higher level, he feels no real loyalty. Moreover, the company’s low ball offer strategy, if not rectified in above average raises is the future, may cost them an excellent employee when he becomes more proficient and the job market improves for his skills, which it most likely will.
This example is somewhat unusual, but is still indicative of the short sighted attitude of companies when they are negotiating with a job candidate from a perceived position of weakness. If a company can save money short term on salaries they usually will. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases you might not have an option but to accept this lower- than your previous position- offer. But remember if you take a 5k cut that could conceivably add up to 150k over a 30 year career. Moreover, it isn’t just the lower dollar figure that is the problem, but it may also be indicative of a subtle attitude of disrespect you may sometimes encounter by accepting less money than you might not ordinarily received if employed. The whole notion of bargaining from a position of weakness is rife with an aura of negative psychology. If you can hold out for a better offer elsewhere, or at least get some concessions outside of the dollar figure that might elevate how you may be perceived moving forward. Ideas here could consist of possibility of incentives, bonus, early review…are all pertinent. In the end you might not get a concession, but even trying in itself may moderate the loss of self, and company, respect sometimes associated with a low-ball offer.
Here we have seen the difficulty, and a few possible solutions, involved in bargaining from a position of weakness in searching for a new career opportunity. Companies often don’t think you have any leverage in your bargaining, unless you have other situations pending, and generally will take advantage of this in making an offer. However, there are some more enlightened employers out there who may look at the long term implications of not making you happy with a lower salary offer, and if you can hold out till you find one then it can have a positive effect on not just your income, but your morale and motivation as well. Otherwise more than likely accepting this position may be a stopgap situation that you will seek to rectify as soon as either the economy improves and/or you find a company to compensate you fairly. That is why it is also imperative to dispel any negativity acquired in your termination from your former company. When there is a perceived sense of loss, a common reaction can be a lowering of self esteem, which can engender a passive, uninspired, job search. Be honest, and kind, to yourself. If you are feeling down, do something to elevate your sense of self worth before beginning your search like exercising or traveling. Make sure your resume, (if necessary) cover letter, and especially your interview skills are as strong as possible. Finally get out there, with a well thought out strategy in mind, and network with a renewed sense of self confidence. If you have friends or ex-colleagues to network with that is definitely your best path, but whatever your situation, be as proactive, persistent, and positive as possible.
Often when someone is laid off, due to such factors as a recessionary job market or outsourcing, their self image can take a hit. If this is the case, I would work on rebuilding your self image and esteem first, before embarking on a job search. Of course, this depends on if you have an adequate savings. Moreover, I have seen people immediately rush out and seek every possible avenue of finding a new job without being psychologically ready and strategically prepared. Often people that do this can come across as unfocused, unprepared, or lacking in confidence or even appear desperate of depressed, all qualities that can be job seeking deal breakers. Although there are minorities of people, often possessing outstanding qualifications, who can begin their job search at almost any time. In rebuilding your self esteem, anything you can do this is critical. I have seen people get into an exercise regimen, meditation or yoga, if possible travel, get engrossed in hobbies with the aim of building your confidence and focus. Job related exercises might involve taking advantage of outplacement resources, taking classes, certification training. Bottom line, building and maintaining an optimistic, proactive, outlook is essential. One strategy that I have found can assist you in maintaining a positive mindset is to limit your access to negative portrayals of the job market that tend to permeate the media during economic slumps. Also, in some cases state availing yourself of sponsored re-employment services can give you a boost.. These activities can be a significant help in strengthening your resume, enhancing interviewing skills, and even aiding in job offer negotiations. What you want to do is to alter, as much as possible, the potential employer’s often mild to moderate bias against you because you are unemployed, particularly when there is stiff competition for your desired position, including employed candidates.
In bargaining from a compromised position, it is more critical, than in strength bargaining or equal bargaining strategies that basic job search tools like your resume and cover letter are as flawless as possible and targeted to the job you are pursuing. I know there is a lot of controversy regarding resume length and design. My general attitude is that as much of the critical information the employer wants to see should be well laid out on page one, including skills and/or competencies, key accomplishments, career summary, career objective, and at least the most recent jobs that directly apply to what you are seeking. Moreover, if you are a junior to mid level person in your field a one page resume is generally the best idea, while in more senior person’s situation a two page resume is sufficient; but even here, because the rapid fire way hiring authorities often go through resumes, a one page resume is ideal. You don’t have to be overly thorough in presenting your experience. If you can find a tipping point between giving enough information to elicit interest but not too much that you lose your readers attention, waiting to disclose more pertinent details at the interview. Now a cover letter is, in some cases, a dying art. Recruiters, job boards, and social media generally don’t use them, but in certain instances they can be an excellent way to help you stand out from the crowd and accentuate aspects of your experience that make you uniquely attractive to your prospective employer. Also if you choose to have a “minimalist’, short and to the point, resume the cover letter can add some bulk to this bare bones approach.
Also, you need to take a very proactive, rather than reactive, role in finding job prospects. Just putting your resume into the database of a job board, or putting out blind feelers in social media sites, and passively waiting to get back to you is usually not enough. With these resources I would advise you actively pursue opportunities listed in them including calling a contact person. In the on line job search, job aggregators like Indeed and Simply Hired can be particularly helpful because most job boards and many companies jobs are listed here. In social media, where I prefer using LinkedIn, although Twitter has been ginning popularity, which is optimized for recruiters and job searching. With LinkedIn it may be worth getting assistance in putting together your profile, which is basically like an on line resume but less comprehensive.
Depending on the job market, referrals from previous colleagues is often the best way to approach finding new opportunities if you are not, or are, working. You, and your skill level often precedes you, and the referring party gets a finder’s fee, which can work out the best in some job markets. Recruiters tend not to be the best route for out of work individuals, unless you are recently unemployed, are junior with a lower salary, and/or have a skill set in high demand in a weak job market. Often companies feel they don’t have to pay a fee for an out of work candidate because the candidate is looking vigorously on their own. However a career coach can sometimes help provide the structure and accountability to set and follow through in a successful your job seeking campaign. My viewpoint on this is based on many years as a recruiter and more recently working as a career coach and a recruiter.
Next comes, for most people, the greatest challenge in the job search process, particularly for people who have are out of work, the job interview. This is the context where you need to show your best qualities, competencies, and communications skills. Like with resumes, there are many excellent books available to act as your guide. I do think interview role playing and informational interviews can be a good way to get your the optimal interview groove, before you go to a traditional interview with your career often looming in the balance. If you can be relatively relaxed, engaged, friendly, and focused, then this will go a long way in upping your odds to get a job offer, because often there are many people who can basically “do the job.” I think presence, body language, and how you say something as much as what you can say may also be determining factors in receiving a job offer.
Now, we come to the job offer negotiations. Remember that often a company may have negative negotiating bias against out of work candidates unless the candidate has an exceptionally good skill set or have outstanding industry contacts and references. One way you reverse this is to have several good job prospects going at the same time, so the company gets out of the mindset that you may take any job offer that is not too far below what you were previously making, ranging anywhere from 5 to 25% below what your previous salary was. Moreover, I have seen candidates themselves put their desired salary at significantly below their prior salary. The latter usually occurs when the job seeker is at least six months unemployed, thinking that the employer will see them as a “better deal,” when often the employer may then perceive the candidate as “damaged goods.” This strategy, although understandable, is not recommended unless there is a career change or a job in the same industry that is initially lower paying but with more upside potential and/or satisfaction. Instead I recommend that generally, unless the candidate was compensated above industry standard, state what their former salary was and state that they would like at least what the former salary was, but be open to the best reasonable offer. This may be the best way to maintain respect in yourself and in the perception of your employer, and potentially receive the most reasonable offer you can when you are negotiating from a position of weakness.
Here is a less common strategy of negotiating from a position of weakness that, in the long run, could be perceived as a turning a negative into a positive. Recently I worked with a mid level software support engineer who had been out of work approximately a year. He went on dozens of interviews but only three were of any interest. In the process he decided he would much rather be a software developer, so when a company offered him an opportunity in software development, which was more in line with his education and interests, he jumped at it even though he had to initially had to take a 20% salary cut from his prior job. To a certain degree the hiring company was taking advantage of his lack of leverage in making him a lowball offer. However, usually the upside potential for developers is greater for support people. So in a few years he may be more marketable and possibly command a higher salary than in support, and have much greater job satisfaction. Also because his new company is not compensating him fairly in terms of the market value of the work he is performing at a higher level, he feels no real loyalty. Moreover, the company’s low ball offer strategy, if not rectified in above average raises is the future, may cost them an excellent employee when he becomes more proficient and the job market improves for his skills, which it most likely will.
This example is somewhat unusual, but is still indicative of the short sighted attitude of companies when they are negotiating with a job candidate from a perceived position of weakness. If a company can save money short term on salaries they usually will. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases you might not have an option but to accept this lower- than your previous position- offer. But remember if you take a 5k cut that could conceivably add up to 150k over a 30 year career. Moreover, it isn’t just the lower dollar figure that is the problem, but it may also be indicative of a subtle attitude of disrespect you may sometimes encounter by accepting less money than you might not ordinarily received if employed. The whole notion of bargaining from a position of weakness is rife with an aura of negative psychology. If you can hold out for a better offer elsewhere, or at least get some concessions outside of the dollar figure that might elevate how you may be perceived moving forward. Ideas here could consist of possibility of incentives, bonus, early review…are all pertinent. In the end you might not get a concession, but even trying in itself may moderate the loss of self, and company, respect sometimes associated with a low-ball offer.
Here we have seen the difficulty, and a few possible solutions, involved in bargaining from a position of weakness in searching for a new career opportunity. Companies often don’t think you have any leverage in your bargaining, unless you have other situations pending, and generally will take advantage of this in making an offer. However, there are some more enlightened employers out there who may look at the long term implications of not making you happy with a lower salary offer, and if you can hold out till you find one then it can have a positive effect on not just your income, but your morale and motivation as well. Otherwise more than likely accepting this position may be a stopgap situation that you will seek to rectify as soon as either the economy improves and/or you find a company to compensate you fairly. That is why it is also imperative to dispel any negativity acquired in your termination from your former company. When there is a perceived sense of loss, a common reaction can be a lowering of self esteem, which can engender a passive, uninspired, job search. Be honest, and kind, to yourself. If you are feeling down, do something to elevate your sense of self worth before beginning your search like exercising or traveling. Make sure your resume, (if necessary) cover letter, and especially your interview skills are as strong as possible. Finally get out there, with a well thought out strategy in mind, and network with a renewed sense of self confidence. If you have friends or ex-colleagues to network with that is definitely your best path, but whatever your situation, be as proactive, persistent, and positive as possible.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Job Negotiating Strategies: (2) Bargaining From a Neutral Position
As I showcased in my first section, the “bargaining from position of strength” negotiating stance could put you, the job seeker, in driver’s seat to dictate the terms of your job offer. However, the most common negotiating position, “bargaining from an equal, or neutral, position,” does not on the surface, at least, offer you such luxury. This is perhaps both the most complex and potentially risky type of job offer negotiations. For in bargaining from a position of strength or weakness it is generally a foregone conclusion you’ll either get an excellent or disappointing offer, while in this strategy negotiating skill and planning is the determinant in where the rubber does, or doesn’t meet, the road of new opportunity. Nevertheless, after exploring all available avenues with your present employer, and find your career is at, or approaching, a dead end, the only road to career reconditioning may consist of driving a better deal elsewhere. But don’t forget to snap your safety belt on, and remember opportunity includes money and much more if you want career to be back on the right, or sometimes even fast, track. Below we will offer some tips and strategies to help you map out, and reach your new job destination, via the safest and most secure route possible to career growth and satisfaction.
Before beginning your journey for bargaining from a position of approximate neutrality, it is advisable that you be employed, be committed to change, and have most of the tangible and intangible skills the hiring company(s) you have targeted are looking for. Moreover, to maximize your potential for getting the best offer and job, it is important that you have all of the successful job search accessories in place, which includes a high octane resume, strong and steady interviewing skills, specific company’s track record, salary comparisons, and an enthusiastic audience of pre-screened references…. . This may sound like an overkill job search tune up, but by the proverbial end of the day this will significantly enhance your chances of getting what you want. Now once your search is revved up and in high gear, it’s imperative that bargaining, or negotiating, from a neutral posture presumes that there is mutual interest, and that the employer have a sense of hiring urgency to fill their open position. Of course, the company may prefer to opt out for outstanding, “bargaining from a position of strength” type candidate, but they may realize they don’t have the available horsepower to attract their ideal candidate.
So now, let’s suppose, you and the hiring company have established mutual interest, what can you then do to maximize the probability of the best offer possible? Most people start with salary considerations, Now, I have no doubt that money may ultimately prove to be the determining factor in your final decision. However, functional job satisfaction, work environment, learning new skills, company culture, benefits, and particularly management… should be considered as well. Of course, in this, as in other job seeking scenarios, both you and the company are trying to forge the respective best deal possible. Also, as I mentioned it is important for both parties, particularly the candidate, that you definitely don’t want to over promise and under deliver, regarding your job capabilities and performance; The worst case scenario of such hyperbolic hubris could wreck your credibility, and possibly even your career in that field.
Next is the time for salary negotiations to begin in earnest. It is essential that you do research into what the market value salary range is for your skills and experience in your geographic locale. Often people are paid in the mid to low end of what this local salary range is, and the hiring companies often have this information. Their question to you then becomes what are you making and what do you want? An appropriate response might be that you, based on your research, know this type of position pays in the (give the mid to high point)) and I’m looking for the best offer although what is equally or more opportunity is the job, including promotional possibilities, learning opportunities…..Then leave it in their hands. By using this technique you may avert the possibility of having to possibly disclose that that your current salary may even be lower than the low end of the market range, which opens the door to the hiring company offering you a low ball offer. However many companies may insist you give what your current salary is, and if they do, and your salary is below the range entirely, it is important to give the extenuating circumstances why this so (e.g.; the company is in financial trouble and no one has gotten raises for x years, or I got a promotion from a lower paying function but didn’t get a commensurate salary increase). If the hiring company insists that they can only offer you a salary increase from this lower, below market, base, then perhaps you should move on to another firm. Just do the Math. If you are, for example, being paid five k below the low or medium market range over a 40 year career, then you would be paid 220k less than if you paid at low to medium market rate. This attests to why you should be gearing your efforts towards at least at the mid-point compensation for the job you want
In my opinion the best strategy, however, is to, in a firm but friendly voice, ask for the high end of the market range, enumerating how you and your skills could benefit the company now and in the future. Also I recommend, making it clear from the get go, you are a “little flexible” on the dollar number, and it is the career opportunity, and contributing to the success of their company, that is most important to you. This gives you some space to ask for other concessions like additional performance incentives, an early review, or a signing bonus if they don’t give you a dollar figure you might not have really expected to get in the first place The most important thing here is that you and your potential employer feel that both parties have reached an equitable agreement. The proposal should be enticing enough for you to eagerly accept, while not having the company offer above, or most likely at, what the high average rate for your position is in the local job market. Holding out for your most desirable dollar figure, if they don’t just rescind or not make an offer, could create the potential damaging perception that, after the race has run, they have paid you more than they think you are worth. I did this once in negotiating for a personnel director’s position in a small company, and the negative repercussions and attitudes that this engendered (the company was financially unstable and eventually closed) for a few thousand more definitely wasn’t worth me being a bit “hard ball” in my salary negotiations. Consequently, my preference is for a slightly accommodative negotiation strategy, which can reap such benefits as: (1), you still have more potential upside salary growth once you join the company; (2), other employees may be jealous or angry, or even resign, if they find you are making more than they are for a comparable position: and (3), the perceived compromises in a range that is possibly more than you initially hoping
for will usher in the motivational “win” win” mindset that is the ideal way to begin working at your new employer.
However, If you feel the company is dragging their feet or are balking at your requests that you used with your initial strategy, I would consider a more direct leveraging strategy involving either another, or potential, offer elsewhere or in rare cases a counter offer from your current company if you are certain that the new company is definitely the one you want to work for. Sometimes this strategy will buy you some additional concessions, because for the moment at least, you may move into the enviable position of bargaining from a position of strength. Now if they still won’t budge, you can either, ride away to look elsewhere, or stay with what their offer is. But still, unless they seem to be real “cheapskates”, you may want to look at the big picture and make a cost benefit analysis to give you a more rational perspective and, if so inclined, give yourself an intuitive gut check on which way you feel is on your best interest to decide. Also, this seemingly stubbornness on the companies part could be for reasons not specifically related to you, and, if finessed correctly, could make them feel obligated to give you more concessions down the road a piece. Also, always remember that in neutral bargaining there are generally other attractive prospective jobs out there. Now If it is a weak “low ball” offer prone job market like we have seen during most of the last few years, then you can remain at your current company till market conditions improve. Bottom line, if your potential company waxes and wanes on giving you an attractive offer they may not be the vehicle you want to drive your career forward with.
Now, if you decide to move to the offer acceptance stage, and you return to your previous company and tell them you want to leave, they may or may not offer a similar or higher offer than what you received. Although some career advisors may tell you different, I would definitely not reveal your intention to leave, or look elsewhere, unless you have a signed offer letter from your new employer. There is always a small, but scary, chance they would let you go if they thought you might be close to resigning, or even seriously looking. If you were viewed as an essential, “bargaining from a position of strength candidate,” then it really doesn’t matter what they know, but most likely if they haven’t treated you real well in the past there is no reason to believe, despite the short term necessity of utilizing your skills to finish an important task or project, that any positive attitudinal shift they display to you is only temporary and self serving. Moreover, they may view your external job hunting as disloyal, and possibly terminate you as soon as the critical period that requires your services pass. Consequently, I would not consider accepting their counter offer unless they, in writing, address all your reasons for looking- including often a new manager. Still unless you are absolutely certain they are sincere, and they strongly indicate you have a significant mid to long term growth potential within the company, I would still “keep on trucking” to your new company. At this point I would be polite and cordial but firmly say something like “thanks but I have already made a career decision to move on and I appreciate the time we have worked together.”
As we cross the finish line of this brief presentation, hopefully it has become clear that neutral status job negotiations, without a marked sense of strength or weakness, is by far the most common negotiating posture except perhaps in a bear hiring market, where often only exceptional candidates are hired . Moreover, bargaining for a new job when there is a good, but not great, match can be a very tricky, time consuming, and stressful trip; but if you intuitively and rationally feel it is in your short and long term best interest then put your pedal to the metal and go for it. But, again, as you accelerate off the starting line of this process, always proceed with caution for there should be multiple compelling reasons to leave, or your job search, as sometimes happens, may run out of gas. Also always get everything promised in writing, and be careful that you don’t “burn bridges” with your former company. Occasionally things aren’t nearly as rosy as they initially seemed when you were in the negotiating and offer acceptance phase with your new employer. Furthermore, I have seen rare cases where a misled employee has returned to their former company and it has worked out, at least as a rest stop before embarking on another job search journey. Still, at this juncture, shifting your mindset to a drive forward position is invariably the best route for you to follow. Who knows? In a few years you may have blossomed into that person who could bargain from a position of strength. Now that the career road ahead is clear, stay cool and composed, with your eyes firmly fixed on the well deserved prize of an attractive job offer that accompanies the completion of a well planned and executed job search.
Before beginning your journey for bargaining from a position of approximate neutrality, it is advisable that you be employed, be committed to change, and have most of the tangible and intangible skills the hiring company(s) you have targeted are looking for. Moreover, to maximize your potential for getting the best offer and job, it is important that you have all of the successful job search accessories in place, which includes a high octane resume, strong and steady interviewing skills, specific company’s track record, salary comparisons, and an enthusiastic audience of pre-screened references…. . This may sound like an overkill job search tune up, but by the proverbial end of the day this will significantly enhance your chances of getting what you want. Now once your search is revved up and in high gear, it’s imperative that bargaining, or negotiating, from a neutral posture presumes that there is mutual interest, and that the employer have a sense of hiring urgency to fill their open position. Of course, the company may prefer to opt out for outstanding, “bargaining from a position of strength” type candidate, but they may realize they don’t have the available horsepower to attract their ideal candidate.
So now, let’s suppose, you and the hiring company have established mutual interest, what can you then do to maximize the probability of the best offer possible? Most people start with salary considerations, Now, I have no doubt that money may ultimately prove to be the determining factor in your final decision. However, functional job satisfaction, work environment, learning new skills, company culture, benefits, and particularly management… should be considered as well. Of course, in this, as in other job seeking scenarios, both you and the company are trying to forge the respective best deal possible. Also, as I mentioned it is important for both parties, particularly the candidate, that you definitely don’t want to over promise and under deliver, regarding your job capabilities and performance; The worst case scenario of such hyperbolic hubris could wreck your credibility, and possibly even your career in that field.
Next is the time for salary negotiations to begin in earnest. It is essential that you do research into what the market value salary range is for your skills and experience in your geographic locale. Often people are paid in the mid to low end of what this local salary range is, and the hiring companies often have this information. Their question to you then becomes what are you making and what do you want? An appropriate response might be that you, based on your research, know this type of position pays in the (give the mid to high point)) and I’m looking for the best offer although what is equally or more opportunity is the job, including promotional possibilities, learning opportunities…..Then leave it in their hands. By using this technique you may avert the possibility of having to possibly disclose that that your current salary may even be lower than the low end of the market range, which opens the door to the hiring company offering you a low ball offer. However many companies may insist you give what your current salary is, and if they do, and your salary is below the range entirely, it is important to give the extenuating circumstances why this so (e.g.; the company is in financial trouble and no one has gotten raises for x years, or I got a promotion from a lower paying function but didn’t get a commensurate salary increase). If the hiring company insists that they can only offer you a salary increase from this lower, below market, base, then perhaps you should move on to another firm. Just do the Math. If you are, for example, being paid five k below the low or medium market range over a 40 year career, then you would be paid 220k less than if you paid at low to medium market rate. This attests to why you should be gearing your efforts towards at least at the mid-point compensation for the job you want
In my opinion the best strategy, however, is to, in a firm but friendly voice, ask for the high end of the market range, enumerating how you and your skills could benefit the company now and in the future. Also I recommend, making it clear from the get go, you are a “little flexible” on the dollar number, and it is the career opportunity, and contributing to the success of their company, that is most important to you. This gives you some space to ask for other concessions like additional performance incentives, an early review, or a signing bonus if they don’t give you a dollar figure you might not have really expected to get in the first place The most important thing here is that you and your potential employer feel that both parties have reached an equitable agreement. The proposal should be enticing enough for you to eagerly accept, while not having the company offer above, or most likely at, what the high average rate for your position is in the local job market. Holding out for your most desirable dollar figure, if they don’t just rescind or not make an offer, could create the potential damaging perception that, after the race has run, they have paid you more than they think you are worth. I did this once in negotiating for a personnel director’s position in a small company, and the negative repercussions and attitudes that this engendered (the company was financially unstable and eventually closed) for a few thousand more definitely wasn’t worth me being a bit “hard ball” in my salary negotiations. Consequently, my preference is for a slightly accommodative negotiation strategy, which can reap such benefits as: (1), you still have more potential upside salary growth once you join the company; (2), other employees may be jealous or angry, or even resign, if they find you are making more than they are for a comparable position: and (3), the perceived compromises in a range that is possibly more than you initially hoping
for will usher in the motivational “win” win” mindset that is the ideal way to begin working at your new employer.
However, If you feel the company is dragging their feet or are balking at your requests that you used with your initial strategy, I would consider a more direct leveraging strategy involving either another, or potential, offer elsewhere or in rare cases a counter offer from your current company if you are certain that the new company is definitely the one you want to work for. Sometimes this strategy will buy you some additional concessions, because for the moment at least, you may move into the enviable position of bargaining from a position of strength. Now if they still won’t budge, you can either, ride away to look elsewhere, or stay with what their offer is. But still, unless they seem to be real “cheapskates”, you may want to look at the big picture and make a cost benefit analysis to give you a more rational perspective and, if so inclined, give yourself an intuitive gut check on which way you feel is on your best interest to decide. Also, this seemingly stubbornness on the companies part could be for reasons not specifically related to you, and, if finessed correctly, could make them feel obligated to give you more concessions down the road a piece. Also, always remember that in neutral bargaining there are generally other attractive prospective jobs out there. Now If it is a weak “low ball” offer prone job market like we have seen during most of the last few years, then you can remain at your current company till market conditions improve. Bottom line, if your potential company waxes and wanes on giving you an attractive offer they may not be the vehicle you want to drive your career forward with.
Now, if you decide to move to the offer acceptance stage, and you return to your previous company and tell them you want to leave, they may or may not offer a similar or higher offer than what you received. Although some career advisors may tell you different, I would definitely not reveal your intention to leave, or look elsewhere, unless you have a signed offer letter from your new employer. There is always a small, but scary, chance they would let you go if they thought you might be close to resigning, or even seriously looking. If you were viewed as an essential, “bargaining from a position of strength candidate,” then it really doesn’t matter what they know, but most likely if they haven’t treated you real well in the past there is no reason to believe, despite the short term necessity of utilizing your skills to finish an important task or project, that any positive attitudinal shift they display to you is only temporary and self serving. Moreover, they may view your external job hunting as disloyal, and possibly terminate you as soon as the critical period that requires your services pass. Consequently, I would not consider accepting their counter offer unless they, in writing, address all your reasons for looking- including often a new manager. Still unless you are absolutely certain they are sincere, and they strongly indicate you have a significant mid to long term growth potential within the company, I would still “keep on trucking” to your new company. At this point I would be polite and cordial but firmly say something like “thanks but I have already made a career decision to move on and I appreciate the time we have worked together.”
As we cross the finish line of this brief presentation, hopefully it has become clear that neutral status job negotiations, without a marked sense of strength or weakness, is by far the most common negotiating posture except perhaps in a bear hiring market, where often only exceptional candidates are hired . Moreover, bargaining for a new job when there is a good, but not great, match can be a very tricky, time consuming, and stressful trip; but if you intuitively and rationally feel it is in your short and long term best interest then put your pedal to the metal and go for it. But, again, as you accelerate off the starting line of this process, always proceed with caution for there should be multiple compelling reasons to leave, or your job search, as sometimes happens, may run out of gas. Also always get everything promised in writing, and be careful that you don’t “burn bridges” with your former company. Occasionally things aren’t nearly as rosy as they initially seemed when you were in the negotiating and offer acceptance phase with your new employer. Furthermore, I have seen rare cases where a misled employee has returned to their former company and it has worked out, at least as a rest stop before embarking on another job search journey. Still, at this juncture, shifting your mindset to a drive forward position is invariably the best route for you to follow. Who knows? In a few years you may have blossomed into that person who could bargain from a position of strength. Now that the career road ahead is clear, stay cool and composed, with your eyes firmly fixed on the well deserved prize of an attractive job offer that accompanies the completion of a well planned and executed job search.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Job Negotiating Strategies: (1) Bargaining From a Position of Strength
In marketplaces everywhere bargaining, in one way or another, is an essential element in consummating the “deal.” In the job market this refers to the negotiations that formalize the terms of the conditions of employment with a primary emphasis on job offer negotiations. Here my thoughts will be primarily directed towards the Software Engineering and IT positions below the executive level ,employment areas where I have been a personnel consultant for 25 years. However, I think these ideas and strategies pertain to most salaried positions regardless of industry or level
In this, and my 3 following presentations, I will be concerned with four distinct, but overlapping, bargaining, or negotiating, approaches to finding a new job: (1) bargaining from a positioning of strength. (2) equal bargaining,(3) bargaining from a position weakness, and (4) non-bargaining bargaining. Of course, these strategies are always somewhat impacted by the macro economic conditions effecting the job market, and here I will look at bargaining in a gradually improving post recessionary market. Finally in the four posts I will present key elements of each of these four bargaining types, starting with bargaining from a position of strength
In Bargaining from a position of strength, you have “all the right stuff” that the hiring company is looking for in terms of skills and personal characteristics. To make as near to perfect match as possible, the employer is very motivated to secure your services, often offering almost anything it takes to have you join there company. Also, you are highly valued by your current employer. Consequently, you have (almost) everything to gain and hardly anything to lose in your job search efforts. This is not to say anyone should haphazardly embark on something so life critical as a job search without conducting in depth research in your specific employments niche hiring conditions and deeply reflect on the notion that this is the right time to change jobs for you
In this scenario it’s ok to be quite confident, maybe even a little cocky, but you need to not come across as an ego maniac or arrogant no matter how good a fit you think you are. But, if the match is very good, you may perceived as “the answer” to some significant problem areas within the company, and, recognizing this, justifies you having a somewhat inflated, self promotional attitude in your approach to the hiring process. However a particular danger in this strategy, perhaps more than the others, is to not promise more than you can deliver in the particular role that you will assume in the new company. To this end, you must attain clarity in what you envision to be the scope of the position, how realistic are the companies’ expectations of you are, and, regardless of the high expectation, if deep down you feel you can at least meet, and hopefully exceed, the performance expectations of the new employer.
You can often hold out for a substantial bump up in salary because the hiring company’s perception is that they need you more than you need them. Often if you seem unenthused by the original figure, and the company appears to be determined to secure your services, they will come back with a higher starting salary amount and/or other concessions. Bottom-line, they want you bad! Also, you may able negotiate a sign on bonus, more stock options…and other incentives like an early salary review, some telecommuting…. At this point the situation may appear quite appealing if the company offers all, or almost all,that you want. However, before accepting, make sure to give close scrutiny to the entire offer “package” I have seen too many people fixate on the dollar number only, and then discover that some benefit (e. g., vacation, health benefits) or policy (e. g. flexible hours, non compete agreements) is not what they had thought, or imagined it, to be.
Once you have accepted the offer, a potential complication often arises if your present company gives you a counter offer that meets or exceeds what you have received elsewhere. The questions to ask yourself then are why they didn’t offer this to you in this first place, and if Ian m essential to the old company primarily in the short run or both in the short run and the long run. If you have any question that their intentions are not in your long term best interests, then politely tell your old company thanks but no thanks. Generally counter offers are good to avoid because they can sometimes limit, or even endanger, your future with your current company. Nevertheless, I have seen the minority of people who accept counter offers experience their career’s flourish going forward, particularly if the offering company is a direct competitor.
Finally, if you decide to proceed , I would get as much of generous promises of potential employer clearly delineated in your offer letter- and possible let a lawyer confidentially examine it as well. You may never have as much bargaining power as you do at this initial stage, so use this leverage in every way possible. Also, if you hadn’t already done so, research extensively the company’s reputation as being creditable in treating, and honoring, their employees well. Nevertheless, chances are that if your new employer views you as a very good to exceptional prospect, they will generally follow through on their initial conditions of employment; as long as you meet or exceed the performance levels you led them to expect.
In this, and my 3 following presentations, I will be concerned with four distinct, but overlapping, bargaining, or negotiating, approaches to finding a new job: (1) bargaining from a positioning of strength. (2) equal bargaining,(3) bargaining from a position weakness, and (4) non-bargaining bargaining. Of course, these strategies are always somewhat impacted by the macro economic conditions effecting the job market, and here I will look at bargaining in a gradually improving post recessionary market. Finally in the four posts I will present key elements of each of these four bargaining types, starting with bargaining from a position of strength
In Bargaining from a position of strength, you have “all the right stuff” that the hiring company is looking for in terms of skills and personal characteristics. To make as near to perfect match as possible, the employer is very motivated to secure your services, often offering almost anything it takes to have you join there company. Also, you are highly valued by your current employer. Consequently, you have (almost) everything to gain and hardly anything to lose in your job search efforts. This is not to say anyone should haphazardly embark on something so life critical as a job search without conducting in depth research in your specific employments niche hiring conditions and deeply reflect on the notion that this is the right time to change jobs for you
In this scenario it’s ok to be quite confident, maybe even a little cocky, but you need to not come across as an ego maniac or arrogant no matter how good a fit you think you are. But, if the match is very good, you may perceived as “the answer” to some significant problem areas within the company, and, recognizing this, justifies you having a somewhat inflated, self promotional attitude in your approach to the hiring process. However a particular danger in this strategy, perhaps more than the others, is to not promise more than you can deliver in the particular role that you will assume in the new company. To this end, you must attain clarity in what you envision to be the scope of the position, how realistic are the companies’ expectations of you are, and, regardless of the high expectation, if deep down you feel you can at least meet, and hopefully exceed, the performance expectations of the new employer.
You can often hold out for a substantial bump up in salary because the hiring company’s perception is that they need you more than you need them. Often if you seem unenthused by the original figure, and the company appears to be determined to secure your services, they will come back with a higher starting salary amount and/or other concessions. Bottom-line, they want you bad! Also, you may able negotiate a sign on bonus, more stock options…and other incentives like an early salary review, some telecommuting…. At this point the situation may appear quite appealing if the company offers all, or almost all,that you want. However, before accepting, make sure to give close scrutiny to the entire offer “package” I have seen too many people fixate on the dollar number only, and then discover that some benefit (e. g., vacation, health benefits) or policy (e. g. flexible hours, non compete agreements) is not what they had thought, or imagined it, to be.
Once you have accepted the offer, a potential complication often arises if your present company gives you a counter offer that meets or exceeds what you have received elsewhere. The questions to ask yourself then are why they didn’t offer this to you in this first place, and if Ian m essential to the old company primarily in the short run or both in the short run and the long run. If you have any question that their intentions are not in your long term best interests, then politely tell your old company thanks but no thanks. Generally counter offers are good to avoid because they can sometimes limit, or even endanger, your future with your current company. Nevertheless, I have seen the minority of people who accept counter offers experience their career’s flourish going forward, particularly if the offering company is a direct competitor.
Finally, if you decide to proceed , I would get as much of generous promises of potential employer clearly delineated in your offer letter- and possible let a lawyer confidentially examine it as well. You may never have as much bargaining power as you do at this initial stage, so use this leverage in every way possible. Also, if you hadn’t already done so, research extensively the company’s reputation as being creditable in treating, and honoring, their employees well. Nevertheless, chances are that if your new employer views you as a very good to exceptional prospect, they will generally follow through on their initial conditions of employment; as long as you meet or exceed the performance levels you led them to expect.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Passive Recession: Bringing the Jobs Back Home
Passive aggression often stems from a situation where a person, often a woman or minority, fears a loss of security if they assertively convey what they are thinking or feeling about what they see as an unjust and inescapable situation. Rather they are left with the only alternative of indirectly expressing their contempt. Domestic examples may be as simple overcooking food, having a perpetual headache at bedtime, working in a slow uninspired way or even small instances of tax evasion these and a thousand other strategies are meant to annoy, and passively retaliate against, a controlling force, and they often become fixed patterns of muted defiance. Now in our current economic sphere we are sadly seeing a similar strategy played out. The unemployed give up their search for work, while still receiving governmental assistance, and engage in job search where they consciously sabotage any chance for re-employment by blowing an interview. “The job isn’t my ideal.” “Why work when the government is paying me not to work." And,"they want me to do a job that used to be done by 2 or 3 people." Of course, this is a small minority of job seekers, but as the seemingly endless recession marches on this, and similar, strategies are gaining momentum. On a governmental level we are experiencing a similar situation where authorities feel hopeless about the future, and thus “throw in the towel.” For any concerted effort to make the situation better a significant positive attitude change and effective government and corporate interventions needs to occur as soon as possible.
This lack of any attempt to find a real and/or lasting solution to chronic unemployment and underemployment is a major element of what I will call a passive recession. This is a new occurrence, although employment patterns have been tending this way ever since manufacturing jobs began to be either, mostly, lost or sent offshore in the 70’s and the 80’s. For a while high tech innovation appeared to replace some of these jobs, but unlike the manufacturing jobs, these required more than just a high school diploma (or less) and on the job training. Now the high tech and IT jobs have followed the same path. But this time there has been an element of betrayal, ageism, and economic exclusion. I don’t deny that businesses have to be profitable, but some myopic C level executives fail to recognize that the long term, self destructive, effect of their policies on their company and their country. This is often obscured by the short term concerns of building shareholders equity. The frightened lay-off victim is often muzzled from any legal recourse, particularly those over 40, by a severance package either based on either being paid to train offshore replacements or signing a non-retaliation statement. In other words, they are being pacified by fears of financial insolvency.
At present at least, there is little resolve to devise concrete solutions to extricate the US from this depressing situation. There is a lot of talk, but little agreement, or hope, on how to extricate ourselves from this increasingly precarious situation. There is no consensus or political will to make things improve. The media just reinforces the doom and gloom situation with their barrage of gloomy stories and scenarios that will further weaken the will of the populace. The administration, and its opponents to a certain extent, point to the recently strong increases in the GDP as indicative of a major upturn. But as any intelligent impartial observer may tell you, these are predicated on massive government financial interventions to prop up a precarious financial services sector and the buildup of inventory that may only have a few more quarters duration. This is not to say that the President’s recent assertion that these massive interventions staved off an extended depression, perhaps largely as an option to a much longer recession, offers little consolation to those who are losing their jobs, their houses, and often their self respect. Even the “recovery friendly” Federal Reserve, acknowledges that this “so called” jobless recovery will last to 2011 at the earliest. A very intelligent and insightful observer of the economic landscape recently told me that things won’t stay as they are now for very long. Rather the next two elections will most likely lead to either to improvement or a deterioration of the employment, and general economic situation.
In conclusion how can we restore confidence, the political will, and creative solutions to pull our nation, and job situation out of the hopelessness, and passive, reaction that seems never ending. Keynesian economists, like Paul Krugman, argue the economic redevolvement act (AKA the stimulus) was too small to generate any significant growth in employment, and we need to go back to the proverbial well for another round of stimulus. But unless the situation worsens dramatically, the extreme divisiveness that characterizes the current political and national mindset will make it nearly impossible to break this logjam. Poet WB Yeats’ prophetic line from his poem “The Second Coming: “The best lack any conviction and the worst are filled with Passionate Intensity,” sadly characterizes our dismal, passive recessionary mindset. This negative passionate intensity has perhaps been most articulated by right wing ideologue, and de-facto spokesman for the radical conservative wing of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, who made the incendiary statement that he “wants this president to fail.” Statements like this, and the activities of the populist, party supported, “tea bagger movement” are indicative that there is little concern for the dire situation of the demoralized, increasingly, pacified unemployed. Nevertheless I feel that the situation may not be quite as dismal as projected in the media, and the related national sense of helplessness could be improved. If the Fed could somehow cajole the banks to resume lending to small business, the acknowledged creator of most new jobs, then there could be an uptick in an employment and innovation; and innovation, in turn, could foster even more employment. Furthermore, if the administration can offer further incentives to mid large size corporations to slow down the steady stream of outsourced jobs, then the cynicism directed toward these companies could begin to abate. However, these solutions, if they occur at all, could take a significant amount of time to implement. Unfortunately, in the mean time, more suffering seems almost inevitable. But if the unemployed could organize, like the revisionist tea bagger movement, then they potentially could motivate Washington to attack the causes of this passive recession; and maybe a sustained recovery that addresses the dismal employment situation could begin..
This lack of any attempt to find a real and/or lasting solution to chronic unemployment and underemployment is a major element of what I will call a passive recession. This is a new occurrence, although employment patterns have been tending this way ever since manufacturing jobs began to be either, mostly, lost or sent offshore in the 70’s and the 80’s. For a while high tech innovation appeared to replace some of these jobs, but unlike the manufacturing jobs, these required more than just a high school diploma (or less) and on the job training. Now the high tech and IT jobs have followed the same path. But this time there has been an element of betrayal, ageism, and economic exclusion. I don’t deny that businesses have to be profitable, but some myopic C level executives fail to recognize that the long term, self destructive, effect of their policies on their company and their country. This is often obscured by the short term concerns of building shareholders equity. The frightened lay-off victim is often muzzled from any legal recourse, particularly those over 40, by a severance package either based on either being paid to train offshore replacements or signing a non-retaliation statement. In other words, they are being pacified by fears of financial insolvency.
At present at least, there is little resolve to devise concrete solutions to extricate the US from this depressing situation. There is a lot of talk, but little agreement, or hope, on how to extricate ourselves from this increasingly precarious situation. There is no consensus or political will to make things improve. The media just reinforces the doom and gloom situation with their barrage of gloomy stories and scenarios that will further weaken the will of the populace. The administration, and its opponents to a certain extent, point to the recently strong increases in the GDP as indicative of a major upturn. But as any intelligent impartial observer may tell you, these are predicated on massive government financial interventions to prop up a precarious financial services sector and the buildup of inventory that may only have a few more quarters duration. This is not to say that the President’s recent assertion that these massive interventions staved off an extended depression, perhaps largely as an option to a much longer recession, offers little consolation to those who are losing their jobs, their houses, and often their self respect. Even the “recovery friendly” Federal Reserve, acknowledges that this “so called” jobless recovery will last to 2011 at the earliest. A very intelligent and insightful observer of the economic landscape recently told me that things won’t stay as they are now for very long. Rather the next two elections will most likely lead to either to improvement or a deterioration of the employment, and general economic situation.
In conclusion how can we restore confidence, the political will, and creative solutions to pull our nation, and job situation out of the hopelessness, and passive, reaction that seems never ending. Keynesian economists, like Paul Krugman, argue the economic redevolvement act (AKA the stimulus) was too small to generate any significant growth in employment, and we need to go back to the proverbial well for another round of stimulus. But unless the situation worsens dramatically, the extreme divisiveness that characterizes the current political and national mindset will make it nearly impossible to break this logjam. Poet WB Yeats’ prophetic line from his poem “The Second Coming: “The best lack any conviction and the worst are filled with Passionate Intensity,” sadly characterizes our dismal, passive recessionary mindset. This negative passionate intensity has perhaps been most articulated by right wing ideologue, and de-facto spokesman for the radical conservative wing of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, who made the incendiary statement that he “wants this president to fail.” Statements like this, and the activities of the populist, party supported, “tea bagger movement” are indicative that there is little concern for the dire situation of the demoralized, increasingly, pacified unemployed. Nevertheless I feel that the situation may not be quite as dismal as projected in the media, and the related national sense of helplessness could be improved. If the Fed could somehow cajole the banks to resume lending to small business, the acknowledged creator of most new jobs, then there could be an uptick in an employment and innovation; and innovation, in turn, could foster even more employment. Furthermore, if the administration can offer further incentives to mid large size corporations to slow down the steady stream of outsourced jobs, then the cynicism directed toward these companies could begin to abate. However, these solutions, if they occur at all, could take a significant amount of time to implement. Unfortunately, in the mean time, more suffering seems almost inevitable. But if the unemployed could organize, like the revisionist tea bagger movement, then they potentially could motivate Washington to attack the causes of this passive recession; and maybe a sustained recovery that addresses the dismal employment situation could begin..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
