The Referral Controversy

The whole controversy regarding the referral system really intrigued me. In high school I had this naivety that in America you can make your own destiny. You can choose your own path and grow up to be whatever you want to be. And in school, I think you're taught that if you work hard, academically, these dreams will come true. But really - this is not the case. Referrals, "business casual" when you know the mean "suit", and your "30 second elevator speech" are all part of the game. They get you in the door, but they don't necessarily land you the job.

A personal example is that two summers ago, my uncle got me an internship with NASD. I interviewed for a few positions that I was really not qualified for, and then ultimately got an internship I was qualified for. So I mean if you don't have the skill sets once you get your foot in the door, having that connection can only do so much.

From a HR perspective, referrals make recruiting easier and I think it helps maintain corporate culture. How great would it be to work with your friend, neighbor, or something you think highly of? An article from Inc.com raises some great points about sites like Monster.com, "Today, recruiters' chief complaint is about the volume of unqualified candidates they receive from their postings. Millions of people use job boards and many apply to dozens or even hundreds of jobs per day. The result can be overwhelming, making it more difficult than ever to find the qualified candidates among the flood of thoughtless applications."

So maybe its not fair. Maybe this isn't really the land of opportunity if your destiny is perhaps out of your control, your career limited by who you know. But that's life. The best we can do is take courses like this and work not only on the academics and the resume, but also our networking and people skills.

Making Connections

With more people spending more and more time online, both at home and work, there seems to be numerous benefits social networking sites like LinkedIn. These kind of sites seem like Facebook but for strictly business purposes. So, instead of exchanging business cards, professionals can now search each others profiles. This seems like a networking dream, to have access to current information (e-mail)of those in your professional network, and beyond. I think this can also help strengthen weak connections. For example, some of the companies I've interviewed with send me short bios and pictures of my interviewers. But with these websites, I can just look them up and put a face to the name. Another major pro is that this helps divide personal and professional connections. A major problem with Facebook is that the profile you want your friends to see, you may not want your employer to see. LinkedIn has all the networking perks of Facebook, with more of a business focus.

But in reality - how strong are these connections? How comfortable would you be to refer someone you met in LinkedIn? Or how willing would you be to allow someone access to your personal network? And often, our personal and professional networks are blurred. Another problem with these sites is low traffic. People just don't seem to be using them on a daily basis like Facebook.

I'm curious of everyone's thoughts - would you create one of these profiles? Would you use it?

Tools for Virtual Teams

As a business student at Kogod, I've had a team project/presentation/paper in literally all my courses, except one. Last semester was absolute hell because I was taking five business courses. Every one had a team project. There are numerous challenges with teamwork in general. Everyone has conflicting schedules, so face time is hard to do. Also, face time can be extremely unproductive. People show up late, without having read the assignment, and it's easy to get off task. Also, so often we're thrown together, with no previous relationship to each other, so there's no real time to "feel" out your group and establish norms. The focus is "let's just get it done."

But with that said, from my experiences, I've gathered some useful tools/tips for handling team project, especially when there are time conflicts. One, I think it helps a lot to know your teammates before you work on a major project together. Technology has made this easy with Facebook and AIM. In one group, we even went out for lunch. I mean this is rare, but it helps establish trust within the group, and gauge everyone's expertise.

The other thing I live by now is GoogleDocs. No longer do you need to do that annoying "I'll send you my part." This is so helpful with group papers because you can build off of what has already been said. I work for the Office of Business Communications here at Kogod. Our website has some pretty good tips from team projects in general http://kogod.american.edu/ArtPage.cfm?ItemID=956&AudienceID=16

So to carry these team-building tools to virtual teams, technology definitely has facilitated communication and reduced costs of flying people in, but I think it has limitations. You lose the non-verbal interactions, and the personal connection when you talk to someone face to face. I think these often make and break the team. So where do corporations draw the line and decide when teams need to meet face to face, and when they can they rely solely on virtual tools?

Google Me

I'm so sorry this blog is late. I've been trying to keep all my balls in the air, and lately that has been increasingly hard to do with all these job interviews. But ironically, this ties into this weeks topic, which touches on reputation -- both my own and the firms that I've been interviewing with.

Brushing up your resume, dressing the part, and trying to sell yourself at all these job fairs are all part of creating your personal brand. It's about translating your reputation in the class room, in your previous jobs, and in your activities. All of these you have relative control over. What's scary about your online reputation is that there seems to be less control, despite how limited your Facebook profile is. Pictures your friends post from that "wild" party can turn up. My friend interned at a law firm where part of her job was to search AU applicants on Facebook. I'm definitely trying to be more aware of what information I put on the Web. And, what information is put up about me.

Also, I can definitely tell that firms "Google" me, because they always ask about these two things - "The Office of Business Communications," and my scholarship through the "Former Agents of the FBI Foundation." The Former Agents of the FBI always draws intrigue - "Wait, you were in the FBI?" "No, my grandfather was...."

Anyway, on the other side. It's been difficult to find out the employer's reputation. Yea, they all have websites, but they all basically say the same thing. I've found it extremely odd how in interviews some will bash the reputation of other firms.

So, I would say that now - more than ever - its difficult to manage your reputation. At least on your own. And I guess this is where companies like ReputationDefender.com come in.

Who do you believe?

So for my Capstone class, we had to pick a company and identify a strategic problem. Since we couldn't do Apple, our group decided to do one of their competitors - Meizu.

Meizu, is the Apple clone of China. Since this is a relatively new company, and well, from China, there was very little information given by the company about the release of their iPhone look-a-like -- the miniOne. But there was an abundance of blogs speculating on everything from launch date to product features. Though these blogs were very helpful finding the general consensus on this product (the blogging community seems to embrace the iPhone rip off), I found it hard to decide what was credible. With the launch date for example, I ended up citing information I found in a news article rather than the dates listed in these blogs.

This ties in this Scoble and Israel's chapter on "Direct Acccess." Blogs are valuable tool for companies, especially executives, to create a direct line of communication. Eliminate the third party to protect accuracy. I wish Meizu had a corporate blog...maybe they do but it's not translated. Anyway, I just wanted to add that yea, the news messes up. But I think if you were to poll the general public, people would say that major newspapers, news channels, and radio shows are more credible and accurate than something found on a blog. There's still a lack of trust involving the Internet. Also, I think people don't know necessarily where to find these blogs either. TV, papers, and radio require very little from the audience but to watch, read, or listen. Blogs on the other hand, I think there is more of a search.

Though an official corporate blog is of course going to be credible, what does a company do about all the unofficial blogs? What about the wealth of inaccuracies, misrepresentation, and biases on the Web?