If you want to know why a growing number of Americans are becoming career activists, you need look no further than the Board of Directors at Hewlett-Packard. If you’re wondering why so many of the country’s working men and women have taken their careers into their own hands, take a look at the cowardice of these mighty captains of industry.

As described in a recent New York Times column by Joe Nocera, the Board fired the company’s CEO, Michael V. Hurd, the other day for all the right reasons. He was abusing the company’s culture and its employees while enriching himself.

How was that cowardice? Instead of announcing the real reason for his dismissal, the Board concocted an excuse that involved Hurd having an inappropriate relationship with a contractor and fudging on his expenses reports.

Was that stupid behavior on Hurd’s part? Absolutely. Was it deserving of censure? Unquestionably – we have too many leaders who don’t model good behavior. But, was it a sufficient cause for firing the man? Absolutely not.

So, why did the Board use that excuse?

They chickened out. You see, the one thing Hurd did do well was please the greed-masters on Wall Street. He turned in great numbers, and numbers are all that count for the hedge fund hotshots and derivative dons at Goldman Sachs et. al.. The Board was afraid that if they used the truth – “lousy leadership” – as the rationale for sacking Hurd, they would kill the goose that laid the golden egg: those ever rising share prices for HP stock.

With that kind of cowardice in the boardroom, American workers have no choice but to take care of themselves. They can’t rely on CEOs or their Board bosses to provide any cover at all for them. So, they’re taking action on their own.

Where’s the proof?

Consider this: A recent survey at H.P. found that two-thirds of its employees would leave if they got an offer from another company. And then there’s this: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, between February and April of this year, more Americans quit their jobs (2 million) than were laid off (1.7 million). That’s courage at work … and the foot steps of self-reliant persons of talent. I call them career activists.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

Remember the Miracle on Ice? It was the winter of 1980, and nobody expected much out of the American hockey team at the Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York. The team, made up of amateur and college students, would have to play its way through the Soviet team which was stocked with professional players and rated the best in the world. What happened in that game and the match that followed became the Miracle on Ice.

The contest with the Soviets was a blur of hulking figures in red stalking a whirling dervish of smaller, quicker red, white and blue-clad skaters. For the Americans, it began with nervousness and trepidation, wound through heart stopping changes in momentum and ended in delirium. People who had never seen a hockey game—men, women and kids who couldn’t tell a hockey stick from a broom handle—streamed into neighborhood streets and city avenues to yell in delirious exultation and clap one another on the back in pride at the improbably outcome.

Not only had the Americans beaten the seemingly invincible Soviet team, but days later, they went on to win the Olympic gold medal in hockey. As individuals and as a team, they refused to be cowed, refused to be counted out and refused to be content with anything other than one of the most inspiring accomplishments in sporting history. They fashioned a breathtaking memory, to be sure, but more than that, they crafted a lesson for all of us in today’s world of work.

How’s that?

The current job market presents a challenge every bit as intimidating as the Big Red Machine of the Winter Olympics. And, today’s job seekers find themselves no less the underdogs in their search for gainful employment. Their odds of success seem just as long, the hurdles to winning—not a game, but a decent job—seem just as insurmountable as those faced by that American hockey team thirty years ago.

The hockey team was counted out by just about everyone, but they didn’t give up on themselves or their dream. They ignored the press clippings about how outclassed they were and focused, instead, on how much better they could be. They turned to their coach—the legendary Herb Brooks—and subjected themselves to a regimen of individual and team improvement that slowly, but surely prepared them for what was ahead.

That mindset and strategy is just as appropriate for every person who finds him or herself in the competition for a new or better job. What we face today is the Winter Olympics of job markets, so it’s not enough to rely on what we already know how to do. We must, instead, figure out how we can be even better. Regardless of our level of seniority and past accomplishments, we have to commit ourselves to raising the level of our game.

But, that’s only half of what it takes to be a winner in the current economy, and the other half is no less demanding. It obliges us to remember who we are and where we come from. We are part of a nation where pluck and determination know no boundaries. Americans don’t disrespect big challenges, but they aren’t intimidated by them either. That’s how we liberated the world from totalitarianism and that’s how we put men on the moon. No less important, that’s also how we created the Miracle on Ice.

So, go ahead and listen to the lousy economic forecasts on the daily news shows and subject yourself to the pessimism of the pundits. But then, do what those youngsters on the American hockey team did and ignore them. Focus instead on your dream. And remember the heritage you share with that team: Americans refuse to be cowed, refuse to be counted out and refuse to be content with anything other than the success of which they are capable.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

Forty years ago, a generation of Americans said they would never work for “the man.” Their values and culture were so different and their numbers so great that the workplace was going to have to change to accommodate them.

Today, the members of that Baby Boom generation go to work much as their parents did. The long flowing locks and facial hair are gone, and the refusal to conform has been overtaken by mortgage payments and college tuition bills. And the same will be true of Millennials.

How can that be? A cottage industry has grown up providing advice to recruiters and HR professionals on how to handle the highly unusual habits of Millennials. This consulting has undoubtedly helped to keep more than a handful of businesses going in the recession, but other than that, its utility is of questionable value.

As with each of the generations in American culture, Millennials clearly do have their own preferences and values. There’s no proof, however, that those social mores will challenge the norms of workplace behavior. And, in fact, there is now at least one study which suggests exactly the opposite will happen.

A survey released last month by the University of California, Berkley—hardly a bastion of conservative thought—found that over half of the Millennials they questioned had become more concerned about privacy on social media sites than they were five years ago. And guess what—that number is now the same as those who are worried about the issue among their parents’ generation.

Moreover, these findings reveal more than just a concern about privacy. Millennials are showing a new seriousness about their careers. Ironically, the generation that brought you Facebook and MySpace is now having second thoughts about the impact of such sites on their ability to find a job and advance in their field.

Sound familiar? Close your eyes so you can’t see the body art and the words sound eerily similar to those of their parents. So much for being noncomformist.

Certainly, recruiters and HR professionals should be respectful of the differences that do exist among the generations, but a workplace revolution is not in the cards. As it was for Boomers, it will likely be for Millennials: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

The Bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, and I certainly wouldn’t want to quarrel with that source. I would, however, respectfully offer a modern exception to the rule. The meek shall inherit the earth, but they will not control the workplace.

American workers have learned that lesson the hard way. They did whatever their employers asked of them and they did it whenever, wherever and however they were asked. And then their employers shoved them out the door. The only thing they inherited was a pink slip.

How could they protect themselves?

For a decade or so, the conventional wisdom has given the nod to The Free Agent Nation. For those who decide they will no longer stand meekly by as their employers abuse them, the key to survival and success was entrepreneurism. All they had to do was reinvent themselves as Me, Inc..

This premise was especially alluring to Americans with their culture of independence. If they wanted to take control of their careers, they had only to work for and employ themselves.

There was only one little problem—the concept was only half right. You see, most Americans do want to work for themselves, but they want to be employed by someone else. They want to be independent, but not out on their own. They would rather be Me™ than Me, Inc..

Where’s the proof?

Remember all those folks who said they were going to leave their employers the minute the economy recovered from the 2001 recession? Well, five years later, the majority of them were still working for the same companies. They yearned to work for themselves, but they wanted someone else to be responsible for their pay. They craved independence, but were unwilling to take the risk of changing from the devil they knew to the devil they didn’t.

What’s the alternative? If free agency isn’t the answer to fatal meekness, what is?

In a turbulent workplace such as the one we face today, standing meekly by has to be replaced with standing up for ourselves. I call it making a commitment to “career activism.” And I believe the United States is now witnessing the emergence of The Career Activist Republic.

Career activists are determined to work for themselves—they expect the one-third of their lives they spend on-the-job to give them more than an inadequate paycheck and unreliable job security. And, they want to be employed by an employer—they aren’t interested in having to sell themselves as a contractor or consultant to one organization after another after another.

How do they establish such an arrangement? By trading in their meekness for action.

They take the steps necessary to keep their talent honed to its highest possible level of refinement and to establish a track record of using that talent to make a significant contribution to their employer’s success. Even in the worst of recessions, employers will compete to hire such individuals. So, while the meek shall inherit the earth, it’s career activists who have a future in the workplace.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

This job market is a poser. It wants you to think it’s a regular old job market just like those we’ve always had. And, if you buy into that notion, you’ll be setting yourself up for failure.

Good old fashioned job markets were “come as you are” events. You found a new job with the skills you had from your old job. All you had to do, therefore, was update your resume, send it out to a bunch of employers, do a little networking around the edges, and before you knew it, you would have a couple of job offers, at least one of which was better than the job you last had.

It was a pretty nifty system … as long as it lasted.

Today, the come as you are job market has been replaced by the “get better if you want to get work” job market. And most people are unaware of the change. As The New York Times put it in a recent article describing a job seeker, this lack of recognition:

“… helps explains why Ms. Eisen [the job seeker]—who has never before struggled to find work—feels a familiar pain each time she scans job listings in her computer. There are positions in health care, most requiring experience she lacks. Office jobs demand familiarity with software she has never used.”

In other words, what she has isn’t enough to get what she needs. So, here’s the sobering truth: if you’re out of work in this middling recovery, your chances of finding a new job the old fashioned way are slim and none. The game has changed, which means that the rules have too.

What should you do?

Get better even as you get on with your job search. You have three options:
• You can update your skills in your current field of work if it is one that is still needed by employers.
• You can add new skills that will enable you to do more with your old skills and thus make a more valuable contribution on-the-job.
or
• You can acquire the skills of a new occupation, one that is now and will likely continue to be in demand by employers.

That’s it. Those are your only choices. If you want to find work.

Standing at a bulletin board filled with job listings won’t do it. And neither will checking the postings at job boards online. You can send out a million resumes, but if all they’re describing is the skills you had in your last job, they won’t get you a new one.

On the other hand, if you send out ten resumes and each one describes
• what you’ve done
AND
• what you’re doing to get better,
you’re much more likely to find an employer that will value who you are because they can see who you aspire to be.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

We’ve all heard of the Greatest Generation, the men and women who saved the world from totalitarianism in World War II. Well, now we have another generation deserving of its own title, but this one is different. It’s the Worst Generation—the single most self-serving and stupid group of “leaders” in the history of American business.

That statement is not hyperbole; it’s fact. Sadly, the details are well known to all of us. While stumbling into the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, this group of business leaders—and that includes all those C-suiters, their buddies on their Boards of Directors and the sycophants waiting for their turn at the trough—has richly rewarded themselves. They have booted over 7 million of their employees out the door while bonusing up their own compensation to the tune of billions of dollars.

And now, in the face of historic highs in job dissatisfaction among their workers, this Worst Generation has decided that they needn’t worry about workforce retention. According to a new report from Deloitte, over two-thirds of the country’s corporate employers—a whopping 69%—have no program to retain top talent. None. Nada.

On top of that, the Hay Group reports that planned salary increases for top performers in 2010—that’s the “A” level talent recruiters work so hard to acquire—will be a paltry 2.8 percent.

And, these are the same guys and gals who pontificate that “our workers are our most important asset.” They’re the ones you see on business cable waxing eloquent about how important their employees are. It makes for good sound bites, but that’s all it is—an investment of verbal capital or what most of us call hot air.

What can you do about it? How can you protect yourself from the Worst Generation?

Avoid the organizations they lead. Whether you’re a job seeker or a recruiter, don’t work for the Worst Generation. There are good and caring corporate leaders out there. Hitch your star to them.

How can you spot the good ones?

Subject their actions—not their words—to a simple test. The best leaders understand that their role is not teamWORK—pumping up company profits (and their own pay) by demanding more and more effort out of their employees. What they strive for, instead, is TEAMwork—creating success for both the company and its employees by supporting the development and accomplishment of each individual. Let that kind of leader put your talent to work, and you’re much more likely to achieve the career you deserve.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

The Conference Board reports that 2010 is still a month young and already it’s set a new record. Almost half of all Americans (45%) report that they are dissatisfied with their jobs. That’s the highest the figure has been since the question was first asked, way back in 1987.

What’s behind this malaise?

Certainly, it would be easy to point a finger at employers. They’ve made huge cuts in the workforce and then piled work on the survivors. They’ve paid their top executives obscene amounts of money and lavish perks and argued against adding a measly couple of dimes to the minimum wage. And, of course, you could go on and on.

I think, however, there’s another equally as important cause of job dissatisfaction that you don’t hear much about. Ask any recruiter to identify their single greatest problem, and most will say the number of unqualified people who apply for their openings.

Now, I understand that in this difficult economy, people are desperate; they’ll take any job they can get. But, here’s the simple truth: if you wan to be dissatisfied with your job, apply for one where you aren’t qualified to do the work.

I’m writing a book called The Career Activist Republic. It describes the rise of a new kind of worker in America. This worker demands all of their rights of citizenship in the workplace as well as in the rest of our society. But in order to claim those rights, these career activists also accept the responsibilities that come along with them.

How does that relate to job dissatisfaction?

If you believe you have a right to the pursuit of Happiness at work—and I believe you do—then you also have the responsibility to put yourself in a role where you have the skills and knowledge and the cultural alignment to achieve it. Or to put it another way, if you’ve been wasting your time applying for jobs where you aren’t qualified, invest the time, instead, looking for and landing jobs where you are. You are much more likely to be hired and infinitely more likely to be satisfied with the job.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

If you watched Meet the Press yesterday, you heard Alan Greenspan opine that of all the problems caused by the recession, perhaps the most serious will be its impact on the long-term unemployed.

Today, there are almost 6 million Americans who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. As Mr. Greenspan noted, besides the emotional and financial toll they are experiencing, they are also suffering a terrible occupational penalty. They are growing more and more obsolete. The longer they (or anyone) remain unemployed, the less current and employable their skills.

Sadly, this view is absolutely correct. Which is what makes our current system of “unemployment insurance” so senseless.

Why pay someone to be unemployed, when we could just as easily pay them to be employed. Not at a traditional job, but at the job of updating and expanding their skill set. In other words, in addition to the monthly stipend a person collects for being unemployed, why doesn’t the country also giving them an “employment insurance” chit good for the tuition at any accredited academic or training institution?

Such a program would have a wide range of beneficiaries, including:
• The individual working man or woman whose skills would be strong enough to compete and win in even the most challenging labor market;
• Employers that would have access to a larger pool of workers with state-of-the-art skills enabling them to compete and win in the global marketplace; and
• Teachers who would finally have enough demand for their expertise to be able to find a job and earn a living.

I know it’s important to upgrade our crumbling infrastructure, but construction jobs do not prepare the American workforce for the challenges ahead. Only the most robust set of skills will enable them to do that. So, here’s my modest two-step proposal.
• First, I suggest that we redefine the “troubled assets” in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to include the occupational expertise of America’s workers.
• And second, I suggest that we use the remaining TARP funds to finance an “employment insurance” program for American workers.

What will this proposal accomplish?

One very important outcome—it will, at last, spread the wealth from Wall Street to Main Street and help put America’s workers back to work, not just for the next six months, but for the rest of their careers.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

This Sunday’s New York Times had an article entitled “Not Taking ‘Not Hiring’ for an Answer.” Its theme was that “baby boomers were more persistent job-hunters than other age groups.” The tactics they’re using, however, can be just as effective for Gen Ys and Millennials.

In particular, the article noted that more and more people are turning to a temporary job not only for income, but perhaps more importantly, as a bridge to a permanent position. It’s an effective strategy—one I’ve recommended myself from time-to-time—but only if you understand the new definition of the term “permanent.”

Traditionally, we think of permanent jobs as those that are long lasting. We know it’s unlikely that we’ll work for a single employer for thirty or forty years, but permanent employment seems much more durable than … well than a temporary job. We don’t expect it to end in a couple of months or even in a couple of years.

In the 20th Century job market, such expectations were probably not unreasonable. On average, people changed jobs four or five times during their career or about once every six or seven years. That’s why most of us liked them so much. They gave us something we could count on—so we could buy a house or save for a child’s college education.

Today, however, a permanent job means something else altogether. The volatility produced by a highly interconnected global marketplace and the frenetic introduction of new technology has installed a pattern of much more frequent job changes. Instead of making such moves every six or seven years, we will now probably do so every three or four years. In effect, impermanence is the new norm.

What’s that mean for those of us in the workplace?

We’re going to have to adjust our own expectations and those of our families. Taking what the Times called “an honest-to-goodness, full-time, permanent job” no longer provides any meaningful security. Employers can promise it, but they can’t deliver it. If you have any doubt about that, consider this: the average tenure of a CEO is now down to under four years. If it can happen to them, it can happen to anyone and everyone else.

Does that mean there is no security in today’s world of work? No. It means we have to rely on ourselves for protection. We have to provide our own security.

How do we accomplish that?

By staying in the hunt even as we’re holding down what’s called a permanent job. Or to put it more bluntly, we have to make our job search permanent because our job isn’t.

Thanks for reading,
Peter

You may have seen the news story. A teen was recently found in New York City with no memory of her name or personal history. Her amnesia was profound. Happily, however, the story ends well, as a CNN viewer recognized the girl’s photo and identified her as a missing person from Oregon. She’s now on her way to being reunited with her family.

But think about what it would be like to be in her situation. Not knowing who you are. Unable to remember anything that’s important about you or to you. It would be a horrible even desperate condition. Without our self-identify, we are … well, that’s the point—without our self-identity, we aren’t.

Which is why I am astonished at how many people willingly subject themselves to “career amnesia.” They invest thirty, forty, fifty years of their life in a career without knowing what their true talent is or what they have the potential to do with their work. According to a recent poll, an astonishing 88% of Americans daydream at work about quitting their jobs to do something else, something more meaningful and rewarding to them. They don’t forget who they are; they never figure it out.

How do we fall into such a trap? Many of us graduate from college and head off into the workforce without having spent a credit hour on the tough subject of ourselves. So, what happens? We fall into a career field, work at it diligently and eventually acquire a degree of expertise in accomplishing the work involved. But here’s the rub: competence isn’t talent. We can do a job well, but if it doesn’t thrill or challenge us, we will never express and experience the best in us.

On the other hand, many of us believe we should work at our passion. We read all the books and listen to the gurus who tell us we should do what we love to do. And then reality sets in. We may want to write the great American novel, but Hemingway has nothing to worry about. So, what happens? We convince ourselves that work is a four letter word. It is a demeaning and depressing passage, and the best we can hope for is enough of a salary to support the enjoyable parts of our lives.

These kinds of experience are common in America today, and they are symptoms of career amnesia. Many of us are standing on a corner in New York City with absolutely no sense of who we are or were meant to be. And that’s a tragedy. Because we all have a gift, an identity—an inherent talent. It is not, however, either competence or passion. Our talent is the intersection of two things we know—or can know—about ourselves: it is both what we love to do and do best.

There’s only one way to avoid the tragedy of career amnesia. We must give ourselves permission to take the time and make the effort to discover our talent. We can’t rely on someone else to find out who we are. No photo on the evening news will reveal our true identify. We have to do it, and we must. We spend one-third of our day at work, and that time should be every bit as good as the rest of our lives.

Thanks for reading,
Peter