I'll admit it; I have invented job titles for myself. However, in my defense I'll note that I either (a) gave myself a job title that more accurately depicted my role (I was once hired as a recruiter but quickly became an HR rep - it seemed natural to not the proper description of my duties); or, (b) was in a job without a title and needed to put something in my email signature (and when I appropriated "Operations Manager" for this role, my boss was completely on board).
Further, I have never adopted a title for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. However, I have known people who have.
In a past job, I had a senior staff member quickly attach the word "Manager" to his duties once a junior employee (me) was in the fold. Thus, the "Senior Recruiter" became "Recruitment Manager". Soon, he started adding roles and the "Recruitment Manager" became the "Recruitment and Proposal Manager". When he temporarily filled the role of a departed Branch Manager, the title "Interim Branch Manager" quickly came from his lips when he would speak to someone. I recently noticed on his LinkedIn profile that he had added "Human Resources Manager" to his list of titles at that job. This was news to me (and kind of funny, as when we had a complaint filled with the labour board from a former employee, I was the one who took care of it).
Also at this job, we had a sales person. The title sales person, account manager or account executive was never employed, though. She quickly adopted "Business Development Manager. To be fair, although this was never her official role, the owner told her to use it when dealing with clients; it made her sound more important, apparently. One shouldn't note that we had no other sales team and no official Business Development strategy, so what she managed, I'll never know.
Quickly, though, this title seeped into her identity. She became quick to throw it around, and started behaving as part of a management team with the "Human Resources Manager". Granted, she was the most junior employee, hadn't earned the respect she coveted (or even a sale of her own) and, most significantly, was vested with no such authority by the owner. Nonetheless, she was "Business Development Manager".
(Add to this, we had a bookkeeper who was tasked with the duties of an office manager, read: she placed orders for office supplies. She quickly got enamoured with being the "Office Manager"... to the point that she didn't seem think bookkeeping was a primary duty. Our year end financial reports - not too mention monthly payroll - were a testament to that. Yeah, it was a healthy work environment at that place.)
I have absolutely no problem with people seeking designations that most accurately reflect the work that they do. If they have a senior role (in more ways than just tenure), then recognition in the form a title seems appropriate. We all have egos. And occasionally, they all need to be fed, if only a little. Whatever, that's fine. That's human.
Issues arise when people get enamoured with titles. In the examples I have given, we are not witnessing people who had adopted titles to accurately reflect what it was they did. The Interim Branch Manager and Business Development Manager were more interested in holding the titles than executing the duties. In the end, we had more phony titles than we had clients, and that's no way for a business to survive.
So, what's my point? I'm not eschewing the use of titles, and I'm not even suggesting that wanting a nice title is bad. I'm just suggesting that it's best not to get too hung up on them. Do not fixate on your title. The more important it is for you to be something, the less important it will be for you to do something.
And if you find yourself working with people who seem to enamoured with their title, watch out. These people are unlikely to be beneficial to the health of your career or your employment.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Lessons From a Lost Season: Succession Planning
I have written before about the most recent season of the National Football League's Seattle Seahawks and the actions of their previous head coach, Jim Mora Jr. The Mora saga offers a number of opportunities for reflection on topics relating to human resources, recruiting, management and leadership. Today, I though I'd focus on just one, succession planning.
Prior to Jim Mora, Jr., the Seahawks' head coach was Mike Holmgren. By far, Holmgren was the most successful coach in the team's history, leading them to a succession of division titles and one Super Bowl appearance. Holmgren led the team for 10 seasons. In the last few, there were always rumours of the coach's imminent retirement. Each year, he toyed with the idea of stepping down, but always decided to come back for one more season.
In 2007, the Seahawks hired Mora as an assistant head coach, and it was essentially confirmed that that he would replace Holmgren upon retirement. In 2007, the Seahawks had a mediocre season, and it was thought that it might be Holmgren's last, but in 2008 he returned. 2008 was abysmal. It was the worst under Holmgren and the worst the team had experienced in over a decade. There was, apparently, locker room dissention, with some players being "Holmgren guys" and some being "Mora guys". Following 2008, Holmgren finally retired. He claimed to have promised his wife, but many thought he was pretty much forced out by management.
2009, under Mora, was, arguably, even worse than 2008. It was not merely the number of losses, but of the poor effort put forth by season's end. The situation was so bad that Mora lost his job after just one year (very few coaches are terminated after one season). There are many reasons it went so wrong, but the poor succession planning was definitely a part of it.
Unlike many organizations, the Seahawks troubles in properly planning for personnel changes came from over-preparation, rather than under preparation. It is one thing to identify potential candidates for promotion within your organization, or shortlist some external candidates, should the demand for one arise. It is quite another thing to bring someone in ostensibly as a subordinate, but whom everyone knows will eventually be wearing the crown.
It's not unheard of to have a head coach-in-waiting. In the 1990s, the New York Jets had already tagged Defensive Co-ordinator Bill Belichek as the replacement for the current head coach, Bill Parcells (another former Super Bowl winning coach), should Parcells step down. However, The Jets did not bring Belichek in. He was a disciple of Parcells, having worked for him with the New York Giants and again with the Jets. There would be no concerns of "Belichek guys" vs. "Parcells guys" in the locker room, because Belichek himself would have been considered a "Parcells guy".
(It should be noted that this didn't quite work out for the Jets. Even though it was in Belichek's contract that he would be offered the head coaching gig should Parcells leave, when Parcells took a job with the New England Patriots, Belichek rebuffed the Jets to follow Parcells toNew England to remain as his Defensive Co-ordinator. Nonetheless, it was a good attempt by the Jets.)
So, what should Seattle have done back in 2007, when they were concerned about Holmgren's potential retirement? There are a few possibilities.
First, they could have afforded him full control over his future and done no succession planning whatsoever. This may not seem like it would have been the wisest course of action, but it would have had one huge benefit: Mike Holmgren. Holmgren was one of the best coaches in the league, and had been for a couple of decades. He'd been to the Super Bowl three times with two different teams, winning once. He had done more for the franchise than anyone other than owner Paul Allen. He had certainly done more to raise the level of football that was played in thePacific Northwest than anyone else. An organization could have decided that keeping this man around for an extra year was worth more than any succession planning they could have done. As well, the organization could have decided that, even if it left them in a potential hole, extending this courtesy was the proper thing to do. It would have said much about the character of the organization.
(Ironically, the man who ousted Holmgren, General Manager Tim Ruskell, always put an emphasis on "high character" players, often to the team's detriment.)
Second, they could have consulted with Holmgren when planning. The Seahawks Quarterbacks coach, Jim Zorn, seemed like a potential head coach to groom. Not only was he good at his job, but he was one of the first stars of the organization after their inception in 1976 (he was their first ever starting Quarterback). In fact, in 2008 Zorn was tapped as head coach for the Washington Redskins. Granted, it didn't work out too well, but that's probably more about the Redskins than Zorn. As well, Zorn may have been better suited for a head coaching job had he been given more mentoring by a potential Hall of Fame coach.
Beyond that, Homgren might have had some ideas of people outside the organization he would have liked to bring in as a replacement. This could have been someone, unlike Mora, who had the same philosophy regarding systems and personnel as Holmgren, thus easing the eventual transition.
Third, they could have done succession planning in secret. No, I'm not suggesting some deceptive covert operation; I just mean they could have started to investigate potential coaches they would have liked to hire without making any pronouncements. This could have been an on-going initiative that was regularly re-visited. Lists could have been revised as new information about aptitudes and availability came up.
Finally, they could have fired Holmgren. This seems rather harsh, and quite rude, but it would have been a lot more straightforward than the path they eventually took. In the end, it is a business, and if they truly felt that the future of the team lay with Jim Mora and not Mike Holmgren, it would have made sense to just turn the team over to Mora. It would have been similar to what happened to Brett Favre inGreen Bay
Of course, maybe the question isn't what they could have done, but what they shouldn't have done. They shouldn't have made a hiring decision for 2009 back in 2007. They shouldn't have ignored the fact that the aspect of the team that Mora coached in 2007 and 2008 (the defensive backs) severely declined during his tenure underneath Holmgren. They shouldn't have ignored Mora's intention to hire his friend, Greg Knapp, as Offensive Co-ordinator after Knapp had a fairly poor run asOakland
In the end, it seems that team’s management suffered from their infatuation with Mora, and it was quite understandable that they were initially infatuated with him. He’d had some success as an NFL coach. He was young; he was outgoing; and he was a hometown kid. It was exactly the sort of story you’d want to see. Unfortunately, this infatuation seems to have eliminated any critical thinking on the matter, and consequently, a team that played in the Super Bowl in February 2006 had become one of the worst teams in the NFL less than four years later.
This decline not only claimed Mora’s job; it claimed the job of the man who hired him, Tim Ruskell. There are fewer lessons that are as clear about the necessity of proper succession planning as that of the 2009 Seattle Seahawks and Jim Mora, Jr.
Prior to Jim Mora, Jr., the Seahawks' head coach was Mike Holmgren. By far, Holmgren was the most successful coach in the team's history, leading them to a succession of division titles and one Super Bowl appearance. Holmgren led the team for 10 seasons. In the last few, there were always rumours of the coach's imminent retirement. Each year, he toyed with the idea of stepping down, but always decided to come back for one more season.
In 2007, the Seahawks hired Mora as an assistant head coach, and it was essentially confirmed that that he would replace Holmgren upon retirement. In 2007, the Seahawks had a mediocre season, and it was thought that it might be Holmgren's last, but in 2008 he returned. 2008 was abysmal. It was the worst under Holmgren and the worst the team had experienced in over a decade. There was, apparently, locker room dissention, with some players being "Holmgren guys" and some being "Mora guys". Following 2008, Holmgren finally retired. He claimed to have promised his wife, but many thought he was pretty much forced out by management.
2009, under Mora, was, arguably, even worse than 2008. It was not merely the number of losses, but of the poor effort put forth by season's end. The situation was so bad that Mora lost his job after just one year (very few coaches are terminated after one season). There are many reasons it went so wrong, but the poor succession planning was definitely a part of it.
Unlike many organizations, the Seahawks troubles in properly planning for personnel changes came from over-preparation, rather than under preparation. It is one thing to identify potential candidates for promotion within your organization, or shortlist some external candidates, should the demand for one arise. It is quite another thing to bring someone in ostensibly as a subordinate, but whom everyone knows will eventually be wearing the crown.
It's not unheard of to have a head coach-in-waiting. In the 1990s, the New York Jets had already tagged Defensive Co-ordinator Bill Belichek as the replacement for the current head coach, Bill Parcells (another former Super Bowl winning coach), should Parcells step down. However, The Jets did not bring Belichek in. He was a disciple of Parcells, having worked for him with the New York Giants and again with the Jets. There would be no concerns of "Belichek guys" vs. "Parcells guys" in the locker room, because Belichek himself would have been considered a "Parcells guy".
(It should be noted that this didn't quite work out for the Jets. Even though it was in Belichek's contract that he would be offered the head coaching gig should Parcells leave, when Parcells took a job with the New England Patriots, Belichek rebuffed the Jets to follow Parcells to
So, what should Seattle have done back in 2007, when they were concerned about Holmgren's potential retirement? There are a few possibilities.
First, they could have afforded him full control over his future and done no succession planning whatsoever. This may not seem like it would have been the wisest course of action, but it would have had one huge benefit: Mike Holmgren. Holmgren was one of the best coaches in the league, and had been for a couple of decades. He'd been to the Super Bowl three times with two different teams, winning once. He had done more for the franchise than anyone other than owner Paul Allen. He had certainly done more to raise the level of football that was played in the
(Ironically, the man who ousted Holmgren, General Manager Tim Ruskell, always put an emphasis on "high character" players, often to the team's detriment.)
Second, they could have consulted with Holmgren when planning. The Seahawks Quarterbacks coach, Jim Zorn, seemed like a potential head coach to groom. Not only was he good at his job, but he was one of the first stars of the organization after their inception in 1976 (he was their first ever starting Quarterback). In fact, in 2008 Zorn was tapped as head coach for the Washington Redskins. Granted, it didn't work out too well, but that's probably more about the Redskins than Zorn. As well, Zorn may have been better suited for a head coaching job had he been given more mentoring by a potential Hall of Fame coach.
Beyond that, Homgren might have had some ideas of people outside the organization he would have liked to bring in as a replacement. This could have been someone, unlike Mora, who had the same philosophy regarding systems and personnel as Holmgren, thus easing the eventual transition.
Third, they could have done succession planning in secret. No, I'm not suggesting some deceptive covert operation; I just mean they could have started to investigate potential coaches they would have liked to hire without making any pronouncements. This could have been an on-going initiative that was regularly re-visited. Lists could have been revised as new information about aptitudes and availability came up.
Finally, they could have fired Holmgren. This seems rather harsh, and quite rude, but it would have been a lot more straightforward than the path they eventually took. In the end, it is a business, and if they truly felt that the future of the team lay with Jim Mora and not Mike Holmgren, it would have made sense to just turn the team over to Mora. It would have been similar to what happened to Brett Favre in
Of course, maybe the question isn't what they could have done, but what they shouldn't have done. They shouldn't have made a hiring decision for 2009 back in 2007. They shouldn't have ignored the fact that the aspect of the team that Mora coached in 2007 and 2008 (the defensive backs) severely declined during his tenure underneath Holmgren. They shouldn't have ignored Mora's intention to hire his friend, Greg Knapp, as Offensive Co-ordinator after Knapp had a fairly poor run as
In the end, it seems that team’s management suffered from their infatuation with Mora, and it was quite understandable that they were initially infatuated with him. He’d had some success as an NFL coach. He was young; he was outgoing; and he was a hometown kid. It was exactly the sort of story you’d want to see. Unfortunately, this infatuation seems to have eliminated any critical thinking on the matter, and consequently, a team that played in the Super Bowl in February 2006 had become one of the worst teams in the NFL less than four years later.
This decline not only claimed Mora’s job; it claimed the job of the man who hired him, Tim Ruskell. There are fewer lessons that are as clear about the necessity of proper succession planning as that of the 2009 Seattle Seahawks and Jim Mora, Jr.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Week In Review
As I noted in the previous post, I have started a new job. For a week now, I have been a proposal writer for a staffing firm in Ottawa. It seems like it will be an interesting job. It'll definitely be a new challenge.
A little over two years ago, I started with Microtime Inc. as a technical recruiter. My path to Microtime was rather long. I won't get into the details now (I've been planning to write a post on this adventure), but it took over two months from my initial interview to actually start working for Microtime. I put in a lot of effort to land that gig, and I planned to keep it.
At the end of my first week with Microtime, I sent a message to my immediate superior and to my boss (neither of whom are still with the company). It wasn't a long email; it was just a quick 'thank you' to let them know that I was happy to be at Microtime, and I was happy to be learning new things.
I did not send such an email today, even though I just completed my first week at my new job. The main reason: I had a ton of work to do. Also, this company had spent much of the week letting me know that they were glad to have me aboard, and that hey expect that I will be with the company - and thrive with the company - for quite some time. There was no need for me to send any sort of thank you email. I had sufficient interaction with everyone - from my peers to the CEO - that all sentiments had been properly expressed already.
When I returned to work after the first week at Microtime, I had a response to my 'thank you' email from my boss. She said that she was glad I enjoyed the week, but that I had a lot to learn.
This was pretty debilitating. I decided to send an email to reinforce - for my superiors - my enthusiasm for the job. In response, I was told that I was not yet quite capable of fulfilling my duties. It was a shot in the gut.
That boss is the worst boss I have ever had (heck, she's one of the worst people with whom I've ever had to work). She's been one of the few; I have been very lucky to have some great bosses.
So, what's my point? You're first week at a new job can be incredibly formative. You will be standing a standard against which you will be judged in the future. As well, you're setting the tone for the relationships you'll have with all of your co-workers, and, to a lesser extent, they're setting the tone for their relationship with you. This can be an incredibly important week. Sure, if you make some mistakes, you'll still be able to recover, but if you really set a negative tone, you'll be setting yourself up for failure.
As well, for supervisors it is an important time. Supervisors have the opportunity to set the expectations of the job, the atmosphere of the office and the terms of the relationship you'll have. They also have the opportunity to sour everything with one quick little email. If you're a supervisor, don't do this. Embrace enthusiasm. Nurture it. Don't take it as an opening to put someone down.
And by the way, I was a good recruiter before I joined Microtime.
A little over two years ago, I started with Microtime Inc. as a technical recruiter. My path to Microtime was rather long. I won't get into the details now (I've been planning to write a post on this adventure), but it took over two months from my initial interview to actually start working for Microtime. I put in a lot of effort to land that gig, and I planned to keep it.
At the end of my first week with Microtime, I sent a message to my immediate superior and to my boss (neither of whom are still with the company). It wasn't a long email; it was just a quick 'thank you' to let them know that I was happy to be at Microtime, and I was happy to be learning new things.
I did not send such an email today, even though I just completed my first week at my new job. The main reason: I had a ton of work to do. Also, this company had spent much of the week letting me know that they were glad to have me aboard, and that hey expect that I will be with the company - and thrive with the company - for quite some time. There was no need for me to send any sort of thank you email. I had sufficient interaction with everyone - from my peers to the CEO - that all sentiments had been properly expressed already.
When I returned to work after the first week at Microtime, I had a response to my 'thank you' email from my boss. She said that she was glad I enjoyed the week, but that I had a lot to learn.
This was pretty debilitating. I decided to send an email to reinforce - for my superiors - my enthusiasm for the job. In response, I was told that I was not yet quite capable of fulfilling my duties. It was a shot in the gut.
That boss is the worst boss I have ever had (heck, she's one of the worst people with whom I've ever had to work). She's been one of the few; I have been very lucky to have some great bosses.
So, what's my point? You're first week at a new job can be incredibly formative. You will be standing a standard against which you will be judged in the future. As well, you're setting the tone for the relationships you'll have with all of your co-workers, and, to a lesser extent, they're setting the tone for their relationship with you. This can be an incredibly important week. Sure, if you make some mistakes, you'll still be able to recover, but if you really set a negative tone, you'll be setting yourself up for failure.
As well, for supervisors it is an important time. Supervisors have the opportunity to set the expectations of the job, the atmosphere of the office and the terms of the relationship you'll have. They also have the opportunity to sour everything with one quick little email. If you're a supervisor, don't do this. Embrace enthusiasm. Nurture it. Don't take it as an opening to put someone down.
And by the way, I was a good recruiter before I joined Microtime.
The End of Jonathan McLeod Recruiting?
Well, no. However, I have recently started a new job, and I will no longer be recruiting. I will now be proposal writing.
But, I'll be working for a recruiting firm, and I'll still have thoughts to share, so do not worry, JMR will continue.
But, I'll be working for a recruiting firm, and I'll still have thoughts to share, so do not worry, JMR will continue.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Reruiting? What's That?
This afternoon, we received word that we won the contract for a bid we submitted three and a half months ago (yes, we sent off the proposal on January 4, such is the way things go sometimes). Things have been slow this year, but on the bids we have made, we've got a good success rate.
Recruiting was definitely a part of this. Finding people, identifying skills, maintaining good relationships with consultants - these are all very important skills. However, we're not winning the contracts based on our recruiting acumen.
Our process for developing bids has turned greatly towards proposal writing. Recently, we've been spending more and more time making sure that the proposal was perfect, and less time worrying about getting the perfect candidate (rarely is there a perfect candidate, we generally have to find a near-perfect candidate and go from there). We have been winning bids with three things: proposal writing, competitive pricing and gumption. It is for this reason that I am inclined to turn my career sites more towards proposal writing, away from straight recruiting.
Recruiting was definitely a part of this. Finding people, identifying skills, maintaining good relationships with consultants - these are all very important skills. However, we're not winning the contracts based on our recruiting acumen.
Our process for developing bids has turned greatly towards proposal writing. Recently, we've been spending more and more time making sure that the proposal was perfect, and less time worrying about getting the perfect candidate (rarely is there a perfect candidate, we generally have to find a near-perfect candidate and go from there). We have been winning bids with three things: proposal writing, competitive pricing and gumption. It is for this reason that I am inclined to turn my career sites more towards proposal writing, away from straight recruiting.
What?!?!? or Writing Poorly Reasoned Blog Posts Seems to be the Path to Becoming a Professional Blogger
bNet currently has a very odd post written by Penelope Trunk about the bad career advice women give each other. Why don't we dive right in:
Anyway, let's move on to the worst advice this blogger has received from some women:
Moving on:
Further, what on earth does the comparative salaries of men and women, on aggregate, have to do with anything? A pay raise doesn't make you a sex toy. Parity in the pay scale of men and women doesn't have anything to do with a specific incident of sexual harassment. The fact that male and female CEOs will, ceteris paribus, make the same amount of money does not change the power structure of a senior male employee harassing a junior female employee.
Mercifully, this post only lists three "bad" pieces of advice:
(H/T: Evil Hr Lady, who is a great source of career advice, also blogs at bNet and has a more detailed response to Ms. Trunk here. Further great career advice - from women! - can be found at Ask A Manager and Punk Rock HR.)
When I was starting my career, I was in the software industry, where there are few women. And then I moved into the tech startup world, where there are even fewer women. The whole time, I have found that older men gave me great career advice and older women gave me bad advice. I am not sure why this is, but I am pretty sure that most women around my age (43) have had similar experiences. They just won’t talk about it publicly.Oh yeah, well I've had horrible advice given to me by men! Some of the worst advice I have received involves confusing anecdotes for data.
Anyway, let's move on to the worst advice this blogger has received from some women:
1) You can wait to have kids. There’s no rush.You know what, I'll give her this one, though I think something broader is required; it is important to strike a good and healthy work life/personal life balance. The appropriate balance is going to vary between people, but it is good to make such decisions thoughtfully, with as much pertinent information as possible.
Of course there’s a rush. Your chances of having a Down Syndrome baby skyrocket after you are older than 35. If you have two kids after age 30, you will probably have a miscarriage. Sixty percent of women do. And you’ll want time between kids. Most women do.
Moving on:
2) Report sexual harassment, even if it’s just a minor infraction.Wait, what? There's no need to complain about sexual harassment because everybody knows it's going on? First off, no, they don't. Many people are not sufficiently aware to notice these things. Second, in an age where we are, generally, more aware of these things, it should be easier to report them. There should be fewer ramifications if you do (the key word there is "should").
This was good advice for the 1970s, when people didn’t believe it was happening. But now everyone knows it happens all the time. Please find me one woman who did not experience some sort of inappropriate behavior from a man during her first five years of work. We all know it’s happening. But we also know that there is no longer a salary gap between men and women, and we know that there are more unemployed men than women. So it’s hard to show that women are actually victimized at work today.
Further, what on earth does the comparative salaries of men and women, on aggregate, have to do with anything? A pay raise doesn't make you a sex toy. Parity in the pay scale of men and women doesn't have anything to do with a specific incident of sexual harassment. The fact that male and female CEOs will, ceteris paribus, make the same amount of money does not change the power structure of a senior male employee harassing a junior female employee.
Mercifully, this post only lists three "bad" pieces of advice:
3) Read business books to become a good leader.So women shouldn't read business books because they're written by men and men won't give the best career advice for women. And this argument is coming from a female author who gets her career advice from men. Huh.
Forget it. Most business books are written by men, and the latest research shows that men and women lead differently. Above all, women who lead like women do better than women who try to lead like men.
(H/T: Evil Hr Lady, who is a great source of career advice, also blogs at bNet and has a more detailed response to Ms. Trunk here. Further great career advice - from women! - can be found at Ask A Manager and Punk Rock HR.)
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Seminar Review - The Job Interview
There were fewer people out tonight, which, hopefully, was not a reflection of the value of the information that was gleaned the last two nights. Thankfully, those who were there were a lot more vocal. It's much better to help people with the issues they have, than to go over a lot of information they might already have.
So, without delay, the reviews...
The first three are solid. There is a suggestion that a seminar on job searching for new comers to Canada would be useful. This seems like a good suggestion. I'd need to do more prep work if I were to lead something like this, but I'd certainly be game.
The rest of them were good, too. It's nice to know that people found the seminars useful. There were a couple of reviews that suggested more time was needed. I completely agree, however it might be difficult for people to commit more time.
Another person suggested doing a mock interview, and then discussing it. This would definitely require more time, but if you have people who are interested in it, it can be quite useful. If people aren't really interested, then I don't think it would be quite useful.
So that's it for now. There may be more to come in September. As with previous seminars, I quite enjoyed this. Maybe, years from now, I'll try doing this sort of thing full time.
So, without delay, the reviews...
The first three are solid. There is a suggestion that a seminar on job searching for new comers to Canada would be useful. This seems like a good suggestion. I'd need to do more prep work if I were to lead something like this, but I'd certainly be game.
The rest of them were good, too. It's nice to know that people found the seminars useful. There were a couple of reviews that suggested more time was needed. I completely agree, however it might be difficult for people to commit more time.
Another person suggested doing a mock interview, and then discussing it. This would definitely require more time, but if you have people who are interested in it, it can be quite useful. If people aren't really interested, then I don't think it would be quite useful.
So that's it for now. There may be more to come in September. As with previous seminars, I quite enjoyed this. Maybe, years from now, I'll try doing this sort of thing full time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
