As with all things related to job search, applications, and interviewing, there are always subtle “tectonic shifts” that see trends come and go. A fad enters the scene, it seems to work for a while, until it wears itself out after everybody and their brother has jumped on it.

One such trend was injecting “oddball questions” into the interview, such as: “How many Ping-Pong balls can you fit in a jet airliner?” Of course no interviewer in their right mind expected you to come up with a definitive answer. The idea behind those oddball questions was something like this:

In every job, there will be oddball situations coming at you every once in a while. How do you deal with that: Do you get defensive (“What the &*$# does that have to do with anything??”) or do you acknowledge, even welcome the oddball question as an opportunity to show your capacity for outlining the path to a solvable problem: “First of all, are we taking the seats out? Are we filling the kerosene tanks as well? (…)”

You get the idea. And while those typical oddball questions have been on the wane, the underlying premise remains: Every so often, we all are faced with something we don’t know, and have to find out about. In the above example of the Ping-Pong balls, it is quite obvious you wouldn’t really have to know that. But what if the interview question does have bearing on the job you are interviewing for, such as: “How would you go about in developing this niche market in our new sales territory?”

I wouldn’t have a definitive answer to that one. For starters, I would need more information—read up on the demographics of that new territory, consult with existing area sales directors and field sales reps about what has been working thus far, etc. I would relate all that in my answer to that question, so the interviewer would know I was capable of defining and framing the problem, and resourceful enough to formulate steps to tackle the challenge.

Another way of looking at it: If any interview candidate were able to hand the interviewer a definitive answer on a silver platter, then the interviewer might respond (or at least think): “Great! Now we can do it ourselves!”

Really, it is okay not to know something (as long as it’s not like you don’t know anything—duh!). When you don’t know something, what matters is you show the interviewer how excited you are to put your nose to the grindstone. Maybe you can inject a story about how you have handled a similar learning curve before.

I have made some choices in my life that I now second-guess. Please don’t ask about specifics; sharing them would still be—to put it charitably—too embarrassing for me. I will say, though, that (fortunately) none of those choices has ever gotten me into trouble with the law. There are no laws against just being immature, unwise, or naïve. Lucky me.

Past choices are…well, in the past.

Choices I have made in the past don’t define the type of person I am today, or will be tomorrow. (And that includes the choices that turned out to be good ones; good choices in the past only mean so much with regard to choices now or in the future.)

In my daytime job at the North Shore Career Center, last week saw the graduation of a cohort of reentrants from a series of custom-tailored workshops. In case you are not familiar with the designation “reentrants,” it denotes people also known as “court-involved individuals” or “persons with criminal records.” Until recently, common designations have also included “ex-cons” and “ex-felons.”

Those would be people who, like me, have made some choices in their lives that they now second-guess. On top of that, however, they have had the added misfortune of breaking the law somewhere along the line. The consequences of that misfortune include public exposure (in court, and oftentimes also in the media) and a public record that is going to stay with them.

So what if your past affects the quality of your brand?

What applies to me applies to reentrants just the same: Choices they have made in the past don’t define the type of person they are today, or will be tomorrow. Not-so-good choices in the past only mean so much with regard to choices now or in the future.

That’s where specially designed workshops come in.

Understandably, reentrants often feel labeled—dare we say: “branded”?—by their criminal record and incarceration. When they come to the Career Center, it often is with a feeling of a sticky note on their foreheads saying something like “ex-offender.”

But that’s not even what cuts to the quick at times. Over the years, several participants have confided in us that our series of workshops for reentrants was the first thing they had ever “completed” in their lives. One participant went a step further and said she “found hope again.” That stuck with me; she had already lost hope—that which supposedly dies last.

We address these participants as the professionals they are. We probe—with the help of appropriate assessment tools, and through individual counseling—where strengths and inclinations may lie, and what positions or career paths seem like good ones to explore further. (That includes info about your record on application forms, and employers open to candidates with a record.)

We collaboratively design a job-search campaign emphasizing relevant assets.

A central, recurring theme in our workshops for reentrants is resilience. It involves acknowledging what happened in the past, and devising a strategy to move on.

Once a line of work to zero in on is identified, I am one of the main contributors in creating a fresh, new résumé. That new résumé is going to emphasize qualities that present the individual as a capable, reliable professional. And when I look at the résumé once it’s done, it strikes me time and time again how the criminal record in a person’s past is completely absent from the presentation of his or her qualifications for a future job.

Things don’t end at the résumé, of course. Plenty of practice time is given to discussing your record in the interview conversation, where the subject might come up following the interviewer’s mention of how the company routinely does background checks. At that point, it is important for the candidate to be able to tell his or her story and sound natural, so as to convince the interviewer that was an episode in the past that has been dealt with and moved on from.

And it takes a big person to open up about those darker facets of one’s past. Remember I alluded to choices of mine that I now second-guess? I have the option to remain comfortable in choosing not to discuss details. People with a criminal record must step outside their comfort zone, and address unpleasant details. If that doesn’t say something about their readiness for new challenges, then I don’t know what does.

Imagine you are at a massive networking function at some large venue, where over time the people in attendance form clusters of sorts, depending on factors such as industry, location, and what they are looking for (clients; talent; business partners; investors; etc.). So far, so good.

Now imagine there are some “Me! Me! Me!” networkers among the people in attendance: people who ricochet in and out of small-group conversations, talking about nothing but themselves and what they do—in fact, doing pretty much all the talking. Those people approach everyone in exactly the same way, regardless of the other person’s need or background. Finally, those people throw business cards around touting what they want everyone to buy from them.

Do those “Me! Me! Me!” networkers sound like grotesque caricatures? Well, in brick-and-mortar networking, the only environment where I have come across anything close to that was car sales. The sales trainer in my group of trainees suggested you get yourself known in the neighborhood by placing business-card dispensers at every imaginable local business from the dry cleaner’s to the hairdresser’s to the dentist’s.

I never acted on that “sage advice” (I wouldn’t have, even if I had lasted any longer than three months in that line of work), and I can’t think of too many car salespeople who do. They, too, generally have more common sense than that.

How certain online “networking” goes really bad

Content management in the digital sphere is fascinating, even wondrous. Today content can be posted and sent out to practically unlimited numbers of recipients, at speeds and volumes that would have been unheard of just a generation ago.

And some people take that as license to hound down unsuspecting targets anywhere and everywhere. I don’t do a lot besides LinkedIn and Twitter in the social-media arena, but I have enough presence to find myself antagonized by obnoxious self-promotion every so often.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the kind of networking that gets people to think of you when they have a need for your product or service. What makes networking good is when it also includes offering something for free. (I wrote about that in detail in another blog post.)

Where things become obnoxious is when they approach you by making a faux personal “connection” (such as a generic compliment on your website or LinkedIn profile), and when you do connect with them, they message you on LinkedIn to pitch their product or service, and flood you with “newsletters” and “special promotions” you never signed up for.

And that’s where these online networkers are just like the caricature “Me! Me! Me!” brick-and-mortar networkers I made up above: all talk, no listen. As for online networking, much of it may not happen in the form of live, real-time conversations, but there certainly remains the need to “listen.” And if they don’t get that, then it’s “unsubscribe” and “unfollow”!

“Effective and efficient business planner.”
“Open-minded and flexible team player.”
“Motivated, top-notch self-starter.”
 
These are examples of what I call fluff bubbles. Other examples can be found in those self-presentations of having a “high level of energy” and an “optimistic attitude.”
 
The problem with phrases like these is not even the fact they have long been overused, like worn-out Velcro. The problem is they are lacking in substance; when the fluff bubble bursts, there is nothing left.
 
I can’t even blame garden-variety job seekers and networkers (and those new to the game at that) for using phrases like these as they try to position themselves. After all, plenty of job descriptions out there have phrases like these included, supposedly describing the desired soft skills for the job.
 
But echoing these phrases back at employers doesn’t make them sound any more convincing. Moreover, even though job descriptions seem to include these candidate “qualities” as a matter of routine, employers like to regard these things as a given in any new hire.
 
The “litmus test” for spotting fluff bubbles
 
1.  Is the phrase something most people could apply to most jobs?
 
Would you know from any of the above examples what that person’s line of work or industry is? Of course not! It could be a dental hygienist, a paralegal, a K–12 administrator…or, for that matter, a sanitation worker! That’s precious space wasted to proclaim how you work, rather than using it to showcase key qualifications.
 
Or think of what a job seeker might say in a cover letter: “I believe I have potential.” Chances are that will make the reader go like: “Duh! You want the job! Of course you say you ‘believe you have potential.’”
 
2.  Is the phrase something nobody would claim the opposite of?
 
Joe put on his résumé that he is a “hard worker.” What will the hiring manager make of that? “Well, finally, here is a hard worker! I knew it—all the others are slackers! Hey, didn’t that other résumé even say it outright?”
 
Sound absurd? Of course; it is absurd. Nobody would claim to have anything other than desirable qualities.
 
Take “excellent communication skills” as another example. I think it unlikely that anyone would say, “Oh, no, I don’t have ‘excellent communication skills’—I head for my cubicle first thing in the morning and hope to be left the &@%# alone all day.”
 
Better alternatives to fluff bubbles
 
You are trying to speak to the needs of your target audience. When you are a job seeker, trumpeting broad, random qualities is not the most promising approach. Rather, start by putting yourself in the employer’s shoes, and then show your capacity for generating results.
 
As I discussed in an earlier blog post, job openings exist because employers are in need of results in some of the following categories:
 

1. Make (more) money
2. Seize an opportunity (or solve a problem)
3. Save money, time, or both
4. Recruit, train, and develop staff
5. Develop relationships with other organizations or the general public
6. Retain existing markets and customers
7. Develop new markets and customers

 
Your past employers kept you around for as long as they did because you were capable of producing the results they needed, perhaps without you even realizing it. A Certified Professional Résumé Writer can help you “unearth” your capabilities to be front and center on your résumé or in your LinkedIn profile.
 
Moreover, talking about results will allow your audience to infer the competencies you must have. For example, if you masterminded a grand opening of a new store location, and went on to boost revenue by 200% from the first to the second year, you probably couldn’t have done it without some kind of effective and efficient business planning!