At last week’s meeting of a local networking group, the topic was interviewing. While that is a perennial topic at pretty much any time, it was the week before last that I first noticed Verizon’s latest TV commercial. It is a goofy story involving a job candidate stuck at a subway platform. The train is already delayed by 20 minutes, causing her to be running late for her job interview. A compassionate fellow passenger then holds up his phone from across the subway platform so she can phone it in (pun intended, heh heh). I’ll get back to this commercial later.
 
Now this group meeting was facilitated by three local Career Center staff (me being one of them). We presented two mock-interview scenarios, each followed by a round of critique and discussion. The first scenario involved an obnoxious job candidate; in the second scenario, a good candidate had to deal with a listless, disengaged interviewer.
 
Let’s start with the obnoxious candidate. (That was me! And I will admit I had fun, getting to be a good example of a not-so-good example for a change.) Some of the noteworthy behaviors included:

• Greeting the interviewer saying “Geez, you sounded a lot younger on the phone.” (Can a compliment get any more backhanded than that?)
• Plugging in the phone charger without asking first, and only then saying, “You don’t mind, do you?”
• Not knowing or acknowledging the company’s 200-year history, but “schooling” the interviewer on how the company needs to be competitive by having Facebook and Twitter presence.

 
The networking-group audience (mostly job seekers) provided candid feedback. They felt at ease because none of them was at the receiving end of that feedback. Oh, and the benefit of the doubt had it that all the blunders had, of course, been just for show.
 
And on it went to the scenario where a listless, disengaged interviewer gave a good candidate a hard time. Some of those behaviors included:

• Cutting off the candidate halfway through an answer.
• Asking a question about the very thing the candidate had just told the interviewer all about.
• Proceeding to end the interview without offering the candidate to ask questions.

 
Again, a fruitful group discussion followed. The mock-interview premise probably contributed to that by piquing extra curiosity about the reason behind something the candidate or interviewer had said or done.
 
The “interviewer” (who, in fact, does conduct job interviews as part of his work) noted that interviewers really look for candidates who will have a conversation with them, rather than give “quiz answers” or fall back on canned phrases. Specifically regarding the cliché “people person,” it turned out no one in the room was able to pinpoint what that even really meant.
 
Which takes me back to the aforementioned Verizon TV commercial. That job candidate ends up screaming into that fellow passenger’s phone, across the tracks, for everyone else to hear: “I am a people person!”
 
Of course that is inane. Of course her candidacy is dead in the water. Let me point to this post on www.thecommercialcurmudgeon.com, if anyone wants itemized how this commercial should not be taken seriously. Other than that, I will give Verizon the benefit of the doubt, just as the professionals in the networking group did when they saw my goofy mock interviewing.

A couple of weeks ago, a LinkedIn member by the name of Oleg Vishnepolsky published a post titled 10 Reasons Why Best People are Declining Your Offers. The next day, he posted an update indicating another LinkedIn member had re-posted the 10 Reasons… piece under his own name.
 
While that post has disappeared by now, the alleged plagiarizer’s name can still be tracked down. (To his credit, he at least had the courage to engage with Vishnepolsky in the comments on that update.)
 
But the 10 Reasons… piece would continue to miraculously clone itself. At least one more 10 Reasons… re-post showed up. As of this writing, it still is up, and its “author” apparently doesn’t feel he needs to take it down. Rather, he responded to critical comments by claiming what he did was common practice, and done everywhere on the Web, all the time. (Does that sound like a false-news claim? Since it is his name appearing alongside the date the post was published….)
 
Another day or two later, Vishnepolsky reported that yet another post of his, titled 10 Ways to Lose Your Best Developers, had been appropriated by yet another LinkedIn member, and re-posted under that member’s own name.
 
If there is any upside to this, that would be how highly re-posters think of the original authors. As of this writing, that re-post, too, is still live. Like the other re-posts, it has spawned a good handful of comments from readers calling out the “author.” Let me just add the following to those comments:

1. Dishonest as plagiarizing itself is, I find it an outright brazen move when it is done on the same network (such as LinkedIn).
2. What I find especially pathetic is that the 10 Ways… re-poster claimed the original author’s “rallying cry” as his own. It doesn’t even seem industry-appropriate for him.
3. Piggybacking on (2), a plagiarizer doesn’t strike me as having a distinct brand of his or her own to begin with.
4. Once I see through plagiarizers, I am not going to click on any of their other articles. They may or may not be their original writing. Assuming I didn’t know the individual before, at this point I already will have lost any trust.

The scene: a large corporation’s big annual convention. The suspense builds up, as many thousands of employees await a major announcement on a decision by the Board of Directors. It is about a highly prestigious special project—specifically, about the team chosen to work that special project.
 
And then the big moment comes…the designated speaker of the Board takes to the mic…
 
“And the special project goes to…Jenny Johnson’s team!!”
 
Thunderous applause!! Jenny and her team members high-five one another. Then they shuffle to the podium, where Jenny joins the speaker by the mic and starts talking about how psyched she is to seize this opportunity, and how excited she is to get to work with the great people around her--
 
Suddenly a frenzied Chair of the Board is seen making a hasty entrance, mumbling something inaudible into Jenny’s ear, and then snatching the gold-rimmed folder from her as her face goes pale. Eventually, with an embarrassed grin, the Chair pronounces, half-hiding behind the mic:
 
“There has been a mistake. The special project really goes to Johnny Jackson’s team. Congratulations, folks. Sorry, Jenny.”
 
Words like “disappointment” and “frustration” hardly begin to describe what Jenny and her team are going through at that moment. The same goes for Johnny and his team if you attempt to encapsulate their experience with the word “anticlimactic.”
 
All this, of course, is the corporate analogy of the drama that played out at Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre on Oscar Night 2017. The mistake was on the part of PwC, the accounting firm on which the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has relied for the past 83 years for a seamless show of Academy Award winners. PwC did apologize, and did follow up with statements providing adequate transparency about the way things went down.
 
PwC’s was not the first public apology I noticed, though, for this worst mishap in the history of the Oscars. The first public apology I noticed came from the Academy. Okay, there may be a ready explanation for that: with a live audience of tens of millions of people, the Academy’s immediate reaction would naturally be the one seen and heard first and foremost.
 
The Academy, of course, was not to blame. The apology coming from the Academy was appropriate to put a quick Band-Aid on the situation. That Band-Aid was bound to burst, though, and the fallout from this mishap has not yet subsided as of this writing.
 
 
Own Up—Fess Up—Make Up
 
Some commentators and analysts have speculated about the Academy taking action against PwC in the wake of this major mishap, possibly cutting ties altogether. That remains speculation, and in my opinion, it would be too drastic a consequence.
 
Mistakes happen, and when they happen, it is for the culprit to do their best to fix them. That’s how you deal with mistakes professionally: you give the culpable party a chance to control the damage and to better the situation.
 
So far, PwC seems to be on the right track in owning up—meaning, blame was not shifted to others or the circumstances. PwC also, in a way, fessed up—although that was more like pointing the finger at a fall guy (in releasing the name of the PwC partner who handed the wrong envelope to Warren Beatty).
 
But make up? Can a critical moment gone awry like that ever be made up for? The La La Land team had a brief illusion of Best Picture triumph at the Oscars, only to have it go Poof!! like the mirage it was. Likewise, the Moonlight team never did get to enjoy their moment of triumph that is ushered in by an exuberant announcement and received with the applause that follows the satisfaction of suspense at its climax. That moment was thwarted, and is gone forever.
 
The question, then, becomes how those at the receiving end handle their fate.
 
 
A Shot at Greatness in the Aftermath of Screw-Ups
 
Both the La La Land and Moonlight teams have received praise for carrying themselves with grace under the circumstances. They have continued their show of grace by not demanding the PwC individual in question be fired.
 
In December 2015, at the Miss Universe pageant in Las Vegas, Ariadna Gutiérrez (Miss Colombia) was pronounced the winner, and received the crown along with deafening cheers from the crowd. A good two minutes later, things turned seriously awkward when it was announced she was really the first runner-up, and the actual winner was Miss Philippines.
 
Shortly after that flub, Ariadna Gutiérrez released a public statement that was quoted in a Web article describing it as “classy and inspiring,” “refreshingly sweet,” and “humble and real.” Perhaps Gutiérrez knew that, while the win had eluded her, she still had a shot at emerging a victorious figure, showing forgiveness for the culprit and class beyond the competition.
 
 
Parting Thoughts
 
Let’s go back to the above scenario with Jenny Johnson’s and Johnny Jackson’s teams. I made it all up, of course.
 
Can you take it from here? How do you think that scenario will play out? Will the designated speaker of the Board suffer any disciplinary action, after getting “Johnson” and “Johnny” mixed up?
 
Is there a potential for a show of greatness on the part of Jenny and her team? Perhaps a potential for lasting prestige beyond just that one special project?

​The other week, someone sent me a personalized invite to connect on LinkedIn, stating we had a group in common—which was true. That guy’s LinkedIn profile looked rich and focused, so I accepted.
 
Next thing I know, that guy sends me a lengthy LinkedIn message touting his services, saying “if you or anyone you know” needed these services “at a reasonable price,” I should let him know. He also said I should visit his website, and “let me know your thoughts.” (On what exactly??)
 
Sigh. Not only was that message all self-promotion, it had a copy-and-paste look and feel to it; that of a “master networker” who rattles off his or her elevator pitch at networking functions as if playing back a pre-recorded infomercial.
 
That was the end of our conversation. I never responded, and at least he never pestered me again. (Which is another indication of how expendable I was to him as a business lead.)
 
Although effective networking doesn’t require any serious money, what it does require is some thought. And that requires time—the other big resource besides money. You must be willing to make an investment there, especially with new networking contacts.
 
The “sandwich” concept
 
Rather than forcing your pitch down someone’s throat, try making the purpose of your message “palatable” to a person—like a “sandwich” you bring. A well-made “sandwich” is more likely to be well-received.
 
Offer something—ask for something—offer something
 
Think of a “sandwich” as consisting of two slices of bread and the meat (and other fixings) in between. The slices of bread are about offering something, such as: a link to an informative piece relevant to the person; a link to a conference or webinar on a topic that is up the person’s alley; or a lead with the name of an individual or a company the person might want to check out.
 
The meat and fixings in between is where you ask for something, which might be: an informational meeting; a referral; or feedback on something like the new layout of your website. Even the guy I mentioned above could reasonably have asked me for that, especially if he had told me why he would value my input specifically.
 
Knowing how to “fix” a good “sandwich” can make or break your message
 
The two slices of bread can be critical in determining how willingly you receive the meat and fixings in the “sandwich.” Although that guy did offer at least one “slice of bread” later (random business tips), what came at me first was a greasy, overcooked “beef patty” (blatant self-promotion). No wonder I didn’t feel like touching it.

At this time of the year, at my daytime job and elsewhere, many gifts are exchanged. Some of them are not only easier on the waistline than the inevitable holiday goodies, they also each carry a unique value of their own. I am talking about holiday greetings with notes of sincere appreciation and gratitude for someone’s business or services in the year that was.
 
It may be late in the game by now, but just in case you have been putting off those holiday greetings to some professional contacts because you weren’t sure what to say: here are some pointers that might be helpful.
 
1. Christmas? Hanukkah? Festivus?
 
If you know which of the holidays your contact celebrates, and it is the same as yours: name it! They will feel more like you are speaking to them, personally, if you identify “their” holiday. Plus, if you share the same holiday, it will add to the human connection between the two of you.
 
If you know which of the holidays is “theirs,” but you don’t share it, then it might be better to settle on “happy holidays.” If you say “happy Hanukkah” when you don’t celebrate it (and especially when your contact knows that), it may be perceived as not authentic, not coming from the heart. (Granted, that depends on a variety of other factors, such as the rapport between the two of you.)
 
If you don’t know which of the holidays they observe, then “happy holidays” definitely seems like a ready option. You don’t want to assume anything that can cut to the quick of something very near and dear to them. Going beyond that, the even more generic “season’s greetings” will cover anything, including the possibility they don’t really celebrate any holiday at all.
 
2. Exuberant cheers or quiet reflection?
 
It can be kind of important to get the mood right when sending holiday greetings. Consider how your contact’s year went. The way it may have been marked by fortune or misfortune (professionally or personally) may affect profoundly the mood in which the holidays find them.
 
A reference to Christmas bells ringing after tragedy has struck may come across as callous. When particular sensitivity and tact seem to be in order, it may be best to say something like, “Wish you strength to keep the faith,” “Find a season of renewal and peace,” or “Look ahead to a brighter New Year.”
 
3. Who is included?
 
On the occasion of the holidays, perhaps it is important to you to show you are thinking not only of that one person but also of those close to that individual. Oftentimes, people come up with the phrase “you and your family.” That is all good, provided they do happen to have a family—one of their own, that is (“your” family).
 
It might not be the wisest move to just assume, out of the blue, they have family to be with for the holidays. (As this Dilbert cartoon shows, addressing this when you don’t really know the terrain you're treading on can lead to awkward moments, even in everyday work situations.)
 
Maybe you can keep it in the business realm by extending neat and clean-cut holiday wishes to “you and your staff,” “you and your team,” or “you and your associates.” When in doubt, “you and yours” is the safest bet.
 
Still not sure what to say for the holidays?
 
How about bypassing the holiday frenzy altogether and targeting the New Year instead? At least the Common Era calendar is something we all agree on! So, to those of you who were able to keep reading all the way through here:
 
Happy Winter Solstice! May your days get longer from here for the next six months!

Many LinkedIn members rail against the privacy-control feature “Select what others see when you’ve viewed their profile.” What bothers them is the option “You will be totally anonymous.” They compare it to the kind of real-life scenario where you walk into someone’s house and take a close look around all rooms while you, yourself, remain completely cloaked.

There seems to be a valid point here. So why would LinkedIn even offer the option of “totally anonymous” profile viewing? Are there any scenarios that would make fair-minded people think it can be justified, or at least excused?

You are a new LinkedIn member.

If you joined recently, you want to explore how people in your field present themselves. Viewing enough profiles will give you some guidance about the way you want to tweak your own profile.

But perhaps you are concerned about how people view your profile while it is still very much under construction. You wouldn’t want people to think there was nothing more to be said for your experience besides that skeleton information, and those 26 connections were as much effort as you were going to put into your networking. Therefore, you’d rather stay anonymous until you feel comfortable showing your profile to new contacts, as a first impression of you.

Fair enough, for now—as long as you do get your profile up to par reasonably soon, and then change your visibility back to the name-and-headline option.

You have concerns about LinkedIn-style networking.

On outdoor lots at car dealerships, you will see a few car shoppers driving past every car on display very slowly, stopping every so often, but never getting out of the car or even rolling down the window, lest they get “pounced on,” and then high-pressured, by a car salesperson.

Some LinkedIn members seem to have similar concerns about the “lot” that is LinkedIn. Here the equivalent to staying in the car would be staying anonymous, lest you get on the radar of some aggressive service promoter—or of some creep looking for information to use in identity theft or some other type of cyberspace foul play.

Yes, some people will try to sell their services, including career coaching, business consulting, or enhancing your LinkedIn profile (!). As long as you haven’t specified any contact information, all they can do is approach you through LinkedIn. And if your gut tells you they really are after your money (usually after some initial “free review”)—don’t even hit Reply. Think about it: you are not even under pressure to say no or to start walking away.

And remember you can flag InMail as spam, and now you can even block or report LinkedIn members. Actually, to fully understand your privacy and member-communication options, be sure to explore all “Privacy & Settings” features. You can access those by mousing over the small profile-photo icon in the far right corner of your LinkedIn toolbar. (Since you will be entering a sensitive area of your profile configuration, you will probably be asked for your LinkedIn password again.)

Once you have found you can deal with these concerns, I suggest you give up your anonymity. Don’t you think other LinkedIn members deserve the same sense of transparency as you—by being able to see who it was that visited their profiles?

You are a recruiter.

If you seek talent, you will probably search LinkedIn profiles. Quite a few of those whose profiles you visit are probably looking for a job with growing desperation. If they see a recruiter affiliated with the company of their dreams has visited their profile, then it is not hard to imagine they will start chasing you.

And of course you don’t want to set yourself up for being stalked, or your inbox for being clogged up. Sorry, job seekers, but in this case, I do get the potential survival quality of the “totally anonymous” option.

You may still have ethical concerns about needing to be visible at least some of the time. Let me just mention I know people who have alternate profiles. Those profiles don’t receive the same degree of “marketing upkeep” as the primary profiles; meaning, those profiles are less likely to trigger the same “chasing” response from job seekers, even when fully visible.

You have fear of rejection.

So those movers and shakers see you viewed their profiles. Now what is the worst that can happen? They won’t return your profile visit. Or—not much better—they do visit your profile back, but don’t follow up with any communication. If you stay anonymous, at least you can avoid setting yourself up for that frustration, right?

Think again. Yes, rejection can be frustrating, but isn’t it just as frustrating for others when they check who viewed their profiles, and time and again a viewer “chose to be shown as anonymous”? Moreover, bear in mind that if you change to full visibility later, then your anonymity cloak will be removed from any past profile visits.

In short, as has been so often said: don’t take it personally. Maybe they just have a gazillion other things on their plates. Furthermore, take a look at your headline and profile photo—they are the first impression people get when they check who has viewed their profiles. (Maybe you can do better than that cliché “Results-Driven Strategic Thinker” headline alongside that happy-hour selfie.)

You are, or have, something else.

Imagine you are at a major networking function, with hundreds of people in the room. Everybody is engaged in conversation, trading business cards and other information. And then there is that one figure who looks and acts like “Spy vs. Spy” right out of MAD Magazine—unrecognizable features, always keeping mum, never offering any information, but peeking over everybody’s shoulder and eavesdropping on every conversation.

And you find that type of behavior…rude? Selfish? Creepy? Of course you do—all of the above, and then some! And chances are just about everybody would agree with you on that.

All right, that scenario was set in a brick-and-mortar environment, and obviously, LinkedIn is Web-based. Even so, many LinkedIn members get ticked off about anonymous LinkedIn profile viewing, because they think of profile viewing as essentially the same thing as a networking function. After all, signing in to LinkedIn can be compared to checking in at the door.

And if you are going to check out profiles because you want to get back at someone for something in the past—ugh! LinkedIn really isn’t the place for any sophomoric agenda and antics. There are other online environments that seem to “align” better with people who are looking to act out certain things.

There is a way to be anonymous and still keep good netiquette—but….

If you are going to look at profiles and don’t want people to know you did—don’t sign in! Stay signed out and stick with people’s public profiles. As long as a LinkedIn user has a public profile, it is fit for viewing by—well, the general public. That way, not only will you stay anonymous, people won’t have a clue their profiles were looked at in the first place.

With that said: If you want to get the most out of LinkedIn, then sign in, and be visible. Networking is about being visible and approachable. Getting your brand out there is the idea. If you do something to defeat that purpose, you will only have short-changed yourself in the end.

As the astute networker you are, you certainly have a business card. Even more certainly, your business card is a snapshot of the solutions you stand ready to deliver today—and tomorrow. And most certainly, your business card is not heavily laden with your every past move.

Résumés have long become extended business cards. Long gone are the days of the boilerplate résumé listing everything you have ever done, beginning with flipping burgers while in high school. Nobody these days expects a résumé to be a complete account of anything anymore.

With that said: business cards can be vibrant or dull, and the same is true for résumés. Relatively subtle features can cause a branding message to shine as they can cause the best intentions to go awry.

Is your résumé a dynamic showcase or a static inventory?

There once was that hardware store in my neighborhood that kept the same mundane commodity items on display in the storefront for weeks. Weeks turned into months, then months turned into years. The slow death that this store suffered was kind of painful to watch.

Had that hardware store paid more attention to varied promotions, with different merchandise emphasized at different times and speaking to a more targeted clientele—who knows…that store might have held on.

Like a storefront, a résumé needs to move its front-and-center display around. It needs some variation in what it emphasizes and what it promotes. It makes all the difference between a fresh and a stale brand message and between a glossy and a dusty portfolio.

Does your résumé invoke a bright future or enshrine your glory days?

Some ten years ago, Chevrolet ran a series of commercials for its Silverado trucks using the tune, and sung title, of Bob Seger’s hit song Like a Rock. But if you knew the complete lyrics of that song, you knew they could be interpreted as a nostalgic look back of an aging guy on his fading youth:

“My hands were steady, my eyes were clean and bright”—Oh…they no longer are, you mean?

“Twenty years now, where’d they go?”—Into the sunset, leaving once-proud run-down, rusty equipment behind.

Check your résumé for any stagnation or nostalgia, and change the lyrics where necessary.

Dust off that business card that is your résumé, and get over that which you hold near and dear. Although it is normal to be proud of everything you have ever done: the way to communicate your value is to take a fresh spotlight and zero in what your clientele likes to see in you.

One of the reasons I started myprofilemybrand.com was to offer another resource for (self-) help in the career reality of the 21st century, which differs dramatically from the more (pre-) set ways of career paths even a generation ago. Today, employment at will has largely displaced employment contracts. More gainful work is done through temping, project work, and freelancing.

Turn necessity into a virtue.

In addition to the above, career professionals are confronting the disproportionally rising cost of housing, education, healthcare, and self-reliant retirement planning.

Responding to this new reality—or better yet, proactively meeting it—requires a nimble frame of mind that, fortunately, has emerged in the wake of another megatrend: employer demand for lifelong learning and professional development.

Rethink your career as a protean career.

Douglas T. Hall first introduced the concept of “protean careers” (as opposed to “traditional careers”) in 1976. In today’s reality, this approach can provide a certain inoculation, an option for transforming uncertainty into opportunity.

A protean career is a process masterminded and managed not by any organization and its agents but by the individual. Projects and assignments come and go, and although you can certainly make some noise about the value of your contributions, it is not up to your supervisor to identify your potential for career mobility; it is up to you.

Success in your career endeavor, then, is not so much defined by your moves up the corporate ladder; it is defined by the sense of purpose you find in your work—success is first and foremost internal-psychological.

Trade loyalty for mobility.

Interestingly, in Richard L. Knowdell’s card-sort assessment Career Values (©2005), loyalty is not even part of the set of value cards. Some of my clients who take this assessment don’t even notice unless afterwards they happen to come across loyalty as a value in some context.

“Employment at will” is reciprocal: just as the organization can terminate the relationship, the employee can move on at any time. In fact, an increasing number of recruiters and managers suspect complacency when someone stays put in any job for “too long” (vague as that notion may be).

“Mobility” today is not so much about going upward within an organization; it means going wherever there is a good place for your next step. I know several publishing professionals who have switched jobs in the same metro area back and forth among three major companies, with no apparent hard feelings on anybody’s part.

Trade advancement for growth.

In traditional careers, mentor relationships are about getting the individual ready for set career paths with defined positions. “Advancement” is achieved when the individual climbs a rung in the organizational hierarchy and is a capable performer in the higher-level position.

In protean careers, mentor relationships are about fostering the individual’s capacity for resourceful delivery of solutions. “Growth” is accomplished when the individual achieves incremental competency building and attains recognition for these competencies by internal or external clients.

Communicate your own identity, not your organization’s.

Your current employment relationship is subject to change, so there may be a different organizational culture to assimilate from one job to the next. Moreover, you might start freelancing, or otherwise start your own business; in that case, there wouldn’t be any employer to define who you are professionally.

In the 21st century, you as a career individual mold your own substance by integrating the various sources of educational background, training, and experience. As a business of one (and current or potential job seeker), you need visibility in your own right. It is for you to communicate your know-how, your passions, and the solutions you provide. That is who you are, separate and independent from any past, present, or future employer.

Ah, to chime in on the subject matter of buzzwords. That word itself is just that—a buzzword. So which ones “qualify,” and when should they be used? This salary.com article, Bypass the Business Buzzwords, provides great examples of not-so-great examples:

“Disintermediate. Recontextualize. Envisioneer. … You try to process…all the lingo. ‘You mean we should triangulate meaning-centered cohorts?’ you ask in vain, ‘Or focus more on synthesizing technology-enhanced convergence?’”

And the list of baffling monstrosities goes on. The article was well-deservedly cross-posted in many other forums everywhere from Greenwich, CT to San Antonio, TX to Seattle, WA. The takeaway: hard-to-understand fluff does not a buzzword make. Just drop it.

You might also want to check your choices against top-ten lists of overused buzzwords, such as the one on LinkedIn’s official blog. Buzzwords making those lists are often vague in a sense that most people would be able to tack them on to most roles and occupations. In that case, they would probably do little to distinguish you and the way your brand is unique.

Buzzwords are a little like cholesterol: there are “bad” ones and “good” ones. The above should provide good pointers to be wary of the “bad” ones. But how do we know the “good” ones?

A good buzzword is a word that “sprouts” in the mind of the recipient, even “mushrooms” in meaning like some atomic bomb.

In other words: a good buzzword has added-value meaning to industry insiders and other informed audiences.

Example: here is a printing-press operator with in-depth skills using “Heidelberg and Komori printing presses with Coater and Perfector.” Now you and I may not know what any of that is, but an industry insider familiar with the machinery will immediately associate these names with certain specifications and technological capabilities, and the operator’s skills with the capacity for accomplishing such-and-such projects.

Another example: Here is this publishing professional, saying: “I know my way around Chicago.” You and I may think: “Chicago? Why is this person talking about the Windy City? We’re nowhere near Chicago here.”

But a publishing professional knows “Chicago” here refers to the Chicago Manual of Style, a style guide used by many book publishers. On more than 800 pages, it provides many elaborate guidelines for: spelling and capitalization; grammar and usage; punctuation; how to create good bibliographies; and a lot more.

One word—“Chicago”—carrying more than 800 pages’ worth of meaning…how is that for a powerful buzzword. You put it on your résumé, or on your LinkedIn profile, and it “sprouts” in the mind of the targeted recipient, even “mushrooms” in meaning like some atomic bomb.

So if you are looking for a good buzzword today, why don’t you go find whatever your “Chicago” is.