“Hiring”

If you ever have a question or comment about something I’ve posted or just something you want to know, feel free to use the formspring box to the right. Once I get a few questions, I will answer them in a blog post like I’m doing today.

If I can’t answer your question, don’t worry, I won’t just make something up like my mom used to do when I asked her stuff.

First question…

Question 1:

How did you get into speechwriting? Was it something you always knew you wanted to do?

I wouldn’t say I always wanted to be a speechwriter. When I went to college, I chose journalism as my major because I wanted to do broadcast news. I hated communications–the classes, the other students, everything!

I’d always been a political junkie, and I took a couple of political science courses. My advisor at Temple University was Dr. Robin Kolodny. She was amazing and extremely knowledgeable about political campaigns. After falling in love with my political science courses, I finally decided to make the switch official.

Dr. Kolodny assigned me to work on Ed Rendell’s first gubernatorial campaign, and I thought for sure I’d go in to campaign management. Once I left Temple, rather than taking a job with Governor’s office in Harrisburg, I decided to go work for a lobbying firm.

That’s when I discovered speechwriting and advocacy. So I teeter-totter between wanting to write speeches and staff people forever and wanting to own a lobbying firm myself rather than just being a cog in the wheel at firm. Right now I’m pursuing my lobbying certificate so I suppose I’ll be closer to deciding what I want to do next once I’ve completed it.

Question 2:

Have you come across a lot of people in lobbying that have a not-so-strong background in political science/law? How would a person with a very strong bkgd in science and marketing favor? Favorite GOPers beside Hagel? (Personally, I like him as well)

Lots of people think of lobbyists as people who are obsessive about politics, but a good number of lobbyists come into their jobs simply by believing strongly in a cause. Even 501(c)3 organizations do some lobbying (within guidelines of course). I think that lobbyists are perceived badly by people because Congress makes them a sort of scape goat. The reality is there’s at least one organization that fights for the interests of every American even though we may not realize it.

So yes, there are lobbyists whose primary strengths aren’t political science/law. However, you do need to know the law in whatever area you would work in and you’ll have to learn lobbying rules. Someone with a science background and an ability in marketing could play several roles at a firm. For example, someone’s got to help Congress write all that pesky legislation. You can be a subject matter expert, develop materials for publications on behalf of your organization or even handle media calls and communications strategy. You can work for a firm and not actually lobby yourself in a physical person-to-person sense.

Plus there are also PACs, trade associations etc. that can use people with all sorts of backgrounds. It’s important to remember that soft core skills are important–being able to handle pressure, work with deadlines, be strategic, exercise emotional intelligence etc. Those are key to being successful politically generally speaking.

My favorite GOPers? Well, there’s Michael Steele…just kidding. Chuck Hagel is obviously my favorite. But I’ve been known to enjoy the smooth stylings of Lindsay Graham. I also like Tom Ridge and Christie Todd Whitman. This may surprise some people, but columnist David Brooks is one of my favorite people, so is former Bush advisor Brent Snowcroft. And I have an extreme love hate relationship with Tucker Carlson who is a fabulous guy with some questionable beliefs. But I can’t stop reading The Daily Caller!

There are lots of people that came out of that original group of Republican think tank graduates (Brooks era) that I think are pretty great. Though both orgs are nonpartisan, some good conservative work comes out of the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations. Nameless folks, but nontheless brilliant.

Question 3:

I was recommended to attend a Gotham Writing Class in NYC & I’ve been wondering should I take a novel writing, fiction writing or creative writing course. Which would be better suited for me since I would like to write a book?

It depends on where you are in your writing abilities and confidence. If you’re sure you want to write a novel, then a novel writing class is a fine choice. It will teach you the specifics of character development and what types of things get published in what kinds of genres. If there is a business focus to the class they’ll teach you how to choose a literary agent and develop a book proposal specific to novels–or at least point you in the right direction to gaining that knowledge.

Having said that, for many people who write fiction (which I do not, so this is an observational answer not an experiential one), the first thing they think of is writing a novel. But there may be other ways in which you can express yourself for your own satisfaction and profit. Whether you write short stories, a series of fictional letters, or even poetry.

This is where a creative writing or fiction writing course would be handy as it would be flexible enough that you could make a decision about what might be appropriate for you. In terms of choosing between creative and fiction, once again, it’s all in what you want to do. A creative writing class, in my experience is typically more flexible. But if you’re open to other ways of being published beyond writing a novel, you really can’t go wrong with either one.

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the Writer’s Market book. There IS a market out there for short stories and things of that nature. THat’s another reference tool for deciding if the novel is really what you want and not just your first choice because it feels more familiar for a lot of people. There are many ways to tell the story/stories you have inside of you. Not discouraging you from writing a book–just encouraging you to consider your options fully.

Question 4: (I had to edit this question and and leave out part of it so that I wouldn’t give too much of my life away). Essentially, the question was what’s my favorite part of my job and how is it to work for an opposing party.

My favorite part of my job is interpreting things that are complicated and making them accessible to the audience in front of which the speaker will deliver the remarks. I also enjoy anything that requires political strategy, so those moments where I say yay or nay to a message based on political climate gives me a dorky sense of satisfaction.

Because I started out working for a lobbying firm in which I didn’t agree with much my boss was doing, working for the other party was a piece of cake. It also helps to enjoy the politics of situations rather than be passionate about specific issues. It allows me to keep my head in the game and my heart in the stands. I’m probably a bad person to answer this question because my emotional investment in most situations is super low. I’m pretty pragmatic and ideologically malleable. I’m also utilitarian when it comes to most things, I turn a blind eye to intention for the most part. In a weird sort of way it helps, even when the common good isn’t reached.

Question 5:

This question was a series of formspring entries about recent college grads and whether you should create different resumes, how far back in your work history you should go, and how to highlight event planning experience.

The best thing new grads can do is keep it simple but thorough. If you’re new employers don’t expect your resume to be more than a page, and doing things that make it longer (even unintentionally) only serve to make it appear that you’re padding.

A rule of thumb is to go back as far as is relevant. If you had a relevant job your senior year in high school, that may warrant inclusion–use your judgement. But anything before that isn’t really necessary especially if you’ve had a couple internships and a job (even if it’s retail).

I will say that government resumes require you to go back 5 years and include the addresses, supervisors, and salaries of every job you’ve had so, by default, your resume will be longer.

You WILL have to create different resumes depending on what you’re applying for. Since you’re a recent grad, you probably won’t need more than two…mostly for the purpose of being able to highlight/emphasize different things.

Once of the most important things new grads forget to do is highlight skills and abilities and educational achievements. When I started out, I listed my abilities FIRST e.g. attention to detail, able to work in a deadline oriented environment, can communicate successfully with people from varying backgrounds to reach a consensus. Those sorts of soft core skills are important.

Technical skills are also important. Many young people take for granted that everyone can work Microsoft Office or Adobe Creative Suite. Not true. Say specifically that you’re proficient in programs and whether you’ve been certified in anything.

Finally, when it comes to jobs within jobs such as if you work as an event planner for a campaign, don’t list out every event. What’s better is to list out your accomplishments whether individually or as part of your “duty” paragraphs. Example: planned large scale events for 2000+ people, personally commended by XX (insert important person) for ability to adapt quickly to changes, planned meetings from conception to completion.

Basically, give people an idea of what you did and how well you did it!

Whew!

When I read other people’s formsprings they get easy questions. Yall just tried to kill me.

Anyway, I will do another segment when I get some more questions.

I’m the first to admit that I’m not a fan of former Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock. I think he’s popular not because he’s a good writer or because his analysis of sports is on point, but because he’s controversial. And in today’s environment, whatever gets page views, ad clicks, or attention wins the day. On Friday, Whitlock took to the airwaves to talk for over an hour about why he was leaving the Kansas City Star for the Fox network.

Whitlock accused the Kansas City Star of all sorts of improprieties, but what his problem boiled down to was that he asked for something from his bosses and didn’t get it.

Join the club.

Obviously, Whitlock didn’t just notice the ethical issues at the Star just prior to quitting his job. The reality is, he was more than happy to overlook those flaws as long as he was getting what he wanted. But when he went to his bosses and asked for them to “maximize” their use of him (he wasn’t specific during the portion of the interview I heard, but I take that to mean giving him a lot more attention and money) suddenly everything he’d witnessed at the paper became an issue of concern.

Much like Lebron James’ silly “Decision” special, Whitlocks “Explanation” episode was just as lengthy, tired and narcissistic. And while such a stunt may go over fine in the world of entertainment (notice, I didn’t say journalism), for the rest of you 9 to 5ers and freelancers and other people who care about whether or not you ever work again, making a point of publicly dissing your former employer isn’t the right call.

Continue Reading…

Essence Magazine’s recent hire of a white fashion director is the latest in a series of newsworthy topics about race. From the Shirley Sherrod debacle to Senator Jim Webb’s Wall Street Journal article advocating for the elimination of affirmative action programs, America is struggling to talk about race constructively.  Essence’s hiring of Elliana Placas, who has been working at the magazine for the last 6 months, reignites the conversation about the role of race in hiring practices and the expectation that black owned or targeted businesses will act as equalizers.

I’ve read a few differing opinions on Essence Magazine‘s decision, and I am sensitive to the fact that people support and oppose the decision for a variety of historical, social, personal, and sentimental reasons. I think Mark Anthony Neal does a great job of capturing those issues here. The most prominent argument in support of Ms. Placas’s hiring has been the magazine’s own argument that essentially implies that companies should pick the “best person for the job” and that race shouldn’t be a determining factor. While I’m not surprised to hear such an argument in a country like America that fancies itself a meritocracy, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that these matters aren’t quite that simple.

America has always struggled issues of inequality. We’ve made much progress but in many cases the consequences of remaining bias is hidden behind the achievements of a relative few. We all carry the burden of reconciling this dynamic; however, black-owned or targeted businesses bear a special responsibility to be cognitive of these issues. Before I go further, I want to note that it’s important to understand that these types of considerations aren’t limited to racial minorities.

For example, weeks ago the web publication Jezebel posted an article about sexism on the set of the Daily Show. The article included first hand accounts from women who’d worked on the show stating that it’s hard for women to be hired on the show, harder for them to keep the job, and near impossible to get an on-air role. The article was met with criticism most notably from the 39 or 40 women who work on the show.  The Daily Show women wrote a letter defending the show and its host Jon Stewart with the crux of the point being that the show is hard for everyone, comedy is a rough business, and still, women make up 40% of the show’s staff.

The most poignant response to the Daily Show story came from the show’s co-creator Madeline Smithberg who pointed out that the comedy industry is so biased against women that a disproportionate amount of women are already eliminated from the pool before they could even gain the necessary experience to be hired on such a show. The women’s present experience may not be sexist, but sexism has already colored the circumstances.

I think what many women are looking for, and deserve, is some sort of equalizer but there’s none in place.  I think this point is relevant to Essence as well. The fashion industry is harder for blacks than whites to navigate.  Though Essence may have chosen the “best candidate for the job,” by basing its decision on skill alone the magazine contributes to the overarching problem (or at least maintains the status quo) by refusing to play an equalizing role. The fact that a white woman is considered to be the best qualified fashion director for a fashion magazine geared toward black women says more about the makeup of the pool of candidates and the magazine’s agenda than it does about Ms. Placas’s relative skill.

In the whole of America there are great many factions of people (mostly white men due to their historical advantage) that work feverishly to keep their associates protected and to increase the chances that they can create opportunities for each other in the future.  For black owned or targeted businesses to choose not to employ some targeted favoritism to augment their largely meritocratic practices is perplexing. By virtue, we expect black businesses to look beyond the present and consider both the historical implications of their hiring decisions as well as the potential outcome.

In addition to considering the present benefits of hiring Ms. Placas, Essence should also consider the future result e.g. whether or not hiring a white woman would result in more or less opportunities for black women going forward.  I think a strong argument could be made that not only does Ms. Placas’s hiring take an opportunity away from a black woman in the present, but she is probably also less likely than a black fashion director to use Essence as stepping stone to later create more opportunities for black women. But as Danielle Belton points out over at the Black Snob, Essence Magazine is no longer black-owned and doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Still, a black-focused fashion magazine’s decision to install a white person as its fashion director is both symptomatic and consequential.