How to do what you Love

To do something well you have to like it. That idea is not exactly novel. We’ve got it down to four words: “Do what you love.” But it’s not enough just to tell people that. Doing what you love is complicated.

The very idea is foreign to what most of us learn as kids. When I was a kid, it seemed as if work and fun were opposites by definition. Life had two states: some of the time adults were making you do things, and that was called work; the rest of the time you could do what you wanted, and that was called playing. Occasionally the things adults made you do were fun, just as, occasionally, playing wasn’t—for example, if you fell and hurt yourself. But except for these few anomalous cases, work was pretty much defined as not-fun.

And it did not seem to be an accident. School, it was implied, was tedious because it was preparation for grownup work.

The world then was divided into two groups, grownups and kids. Grownups, like some kind of cursed race, had to work. Kids didn’t, but they did have to go to school, which was a dilute version of work meant to prepare us for the real thing. Much as we disliked school, the grownups all agreed that grownup work was worse, and that we had it easy.

Teachers in particular all seemed to believe implicitly that work was not fun. Which is not surprising: work wasn’t fun for most of them. Why did we have to memorize state capitals instead of playing dodgeball? For the same reason they had to watch over a bunch of kids instead of lying on a beach. You couldn’t just do what you wanted.

I’m not saying we should let little kids do whatever they want. They may have to be made to work on certain things. But if we make kids work on dull stuff, it might be wise to tell them that tediousness is not the defining quality of work, and indeed that the reason they have to work on dull stuff now is so they can work on more interesting stuff later. [1]

Once, when I was about 9 or 10, my father told me I could be whatever I wanted when I grew up, so long as I enjoyed it. I remember that precisely because it seemed so anomalous. It was like being told to use dry water. Whatever I thought he meant, I didn’t think he meant work could literally be fun—fun like playing. It took me years to grasp that.

Jobs

By high school, the prospect of an actual job was on the horizon. Adults would sometimes come to speak to us about their work, or we would go to see them at work. It was always understood that they enjoyed what they did. In retrospect I think one may have: the private jet pilot. But I don’t think the bank manager really did.

The main reason they all acted as if they enjoyed their work was presumably the upper-middle class convention that you’re supposed to. It would not merely be bad for your career to say that you despised your job, but a social faux-pas.

Why is it conventional to pretend to like what you do? The first sentence of this essay explains that. If you have to like something to do it well, then the most successful people will all like what they do. That’s where the upper-middle class tradition comes from. Just as houses all over America are full of chairs that are, without the owners even knowing it, nth-degree imitations of chairs designed 250 years ago for French kings, conventional attitudes about work are, without the owners even knowing it, nth-degree imitations of the attitudes of people who’ve done great things.

What a recipe for alienation. By the time they reach an age to think about what they’d like to do, most kids have been thoroughly misled about the idea of loving one’s work. School has trained them to regard work as an unpleasant duty. Having a job is said to be even more onerous than schoolwork. And yet all the adults claim to like what they do. You can’t blame kids for thinking “I am not like these people; I am not suited to this world.”

Actually they’ve been told three lies: the stuff they’ve been taught to regard as work in school is not real work; grownup work is not (necessarily) worse than schoolwork; and many of the adults around them are lying when they say they like what they do.

The most dangerous liars can be the kids’ own parents. If you take a boring job to give your family a high standard of living, as so many people do, you risk infecting your kids with the idea that work is boring. [2] Maybe it would be better for kids in this one case if parents were not so unselfish. A parent who set an example of loving their work might help their kids more than an expensive house. [3]

It was not till I was in college that the idea of work finally broke free from the idea of making a living. Then the important question became not how to make money, but what to work on. Ideally these coincided, but some spectacular boundary cases (like Einstein in the patent office) proved they weren’t identical.

The definition of work was now to make some original contribution to the world, and in the process not to starve. But after the habit of so many years my idea of work still included a large component of pain. Work still seemed to require discipline, because only hard problems yielded grand results, and hard problems couldn’t literally be fun. Surely one had to force oneself to work on them.

If you think something’s supposed to hurt, you’re less likely to notice if you’re doing it wrong. That about sums up my experience of graduate school.

Bounds

How much are you supposed to like what you do? Unless you know that, you don’t know when to stop searching. And if, like most people, you underestimate it, you’ll tend to stop searching too early. You’ll end up doing something chosen for you by your parents, or the desire to make money, or prestige—or sheer inertia.

Here’s an upper bound: Do what you love doesn’t mean, do what you would like to do most this second. Even Einstein probably had moments when he wanted to have a cup of coffee, but told himself he ought to finish what he was working on first.

It used to perplex me when I read about people who liked what they did so much that there was nothing they’d rather do. There didn’t seem to be any sort of work I liked that much. If I had a choice of (a) spending the next hour working on something or (b) be teleported to Rome and spend the next hour wandering about, was there any sort of work I’d prefer? Honestly, no.

But the fact is, almost anyone would rather, at any given moment, float about in the Carribbean, or have sex, or eat some delicious food, than work on hard problems. The rule about doing what you love assumes a certain length of time. It doesn’t mean, do what will make you happiest this second, but what will make you happiest over some longer period, like a week or a month.

Unproductive pleasures pall eventually. After a while you get tired of lying on the beach. If you want to stay happy, you have to do something.

As a lower bound, you have to like your work more than any unproductive pleasure. You have to like what you do enough that the concept of “spare time” seems mistaken. Which is not to say you have to spend all your time working. You can only work so much before you get tired and start to screw up. Then you want to do something else—even something mindless. But you don’t regard this time as the prize and the time you spend working as the pain you endure to earn it.

I put the lower bound there for practical reasons. If your work is not your favorite thing to do, you’ll have terrible problems with procrastination. You’ll have to force yourself to work, and when you resort to that the results are distinctly inferior.

To be happy I think you have to be doing something you not only enjoy, but admire. You have to be able to say, at the end, wow, that’s pretty cool. This doesn’t mean you have to make something. If you learn how to hang glide, or to speak a foreign language fluently, that will be enough to make you say, for a while at least, wow, that’s pretty cool. What there has to be is a test.

So one thing that falls just short of the standard, I think, is reading books. Except for some books in math and the hard sciences, there’s no test of how well you’ve read a book, and that’s why merely reading books doesn’t quite feel like work. You have to do something with what you’ve read to feel productive.

I think the best test is one Gino Lee taught me: to try to do things that would make your friends say wow. But it probably wouldn’t start to work properly till about age 22, because most people haven’t had a big enough sample to pick friends from before then.

Sirens

What you should not do, I think, is worry about the opinion of anyone beyond your friends. You shouldn’t worry about prestige. Prestige is the opinion of the rest of the world. When you can ask the opinions of people whose judgement you respect, what does it add to consider the opinions of people you don’t even know? [4]

This is easy advice to give. It’s hard to follow, especially when you’re young. [5] Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. It causes you to work not on what you like, but what you’d like to like.

That’s what leads people to try to write novels, for example. They like reading novels. They notice that people who write them win Nobel prizes. What could be more wonderful, they think, than to be a novelist? But liking the idea of being a novelist is not enough; you have to like the actual work of novel-writing if you’re going to be good at it; you have to like making up elaborate lies.

Prestige is just fossilized inspiration. If you do anything well enough, you’ll make it prestigious. Plenty of things we now consider prestigious were anything but at first. Jazz comes to mind—though almost any established art form would do. So just do what you like, and let prestige take care of itself.

Prestige is especially dangerous to the ambitious. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, the way to do it is to bait the hook with prestige. That’s the recipe for getting people to give talks, write forewords, serve on committees, be department heads, and so on. It might be a good rule simply to avoid any prestigious task. If it didn’t suck, they wouldn’t have had to make it prestigious.

Similarly, if you admire two kinds of work equally, but one is more prestigious, you should probably choose the other. Your opinions about what’s admirable are always going to be slightly influenced by prestige, so if the two seem equal to you, you probably have more genuine admiration for the less prestigious one.

The other big force leading people astray is money. Money by itself is not that dangerous. When something pays well but is regarded with contempt, like telemarketing, or prostitution, or personal injury litigation, ambitious people aren’t tempted by it. That kind of work ends up being done by people who are “just trying to make a living.” (Tip: avoid any field whose practitioners say this.) The danger is when money is combined with prestige, as in, say, corporate law, or medicine. A comparatively safe and prosperous career with some automatic baseline prestige is dangerously tempting to someone young, who hasn’t thought much about what they really like.

The test of whether people love what they do is whether they’d do it even if they weren’t paid for it—even if they had to work at another job to make a living. How many corporate lawyers would do their current work if they had to do it for free, in their spare time, and take day jobs as waiters to support themselves?

This test is especially helpful in deciding between different kinds of academic work, because fields vary greatly in this respect. Most good mathematicians would work on math even if there were no jobs as math professors, whereas in the departments at the other end of the spectrum, the availability of teaching jobs is the driver: people would rather be English professors than work in ad agencies, and publishing papers is the way you compete for such jobs. Math would happen without math departments, but it is the existence of English majors, and therefore jobs teaching them, that calls into being all those thousands of dreary papers about gender and identity in the novels of Conrad. No one does that kind of thing for fun.

The advice of parents will tend to err on the side of money. It seems safe to say there are more undergrads who want to be novelists and whose parents want them to be doctors than who want to be doctors and whose parents want them to be novelists. The kids think their parents are “materialistic.” Not necessarily. All parents tend to be more conservative for their kids than they would for themselves, simply because, as parents, they share risks more than rewards. If your eight year old son decides to climb a tall tree, or your teenage daughter decides to date the local bad boy, you won’t get a share in the excitement, but if your son falls, or your daughter gets pregnant, you’ll have to deal with the consequences.

Discipline

With such powerful forces leading us astray, it’s not surprising we find it so hard to discover what we like to work on. Most people are doomed in childhood by accepting the axiom that work = pain. Those who escape this are nearly all lured onto the rocks by prestige or money. How many even discover something they love to work on? A few hundred thousand, perhaps, out of billions.

It’s hard to find work you love; it must be, if so few do. So don’t underestimate this task. And don’t feel bad if you haven’t succeeded yet. In fact, if you admit to yourself that you’re discontented, you’re a step ahead of most people, who are still in denial. If you’re surrounded by colleagues who claim to enjoy work that you find contemptible, odds are they’re lying to themselves. Not necessarily, but probably.

Although doing great work takes less discipline than people think—because the way to do great work is to find something you like so much that you don’t have to force yourself to do it—finding work you love does usually require discipline. Some people are lucky enough to know what they want to do when they’re 12, and just glide along as if they were on railroad tracks. But this seems the exception. More often people who do great things have careers with the trajectory of a ping-pong ball. They go to school to study A, drop out and get a job doing B, and then become famous for C after taking it up on the side.

Sometimes jumping from one sort of work to another is a sign of energy, and sometimes it’s a sign of laziness. Are you dropping out, or boldly carving a new path? You often can’t tell yourself. Plenty of people who will later do great things seem to be disappointments early on, when they’re trying to find their niche.

Is there some test you can use to keep yourself honest? One is to try to do a good job at whatever you’re doing, even if you don’t like it. Then at least you’ll know you’re not using dissatisfaction as an excuse for being lazy. Perhaps more importantly, you’ll get into the habit of doing things well.

Another test you can use is: always produce. For example, if you have a day job you don’t take seriously because you plan to be a novelist, are you producing? Are you writing pages of fiction, however bad? As long as you’re producing, you’ll know you’re not merely using the hazy vision of the grand novel you plan to write one day as an opiate. The view of it will be obstructed by the all too palpably flawed one you’re actually writing.

“Always produce” is also a heuristic for finding the work you love. If you subject yourself to that constraint, it will automatically push you away from things you think you’re supposed to work on, toward things you actually like. “Always produce” will discover your life’s work the way water, with the aid of gravity, finds the hole in your roof.

Of course, figuring out what you like to work on doesn’t mean you get to work on it. That’s a separate question. And if you’re ambitious you have to keep them separate: you have to make a conscious effort to keep your ideas about what you want from being contaminated by what seems possible. [6]

It’s painful to keep them apart, because it’s painful to observe the gap between them. So most people pre-emptively lower their expectations. For example, if you asked random people on the street if they’d like to be able to draw like Leonardo, you’d find most would say something like “Oh, I can’t draw.” This is more a statement of intention than fact; it means, I’m not going to try. Because the fact is, if you took a random person off the street and somehow got them to work as hard as they possibly could at drawing for the next twenty years, they’d get surprisingly far. But it would require a great moral effort; it would mean staring failure in the eye every day for years. And so to protect themselves people say “I can’t.”

Another related line you often hear is that not everyone can do work they love—that someone has to do the unpleasant jobs. Really? How do you make them? In the US the only mechanism for forcing people to do unpleasant jobs is the draft, and that hasn’t been invoked for over 30 years. All we can do is encourage people to do unpleasant work, with money and prestige.

If there’s something people still won’t do, it seems as if society just has to make do without. That’s what happened with domestic servants. For millennia that was the canonical example of a job “someone had to do.” And yet in the mid twentieth century servants practically disappeared in rich countries, and the rich have just had to do without.

So while there may be some things someone has to do, there’s a good chance anyone saying that about any particular job is mistaken. Most unpleasant jobs would either get automated or go undone if no one were willing to do them.

Two Routes

There’s another sense of “not everyone can do work they love” that’s all too true, however. One has to make a living, and it’s hard to get paid for doing work you love. There are two routes to that destination:

The organic route: as you become more eminent, gradually to increase the parts of your job that you like at the expense of those you don’t.

The two-job route: to work at things you don’t like to get money to work on things you do.

The organic route is more common. It happens naturally to anyone who does good work. A young architect has to take whatever work he can get, but if he does well he’ll gradually be in a position to pick and choose among projects. The disadvantage of this route is that it’s slow and uncertain. Even tenure is not real freedom.

The two-job route has several variants depending on how long you work for money at a time. At one extreme is the “day job,” where you work regular hours at one job to make money, and work on what you love in your spare time. At the other extreme you work at something till you make enough not to have to work for money again.

The two-job route is less common than the organic route, because it requires a deliberate choice. It’s also more dangerous. Life tends to get more expensive as you get older, so it’s easy to get sucked into working longer than you expected at the money job. Worse still, anything you work on changes you. If you work too long on tedious stuff, it will rot your brain. And the best paying jobs are most dangerous, because they require your full attention.

The advantage of the two-job route is that it lets you jump over obstacles. The landscape of possible jobs isn’t flat; there are walls of varying heights between different kinds of work. [7] The trick of maximizing the parts of your job that you like can get you from architecture to product design, but not, probably, to music. If you make money doing one thing and then work on another, you have more freedom of choice.

Which route should you take? That depends on how sure you are of what you want to do, how good you are at taking orders, how much risk you can stand, and the odds that anyone will pay (in your lifetime) for what you want to do. If you’re sure of the general area you want to work in and it’s something people are likely to pay you for, then you should probably take the organic route. But if you don’t know what you want to work on, or don’t like to take orders, you may want to take the two-job route, if you can stand the risk.

Don’t decide too soon. Kids who know early what they want to do seem impressive, as if they got the answer to some math question before the other kids. They have an answer, certainly, but odds are it’s wrong.

A friend of mine who is a quite successful doctor complains constantly about her job. When people applying to medical school ask her for advice, she wants to shake them and yell “Don’t do it!” (But she never does.) How did she get into this fix? In high school she already wanted to be a doctor. And she is so ambitious and determined that she overcame every obstacle along the way—including, unfortunately, not liking it.

Now she has a life chosen for her by a high-school kid.

When you’re young, you’re given the impression that you’ll get enough information to make each choice before you need to make it. But this is certainly not so with work. When you’re deciding what to do, you have to operate on ridiculously incomplete information. Even in college you get little idea what various types of work are like. At best you may have a couple internships, but not all jobs offer internships, and those that do don’t teach you much more about the work than being a batboy teaches you about playing baseball.

In the design of lives, as in the design of most other things, you get better results if you use flexible media. So unless you’re fairly sure what you want to do, your best bet may be to choose a type of work that could turn into either an organic or two-job career. That was probably part of the reason I chose computers. You can be a professor, or make a lot of money, or morph it into any number of other kinds of work.

It’s also wise, early on, to seek jobs that let you do many different things, so you can learn faster what various kinds of work are like. Conversely, the extreme version of the two-job route is dangerous because it teaches you so little about what you like. If you work hard at being a bond trader for ten years, thinking that you’ll quit and write novels when you have enough money, what happens when you quit and then discover that you don’t actually like writing novels?

Most people would say, I’d take that problem. Give me a million dollars and I’ll figure out what to do. But it’s harder than it looks. Constraints give your life shape. Remove them and most people have no idea what to do: look at what happens to those who win lotteries or inherit money. Much as everyone thinks they want financial security, the happiest people are not those who have it, but those who like what they do. So a plan that promises freedom at the expense of knowing what to do with it may not be as good as it seems.

Whichever route you take, expect a struggle. Finding work you love is very difficult. Most people fail. Even if you succeed, it’s rare to be free to work on what you want till your thirties or forties. But if you have the destination in sight you’ll be more likely to arrive at it. If you know you can love work, you’re in the home stretch, and if you know what work you love, you’re practically there.

Notes

[1] Currently we do the opposite: when we make kids do boring work, like arithmetic drills, instead of admitting frankly that it’s boring, we try to disguise it with superficial decorations.

[2] One father told me about a related phenomenon: he found himself concealing from his family how much he liked his work. When he wanted to go to work on a saturday, he found it easier to say that it was because he “had to” for some reason, rather than admitting he preferred to work than stay home with them.

[3] Something similar happens with suburbs. Parents move to suburbs to raise their kids in a safe environment, but suburbs are so dull and artificial that by the time they’re fifteen the kids are convinced the whole world is boring.

[4] I’m not saying friends should be the only audience for your work. The more people you can help, the better. But friends should be your compass.

[5] Donald Hall said young would-be poets were mistaken to be so obsessed with being published. But you can imagine what it would do for a 24 year old to get a poem published in The New Yorker. Now to people he meets at parties he’s a real poet. Actually he’s no better or worse than he was before, but to a clueless audience like that, the approval of an official authority makes all the difference. So it’s a harder problem than Hall realizes. The reason the young care so much about prestige is that the people they want to impress are not very discerning.

[6] This is isomorphic to the principle that you should prevent your beliefs about how things are from being contaminated by how you wish they were. Most people let them mix pretty promiscuously. The continuing popularity of religion is the most visible index of that.

[7] A more accurate metaphor would be to say that the graph of jobs is not very well connected.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Dan Friedman, Sarah Harlin, Jessica Livingston, Jackie McDonough, Robert Morris, Peter Norvig, David Sloo, and Aaron Swartz for reading drafts of this.

Original Article:  http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#f4n

 
             
 
 
             
 
 
             
 
 
             
 
 
             
 
 
             
 

How to Get a Job That Doesn’t Exist – Susannah Breslin

You move somewhere new. You want a new job. You look at the online job listings. You network. You send emails. You ask your friends for assistance. But, in the end, nothing really happens. It’s not their fault, it’s not your fault, it’s just that sometimes this is how it goes.

So, what do you do?

You apply for a job that doesn’t exist.

TIP #1: Have no idea what you want to do.

These days, everyone has an answer for you when it comes to looking for a job. Your resume should look like this. In interviews you should say this, but you shouldn’t say this. It’s OK if you email this person, but you must never email this person. Wear this. Do this. Don’t do that. You did that? You’re doing it wrong. If you pay me $250 an hour, I will help you do it right. I’m a life coach. I give career advice. I’m a professional blogger. Do it my way or fail. If that doesn’t work? You’re not doing it right.

One basic tenet of finding a job is that you have to know what you want. Also, you have to do it right. And you have to follow the rules, or you are going to screw it all up. The problem is that the hiring business is a lot like the Hollywood movie business. If you live in Hollywood for long enough, and you spend enough time around the entertainment industry, you will discover that no one has any idea why one thing works and another doesn’t. That’s why people in Hollywood are so crazy. Because it’s all hit-or-miss. The hiring business is the same way. Sometimes people hire people because they like you, but if you are an engineer, they don’t care if they like you or not. The truth is that when it comes to hiring, nobody has any idea what they’re doing. It’s a crap shoot.

That’s why you shouldn’t know what you’re doing either. Maybe you don’t know exactly what job you want. Maybe you are not fully cognizant of all your skills, because you have employed some, but not others, and what you can do, really do, remains to be seen. This means that if you are looking for one job doing one certain thing, you are seeking your goal too narrowly.

For example: I am a creative. But I also do marketing. Some jobs require I be a creative and a marketer. What do I do best? Both. What kind of job best suits me? One where I’m only being creative. Actually, it’s one where I’m only doing marketing. Oh, wait, it’s one where I’m sometimes a creative and sometimes a marketer. You see, this is what I do for a living, and I don’t even know what I’m doing. Do you? You might think you know what you are doing, but you might be wrong. It’s better to not know.

This means that you are open to possibilities. If you are open, you can turn on a dime. With enough expertise and enough savvy, if someone says, we don’t have what you do, we only have this, you can say, well, wait, I can do that, too. These days, in this job market, you cannot be a square peg trying to fit yourself into a hole that may be a circle or a square. You need to be a peg made of Play-Doh.

For example, some of the work that I do is in social media. Some of the jobs that I apply for are in social media. One thing I keep forgetting and then remembering when someone new interviews me is that nobody in social media has any idea what they are doing. It’s too new. They might say they do, or they might say they don’t, but nobody really knows. We are all figuring it out as we go along. That’s why I pretend I’m Play-Doh. So they can push me into whatever shape they need. And then I’m that.

TIP #2: Target companies, not positions.

Does it matter if you got the job of your dreams if you hate the company you work for? Yes. That’s why it’s better to focus not on job positions, or even open job positions, but what company you would like to work for. One easy way to do that is to go to Glassdoor.com. Basically, Glassdoor has overviews of companies. The content is written by anonymous current or former employees of the company. It can tell you what the salary range is for various positions, what the interviewing process is like, and how working for the company really is. Because if you don’t know someone who works for the company, it’s hard to figure out if you would be happy in a company. Because that’s what really matters with a job, right? If you are happy or miserable. The guy who is thinking about hiring you isn’t going to tell you, “I hate my job.” He should. But he won’t. Then you might replace him. On Glassdoor, they will tell you. Sometimes online anonymity makes people act like jerks, but sometimes it empowers people to tell the truth.

After you figure out what company you want to work for, then figure out who can hire you to work in the area you want to work. Not the HR manager. The person who would be your boss. Between LinkedIn, company web sites, and your Googling skills, you should be able to figure this out. Now you need to email this person. Most email addresses follow a certain pattern. If you can find the person’s name, but you can’t find their email address, you can Google different possibilities of what their address may be until you find a match. Then email the person you want to work for. Some people will say, “Oh, can you do that?” That isn’t really a question. They’re saying, “You can’t do that.” Like you’d be better off sending your resume to some HR manager who probably will not read your cover letter and delete your resume because there’s a typo in it, or because they fed it into a computer and the computer didn’t like it because it didn’t have the right key words in it, or because they are having a bad day. Go right to the person you want to work for, and ask them in an email if they will meet with you. Because this is the company you want to work for, and this is the person you want to work for, and this is how you get a job. By being aggressive. Not being a lemming. Let the other people be lemmings. You are a unicorn. Lemming rules apply to lemmings. Unicorn rules apply to unicorns.

TIP #3: Stop doing interviews.

What is an interview? A weird sort of charade in which you sit on one side of a desk and the other person sits on the other side of the desk, and the person on the other side of the desk drones on at length about their company/line of work/openings, and you sit there and try and think up questions to ask when the person stops talking so they won’t think you’re an idiot. This is stupid. This is a waste of time. This way of interviewing should be abolished.

I could tell you, the interviewee, what to do, but, instead, I would rather tell the interviewer what to do. Because people are always telling the interviewees what to do, like they’re doing something wrong, and less often do people tell the interviewers what to do, because everyone just assumes they are doing everything right. (Which they are not. Not necessarily, anyway.)

Stop interviewing people in your offices. It’s weird, awkward, and stresses people out. Interview people in the lobby. In the park across the street. In the hall. In the elevator. In the coffee shop around the corner. Maybe your company has some sort of “policy” against this — I have no idea — but if it does: Is that who you are: Mr. Policy? Well, good luck to you then.

Ask interesting stuff in your interviews. If you think you are bored interviewing a lot of people, imagine how bored we are being interviewed by you, who are clearly bored. We are bored by your boredom. Ask us interesting questions. The other day, someone who was a potential employer asked me what would I do if I was driving in a car, and it was raining, and it was about to flood, and my car only fit two people, and one of them was me, and the other one was one of three people at a bus stop: an old woman, the love of your life, and someone who had saved your life. This falls into the category of weird interview questions, but at least it doesn’t fall in the category of totally boring interview questions. (Examples of totally boring interview questions: 1. What are you looking for in this position? 2. Tell me something about yourself. 3. Do you have any questions for me?)

Give us something to do. We have a lot of nervous energy coursing through our systems because we are out of work, or we really want this job, or whatever the reason. If all we do is talk, how will either of us learn anything about each other? One person I interviewed with met me in a conference room with comfortable seating and projected a giant web page on the wall. Then I critiqued some of his company’s content on their web site, pointing out why part of it was totally boring and why part of it was totally interesting. I can tell you I’m good until I’m blue in the face, but you will not believe me unless you give me the opportunity to demonstrate just how good I am.

Also, this is why I titled this post, “How to Get a Job That Doesn’t Exist”: This doesn’t have to be an interview at all. Maybe you found the company you want to work for, and you found the person you want to work for, and you got them to give you face time, and there you are, asking one another interesting questions, learning some things, and clicking in that way that means maybe this person will hire you. But, there is not a perfect position for you at this time. That means this isn’t an interview. It’s like a pre-interview. Or a meeting. Or a date, but with work as the goal, not sex. This is OK. This is good. Because someone at the company is going to bail, and this person will remember you. Or this person may have some part-time work for you, and if you do that, and do it well, maybe you can move from part-time to full-time, and then you will have the position you want at the company you want working with people you like because you took the time to apply for a job that didn’t exist. Because you never know.

You can view the complete article here
© Forbes.com

Ordered on iPads, Meals are delivered to the gate at NY airports

I’ve seen all kinds of airport innovations designed to make travelling less of a chore, but Delta Air Lines and airport restaurant operator OTG Management have just launched an initiative sure to please weary passengers at New York’s JFK and LaGuardia airports. Specifically, travellers can use Apple iPad kiosks stationed near their departure gates to order meals from participating airport restaurants, with delivery to the gate guaranteed within 10 minutes.

As of just a few weeks ago, the new food ordering stations have been installed at gates 21 and 22 in JFK Terminal 2 and at gate 15 in JFK Terminal 3; stations are planned for gates 1 and 2 of LaGuardia’s Terminal D later this year. Upon placing their order using a custom iPad application, customers are informed of their meal delivery time to ensure the food is received before their flight takes off, though it can also be taken to go; either way, orders are delivered by OTG servers within 10 minutes. Continue reading “Ordered on iPads, Meals are delivered to the gate at NY airports”