A recruitment consultant called me, having found me online - asked if I would consider a permanent role. I said no thanks, but tell me your problem and I may have some suggestions. She was surprised and asked why, in these difficult times, so many interims were determined not to go back to perm?
My response was that in a nutshell, after working as an employee for 20 years I am now a career interim because I'm not good at climbing the corporate ladder and working the politics and competitions - what turns me on is getting my arms & head around a new company, a new industry even, and solving problems and delivering benefits. Furthermore at my relatively mature years I like the flexibility.
She then said she understood, and realised that what she wanted too - so, another convert. (I strongly suspect that I was not the first person she had called today, and that she was having a tough time. No doubt agencies with too few requirements to fulfill are investing their time in improving their candidate list ready for the upturn ... because they have to believe there's going to be one. Me, I'm not so sure.)
Friday, 20 January 2012
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Cause & Effect: American politics
Everywhere you look, people confuse cause and effect. Here's an example from the illustrious Guardian (UK newspaper also known as the Grauniad for it's predilection towards typos) in Nov 2011:
"There is plenty of evidence that the thing that really turns off voters is a divided party. Since the war, no sitting US president who has faced an internal primary challenge has gone on to re-election; every one who faced no primary challenger has been re-elected. So unless Hillary stirs, write off Obama at your peril."
No, no, NO. The party wants to stay in power - if there's a primary challenge, it means the party thinks the sitting president is doing such a terrible job that s/he is un-electable. It's not the presence of the primary challenger that effects the outcome, it's the reason for there being a primary challenger. Get it?
"There is plenty of evidence that the thing that really turns off voters is a divided party. Since the war, no sitting US president who has faced an internal primary challenge has gone on to re-election; every one who faced no primary challenger has been re-elected. So unless Hillary stirs, write off Obama at your peril."
No, no, NO. The party wants to stay in power - if there's a primary challenge, it means the party thinks the sitting president is doing such a terrible job that s/he is un-electable. It's not the presence of the primary challenger that effects the outcome, it's the reason for there being a primary challenger. Get it?
Rebalancing the CBI
Have you read the CBI report "Rebalancing the Economy" published 30 Dec 2011? Anyone concerned about UK Ltd should, and that should mean everyone. Get it here
Comments on The Executive Summary:
1. it blithely uses the phrase 'sustainable growth' as though just by stating it such a nirvana is achievable - there is no explanation as to what this means and how to actually achieve it - the body of the document only talks about how unsustainable everything has been recently
2. there's a typo in the second heading - does not instill confidence in the quality of the document, does it
3. it seems to contradict itself on the amount of new investment required from the private sector over the next 5 years - says £170bn one place and £115bn another place
4. three of the five trends identified to be advantageous require new exporting to developing & emerging economies - easy to say, the holy grail even, yet the Report does not lay out how to go about this
5. the other holy grail identified is Investment in the UK - now I may be naive, but any investment will expect a profitable payback, and where does that payback come from if not (eventually) government and households - the very areas that the Report says we should not rely upon, for obvious reasons
There appears to be other typographical errors, eg Exhibit 7 title should say £40bn not £42bn.
On the whole, and frustratingly, the Report is long on numerical analysis and statements of the blindingly obvious, and exceedingly short on concrete proposals and examples to achieve the aims
My comments on the exporting of what I do - interim management - are the top entry (no. 15747) in a Russams-GMS initiative here - and, no, I don't have any money to invest, I need what little I have to pay for my old age
Comments on The Executive Summary:
1. it blithely uses the phrase 'sustainable growth' as though just by stating it such a nirvana is achievable - there is no explanation as to what this means and how to actually achieve it - the body of the document only talks about how unsustainable everything has been recently
2. there's a typo in the second heading - does not instill confidence in the quality of the document, does it
3. it seems to contradict itself on the amount of new investment required from the private sector over the next 5 years - says £170bn one place and £115bn another place
4. three of the five trends identified to be advantageous require new exporting to developing & emerging economies - easy to say, the holy grail even, yet the Report does not lay out how to go about this
5. the other holy grail identified is Investment in the UK - now I may be naive, but any investment will expect a profitable payback, and where does that payback come from if not (eventually) government and households - the very areas that the Report says we should not rely upon, for obvious reasons
There appears to be other typographical errors, eg Exhibit 7 title should say £40bn not £42bn.
On the whole, and frustratingly, the Report is long on numerical analysis and statements of the blindingly obvious, and exceedingly short on concrete proposals and examples to achieve the aims
My comments on the exporting of what I do - interim management - are the top entry (no. 15747) in a Russams-GMS initiative here - and, no, I don't have any money to invest, I need what little I have to pay for my old age
The View got hazy
Where did those 6 months go? How did I replicate the failure of so many blogs & sites to maintain the energy after the first flush of excitement? Will this be another blip generated by the false dawn of a new year starting? Does anyone care, or even notice? When will I stop asking rhetorical questions (ooh, self-referencing there).
You'd better keep reading to find out!
You'd better keep reading to find out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)