Featured Images

5 Simple Steps on how to get started with Coaching

What if you discovered how to get started making massive money from your coaching program easily? Here are 5 simple steps to get you started.

Step 1 – Help your clients to solve their problems.
Step 2 – Be absolutely honest in what you are providing them.
Step 3 – Win their trust and establish yourself as an expert in your niche.
Step 4 – Make your coaching interesting and interactive.
Step 5 – Solve their most pressing questions to get results.

Here are step-by-step details that you can apply quickly and easily…

Step 1 – Help your clients to solve their problems.

To make massive income online from your coaching your main goal should be to help your clients to solve their problems. All you need to do is help them out and be reachable when they are in need. Give them one-on-one support and this will make sure that they are always motivated to stay subscribed to your coaching program. Honesty is the key to massive coaching success…

Step 2 – Be absolutely honest in what you are providing them.

You have to be absolutely honest with your clients and tell them exactly what you can provide out of your coaching and what you cannot. Reason being, they are paying you big money and they will surely expect something more from you in return. Therefore you have to make sure to specify exactly what they will be getting in terms of products and your personal time. Trust and relationship is the key to massive coaching success…

Step 3 – Win their trust and establish yourself as an expert in your niche.

If you are planning to start your coaching program, you have to be sure that you establish a trust factor with your visitors before you go about promoting them your coaching. This is because no one online will be able to shell thousands of dollars for your coaching without knowing and trusting you as an expert in your niche. Therefore make sure that you setup a system wherein your clients are forced to trust you and then you can softly promote your coaching at the backend. The more interesting will be your coaching program, more money you will make…

Step 4 – Make your coaching interesting and interactive.

It is absolutely important that your coaching program is interesting. You can do this easily by making your coaching session interactive and by allowing your clients to participate in your coaching call. The easiest way to do this is that you can tell your clients to ask you questions as soon as you are done with a particular coaching topic; then you can discuss the solution with your client. Question and answer session will make you big money out of your coaching…

Step 5 – Solve their most pressing questions to get results.

Make sure that you setup a teleseminar in your coaching program where you provide a question and answer session for your clients. All you have to do is conduct a weekly teleseminar specifically for your coaching clients and allow them to throw questions on you. Their questions will provide you a bunch of ideas that will allow you to setup your next group coaching call.

Do you want to learn more about how I do it? I have just completed by brand new few guide “How to Generate a Full Time Income Online Selling Your Coaching Services”.

Download it free here: How to Sell Coaching

Do you want to learn how to use articles like this to drive targeted traffic to your site? Click here: Article Writing Guide

http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Sean_R_Mize

Careers: Attractors, Bifurcation Points and Bull Durham

This week, we’re staying with the idea of career choice but are going about as far as away as you can get from Holland’s career congruence and person-environment fit — so hold on.

In the 1988 film “Bull Durham,” aging minor league baseball catcher and slugger Crash Davis (Kevin Costner) complains to Annie Savoy (Susan Sarandon) about the inherent unfairness that she, rather than he or Ebby Calvin LaLoosh (Tim Robbins), gets to decide which of the two will receive her personal favors and coaching mentorship for the season. He asks her, “Why do you get to choose?… Why don’t I get to choose? Why doesn’t he get to choose?”

She replies, “Well, actually, nobody on this planet ever really chooses… I mean, it’s all a question of quantum physics, molecular attraction, and timing. Why, there are laws we don’t understand that bring us together and tear us apart.”

Organizational writer Gareth Morgan, in his Images of Organizations (Sage, 1997) explores the use of nine metaphors to examine ways of considering organizations. One of those metaphors, “flux and transformation” (see chapter nine) presents us with four “logics of change,” embracing all of the ideas to which Annie alluded — and much more.

Morgan’s second logic of change, “shifting `attractors;” the logic of chaos and complexity is particularly interesting. Though this book was written with regard to the relationship between organizations and their environments, it’s fun to layer some of these ideas onto individuals and their careers. As we discussed last week, the applicability of choice when considering careers is open to question. A great career fit based on congruence may or may not exist. If it does exist, it may be difficult to discover — or its competitive nature may exclude all but the most skilled and talented. It may be a career that’s gone in 20 or even 10 years, or it may require the careerist to play a role that doesn’t seem quite as attractive a few years down the road.

So, then where else might we look in making career choices?

Drawing from the theories that inform Morgan’s second logic of change, here are some ideas for you ponder.

Chaos theory posits competing attractors – i.e. circumstances or “contexts” that pull a non-linear system toward one situation or the other – for example, away from an existing context and into a new one. In order for the pull to resolve in favor of a new context, a system gets pushed far from its equilibrium into an “edge of chaos” situation, where “bifurcation points” (forks in the road) emerge. These bifurcation points represent different potentials. Inevitably, some sort of new order will emerge, though it cannot be predicted or imposed. Morgan advises that the implication for managers is to “shape and create `contexts’ in which appropriate forms of self-organization can occur.” New contexts, he continues, can be created by generating “new understandings of a situation or by engaging in new actions.” Further, in non-linear systems, it only takes very, very small changes at critical times to trigger “major transforming effects.” Anyone, he continues, who wishes to change the context in which he operates should search for “doable, high-leverage initiatives that can trigger a transition from one attractor to another.”

This is all very esoteric, but what it might really come down to for the individual is being on alert to recognize situations in one’s employment context where competing attractors have the potential to create “edge of chaos” situations. If there is a practical lesson here – other than continually scanning the horizon of one’s employment context – it might just be to think small instead of thinking big.

Here’s a personal example, which only in retrospect makes sense – as I certainly had no idea what I was doing at the time… When I was downsized (made redundant) in 1993, the company I worked for worked very hard to provide helpful support to those of us who had been displaced. It staffed and opened a full-time outplacement center, provided a generous severance package and gave us two weeks to vacate. I had planned to use the career center – but first, went around the building leaving handwritten notes on the doors and desks of people I knew, advising that I would be available to help with projects, if needed, until I figured out what I was going to do. (Broad-based work solicitation wasn’t permitted within the old context). Well, I only made it to the career center once — because that one small series of note-leaving acts resulted in a deluge of consulting work that launched a new career. The downsizing had created an “edge of chaos” situation that led to a new context – one in which my skills could now be used for the benefit of the organization. Through naïvete and uncertainty, I had somehow navigated a bifurcation point in a way that has worked out pretty well – at least so far. I’m a little embarrassed to be using this personal example because there was such an element of luck involved — and this good fortune is not something I take for granted.

Just please take the following away: If you and your career are verging on an edge of chaos situation, are there small actions that you can leverage into major transformations?

If anyone has thoughts or examples, please share.

Till next week. All my best,
Jan

Morgan, G. Images of Organization. (1997). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi, Sage.

Of Earth Quakes and Careers

The part of the U.S. where I live was roused from its collective sleep in the wee hours of Friday’s pre-dawn morning by an earthquake that measured 5.2 on the Richter scale The Richter Magnitude Scale and lasted for more than 30 seconds. What was so different from this one and previous others was the intensity — and the fact that there was time to wonder whether it was going to stop, get worse or maybe even escalate into the “big one” that is long overdue here in the Midwest.

It was a little unsettling. But amazingly, there were no personal injuries, though some people narrowly escaped harm at the epicenter, a small community that is about an hour north of where I live.

As one of our local TV stations was already doing its morning news run, coverage was immediate – and calls and e-mails from throughout the region quickly pored in to the media. All had a common theme. People were reporting that their loved ones from nearby or far away had felt and heard it, too. Aside from the realization that a single phenomenon could be experienced simultaneously hundreds of miles away, such events are unique in other ways. Instantaneously, they capture and define a moment in time. They also evoke an immediate and unchallenged awareness of whom you need to call, whose well-being you hold dearest, and whose voice and frame-of-reference you most need and want at that moment.

These are “strong” ties.

You might wonder what this has to do with careers or career theory — and you would be justified in asking. Strong and weak ties are concepts that have been defined and studied — and proposed for further study to help us understand how careers unfold and advance. They are particularly meaningful in considering networking and job-finding.

Emotionally, you and I might think of strong ties as those that we hold with the people who are most important to us – families, best friends, even pets. But in the career world, we can think of strong ties as the connections we have with the people who are most like us, who are part of our world day-in and day-out. An example of a strong tie might be the editorial staff of a newspaper. Reporters and editors work late into the night under pressure to get the facts right and out there on time, night after night, week after week, year after year. At the end of the evening, they meet at a local pub to chill and recount a post mortem on what it took to get the job done.

On the other hand, weak ties are different.

An example of a weak tie might be someone you worked with 10 years ago and now e-mail once a year just to stay in touch. Both of you now work in different occupational sectors than the one that you once had in common. Another example could be two people who serve on the board of directors of a local not-for-profit organization. One is a banker, the other a hospital administrator. Except for regular board meetings, the two have little outside contact; but they’re well-enough acquainted to stop and chat if they meet by chance in public.

Which kind of tie do you think might be of greater benefit to your career?

Think of “strong” ties as “redundant” ties, and you can see where an argument for the diversity suggested by “weak” ties comes from. Ibarra & Deshpande (2007; in Gunz & Peiperl, 2007) write, “weak ties are argued to be more valuable since they act as bridges among diverse networks and bring new information not available through redundant ties in close objective networks.”

They go on to report that the empirical support for the value of weak career ties is strongest for “finding a job” versus “other outcomes such as promotion and salary. (e.g. Boxman, et al., 1991; in Ibarra & Deshpande, 2007; in Gunz & Peiperl, 2007).”

Notice the mention of “networks.”

Ibarra & Deshpande say that “networks of relationships” are the “social resources as well as social contexts in which careers take shape.” So let’s think about this for a minute… You’ve just been downsized and need to find new employment. Your first thought might be to query the people you work with every day (strong ties) about possible opportunities elsewhere. But the “weak ties” argument mentioned above suggests that you might get better results by mobilizing your weak-tie network — if you have one. If you don’t have one, you can ask your strong ties to approach their strong and weak ties on your behalf, but that can get tricky… because it requests third parties to spend their social capital on people whose skills and work ethic they can’t actually vouch for. (We need to talk about this in a future column).

But I digress… so back to the point.

Job seekers: Get your own network – and make sure it includes plenty of weak ties. If you don’t have a network, you can start building one through short-term volunteer projects that involve team work and meeting groups of people — people whose jobs, interests and abilities are very different from yours. There are also organized networking opportunities; but I have to wonder how much good it really does, for example, when women go to a networking group luncheon and sit at the same table with people they already know.

Yes, I know, we are talking about moving beyond one’s comfort zone here — but will a little anxiety really be all that bad? And don’t take your best friend with you because it will be too easy to cling to him in retreat. The idea is to forge new acquaintances, so get out there and dance.

A couple of other points need to be brought in here:

One is a term – “homophily” – that I was unfamiliar with until reading about it earlier this week – before the earthquake, actually. “Homophily” refers to the degree of demographic and identity similarity of individuals who regularly interact with one another. (Ibarra, 1993; in Gunz & Peiperl, 2007). Mayrhofer, Meyer & Steyrer (2007; in Gunz & Peiperl, 2007) report that “homophilic reproduction” and “reduction of opportunities” have a tendency to be linked. In other words, if we continue to associate only with people we know, people who are like ourselves, people we feel comfortable with… then we are reducing the possibilities (career and otherwise) that may be open to us in the future.

The second point comes from Weick (1996; Thomas & Inkson, 2007; in Gunz & Peiperl, 2007), and it has to do with context. Think of “context” as the circumstances you begin to explain when starting an answer with, “Well, it depends.” Weick describes strong and weak “situations,” rather than strong and weak “ties;” but there may be a caveat for us here. A “strong” situation is one that is highly constrained. The careerist doesn’t perceive a great deal of freedom to choose her actions. A “weak” situation has few constraints. The “actor” is free to move about at will. An example: You work for a rigidly bureaucratic organization in which it would likely be a career-ending move to bypass your supervisor and request an appointment with the company president to tell him about a great idea that you have for a new product. However, if both you and the president of the company get downsized, the constraints are off. You can approach her without fear of anything more than embarrassing yourself. This is a “weak” situation.

Thomas & Inkson interpret Weick as stating that “career outcomes can be powerfully enacted by their career holders in an environment relatively free of constraints…” but in strong situations, “perspectives encouraging individual enactment may be limited.”

So the lessons put forth for your consideration today are:
1) If you don’t have a network of weak ties, please get busy and start building one.
2) Before you start using those ties, pay attention to the degree of constraint in your environment – i.e. whether you are acting in a weak or strong situation.

And, I guess, if there’s a third piece of advice this week, it is this: Get under a doorway or a desk if there’s an earthquake.

Jan

Want to know more?

Primary ReferencesGunz, H, Peiperl, M. (2007). Handbook of Career Studies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Ibarra, H, Deshpande. (2007). Networks and identities. H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.) Handbook of Career Studies: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Mayrhofer, W, Meyer, M, Steyrer, J. (2007). Handbook of Career Studies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Secondary References
Boxman, E, De Graaf, P, & Flap, H. (1991) The impact of social and human capital on the income attainment of Dutch managers. Social Networks, 13: 51-73.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management. A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18 (1), 57-87.

U.S. Geological Survey. (Accessed April 20, 2008). The Richter Magnitude Scale. U.S. Government Printing Office. Abridged from The Severity of an Earthquake, a U.S. Geological Survey General Interest Publication.
The Richter Magnitude Scale

Weick, K. (1996). Enactment and the boundaryless career: Organizing as we work. In M.B. Arthur & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle of a new organizational era (pp. 40-77). New York: Oxford University P

Careers and Common Sense

Still in the interest of trying to get something going from those of you who may be viewing out there, let’s approach the topic of careers and common sense. More specifically, I’m talking to parents, students, school-leavers, high school guidance counselors, dissatisfied employees and others facing a difficult career decision. I would like to hear about your personal experience and how “common-sense” has guided your decisions. Hopefully, this will provide a bridge for introducing theory and illustrating its value. Really, theory is very cool. Stephanie, I would imagine that you are cringing at the term “common-sense,” but hold on. I’m going to address in a minute.

Common sense and careers: Questions to get us started:1) When you were a child, did you ever have a dream occupation that people discouraged you from because it wasn’t right for you — i.e. because of your gender, personality, etc? For example: “No you can’t be a doctor because you are a girl; everyone knows women can only be teachers or nurses.”
2) If you are a parent, are you absolutely convinced that your child is making a right or wrong career choice? Example: “Jimmy is a decent basketball player; but he has no hope of going pro, so he needs to finish college.”
3) If you are a prospective graduate or new hire, have you received career advice from someone who told you that you were absolutely making the wrong decision? Example: “You can’t hope to rise through the ranks of management if you are a woman and intend to start a family within the next few years.”
4) If you are already-careered, can you look back on your career decisions and see one or more “obvious” places where you were either wrong or right? Example: “I never should have majored in computer science because all of the jobs in my area are now being outsourced.”

The above statements in quotes may or may not seem like common sense, but it’s much more interesting and useful if we examine them with theory – so maybe someone out there will give us a personal example to work with for subsequent posts.

But now… to common sense:

If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, it would not be surprising to hear that, at some point, someone has told you, “That’s just common-sense.” And don’t we all feel a little stupid when we hear that – like it’s something that everyone else knows but we’re not smart enough to have been endowed with such a fundamental, creator-given basis of knowledge.

Really Now, What is Common Sense?
But what is common sense really? We can turn to the academic literature for some interesting takes on that question.

In an article examining common sense in relation to management, Albanese (1970) offers that people believe that common sense: 1) Implies that “no additional study is required,” 2) is “the intelligence expected of adult persons in practical affairs,” 2) is “obvious knowledge that everyone seems to possess as a result of being alive and having gone through some experiences.” Consistent with that description, Allyn & Bacon (2000) say it’s what people perceive as “It just makes sense.”

If Albanese and Allyn and Bacon are correct, this doesn’t cast a great deal of credibility on the term common sense – and doesn’t suggest much hope of acquiring it for those who don’t have it.

But let’s try to get closer to what it really is or isn’t – and that’s something we can actually look at. Liefooghe (2003) tells us that common sense is not an evidence-based approach. Allyn & Bacon (2000) say that it’s an alternative to research in learning about the social world.

Common Sense Unmasked
An interpretive study by Fearfull (2001) actually looked at clerical workers in an attempt to understand what managers and workers meant when they said some workers had common sense, but others didn’t. What she found is pretty interesting. Turns out that no one could actually define what he or she meant by “common-sense;” however, everyone seemed to be able to identify those who had it versus those who did not based on job competence.

After analyzing interviews with subjects, Fearfull discovered that what was being called common sense was actually knowledge distilled from hands-on experience. Older workers who seemed to perform instinctively had knowledge gained when certain clerical tasks requiring customer interaction were still performed manually. When these activities were transitioned to use of a computer system, the older workers didn’t miss a beat. They weathered the change flawlessly because they understood the reason behind the methods they were still using. However, the new-hires who had not had the benefit of doing things “the old way,” were basically dazed and confused – and they knew it. They lacked the underlying knowledge gained from the experience that seemed to be second-nature to their colleagues. So here, common sense turned out to be “a depth of understanding arrived at through experience.”

Albanese (1970) has a similar view. He says that common sense “comes from knowledge gained through experience and that developing it takes time.” (It’s worth noting here as a brief digression, that this appears to have some similarity to “thin-slicing” or “rapid cognition” described by popular writer Malcolm Gladwell in his best-selling but not peer-reviewed “Blink.” I add this here in case this connection should pop into the minds of “Blink” readers as it’s a popular book and a fun read. But, after taking an admittedly quick look through the academic literature, I couldn’t find any peer-reviewed writings that used the terms “thin-slicing” or “rapid cognition.”).

The Perils of Common Sense
Back to common sense: If the perils of it are not becoming clear by this time, then let’s look at them head on and ask, “What’s wrong with common sense?”

Well, here’s “what.”
● Although it may be useful in daily life, common sense can allow logical fallacies to slip into one’s thinking. Though it’s sometimes correct, “it can also contain errors, misinformation, contradiction and prejudice.” (Allyn & Bacon, 2000).

● Different parties may have different but equally valid and legitimate opinions of what constitutes common senses. Au (2006) pointed this out with regard to environment impact assessment policy in Hong Kong. So, this begs the question: “Whose common sense are we talking about: Yours or mine?”

● Finally, and I love this one, Albanese (1970) quotes Kant (1968) who says that common sense is “one of the subtlest inventions of modern times by which the emptiest talker may coolly confront the profoundest thinker and hold out against him.”

I hope that we have by now cast doubt on the validity of common sense (in the form of well-meaning advice) to tell you what you should do with your life – and that we can now move on to what science can do for you. On this, Liefooghe (2003) quotes the delightfully acerbic personality and trait theory researcher/writer Gordon Allport (1985) who says, “science has the aims of understanding, prediction and control above the levels achieved by unaided common sense.” Paraphrasing, science seeks to do better than common sense in helping us understand, predict and control our world. (Note: I’m attaching a list of readings by Gordon Allport because his writing is as clever and entertaining as his research is enlightening.)

Dear reader, if you have made it this far, then maybe you have an ill-advised common-sense-grounded career experience to share. If not, we’re running out of lead-ins, and I may have to start introducing theory by talking about my own career.

Anyone?
Jan

Want to know more?
Albanese, R. (1970). Management and common sense. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal. 35:77-81.

Allyn & Bacon. (2000). Science and Research. In W.L. Neuman (ed), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needham Heights, MA.

Au, E. (2006). ‘Common sense’ means different tings to different people. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 24: 14-15.

Fearfull, A. Using interpretive sociology to explore workplace skill and knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methocology. 8: 137-150.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink, The Power of Thinking without Thinking. Little, Brown & Company: New York, Boston.

Liefooghe, A. (2003). Organizational analysis subject guide. University of London Press: London.

Secondary References
Allport, G.W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House.

Kant, I. (1968). Philosophy of Common Sense. Encyclopedia Britannica. 6: 66-67.

Additional Readings by Gordon Allport
Allport, G. (1921). Personality and character. The Psychological Bulletin. 18: 441-455.

Allport, G. (1924.) The study of the undivided personality. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology. 19:132-141.

Allport, G. (1927). Concepts of trait and personality. Psychological Bulletin. 24: 284-293.

Allport, G. (1931). What is a trait of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 25: 368-372.

Allport, G. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist. 21:1-10.

Careers going Global

This week, we’re going global, anchored by concepts from a textbook chapter titled “Global Careers,” authored by Maury Peiperl and Karsten Jonsen (Sage, 2007).

Whether you’re pondering educational and career choice or career dilemma decisions, globalization presents implications. Peiperl and Jonsen point out that the term “globalization” is now “old hat” and almost “a buzzword” as a business term. However, they claim, the ways in which it is changing careers are only now starting to receive serious attention.

Stepping back (away from Peiperl and Jonsen), talking about globalization without associating it with downsizing is kind of like missing the elephant in the room; so at the most basic level, we can recognize that globalization has, indeed, changed the careers landscape such that job security can no longer be assumed. (Kets de Vries, 1997; De Meuse, Bergmann and Vanderheiden, 1997; Petzall, Parker and Stoeberl, 2000),

But what Peiperl and Jonsen do is address what it means to have a global career. The chapter includes much of interest, but I’d like to share just a few of the takeaways that seem particularly relevant.

Working Definition
Peiperl and Jonsen say that a global career is “one that takes place in more than one region of the world, either sequentially or concurrently.” There’s a lot of wriggle room there, so they further break that description down into four categories. Maybe you have experienced one or more of these personally — or know someone who has.

Four Types of Global Careerists
1) The “global traveler” — This is the person who travels frequently but lives and works within foreign-based enclaves and doesn’t have much interaction with local citizens.
2) The “virtual global citizen” — This employee resides and works physically in one country but interacts virtually with people from many other countries.
3) The ” ‘real’ global citizen” – The employee who crosses both physical and global borders. The “real or ‘truly’ global citizen” sees himself affiliated not with any one particular country but with the “world as a whole.”
4) “Local” or “potential global citizens” – This is the employee who stays in the same place and doesn’t travel or interact much outside her/his own country.

Do these classifications make sense to you?
Here are some examples that I’ve encountered. Some fit; others don’t. (Initials are pseudonyms).
1) The global traveler. A) LZH travels to China three to four times a year to assess production of his U.S. based company’s products. He stays for a month or so at a time and resides in hotels. As far as I know, there are no enclaves. His Chinese reports expose him to a fair amount of wining and dining, so he sees the culture but also receives assistance in navigating it. That is, he is not left on his own to fend for himself. He also travels to various cities throughout the country. I’m not too sure that LZH fits the “foreign enclave” part of this definition. B) FMD moved his family from the U.S. to China to oversee start-up of a manufacturing facility and become general manager of it. Remaining on assignment there for a few years, he did live in something of an enclave; but instead of traveling frequently, he remained mostly in that country. I don’t think I’ve met anyone who travels frequently and lives in enclaves while there.

2) The virtual global citizen. This is me — to a small extent… but it applies more to some of the people I work with. Though I work from an office in my home and rarely travel, I’ve participated in conference calls to Bangkok and Mexico City within the past month or so. E-mail communication with colleagues outside the U.S. is far more common than voice communication. Most of my work is local, but it’s not out of the ordinary to communicate with colleagues in Asia and Latin America — Europe, less frequently.

3) The “real global citizen” — This one describes the CEO of a multi-national company. He originates from a European country, heads a multi-national company that conducts business in four regions of the world, and he travels often to each. Though the company is headquartered in the U.S., it’s not a U.S.-centric company. This executive has lived and worked in six or seven countries throughout the world and always knew that he wanted a global career. It’s very difficult to think of him as being linked to any one country. He truly seems to be a citizen of the world.

4) The local or “potential global citizen” — This one is fairly easy to understand, but I wonder if it’s broad enough to capture the careerist who has no direct global involvement outside his/her own job but sees global commerce happening from the office next door. An example — the administrative assistant whose supervisor travels outside the country — but she doesn’t.

Perhaps the four classifications are open to broader interpretation. Nevertheless, they seems like a great start to describing what is meant by “global careers.”

Other ideas from the chapter:

Expatriates
Peiperl and Jonsen also discuss “expatriates,” a term that they acknowledge does not have a widely accepted definition. They use it to mean “skilled professionals who move across borders at the behest of their employers for a minimum of 1 year.” This would describe FMD above.

Flexpatriots
Another interesting term, “flexpatriates” typically have shorter-term assignments and could be employees or consultants (contingent workers). Interestingly, “flexpatriates” captures the trend of companies turning to contract or contingency employees as an alternative to increasing the headcount of their own human resources. For various reasons, there are people who find this type of assignment appealing and attractive – but that’s a different post, entirely.

Career Capital
Peiperl and Jonson say that “career capital” is “the term we apply to the set of assets accumulated over time as the global career unfolds.” They go on to address “global career capital,” saying that it encompasses “global knowledge, cultural breadth, language skills, interpersonal skills, cognitive complexity, cosmopolitanism, and system skills — as well as “a global network and global track records.”

The chapter addresses much more of interest than has been mentioned here and is well worth a read if you have access to the book. The intent in this post has not been to present a comprehensive look at the parameters of a global career – but, rather, to introduce issues that deserve consideration if you are thinking that some type of global career might be to your liking. The authors’ classifications give you a framework for considering what features of a global career might be appealing to you — to the degree that you have the opportunity to make choices.

But as we have discussed before, choice may be more of an illusion than we believe it to be. To those who have global careers not of their own choosing or satisfaction, Peiperl and Jonsen’s ideas may help you think about why, why not and what to do about it.

Jan

Want to know more?

De Meuse, K, Bergmann, T, Vanderheiden, P. (1997). Corporate downsizing. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 168-176.

Kets de Vries, M. (1997). The downside of downsizing. Human Relations, 50, 11-50.

Peiperl, M. & Jonsen, K. (2997). Global Careers. In Gunz, H. & Peiperl, M. (eds), Handbook of Career Studies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Petzall, B, Parker, G, Stoeberl, P. (2000). Another side to downsizing: survivors’ behavior and self-affirmation. Journal of Business & Psychology, 14, 593-603.