“…the nature of work always remains a matter of social choice. It is not a result of an algorithm; it is a collection of decisions by corporations and policymakers.’ Read More
There’s so much out there how do you know where to look, who to listen to and what to buy? I’ve been writing about leadership and women in business since the early 2000’s and know good advice when I see it.
I am totally sold on this authority’s career development methods and use them in my practice. Sign up at Lynda.com (affiliate of LinkedIn Learning) and get on board with this video tutorial series by “Dr. Chaz” Austin. He is not just a PhD and professor of career development for over a decade but tells it like it is in this ever complex world of work. The skills and tools offered here are worth a lot more than the subscription fee. Here’s the link to your future success! Dr Chaz Austin
In 101 WAYS TO FIND WORK, career-development specialist Charles Michael Austin offers a common sense, practical approach to succeeding in the twenty-first century work world. You’ll learn the strategies you need to define your career goals, find the work you want, and develop a game plan to keep finding work for the rest of your career.
In 2018, I became a Mentor at CCNY City College of New York’s City Tutors program, the tutoring arm of City College’s Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership. This experience has given me the chance to meet and work with students and young professionals from the finest learning institutions offering them the benefit of some valuable learning tools combined with my own experience.
Based on a systematic published Austin Method for achieving the maximum results in the shortest period of time, I am delighted to be able to offer these services to professional women in transition seeking guidance and support in actualizing their true potential.
Please contact me for more information and sign up for a 1/2 hour free consultation.
Lori Hil Contributor Forbes.com Feb 1, 2018, 09:00am 4,426 views
While a beautifully handwritten “P.S. I love you” from a mailed letter may represent a bygone era, the digital version is often underutilized real estate. Networking from your inbox? 132 billion. It is a big number to wrap your head around but that is how many business emails are sent each day according to a report from The Radicati Group Inc. But there is something important missing from so many of those emails, says Ivan Misner, Ph.D., a leading networking expert, founder of Business Network International and author of Networking Like A Pro. A hidden gem of potential.
What’s missing, Misner says, is your P.S. Yes, that postscript added after a letter is ended and signed. While a beautifully handwritten “P.S. I love you” from a mailed letter may represent a bygone era, the digital version is often underutilized real estate. Misner says, Adding a ‘P.S.’ to your signature line gives you an extra space to include an important message that will help you land more business. I’m shocked more people don’t do this.”
Misner gives an example of a friend who is a motivational speaker who utilizes this P.S. in every email, “P.S. If you know anyone who needs an event speaker in the areas of marketing, mindset and personal achievement, I’d appreciate it if you would mention my name. Thanks!” Simple and to the point. Does it work? Yes. A few big speaking gigs have come just from this simple email addition.
Why does a P.S. email line work? Misner lists multiple benefits to the approach: Adding a P.S. can help you display a message that wouldn’t come up naturally in your emails. You can add something funny or unique that will make you memorable. It can provide a call to action, especially if you include a link to your product or service that you’re selling. Lori Hil: What can senders do to make this approach even more effective? Ivan Misner: Now, if you really want to kick it up a notch, then consider changing your message every two or three months.
This can be especially useful for people who work in industries that are seasonal. In March, you’re asking for one type of referral, and then in June, you’re mentioning a different one. Furthermore, this helps keep your message fresh and gets people to pay attention to your email signature! Hil: In addition to utilizing the P.S., you talk about keeping up with connections and social capital. What is most important when it comes to contacts? Misner:
The key to improving your social capital isn’t the number of contacts you make. What’s important is making contacts that become lasting relationships. Imagine if you were putting together a marketing plan for the coming year and you called five close friends to ask them for help — in the form of either a referral or new business. Now, imagine cold-calling 10 people for the same reason. You’ll most likely have better luck with your close friends.
Hil: Relationships are important. How can you deepen your relationships with contacts and improve your social capital?
Misner: Give your clients a personal call. Find out how things went with the project you were involved in. Ask if there’s anything else you can do to help. Important: Do not ask for a referral at this point. Call all the people who have referred business to you. Ask them how things are going. Try to learn more about their current activities so you can refer business to them. List 50 people to stay in touch with. Include anyone who has given you business in the last 12 months (from steps 1 and 2) as well as any other prospects you’ve connected with recently. Send them cards on the next holiday. Follow up. Two weeks after you’ve sent cards to your contacts, call them and see what’s going on. If the contact is a former client or just someone you’ve talked to before, now might be the perfect time to ask for a referral. If it’s a prospect you’re calling, perhaps you can set up an appointment to have coffee and find out if their plans might include using your services. Social capital is the international currency of networking, especially business networking. After just a few weeks of putting these steps in motion you should have more than enough social capital to tap into the rest of the year.
You can visit Ivan Misner at Business Network International for more networking tips. Lori is a Business to Millennial writer at lorihil.com, digital nomad, and Chihuahua mom. Follow her on Forbes, Twitter, and LinkedIn for Business and Life Inspiration.
by Martha M. Lauzen, Ph.D. Reprinted from Women In Film WIF.org Copyright © 2013– All rights reserved.
For the last 16 years, this study has tracked women’s behind-the-scenes employment on prime-time television programs airing on the broadcast networks. Every few years, the study has also monitored the on-screen representation of female characters. This year the sample has been expanded to include original programming on basic cable channels (A&E, AMC, FX, History, TNT, USA), pay cable channels (HBO, Showtime), and Netflix programs.
The findings of the study are divided into two major sections. The first section reports the behind-the-scenes and on-screen findings for the broadcast networks, offering historical comparisons from 2012-13 with figures dating from 1997-98. The second section reports the behind-the-scenes and on-screen findings for the total sample of programs airing on the broadcast networks, cable, and Netflix.
The study examined one randomly selected episode of every series. Random selection is a frequently used and widely accepted method of sampling programs from the universe of television programming.
Findings for Broadcast Networks
•During 2012-13, women continued their slow but incremental growth in key behind-the-scenes roles. Women comprised 28% of all individuals working as creators, directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors, and directors of photography. This represents an increase of two percentage points from 2011-2012 and an increase of 7 percentage points since 1997-98 This is a recent historical high.
Overall, women fared best as producers (38%), followed by writers (34%), executive producers (27%), creators (24%), editors (16%), directors (12%),
and directors of photography (3%) (see Figure 2).
Women comprised 24% of creators. This represents a decrease of 2 percentage points from 2011-12 but an increase of 6 percentage points from 1997-98.
Women accounted for 27% of executive producers. This represents an increase of 2 percentage points from 2011-12 and an increase of 8 percentage points since 1997-98.
Women comprised 38% of producers. This is even with women’s representation as producers in 2011-12, and represents an increase of 9 percentage points since 1997-98.
Women accounted for 34% of writers. This represents an increase of 4 percentage points from 2011-12 and an increase of 14 percentage points since 1997-98.
Women comprised 12% of directors. This represents an increase of 1 percentage point from 2011-12, and 4 percentage points since 1997-98.
Women accounted for 16% of editors. This represents an increase of 3 percentage points from 2011-12, and an increase of 1 percentage point since 1997-98.
Women comprised 3% of directors of photography. This represents a decrease of 1 percentage point from 2011-12 and an increase of 3 percentage points since 1997-98. Boxed In • 2012-13 3
•43% of all speaking characters and 43% of major characters were female in 2012-13. This represents an increase of 2 percentage points from 2010-11, and is even with the historical high set in 2007-08 (see Figure 3).
•Programs airing on the CW featured the highest percentage of female characters (51%), followed by Fox and ABC (44%), NBC (41%), and CBS (39%). The CW was the only network featuring female characters in accurate numerical proportion to their representation in the U.S. population.
•Reality programs were more likely to feature female characters than programs in other genres. Females comprised 48% of characters on reality programs, 43% of characters on situation comedies, and 40% of characters on dramas.
•Female characters tended to be younger than their male counterparts. 30% of female characters but only 19% of male characters were in their 20s. 22% of male characters but only 14% of female characters were in their 40s.
•78% of female characters were white, 12% were African-American, 5% were Latina, 3% were Asian, and 2% were of some other race or ethnicity.
•Viewers were less likely to know the occupational status of female characters than male characters. 37% of female characters but only 30% of male characters had an unknown occupational status.
•Viewers were more likely to know the marital status of female characters than male characters. 47% of male characters but only 38% of female characters had an unknown marital status.
•When programs had no women writers, females accounted for 40% of all characters. When programs had at least one woman writer, females comprised 43% of all characters.
•When programs had no women creators, females accounted for 41% of all characters. When programs had at least one woman creator, females comprised 47% of all characters. Boxed In • 2012-13 4
Findings for Broadcast Networks, Cable & Neflix Programs
•Women comprised 26% of individuals in key behind-the-scenes roles on programs airing on the broadcast networks and cable channels, and available through Netflix in 2012-2013.
•Women fared best as producers (38%), followed by writers (30%), executive producers (24%), creators (23%), editors (16%), directors (11%), and directors of photography (2%) (see Figure 4).
•Female accounted for 42% of all speaking characters and 41% of major characters.
•Female characters were most likely to appear on reality programs. Females comprised 44% of all characters on reality programs, 42% on situation comedies, and 40% on dramas.
•79% of female characters were white, 12% were African American, 5% were Latina, 2% were Asian, and 2% were of some other race or ethnicity.
•The majority of female characters (62%) were in their 20s and 30s. The majority of male characters (58%) were in their 30s and 40s. The percentage of female characters dropped precipitously from their 30s to their 40s. 34% of female characters were in their 30s but only 16% of female characters were in their 40s.
•Male characters were much more likely than female characters to be seen at work. Of those characters seen at work, 39% were female and 61% were male.
•Male characters were much more likely than female characters to be seen working. Of those characters actually seen engaging in work, 37% were female and 63% were male.
Report compiled by Dr. Martha M. Lauzen, Executive Director, Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA (619) 594-6301