9   
  • Consider relocation. Nurses are in demand in the U.S. and if you are a travel nurse, the opportunity to make more money is greater.

  • Things are not very easy everywhere my dear, i did bachellors degree in Nutrition and dietetics and worked for and NGO for sometime but due to fund... cut, have been home 3years, done interviews with varrious negative responses like am over qualified, or am asked to pay money to some one in the recruiting team and also did one where some one had already signed a contract a day before our interview and we where just formalising his recruitment process.
     more

PR Internship Playbook: Turn Your Internship Into a Job Offer


Most PR internships are not built to produce permanent hires. They are built to produce useful labor at below-market cost. The internship that converts to a job offer -- at a competitive agency or in-house team -- is the one where the intern understood the difference and operated accordingly from day one.

Ten weeks is enough time to build a genuine reputation inside a communications organization.... It is not enough time to recover from a poor first impression or a slow start. The interns who convert are the ones who treated day one as the start of a job interview they had already been given provisional approval for -- not as the beginning of an evaluation they would have time to ease into.

The First Two Weeks: The Reputation Window

The first two weeks of a PR internship establish the intern's reputation with almost everyone who will eventually make or influence the hiring decision. People form judgments quickly and revise them slowly. An intern who demonstrates in week one that they are reliable, curious, and producing quality work above expectation gets categorized as a serious candidate. An intern who is pleasant but average in week one gets categorized as an intern -- and that categorization rarely changes.

Show up knowing the agency's work. Before day one, read the last six months of the agency's published case studies, news coverage, and client announcements. Know which practices are growing, which clients are active, and which practitioners have public profiles. When a supervisor mentions a client or a campaign, recognize it. This takes two hours of research and signals a level of seriousness that most interns don't demonstrate.

Deliver faster and better than expected on the first three assignments. The first three substantive pieces of work an intern produces set the quality floor for everything that follows. If those three pieces are strong -- written cleanly, delivered ahead of deadline, with a note about what was considered and why specific choices were made -- the supervisor's default assumption about the intern's work quality upgrades permanently. If those pieces are mediocre, the supervisor will supervise more closely, give fewer opportunities, and be less likely to advocate for conversion.

Ask good questions, not many questions. The intern who asks seven questions before attempting a task signals low confidence and high maintenance. The intern who attempts the task, makes a specific decision about something uncertain, flags that decision in delivering the work, and asks for feedback on whether they made the right call signals good judgment and appropriate initiative. The difference is significant in how supervisors perceive manageability.

The Middle Weeks: Building Visibility

By week three or four, an intern who has performed well on initial assignments has earned some latitude. The middle weeks are the opportunity to build visibility beyond the immediate supervisor -- and visibility with multiple practitioners is what determines whether a conversion recommendation gets made and seconded.

Volunteer for visibility projects. Presentations, new business pitches, industry events, client meetings where interns are occasionally included -- these are the moments where senior practitioners beyond the immediate supervisor see an intern perform. An intern who asks to attend a new business pitch as an observer, or who volunteers to contribute to a section of a client presentation, is creating visibility opportunities that interns who wait to be asked never get.

Produce something the team didn't ask for. Sometime in the middle weeks, identify a genuine gap or opportunity and produce unsolicited work that addresses it. A competitive analysis of a client's Citation Share that no one requested. A roundup of relevant industry news formatted as a briefing document the account team can use. A one-page summary of a research study that's relevant to a current client challenge. Unsolicited useful work is the clearest possible signal of initiative -- and it is remembered disproportionately relative to the time it takes to produce.

Build a genuine relationship with one senior practitioner. By the end of the internship, the decision about whether to extend a job offer typically involves at least one senior practitioner who has a strong opinion about the intern. Interns who have had substantive conversations -- about their career direction, about the industry, about the firm's strategy -- with at least one SVP or VP have a champion in the room when the decision is made. Interns who were pleasant but not memorable do not.

The Final Weeks: The Close

The final two weeks of an internship are when most conversion decisions are effectively made, even if they are not officially communicated until later. This is the time to be explicit.

Express specific interest directly. By week eight or nine, tell your supervisor directly that you want to be considered for a permanent role and why -- specifically, not generally. "I want to stay" is not as effective as "I've learned more about media strategy in the last eight weeks than in my prior experience combined, and I'd like to build a career in this kind of work -- specifically in the technology practice. I wanted to tell you directly that I'm interested in staying if there's a fit." Direct, specific, professional. The supervisors who make conversion recommendations need something concrete to advocate for.

Tie up every loose end before the last day. An intern who leaves work unfinished, hands off projects without documentation, or disappears without briefing continuity is remembered for the disruption they caused. An intern who wraps every project cleanly, leaves detailed notes for whoever picks up each thread, and asks if there is anything else they can complete before their last day is remembered for the professionalism they demonstrated at the end.

Maintain the relationship regardless of outcome. Not every internship converts to a job -- budgets change, headcount freezes happen, timing doesn't align. The intern who maintains genuine contact with two or three practitioners from the internship -- not monthly check-ins asking about openings, but occasional notes when relevant news breaks or relevant work gets published -- has a warm network that produces referrals, references, and eventually roles on timelines that weren't predictable during the internship itself.

What Converts and What Doesn't

The interns who convert are reliably, not occasionally, high quality. They are explicitly interested in specific work at the specific firm. They are visible to multiple practitioners, not just their direct supervisor. And they have done something during the internship that people remember -- a piece of work, an insight, a moment of initiative that created a specific positive memory.

The interns who don't convert are often perfectly competent, pleasant, and professionally appropriate. They are not memorable. They did the work they were asked to do, did it adequately, and left no particular impression on anyone who wasn't their immediate supervisor. In a conversion decision, adequate and unmemorable does not generate advocacy.
 
more
3   
  • The situation is all over. Just adjust to the environment and ignore the ignorable and work

  • Don’t let their emotions and foolishness impact your paper. If you are feeling harassed, that’s why HR is there. I always try to give courtesy before... going to HR and address it directly with documentation and follow up. Most of the time if it’s rumors I couldn’t care less. Keep it moving.  more

    3

A Framework for Evaluating Arizona's Attorney General Candidates - Joe Hoft


A Framework for Evaluating Arizona's Attorney General Candidates

Arizona's 2026 Attorney General race has drawn significant attention, much of it focused on legal pedigrees, courtroom records, and years in practice. But before voters can fairly evaluate the candidates, there's a more fundamental question worth asking: what does the Attorney General actually do -- and which background genuinely... prepares someone to do it?

Part 1 - What is the Role of the Attorney General?

Every election cycle, voters hear candidates compare résumés, courtroom victories, military service, endorsements, and years of experience.

But what if we are asking the wrong question?

Instead of asking:

"Who is the better lawyer?"

Perhaps we should ask:

"What does the Attorney General actually do?"

Arizona law assigns the Attorney General broad responsibilities including representing state agencies, providing legal opinions, directing litigation involving the state, enforcing specific laws, and serving as Arizona's chief legal officer. (See A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 1, Article 5.)

Arizona law provides the answer.

And Arizona law RULES!

Most voters assume the Attorney General spends his or her days personally trying cases in courtrooms across Arizona. While courtroom experience can certainly be valuable, that is only a small part of the job.

The Attorney General is not simply Arizona's highest-ranking attorney.

The office is responsible for directing one of the largest public law organizations in the state. Hundreds of attorneys, investigators, support personnel, and divisions operate under the authority of the Attorney General.

Success in that role requires more than legal knowledge. It requires executive leadership.

An Attorney General must establish priorities, manage budgets, supervise personnel, coordinate litigation strategies, work with elected officials, communicate with the public, and make decisions that affect every Arizona taxpayer.

For that reason, voters should ask a different question:

Which experiences best prepares a candidate to lead a large governmental legal organization?

Is it the experience of managing complex public institutions, building consensus, overseeing budgets, leading committees, negotiating legislation, and directing statewide policy?

Or is it primarily the experience of practicing law within a more limited organizational structure?

The answer may determine whether voters are evaluating candidates based upon legal credentials alone or upon the broader leadership skills the office actually demands.

Part 2 - Which Experience Best Matches the Job?

Once voters understand the role of the Attorney General, a second question naturally follows:

What type of experience best prepares someone to perform that role effectively?

The answer may not be as obvious as many campaign advertisements suggest.

Attorney General is certainly expected to possess legal knowledge and sound judgment. However, the office requires much more than the ability to argue individual cases in court.

The Attorney General serves as the chief legal executive for the State of Arizona. The position requires the management of large organizations, supervision of personnel, oversight of budgets, coordination of complex legal strategies, and leadership across multiple divisions with differing responsibilities.

In practical terms, the Attorney General must make decisions affecting hundreds of attorneys, investigators, and professional staff while representing the interests of millions of Arizona residents.

That raises an important distinction.

There is a difference between practicing law and leading a large legal organization.

Both require valuable skills.

But they are not the same skills.

A successful trial attorney may excel at presenting a case before a judge or jury. A successful executive leader must be able to establish priorities, allocate resources, manage personnel, coordinate multiple operations simultaneously, and ensure accountability throughout an entire organization.

The Attorney General's office demands both legal understanding and executive leadership.

Therefore, voters should consider not only whether a candidate possesses legal experience, but whether that experience closely resembles the responsibilities of the office itself.

The question is not simply:

"Who has practiced law the longest?"

The more important question is:

"Whose experience best prepares them to lead Arizona's largest public law office?"

That is the standard voters should use when evaluating every candidate seeking the office of Attorney General.

Part 3 -- Experience Matters, But the Right Experience Matters

The debate over qualifications has largely focused on legal experience.

That is understandable. After all, the Attorney General is Arizona's chief legal officer.

But legal knowledge alone is not enough to perform the job effectively.

The Attorney General does not personally handle every case. Nor does the Attorney General spend every day standing in a courtroom arguing motions before a judge.

The office oversees hundreds of attorneys, investigators, and support personnel. It manages budgets, establishes legal priorities, coordinates litigation strategies, represents state agencies, and makes decisions that affect millions of Arizona residents.

In that sense, the Attorney General functions as both an attorney and a chief executive officer.

That distinction matters.

Leadership at scale is fundamentally different from practicing law within a smaller organizational structure.

Managing a large statewide operation requires experience in administration, personnel management, budgeting, policy development, strategic planning, and public accountability.

For voters, the question is not whether legal experience matters.

It does.

The more important question is whether a candidate's experience closely resembles the responsibilities of the office they seek.

Experience matters...

But the right experience matters more.

For voters, the question is not whether legal experience matters.

It does.

The more important question is whether a candidate's experience closely resembles the responsibilities of the office they seek.

Not all experience prepares a person equally for every position.

A skilled trial attorney may possess talents that differ significantly from those required to manage a large statewide legal organization. Likewise, an individual with executive leadership experience may bring strengths that extend far beyond the courtroom.

The challenge for voters is to determine which experiences most closely align with the actual responsibilities of the Attorney General's office.

Experience matters...But the right experience matters more!

Part 4 - Applying the Standard: Evaluating the Candidates

Having established the responsibilities of the office and the experience required to perform those responsibilities, voters can now evaluate how the candidates' backgrounds compare to those requirements.

In every election, candidates bring different strengths, experiences, and perspectives to the table. The question is not whether one form of experience has value and another does not. Rather, the question is which experiences most closely align with the duties of the office being sought.

In Arizona's Attorney General race, much of the public discussion has centered on courtroom experience, years of legal practice, and the number of cases handled during a candidate's career.

Those considerations are certainly relevant.

However, as discussed earlier, the Attorney General's responsibilities extend far beyond the courtroom.

The office requires leadership, organizational management, strategic decision-making, budget oversight, personnel supervision, public accountability, and the ability to direct one of the largest legal organizations in the State of Arizona.

Viewed through that lens, voters may wish to examine not only a candidate's legal credentials, but also whether that candidate has demonstrated the executive leadership skills necessary to manage a complex statewide operation.

For example, serving in legislative leadership positions often requires managing large organizations, overseeing budgets, directing staff, building consensus among competing interests, negotiating policy, coordinating legal strategy, and making decisions with statewide consequences.

These responsibilities involve many of the same leadership and management skills required of a chief executive.

Likewise, legal experience obtained through private practice, military service, public service, or prosecutorial work can provide valuable insight into the operation of the justice system and the application of the law.

The challenge for voters is not determining whether one type of experience has value.

The challenge is determining which combination of experience most closely resembles the actual responsibilities of the Attorney General.

That is the standard by which every candidate should be measured.

Leadership at Scale ...

One of the most overlooked aspects of the Attorney General's office is the sheer size and complexity of the organization itself.

The Attorney General does not operate as a solo practitioner. Nor does the office function like a small private law firm where a handful of attorneys handle a limited number of cases.

The Attorney General oversees one of Arizona's largest legal organizations, consisting of hundreds of attorneys, investigators, professional staff, and specialized divisions responsible for matters ranging from consumer protection and criminal appeals to civil litigation and agency representation.

That reality introduces a concept rarely discussed during political campaigns:

Leadership at Scale

Leadership at scale requires a unique combination of skills. It demands the ability to manage large organizations, establish priorities, oversee budgets, direct personnel, coordinate strategy, build consensus among competing interests, and make decisions whose consequences extend far beyond a single case or client.

The skills required to lead a statewide legal organization are not necessarily the same skills required to successfully litigate an individual case.

Both are important.

But they are different.

The question for voters is whether a candidate has previously exercised responsibilities that resemble those of a chief executive managing a large and complex public organization.

In evaluating candidates for Attorney General, voters may wish to examine not only legal credentials but also experience in leadership, administration, policy development, budget oversight, personnel management, and strategic decision-making.

Those responsibilities are at the heart of what the Attorney General does every day.

Warren Petersen's Executive Leadership Experience

Having established the responsibilities of the Attorney General's office and the importance of leadership at scale, voters can now evaluate how Warren Petersen's experience aligns with those requirements.

Petersen's supporters often point to his legal background, legislative service, and courtroom experience. Those qualifications are certainly relevant. However, what may be most significant in evaluating his candidacy is the breadth of executive leadership responsibilities he has assumed throughout his public service career.

As President of the Arizona Senate, Petersen serves in one of the highest leadership positions in state government. The role extends far beyond voting on legislation. It requires managing a large legislative organization, overseeing staff and operations, coordinating committee activity, guiding policy priorities, building consensus among members, negotiating with executive branch officials, and helping shape the direction of state government.

Prior to serving as Senate President, Petersen held several other leadership positions, including House Majority Leader, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, and Chairman of the House Commerce Committee.

Each of these positions required leadership, management, strategic planning, personnel oversight, policy development, and decision-making affecting millions of Arizona residents.

In addition to his legislative leadership roles, Petersen has frequently been involved in legal actions affecting Arizona law and public policy. Those efforts have required coordinating with attorneys, developing legal strategy, evaluating litigation risks, and participating in matters with statewide implications.

Whether one agrees with every position he has taken is ultimately a matter for voters to decide.

The more relevant question for purposes of this analysis is whether the skills required to serve successfully in these leadership positions resemble the skills required to lead:

Arizona's largest public law office.

Many voters may conclude that they do.

The Attorney General must manage people, establish priorities, oversee budgets, coordinate legal strategy, communicate with stakeholders, and provide executive leadership across a complex statewide organization.

Those are responsibilities that closely mirror many of the duties Petersen has performed throughout his legislative leadership career.

Rodney Glassman's Professional Experience

Rodney Glassman brings a different background and set of experiences to the Attorney General's race.

His supporters point to his legal career, military service, and years of professional experience as evidence of his qualifications for the office.

Military service, particularly in positions involving legal and leadership responsibilities, can provide valuable experience in discipline, decision-making, organizational structure, and public service. Likewise, legal practice can provide important insight into the application of the law, courtroom procedures, client representation, and case management.

These experiences should not be discounted.

However, the standard established throughout this analysis is not simply whether a candidate possesses legal experience. The question is whether that experience closely resembles the responsibilities of Arizona's Attorney General.

As discussed previously, the Attorney General serves as the chief executive of one of Arizona's largest legal organizations. The position requires managing hundreds of attorneys, investigators, and professional staff while directing legal strategy, overseeing budgets, coordinating statewide operations, and establishing organizational priorities.

Voters must therefore determine which experiences best prepare a candidate for those executive responsibilities.

Glassman's supporters may argue that his legal and military background provides leadership experience and valuable management skills. Others may conclude that the responsibilities of the Attorney General more closely resemble positions involving large-scale governmental leadership, organizational management, policy oversight, and executive decision-making.

Reasonable voters may differ in their conclusions.

The purpose of this analysis is not to diminish any candidate's accomplishments or public service. Rather, it is to encourage voters to evaluate candidates based upon the actual duties of the office being sought.

Ultimately, every voter must decide which candidate's experience most closely aligns with the responsibilities of Arizona's Attorney General and which candidate is best prepared to lead the office on Day One.

Conclusion

As voters evaluate candidates for Arizona Attorney General, they will undoubtedly hear discussions about years of experience, courtroom victories, legal résumés, endorsements, and campaign rhetoric.

Those discussions are important.

But they may not be the most important questions.

Throughout this analysis, a different question has emerged:

What does the Attorney General actually do?

Arizona law provides the framework. The office serves as the state's chief legal authority while overseeing one of the largest legal organizations in Arizona government. The responsibilities extend far beyond individual courtroom appearances and require executive leadership, organizational management, strategic decision-making, personnel oversight, and public accountability.

Once voters understand the role, the evaluation becomes clearer.

The question is no longer simply who has practiced law the longest, handled the most cases, or accumulated the most years of professional experience.

The question becomes:

Which candidate's experience most closely resembles the responsibilities of the office itself?

That is a different standard.

And perhaps it is the standard voters should have been using all along.

Arizona voters will ultimately make that decision for themselves.

Experience matters. But the right experience matters more.
 
more

You're Not Getting Rejected Because You're Unqualified. You're Getting Rejected by a Robot.


You're Not Getting Rejected Because You're Unqualified. You're Getting Rejected by a Robot.

The painful truth about why your resume never reaches a hiring manager.

You spend an hour customizing your resume for a job you're genuinely qualified for.

You match the requirements.

You have the experience.

You even write a thoughtful cover letter.

You click Apply.

Then NOTHING.

Days pass.

Weeks... pass.

Silence.

The harshest part isn't that a hiring manager rejected you.

It's that a hiring manager may never have seen your resume at all.

Most job seekers think the hiring process starts when a recruiter opens their application.

It doesn't.

For many companies, the first person reviewing your resume isn't a person.

It's software.

And if you don't understand how that software works, months of job searching can start feeling personal when it actually isn't.

What Actually Happens After You Click "Apply"

Most people imagine their resume landing directly in a recruiter's inbox.

That's not what happens.

Your application usually enters something called an Applicant Tracking System, or ATS.

Think of it as a giant sorting machine.

Companies receive hundreds or sometimes thousands of applications for a single role.

Nobody has time to manually read every resume.

So the software does the first round of filtering.

Not because companies hate applicants.

Because they physically can't process that volume any other way.

The system scans your resume.

Looks for specific information.

Compares it against the job description.

Then decides whether your application deserves more attention.

That decision often happens in seconds.

Which means your biggest obstacle may not be competition.

It may be visibility.

The Mistake Most Qualified People Never Realize They're Making

Here's the weird part.

You can be qualified and still get filtered out.

Imagine a company is hiring a Project Manager.

The job description repeatedly mentions:

"Agile"

"Scrum"

"Stakeholder management"

Now imagine your resume says:

"Managed cross-functional teams and coordinated project delivery."

That sounds impressive.

A human recruiter would probably understand exactly what you mean.

But software isn't trying to understand.

It's trying to match.

If the ATS is looking for "Agile" and "Scrum" and your resume never mentions those terms, you may score lower than someone less experienced who simply used the expected language.

That's the part nobody tells you.

Many applications aren't being rejected because they're bad.

They're being filtered because they aren't speaking the system's language.

Why This Feels So Personal

This is where job searching becomes dangerous.

Not financially.

Psychologically.

After 50 applications with no response, most people start questioning themselves.

Maybe I'm not experienced enough.

Maybe my career is stuck.

Maybe everyone else knows something I don't.

I understand why people think that.

The process gives almost no feedback.

You don't know whether you lost to a stronger candidate.

You don't know whether a recruiter reviewed your resume.

You don't even know whether your application made it past the first filter.

You're trying to improve without seeing the scoreboard.

That's frustrating.

And honestly, a little unfair.

The Resume Advice Industry Makes This Worse

The internet loves turning resume writing into rocket science.

Use this font.

Use that format.

Add this section.

Remove that section.

Most of it misses the real problem.

Your resume doesn't need to impress the ATS.

It needs to survive the ATS.

Those are completely different goals.

The software isn't evaluating your personality.

It isn't judging your leadership style.

It isn't asking whether you're ambitious.

It's looking for signals.

Relevant skills.

Relevant experience.

Relevant terminology.

That's it.

How To Adapt Without Becoming a Resume Expert

You don't need to spend 40 hours studying recruiting systems.

You just need to understand the game you're playing.

Before submitting an application, do three things:

- Read the job description carefully.

- Identify the exact skills and terminology repeated throughout the posting.

- Reflect those same concepts truthfully in your resume when they genuinely match your experience.

Notice I said truthfully.

This isn't about keyword stuffing.

It's about translation.

If you've managed customer relationships, and the role mentions client success management, make that connection visible.

If you've worked with data analysis, don't hide it under vague descriptions.

Help the system understand what you've already done.

Because software can't infer.

Humans can.

Software can't.

The Most Important Thing To Remember

The job market is hard right now.

There's no point pretending otherwise.

But a lot of qualified people are carrying the wrong story in their heads.

They're interpreting silence as proof they aren't good enough.

Sometimes that's true.

A lot of times it isn't.

Sometimes the resume wasn't optimized.

Sometimes the ATS couldn't properly read the formatting.

Sometimes the application never reached a recruiter.

Sometimes the competition was simply overwhelming.

The point is this:

Silence is not evidence of incompetence.

And that's an important distinction.

Because one leads to improvement.

The other leads to self-doubt.

If you've been applying for months and hearing nothing back, don't immediately assume you're failing.

Take a closer look at the system sitting between you and the hiring manager.

You might discover you've been playing a game without knowing the rules.

And once you understand the rules, the results start making a lot more sense.
 
more

David Sovka: Why quiet quitting is better than starting a new career


Starting a new career requires you to pretend you have a lot more enthusiasm than aspirin and scotch provides, and also to lie theatrically on a newly made-up résumé.

Midlife disappointment with your career is pretty common, especially when your career has been more verb than noun, as is my case.

One day you wake up and realize you are not the CEO of a big company like your mum expected. Or... maybe you are the CEO, but you are not god king of a pan-galactic empire like your mum expected, are you?

If you are currently taking a long, hard look in the mirror before work, maybe downing a glass of scotch and a handful of aspirin while screaming into a balled-up towel so nobody will hear you, then you are not alone. And yet, you are alone, so very, very alone.

Internet-based psychologists say the existential work dread you feel every morning is due to two common midlife changes:

1. We begin to feel our mortality. Everything starts to hurt and crap out. Say hello to poor sleep and surprise piles and not remembering where you put the car keys. This takes the shine off filling out time sheets correctly, or whatever they make you do without realizing how close you are to explosively featuring on the six o'clock news.

2. We know more about what is possible and not possible. This is a nice way of saying you just don't have the runway to reach corporate success due to your age, inflexibility, bitter demeanour and excessive ear hair. Professional sports are also probably out of reach.

However, good news: According to those psychologists, a career change IS possible at any age, as long as you account for the time it takes. So if you're 50 now, what with re-education and training and putting in the years gaining experience... OK IT'S NOT GOOD NEWS.

Instead, take an inventory of what you like about your current job, such as the office supply closet with all the Bic pens and staplers you can eat, and also what you dislike, such as your boss, co-workers and everything they want you to do. This will help you identify career opportunities that suit your strengths and interests.

For example, given what I like and dislike about my current job writing speeches for the provincial government, it is clear to me that my strengths and interests are better suited to retirement.

Unfortunately, this did not occur to me earlier, say 10 years ago, before I took an official oath to never talk about how soul-crushing it is to work in government communications.

The point is, take a good look at your values, interests, personality and skills, assuming you still have any of these things left after years working on things you don't actually care about.

Human-resources professionals refer to these as "VIPS," largely because they did not try hard enough in high school to get into a good university program like engineering or accounting, and now they have to pretend to care about career-related acronyms and mandatory workplace team-building exercises.

The public service is loaded with these helpful people, who prefer to be called -- I swear I am not making this up -- "strategic human resource professionals," so as to better put high school behind them.

They seem nice to me, and plenty busy planning lunchtime seminars nobody wants to attend. I mean, obviously, except for people young and/or dumb enough to believe attending workplace seminars on neurodiversity and moose and whatnot is the way to get ahead in your career.

They desperately send emojis of clapping hands and hearts during the seminars, and make sure to be seen texting "Thanks!" a lot. I also do this, but I do it about four hours after the seminar ends and everybody has gone home.

Today, strategic human resource professionals have to be on the lookout for employees who engage in a relatively new workplace trend called "quiet quitting."

This is when employees only do the minimum requirements of their jobs, without working unpaid overtime or going above and beyond like we all did in the 1990s. Remember the 1990s, when AI was just a made-up threat in science-fiction movies, not a real threat to people's jobs and the economy? I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.

Practitioners of quiet quitting say they are setting boundaries to prevent burnout and combat "hustle culture," which is the belief that relentless work, long hours and prioritizing professional achievement is worth it, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Sometimes it's described as "acting your wage," and sometimes as "acting like dirty commies," depending on your perspective.

I would like to recommend quiet quitting over starting a new career, which requires you to pretend you have a lot more enthusiasm than aspirin and scotch provides, and also to lie theatrically on a newly made-up résumé.

I have been quiet quitting for years. This comes out in various ways, such as giggling when my manager says: "I want you to own your projects," and never walking all the way to the staff washroom when Colin's office plant is right there, looking thirsty.

When writing speeches, I always refer to the minister as "Doug," regardless of his/her real name and cabinet position. I also refuse to spellcheck anyth47g I writed.

Quiet quitting is more common than you might think if you were raised by baby boomer parents. A 2023 Gallup report found that 59% of the global workforce could be considered quiet quitters.

You're not alone after all.
 
more

Recruiter Reveals Biggest Interview Mistakes Candidates Still Make


A recruiter's viral Reddit post has sparked widespread discussion online after revealing how candidates often damage their chances in job interviews by being "too honest" instead of giving polished, strategic answers.

The post, titled "Things recruiters know you're lying about in interviews (and honestly we expect it)," was shared on the popular subreddit r/recruitinghell. In the lengthy... explanation, the recruiter argued that interviews function more like sales conversations rather than completely transparent discussions, meaning candidates are expected to carefully present themselves instead of sharing every blunt opinion.

One of the biggest mistakes, according to the recruiter, involves speaking negatively about former employers. Candidates who openly criticised toxic managers, poor office culture, or workplace conflicts often unintentionally created doubts in the minds of recruiters. Even when the complaints were genuine, interviewers sometimes viewed such responses as warning signs about how the person might behave in future workplaces.

Instead, the recruiter advised candidates to frame their job changes around growth opportunities, professional learning, career progression, or the desire for greater responsibility.

The post also touched on salary negotiations. The recruiter claimed many companies ask about previous compensation levels to maintain lower salary offers, especially if candidates were underpaid in earlier jobs. Applicants were encouraged to focus discussions around current market value, experience, and skills instead of relying solely on past salary figures.

Another commonly discussed topic involved the famous "Where do you see yourself in five years?" question. According to the recruiter, employers are not necessarily expecting a perfect life plan. Rather, they look for signs of ambition, stability, and commitment to long-term professional growth.

The recruiter further argued that highly talented candidates often undersell themselves during interviews. Many describe their achievements as pure luck or only as team efforts, while less qualified applicants frequently present themselves with far greater confidence.

"A resume is marketing, not autobiography," the recruiter wrote, explaining that resumes are designed to secure interviews rather than document every single career detail.

The post quickly gained attention online, with users sharing personal interview stories. One user wrote that people often say "insane stuff" during interviews, recalling a customer support candidate who answered "I hate people" when asked about his biggest weakness.

Another user admitted struggling with self-confidence during interviews due to being taught from childhood that bragging was wrong. Several commenters agreed that many professionals unknowingly downplay their own accomplishments.

The discussion highlighted how modern hiring processes often reward candidates who know how to position themselves effectively rather than those who simply reveal every detail with complete honesty.
 
more
2   
  • Integrity is everything. Oversharing…. That’s a problem. Lying, unacceptable.

1   
  • That’s a liability. Have a conversation with him and see if his dad needs a job and wants to work. If he doesn’t then tell him don’t come back based... on company policy. more

  • May be you hired a baby. Just lay off the baby.

Chicago woman asked a hiring manager about diversity. Then the manager refused to answer and told her 'we'll get back to you in a couple days'


Job hunting is a struggle, and as Chicago resident Suz Ballout just shared on TikTok, the interview process can sometimes be the test that leads to burnout. After navigating a series of scheduling nightmares, she found herself in a bizarre, dismissive final interview that Ballout declaring, "I'm gonna just stop looking for a job." If the comments are anything to go by, her story resonates with... everyone tired of the repetitive, often soul-crushing nature of modern jobs.

Ballout described her first interview as amazing. They obviously agreed since she got an email 10 minutes later to schedule a follow-up. Meeting that district manager was easier said than done. It wasn't just about the 4 attempts to schedule the meeting; it was the three no-shows. In that third time, she got a call, after she left, to meet hours later, and when he finally showed, she said she "immediately [did] not like this guy's vibe."

Would you like to know what makes this process even more hilarious? She was interviewing for a role at a weed dispensary. He asked the standard questions and then asked for her concerns. Rightfully, she mentioned the communication. He straight-up ignored that and asked for her next question. She was a little taken aback and then, out of curiosity, asked, "What do you do for diversity for your company? What do you do for people of color?" Yeah, that didn't go down well.

The response was jarring to say the least. The manager told her "that's like not really a discussion that I wanna get into right now. Um, I would just be too long. Um, but anyone who comes in here with any background, uh, can get promoted."

After that response, as you would expect, the manager finished the interview by saying they had other candidates and would be in touch in a couple of days. Ballout of course, could read the writing on the wall, so she called the first manager to pull her name from consideration.

While Ballout's experience feels personal and frustrating, it touches on a much larger, systemic issue regarding how companies handle diversity, equity, and inclusion. A study from Stanford Graduate School of Business, highlights a major disconnect between corporate rhetoric and actual internal change. After analyzing 1,300 DEI-related controversies, they found that even when companies face public backlash, their efforts to improve diversity are often surface-level.

According to the report, most companies respond to controversies by modestly increasing hiring, but almost exclusively in lower-paid, junior, or non-core back-office roles. However, companies are not just failing to promote diverse talent. The study found that turnover increased among women and people of color.

The researchers called it "DEI washing." Companies ramp up their diversity-related language on social media and in corporate reports without making meaningful structural changes. As the lead researcher points out, firms often rely on slogans like "people are our greatest asset" but don't commit to it in practice. Then, they face similar controversies the next year. Unfortunately, it echoes Trump's push to cut DEI programs for being 'woke' or to deem them illegal.

TikTok agreed. Users shared their own horror stories, ranging from hiring managers hiding in the back room to avoid onboarding new hires to companies using AI to psychoanalyze candidates based on text-based interviews. For many, the process feels like a complete waste of time that leaves them feeling undervalued.

As one commenter, HRene, wrote, "I am so tired of applying and not hearing anything. It makes me feel worthless and sad. Like I am not good enough despite my years of experience."
 
more
6   
  • I can learn about diversity after I get the job. If I don’t feel like it’s a good fit I can leave or work from within to influence and help shift... culture.

    I am not minimizing its importance but if you do true OSINTing you can find out culture through research. This will help you avoid wasting time applying for a job based solely on description and salary. Being intentional is everything.
     more

  • Hiring managers need sensitization but also candidates should go to interviews with unbiased mind due to their skin colour.

How Your Outfit Affects First Impressions


First impressions are formed in just a few seconds, and your outfit plays a major role in shaping how others perceive you. Whether it's a job interview, a social event, or a casual meeting, what you wear often communicates before you even speak.

Clothing sends signals about your personality. A well-dressed appearance is often associated with confidence, discipline, and attention to detail. On the... other hand, unkempt or mismatched clothing can unintentionally create a negative impression, even if your skills or personality are strong.

Colors also influence perception. For example, darker shades like navy or black are often linked with authority and professionalism, while lighter colors can create a more approachable and friendly image. The right color choice can subtly shape how people respond to you.

Fit and grooming are equally important. Even expensive clothes may look unimpressive if they don't fit properly. Well-fitted outfits show effort and awareness, which can positively influence how others judge your overall presence.

Context matters a lot. Dressing appropriately for the situation -- whether formal, casual, or semi-formal -- shows social awareness. Wearing the right outfit for the right occasion helps build trust and credibility.

Cultural and social environments also play a role in fashion perception. What is considered stylish or appropriate can vary depending on location, industry, or group, so adapting your style is important for making a good impression.

Your outfit also impacts your own confidence. When you feel well-dressed, you naturally carry yourself better, speak more confidently, and engage more positively with others. This self-confidence further strengthens the impression you leave.

Ultimately, your outfit is not just about fashion -- it is a form of communication. Dressing thoughtfully helps you express your personality, build trust, and create a strong first impression in both personal and professional life.
 
more
  • Tech is challenging. I work at a university. If you don’t have AI under your belt I highly recommend you take the free classes by Anthropic. It will... get you started and you can leverage your book knowledge to create a solution. As an engineer, don’t think about working for anyone. You have the ability to solve problems. Start small business solutions, do some volunteer work to build your experience. Work on getting your first two to three clients and you will expand from there. more

    1
4   
  • I suggest Fivrrr or Upwork. It’s a tough market with so many AI tools doing large portions of the work. Look for opportunities in houses of worship... that stream or universities. more

  • It’s likely because of first your age, second your previous incarceration. If you can start your own thing or better off work as an online freelancer,... it’ll save you from all the stress. more

I designed cybersecurity content for a bank. I still almost got roped into two scams when job hunting.


* Graphic artist Julius von Brunk said he learned about job scams when he worked on a cybersecurity team at a bank.

* Desperate to find work, he said he encountered two scams while job-hunting and initially ignored red flags.

* The scams included someone impersonating a bank recruiter and a fake post on LinkedIn.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Julius von Brunk, a... 41-year-old graphic designer in New York City who encountered two recruitment scams during a recent job search. His identity and background have been verified. This story has been edited for length and clarity.

I've spent most of my career in graphic design, and from 2023 to 2025, I worked in the cybersecurity department of a large bank. My job was to design newsletters, presentations, and other content about cybersecurity.

Last summer, I began looking for a new job, and I encountered two scams along the way. The first happened early on. I had just left the bank and noticed that some former colleagues from my team had gotten jobs at another bank. I wanted to work there, too. I thought we could get the band back together. But I applied several times and got rejected, including for a position that sounded identical to the one I had previously held.

Out of desperation, I went on LinkedIn and searched for recruiters at the bank. I found somebody whose profile said they were a hiring manager there. The person's account was set to private, so I couldn't tell much about them, but their bio said that if you're looking for a job at the bank, email them at a Gmail address. I thought it was weird that they didn't list a company address.

I emailed this person, and I got a reply within minutes asking me to send over my résumé. I did that and included a brief spiel about who I am, where I'm from, and what I'm looking for. They ignored everything. They wrote back asking me where I'm from and what kind of job I'm looking for. That seemed fishy.

Their grammar was bad, too, which I also thought was weird. Why would an HR person type an email as if they're texting?

Eventually, the person got back to me and came across as angry. They said my résumé was unacceptable. I replied and asked what was wrong with it. They said that to get my résumé up to the bank's standards, I'd need to go to a certain website and pay around $100 for a professional review. I'd then be given a special referral link.

I sensed something was up, but I looked at the website anyway, and it was obviously a scam. I felt kind of embarrassed because I had been emailing with this person for about an hour.

I then dug deeper on LinkedIn and found the actual person that the scammer was trying to impersonate. I messaged her to let her know. I didn't hear back, but maybe 20 minutes later, the fake account disappeared.

The second scam

I discovered the second scam a few months ago, when I found a job listing on LinkedIn for a graphic-design position at Meta. It had the Meta logo, but it wasn't from Meta's LinkedIn page. It was from one called "MetaCareers," and it had zero followers. It was as if they put up the page that same day. It was also full of emojis and seemed to be AI-generated.

I clicked a link in the listing to apply, which took me away from LinkedIn to another site. I then checked a domain registry and found out the site had been purchased the day before from a company that wasn't Meta.

To confirm my suspicion that the job ad wasn't legit, I went back to the new site and followed the instructions to click another link to apply for the job. It took me to a phishing page to try to get my Facebook login. I immediately flagged the original LinkedIn listing to LinkedIn, and within minutes, it was shut down.

After that, I continued searching for graphic design jobs. I applied to hundreds. I would check LinkedIn like a hawk. I would just refresh it every 10 minutes or so and apply to every job within my pay rate.

A brutal job market

Eventually, I got a response from a financial-services firm, which led to a phone screening with a recruiter. The next day, the recruiter called back and asked me if I recognized a person's name, and I did. By sheer coincidence, that person was my former supervisor from a job I had earlier in my career, and she was the hiring manager for the position I was seeking.

I later found out that my former supervisor told the recruiter I was the right person for the role, in part because it required a creative thinker. She knew that I build Lego creations and paint portraits of pop-culture characters in my spare time.

I got the job in April and started earlier this month.

When you're desperate for work, it's easy not to notice these scams at first. You might blindly click on something because all you're doing is searching for jobs from the moment you wake up.

I wrote a lot about my job search on LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook, not to get sympathy, but because people may not understand how bad the job market is. There are a lot of scammers. I have 16 years of experience in graphic design, I've worked for big banks, and I couldn't get a job anywhere for months.

A spokesperson for LinkedIn told Business Insider via email:

Read the original article on Business Insider
 
more

A designer of cybersecurity content said he almost got roped into two scams when job hunting


This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Julius von Brunk, a 41-year-old graphic designer in New York City who encountered two recruitment scams during a recent job search. His identity and background have been verified. This story has been edited for length and clarity.

I've spent most of my career in graphic design, and from 2023 to 2025, I worked in the cybersecurity department of... a large bank. My job was to design newsletters, presentations, and other content about cybersecurity.

Last summer, I began looking for a new job, and I encountered two scams along the way. The first happened early on. I had just left the bank and noticed that some former colleagues from my team had gotten jobs at another bank. I wanted to work there, too. I thought we could get the band back together. But I applied several times and got rejected, including for a position that sounded identical to the one I had previously held.

Out of desperation, I went on LinkedIn and searched for recruiters at the bank. I found somebody whose profile said they were a hiring manager there. The person's account was set to private, so I couldn't tell much about them, but their bio said that if you're looking for a job at the bank, email them at a Gmail address. I thought it was weird that they didn't list a company address.

I emailed this person, and I got a reply within minutes asking me to send over my résumé. I did that and included a brief spiel about who I am, where I'm from, and what I'm looking for. They ignored everything. They wrote back asking me where I'm from and what kind of job I'm looking for. That seemed fishy.

Their grammar was bad, too, which I also thought was weird. Why would an HR person type an email as if they're texting?

Eventually, the person got back to me and came across as angry. They said my résumé was unacceptable. I replied and asked what was wrong with it. They said that to get my résumé up to the bank's standards, I'd need to go to a certain website and pay around $100 for a professional review. I'd then be given a special referral link.

I sensed something was up, but I looked at the website anyway, and it was obviously a scam. I felt kind of embarrassed because I had been emailing with this person for about an hour.

I then dug deeper on LinkedIn and found the actual person that the scammer was trying to impersonate. I messaged her to let her know. I didn't hear back, but maybe 20 minutes later, the fake account disappeared.

The second scam

I discovered the second scam a few months ago, when I found a job listing on LinkedIn for a graphic-design position at Meta. It had the Meta logo, but it wasn't from Meta's LinkedIn page. It was from one called "MetaCareers," and it had zero followers. It was as if they put up the page that same day. It was also full of emojis and seemed to be AI-generated.

I clicked a link in the listing to apply, which took me away from LinkedIn to another site. I then checked a domain registry and found out the site had been purchased the day before from a company that wasn't Meta.

To confirm my suspicion that the job ad wasn't legit, I went back to the new site and followed the instructions to click another link to apply for the job. It took me to a phishing page to try to get my Facebook login. I immediately flagged the original LinkedIn listing to LinkedIn, and within minutes, it was shut down.

After that, I continued searching for graphic design jobs. I applied to hundreds. I would check LinkedIn like a hawk. I would just refresh it every 10 minutes or so and apply to every job within my pay rate.

A brutal job market

Eventually, I got a response from a financial-services firm, which led to a phone screening with a recruiter. The next day, the recruiter called back and asked me if I recognized a person's name, and I did. By sheer coincidence, that person was my former supervisor from a job I had earlier in my career, and she was the hiring manager for the position I was seeking.

I later found out that my former supervisor told the recruiter I was the right person for the role, in part because it required a creative thinker. She knew that I build Lego creations and paint portraits of pop-culture characters in my spare time.

I got the job in April and started earlier this month.

When you're desperate for work, it's easy not to notice these scams at first. You might blindly click on something because all you're doing is searching for jobs from the moment you wake up.

I wrote a lot about my job search on LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook, not to get sympathy, but because people may not understand how bad the job market is. There are a lot of scammers. I have 16 years of experience in graphic design, I've worked for big banks, and I couldn't get a job anywhere for months.

A spokesperson for LinkedIn told Business Insider via email:
 
more
4   
  • Just helps filter off people who are more about the money than the role.

Life after a layoff: Finding ground when the ground shifts


Few things unsettle modern life as quickly as a job layoff. One moment life is filled with meetings, deadlines, and routine. Then, without warning, there is silence where structure used to be.

For many, the first shock comes not from losing the work itself, but from waking up the next morning with nowhere urgent to be.

Difficult as it is, a layoff is not the end of a professional story. It is an... interruption, often painful and unplanned, but not a final verdict on a person's value or future. What happens next depends less on the loss itself and more on how one responds in the days that follow.

Preparing before it happens

Most people avoid thinking about job loss when life feels stable. But preparation is not pessimism. It is simply practical.

A small emergency fund, built gradually, can soften financial shock. Keeping an updated résumé, saving records of accomplishments, and staying connected with trusted colleagues can also make transitions easier when circumstances suddenly change.

It also helps to ask: If my income paused for a month or two, what would I adjust first? That question alone often reveals practical priorities without unnecessary fear.

When the layoff happens

The first days after a layoff are not the time for major decisions. They are for regaining balance.

Rest. Eat something nourishing. Hydrate often. Speak with someone you trust. The mind naturally rushes toward the next opportunity, but the real task at the beginning is simply to steady yourself emotionally and mentally.

Practical steps matter too. Listing essential expenses such as food, medicine, utilities, and transportation can bring clarity. Reviewing separation benefits, pausing non-essential subscriptions, and avoiding emotional spending decisions may help preserve financial breathing room while emotions are still raw.

The emotional weight of losing work

A job is not only a source of income. It is often tied to identity, routine, purpose, and self-worth. Losing it can feel deeply personal, even when it is not.

This is why emotional care matters as much as financial planning.

Grief, anxiety, embarrassment, anger, and uncertainty are all normal responses to sudden change. Talking to a trusted friend, writing in a journal, taking walks, or rebuilding simple daily routines can gradually restore perspective.

Self-confidence often suffers the most. It helps to remember that a layoff is a business decision, not a measure of human worth. Skills remain. Experience remains. The story is still unfolding.

Rebuilding one step at a time

There is often pressure to recover quickly, but rebuilding rarely happens in a straight line. Some days will feel productive. Others may bring uncertainty and discouragement.

What matters is consistency, not speed. Updating one section of a résumé, reconnecting with a former colleague, improving an old skill, or applying thoughtfully to a few opportunities can slowly rebuild momentum. Steady progress usually lasts longer than panic-driven urgency.

Faith during uncertain seasons

In seasons like this, prayer often becomes less about immediate answers and more about trusting in divine timing and care.

There is comfort in remembering that one's worth is not defined by employment status. Even when security feels uncertain, doors can still open in unexpected ways. Our Lord continues to guide, provide, and gently lead us toward what we may not yet see.

Sometimes faith is not dramatic reassurance, but the quiet strength to continue without having every answer. A short prayer before sleep, a few moments of silence in the morning, or surrendering to God what cannot be controlled can bring unexpected peace.

Not as a replacement for action, but as a companion to it.

Moving forward

A layoff disrupts life, but it does not erase capability, dignity, or future opportunity. Many later discover that painful transitions eventually lead to somewhere more aligned, though few would willingly choose such a path.

In the meantime, the focus remains simple: care for yourself, manage what is necessary, and continue moving forward with patience and faith.

Because even in uncertainty, life does not stop. It reshapes itself -- and with God's grace, new doors will open.
 
more
2   

Navigating rejection after a job interview


The emotional rollercoaster of job hunting is a stressful one, from the first application all the way through to, hopefully, an interview and securing a role. I have written before about dealing with professional ghosting, being ignored after sending a job application or even after an initial conversation about a role. But what happens when you have got as far as an interview and then are told 'no... thank you'?

For many, the interview is the final hurdle and it can feel like the job is yours. But it often ends with a 'no', and sometimes even with no reply at all. I have heard many stories and experienced myself the silence that can come after a job interview. I think it's cruel and unprofessional of those recruiting to interview someone and then never follow up to let them know if they have secured a role or not. Dealing with the post-interview rejection, however it comes, is something you can navigate and move forward from.

When you apply for a job, you will begin to imagine life when you have that role. You might think about the salary and the take-home numbers. You might consider how it'll help you clear your overdraft or pay for that next holiday. I am sure, when you apply for a job, you also imagine the workplace and how it'll feel to work for that brand or company.

You might even go so far as to think about the ways in which the job will change your life long-term. Could this be the job you stay in until retirement, or a place where you imagine yourself growing, being promoted and really making an impact? When you are invited for an interview, those dreams get a virtual 'tick'. Someone is saying 'yes, you can dream those dreams because we think you are potentially worthy of this role'.

Following an interview (and perhaps even a second interview), the waiting game is a big emotional challenge. You will go over in your head all the things you said, wondering if you answered in the best way. You'll refresh your emails, and jump at every 'unknown number' that lights up your phone.

If it takes a while for them to come back to you, you will begin to feel a mixture of worry and excitement. Questions will go through your mind, ranging from whether you should contact them, to asking yourself if you should try to move on.

I have been that person refreshing my emails on the Friday of week two when I was told I'd hear within a fortnight - it can become all-consuming! You almost long for any answer, thinking: "It'd be better just to know if it's a no!" even though you are hoping and praying for a 'yes'.

Then, finally the email (it's usually an email) comes. And it's a no. Your stomach flips, your heart sinks. And you go from a 'maybe' and plans about your future career to a huge wallop of rejection. What next?

It's possible that you may cry when you get a job rejection. I have done, many times. There is a simultaneous shock of rejection and a slump in your belly, where it feels like all the emotions that have been battling within you all sink to the bottom like pebbles in a jar of water.

There might also be anger - the feeling that you have been rejected will be strong. Never mind that someone else was the 'slightly better candidate'! Right now, you are smarting. You thought you were in with a chance and that's now been denied.

Finally, there will be an element of shame and failure - especially if you had told other people about the interview. You'll be asked or have to tell them directly that you didn't get the job and go through the grief of knowing someone else will be announcing that they got the role.

All of the above feelings might come out really fast, or over a matter of hours or days.

There is one curveball feeling that you might also experience, and that's relief. If you feel relief not to have secured the role, it's time to think about the kinds of jobs you are going for and your job hunting dealbreakers.

Licking your wounds and regrouping after a job rejection is inevitable. You are allowed to feel sorry for yourself for a short while.

It's also very important not to knee-jerk into more job applications. It's acceptable to take some time, even if it's just a day, to accept the news and not to throw yourself immediately into job hunting again.

One of the biggest frustrations and a question that often goes unanswered after the 'no' following a job interview is 'why?!'. Of course we all want to know why we didn't get the job. We might have had a standard reply, that there was a 'stronger candidate' or that 'your skills didn't quite match what we were looking for'. But those don't truly help you in your job hunt moving forward.

They can feel like platitudes, and can smart and fuel the anger and rejection you feel.

Asking for feedback is something many people consider doing - for some, it is important for their pride, for others it is about knowing what they can do differently next time.

If you are lucky enough to be told 'why' in the rejection email or phone call, that is gold dust because it is something you can then work on and focus on. For example, if someone is told they didn't have a certain skill, or that it was felt you needed more experience in a certain area, you can then go ahead and look for training in that area or focus more on it in your current role.

Replying to a rejection and asking for feedback is very tempting, and it's a personal decision. I would advise against it if there isn't already information in the rejection email. This is because the no will still stand. For me it is a little bit like asking someone why they don't want a second date with you. If they said truly, why, would it make a difference?

Much better to focus your attention forwards than forcing information from someone who has said 'no thank you'.

Going through the job hunting process alone can be challenging and demotivating. A coach can help you focus on goals, as well as the roles that are right for you and the jobs that align with your values and the things you can't and won't compromise on.

I offer a bespoke package for job hunters, which includes CV and LinkedIn edits and support, worksheets on goal setting and job hunting dealbreakers and one on one coaching, with support between sessions on everything from a cover letter to interview questions.
 
more
2