Lately I have been going through a few classes and discussions about
general life principles and how to get by our current world.  I
have learned some interesting things about job searching, career
tracks, and the futility in which we seem to get caught in around the
topic.

<soapbox rant>

Today, I ran into a blog post found here,
that completely misses the boat, and continues to steer unsuspecting
people to the broken system that has no interest in actually helping
the potential employee find the potential employer.  The system
has the employer’s interest solely in mind as they reduce the masses to
a short bullet list of past experiences, skill sets and, hopefully, a
good indication of what they can do for the employer.  The system
is broken, plain and simple.

How can you possibly reduce the sum
life experience, environment, moral values, attitudes, intentions and
priorities of one human being into a single or double page resume that
would indicate what type of contribution they would make to an
organization.  There is no way.  Even the interview process
is streamlined to fit a complex individual into a cookie cutter slot
that fulfills only the CURRENT and narrow view of
what an employer needs to do at that moment.  Truth be told,
nearly every job that I know of is a living, changing set of
requirements, responsibilities and opportunities for growth of the
individual and the organization.  Organizations that foster this
view tend to keep employees longer, spend less time finding quality
employees and perform better in the business world.  Note that
this is backed up solely by my personal experience and gut instinct,
which has proven an effective idicator for me in my short lifetime.

</soapbox rant>

Now
that that’s done with.  What most people don’t realize is that the
most effective method of job searching isn’t done via online job
postings, or salary surveys, or anything else like that.  The most
effective method is done purely via networking and excercising that
network.  Most people also don’t realize that networking is one of
the best ways to generate sales leads, hire people (the other end of
the situation at hand), collaborate with peers, and a host of other
topics as well.

So the reason that articles like this really get
me going is that everything I do for a company can be considered
networking if done appropriately.  Since networking is also the
way I search for jobs, the only way they can (and should) protect there
assets and investments in me as an employee is to treat me fairly and
provide room for growth that will dually benefit me as an individual
and the organization(s) that I work for or with.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I was pointed to an article on Stowe Boyd’s blog today regarding “Andrew Keen: The New Naysayers” regarding the naysayers of Web 2.0.  The articles (both Stowe’s and Andrew Keen’s)
and
the comments on them got me thinking, and I posted my thoughts on the
site.  The comments is still pending moderation at this time,
though I just posted it.  I have posted the comments here as well
because I feel that I might want to expand on them shortly as my mind
more fully digests the topic.

The complete contents of my comments regarding Andrew’s article: The Dark Side of the �Citizen Media� Revolution.  For the complete context, please read the article and the comments posted by others before me.
—

Amanda,

I fail to see how a blend of traditional media and the Web 2.0 media
system create a paradox as you claim.  Many people go to trusted
sources of information not because they are the only source, but
because they are a generally trusted source.  Their performance
has dictated in the past that they produce (or simply funnel) quality
information that a certain demographic is interested in
consuming.  I fail to see how introducing new potentially trusted
sources into the system inherently excludes a trusted source from
charging for, or otherwise benefiting from subscriptions to it’s
continuing feed of trusted information.  While it is true that the
distributed sources of information make it more likely that intelligent
people that otherwise don’t have access to the mainstream media system
can be heard, that doesn’t mean that mainstream media can’t also be a
source of intelligent information that people value and thus pay for.

Secondly, your arguments regarding open source vs. proprietary, flat
vs. hierarchy and copyright vs. free don’t make any sense because each
of these situations have nothing to do with either side “winning” or
“losing”.  We, as a society, are finding in most of those
arguments that the best balance each of those divides lies somewhere in
the middle.  In other words, the best solution in many cases is
EXACTLY a “blend” of either extreme.  One of the best books I have
started to read recently is named “Management of the Absurd” by Richard
Farson.  While it does seem to be fairly absurd, it almost
immediately raises the points that many seemingly paradoxical
situations are not really paradoxical, but complimentary in
nature.  For instance, when you scratch an itch, you are
simultaneously feeling both pleasure and pain, not just one or the
other.

The need for trusted sources of information will never go away, and
the willingness to subscribe to these sources of information will also
never go away.  The desire to be spoon-fed information without
question or source of information, however, is one of the many reasons
our society is not currently happy with the mainstream media is it
currently is.  That was what the “middle ages” was all about, only
it was decided by government instead of a few select organizations that
happened to be in control of the media stream.  Currently, it is
WAY too difficult to read what is really going on behind any given
story.  However, if, for example, a given article is opened up for
discussion and further research that is made easily accessible, people
are going to be much more willing to trust the source of the
information in the long term.  The current mainstream media system
does not do an adequate job of this simply because it does not have the
time or economic capacity to do so in the current ecosystem.

Also, please stop insinuating that because somebody wants to make
something better that they are suggesting that it is inherently poor to
begin with.  That is essentially saying that we as human beings
should stop learning and growing because we are good.  Or that we
should continue to learn and grown because we are currently bad. 
Society learns and grows because it wants to better itself.  It
wants to improve upon it’s past experience and make things better for
it’s future.

Andrew,

“I don�t want a �diverse media ecosystem�. It sounds painfully
democratic and democratically painful.”…  Wow… if having a
democratic system is painful, what would the alternative be?  The
answer is bleak in my opinion.  Free speech has been the best
thing to come around in a VERY long time.  The current reason for
the current Web 2.0 movement is because society as a whole feels that
many of their sources of information, those purportedly practicing free
speech, wield too much control in their use of that speech.

Regards,
Ben Madsen
—