5 books that will help advance your career

5 books that will help advance your career Time management is so 2010. The new game in town? Attention management. By Julie D. Andrews, LearnVest | May 22, 2014

Read your way to the top.
Read your way to the top. (Thinkstock)
No matter which rung you occupy on the corporate ladder, there’s always farther to climb — more skills to sharpen, bosses to impress, raises to earn.

In the never-ending quest for professional improvement, you may find accelerated success by enrolling in workshops, picking the brain of your favorite mentor — or simply devouring an insightful, strategy-packed career book.

But how do you know which tomes are truly helpful and worth your time?

Enter: LearnVest. We read five career page-turners for you, chatted with the authors, and mined the best tips you can apply to your own career strategy — starting today.

1. The book: The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success
By Megan McArdle

According to Bloomberg View columnist Megan McArdle, failure has significant power to lead us to success — if you know how to harness it. Citing business, economic, and psychological research, she argues that the professional skill we should all be cultivating is the art of bouncing back.

McArdle’s big tip: Relinquish your fear of failure.

What that means: When we expect that professional failures can — and will — occur, we give ourselves permission to take a leap or two. And if a soul-crushing failure strikes as a result, you can skip the shock-paralysis mode — because you were already expecting a few bumps in the road — and quickly change your course.

So diagnose and assess failures early, then accept them — and move on. “Realize you are not a failure — you are a person who has failed,” McArdle says. “Failure is how we learn and can set us up for the next achievement.”

Her advice in action: Even some of the most recognizable, successful people floundered before they ultimately got it right. And while you may not ever experience large-scale failure, the takeaway is the same. So next time you hit a professional snag — you miss a deadline, bomb the presentation, or are late to an important shareholder meeting — allow yourself to feel bad for just a minute … then spring into action: Take responsibility for your mistake, come up with a recovery plan — and then use the experience as fuel for your future successes.

2. The book: How to be a Productivity Ninja: Worry Less, Achieve More and Love What You Do
By Graham Allcott

Go-getters, listen up: Time management is so 2010. The new game in town? Attention management.

That’s according to Graham Allcott, founder of Think Productive, a training firm in the U.K. that has advised staffers at companies ranging from eBay and Heineken to GlaxoSmithKline on how to fine-tune productivity at every corporate level.

Here’s the gist: With so many trifling tasks grasping for our attention during the typical workday, it’s easy to lose sight of the macro view of your career. Allcott’s principles aim to help professionals refocus on the bigger picture in order to master key projects that’ll lead them to greater achievement.

Allcott’s big tip: Go off the grid.

What that means: One of his signature strategies outlined in the book is called “stealth and camouflage.” Basically, Allcott says, the best way to be more productive at work is to dip under the radar.

“Be willing to disconnect from phone, email, text, social media, even your office environment, when there’s a bigger goal in sight that you want to achieve,” Allcott says.

His advice in action: We know what you’re thinking: much easier said than done.

But Allcott isn’t suggesting you complete your important work projects in a remote cabin in the woods with no cell-phone service or access to Facebook. Instead, make a conscious effort to protect your attention span by actively fighting typical office distractions.

For example, send phone calls to voice mail when they’re likely to be less important than the task you’re working on, set strict boundaries for signing off email, social media, or instant messenger programs when you’re under the gun, and book time on your own calendar for creative thinking, forward planning, and review. (Allcott also suggests making your calendar settings private, as more persistent coworkers may try to schedule over meetings called “personal thinking time.”)

If you have a little flexibility, spend time working away from your desk when you can — at home, in cafés, in a meeting room, or outside. You’ll be less tempted to devote time to putting out little fires that occur throughout the day — and more productive on the projects most likely to get you noticed.

3. The book: Body of Work: Finding the Thread That Ties Your Story Together
By Pamela Slim

Veteran business coach Pamela Slim says there’s no such thing as a textbook career trajectory anymore. Increasingly, many of us are following more unconventional routes — an amalgam of corporate posts, start-up work, freelance projects, and even side gigs.

“Work is inherently unstable nowadays, and it’s not going back to the way it was,” Slim says. “We need a new way to think about careers.”

Slim’s solution? Craft a narrative that weaves together your diverse skill set and varied successes — an explanation of who you are and what you can do.

Slim’s big tip: Think back on your career accomplishments and identify what common threads tie them together.

What that means: This, Slim says, is your body of work — and your ability to craft a powerful one is what will ultimately determine your ongoing employability.

“[You’ll find work now] because you have clarity on where you’ve been and where you’re going. The story component is key. You need to drive the story, set context and constantly reposition yourself,” she says.

Her advice in action: Are you looking to take a career leap, but aren’t sure what next step complements your body of work? Slim says to start by “naming your ingredients” — and make sure they’re integrated into your work.

That’s exactly what David Batstone, a sustainable business professor, journalist, and business investor in San Francisco, did. After reading a news story where he learned the owner of his favorite Indian restaurant was involved in a human-trafficking ring, Batstone, a longtime human-rights activist, was inspired to combine his varied career paths into a single focal point.

Using his “ingredients” — his roles as a journalist, investor, professor, activist, father, and husband, plus his other related skills and values — Batstone co-founded Not for Sale, a nonprofit that fights human slavery.

“For Batstone, it was having multiple, disparate dots to bring together that allowed him to discover and clobber his next big project — the cumulative one that would make the most impactful, positive changes to date in his professional life,” Slim says.

4. The book: Springboard: Launching Your Personal Search for Success
By G. Richard Shell

G. Richard Shell, a Wharton professor and creator of the popular course, “The Literature of Success: Historical and Ethical Perspectives,” wants you to know one thing: The formula for success is not one-size-fits-all.

This may seem like an unlikely stance, considering he teaches at one of the most prestigious business schools in the country. But Shell argues that taking your time to define what success means to you, personally, will ultimately lead to more fulfillment, happiness, and, yes, success.

Shell’s big tip: Follow your capabilities, or the things you do “a bit better than others.”

What that means: Approach your career from the inside out — considering who you are, fundamentally, when making professional decisions.

Understanding what motivates you and what you like to do will help you better weed out corporate climates, cultures, and job descriptions that aren’t a fit — and won’t bring you happiness. Then you can focus on aligning your job prospects with the work and environments where you’ll contribute and achieve the most satisfaction.

After all, if you don’t do this for yourself, no one else will either.

“School teaches skills whether students are good at them or not,” Shell says, likening it to a one-size-fits-all culinary experience where little attention is given to what type of cuisine you should cook. “So you end up with many dissatisfied workers who think they made the wrong career choice.”

His advice in action: Not sure what’s in your basket of capabilities? Shell suggests tuning into what tasks and projects give you the greatest sense of gratification on completion — activities you gravitate toward because they’re interesting and enjoyable.

Julia Child, widely recognized as the first celebrity chef, summed it up perfectly when she said: “The more I cook, the more I like to cook.”

Consider what you like to do a little more each time you do it — and do it.

5. The book: Get a Job!: How I Found a Job When Jobs Are Hard to Find — and So Can You
By Dan Quillen

When Dan Quillen was laid off in 2011, he called on his H.R. background to help him land an interview for every four résumés he submitted — a response rate that was 19 percent higher than peers’ in his networking groups.

How’d he do it? Hint: Social-media savvy played a big role in getting his résumé more visibility. Among the lessons in his book, Quillen details why using social media is an organic, far-reaching, and imperative strategy to nabbing the job you want.

Quillen’s big tip: Social channels are a must for job searches (unless you have time to waste).

What that means: It can be embarrassing to admit you’re job hunting — especially if it’s the result of a layoff. But the sooner and faster you get the word out that your services are available for hire, the better.

Advice in action: Broadcast as widely as possible that you’re looking for a new position. Use LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter — any and all social networks that make sense for you — to cast your social-networking net wide, Quillen says.

Join groups, from college alumni to those of current or past employees at companies where you’d like to work — and participate actively. This provides an opportunity to expand your networking beyond those who are geographically close enough for you to meet with in person.

“You never know what corner of the social-networking universe may hide your dream job and who may spread the word about it,” says Quillen.

And if a case of embarrassment strikes, recall: Most employees receive a referral bonus for bringing in solid candidates — and that’d be you.

This story was originally published on LearnVest. LearnVest is a program for your money. Read their stories and use their tools at LearnVest.com.

BEN STILLER, SHEPARD FAIREY CELEBRATE AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS AT CIPRIANI

BEN STILLER, SHEPARD FAIREY CELEBRATE AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS AT CIPRIANI

BY Hilary Elkins POSTED 10/24/14
PS Arts chairman Joshua Tanzer with Stiller and Koons. COURTESY JOE SCHILDHORN/BFA
P.S. ARTS chairman Joshua Tanzer with Stiller and Koons.
COURTESY JOE SCHILDHORN/BFA
“There’s Frank Stella right there!” Nora Halpern said giddily as the iconic 78-year-old abstract impressionist wandered through the crowd gathering at New York City’s Cipriani 42nd Street on Monday night. Halpern, an art historian and curator by training, is now the vice president for leadership alliances at Americans for the Arts, the powerhouse advocacy outfit that has been promoting the arts and art education since 1960.
The crowd of 350 had gathered for the organizations’s National Arts Awards gala. Large-scale sculptor Richard Serra, philanthropists Vicki & Roger Sant, and Detroit art maven Madeleine H. Berman were among the evening’s honorees. Halpern, who’d been chatting with the Grammy-award winning bagpipe player Cristina Pato, has been finding the “advocacy side of my life,” she said. Currently, she’s working on the issues of artists’ rights and K-12 arts education. “This morning, we launched an initiative about core curriculum in K-12 education and we’re demanding that the arts be a part of it. It hasn’t been redrafted in twenty years.”
Maria Bell, the evening’s event chair, and president-at-large of the California-based children and arts philanthropy group P.S. ARTS, punched up the issues further. “I am the product of a public school education,” the Rodarte-clad philanthropist said. “I was lucky enough to have art in my [curriculum] and it changed my life.”
Bell recently stepped down as chair of the board of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. “I grew up in California so I couldn’t understand how they could cut all of those programs out of schools [in the 1907s and ‘80s].” She nodded to the nearby graphic designer activist, Shepard Fairey, to illustrate the second issue of the moment. “And everything about Shephard says everything about why an organization like [Americans for the Arts] matters. He is somebody who has really bumped up against ‘What are the rights of artists to do what they do?’ I think what he and other street artists show is that art is everywhere.”
Fairey reached a pop cultural apex back in 2008 when he created President Obama’s “Hope” poster. His rendering of a glowing orange monkey pod tree served as the backdrop for this event. As the gala’s featured artist, he’d produced fifty signed prints to commemorate the night.
“I did a residency at the Makiki Heights Contemporary Art Museum in Honolulu and there was a monkey pod tree on the grounds,” Fairey said. “I noticed that in Hawaii the symbols of natural beauty are abused as propaganda for the tourists. I liked the idea of making a piece that celebrated the beauty of the tree but also stylized it in a propagandistic way. I’m a big fan of provocative duality.” The poet Paul Muldoon and his wife quickly posed for photographs across the room.
Comedian Ben Stiller presented the Jeff Koons-designed Rabbit Balloon Award to the organization PS Arts. “Koons is working with MIT,” Stiller joked, “to build the world’s largest particle collider with marshmellows. He just hasn’t figured out how to make it sexual.”
Former senator Chris Dodd, the policy head for Americans for the Arts and head of the Motion Picture Association of American, was just about to dig into his fluffy mozzarella and tomato salad, but not before chiming in on what he sees as a key issue in the growth and sustenance of the arts: “Copyright. This year for the very first time in the history of the country, the Bureau of Labor statistics undertook a calculation of what the economic benefit of culture is. Turns out it adds about three points to the GDP. But there’s a global effort on the part of some to create further and further exceptions to the rights of creators and innovators. I’m very worried.”
Senator Dodd arched an eyebrow: “That the appetite for information, while legitimate, grows at their expense.”
Update, October 27: An earlier version of the post incorrectly stated that Americans for the Arts created the National Endowment for the Arts nearly 50 years ago. It was created by an act of Congress.
Copyright 2014, ARTnews LLC, 40 W 25th Street, 6th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10010. All rights reserved.

Why is tech writing so bad?

Why is tech writing so bad?
by Alex
Tech filler
“Technology” is a strange word. Its Greek root, techné, means “art” or “excellence,” and its usage in English is scarce until at least the 20th century. Its rise in popular discourse during the second Industrial Revolution, the movement that produced inventions such as the phonograph, makes sense. However, what’s usually glossed over is that “technology,” as a word, is filler, distracting us from the the reshaping of society from above.

What does it even mean to say that “technology changed everything” or to assign so much agency to vague, well, technological concepts such as “big data” or “the Internet of Things?” The vast discourse on technology is the best possible example of what Georg Lukacs called “reification,” the act of instilling human activities with the characteristics of things, creating what Lukacs himself called “a ‘phantom-objectivity,’ an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relationship between people.”

When I see “technology” in a sentence, I move pretty quickly past it and don’t think much about it. If I do, though, it’s like I rounded a corner and saw a forked roads leading into three turnabouts – the generality is crushing. Are we talking strictly about the actions of hardware, software, and networks? Are these actions autonomous? What if we just assigned all of these machinations to the category of “machinery and artisanal crafts” and spoke of the great, world-changing, liberating power of “powerful industrial machinery”? It doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?

Words and classes
The history of words to talk about all of the basic concepts that undergird “tech writing” – the category that would seemingly include everyone from TechCrunch to PC World to Daring Fireball to this blog – is the history of taking words that belonged to the blue-collar working classes and reassigning them to the white-collar management classes. Take “software,” for instance. It derives from “hardware,” which once referred primarily to small metal goods. As early as the 18th century, one could talk about a “hardware store” as a place to buy metals.

Something similar, on a much broader scale, has gone on with the term “Internet.” As I explained in my entry on “Space Quest 6: The Spinal Frontier,” the entire discourse about “the Internet” is a retroactive reorganization of many separate traditions, spanning hardware, software, and networking, that once went by disparate names. Even the act of using “the Internet” was once similarly variable: it could be called “going into cyberspace” or “using virtual reality” well through the 1990s. Grouping everything under the banner of the “Internet” has had the desired effect of making changes affecting fields as diverse as education (via online learning) and transportation (via services like Lyft and Uber) seem inevitable.

It is reification writ large, as tight origin story compiled after the fact to create that very “phantom-objectivity” that Lukacs talked about. Likewise, “technology” itself, as a word, is a mini history on how mundane physical activities – building computers, setting up assembly lines – were reimagined to be on par with the high arts of antiquity. Leo Marx wrote, in his paper “Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept”:

“Whereas the term mechanic (or industrial, or practical) arts calls to mind men with soiled hands tinkering at workbenches, technology conjures clean, well-educated, white male technicians in control booths watching dials, instrument panels, or computer monitors. Whereas the mechanic arts belong to the mundane world of work, physicality, and practicality – of humdrum handicrafts and artisanal skills – technology belongs on the higher social and intellectual plane of book learning, scientific research, and the university. This dispassionate word, with its synthetic patina, its lack of a physical or sensory referent, its aura of sanitized, bloodless – indeed, disembodied – cerebration and precision, has eased the induction of what had been the mechanic arts – now practiced by engineers – into the precincts of the finer arts and higher learning.”

Making it, writing it
I love this passage since it captures so much of how the the rise of technology firms has been about word games and the institution of engineers and venture capitalists as, crucially, creators (the obsession with creation really spills out when one looks at the Maker movement that goes hand-in-hand with so much of Silicon Valley) and heirs to the traditions of straight male-dominated industry. Debbie Chacra did a great job out outlining the real shape of the Maker movement in a piece for “The Atlantic,” arguing that “artifiacts” – anything physical that could be sold for gain or accrue some sort of monetary value, seemingly on its own – were more important than people in today’s economic systems, especially people who performed traditionally female tasks like educating or caregiving.

Tech writing, vague as it is, exists in this uncomfortable context in which anything not associated with coding or anything “technical” is deemed less important – to businesses, to shareholders, to whomever is important for now but may be forgotten tomorrow – that what is more easily viewed (I mean this literally) as work that came from a predictable process (software from coding is the best example). Writers in this field have to continually prop up a huge concept – technology – that carries the baggage of decades of trying to be elevated to the status of fine arts like….good writing!

Talking about the agency of concepts is common, and tech writers – or anyone dabbling in writing about technology – have to play so many ridiculous games to cater to readers who long ago became lost in the reification of “technology” as an unstoppable force. Take this sentence, which I recently found via Justin Singer’s Tumblr:

“Big Dating unbundles monogamy and sex. It offers to maximize episodes of intimacy while minimizing the risk of rejection or FOMO [fear of missing out].”

Bleh. This passage is easy to make fun of, but its structure is so indicative of tech writing at large. There’s the capitalized concept (“Big Dating”) that is acting, via a buzzwordy verb (“unbundling” – what was the “bundle” in the first place? but “disrupt” is still the all-time champion in this vein) on The World As A Whole. Then there’s the shareholder language (“maximize”/”minimize”/”risk”) that speaks to the neoliberal economic ideas – most of them terrible – that have been the intellectual lifeblood of the tech industry as well as the governments that feebly regulate it (the weakening of political will is one reason Marx saw technology as a “hazardous” concept).

Aristotle and wrap-up
When I dipped my toes into Aristotle’s “On Interpretation” earlier, I talked about how he defined nouns as “sounds.” I then wondered if so much bad writing was the result of trying to write things that would sound absurd in speech (i.e., as sounds).

Tech writing in particular has this sort of not-real quality to it that makes it sound so silly when read aloud. It’s always trying to reify and create vast, unstoppable forces that aren’t even physically perceptible. Writing about “the Internet of Things” or “Big Dating” is to basically dress up everyday and unnovel concepts like networked devices and dating services in dramatic language.

You may as well have someone try to describe an sandstorm or flood to you as it were the result of a phantom-objective, all-powerful godlike force. Wait, that’s, like, 99 percent of religion right there. Well, when writing about “technology,” you’re always writing someone else’s scriptures, with all the opacity and word-gaming that that entails – who wants to read most of that?
New post on ScreenGrab