What if your next job is at a company where they don't read resumes?  What if they were more interested in your web presence, the conversations you initiate and the topics you discuss?  That would no doubt reveal much more about the real you than whatever is on your resume, don't you think?

Apparently some employers are doing just that.  Consider what it may mean to you about your current web activities.  Do they reflect the person you want employers to seek out? 

Another thing about traditional resumes: many people give little thought to the things they include at the bottom, such as hobbies, sports activities, and the like.  Turns out that some employers look at that section of the resume first!  They feel it gives insight into what kind of a person you are to be around, and how you'll fit within their corporate culture.

Check out this article, which spells it out...

Imagine being at a cocktail party.  The kind where the champagne they serve is the good stuff, really good stuff like Veuve Clicquot.  And the food that is passed it cordon blue with raspberry chutney.  Good so far, right?

Now imagine that by design, the cocktail party is entirely silent.  You don't talk.  And even if you did, no one would hear you because you are all wearing noise-cancelling headphones.  So you walk around looking at other people--and they you--without speaking.  Sound fascinating?  Boring?  Funny?

Well, just that kind of party took place in Park City, Utah, as part of the celebration of the documentary about the performance artist Marina Abramovic, which is playing at Sundance.  And yes, Robert Redford was there and yes, for that hour, he was silent, too.

Now think of all the cocktail parties you've gone to where people talked but nothing important was said. Interesting to contemplate this, right?

Apparently guests at the Park City party loved it.  Or at least they were fascinated.  Some said once they got used to it they welcomed the silence.  A respite from the talkie-talkie business world in which they work.

Gotta hand it to Marina.  She knows how to stimulate conversation from nothing.  Or maybe that "nothing" is something pretty valuable: actually looking at one another and not letting our talk get in the way.

I like the concept of the silent cocktail party.  Not unlike a forced silent retreat, but with booze. 

I seem to be on a kick about silence over the past couple of days, what with Marina Abramovic, the performance artist who sat for months at MOMA, saying nothing and staring into the eyes of strangers across the table from her (yes, you really had to experience it to know it was not, well, nuts).

I see a link, though, between what prompted the enthusiasm of so many people for Marina's silent performance art and the movie that is in the running for Oscars this year, "The Artist."  How can this be?  In this age of action flicks, mayhem and noise at every turn, screaming conversations and banal talk, how does "The Artist" even get noticed?  It may be just because of all that activity, noise, mayhem and screeching, that people are looking for a respite.  It's delicious to let your brain connect to the people on the screen and not hear them talk. 

For me, it underscores even more the precious gift of speech.  Let's not waste it on silly--or even worse, angry--talk.  Let's make sure it counts.  That when we're engaged in conversation with others, we truly listen to what they have to say.  And if what they're saying is not worth our while, let's find others with whom to engage in great conversation.  It's the world's great luxury right now, and it doesn't cost us much.  Just the thing for these times of global economic turmoil.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you "The Artist."

It may seem odd that I'm fascinated by Marina Abramovic, the performance artist that some people think is a genius, others think is a flake, and still others think is duping us all.  Some say she is the "mother of performance art" and depending on your view of performance art in general, that may be enough to turn you off...or on.

I saw Marina in action--well, in INaction to be more precise_-when she saged her months long performance at New York's Museum of Modern Art.  Basically, she sat on a chair for the whole day, every day, for months, across a small table from any person who cared to join her.  She simply sat there and stared at the person across from her, and each of them was welcome to stay for as long as they liked.  Some found that the challenge of looking directly at another person, a total stranger, unnerving.  Especially since one of the rules was that you could not speak.  At all.  She, too, was silent.  So the entire "performance" with each of those taking part was to simply, well, look at one another.

People stood in long lines for a chance to take part.  It was rumored that some slept outside on the sidewalk to be there when the Museum opened in the morning, guaranteeing them a spot in the line to sit with Marina.

Some wept when they sat there.  Some laughed.  Most did nothing, just as Marina did nothing. 

What I found particularly compelling about watching this take place was the importance it placed on eye contact.  Some of us think we know how to have a face to face conversation, but we find it difficult to look the other person in the eye.  We turn away, look down, look up, look sideways, all the while avoiding the  connection that happens naturally when we look in another's eyes. 

At Sundance, they are showing, to great raves, a film made of Marina Abramovic, showcasing her MOMA stint.  And people who have seen it say they are deeply moved by the non-speaking, soundless confrontation between the random visitors sitting across from Marina.  

The next time you are having a face to face conversation with someone, note how long you are comfortable looking that other person in the eyes.  And how about him?  Does he look away quickly?  Or her?  Does she look down to avoid you?

Perhaps it is not enough to promote face to face conversation.  Maybe it needs to be eye to eye conversation.  Something deeply profound takes place when people's eyes meet.  No manner of technology can duplicate the experience, not even video conferencing. 

When Chris Anderson, TED's Curator, received the 360 Leadership Award at the 2010 360 Summit at the NYSE, he cajoled the room of 200 senior officers and board directors of publicly listed firms to take part in an experiment which consisted of our looking directly into the eyes of someone else at our table.  Some loved it.  Some found it uncomfortable in the extreme.  All of us realized it underscored the profundity of eye to eye contact.

Try it over dinner tonight...

Well, maybe not crying, but the mood in Paris at the recent Inner Circle there was pessimistic, wary, cautious.  A brilliant group had lots to say about the challenges and possibilities around innovation, agreeing that it is essential to progress but tough to pull off in the current economic turmoil.

All of them lead major businesses and all say it is difficult to predict what will happen over this next year in Europe because of the economic slowdown.  Heck, there are people who seriously think it’s possible the Euro will be abandoned.

So it's been a sharp contrast to talk with the Hong Kongers who will be taking part in our Inner Circle at TBWA's offices there on February 2.  They are optimistic.  Seriously optimistic.  I haven't yet talked with all of them, but thus far, their comments about future growth for their companies is rosy.  They are all looking to Mainland China as the mother lode of opportunity.  Yes, they worry about privacy.  Yes, they know China has issues that are unresolved regarding pollution, health care, unrest in the non-urban centers.  Doesn't matter, though, in terms of slowing down the demand for autos, luxury handbags, tech services of all kinds.



It's the way people used to see America, as the place that will provide the market for the world's goods. Hmmm.  Have tables already turned, and all this posturing among our presidential candidates beside the point?

Protesters--a crowd of them covering a block long swath of street in front of the Manhattan offices of New York's Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer--made themselves heard yesterday.  They were protesting the SOPA and PIPA bills now before Congress which they claim will, if passed, have a chilling effect on innovation.  They are concerned that both pieces of proposed legislation are too broad in the powers they give to the feds to swoop in and shut down sites that are suspected of using pirated material. 

The crowd--which called itself New York Tech Meetup--was acting in concert with Google and Wikipedia and other sites that either went dark completely or, in the case of Google, merely blacked out their name.  The one day protest was to call attention to the importance of ensuring.

Apparently as a result of Google and other website boycotts and also the New York Tech Meet up action, some Senators originally backing the SOPA and PIPA legislation have backed away from it.  Impressive, no?  Free speech is dearly valued in this country and events like  this remind us of the power of peaceful persuasion.

I can't help but contrast this with recent events in China involving Google, long a target of the Chinese government which doesn't like Google's efforts at making public information on issues the Chinese government chooses to censor (such as, among other things, information on the Dalai Lama). 

America has its problems, especially right now, but let's not lose sight of the value of our right of free speech.  Long may it flourish.

What we can't be is apathetic about issues like this.  People need to continue to speak up.  And, apparently, enough people care about this issue to say something--and get heard.  Bravo for New York Tech Meetup.

Well, this is an interesting turn of events.  We have major informational search sites closed down for the day. Try doing a search on Wikipedia today, for example, and you'll find it shut down.  Others have followed suit.  Google, although still operating, has put up a funereal black tape over its brand name on the site today, all in sympathy with the efforts to influence Congress regarding proposed legislation aimed at beefing up our country's anti-privacy laws but--and here's the rub--in the process, creating major issues regarding censorship of free speech in the process.

I'm facilitating an Inner Circle in Hong Kong on February 2 and can't wait to hear what people have to say about what is happening there.  You may recall that no too long ago, Google pretty much abandoned its operations in China.  Not the tech groups and engineers who remain on the Mainland, but the search engine itself.  No more.  They have now set up the search site so that people in Mainland China who want to search for information on, say Tiananmen, or Falun Gong, or the Dalai Lama will now be directed to a Hong Kong address where they can search away to their heart's content.

The China call Google's action "wrong."   Certainly it flies in the face of China's ability to determine just what its citizens can read, search for on the internet, even converse about online.  In one of my pre-calls with an executive in Hong Kong --in readiness for our Inner Circle--I was surprised when the executive said that Google is wrong in its defiance of China and its strict censorship.  "If you want to do business in China, you have to follow the rules, he said."  That's not how Google sees it.

In interesting ways, these two issues--Congressional efforts to beef up our anti-privacy laws but at the same time curtailing freedom of speech (in the views of Wikipedia and others) and the efforts of Google to circumvent China's censorship. 

These are basic free speech issues, one of the most important underlying concepts of our U.S. Constitution.  Should make for interesting conversation, don't you think? 

January 23 is Chinese New Year.  And this is the Year of the Dragon.  More specifically, this is the Year of the Black Dragon.  I imagine if you were the producer of "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" you would find this an auspicious time indeed.

Last Sunday my husband and I entertained a group of people at our Manhattan apartment for brunch.  I couldn't resist a little Chinese New Year theme, so we did dragon centerpieces and a few other things to carry out the theme.  Best of all, though, were the little red Chinese New Year envelopes.

Have you seen them?  They are a mainstay of Chinese New Years celebration for the Chinese.  You put money in the little envelope and give it to someone important to you.  We went a little different route.  When people had gotten to know each other a bit and before we sat down, we gave everyone pencil and paper, on the top of which had been written "Confucius asks..."

So instead of "Confucius say..." we asked each guest to write down a question to address the other guests at the table.  Could be silly or serious.  Didn't matter.  We got some of each.  On the serious side,
people asked things like "Confucius asks...what will the DOW Jones be on December 20, 2012?"  And "If the Mayan calendar is correct in predicting that the world will end in December 2012, where would you like to be at that time?"

My favorite, though, was on the silly side: "If Mitt Romney's dog could drive, would he put Mitt on the top of the car and go to Canada?"  I love the mental image this suggests.

Silly or sad, though, the questions fueled terrific conversation.  in fact, no one wanted to leave.  We barely made it on time to watch the Giants defeat the Green Bay Packers.  Talk about divided loyalty.  My husband is a serious Giants fan.  I mean serious.  And I am from Wisconsin, home of the Packers.  Need I say more?

I like to think that I know most everything about my husband but he surprised me again.  While watching the game, at one point we lost the sound.  My husband said, "No problem.  I don't listen to it anyway.  I can just watch the game...don't need the commentary."  Really?  I can't imagine watching any sporting event without the chatter of the announcers.  Not my guy.  He'd just as soon turn the sound off.

Learn something new--literally--every day.