 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 questions not to ask at a job interview | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It may seem an obvious boo-boo, but there have been people who asked questions like "how long is lunch break?" during an interview.
Human resource consultants from Global Manpower Professionals and PeopleSearch round up for Lianhe Wanbao eight other 'dumb' questions you should never ask at a job interview. Also, check out the list of ten questions you can (or should) ask.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
8 questions not to ask at a job interview
-29_07_2010.jpg)
How to ace the job interview
| ||||||
| How to ace the job interview | <>||||||
| ||||||
| By Joyce Fang THE savvy jobseeker generally knows how to avoid making obvious gaffes, such as wearing bermudas to an interview or smoking before entering the room. What you might not know is this: Whether you nab that dream job depends more on the nuances of your appearance and attitude, which affect the impression you give, said human resource experts, image consultants and stylists. 'It is the most powerful and the direct means of communication. It speaks volumes about your personality, your identity and, most importantly, your attitude,' she said. However, it is not a case of one size fits all: One needs to be aware that dressing for a corporate-job interview differs from dressing for a job interview within the creative industry. Corporate-job interviews, such as for the positions of a lawyer or a banker, require formal classic jacket suits for men and skirt suits for women, said Ms Agnes Koh, director of image-consultant firm Etiquette & Image International. Outfits should be dark in colour ' think black, navy blue, dark grey and deep charcoal ' as these are classic symbols of formality, she said. Pair the outfits with dark-coloured socks and leather oxford shoes for men, or with stiletto heels and stockings of a natural shade for women. As for creative-job interviews, such as those for jobs in the advertising line, outfits can be less formal. To dress with flair, you can play with bright colours and even wear something with interesting details. Be sure that the outfit still looks smart. This indicates a respect for the interviewer and also for the company you hope to join, said stylist Vik Lim. But, in order to impress, candidates need to display intelligence and knowledge of the company and position that one is applying for. Get as much information as possible on the company and position, so that you are prepared for tough questions, said Madam Tan Lee Chiew, 60, who has 25 years of experience in human resource. Ask past and present employees of the company about how workflow is structured. At the interview itself, 'ask the interviewers intelligent questions about the job, such as advancement opportunities, training and development', said Madam Tan. Be punctual, remember to take along the necessary documents - a spare copy of your resume and cover letter will never go wrong - and articulate your thoughts fluently. Body language is also key, said Ms Zheng. One needs to carry oneself with confidence and poise, make eye contact when speaking, smile, and have a firm handshake. Jobseekers would know if the interview has gone well if interviewers ask many questions and show a lot of interest in them, said Madam Tan. 'Some may ask how soon you can start or discuss your expectations about salary and advancement possibilities', which is a good indication, she said. So, after you have got past the tough part, what next' Ms Jackelyn How, 27, a senior human-resource officer, said sending a personal e-mail to the interviewer after the interview is a good move. In the note, remember to thank the interviewer for the time spent meeting you. 'Reiterate to the interviewer that you are still very interested in the job. 'Also, try to draw in what you had discussed during the interview, such as which part of the job scope excites you. It shows sincerity,' said Ms How. | ||||||
Sunday, 28 August 2011
How to teach kids about money
Report from The Brunei Times/ANN dated Aug 29, 2011
TEACHING children about money is no child's play.
Children must be battle-equipped on how to manage money as they grow up and it's up to the parents to provide them the necessary tools.
Using the allowance system to teach your kids about money is one way to go.
The upside
The fact is there are many benefits for parents who "pay " allowance to their children.
"When it's our money, our kids want to buy everything in sight, without even a care in the world of how much money we had to put out for them," says Abby Lim, a retail manager for a textile store.
"But when it comes out of their own allowance, they think twice before buying," she adds.
She says parents provide for necessities such as food, basic clothing and school supplies, whereas the allowance will be mainly for the "extras" the kids want.
"These extras can be from toys, video games, movie tickets, fast food or anything which are not a necessity, but a nourishment to their childhood," she says.
"Basically we are not stopping them from buying toys, we are teaching them the concept of budgeting at an early age through allowance," she adds.
She says that it's normal for kids to make mistakes and deplete their allowance in an instant after getting the money.
"This is a learning process for the kids, as they soon realise that money is not infinite, that when it comes out of their own pockets, they become much more selective about their purchases," says Lim.
Figure it out
New parents have to figure out how much to give their children.
Lim says the amount should be large enough to allow the children to experiment. In her case, she gave her two children a weekly allowance of $10 each, but as they entered secondary school, she decided to give each $50 a month.
"From the beginning, I would advise my kids the amount should last them throughout the given month. I would refuse to restore their allowance until the beginning of a new month. This gives them a sense of responsibility," she says.
She says as the children get older, the amount should be raised as well of not more than 10 per cent a year.
Haslinda Hj Luqman, a 35-year-old mum who runs a home-based food and bakery business, believes setting the amount based on what she expects her children to do with their allowance is much more effective as opposed to determining the amount according to their age or following what other parents do on how much they give their kids.
"As parents, we should also help decide for our children how their allowance is utilised," she says.
Haslinda's 14-year-old son gets $100 a month. Her son uses the money to pay for food during recess in school, whereas the rest would be spent on things such as eating out, fashion accessories or movie tickets.
She says she would be by his side when he's making spending decisions, to guide him and to see whether any of his purchases is worth it or unnecessary. "As they grow up, they will have to take on more responsibility for their spending habits as their allowance is increased, so it's crucial for us to monitor their spendings to guide them towards smart spending," she adds.
The savings drill
You can't save money if you don't have money to begin with. The allowance system is also ideal to drill the savings habit on children.
Haslinda says the best thing about the allowance system is that it enables her son to see very clearly that when he delays gratification, he could save enough to afford pricier items such as sports gear and video games.
"Sometimes, we reward them the things they want based on their school performances, but it's also rewarding to give them that sense of independence as they learn to save their money for a certain period of time and allow them to experience the thrill of getting that slightly expensive item from their own efforts," she says.
She says her son has also learned to spend more prudently in the process.
"This is good practice. They will get the hang of it and as they get older, they know from their own experiences that saving is a better way to go than loaning in the long run," she adds.
How to teach kids about money
by Al-Haadi Abu Bakar
Children must be battle-equipped on how to manage money as they grow up and it's up to the parents to provide them the necessary tools.
Using the allowance system to teach your kids about money is one way to go.
The upside
The fact is there are many benefits for parents who "pay " allowance to their children.
"When it's our money, our kids want to buy everything in sight, without even a care in the world of how much money we had to put out for them," says Abby Lim, a retail manager for a textile store.
"But when it comes out of their own allowance, they think twice before buying," she adds.
She says parents provide for necessities such as food, basic clothing and school supplies, whereas the allowance will be mainly for the "extras" the kids want.
"These extras can be from toys, video games, movie tickets, fast food or anything which are not a necessity, but a nourishment to their childhood," she says.
"Basically we are not stopping them from buying toys, we are teaching them the concept of budgeting at an early age through allowance," she adds.
She says that it's normal for kids to make mistakes and deplete their allowance in an instant after getting the money.
"This is a learning process for the kids, as they soon realise that money is not infinite, that when it comes out of their own pockets, they become much more selective about their purchases," says Lim.
Figure it out
New parents have to figure out how much to give their children.
Lim says the amount should be large enough to allow the children to experiment. In her case, she gave her two children a weekly allowance of $10 each, but as they entered secondary school, she decided to give each $50 a month.
"From the beginning, I would advise my kids the amount should last them throughout the given month. I would refuse to restore their allowance until the beginning of a new month. This gives them a sense of responsibility," she says.
She says as the children get older, the amount should be raised as well of not more than 10 per cent a year.
Haslinda Hj Luqman, a 35-year-old mum who runs a home-based food and bakery business, believes setting the amount based on what she expects her children to do with their allowance is much more effective as opposed to determining the amount according to their age or following what other parents do on how much they give their kids.
"As parents, we should also help decide for our children how their allowance is utilised," she says.
Haslinda's 14-year-old son gets $100 a month. Her son uses the money to pay for food during recess in school, whereas the rest would be spent on things such as eating out, fashion accessories or movie tickets.
She says she would be by his side when he's making spending decisions, to guide him and to see whether any of his purchases is worth it or unnecessary. "As they grow up, they will have to take on more responsibility for their spending habits as their allowance is increased, so it's crucial for us to monitor their spendings to guide them towards smart spending," she adds.
The savings drill
You can't save money if you don't have money to begin with. The allowance system is also ideal to drill the savings habit on children.
Haslinda says the best thing about the allowance system is that it enables her son to see very clearly that when he delays gratification, he could save enough to afford pricier items such as sports gear and video games.
"Sometimes, we reward them the things they want based on their school performances, but it's also rewarding to give them that sense of independence as they learn to save their money for a certain period of time and allow them to experience the thrill of getting that slightly expensive item from their own efforts," she says.
She says her son has also learned to spend more prudently in the process.
"This is good practice. They will get the hang of it and as they get older, they know from their own experiences that saving is a better way to go than loaning in the long run," she adds.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
How to build a retirement nest egg
Thursday, 18 August 2011
When there's no choice but retrenchment
| |||||||||
 | |
| |||||||
| When there's no choice but retrenchment | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| By Tion Kwa, Senior Writer IN THE current circumstance, the main objective of most companies won't be planning for the economic recovery. Far more pressing is staying in business until the recovery begins. For most, managing their wage bills will be key. And as no one wants higher unemployment, companies are being urged to be sensitive to their employees' situation and to cut wages rather than retrench. From the viewpoint of employees, less money certainly is better than no money. And for employers, won't cutting pay achieve the same end as firing staff? Wage cuts, then, should be the preferred strategy; one in which everyone wins, or at least one where losses are minimised. Certainly, to judge by the yards of stories written, you'd think that is so. Yet the truth is, cutting pay isn't always an option for companies, and retrenching workers may be the only way for some to survive. It comes down to how a company uses manpower, given the nature of its business. No question, there can be a case made for cutting wages. Take, for example, a property developer. If a developer has a building under construction, it can do one of two things: Shut down the building site or continue construction. The former is a last-ditch measure, and happens only when there are no alternatives to the company going under. A still-viable company, on the other hand, can't afford to abandon a project halfway. There are still loans to service even if construction stops. In recession or boom time, a building requires so many man-hours to complete. If those man-hours can be filled at lower costs, then the company might still make a profit once the property is sold, even at reduced prices. So wage cuts here can work. This isn't always the case, however. Take manufacturing. If a company is facing an order book half the size of normal times, it needs only half its manpower. Cutting pay doesn't work as the company must still deal with excess capacity. How do you share a job? Does a machinist hand over his lathe to worker No. 2 halfway through milling a part? It doesn't always work in the service sector, either. If a bank has fewer customers, how does it split the work between staff? Two workers doing the job of one cashier is a Monty Python sketch waiting to be written. Then, there's the problem of what to do when the economy finally rights itself. How does the company reinstate wages that were cut? This will be particularly difficult for publicly listed companies. While shareholders always want to see operational costs reduced, they don't take kindly to a sudden rise in such costs as previously cut wages are reinstated. But if retrenchment is too radical a step, another way to reduce costs is to cut hours. Reducing the hours workers put in cuts the wage bill, but doesn't affect their hourly rates when they can return to full-time work. So it's less messy than wage cuts. It also gives workers time to try to make up their lost wages. Meanwhile, the factory or office isn't overstaffed. The difficulty, however, is that employers will still have expenses related to maintaining staff, like health insurance costs. The bottom line is, whether a company reduces wages or retrenches staff depends on its requirement for manpower. If, like a construction company, it needs the same number of workers to complete a project according to schedule, then cutting wages makes a better argument than cutting workers. But if hourly requirements are reduced, then the adjustment has to be made on the side of manpower numbers. It's a question of what is most appropriate to the business. At the weekly magazine in Hong Kong where I previously worked, the response of management to the accumulated effect on revenue from the Asian financial crisis, the dot.com implosion, 9/11 and then Sars was to retrench. Slowly, we lost staff; we even closed down the library. But the remaining writers and editors and production, sales, circulation and other staff still had to put out a magazine and run the company. While the amount of man-hours needed didn't change, the number of people available shrank. Each staff member had to do more, and as a consequence, quality and morale suffered. In this case, cutting wages and keeping staff numbers constant would have been more appropriate to the company's needs. It would be great if there were a kinder, gentler way to navigate through a downturn. But recessions are brutal and it's fantasy to think there are relatively painless ways out. For some, reduced wages certainly is a possibility, and an option that should be actively pursued. However, it is unfair to the others to give them the illusion that they too can be saved from retrenchment. And it betrays a lack of understanding of how business works to pillory firms that have no choice but to let workers go. | |||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)