Here’s the difference.

When you only wonder: “Where are the jobs?” you’re focused on staying merely employed.

But when focused on discovering new ways to apply your talents and interests to the megatrends shaping the world, that’s thinking about staying employable for the future.

Doing the latter will keep you relevant which means you’re less likely to be in that constant state of asking: “Where’s my next job?”

Yes, this takes time and research. And yes, the work world will keep changing–probably mostly due to technology. But it will lead to enlightening discovery that then leads you to, well, a way to stay employable the rest of your career.

It’s a matter of looking at trends and asking questions that focus on what work will be needed as a result of those trends.

In an article in The Futurist, managing editor Cynthia Wagner talks about three approaches to help do that. They include “retrofitting.”

This is when you add new skills to an existing job or incorporate new trends and social changes into a current job.

An example might be the successful plumber referenced in a recent New York Times Magazine article on the new economic rules. Such a plumber “who has mastered all the new water-flow sensor technology and pipe-fitting innovations…can make more than $100,000 a year, while other plumbers who just know the basics, could make less than $20,000.”

To examine how to “retrofit” your career, ask yourself:

• How do technological trends and social changes apply to my career?
• What new skills and knowledge can I add to my line of work to support those?
• Can Iincorporate new trends into my current work, and if so, how?

Wagner also points to “blending careers.”

This is when you make a connection among two or more separate areas. You can do this by combining skills or functions from different jobs or industries to create new specialties.

As one example, she cites the blending of work in human and environmental health. This has resulted in the emerging field of environmental health nursing, where professionals treat patients exposed to toxins.

A broader look at this field includes occupational and environmental health nursing, a specialty that has evolvedinto “a health care industry that includes health promotion, case management, environmental health, counseling, legal and regulatory compliance and detection of workplace hazards,” says Pat McKay, occupational health nurse.

One of my clients with 15 years sales experience and a personal interest in Crohn’s disease is another example. He had developed exceptional skills as a persuasive communicator and excellentpresenter. He blended these skills with his interest and became a medical educator specializing in Crohn’s disease.

Ask yourself: What skills, interests and talents do I have that I can blend into a new specialty and fit a growing need?

The third approach is good old problem solving by looking at problems people will face and coming up with new roles and functions to help solve them.

Take the problems the communications age has brought including privacy and security. As a result, one growing area is digital footprint management.

As issues such as privacy, terrorism and overall rage in society become more prominent, new problems around security in cyberspace, immigration, security preparedness and food safety will evolve.

Ask yourself: As trends develop and new problems arise as a result, what services will be needed to support customers and businesses? Which ones interest me?

Start asking these questions sooner than later—and often.

How could what happened to them happen to you? Your downfall may not make headlines. But your lack of good communication skills could stall your career or land you out on the street.

No matter your job title, it’s the skill that allows you to work well with co-workers and clients. To lead and inspire others to get things done. Whether you work for yourself or someone else, “good communication skills” is in every job description.

So how are yours? Hint: Just because you can talk doesn’t mean you communicate well.

“Most people feel they have above-average communication skills and average presentation skills,” says Kurt W. Mortensen, author of “The Laws of Charisma.”

The reality is most people are lucky to have average communication skills and below-average presentation skills, he says.

What did in Charlie Sheen? His public meltdown.

He “lost control and went on a rampage not once, twice, but for a significant portion of 2011,” say Ben and Kelly Decker in the Decker Communications list of the 10 worst communicators in 2011.

Sheen, #3 on the list, is a “painfully clear example of how erratic communication can destroy a reputation, and perhaps a career.”

Rupert and James Murdoch, #4, communicated elusively and “went on the defensive in the wake of their cell phone hacking scandal” associated with their News Corporation companies.

When Hewlett Packard cited reasons for firing CEO Apotheker, #9, they said, “Communications were horrible.”

Known for “not communicating a clear vision for HP” and “not getting the consensus and buy-in of his executive board,” he also failed to communicate clearly with staff and customers, say the Deckers.

On their top ten best communicators in 2011 we have Steve Jobs, whom they describe as the “rare one who creates and develops vision, communicates it clearly and colorfully and then leads to completion.” He also didn’t rely on PowerPoint to make his point, speaking from the heart, “well-rehearsed, but real—authentic, and always with a message.”

There’s Lady Gaga, who although she “projects a character that’s pretty out there,” when she speaks, she’s articulate, poised, confident and sincere and personifies originality. She can “own a stage” with her “goosebump-inducing cadence when delivering a speech.”

They also like Christine Legarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, named one of the most powerful people by Forbes. She speaks with clarity andcandidness, knows the facts yet summarizes key points, is knowledgeable, measured and speaks with firmness and grace.

When it comes to your own fine-tuning, take a look at one maddening communication habit you probably do without even knowing: the usage of vocal fillers.

These are “Um”,  “uh,” “ya know” and the one that makes me so crazy I write about it every

year–“like” or “I’m like.”

They “can destroy your presentation, annoy people, hurt your credibility and make listeners tense,” says author Mortensen.

Such non-words are worse than sloppy, says Ben Decker. “They are lazy and distracting.”

Often used because people don’t want silence, they “let comfort be their guide when it comes to communications,” he says, heading straight for the “Ums,” “uhs” and “likes.”

To improve, record yourself and ask others to count how many repetitive, irritating non-words you say per minute. But most of all, replace non-words with pauses.

As you’re about to say, “And I’m like,” just stop.

“Then go on. Miracles will happen over time,” he says.

And I could finally stop writing about it. Until then, that’s your assignment for 2012.

Before you craft a single sentence, here’s the one and only guideline you will need to ask to know whether to keep or leave something off your resume:

Does this information position me the way I want to be seen?

If the information isn’t relevant, doesn’t support your new career objective or help build a case for how you want an employer to see you, leave it off.

Yes, that means you may not list every job you’ve had. It could even mean leaving off the first 10 years of your work life.

But what if, under no circumstances, do you want to leave gaps? Here are a few solutions.

First, in a broad summary statement early on, reference the fact that you have 10 years, for example, in public relations.

When it comes to listing experience, write a phrase that explains what you were doing from 1995 to 2002 that plays it down: “Prior positions include…” then list those jobs.

Or, let’s say you’re making a change from database analyst to sales, and while in transition you’ve had several jobs unrelated to either role. Try this sentence: “Other positions include temporary administrative jobs.”

For whatever reason, it might be important to show that you worked during a period, but the details aren’t relevant to what you want to do next. So again, de-emphasize it, listing the jobs without going into detail.

Keep this goal fixed in your mind as you’re writing the other sections of your resume: To help the reader understand your potential to be successful in this new career. Show the reader you not only have past experience, but also relevant, transferrable skills, newly acquired knowledge–if you gotten more education–and the passion that qualifies you for this new career.

Be sure to:

• Make a point to state your transferable skills so the reader can make the leap.

• Include relevant volunteer experience that enhances your credentials and demonstrates your interest.

• List relevant achievements from your past that illustrate how you made a difference and can do so in this new career.

For example, one of my clients was a nurse who wanted to show that she had skills, knowledge and hands-on experience in communications, the area she wanted to work in. So she included this achievement:

“Assisted in development of a documentary film that was viewed by 9 million students and contributed to a significant reduction in traumatic injuries.”

This client with a nonprofit background, wanted to show his strategic-marketing and planning skills. He listed this achievement:

“Developed and implemented a communications strategy that resulted in the passage of a $90-million tax levy.”

This person—who had been in highly technical roles–wanted to be a trainer. She used this achievement on her new resume:

“Trained team of designers on Macintosh operating procedures that significantly enhanced graphic presentations.”

Be careful not to cross the line between persuasive marketing and lying. Lying would be misrepresenting number of years you’ve done something, exaggerating or taking credit for something you didn’t do.

When writing any kind of resume—career changer or not—I don’t believe I a lot of rules. Except one: Never lie.

But when it comes to creating the best marketing document to help potential employers see you’ve got what it takes to be successful in this new career, the rule is: Don’t tell all, do tell what’s relevant.

But good—and maybe surprising–news: Some older workers are pleased as punch with their younger superiors, even giddyabout their mutual admiration and respect for each others’ differences. And visa versa.

This younger boss/older worker phenomena is gaining steam as older employees work longer. A 2011 Pitney Bowes survey says 20 percent of midlevel corporate employees report to a younger boss. A 2010 Career Builder survey showed that four out of ten workers over 35 work for a younger boss.

If you’re in one of these potentially cantankerous relationships, perhaps a look at how some of them work so well will help.

Steven Lowell, 38, community manager for Voice 123, told me if I was looking for people who hate their younger bosses, don’t talk to him.

His boss, Leo Lopez, 27, used to report to him, which could make things even weirder. But it’s not.

The switch happened when the company was going through a change and Lowell told him “I want you to take my job.”

“It was a dare of sorts to motivate. Maybe I was surprised at how much he rose to the challenge to leap from my position completely and become my boss,” says Lowell.

But he quickly learned of Lopez’s skill and says their relationship works because they have no problem being completely honest with each other and “we do not take things personally.”

Since he’s in New York and Lopez is based in Bogotá, Colombia, they speak a lot on Skype and visit each other. The age difference becomes apparent to Lowell when the younger Lopez presents ideas and “I realize that I am getting older and may not be on the pulse of what many consider mainstream.”

On the other hand, Lowell’s longer “life experience allows for me to let him know ‘why people do what they do.’”

Kathleen Berzon, 43 and director of public relations at The Fresh Diet in Miama, reports to CEO Zalmi Duchman, age 31.

“We both have things to learn from one another,” says Berzon.

“He is more willing to take risks in business. It’s refreshing and should not be mistaken as naivety.”

Differences show up in communication style. He typically communicates via email only. “I’m still inclined to not only email but pick up the phone as well. I had to grow accustomed to his ‘text style’ format of emails.”

“Ours is a mutual respect that is not based on how many more Presidents I’ve witnessed in the White House.”

Sue, 53, works for an 18-year old boss at a marketing company. “I assumed he knew what he was doing or the company would not have made him a manager,” she says.

“He trained me and did a great job explaining, then tactfully pointing out ways I could improve. I’ve worked with a lot of different types of managers and very few take that time to actually say ‘thank you’ at the end of the work day or compliment you at all. He does both, and in this respect, he is one of the best supervisors I’ve worked with.”

She observes that when it comes to younger bosses, “young people often have an energy, enthusiasm and drive to prove themselves that makes up for any lack of experience.”

Regardless of age, when it comes to the relationship between manager and employee, the old fashioned concept of appreciation for the other person still works like magic.

As one man who has spent much of his career researching this four-letter phenomena says, luck has the power “to transform the improbable into the possible” and to make the difference between “reward and ruin, happiness and despair.”

According to psychologist Richard Wiseman and his research, lucky people create, notice and act on chance opportunities and transform bad luck into good fortune. Heaven knows, this can come in handy in one’s career.

How does this work? Lucky people, says the author of The Luck Factor: Changing Your Luck, Changing Your Life, tend to be calmer and more relaxed than most and therefore are open to what’s around them and more likely to notice chance opportunities.

And because they are more relaxed, when lucky people meet others, they’re tuned into opportunities.

“Lucky people see what is there, rather than trying to find what they want to see” and as a result, are “more receptive to any opportunities that arise naturally,” he says.

Lucky people also build and maintain a strong “network of luck,” he says. They tend to be more extroverted, which “significantly increases the likelihood of having a chance encounter in three ways—meeting a large number of people, being a ‘social magnet,’ and keeping in contact with people.”

And of course, the more people you meet, the greater chances you have of running into someone who can have a positive effect on your career.

Lucky people are also open to new experiences, says Wiseman. They like variety and trying new things. This greater openness can lead to more chance opportunities.

Lucky people expect the best for the future which helps them fulfill their ambitions. If something bad happens, lucky people see it as short-lived and don’t dwell on it. They are convinced that any ill fortune will work out for the best in the long-run.

Unlucky people are convinced any good luck they have will only last for a short time, to be “quickly followed by their regular dose of bad luck.”

Typically they also don’t speak about “trying to discover why they had not been successful in the past” with a reluctance to learn from their mistakes.

But lucky people treat their failures as a chance to learn and then focus on exploring other ways of solving a problem.

Lucky people expect their interactions with others to be lucky and successful. Unlucky folks “believe that they are destined to meet people who are far more downbeat, sad and boring.”

These expectations of course, then affect how others respond to you. “Throughout the business world, expectations have the power to become self-fulfilling prophecies,” says Wiseman.

It is not just dumb luck to be lucky. It’s a way of thinking. If you’re not feeling so lucky, one technique he suggests to help change your thinking is the use of a luck diary.

At the end of every day, you write down the positive and lucky things that happened.

That builds up and what you’re doing “is adding on, each day,” he explains in a Fast Company article. So you “look back and it’s five days’ worth of positive events and now it’s day six. After doing that for a month, it’s difficult not to be thinking about the good things that are happening.”

With any luck, that can’t help but rub off on you and your career.

Having said that, this small thing can have ramifications at work. So it’s worth a mention, right?

That was it. The small, really annoying thing. Did you catch it? The usage of “Right?” with that question mark at the end. It’s how many people talk in the workplace. They say a sentence then end it with, “Right?” but don’t listen for or really want a response.

It’s not new, but more pervasive and these days I am particularly sensitive to this since I have been listening to dozens of professionals talk. I’m working on a project that requires me to interview people who toil away in various workplaces. And I do not exaggerate when I say that not a single interview has been without the speaker ending about every fifth sentence with: “Right?” or a combination, “You know what I mean, right?”

One person, in describing his co-worker told me, “He expects everyone to speak up if there is a problem, right?” This prompted me to think, “How would I know?” which led me to wonder if this person was sure about what he was saying.

Another worker, in reference to his boss said: “He sometimes thinks small talk is a waste of time, right?” That made me think: “Are you asking me if your boss thinks this or if I agree that small talk is a waste of time? And if I didn’t agree, is our conversation over?”

I broached the subject with an executive who I hear use “Right?” to end her sentences. When I asked her if she even knew she did it, she said, “Yes, on occasion,” adding that she hears it from others then ends up saying it herself.

“When I hear it from other people it drives me crazy,” she said. “I feel irritated with the individual. I want to say, ‘get on with your point and quit throwing out extraneous blah blah blah and asking for my approval.’”

She attributes it possibly, to the fear of offending someone. As a result, though, “They’re irritating, which is another type of offensiveness.”

An employer who has been interviewing a lot told me he too finds it irritating. “It’s a subconscious device to get someone to agree with you whether you do or not, to reinforce their opinion.”

Another employer says it represents insecurity. “It’s as if the person needs constant validation that they’re right.”

When I hear it, I am left with a similar feeling I get when people’s sentences rise at the end of every statement which makes what they’ve said sound like a question or when they sprinkle “like’s” and “sort of’s” and “maybe’s” throughout a statement.

The speaker is hedging. Not sure they’re committed to what they’re saying. Or it’s as if they’re trying to get me to agree.

It’s called a “tag question,” according to Dr. David Silva, professor of linguistics at the University of Texas at Arlington.

By using them, he says, yes, “there’s something to the idea of fostering a certain type of relationship between the speaker and the hearer, one that seeks to build mutual understanding and shared attitudes.”

Someone in the workplace might use “Right?” to confirm what they said, “giving you a chance to be my ally on this particular matter,” says Silva.

Wherever it comes from, it comes down to this: You can sound as if you’re speaking without the courage of your convictions, which is not helpful for your career.

If you can’t say what you mean and stand behind it, it’s hard to have a real conversation. It’s tough to help others improve and build relationships. To fix things and get work done. And that’s no small thing. Right?

If you want someone to be present and productive, a little empathy goes a long way. And not just when beloved animals or people die. It’s also essential when a family member–or you–become terminally ill and you suddenly have added strains and responsibilities.

How hard is it to get management’s support? For some, very.

When Frances Ponick’s daughter died of a brain tumor she says, “My feelings were pretty much ignored.” Another employee at the company had just lost his wife to cancer, and “we had no one to talk to but each other. It was hard and strange. We felt shunned.”

It’s not that management was insensitive as much as ignorant, she says. “They simply didn’t know what to do with employees who were bereaved.”

When word of Anna Renault’s cancer diagnosis spread throughout the company, her two managers “bent over backwards to be nice about the fact that I would be off work for about six weeks.”

She returned to work where “some days there was an attitude of unreasonable expectation.” One boss “expected me to work really hard to catch up within the first week or two–not realistic even if I had not had cancer and two surgeries and two hemorrhages!”

She says she can understand her boss’s concern for getting the work done, “but I did expect more compassion.”

When Lori Ames’ son was diagnosed with a brain tumor she couldn’t go to work and her boss felt abandoned.

“We just ultimately mutually agreed that I would step down. I think my boss did the best she could. Her concern was running a business and how my son’s illness and my absence affected her life.”

Joni Aldrich’s experience was different when her husband was diagnosed with cancer and for two years they commuted 800 miles for treatment.

“I had always been a good and valued employee, and because I was the only one trained to do my job my company worked with me,” she says.

She often worked fewer and odd hours, but she and her boss “talked openly about what was happening. We never had any problems. Consequently, I was able to work full time and get my husband through three outpatient stem cell transplants.”

Most companies make allowances for traditional mourning. But as medicine becomes more advanced, a second type of “new grief” must be recognized. That’s what clinical psychologist Joseph Nowinski says people deal with when a loved one receives a terminal diagnosis.

It’s a “protracted process that leads to treatment, possible remission, possible relapse,” explains the co-author of Saying Goodbye: How Families Can Find Renewal through Loss.

The impatience that some workers sense from employers “reflects the fact that we have come to value productivity and efficiency above all else. The idea that something like grief might slow us down–make us less productive–has become increasingly unacceptable.”

Nowinski favors ways for colleagues and co-workers to be part of a support network by:

• Training supervisors to support workers dealing with terminal illness.
• Offering on-site support groups for employees in this situation.
• Enacting job sharing and flexible work hours to accommodate workers.
• Creating a system where employees can voluntarily help out coworkers in need of support.
• Educating human resources so it’s another source of information and support.

If lower productivity is a concern, employers have to ask themselves this: How productive and motivated will an employee be when he or she works for someone who is unsupportive and lacks empathy about their pain, suffering or loss? Probably not very.

But that’s just how she and other black women in corporate America have felt–and still do at times.

It goes back to unflattering stereotypes and general perceptions that “make it easy to dismiss black women as unable to be power players,” points out Sophia A. Nelson in her book, Black Woman Redefined.

Add the fact that less than 1.2 percent of black females are executives in corporate America, such women not only feel invisible, but, says Nelson, to a third of the American workforce, they truly are invisible.

For those who are present, it can be hard to be heard.

“I’d be in a meeting and give my opinion,” says Debbie, “and it was totally discounted. My points weren’t even acknowledged. One of my white counterparts could say verbatim what I said and the response was, “Let’s discuss that.”

That’s when she began to question herself. “Was it my tone? Did I present it in a manner that couldn’t be heard? I was second guessing everything. It made me bitter.”

It’s understandable to point fingers and “get swallowed up in the long-standing workplace inequities” argument, says Nelson, who doesn’t blame anyone for responding with anger or outrage.

But, she writes, “We must take stock of our professional battle scars and transform them into a powerful force for change,” developing “built-to-last and nimble game plans focused on establishing meaningful relationships, strategic alliances and rock-solid career platforms.”

One of the most important keys–and most lacking for black women executives and professionals, according to findings of a 2009 Executive Leadership Council study–is having “comfortable, trusted, and strategic relationships at the senior level with those who are most different from themselves, most notably white males.”

Nelson quotes the study that says “black women collaborate well among themselves but have some difficulty feeling comfortable in an environment with white men” and that “white men and black women have not formed close enough working relationships to understand each other.”

Before, Debbie says, “I wouldn’t reach out to someone who wasn’t like me or didn’t have my same values. I just wrote them off. One of my managers forced me to reach out. It was a requirement. He made a list of people. Peers. Some upper levels.

“I needed to understand how to operate because they were making decisions around opportunities for me. I had lunch with them. It was awkward. But I developed relationships with white men who advocated for me. Others didn’t get in the way anymore. I showed them I belong, can hold my own and that it has nothing to do with diversity or affirmative action. But that I came in the same door they did. You have to get past the ‘you’ve done me so wrong’ feeling.”

Her advice? Identify the people who are with you and those who are not and build relationships with those who have a say in your career.

Even today, you have to over-deliver, she points out. So don’t get comfortable.

“I have seen many young, sheltered African Americans who went to the best schools and believe that people will think you’re special because you went to those schools and that they don’t consider color.

“These young people are devastated and paralyzed when they realize that you have to prove yourself and beyond. You’re scrutinized more. The truth is they see you first as an African American woman. Period, over and out.”

So it’s on you to help broaden their vision.

“She told me I should be a doctor when I was 10,” he told me in our first meeting.

Forty years later, when he told her he was thinking of doing something else she said, “It’s a good job. Why would you give that up? Especially these days. You should hold on to what you’ve got.”

And so he has stuck with it. For 30-plus dread-filled, cranky years.

Why do people hold on to what they have at all costs when it’s not what they want? Especially when it makes them irritable and sick? Putting aside the idea that we may try to meet others’ expectations, the obvious answer is that we don’t like change. Said another way, we’d rather stick with what’s familiar.

This New York subway worker who labors all night in that dark, damp and dingy place, said it well. His employer was celebrating 100 years of service back in 2004 and I heard him say in a radio interview that he’s more comfortable walking the tracks than the streets of New York. Why would he say that?

“Because I know the environment. I know the pitfalls,” he explained.

That’s how humans operate. We like to know what’s around the corner.

With my doctor client, there was also something else. His work defined so much of who he was. In part, he had become a doctor because it was prestigious and “a big deal to make money,” he told me. “And now, here I am successful and making money.”

Writer Tom Wolfe has a theory about this. It has to do with status. “Social behavior is almost always determined by status consciousness–an instinct to preserve your place in the social pecking order,” he wrote in The New York Times Magazine a few years back.

Status details, as he calls them, include “where a person thinks he belongs and, more important, where he wants to stay.” He says, “People aren’t so much interested in scaling the social ladder as in clinging to their own, hard-earned rung.”

Bob has clung to his hard-earned rung alright while creating a life of despair and anxiety. He can’t decide what to choose, torn between maintaining his status and following his heart.

Other times people fall into what I call the These-Day’s Trap, as in “These days, you should be glad for what you’ve got and hold on to it.” Have you said that yourself?

If all of this sounds way too familiar, maybe it’s time to examine what you hold on to and whether you have the stomach to change. Yes, even these days.

To start, here are five questions to ponder.

1. What are you holding on to? Is it the familiarity of something? If so, what? Is it a feeling of something? Fitting in?

2. What do you gain from it? Is it social status? Money? Comfort in knowing what to expect each day? Acceptance from others?

3. What is it keeping you from getting or doing? As long as you keep doing this work, what else don’t you get to do or have?

4. What will you lose if you give it up? Respect? Money? An identity? A particular group of friends?

5. Is it worth more than the new career satisfaction you want?

The next time you hear yourself or someone else, ask, “Why would you give that up?” think about a better question to ponder: “What will I gain if I do?”

Industries with the most hiring promise are leisure and hospitality and mining, then professional business services and durable goods manufacturing.

Yes, you can feel it in the air. From casual-how’s-business? conversations with recruiters who say they’re swamped, to small business owners scouting for workers. Things are definitely looking up.

Now the bad news: You won’t get an interview, let alone an offer at any of these places if you don’t clean up your job hunting act. Yes, reports of lazy, ineffectual job hunter presentations and overall bad form still pour in from employers across all industry sectors and all 50 states.

The faux pas are things we’ve talked about before but still, rarely heeded. The big problem? When responding to openings you’re still in too much of a hurry to do your responses any justice. And that sends your resume and letters soaring into the trash bin.

If only you would slow down and think about how to convey what this employer told me he looks for in a cover letter and resume: “A beckoning from behind the cold piece of paper.”

The employer is Bill Strauss, chairman of Strauss & Troy, a Cincinnati law firm. His firm was looking for a part-time marketing director. On a flight to Los Angeles he sorted through the top 12 prospects from the batch of respondents but saw little evidence of that beckoning. Lawyers, after all, like evidence.

“I was hoping to see a spark of creativity, some individuality that came through in the writing,” he says. But they were all so similar “I had trouble keeping them distinctive in my head and they started to blur together.”

So he tried a different tactic. “I started looking at the resume and application itself as a marketing piece. As if this is an example of their work. I looked for typos, grammar, writing and persuasion skills of the person who was in the act of marketing to me.” He began nixing applicants right and left.

“I eliminated some at the most superficial level. They said they had editing and proofing in their skill set, but their bullet points weren’t lined up. If someone started out the cover letter in an informal style by using a first name, it wasn’t professional.”

He found one applicant’s email address itself unprofessional and telling of the person. Grammatical errors turned him off. There were incorrect spelling of words such as “tecknical” and “Cincinnatti.”

The applicant who stood out most and as best qualified to represent the firm “sent us an actual letter on stationary in a nice folder,” says Strauss.

“It’s superficial, I know. But it looked like a person who cared about the appearance of her work product”–something that matters at such a company.

“When someone takes the time and trouble to send you a letter with a signature on letterhead, that stands out,” he adds. “It’s like a flower among weeds.”

It goes back to the evidence at hand–which is the response you send and the way you package it.

As Strauss put it, “There’s a correlation between this response and how they would be on the job. It is predictive of their performance.”

The evidence in the job market suggests that things are on the upswing. Do your marketing tools make the same case for you?