A Touch of Class

Maybe you heard it growing up, “sit up straight”, “Don’t drag your feet”, “Don’t chew with your mouth open” or “tuck your shirt in”, and you rolled your eye’s and begrudgingly did as you were told. Believe it or not, these are all valuable lessons for success. We’ve all heard the old adage, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” However, the reality is, people do judge the book by the cover. The cover is the first thing we see when selecting a book. The only way to determine if the book is any good is to read it. Your appearance is the same as that book cover, and people will judge you on your appearance.

I’m sure at some time in your life you have listened to someone on the radio and based on the sound of their voice, you created a mental image of what that person on the radio looked like. You may have envisioned a tall, middle aged gentleman, well dressed and clean shaven. Only to have your metal image shattered when you saw the person on a television interview. To your amazement you found out that the person is a short, stocky guy with clothing that looks like he slept in them.

The same is true of your image. People will naturally create a mental image of your professionalism, intelligence and character based on what you look like.

Claude M. Bristol once said, “Every person is the creation of himself, the image of his own thinking and believing. As individuals think and believe, so they are.”

“You only get the chance to make a first impression once” is a profound statement. Whether it’s a new job interview, a meeting with your boss, or a presentation to the board of directors, the mental images that people create upon meeting you will determine how successful you will be in dealing with that person. It does not matter whether you are meeting them for the first time or the one hundredth time, your appearance will determine how other people perceive you at that moment.

Image yourself sitting in a reception area waiting for a job interview. Across from you is a well dress “James Bond” type gentleman, well groomed, confident and obviously dressed for success.

You have the experience and the knowledge to perform the job at hand; you’re a perfect fit for the job. You have your resume in order, you’re well organized, and you have the credentials to backup your experience. You are calm, you fear nothing!

You sit calmly as the other candidate is escorted into his interview. 10 minutes, 20 minutes, finally an hour passes, and he emerges from his interview, and confidently exits the reception area.

Your name is called! You standup and walk into the office for your interview. You are offered a chair, and you sit down, only to realize you are facing the interviewer, and directly behind him is a huge mirror, and you suddenly notice that you have mismatched shoe’s, your shirt looks like you slept in it, and your pants have a hole in the knee.

At this point where do you think your confidence level is? By this point, it really doesn’t matter what you say, the odds are the interviewer has made up his mind before you even opened your mouth. His mental image of your personality has been established in his minds eye.

At this point all is not lost! You can still save the interview with your experience, knowledge and skills, but it won’t be easy. You still have to convince the interviewer to reject his mental image his minds eye has created.

To paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke, “The more extraordinary you are, the more dignified you should look. It also works in reverse. When I see a kid with three or four rings in his nose, I know there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that person”.

Your appearance can make you or break you. If you want to succeed in business or life in general, you need to establish the right mind set. You may be thinking it’s not fair to judge someone by the way they dress, but the reality is, life is not fair. People will naturally assume that how things look on the outside is an indication of how things are on the inside

American historian, Christopher Lasch summed it up best when he said, “Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.”

So sit up straight, tuck your shirt in, and prepare yourself for success.

Check Fraud Is on the Rise—Again

 

Sluggish sales are not the only problem during the current recession. Crime has been steadily rising, and according to the FBI nationwide crime report, the tally is up to $30 billion and rising. Of that, $30 billion are losses to businesses; almost one-third or $10 billion is the result of check fraud.

Retailers eager for sales are the hardest hit because of the loss of the bad check, combined with the loss of inventory because of the crime. However, retailers are not the only victims of check fraud. Everyone, from large multibillion-dollar corporations to small businesses and even private citizens, is becoming a secondary victim in the latest waves of check fraud.

Organized gangs—using forged checks to purchase such items as baby formula, jeans, and household necessities, as well as big-ticket items from LCD televisions to digital cameras to sell at local pawnshops, on the street, and over the Web on sites such as eBay or Craigslist—are nothing new to the retail industry.

One method used by check fraud criminals involves creating false identification or stealing someone’s identity, purchasing blank check stock from the local office supply store, using word processing software available on nearly any personal computer, and then printing convincing checks.

One of the tools retailers and banks have is known as the “Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act” or “Check 21” which went into effect on October 28, 2004. This piece of legislation reduces the time it takes for a check to clear the bank by allowing banks and retailers to exchange copies of a check digitally rather than having to exchange the check physically. This allows a bank to clear a check within 24 hours rather than the 3 to 5 days with the old method. This means banks and retailers will discover bad checks faster, reducing the possibility of becoming a repeat victim by the same criminal.

But Check 21 is not the only tool in the retailers’ arsenal. Many retailers are using Check Truncation, which converts a check from a physical piece of paper to an electronic transaction known as ACH. It works much like a debit card transaction but without the PIN number that you would have to enter for a debit card transaction.

Check Truncation works by scanning the numbers at the bottom of your check known as the MICR line (pronounced my-ker). These numbers provide all the information the retailer needs to debit your account electronically. This line contains the ABA number identifying the bank on which the check is drawn, as well as the checking account from which the funds will be withdrawn.

These two systems have had a significant impact on check fraud criminals by detecting invalid accounts, or accounts used for check fraud previously. The problem is that the banks have used these tools to give their customers a false sense of security, telling customers that these laws and procedures have been implemented to protect the customers, when in reality, these systems are designed to protect the banks.

Granted, these methods have slowed check fraud for a while, but as most criminals, it does not take them long to figure out a way around the problem or, in this case, how to use the system to their advantage, and that is exactly what today’s criminals have done.

Check Truncation has helped check fraud prosper more then ever before. It is like trying to put out a fire by throwing a bucket of gasoline on the flames. It just does not help.

If you have ever been to a retailer and made a purchase with a check, and the clerk scanned your check and handed it back to you with your receipt, then you have experienced Check Truncation.

Check fraud criminals love this aspect. By creating checks on their computers, they can place the bank ABA and account information on the MICR line that belongs to any secondary victim for whom they happen to have obtained information, such as the MICR numbers at the bottom of the check. After all, how is the salesclerk supposed to determine whether the numbers on the MICR line of a check belong to the customer? They cannot; that is the bank’s job.

So, now we have a criminal purchasing a quantity of products, and he makes out a check that he manufactured on his computer and hands that check along with his bogus identification to the salesclerk. The clerk then completes the transaction by scanning the MIRC line of the check and performs check truncation, converting the check to an automatic debit to the account encoded on the bottom of the check. Once the transaction is complete, the clerk bags the merchandise and hands it to the criminal along with the receipt and the original check. Yes, the clerk has actually handed the criminal the evidence that could have been used to convict him.

So, what is wrong with this transaction other than the criminal used bogus identification and a bad check? The truth be known—the check is perfectly valid. The information contained on the MICR line had to be valid in order for the transaction to be completed.

The problem is the information this criminal used on the MICR line may have been the exact same information that is on your checks. Yes! He may have obtained your account information and that Check Truncation transaction will be deducted from your checking account. The problem is the amount of the check was small enough that you may not notice it on your bank statement that you will receive in 30 days. Unless you balance your checking account, identify the transaction as fraudulent, and notify your bank within a reasonably short period—you will have footed the bill for that criminal.

This is only one method check fraud criminals are using to obtain funds. These check fraud criminals use other methods, some even more lucrative. Most people think they are protected by their bank; unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Because of the increase in check fraud as well as credit card fraud, banks have been pushing lawmakers to pass laws such as Check 21, as well as other laws that allow them to defer some, if not all, of the responsibility onto their customers. For example, in many cases, banks are not responsible for the first fifty dollars of a fraudulent transaction. If you notify your bank about a fraudulent transaction of say, $150.00, the bank may reimburse you $100.00, of which the first $50.00 is your loss. But what if the fraudulent transaction is only $45.00? It is a good bet that you will be responsible for that loss.

One of the most common defenses banks use to defer losses because of check fraud is that it is their customers’ responsibility to protect themselves from such crime, and ignorance of those laws is no excuse.

In my book, The Truth about Check Fraud, you will learn the truth about how checks work, and what you need to know to protect yourself from not only the criminals, but also from the banks. The banks do not want you to know many things about how checks work and how you can reduce your risk if you only knew how checks worked.

In addition, you will learn the many different methods criminals can use to access your money and how the banks will make sure you are left to assume the loss.

As this recession gets worse, crime will only increase. Do yourself a favor, and pick up a copy of The Truth about Check Fraud today. Just one fraudulent transaction could cost you 10 times the cost of the book.

You can find The Truth about Check Fraud at www.amazon.com.

Familiarity Breeds Contempt—Part III

 

In part two, I discussed how allowing someone to become too familiar with you can severely limit your current and future employment goals.

 

Now, I would like to discuss an example of a profile I located on MySpace and what future employment prospects this individual may expect. The profile is real, but the name has been changed to protect his identity.

 

“Justin” is currently in a doctoral program for chemistry at a well-known East Coast university. Justin is twenty-six-years old and, according to his MySpace profile, is an excellent student and enjoys music of all kinds. His hobbies are reading, videography, and playing his Xbox.

 

On the surface, Justin seems to be a bright person that may go far once he graduates and obtains that Ph.D. He has obviously committed himself to years of education and hard work to get into a doctoral program. He also seems to have several healthy hobbies that allow him to relieve the day’s stress. But what happens when we look closer at his profile and examine the other information on his site.

 

Odds are Justin is still a little immature because he wanted to make his MySpace site cool for his friends when they visit. So Justin has added a few photographs with comments. For example, Justin has included a photo with a caption stating that he is an avid gun supporter and enjoys target practice with his friends. Nothing wrong with being a card-carrying NRA member.

 

However, the picture he chose of himself during one of these target practice sessions, upon closer examination, appears to be in the backyard of someone’s house. I can clearly see Justin holding a gun in one hand and a bottle of liquor in the other. In the background, there is a table with what appears to be a hookah, commonly used for smoking herbal fruits, tobacco, or cannabis. I’m sure our chemistry student and his friends were smoking Butera Royal Vintage tobacco blend in their water-filtered hookah.

 

Upon further examination of Justin’s site, I was able to dig deeper and find more information about Justin from his “friends’” sites, which were linked to Justin’s site. One friend wrote about Justin in detail, telling a very colorful story about how Justin got himself arrested for disorderly conduct and discharging a firearm within city limits.

 

Sure, his friends may have exaggerated some of the information on these sites, or Justin may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some would argue that Justin has a right to do whatever he wants to do on his own personal time, as long as it is legal and does not harm others.

 

But, it’s not about personal rights. It’s about appearances and the impressions you leave for others to view and learn about who you are, whether they are true or not. Sure you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but Justin’s future employer has an obligation to make the best decision as to who is hired based on the information available. If Justin, or anyone else for that matter, makes information publicly available either on-line or in casual conversation, then that information may come around and haunt him sometime in the future. In this case, Justin should not be surprised if, upon graduation, he finds his past catching up with him in an interview.

 

With today’s Generation “Y,” also known as Millennials, entering the work force with their casual lifestyle, informal methods of communications, and propensity for posting every detail of their lives on social networks for the entire world to see, it is common for business relations to become stressed.

 

Greek philosopher Thucydides said, “It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well, and look up to those who make no concessions.”

 

So if you want success, try to keep as many people as possible in the dark about your personal life. The world will thank you and look up to you for it.

 

Familiarity Breeds Contempt—Part II

 

In part one of this article, I discussed how familiarity can breed contempt and how teachers and other professionals should avoid giving out too much information about themselves, either in the course of normal conversation or on social networking sites.

 

In this installment, I am going to discuss how providing too much information to others can prevent you from getting that high-paying job you want.

 

In today’s economically trying times, employers are taking great care in performing background checks on the employees they hire and on some they have already employed.

 

Given the vast amount of information that can be gathered on the Internet and its cost-effectiveness in comparison to the potential cost of employing a risky employee, employers are able to perform extensive background checks on potential employees to weed out the undesirables.

 

Social networks such as MySpace and Facebook are prime targets for employers to search when considering a new hire. If an applicant has content or links involving subject matter that can reasonably identify him or her as a threat to workplace harmony and/or safety, such as swastikas, Confederate flags, pornography, glorification of guns, knives, or other weapons, or references to drug use or other illegal activities, then it is fair to use this information to make a hiring decision, to prevent possible future issues.

 

If an employer should hire an employee that was discovered to be into weapons or pornography, and that employee sexually harasses or threatens another employee, the victimized employee could sue the employer because the employer had knowledge of the new hire’s propensity towards the type of offense made.

 

Google is another great tool that employers have added to their toolbox. Who hasn’t “Googled” themselves at some point, eager to see if something interesting pops up? If you have not done that, then perhaps you should. You would be amazed at how much information there could be about you in a simple Google search.

 

Google’s mission statement is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Loosely translated, this means that Google intends to locate any information it can legally access about you and serve that information to anyone that searches for it. Therefore, it does not matter what social network you have posted your personal information on, or what site you use to host your blog, or which Internet News Group you post pictures on. Google will find them and organize them for any potential employer that cares to perform a simple search during your pre-employment check.

 

Personally, I use a feature on Google called Google Alerts to continually search for information about myself. This service allows me to configure a set of search terms about myself, my boss, a friend, or any other information for that matter. Once configured, Goggle will send me instant e-mails with the information it has found about one of my search terms.

 

I can assure you Google has a vast database of information. I once was sent an alert that Google located about an Internet conversation I had forgotten about long ago. It was a posting to a Usenet newsgroup I made in 1981 in which I was part of a conversation regarding co-founder of Apple Computers, Stephen Wozniak’s aircraft accident and how it would affect Apple Computers if he had died in that crash. Human memory is fleeting; the Internet remembers forever.

 

So, the next time you update your MySpace or Facebook site, look closely at it and ask yourself if you would be proud to hand out flyers containing the information on your site or in your blog to your current employer, future employer, or even your mother.

 

In short, Web savvy job seekers can just as easily use the medium of the Internet to boost their chances of landing that dream job as they can to destroy them.

 

In part three of this article, I will discuss a real world example of how providing too much information to others can severely limit your employment potential.

 

 

 

Familiarity Breeds Contempt—Part I

Charles de Gaulle once said, “There can be no prestige without mystery, for familiarity breeds contempt.”

 

So, does familiarity breed contempt? The answer is a resounding “yes”!

 

For as long as I can remember, my mother drilled this into me. She would always warn me to be careful of what I tell people because it might come back to haunt me someday. But, for some reason, the lives of millions are an open book today. Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are becoming stages for people to chronicle their lives for all to see.

I find it hard to open a newspaper or watch the news without some story about how someone lost his or her job or missed a promotion because of something he or she displayed to the world without any thought as to how the public would view it.

 

For the sake of this article, I am particularly critical of teachers, but regardless of the profession, the issue is valid for anyone in a position of authority—from public officials to doctors and lawyers to your boss or even you.

 

In the academic world, overfamiliarity of students and teachers can and generally does lead to contempt of one for the other. It is human nature to be curious about other people. Magazines such as People or Us, along with social networking sites, have raised this level of curiosity to an art form.

 

At its core, the concept of “familiarity breeds contempt” is based on the idea that the more we know about an authority figure such as a teacher, on a personal level, the more likely we are to find fault with him or her.

 

Of particular concern is when parents and students learn too much about a teacher. As is human nature, people begin to formulate a mental image of the teacher and then compare that mental image to their own image, often jumping to conclusions or making assumptions based on the available information.

 

As a parent, I have often heard stories from my children about their teachers, but on one particular instance, my child arrived home and enjoyed telling me all about his teacher’s weekend with her boyfriend. My child went on about the margaritas they enjoyed, the beach parties, and countless other details.

 

From that point on, I found it very difficult to take anything the teacher had to say seriously. Based on this and other information I learned through my child, I found myself questioning this teacher’s abilities to educate my child effectively. To make a long story short, I discussed it with the school, changes were made, and apologies given. But, as my mother would say, the damage has been done.

 

Granted this example is most likely the exception, but from my experiences, many teachers, as well as managers and employees in all professions, have a tendency to offer way too much insight into their personal lives.

 

From political positions to religious beliefs or environmental issues to how much they drink over the weekend, this information when distributed to students or coworkers, regardless of your profession, can be fodder for others to become too familiar with you.

 

Once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, people will begin to judge you based on that information. Some may question if you are even qualified to perform your job or hold a position of authority.

 

Just ask student teacher Stacy Snyder who, in May of 2006, was denied a teaching degree upon graduation from Millersville University in Pennsylvania because she posted a photo of herself on her private MySpace site that she titled, “Drunken Pirate,” in which she can be seen wearing a pirate hat and drinking from a plastic cup. The courts ruled that, as a student teacher and an employee of the school, she is an authority figure, has a moral obligation to set an appropriate example, and such a photo sends the wrong message to students.

 

Teachers are not the only group of professionals to lose their jobs over personal postings on social networks. The lists of professionals include police officers, judges, restaurant managers, and even Wal-Mart employees. No one is immune to the consequences of poor judgment.

 

Regardless of whether you agree with these cases or not, you cannot control what other people will think of you based on information they hear from students or friends or read about you on social networking sites.

 

My primary reference in this article has been teachers, but this scenario has played itself out among musicians, politicians, and high-profile executives from Adelphia Cable to Enron to WorldCom. There is no doubt in my mind that people the world over will continue to be disappointed in someone because of becoming too familiar.

 

In my next article, I will discuss how allowing others to become too familiar with you can severely limit your employment prospects.