RE: References (was Re: Agencies

Subject: RE: References (was Re: Agencies
From: Kevin McLauchlan <KMcLauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com>
To: "'Giordano, Connie'" <Connie -dot- Giordano -at- FMR -dot- COM>, Kevin McLauchlan <KMcLauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:00:55 -0500

Yeah, as I mentioned to another correspondent, that
WAS the actual situation last year. Currently I'm
happily ensconced in the new place, having negotiated
very tightly to provide needed references while avoiding
burning any bridges.

It would seem that contractors have a big edge in the
multiple-current-references department.

Probably, getting involved in the STC would solve
some of the problem in future. :-)

Kevin McLauchlan
kmclauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giordano, Connie [mailto:Connie -dot- Giordano -at- FMR -dot- COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 6:03 PM
> To: 'Kevin McLauchlan'; TECHWR-L
> Subject: RE: References (was Re: Agencies
> Kevin,
> Maintain your reference network. Christmas and Hanukkah
> cards, an occasional
> "hey it's been too long" phone call or lunch, and the like.
> And whether you can use a current colleague depends on your
> circumstances.
> It's a risk, but, for example if you're downsizing, everybody
> knows who's
> leaving and it's not a problem, or if your spouse is being
> relocated, then
> you're leaving without burning any bridges. I did use
> current colleague
> references once when the company was being re-organized into
> a living hell,
> but I took a major chance in trusting those sources.

Previous by Author: References (was Re: Agencies
Next by Author: RE: techwr-l digest: December 09, 1999
Previous by Thread: RE: References (was Re: Agencies
Next by Thread: Re: References (was Re: Agencies

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads