There is more to getting hired than just having a great resume. Sometimes it's the way you carry yourself or the way you give off confidence to an employer. Your attitude can be as important as what you've done with your career.

But how do you develop that "hire me" attitude? This piece over at CareerBuilder.com has some great tips.

For example, you should apply to companies that aren't necessarily seeking candidates at the moment. According to author John Smith, if you read the newspapers and read about new companies opening up then you can send them your resume. Your ambition can make you memorable and if they feel you match their needs they might just hire you.

One thing that could set you apart is by actually picking up the phone and calling potential new employers. These days so many people send resumes via e-mail that an actual live voice can make you stand out.

You can tailor your resume for the company for which you are applying. Don't assume your resume is the perfect fit for every situation. Also, construct your resume so that it is easy to read.

Smith has other suggestions as well, many of the culled from experts in hiring and managing employees. They include tips for writing cover letters, and how to conduct yourself during the interview. It's a lot to remember, but if you master just a couple of them you could find yourself hired for that job you really dream about.

When it comes to be rejected, it can be tough to deal with. Whether you are being rejected for a date or rejected for a job, the emotions and feelings can be very similar. So how do you recover from that job rejection when you are certain you've done everything right?

As this piece on Careerbuilder.com explains, the first thing to realize is that it is likely not a personal thing. Companies can potentially interview hundreds of candidates for an open position. At the same time, many companies are required to post and interview for an open position even if they have a candidate in mind. It may not be anything against you, just a matter of numbers.

Second, try to get some feedback on why you didn't get the job. This can be very difficult and many companies may not want to talk to you about it. If you try, however, you might learn something. Just be persistent and keep asking questions.

Third, if you build a network of friends who can support you during these difficult times, they can help you deal with the rejection. Just like when you are in a relationship that goes wrong, your friends and support people can be there to offer advice and get you past the negative feelings.

Rejection is never easy. However, if you try to learn from the times you don't get that job, it can help you land one further down the road. Whatever you do, try not to wallow in the rejection or let the negative feelings overwhelm your entire job search.

Do good-looking people earn more money than average and below average-looking people? You would like to think that it's just hard work and doing your job well that can help you move up the ladder. Sadly, as this article on CareerBuilder.com explains, your looks may have more to do with your job than you realize.

Take this example. A manager told a cosmetic dentist, "[he] wanted his assistant to get veneers, and was even willing to pay for the dental work - as long as the assistant asked for it. He said this was a woman who was really good at her job and he was moving up (within the organization), but he couldn't take her with him because her teeth were so bad. The assistant never came in for the dental work, and [the dentist] said he didn't know what became of her career."

The question is, are pretty people actually better workers? That remains to be seen and studies are being conducted. However, it has been proven that students will give professors with good looks higher marks than those more average or below. At the same time, some experts say that lack of talent will eventually show no matter how good-looking the person is and that will affect their job and their pay at some point.

The sad part is that companies can still discriminate against workers because of looks. Often it is done carefully and other reasons are used, but there really aren't laws on the books for the ugly or less attractive. So, if you want to get noticed, it may pay off to spend a little extra getting that makeover or buying the fancy new clothes.

Please, someone awake me from my nightmare! I just read that some companies are responding to the recession by asking employees to take unpaid holidays. What? Yes, it's true.

Of course, it's not likely that your well-paid, well-fed bosses will be asked to take a pay cut from $500,000 per to a paltry $475,000 for the greater good of the company. Nah, I d say that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

This isn't the first time I've heard of such antics from employers. However, when I've seen it done in Europe, it was often in restaurants or small companies. Often, in those cases, the holidays were "forced", but they were still paid.

What's remarkable to me is this: it's no secret that the economy is crap and things are slowing down. But why do we so often expect the lowest earners to make the first sacrifices?

If we're going to hawk the idea that we're a team – we win as a team, we lose as a team – than perhaps we should ask a little more of those who are earning more. After all, most of us don't blame those who are supposed to guide our companies through feast and famine.

Taking unpaid time off is not only bad for individual people, it's not good for the economy. After all, we're supposed to spend to keep things flowing.

Running a small company or an independent consultant practice (a one man/woman shop) is no easy task. In fact, it often seems like you've got everything stacked up against you most of the time.

After all, you've got to market yourself, find clients, provide services, and play billing department and then collection agency when you're not paid. Let's add one more woe: a government looking to make your life even more difficult by upping your expenses, something small business owners in Canada will be only too aware of.

There is talk of legislation in Canada that would require such companies or one-person shops to take out mandatory workplace insurance. At first read, this sounds like a reasonable requirement, one to which most responsible business owners already adhere.

However, take a closer look and you'll notice that the law would require these companies to actually kick in to the government kitty. In other words, your current, private insurance would not exempt you from having to pay a separate, mandatory insurance premium governed by the government. This would a) render your private policy useless, and b) give the government a complete monopoly over insurance premiums and coverage benefits.

It certainly makes sense to require workplace insurance (these are one of those things I like to refer to as the "cost of doing business"), and, hell, it even makes sense to offer a state-controlled policy for companies or people who cannot afford a private policy.

But it makes no sense to force the many Canadian companies to change their current plan and fork over more cash to a different plan. In fact, it almost sounds like an extortionist plot.

Without a total jettison of the law, let's hope that someone in charge comes to their good senses and allows those who already enjoy coverage to continue to do so.

The operative word these days around the world is "change". It's something I never seem to have enough of when I need a cuppa, and it's also what President-elect Obama has been championing the past two years. But should Americans really expect to see a difference in the workplace? Surprisingly (to me), the Wall Street Journal says "yes".

While American workers shouldn't expect higher pay, less hours, and Ferrari corporate cars, there are a number of things that are likely to change from the Bush years.

For example, it's likely that unions will have a greater sphere of influence within the workplace. It's also likely that American workers will have an easier time forming unions. During the last guy's term, companies often felt that the government was on their side, giving them carte blanche to get rid of those who would organize.

According to the WSJ article, a re-focus on work/family life would also return. Without enjoying the flexibility that European countries offer, mother can hope for improved maternity leave, as well as strengthening the Family and Medical Leave Act., This would allow parents to feel safer in taking time off to address personal and family needs, without fearing the proverbial axe.

Regardless, it seems to be an exciting time in America. But let's not get carried away, as the new President will have his hands full untying past knots. As Mr. Obama put it, change starts from the bottom up – it will be up to employees in America to hold their governments' accountable for their actions – or lack thereof.

In my line of work, listening to headphones has never really been an issue. Of course, it's likely that I've not allowed it to become an issue by blocking out any protests with some righteous guitar riffs – although as this article discusses, that's only going to fuel the ire of opponents of tunes in the workplace.

Listening to music can be a wonderful escape from the often vile realities of the workplace. When I'm settling in to do some serious writing, listening to familiar, comforting sounds can be a great help in passing the time and getting things done. Of course, I listen to music with respect for my environment, as should anyone who does.

Keep your music at a volume that isn't likely to bother anyone sitting next to you. Even with expensive headsets, it's likely that listening to music at a loud volume is noticeable to those around you. Also, make sure that you listen to music at a volume that won't prevent you from hearing the phone or another colleague trying to get your attention.

While some people may feel that listening to music throws up a wall between the listener and the work environment, I disagree. Being comfortable and in the "right place" to get ones work done is important to producing quality work.

Keeping basic etiquette rules in mind and reducing reasons for colleague to be against you listening to music can result in a rewarding aural sensation that makes the day go by just a bit faster.

One thing I've noticed about the US election campaign is that it increased water cooler talk around three often taboo subjects, namely race, age, and gender. In the end, I suppose we can thank W for one of the few positive aspects of his presidency!

Regardless of one's politics, it's hard to deny that so many taboos have been blown right out of the water in this election cycle. For the first time ever we had three serious candidates poised to knock down one of three walls in presidential politics: we had a serious female contender for both a major party's nomination and also a vice-president candidate, we had an African-American (or at least bi-racial candidate to be honest), and a senior citizen. Talk about a lot to digest in one election cycle!

This, I have noticed, has caused the scourges of ageism, racism, and sexism to be more frequently discussed in the workplace. This article reaffirms that it's not just me noticing it.

From a European perspective, the race issue seems to be the one that is drawing the most attention. It's been quite interesting to see how Europeans perceive American attitudes towards race. It's often a case of assigning their own feelings on Americans.

Despite the historic level of this American election, I don't think that the end result changes much in the workplace for women, people of color, or those on "the wrong side of 40".

While we may be ready to elect one of the above to the highest post in the land, it's not likely that tolerance for any of those qualities are going to serve you well when it's time for a merit-based promotion or a raise.

As the year ends, a lot of workers are looking ahead toward 2009. Many of them are hoping for promotions, perhaps even counting on them. If you're one of those who have wanted to move up the ladder, only to see others move ahead, there may be some good reasons for it, as this piece from Careerbuilder.com points out.

First, consider the fact that you may be a "slacker" at least in the minds of your co-workers and managers. Do you arrive late for work? Do you call in sick a lot, especially when it gets you a three-day weekend? Do you miss a lot of deadlines? These do get noticed.

Second, you may just be doing "fine" but you may not be doing enough to impress. Yes, you get your work done and you get it done mostly on time, but you don't go that extra mile so many managers find impressive.

Third, and similar to the second one, you may not be visible enough. Do you bring out ideas to management during meetings? Do you participate in groups and programs around the office? To be noticed, you have to make yourself noticeable.

Fourth, you may just be a negative person. Do you spend most of your time complaining but little, if any, time providing solutions? Do you make a scene every time something goes wrong, even if it's the tiniest of things? This is not the type of person most companies want in charge.

There are many more suggestions throughout the article. You may find yourself and your method of working in any of them. If so, it may be time to reassess your behavior and start considering some changes.

When it comes to another day at the office, stable is the place to be. No, I'm not talking about working with or around horses (which might not be such a bad life), but in routine.

As boring as it may get, your heart may one day thank you for choosing the route of stability. At least, that's what this recent study out of Finland is telling us.

That's not so hard to believe though, is it? The unknown or fear of the unknown is often a great source of stress for many of us. When we find ourselves working in organizations with poor communication, or otherwise ambiguous working conditions, it's easy to see why our blood pressure our heartbeat might rise.

Unfortunately, it's hard to find jobs these days that are heart healthy. Even the guy who has a seemingly cool job is likely to have a list of grievances for you.

In this study, the bottom line (as we are told) is this: give a worker ample training and a clear outline of what is expected and his or her health will be less stressed. While I agree that this is a likely byproduct of an ideal work situation, I'm not sure that it would be wise to draw a link between this and decreased chances of cardiac arrest.

It's easier for us to change than it is for an employer to change. Trying to take situations in stride, eat healthily and regular exercise are all great ways (along with reducing office stress) in helping reduce chances of heart attacks or other heart diseases.

You hear a lot of managers and companies talking about "building their brand." This means making the company into a kind of icon where the name of the company is associated with the product or service they produce. Think Apple or Google.

But as this article in the Chicago's Tribune points out, you can do much the same thing yourself and build your own "personal brand".

In the piece, author Kyra Kyles describes the job of an employee named Molli Megasko who works for a PR firm. Megasko carries a full load of clients, works late and is also the companies' "social chair" which also happens to be a position she created. She does all of this to stand out from the rest of her co-workers.

Of course, Megasko also warns that this much work can sometimes be viewed as "kissing up" to the upper management. This is a key toward working hard and making yourself a "brand." You need to learn to walk the fine line between making yourself noticed and invaluable and "kissing up."

According to Kyles, "professionals should focus on being 'boundary spanners, or employees who go outside of their departments and corporate comfort zones to bring people together and help the company."

So, stay visible and make yourself appear invaluable. Just be careful that you aren't also seen as a "suck up" or a "brown-noser." Somewhere in the middle will make your job more secure in an economy as fragile as this one.

Is it ok for a boss to sleep with his (or her) subordinates? I guess it depends on if you're a so-called mysterious (or old) French lover. If you're the lascivious, really gross boss with coffee breath and lunch stains on your tie, don't even think about it.

The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the topic in light of IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn's recent dalliances with a young'un at the office. Surprisingly, the WSJ doesn't actually take a position in the article (while it wasn't an OP-ED, that hasn't stopped them in the past).

The decision not to punish DSK for his behavior is surprising; the claim was that the affair was consensual (hardly a consolation to Mrs. DSK). However, is the fact that it wasn't a rape sufficient? I'm no prude, but my understanding is that a boss can't sleep with a subordinate because that is the textbook definition of sexual harassment. Of course, the IMF isn't subject to American laws, so he may enjoy immunity from any such questions.

Still, take a look at the man in question. It's almost enough to give one nausea just thinking about him in the throes of pleasure. He certainly had to be aware of his position of power (no pun intended) and sphere of influence over the younger woman. For those feminists who are offended by asserting that she walked into a trap or wanted something other than love and affection, all I can say is that the story stinks.

Nevertheless, DSK is the winner here. He got what he wanted, and he gets to keep his job.

If you and your boss just are not getting along, it may be that you two are just not compatible. In fact the same sort of terms we often use in connection with dating can also apply to the manager/employee relationship.

, Bridget Quigg and Lydia West from PayScale.com breakdown managers' personalities into four main types:

1. The Performer – an extrovert who thrives on attention and last-minute frantic preparation.
2. The Dreamer – this is the guy or girl who loves coming up with new ideas. At the same time he or she may not be able to put those dreams and ideas into practice.
3. The Cheerleader – whatever you do, this manager-type thinks it's brilliant.
4. The Super Achiever – the type of boss who wants more meetings, more work, more projects and more from everyone.

The article also breaks down the types of employees who would go best with each personality type. For example, for the Dreamer the best compatible employee would be "realists with vision. A boss whose head is in the clouds needs employees who will help them focus their energy on the best of their ideas and develop plans to make those dreams a reality."

So, keep this in mind the next time you feel like strangling your boss. You may just not have matching personalities. This may require a change on both your parts, either within the office by taking a new job or by changing your own expectations.

In another sign that the business world and economy are heading even further in the wrong direction, it appears that there are fewer and fewer female executives in Australia.

In fact, based on a census taken by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (perhaps you might be more familiar with its EOWA appellation?), the number of female executives in Australia has actually decreased by 2% over the past two years.

OK, I'll be the first to admit. I snickered when I read that factoid in the Sydney Morning Herald. OK, forgive me, but I got up at 5am and spent 10 hours continuous at my desk trying to catch up from a humdinger of a cold. But I quickly stopped laughing when I read a little further into the Herald's article. Did you know that of 1,700 executive positions in companies listed on the ASX200, there were only 182 women?

That paltry number is just a little over 7%! Keep in mind that an executive isn't necessarily a CEO, but perhaps a director, vice-president, etc. The number of chief executives is - four.

Mix the current state of the economy and downsizing in management teams, along with the fact that women face a number of challenges and prejudices that us lads don't have to worry about, and it's a bad time to be a lady exec (or want to be one) in Australia.

As trite and worn as the statement "There is no 'I' in team." is, its a fact of life at work that when trust is lacking among team members, they spend inordinate amounts of time and energy resisting others' inappropriate behaviors, reacting to others' disingenuousness, playing politics, resisting meetings, and feeling reluctant to ask for, or give, support.

In a culture characterized by mistrust, relationships suffer and when relationships suffer, performance, production and profits suffer. So, how might you be contributing to mistrust on your team? Here are 25 behaviors that contribute to creating mistrust within your team:

1. You fail to keep your promises, agreements and commitments.
2. You serve your self first and others only when it is convenient.
3. You micromanage and resist delegating.
4. You demonstrate an inconsistency between what you say and how you behave.
5. You fail to share critical information with your colleagues.
6. You choose to not tell the truth.
7. You resort to blaming and scapegoating others rather than own your mistakes.
8. You judge, and criticize rather than offer constructive feedback.
9. You betray confidences, gossip and talk about others behind their backs.
10. You choose to not allow others to contribute or make decisions.
11. You downplay others' talents, knowledge and skills.
12. You refuse to support others with their professional development.
13. You resist creating shared values, expectations and intentions in favor of your own agenda; you refuse to compromise and foster win-lose arguments.
14. You refuse to be held accountable by your colleagues.
15. You resist discussing your personal life, allowing your vulnerability, disclosing your weaknesses and admitting your relationship challenges.
16. You rationalize sarcasm, put-down humor and off-putting remarks as "good for the group".
17. You fail to admit you need support and don't ask colleagues for help.
18. You take others' suggestions and critiques as personal attacks.
19. You fail to speak up in team meetings and avoid contributing constructively.
20. You refuse to consider the idea of constructive conflict and avoid conflict at all costs.
21. You consistently hijack team meetings and move them off topic.
22. You refuse to follow through on decisions agreed upon at team meetings.
23. You secretly engage in back-door negotiations with other team members to create your own alliances.
24. You refuse to give others the benefit of the doubt and prefer to judge them without asking them to explain their position or actions.
25. You refuse to apologize for mistakes, misunderstandings and inappropriate behavior and dig your heels in to defend yourself and protect your reputation.

When you show up in integrity, authentically and allow your vulnerability, others will see you as genuine, warts and all. As such, your teammates will begin to trust you and gravitate towards you as you have created a personal container of safety in which others feel they can relate to you in an equally genuine fashion. Communication and true teamwork is a function of trust, not technique. When trust is high, communication is easy and effortless. Communicating and relating are instantaneous. But, when trust is low, communicating and relating are efforting, exhausting, and time and energy consuming. Finally, no one wants to give 100% to someone they can't trust. Period!