Selling Yourself

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© June 8, 2014

Everyone lives by selling something.

Robert Louis Stevenson (1850 – 1894), Scottish author

One of the givens of modern life is that constant change demands we be ever alert and in constant selling mode.  Nothing is static; no one can rest on their laurels; someone or something is moving constantly towards us to disrupt our comfort zone to throw us and our composure off stride.  Once you have the security of a degree, you have the key to opportunity and the future, but you are put on notice, show me something new.

It is ironic that many professionals fail to see selling touching them, yet everyone is selling something, mainly their value added to the position they seek, but few seem aware of this.

When I was teaching graduated students in MBA studies, I would ask these mainly mature students, many graduate engineers, even Ph.D.’s in technical disciplines, how they planned to use the MBA.  Habitually, they would say, “One thing is for certain, I won't be going into sales.”  Just as predictably, I would ask them how they planned to avoid it.” 

They would give me that “come again” look, as if they hadn’t heard me correctly.  Then, defensively add, “Meaning no disrespect, I’m just not cut out for sales.”

Who Gets Hired and Why

Refusing to leave the matter at that, I would ask them what they thought was the most important qualification to achieving the position they desired.  Again, I would hear variations of being qualified.  "That’s why I’m getting my MBA, to fill all the boxes.” 

Thinking that answer could not be challenged, I would add, “What if I were to tell you that two fundamental qualifications to getting the job you seek involve selling?"  Puzzled, now totally attentive, they would look at me waiting to be enlightened.

Instead, I would ask, "On what basis do you choose your friends?"  The more astute would say, “Now you’re going to say something to the effect on the basis of selling.” 

I would reply, “That is precisely the case.  You choose your friends on the basis of how comfortable you are with them, and your sense of how they will fit in with your group.  Personal worth precedes all other qualifications.” 

Then before they could become defensive, I would add, “Should they not be otherwise qualified, say in a technical sense that is, not having the same school ties or practicing in the same profession, once they convinced you that they would be an asset, you would find a way to paper over such deficiencies with alarming alacrity.”

After a fashion upon reflection, they would start to nod, then suddenly realize what I was inferring.  “But that can’t be true of a company's hiring practices when it comes to highly trained individuals, such as engineers and accountants, can it?”

“Can’t it?  Why can’t it?”  Watching my face for confirmation, I would smile.  “Let me know what you find out when you interview for your next job.”

Now, intrigued, they would ask me how they could ensure that they would make the best impression on their prospective employer.  “Ah, now we’re in the business of selling the most important product you have to sell, yourself.”

Essence of Personal Selling

Selling yourself involves being cognizant of this simple model.  The interviewer, in my experience without being fully aware of it, is likely to judge you and your acceptability for employment on this basis, and these criteria, and in this order:  

Am I comfortable with this individual?

             

Will this individual fit into our group?

Is he qualified for the job?

Customarily, the person being interviewed thinks that he must wow the interviewer with his technical acumen, brilliant portfolio, and “amazing” qualifications for the job.  I have heard candidates tell me that they were a perfect fit and match for a given job because of their qualifications, and yet not make the final cut. They would conclude, “Those interviewers were stupid, I hope they pay for it!”  No, it is you who is paying for not selling yourself.

The candidate’s attention, without meaning to, has become absorbed in “me, me, me” narcissism without a farthing of comprehension as to the interviewer’s role in the process.

In my experience, many such candidates were, indeed, the most qualified.  But a committee of interviewers would find themselves less than comfortable with the candidate, and he or she would not get the job.  

It was from hundreds of such “team” interviews that I came up with these criteria and this chronological order.  It became something of a charade to hear interviewers champion their favorite candidate when technical qualifications were not primary in their evaluations.  I will cite one instance here for illustrative purposes.  It was by no means the exception but too often proved the rule.  This inclination was even more apparent when internal promotions were made for candidates from one department or discipline to another within the company.

In this instance, we were seeking a communications specialist with state-of-the-arts skills, preferably with a PhD, academic and industrial experience, and a publication history that could be reviewed for relevance.  We interviewed several such candidates from several major universities, who were so excited about the job, seeing it dovetailing with their qualifications, so much so, that they ignored what every sales person knows is axiomatic:

What does this company do?

How successful is the company?

What is the company’s history?

What kind of people do you see around here, and how do they relate to each other and to superiors?

How would you describe each interviewer you have, and what do you see that they have in common, different?

How would you describe the tempo of activity?

How would you describe the place and space of this company, the general milieu?

The total absence of the interviewee being in the seller’s mode puts the buyer, the interviewer, at an extreme disadvantage in deciphering the interviewee’s value added status.  Consequently, highly qualified people fail to be hired every day because of this juggernaut.  

The man that was hired was an Air Force sergeant who had been reporting directly to a three-star general at the Pentagon with one year of college, no academic or industrial experience, and no publication history other than handing out press releases. 

The young man was familiar with Department of Defense (DOD) liaison with the US Air Force and Federal Government, and knew this company was a DOD subcontractor to the military.  Not a single Ph.D. interviewed seemed aware of the nature of the company’s business, showing no curiosity as to how that might relate to their discipline or impact the job, thinking only in terms of their highly qualified portfolios and self. 

All of these Ph.D.’s, to a man, saw themselves as the best qualified candidate.  The sergeant got the job but, alas, failed in the role.  Rather than admit defeat, and re-advertised the job, the company rolled the responsibilities of communications specialist into the function of two other professionals.  The sergeant was not fired but made an expediter for a program manager, a position similar to his previous role in the military. 

One day the general manager asked me why I thought the sergeant had failed.  “We had such high hopes for him,” he chirped.

“He failed, sir,” I said, with some solemnity, “because he was an enlisted man in officer’s country.”  Aside from not having the technical skills, he was a trained reactor rather than initiator.  They needed an initiator but subconsciously wanted someone they could control, and that is hardly ever an initiator. 

Let us now look more closely at each of these components.

Is the interviewer comfortable with me?

In order for the interviewee to have the key to the way the interviewer thinks, the interviewee should start by listening between the lines, which means listening with the “third ear.”  So often our minds are preoccupied with what we plan to say that we don’t hear the interviewer.  Three levels of hearing illustrate how poorly we are likely to listen given this obsession:

There is the hearing level.  We hear a noise, a muddled sound called talking but little else.

There is the listening level.  We hear what the person is saying but we fail to register what his words mean or the message these words are attempting to communicate.

There is the thinking level.  We hear what the person is saying and understand the implicit message he is attempting to communicate by decoding and digesting its meaning.

Communication only occurs at the third level.  The rest is simply white noise.  Developing the faculty for hearing with a third ear demands training.

An interview is an emotional experience for both the interviewee and the interviewer.  Obviously, many interviewers are not good listeners, which puts even a bigger burden on the applicant in the selling mode. 

We seldom say what we mean, and seldom mean what we say.  We speak in code, and often camouflage our emotions to slip a dagger in when we feel the need without our rancor showing directly.  Clearly, in the case above, several of the interviewers were threatened with the highly qualified candidates broadcasting their acumen. 

The candidates should have picked this up when asked how familiar they were with the latest software technology.  These Ph.D.’s, to a person, took this as an asinine question, and attempted to wow the interviewer with their knowledge not realizing this was perceived by the interviewers as punishment for asking such a question.  

A more appropriate response would have been first to gauge the sincerity of the question by asking, “Do you plan on upgrading your software system soon?”  The candidate would then be able to calibrate the interviewer's intent, and determine if it was a fishing expedition or not.  If the candidate was still not clear, he could ask, “Do you think this software could help in your current operation?”  This would avoid a direct disclosure and give the candidate a feel for how familiar the interviewer was with the technology in general and cutting edge software in particular.  The sergeant, to the same question answered honestly that he didn’t have a clue as to what this new software could do for this operation.  Good answer as it turned out. 

Who controls the interview?

Control is an important part of the interview process, and the interviewer must believe he has such control.  He is unlikely to sense having control if you are doing all the talking.  On the other hand, and this is important, by you allowing him to do most of the talking, while you are listening with the third ear, you are in control the interview while he believes that he is.

You thus have an opportunity not only to observe his speech patterns, but also to assay what is important to him.  When he says, “Nobody around here likes a Prima Donna,” he means, “I don’t like Prima Donnas.”  When he says, “Before I came here five years ago, this place was a mess, I had to work seventy hours a week to put it into shape.”  He is indicating a fragile ego, a need for reinforcement and a personality that measures accomplishment not by results but by effort exerted in terms of hours spent in the doing.

You elicited this comment when you said the plant complex reminded you of a college campus, pristine and beautiful.   Instead of accepting this with grace, he revealed his needy nature, and at that point you should be on high alert.

Right move: “I would be interested how you did that.  That had to be a tough job.”  This gets him talking about his struggle and gives you time to gauge the interview.

Should he say, “You look pretty young for all that education and industrial experience?” 

Wrong reply: “Thank you.  I completed an eight year college program in five, skipping my MA, and doing my dissertation in three months rather than the year expected, and I’ve never been more than six months in a job in industry without being promoted to the next level.  I guess I’ve been pretty lucky.”  Right?  Wrong!

Right reply: “I’m older than I look, but thank you for the compliment.”  You dodged the bullet.  He can clearly see by your curriculum vitae how old you are, how long it took you to get your PhD, and he can also see from your resume that you have consistently won rapid promotion.  But your answer tells him you’re not a narcissistic Prima Donna.

What does the furniture say?

If you meet in each interviewer’s office, which is common for professional positions, it is well to remember we carry our geography with us.  That goes double for the interviewer.  The interviewer’s office tells you precisely what he wants to project, not what he is, but how he wants to be perceived. 

Glaring inconsistencies should be noted, and provide caveats on how to proceed forward.  You are not being interviewed by who he is but whom he wants you to think he is.  When inconsistencies are apparent, it is well to note them and tread lightly.

The interviewer’s environment reflects the inner person inhabiting the premises to a greater or lesser degree.  Here are some relevant observations:

Where is the office located?  Near or removed from the seat of power?  Near or removed from the work center?

What books, magazines or newspapers are in evidence? Are they current or simply props?

Most worn, least worn books? You can tell more about a person going through his library than his wallet.

Do you see personal photographs or copies of prints of paintings?  Are they of people, places or things?  Take note of family pictures, prominent people or notable events.  What does all this tell you about the person who occupies the space?

Are degrees, documents, certificates, awards, and flags on display?  How do they listen?

How would you describe the furnishings?  Pretentious?  Utilitarian?  Carefully or carelessly selected?

How would you describe the desk?  Is it a working area or one for show?  Do papers and documents appear to be functional or purposely in disarray as display?  Does the desk remind you of a mind at work and unconscious of how others might see it or not?

Other accessories?  Computer, scanner, webcam or screen recorder?  Do they appear to be used?

Collectively, how does all this listen?  Store this for future reference.  Compare it to your impression of the interviewer.  Don’t ever be lulled into the idea that external order reflects internal order.  Quite the opposite is more often the case.  And remember Emerson’s warning: What you are speaks so loudly I cannot hear you!  This is especially true of anything in the office that may reflect a special interest of the interviewer.

Intuitive Selling: A Case History

One time early in my career as a chemical sales engineer, I was calling on a prospect I had never met before.  He was reticent to discuss the serious technical problems I had observed and the recommendations submitted after conducting an extensive chemical engineering survey of his operations. 

Unexpectedly, the report in hand, he shockingly slammed his fist with the report on the desk, swore, got up and paced his office venting his spleen for several minutes.  

The abrupt change from reticence to explosion traumatized me, as this was some departure from the tranquility of the lab that I had so recently left, all the while wondering how to make a safe exit.  I was preparing to leave as he quieted down slumping in the chair behind his desk.  My compassion for the man broke through in a strange way.  I heard myself saying, “I don’t recognize that flag.”  It was a colorful flag next to the American flag behind and to the left of him, and it had intrigued me as I took in his office during his tantrum.

He beamed with a broad smile.  “That’s the Lion’s Club flag!”

“Oh,” I said, “You’re a Lion’s Club supporter.  They do a lot of good.”  I was familiar with their work with children with eye problems.

“Better than that I’m president of the local chapter.”

“Oh!” I repeated, feeling a little stupid.

“You know anything about us?”  I mentioned the “eye bank” and that I had a daughter with eye problems.  He went on to provide an elaborate description of all the good works the International Lion’s Club did.  “As a matter of fact, we’re giving an ambulance to the city tonight.”

“Wow!” I said, genuinely impressed.  It seemed to totally relax him.  It had nothing to do with his operational problems, nothing to do with my survey, nothing to do with business at all.  For the moment, this appeared the furthest thing from his mind.  Abruptly, he looked at his watch, then me, and said he had to excuse himself.  “I’ve got this meeting I must attend.  But before I go can I ask you a question?”

“Sure,” I said wondering what was coming.

“What are you doing tonight?”

“Nothing.  I’ll be in town as I’ve got a couple of calls to make in the morning, but tonight I’m free.”

“Good!  Would you be my guess at the dinner when we give the mayor the ambulance?”

Surprised, I said, “Sure, I’d be glad to,” still confused by his warming up to me. 

That night I attended the dinner, seeing my client in a totally different light as he shook hands with his Lion’s Club colleagues, introduced me to them as if I were his friend, and I had only met him that day.  After the dinner, as he accompanied me to my car, he said, “I’m sending a blanket order for those chemicals and I signed the engineering consulting contract.  It looks like we’ll be seeing a lot of each other the next several weeks.”  

Driving back to the motel, however, I pondered what had happened and couldn’t make a lot of sense of it.  I hadn’t said anything more about my company, didn’t mention business during the evening, not even obliquely.  He was in trouble, which my survey delineated in chemical engineering terms.  He became defensive and went into a minor rage as I pointed the massive problems and costs involved to turn operations around.  The only thing I could recall doing was nothing, if listening is nothing.  I allowed him to vent his rage without comment.  When his rage subsided and I mentioned the flag in passing, it seemed to lift him out of his funk.  It wasn’t until much later that I learned he had been under siege from several directions, and it was only a matter of time before he would lose it.  My survey did the deed. 

To put this into context, I had no training in psychology, was now employed by a company that only hired engineers or chemists in sales and then taught them nothing about selling, expecting them to wow customers with their technical prowess.  Well, I had no technical prowess.  I was new.  I didn’t even know the company's proprietary chemicals.  I understood the technology but had no experiencing in implementing it as my professional life up to that time had been as a bench chemist in a laboratory.    

You could say I took his best shot without recrimination, and for that he felt comfortable with me.  Later that evening, mixing with his Lion’s Club friends at dinner, talking amicably with them, he felt I could fit in with his group as many of these people worked for the same company, and some of them reported directly to him. 

What never came up was the technical aspect of the job.  I had been on a month’s company technical training program, and was familiar with the company’s technology from a theoretical perspective, but had no practical experience in the field for setting up company systems.  The company had a three-year sales engineering training program with field personnel not expected to sell complex systems until after that time expired.  I had been with the company less than three months.  In fact, I didn’t know the proprietary chemicals, only their theoretical functions.  In a word, I needed technical support from corporate, which I would receive. [1]

When I returned to the district office, disbelief was on the face of my manager and colleagues.  They couldn’t understand the order received, and wanted to understand how I managed to acquire it.  I couldn’t explain it.  My client had a master’s degree in engineering and we could talk the jargon, which put us on the same wavelength, but that was not however why he chose to partner with me. 

Many years later I would figure out it was this: He felt comfortable with me, could see me as part of his group, and trusted that I could deliver the technology.  Distilling these three components, you come up with a single word - “TRUST.” 

Without knowing how I did it in my naiveté, but realizing much later it was largely through intuition, I established a bond. 

Nakedness of Interruptions

Interruptions are always a chance situation in an interview.  It may be much more of a blessing than a distraction.  What better opportunity to understand the person interviewing you than how he deals with people and how they deal with him.  The conduct either supports or contradicts your initial impression, providing a three-dimensional view of the interviewer’s self-image.  Here is a checklist to assess disruptions:

How would you describe the behavior, that of a tyrant insensitive to the needs of others, or an empathetic coach and enabler?

Should the interviewer’s superior interrupt, does he treat this person differently than the interruptions of others?

How does it appear those that interrupt feel about the interviewer – comfortable, intimidated, relaxed or terrified?

How does the interviewer deal with peers who interrupt – differently or the same as superiors or subordinates?

How are interruptions of members of the other gender and minority treated – differently or the same as others?

How are phone calls/cell phones handled?  Are they put on hold?  Does the interviewer constantly check email, tweeting or texting?  What is the phone style – forceful, succinct, or long-winded?  Is the phone/cell phone a tool, a prop, or a toy?

Is the interviewer’s office accessible or not?

Does the interviewer take interruptions in stride?

If this seems a bit much, all of this is done in a matter of seconds.  This puts the process in a certain order and control in your hands.  Although it takes only milliseconds to tabulate these data, it takes hours to perfect the skill.  Once learned, your computer-like brain selects, classifies, stores and feeds back to you your appraisal of the interviewer and the situation.  Everything your senses tell you establish a gauge to understanding.

Dealing with Unavoidable Biases

We wonder how Europeans can get along so well with so many different languages, cultures, and histories.  We think of these United States as a homogeneous land without differentiation or distinction. 

The United States is a melting pot of several cultures, and although English is the most prominent language, it is spoken in dialect not unlike that of the several dialects of Chinese.  Curiously, we can perceive someone is speaking French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, German, Dutch, and perhaps even recognize Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Czech, Polish, and so on, though we can't comprehend what is being said in these native tongues.  

Here in the United States, we can tell what part of the country someone comes from by their syntax (grammar or sentence structure) and semantics (connotations of the language), as well as their education experience by the way syntax and semantics are used.

Mid westerners speak English differently than North easterners, South westerners, North westerners, and Californians.  Not only is the language different, but the values, interests, beliefs, and customs behind the words differ, sometimes dramatically, from region to region. 

The Midwest has a strong ethnic tie with Northern Europe and Protestantism.  The Northeast has a strong ethnic tie with Ireland and Western and Southern Europe and Catholicism.  Similarly, the values follow closely with these religious traditions with obvious overlaps, and transformations. 

Southern Baptists are nearly as strong in the Midwest as the South today.  The African American has a meaningful presence in metropolitan areas throughout the country, but hardly a presence in Midwestern farm country.  Then we have the fastest growing ethnic group in recent history that of people speaking Arabic and practicing Islam, providing a whole new dimension to our melting pot culture.

Mid westerners tend to be open and direct and have little patience with protocol, pomp and circumstance.  They pride themselves in being uncomplicated, even unsophisticated.  North easterners are more likely to be the exact opposite of this, more inclined to European affinities and valued status.  The rest of the country falls somewhere between these polar extremes with a large Spanish American presence in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and growing in Florida.

Mid westerners are often Nordic appearing from émigrés from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Northern Germany with pale complexions, light hair and skin, and taller than average.  North easterners are often from the Slavic and Latin countries with more swarthy complexions, dark hair and skin, and shorter than average. 

Admittedly, these are generalization but are offered for reason.  You could be rejected having fulfilled the three criteria stated, only through no fault of your own, appearing, speaking, coming from a region other than consistent with the bias of the interviewer.  Purists will scoff at this, but what is worse, the interviewer may in good conscience not be aware of such biases.  We tend to be most comfortable with people of our own ethnicity and history.  What complicates this factor is that ethnicity and history is not recognized as a differentiator with Americans, when clearly it is. 

You cannot control the biases of the interviewer, but you can control your reaction to these biases by being aware of your own mind.  There are four minds that you display in every interview:

The intellectual mind controls your thoughts.

The emotional mind controls your feelings.

The moving mind controls your behavior.

The intuitive mind controls your survival.

Each mind has its independent sphere of influence, its own power, and its own way of expressing itself.  The strength or weakness of your mind belongs to your essence, that is, your innate capacity, your genetic inheritance.  The content of these minds belongs to your acquired self, which is your personality.  Therefore, the content of your character is learned behavior through social conditioning. 

In an earlier chapter, we discussed how a person lost her job because she had contempt for her employer who was Jewish, but was surprised when she got fired claiming she had never expressed that bias.  Just as the interviewer has these select biases, so do we.  An interview can become a “clash of cultures” if the candidate is not accepting of his or her biases and tolerant of those of others.  

Ergo, accept yourself as you are and you are more likely to accept others as you find them.

Say you are tall and the interviewer is short, make him feel tall!  Better yet, make height unobtrusive.  Say the interviewer has an inescapable New Jersey accent that grades on your nerves as if the interviewer never left the ghetto.  Be aware of your bias and instead be amused with his expressions and delight in their delivery.  Imagine the interviewer is African American and he uses the King’s English better than you have ever heard it.  Delight and marvel at his sophistication.  He will feel it without you saying it. 

Remember we carry our geography with us wherever we go, and that means we also carry our garbage.  Be aware of this, but set it aside when you meet the interviewer.  No intellectual understanding is possible until you do.  Know that at the core of every human being resides goodness.  Whether that goodness will show in the interview depends to some degree on your approach.

Escaping the Cage of Self

If you examine what we have been discussing, you will see it is essentially a blueprint for escaping the cage of self-doubt.  We don’t like to think of ourselves in a selling mode because we don’t want to entertain the cage of rejection.  Our failure to see rejection as part of acceptance puts us in the cage of ego with no way out.

One of the idiosyncrasies of ego is that we believe that we are more different than alike others, that the pain we feel is greater than the pain someone else experiences, that the doubt we harbor is more depressing than the doubt anyone else harbors.  Not true!

Dan German Blazer in “The Age of Melancholy: ‘Major Depression’ and Its Social Origin” (2005), confesses it is a disease he suffers from, and so do many Americans calling it the “affluent disease,” which is too much, too many, too soon.  Marilyn Vos Savant, on the other hand, writes of Seven Sacred Virtues that apply very much to selling yourself:

Be humble.  You take your assets seriously but not yourself.  What you have been given divinely you intend to use with humility.

Be generous.  You have an air of trust, love and generosity without being naïve about the dangers of deception, duplicity, and deviance.  Material success resides comfortably with spiritual fulfillment.  You don’t try to carry other people’s burdens but are available to help them learn how to manage their own.

Be restraint.  Selling is always in a climate of possible human combustibles.  Too often we protest infrequently and violently rather than frequently and politely.  No one should be a pushover, but it is equally important to make yourself comfortable with others.  Natural suspicion protects us from being vulnerable to scams or con artists.  Take responsibility for your actions, which means using your head as much as your heart.

Be moderate.  Moderation is not just a convenience when you can afford it, but a requirement of existence.  This means eating, sleeping, working, loving, exercising and living with a sense of proportion and balance, which stimulates a sense of humor.  The person who prides himself in “working and playing hard” is burning the candle at both ends in the cage of his appetites while believing himself a free agent.  Moderation encompasses a sensible framework with a controllable perspective.

Be kind.  There is no greater virtue than kindness.  America’s famous novelist Henry James, asked late in his life what important words he would like to leave with future generations, he said, “Be kind, be kind, and be kind.”  Kindness means we visualize the souls in everyone we meet, and smile on them with love.  Some of us have had immense kindness in our lives, while others have had little.  It shows.  When it does, be doubly kind and understanding.

Be loving.  Loving is the most bountiful gift of all, yet it has been perverted into sex, envy, covetousness, hate, fear, and evil.  Love makes life worth living, and living worthy of life.  Too frequently love today is suspect, often replaced by greed or an exchange of bodily fluids.  To be loving you have the other person’s best interests at heart in a climate of trust.  It has little to do with words and much to do with actions. 

Be industrious.  It is important to be needed; to be needed we must be useful; to be useful we must find a way to become value added.  The happiest people are people in the service of others.  In serving others, we find ways to be useful, and therefore self-fulfilling.  Being industrious thus becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

Selling yourself involves all these dimensions described here, and of course much more.  It starts with letting go of your fragile ego and fear of rejection, and progresses to not being afraid of loving what you do, who you are, where you are, where you have been to where you hope to go.  Selling yourself is not magic or metaphysics, but largely common sense.  It is allowing your soul to touch everything you do and everything you are.  It makes you whole. [2]

*     *     *

Notes

[1] The reason I left the security of the laboratory in the first place was to supplement my income in the short term to be able to accept a stipend and full fellowship to Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut to continue my studies in theoretical chemistry, then my first love.  Nalco Chemical Company, my new employer, didn’t know this, or that Nalco was a stop gap to earn some quick money, and continue my education.  What attracted me to Nalco was an advertisement in Chemical & Engineering News in which it pictured a field chemical sales engineers making sales and service calls with a complete portable laboratory.  To my young mind, this represented a comfortable transition from the laboratory to field sales work.  It never occurred to me that I couldn’t sell.  Two seemingly clashing factors were to dictate my future.  My wife became pregnant with our third child, making it impossible for either of us to work outside the home and school.  The second factor was that I became inordinately successful with Nalco in sales and in customer relations, rising to international executive status in only five years. 

 

[2] This is largely excerpted from Purposeful Selling for the 21st Century: It Starts with Creative Confidence, TATE Publishing, 2014.