The Best-Paying Tech Companies for Interns

Most tech industry internship-seekers would do anything to work at Facebook, Google, Amazon or Apple. In fact, they’d probably even do it for free.
But as it turns out, all of these companies offer paid internships. And they compensate remarkably well.
Facebook interns earn an average monthly base pay of $6,056, according to Glassdoor. Interns at Google rake in $5,678 per month, on average—while those at Amazon and Apple make $5,366 and $4,914 per month, respectively.

I

 

The Glassdoor.com, an online jobs and career community where people share information about their workplaces, just released its list of the 20 highest-paying tech companies for interns. To compile the list, Glassdoor sifted through thousands of anonymous salary reports voluntarily shared by interns in the tech industry over the past three years. (The average monthly salary numbers are based on at least 20 reports for each company.)

“It’s no secret that the war for tech talent continues to be fierce, and this even includes the internship level,” says Glassdoor spokesperson Samantha Zupan. “Companies are fighting for the best and brightest tech minds coming out of college, and handsome compensation packages during an internship are just one way to entice a talented young tech employee to potentially stay with the company upon graduation.”
While interns at the Internet’s “Fantastic Four” are bringing home heaps of cash each month–those at VMware are making even more. The Palo Alto-based software giant pays its interns a base salary of $6,536 per month, on average, making it the best-paying tech company for interns.
One former VMware technical staff intern wrote on the Glassdoor site: “I was making more than any of my classmates.”
A software engineering intern at Facebook, the second hightest-paying tech company, said: “The benefits and pay are obviously great, and since it’s a well-known company it’s a good place to start if you’re looking to get recognized at other tech companies and startups.”
Microsoft rounds out the top three. Interns there earn $5,936 per month, on average.

“The process varies from company to company–but generally, it’s not easy to land a coveted internship at a major tech company where interns earn a higher monthly base pay,” Zupan says. “On Glassdoor, interns at several of these companies talk about an interview process that can include three different interviews, technical problem solving questions, and in some cases, personality tests. Because internships can often translate to job opportunities, several of these companies tend to treat the intern interview process similar to any other job candidate. HR’s goal is to always identify the very best talent at all levels.”
If you’re interested in one of these positions, you’ll want to start by doing some research to find which company is the best fit for you, Zupan says. “Also, it’s never too early to network,” she adds. “Check out who you already know at the company, who your friends, parents and professors might know, and see if there is an inside connection to help get your résumé noticed.”
If you’re not offered an internship position the first time around, keep applying and stay in contact with the intern coordinator. “It just might pay off and set you apart if you show that you’re really serious about contributing to the company,” she concludes.

Here are the top 10 highest-paying tech companies for interns:
 VMware
Average monthly base pay: $6,536
Facebook
Average monthly base pay: $6,056
Microsoft
Average monthly base pay: $5,936
LinkedIn
Average monthly base pay: $5,808
Adobe
Average monthly base pay: $5,757
Google
Average monthly base pay: $5,678
Amazon
Average monthly base pay: $5,366
NVIDIA
Average monthly base pay: $5,215
Yahoo
Average monthly base pay: $5,191
Apple
Average monthly base pay: $4,914


Source: www.forbes.com by Jacquelyn Smith

Notable Accounting Scandals And Outcomes

NOTABLE ACCOUNTING SCANDALS

	Company	Year	Audit Firm	Country	Notes
	Lockheed Corporation	1976		United States
	Nugan Hand Bank	1980		Australia
	ZZZZ Best	1986		United States	Ponzi scheme run by Barry Minkow
	Barlow Clowes	1988		United Kingdom	Gilts management service. £110 million missing
	MiniScribe	1989		United States
	Polly Peck	1990		United Kingdom
	Bank of Credit and Commerce International	1991		United Kingdom
	Phar-Mor	1992	Coopers & Lybrand	United States	mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and transportation of funds obtained by theft or fraud
	Informix Corporation	1996	Ernst & Young	United States
	Sybase	1997	Ernst & Young	United States
	Cendant	1998	Ernst & Young	United States
	Waste Management, Inc.	1999	Arthur Andersen	United States	Financial mistatements
	MicroStrategy	2000	PricewaterhouseCoopers	United States	Michael Saylor
	Unify Corporation	2000	Deloitte & Touche	United States
	Computer Associates	2000	KPMG	United States	Sanjay Kumar
	Lernout & Hauspie	2000	KPMG	Belgium	Fictitious transactions in Korea and improper accounting methodologies elsewhere
	Xerox	2000	KPMG	United States	Falsifying financial results
	One.Tel	2001	Ernst & Young	Australia
	Enron	2001	Arthur Andersen	United States	Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, Andrew Fastow
	Swissair	2001	McKinsey & Company	Switzerland
	Adelphia	2002	Deloitte & Touche	United States	John Rigas
	AOL	2002	Ernst & Young	United States	Inflated sales
	Bristol-Myers Squibb	2002	PricewaterhouseCoopers	United States	Inflated revenues
	CMS Energy	2002	Arthur Andersen	United States	Round trip trades
	Duke Energy	2002	Deloitte & Touche	United States	Round trip trades
	Dynegy	2002	Arthur Andersen	United States	Round trip trades
	El Paso Corporation	2002	Deloitte & Touche	United States	Round trip trades
	Freddie Mac	2002	PricewaterhouseCoopers	United States	Understated earnings
	Global Crossing	2002	Arthur Andersen	Bermuda	Network capacity swaps to inflate revenues
	Halliburton	2002	Arthur Andersen	United States	Improper booking of cost overruns
	Homestore.com	2002	PricewaterhouseCoopers	United States	Improper booking of sales
	ImClone Systems	2002	KPMG	United States	Samuel D. Waksal
	Kmart	2002	PricewaterhouseCoopers	United States	Misleading accounting practices
	Merck & Co.	2002	Pricewaterhouse Coopers	United States	Recorded co-payments that were not collected
	Merrill Lynch	2002	Deloitte & Touche	United States	Conflict of interest
	Mirant	2002	KPMG	United States	Overstated assets and liabilities
	Nicor	2002	Arthur Andersen	United States	Overstated assets, understated liabilities
	Peregrine Systems	2002	KPMG	United States	Overstated sales
	Qwest Communications	2002	1999, 2000, 2001 Arthur Andersen 2002 October KPMG	United States	Inflated revenues
	Reliant Energy	2002	Deloitte & Touche	United States	Round trip trades
	Sunbeam	2002	Arthur Andersen	United States
	Tyco International	2002	PricewaterhouseCoopers	Bermuda	Improper accounting, Dennis Kozlowski
	WorldCom	2002	Arthur Andersen	United States	Overstated cash flows, Bernard Ebbers
	Royal Ahold	2003	Deloitte & Touche	United States	Inflating promotional allowances
	Parmalat	2003	Grant Thornton SpA	Italy	Falsified accounting documents, Calisto Tanzi
	HealthSouth Corporation	2003	Ernst & Young	United States	Richard M. Scrushy
	Nortel	2003	Deloitte & Touche	Canada	Distributed ill advised corporate bonuses to top 43 managers
	Chiquita Brands International	2004	Ernst & Young	United States	Illegal payments
	AIG	2004	PricewaterhouseCoopers	United States	Accounting of structured financial deals
	Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC	2008	Friehling & Horowitz	United States	Massive Ponzi scheme.
	Anglo Irish Bank	2008	Ernst & Young	Ireland	Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy
	Satyam Computer Services	2009	PricewaterhouseCoopers	India	Falsified accounts
	Lehman Brothers	2010	Ernst & Young	United States	Failure to disclose Repo 105 transactions to investors
	Sino-Forest Corporation	2011	Ernst & Young	Canada-China
	Olympus Corporation	2011	Ernst & Young	Japan	tobashi using acquisitions
	Autonomy Corporation	2012	Deloitte & Touche	United States	Subsidiary of HP.

 

NOTABLE OUTCOMES

The Enron scandal turned in the indictment and criminal conviction of one of the Big Five auditor Arthur Andersen on June 15, 2002. Although the conviction was overturned on May 31, 2005 by the Supreme Court of the United States, the firm ceased performing audits and is currently unwinding its business operations. The Enron scandal was defined as being one of the biggest audit failures. The scandal included utilizing loopholes that were found within the GAAP (General Accepted Accounting Principles). For auditing a big sized company such as Enron, the auditors were criticized for having a brief meeting few times a year that covered lots of material. By January 17, 2002 Enron decided to discontinue its business with Arthur Andersen claiming they had failed in accounting advice and related documents. Arthur Andersen was judged guilty of obstruction of justice for getting rid of many emails and documents that were related to auditing Enron. From this incident little less than 100,000 employees lost their jobs. Although later the ruling was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the image of the auditing firm have been damaged beyond repair, and was never able to come back to its full operation capacity.
On July 9, 2002 George W. Bush gave a speech about recent accounting scandals that had been uncovered. In spite of its stern tone, the speech did not focus on establishing new policy, but instead focused on actually enforcing current laws, which include holding CEOs and directors personally responsible for accountancy fraud.
In July, 2002, WorldCom filed for bankruptcy protection, in what was considered the largest corporate insolvency ever at the time.
These scandals reignited the debate over the relative merits of US GAAP, which takes a "rules-based" approach to accounting, versus International Accounting Standards and UK GAAP, which takes a "principles-based" approach. The Financial Accounting Standards Board announced that it intends to introduce more principles-based standards. More radical means of accounting reform have been proposed, but so far have very little support. The debate itself, however, overlooks the difficulties of classifying any system of knowledge, including accounting, as rules-based or principles-based.This also led to the establishment of Sarbanes-Oxley.
On a lighter note, the 2002 Ig Nobel Prize in Economics went to the CEOs of those companies involved in the corporate accounting scandals of that year for "adapting the mathematical concept of imaginary numbers for use in the business world".
In 2003, Nortel made a big contribution to this list of scandals by incorrectly reporting a one cent per share earnings directly after their massive layoff period. They used this money to pay the top 43 managers of the company. The SEC and the Ontario securities commission eventually settled civil action with Nortel. However, a separate civil action will be taken up against top Nortel executives including former CEO Frank A. Dunn, Douglas C. Beatty, Michael J. Gollogly and MaryAnne E. Pahapill and Hamilton. These proceedings have been postponed pending criminal proceedings in Canada, which opened in Toronto on January 12, 2012. Crown lawyers at this fraud trial of three former Nortel Networks executives say the men defrauded the shareholders of Nortel of more than $5 million. According to the prosecutor this was accomplished by engineering a financial loss in 2002, and a profit in 2003 thereby triggering Return to Profit bonuses of $70 million for top executives.
In 2005, after a scandal on insurance and mutual funds the year before, AIG was investigated for accounting fraud. The company already lost over 45 billion US dollars worth of market capitalisation because of the scandal. Investigations also discovered over a billion US dollars worth of errors in accounting transactions. The New York Attorney General's investigation led to a $1.6 billion fine for AIG and criminal charges for some of its executives. CEO Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg was forced to step down and is still fighting civil charges being pursued by New York state.

 Source: www.wikipedia.org

Neat Trick? Attorney-Client Privilege From An Accountant

 

Thanks to attorney-client privilege, if you tell your lawyer you are hiding money offshore, the IRS can’t make your lawyer talk. The IRS generally can’t even make your lawyer produce documents. See Latest Foreign Account Prosecution Fuels Fears. The privilege is strong so clients (in both civil and criminal cases) will be forthcoming with their lawyers.
Accountants, however, don’t have this privilege. If you make statements or provide documents to your accountant, he can be compelled to divulge them no matter how incriminating. Although a statutory “tax preparation” privilege was added in 1998 (IRC Section 7525(a)(1)), it is inapplicable to criminal tax cases so is of little value.
In sensitive tax matters, the answer to this quandary is the Kovel letter, named after United States v. Kovel. Your tax lawyer hires an accountant. In effect, the accountant is doing your tax accounting and return preparation, but reporting as a subcontractor to your lawyer.
Properly executed, it imports attorney-client privilege to the accountant’s work and communications. However, recent IRS lawsuits are eroding it. For example, in United States v. Richey, the Ninth Circuit refused to protect an appraisal that a taxpayer, lawyer and accountant were trying to keep from the IRS. In United States v. Hatfield, the court forced disclosure of discussions between the lawyer and accountant.
Pre-existing relationships between the accountant and the ultimate client are especially prickly. A Kovel arrangement is premised on the notion that the accountant’s communications were “made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the lawyer.” See United States v. Adlman. The attorney is the client in a Kovel engagement so the accountant should address all correspondence to the lawyer.
That means information acquired by an accountant under a Kovel agreement should be distinguished from information collected by the accountant as an auditor or in some other capacity. Keep things as separate and well-documented as you can. That may include using a different accounting firm for the audit or other work where possible.
Attorney-client privilege is rarely tested in this context. However, you don’t want to end up having to fight about disclosure before a judge, especially where the communications may be very revealing.

Source: www.forbes.com by Robert Wood
Robert W. Wood practices law with Wood LLP, in San Francisco. The author of more than 30 books, including Taxation of Damage Awards & Settlement Payments (4th Ed. 2009 with 2012 Supplement, Tax Institute), he can be reached at Wood@WoodLLP.com. This discussion is not intended as legal advice, and cannot be relied upon for any purpose without the services of a qualified professional.

US' Top 100 Accounting Firms

1. Deloitte & Touche - Big 4, 107 U.S. offices
2.  Ernst & Young - Big 4, 95 U.S. offices
3.  PricewaterhouseCoopers - Big 4, 99 U.S. offices
4. KPMG - Big 4, 95 U.S. offices
5. Grant Thornton - 48 U.S. offices
6. McGladrey & Pullen - 103 U.S. offices
7. BDO Seidman - 35 U.S. offices
8. Mayer Hoffman McCann - Offices in: CA, AZ, UT, CO, KS, MN, WI, IL, MO, OH, TN, GA, FL, MD, PA, and NY. 
9. Crowe, Chizek and Co. - Offices in: IN, IL, OH, KY, TN, MI, and FL
10. BKD - Baird Kurtz & Dobson - Offices in: TX, IL, MO, IN, OH, KY, CO, KS, OK, AR, NE
11. Plante & Moran - Offices in: MI, OH, and IL
12. Moss Adams - Offices in: AZ, CA, NM, OR, and WA
13. Clifton Gunderson - Offices in: IL, CA, AZ, CO, IA, MD, IN, MO, NM, OH, TX, VA, WI, and D.C.
14. UHY - Offices in: CA, TX, MO, IL, MI, NY, MA, CT, and D.C.
15. Virchow Krause & Co. - Offices in WI, MN, IL, and MI
16. J.H. Cohn - Offices in NY, NJ, and CA
17. Dixon Hughes - Offices in: NC, SC, GA, AL, WV, TX, and TN 
18. Larson, Allen, Weishair & Co. - Offices in: MN, WI, MO, PA, and NC
19. Reznick Fedder & Silverman - Offices in: MD, NC, and GA
20. Rothstein, Kass & Co. - Offices in: CA, NY, NJ, CO, and TX
21. Eisner & Co. - Offices in NY and NJ 
22. Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson - Offices in WI and MN  
23. Eide Bailly - Offices in IA, MN, ND, SD, MT, OK, and AZ
24. M.R. Weiser & Co. - Offices in: NY and NJ  
25. Cherry Bekaert & Holland - Offices in VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, and AL 
26. Berdon LLP - Offices in NY
27. Marcum & Kliegman - Offices in NY and CT
28. Smart and Associates - Located in PA, GA, MD, IL, and NY
29. Goodman & Co. - Offices in: VA and MD 
30. Amper, Politziner & Mattia - Offices in: NY and NJ
31. Parente Randolph - Offices in: PA, NJ, DE, and Washington DC
32. Marks Paneth & Shron - Offices in NY  
33. Schenck & Associates - 11 Offices in WI 
34. Anchin, Block & Anchin - Located in NY
35. The Rehmann Group - Offices in MI  
36. Rubin, Brown, Gornstein & Co. - Located in MO
37. Mahoney Cohen & Co. - Located in NY 
38. Vitale Caturano & Company - Located in Boston, MA
39. Carr, Riggs & Ingram - Offices in: FL, AL, and MS
40. Withum, Smith & Brown - Offices in: NJ and PA
41. Goldenberg Rosenthal - Located in: Philadelphia, PA  
42. SVA - Suby, Von Haden & Associates - Offices in: WI and IL
43. Citrin Cooperman & Co. - Offices in: NY and NJ  
44. Blackman Kallick Bartelstein - Located in Chicago, IL
45. Clark, Schaefer, Hackett & Co. - Offices in: OH
46. Kaufman, Rossin & Co. - Located in FL
47. Beard Miller Company - Located in PA, and MD
48. Friedman - Offices in: NY, and NJ
49. Schneider, Downs & Co. - Offices in: PA and OH
50. Aronson & Company - Located in MD / D.C.
51. Tofias - Located in MA, and RI
52. Horne CPA Group - Located in TN, MS, and LA
53. Doeren Mayhew - Located in MI
54. Lattimore, Black, Morgan & Cain - Offices in: TN
55. Margolin, Winer & Evens - Located in NY 
56. Hill, Barth & King - Offices in: FL, OH, PA, and VA
57. Carlin, Charron & Rosen - Offices in: MA, RI, and CT
58. SS&G - Saltz, Shamis & Goldfarb - Offices in: OH and KY
59. Lurie, Besikof, Lapidus & Co. - Located in MN
60. Elliott Davis, LLC - Offices in: SC and GA
61. Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co. - Offices in: FL and CO
62. Beers & Cutler - Offices in: D.C. and VA
63. O'Connor Davies Munns & Dobbins - Offices in: NY, NJ, and CT
64. Rachlin Cohen & Holtz - Offices in: FL
65. Frank, Rimerman & Co. - Offices in: CA
66. Katz Sapper & Miller - Offices in: IN
67. Kennedy & Coe - Offices in: KS, OK, and CO
68. Weaver and Tidwell - Offices in: TX  
69. Schonbraun McCann Group - Offices in: NJ, NY, and FL
70. Joseph Decosimo and Co. - Offices in: OH, TN, and GA 
71. Watkins, Meegan, Drury & Co. - Offices in: MD, VA, and D.C.
72. Armanino McKenna - Offices in: CA
73. Hein & Associates - Offices in: CO, TX, AZ, and CA
74. LeMaster & Daniels - Offices in WA, and ID
75. Kemper CPA Group - Offices in: IL, IN, KY, CA, and FL
76. Novogradac & Company - Offices in: CA, TX, GA, MD, KS, MA, and OH
77. Sikich Gardner & Co. - Offices in: IL
78. Rosen Seymour Shapss Martin & Co. - Offices in: NY
79. Stout Causey & Horning - Offices in: MD, VA, TX, and GA
80. Warren, Averett, Kimbrough & Marino - Offices in: AL 
81. Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker - Offices in: ME, NH, and MA
82. Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt - Offices in CA
83. Habif, Arogeti & Wynne - Located in GA
84. Berkowitz Dick Pollack & Brant - Offices in: FL
85. Holtz Rubenstein Reminick - Offices in: NY
86. Blue & Co. - Offices in: IN, OH, and KY 
87. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. - Offices in CA  
88. Mohler, Nixon & Williams - Offices in: CA
89. Stonefield Josephson - Offices in CA and Mexico
90. Mauldin & Jenkins - Offices in: GA, and AL
91. Freed Maxick & Battaglia - Offices in NY
92. Honkamp Krueger & Co. - Offices in IA, WI, and IL
93. Seiler & Company - Offices in CA
94. Yeo & Yeo - Offices in MI
95. Burr Pilger & Mayer - Offices in CA
96. Postlethwaite & Netterville - Offices in LA
97. Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman - Offices in: CO
98. Blum Shapiro & Co. - Located in: CT
99. The Bonadio Group - Offices in: NY
100. Alpern, Rosenthal & Co. - Located in PA 

Source: www.accountingmajors.com

The New Accounting Practice that's Saving Lockheed Martin, Chevron and the DOD Millions

Although the term “sustainability” has become something that most businesspeople associate with marketing or maybe compliance, at its core sustainability is as much about saving companies as saving the earth: it all boils down to maximizing resources and minimizing risk. Until recently, however, sustainability initiatives at most companies have tended to start with the sustainability director, who takes a good-for-the-environment idea and tries to build a good-for-business argument around it. That approach is fundamentally flawed according to Yann Risz, vice president of strategy and environmental finance for Environmental ERP software company Enviance. Instead, Risz suggests starting with the day-to-day operations of business–what the procurement folks deal with daily, for example, or the sales force–and looking for ways that sustainability initiatives might address some of the company’s pain points. Risz has been thinking about the subject nonstop for the past several years as he developed the company’s environmental finance tool and began to roll it out to many of Enviance’s compliance software customers, including Lockheed Martin, Chevron and the Department of Defense.
“If you want to scale sustainability you don’t start with sustainability and incrementally change it to make it business-friendly,” he says. “You start with understanding the average day of a procurement officer – he has five minutes to listen to you, so you need to understand what he needs and give him something he can understand in that time.”
A recent Gartner case study on Enviance’s work with Lockheed Martin shows just how effective that approach can be. In the course of that work, Enviance analyzed 2,000 environmental factors that are relevant to Lockheed’s business and found that only ten were material from an environmental point of view. In fact 10 environmental factors accounted for 96 percent of the company’s environmental impact, and much of them were not direct Lockheed impacts but factors that could be traced further up the company’s supply chain.
“As CFO, maybe that’s interesting but what does that mean to my job?” Risz says. “What’s the financial exposure linked to those factors? We estimated that 35 percent of Lockheed’s EBIT [Earnings before interest and taxes] was associated with energy-related commodities in its supply chain. Now that gets the CFO’s attention. Suddenly it’s not the crazy green guy talking, but the business guy going hey we have 35 percent earnings exposure here, so we’d better deal with it.”
Marrying environmental impacts and finance doesn’t just help to reveal financial risks associated with environmental exposures, it also helps companies pinpoint where they should be spending their sustainability budgets to get the most bang for their buck. In Lockheed’s case, for example, seven of the top ten environmental factors were energy-related while waste and water–both traditional targets for sustainability departments–were of relatively minor importance. That knowledge gave the company the opportunity to reconsider capital investment of water and waste projects, and reprioritization of longer-term project planning. Accurately accounting for environmental risks and benefits also helped Lockheed pinpoint more than $30 million in potential savings.
Lockheed isn’t the first company to marry finance and sustainability. WalMart was an early leader in this realm, as were Procter and Gamble and Unilever. However, although these early adopters attempted to link supply chain sustainability initiatives with financial returns ($1 billion in two years, in P&G’s case), they lacked the sort of granular data that would enable the sort of change in strategy that Lockheed is undertaking. Puma came closer when it issued its environmental profit and loss statement for its global supply chain, which revealed that approximately 94 percent of its total environmental burden lay in its upstream supply chain.
As notions around sustainability mature, more and more companies are embracing this new form of environmental accounting. Risz says Enviance has worked with companies in various sectors, including fast food, oil and gas, and banking, and the idea is really beginning to gain traction. In Italy, the company recently worked with Unicredit Bank, for example, to determine the financial risks associated with the bank loaning money to coal companies. “We were helping loan officers understand when they make loans to the coal industry, what is the impact their loans have and how they should assess the risk behind these loans,” Risz explains. “There are environmental risks there, but also reputational.”
The bottom line? If you want to get [all the various stakeholders in a company] on board with sustainability initiatives, you  have to appeal to their KPIs [key performance indicators, the metric upon which many companies base annual bonuses],” Risz says.

Source: www.forbes.com by Amy Westervelt

10 Phrases That Are Holding Your Career Back

“The difference between the almost-right word and the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”—Mark Twain
Whether dealing with clients, coworkers or superiors, how you phrase and frame your message colors the way people perceive you. The words you choose may be the difference between being thought of as problem-solver or a problem.

“Words are very important because they shape not only how other people hear you, but how they feel about you,” says Karen Friedman, author of Shut Up and Say Something: Business Communication Strategies to Overcome Challenges and Influence Listeners. “If you garner some kind of positive emotion, then you’ll make people care. Then you’re in a much better position for them to listen.”
However, too often business communication is peppered with filler words (umm, uh huh, well) that muddle the message, qualifiers (sort of, kind of, mostly) that diminish authority, and negative framing (can’t, impossible, never) that is discouraging and unproductive. In an informal poll of communication experts and career advisers, these 10 phrases were voted the worst things to say in your career.
That’s not my job.
“This makes it about what you can’t do as opposed to what you can do,” says Friedman. “It paints you as not being a team player.” Furthermore, it flies in the face of crucial career assets like flexibility and the willingness to learn new skills, which are required for leadership roles. Take it to a positive place by saying, “It’s not really my area of expertise. Let’s see who might be able to better help with this.”
I think…
Lorrie Thomas Ross, chief executive of consultancy Web Marketing Therapy, calls this and others like it (“I believe” and “I feel”) “discounting phrases.” They make you seem less authoritative and reduce the power of the message. The statement, “I think this is the best strategy,” is much weaker than, “This is the best strategy.” Likewise, eliminate prefaces like “I want” or “I’d like to.” So, rather than saying, “I want to thank you,” simply say, “Thank you.”
I don’t know.
“You think that’s being honest, but it’s really a cop out,” says Henry Devries, assistant dean for continuing education at the University of California San Diego and co-author of Closing America’s Job Gap. “It can be seen as lazy and not willing to take the next step.” Instead, say: “Let me find out the answer.” Similarly, saying, “I don’t know how to do that,” is better framed as, “Where could I get help to learn how to do that?” Then, you’re bridging the solution.
I can’t.
Again, this suggests a rigidity and unwillingness to be helpful or provide solutions. “You want to show employers you are ready to learn and tackle any challenge,” says Josh Tolan, chief executive of video interviewing platform Spark Hire. Instead of dismissively saying “I can’t,” pinpoint the issue and suggest a way around it. For example, if you’re asked to present a project at a time that conflicts with another commitment, say, “Unfortunately, I have a conflict then. However, I’ve been working closely with Sarah on this, and she would be fantastic.”
But…
“Using the word ‘but’ completely negates whatever you’ve said before it,” says Devries. While you may be well-intentioned, a comment like “that blouse looks nice on you, but the earrings don’t match” will not be taken well. We are conditioned to always listen for the negative information. “We’re used to the manure sandwich,” he says—that’s something nice, something negative, something nice, so that the negative bit is sandwiched in between. Oftentimes, “but” is easily replaced with “and,” which softens the message.
That’s not a good idea.
Nancy Mobley, founder and chief executive of consultancy Insight Performance, says quickly shooting down ideas makes employees and coworkers feel less comfortable about sharing their opinions and ideas, which can hamper creativity and innovation. “Some of the best ideas might be something you’re apt to shoot down before vetting them and getting more information,” she says. Instead of dismissing something outright, ask a question like, “How would it work?”
I’ll try.
“The word ‘try’ implies the possibility it may not get finished; it presupposes possible failure,” says communication expert Darlene Price, author of Well Said. If your boss asks for a proposal first thing in the morning and you respond, “I’ll try to get it finished,” you’re undermining yourself and putting doubts in your boss’s mind. Instead, say, “I’ll have it on your desk by 9 a.m.”
It wasn’t my fault.
“People hear it as defensive,” says Friedman. If someone asks what went wrong, they may not even be blaming you, so immediately diverting blame only draws attention to it. Take the higher ground, and try to be a problem solver. Say, “Let me try to better understand what happened,” or, “Let’s figure out how we can prevent it from happening again.”
I guess.
This is a common qualifier, which people use to hedge their bets against saying the wrong thing. “Avoid language that is tentative and not reflecting confidence,” says Dale Austin, director of the career development center at Hope College. Erase it from your vocabulary. If there’s a concern that gives you pause, instead of speaking tentatively, express the concern outright.
That’s impossible.
Like saying “it can’t be done,” “that’s impossible” is extremely negative. “It signifies that you’re not willing to even try,” says Friedman. “Negativity is infectious and spreads like a virus.” To keep it positive, say, “Let’s look at some different ways to tackle it.”

Source: www.forbes.com by Jenna Goudreau

15 Phrases That Build Bridges Between People

 

Business is changing. The experts sure seem to think so. Every day, some new article hypes a brave new world of egalitarian openness and collaboration. That might be true if you work for yourself. For the rest of us, it’s still a winner-take-all, command-and-control world. Always has been, always will be. The experts may own the language, but not reality. When leaders feel threatened or the ink runs red, they rarely tap into their talent for solutions. More often, they cut communication and withdraw behind closed doors. Corporate culture can overcome many hurdles, but never human nature.
In reality, business has changed little. Work still involves small victories and slow progress, often ambiguous and rarely permanent. That said, what drives workers has changed little too. Besides money, they want a voice. They dream of receiving a fair shot to make a difference. And they long to feel special. And all that starts with communication. These days, we’re taught that tone and body language are the message. But words – and what they signify – matter too. Over time, your character, competence, and caring may be revealed by your actions. In a micro world, it is the right words used at the right moments that spark conversations and build bridges between people.
Want to tap into the deepest yearnings of your peers and employees? Consider sprinkling these phrases into your daily conversations:
1) Thank You: Common courtesy? Sure. But tell me this: When was the last time you forgot (or rejected) gratitude? Whether given in private or public, a sincere ‘thanks’ creates goodwill. Don’t forget your mother’s advice: “Say please.” People are always happier doing a favor than taking an order.
2) I Trust Your Judgment: Translation: “You have my permission. I believe in you. Now, go make it happen.” Feels pretty uplifting to hear that, doesn’t it? And I’ll bet you’d do almost anything to please someone who makes you feel that way. Your employees and peers are no different.
3) I Don’t Know: We don’t have all the answers. And it scares us to death. That’s a perfect point to start a dialogue…over facts and fears. Facing the unknown – and seeking assurances and answers – bonds people like nothing else. All you have to do is first admit what you don’t know.
4) Tell Me More: “I’m all ears.” It’s the ultimate conversation starter!  When you signal that you’re open and intrigued, the other party will respond in kind. And who can resist flattery? Use phrases like “What do you think” or “What would you do” to acknowledge someone’s expertise. In doing so, you’re courting authentic suggestions, even if they challenge convention or skewer a sacred cow. If your interest is genuine, you may just fuel a productive exchange.
5) What I Hear You Saying Is: Ever wonder if someone has been listening to you? Be assured the person speaking to you is. So here’s a way to keep the ideas flowing. Step back and rephrase what someone says. In fact, vaguely distort or stray from it. This offers two benefits. It implies that you’re engaged, increasing the likelihood you’ll get more detail. It also helps you gauge the other person’s preparation, reasoning, and seriousness. It’s a win-win for everyone.
6) I’m On It: You’re giving your full attention. You’re saying, “Relax. Don’t worry about a thing. I’ll see to it personally.” That response can disarm just about anyone. To express a deeper commitment, use “You have my word.” This makes you more accountable to someone, conveying that you’re on board and will make it happen…whatever it takes.
7) How Else Can I Help You: It takes guts to speak up. People risk rejection, ridicule, or retaliation. Sure, you’ve discussed one issue. Chances are, this was just a test balloon to see how you’d react. This person probably wants to cover more; he’s just hesitant to ask. Make it easy on him. Extend the proverbial “what can I do” invitation to widen the conversation. And don’t be afraid to ask for help occasionally, either. People love to lend a hand. It provides purpose. When you’re humble and vulnerable, it humanizes you. It makes you one of them. And people trust those with whom they can identify.
8) I’ve Got Your Back: We’ve all made big mistakes. When we’ve recognized the gravity, the same question automatically pops up: “Am I getting fired for this?” It’s natural for co-workers and reports to imagine worst case scenarios. In those times, step in with a reassurance: “I’m not judging you. You’re going to get through this. You’re not alone. We’ll figure this out together. It’s going to be OK.”
9) My Pleasure: This subtle reminder reinforces a key point. You’re here to help others. You have all the time they need. And you’re happy to do it.
10) What If: Call it whatever you want: Imagination, wonder, inspiration, or vision. It’s that “why not” spirit that’s driven men and women to dream, create, and push limits. How often do you channel this force to hit it off with others? When was the last time you used a phrase like “How can we make this happen” or “Let’s try this out?” Go ahead. Open the floor to everyone. Put every option on the table. Don’t judge them based on budgetary, time, labor, or cultural considerations.  Sure, most ideas won’t be feasible or relevant. But you’re seeking that nugget that makes your organization just a little more competitive and enjoyable. You can find the means another time.
11) Let Me Play Devil’s Advocate: Looking for a subtle way to critique? Turn the conversation into an exercise where you’re a detached party performing a function: Poking holes in the logic and plan of attack. Maybe you need to reel the other person back to the big picture. Maybe you want to direct him towards missing pieces, pros and cons, or alternatives. Either way, you use this strategy to stress test ideas without making the process personal.
12) Let Me Think About That: Yeah, it sounds like a cop out. And it is…sometimes. Fact is, we don’t always have the authority or expertise to make decisions. This phrase buys you time and breathing space. It intimates that you’re open-minded and the request merits consideration. Then, set a date and time for follow up so the other person knows you’re taking him serious.
13) Well Done: It’s a cliché, no doubt. Sometimes, it isn’t enough just to say thanks. People want to know what they did was great and why. They pour so much sweat and soul into their projects. They need more than recognition that a task or goal was completed. They need to know their work was special and had meaning to someone.
14) You’re Right: Want to get someone’s attention? Tell him that he’s right. Once you yield the high ground, it’s much easier for the other party to swallow that the right plan and sentiment can’t always overcome the absurdities and restraints we face every day.
15) I Understand: People have such an innate desire to connect. They long to know they’re not alone, seeking others who’ve been where they are – and have successfully made it through. Helping someone doesn’t always involve making suggestions or calls. It may just involve being there, paying attention to what a person has to say. Most times, that’s enough to show you understand.
What phrases do you use to make people feel more comfortable, motivated, and appreciated?

Source: www.forbes.com by Jeff Schmitt