Share Tweet An interview for a job is a chance to showcase your unique skills and stellar personality. The first few minutes of an interview are key for making a positive impression on the hiring manager. Some simple strategies for wowing the hiring manager include making eye contact and being open to small talk.
First impressions can be hard to shake — and that’s especially true in a 30-minute job interview.
So you’ll want to wow the hiring manager as quickly as possible. It’s mostly a matter of preparing ahead of time so that, even if you get nervous, you’ll know exactly how to behave.
Below, we’ve rounded up the best strategies for impressing the hiring manager within the first five minutes of a job interview — or sooner.
SEE ALSO: 21 psychological tricks that will help you ace a job interview
Arrive 10 to 15 minutes early
Most everyone knows being late for a job interview can be a big turnoff. But showing up as early as possible isn’t necessarily appealing either.
Business Insider previously spoke to a number of career experts, who agreed that the ideal time to show up for a job interview is 10 to 15 minutes before the scheduled meeting time.
Any earlier than that and you could frustrate the hiring manager, who’s probably busy with other responsibilities.
Be polite to the receptionist
There are eyes everywhere — especially at the front desk.
Business Insider’s Rachel Gillett reported that some hiring managers check in with their receptionist to find out how you behaved before the interview — and the person’s feedback can affect your chances of landing the position.
Tupperware CEO Rick Goings told Business Insider’s Aine Cain something similar: After a job interview, he always asks his lead receptionist how the candidate treated her.
Make eye contact when you meet the person
When the hiring manager comes to greet you, be sure to look him or her in the eye. A shifty gaze doesn’t scream “likeable” or even “smart.”
In one study, a pair of Northeastern University researchers asked participants to watch videos of strangers talking to each other for the first time and then rate how intelligent each person seemed. Results showed that the people who consistently made eye contact while speaking were considered more intelligent than those who didn’t make eye contact.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider
Related Topics: Continue Reading
You may like
Theatre titans stage blockbuster Barings deal
By Mark Kleinman, City Editor
The husband-and-wife theatre tycoons who have run a swathe of London’s live entertainment scene for decades are lining up their next fortune by selling a chunk of their business empire.
Sky News has learnt that Sir Howard Panter and Rosemary Squire, the co-chief executives of Trafalgar Entertainment Group (TEG), are in advanced talks with the private equity division of Barings about a potential deal.
The negotiations are expected to see TEG, which owns the Trafalgar Studios theatre in the West End, raising tens of millions of pounds to fund its expansion as well as a windfall for the company’s shareholders.
A deal could be struck within weeks, according to insiders, who said that Sir Howard and Ms Squire would remain at the helm of the business.
TEG is chaired by Greg Dyke, the former BBC director-general and a regular contributor to Sky News’ weekly debate programme, The Pledge.
The company’s external shareholders include Sir Richard Branson, the Virgin Group founder.
Sir Howard and Dame Rosemary are two of the most influential figures in the British theatre industry, having built Ambassador Theatre Group – owner of historic London venues including the Apollo Victoria, Duke of York’s and Savoy – over a quarter of a century.
They stepped down last year, after selling a controlling stake in the company to Providence Equity Partners in 2013 for £350m.
Mr Dyke has also served as chairman of ATG, which describes itself as the world’s leading live theatre operator.
Sir Howard and Ms Squire have set out ambitious plans for their latest venture, saying they want the Trafalgar Studios site to become “the home of live-streaming”.
“It makes theatre more accessible to many people, but what we’ve discovered is that it absolutely does not cannibalise the theatre audience; it adds to the theatre audience,” Sir Howard told The Stage last year.
Their company owns Trafalgar Releasing, which distributes arts content from the likes of the Royal Shakespeare Company and Royal Opera House to cinemas around the world.
They also hold a chunk of the global rights to The Rocky Horror Show.
The duo are said to have identified a string of potential acquisition targets, and said in a newspaper interview last year that they want to invest in improving the theatre experience for audiences.
Their prospective deal with Barings, which is part of the US life insurance company MassMutual, comes at a time of impending change in London’s Theatreland.
The Theatre Royal Haymarket, one of the capital’s leading venues, has been put up for sale, while Providence may seek some form of sale or exit in the next couple of years.
Stage Entertainment, which is backed by the buyout firm CVC Capital Partners, is also expected to change hands during a similar timeframe, although its venues are located elsewhere in Europe.
More from Business
‘Perfect storm’ for retailers, warns McDonald’s boss
Next profits fall 8% after ‘most challenging’ period in 25 years
House of Fraser lenders call EY for help amid high street crisis
Elon Musk deletes Tesla and SpaceX Facebook pages after calls from privacy campaigners
Sky Views: Facebook – the modern Frankenstein
Prezzo agrees rescue deal to shut 94 restaurants
It produces Tina, the musical about the legendary singer Tina Turner.
TEG was unavailable for comment this weekend.
‘Black Panther’ is now the highest domestic grossing superhero movie of all-time — and it did it in just 36 days (DIS) By Saturday night, “Black Panther” will become the highest-grossing superhero movie of all-time at the domestic box office. It will have surpassed previous record-holder, 2012’s “The Avengers” ($623.2 million). However, counting inflation, “The Avengers” still is the top superhero movie with a domestic gross of over $700 million.
By Saturday night, “Black Panther” will be the highest-grossing superhero movie of all-time at the domestic box office, with an estimated total of over $630.5 million by the time the weekend’s over. It surpasses the previous title holder, 2012’s “The Avenger” ($623.2 million).
The incredible feat by the movie is even more astounding by the fact that it was done in only 36 days.
And with a $1.2 billion worldwide gross, the movie is inching closer to the top 10 all-time (currently sitting in 14th place just behind “Iron Man 3” with $1.214 billion).
Now, none of this is counting inflation. When going down that road, “Black Panther” still has a little more work to do.
The Disney/Marvel box-office sensation will likely finally lose its number one spot at the domestic box office to newcomer “Pacific Rim: Uprising.”
And “Black Panther” is in fourth place for all-time superhero domestic grosses — behind 2002’s “Spider-Man” ($637.8 million), 2008’s “The Dark Knight” ($683.5 million), and “The Avengers” ($705.7 million).
Nice company to be in, and with the movie still having a month (maybe two) in theaters, who knows where it will end up on this list of titans.
More “Black Panther”:
MoviePass says it has bought over 1 million tickets for Marvel’s “Black Panther” A box-office analyst predicted “Black Panther” would make more money than “The Last Jedi” in China, and its opening day proved it will do just that The star of “Black Panther” revealed that Denzel Washington paid for his college acting classes — and he finally got to thank the veteran actor
SEE ALSO: Jim Carrey has taken his criticism of Trump to a new level with a sexually explicit drawing of the president
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies
People are obsessed with Costco’s free samples — but it’s actually a brilliant business strategy (COST) Costco famously offers shoppers free samples of products in its stores. Some shoppers brag on social media that it’s their main reason for visiting the store. While it might seem generous, those samples can actually lead to sales for the company.
Costco fans wax lyrical about its free samples, which, if you’re crafty enough, can even be combined to be an entire meal.
“Going to #Costco and I’m going to get samples!” Love, love, love Costco! pic.twitter.com/CETFKKZGcD
— Karolyn Cairns (@KarolynCairns) March 23, 2018
While some customers might think that Costco is just doing them a favor by offering them free snacks, there’s actually a solid business strategy behind it.
By offering free samples, Costco makes the shopping experience in its stores more appealing and its customers more loyal.
When I’m trying a free sample at Costco and the cooks telling me about the product but I just wanted the free snack
— Julian Rowan (@jules_rowan) March 20, 2018
While some customers may claim to visit the store only for its samples, once they’re in the store, they’re more likely to buy things.
It’s also a way for Costco to encourage customers to try new products that they otherwise wouldn’t have, and to spark cravings — once you have a nibble of chocolate, for example, you’re likely to want more.
Plus, as its so-called “demonstrations” are staffed, customers tend to feel more of a pressure to buy the product.
Costco is mum on how much this marketing ploy actually boosts sales. The company did not immediately respond to Business Insider’s request for comment.
However, in other stores, free samples have been known to boost sales by as much as 2,000%.
Costco outsources the sampling process to other companies, including Club Demonstration Services, which provides staff and oversees the process. A former executive of the company told The Atlantic in 2014 that the company’s samples of frozen pizza helped boost sales of that pizza product by 600% at national chains.
“When we compare it to other in-store mediums … in-store product demonstration has the highest [sales] lift,” former executive Giovanni DeMeo told The Atlantic.
SEE ALSO: Costco’s cheap gas gives it a huge advantage over Sam’s Club and BJ’s — here’s why members are crazy about it
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: The rise and fall of Hooters Air — the airline that lost the ‘breastaurant’ $40 million
Take an exclusive tour of Oracle’s new live-in campus in Austin, where college grads live, work and party together Oracle has opened a massive new campus in Austin, Texas, which houses about 5,000 employees, with capacity for up to 10,000. The campus includes a luxury on-site apartment building. The initiative was the brainchild of Oracle co-CEO Mark Hurd as part of his Class Of program.
On Thursday, Oracle officially opened its massive new Austin, Texas, campus which houses about 5,000 employees today, but will eventually hold 10,000.
This campus is unique in that it includes a luxury on-site apartment building. The live-in campus was the brainchild of Oracle co-CEO Mark Hurd as part of his Class Of program.
Hurd was inspired to create the program by a dinner he had with his daughter and her friends a few years ago. They had just graduated from college, landed sales jobs and were rooming together. They were chattering about their lives which consisted of selling stuff and partying.
“They had this infectious enthusiasm and I thought we should do the same thing at Oracle,” Hurd told Business Insider. People inside Oracle’s legendary competitive salesforce were not happy with the idea at first. Hiring untrained college grads was a big change for the software giant who had “historically hired from competitors,” he said.
Undeterred, in 2013, Hurd began to hire thousands of college graduates to sell Oracle’s cloud. He had to figure out how to train them and support their career growth until they could handle territories and clients on their own.
Today, the grads spend a few weeks in training, are tasked with cold-calling, then they shadow sales people. It takes three years of graduated training and work to get their own territories.
Then he decided Class Of employees need state-of-the-art facilities and help with affordable housing.
So in 2015, the story of this Oracle campus began, when Hurd hopped on a plane with Oracle founder Larry Ellison to Austin, and they walked along the river in search of the spot for the live-in campus.
Take a look …
SEE ALSO: THE TAKEDOWN OF TRAVIS KALANICK: The untold story of Uber’s infighting, backstabbing, and multimillion-dollar exit packages
SEE ALSO: Facebook tracks a scary number of details about you — here’s how to find out everything it knows
The new campus is on 40-acres of prime riverfront property, mostly undeveloped.
The story goes, after seeing a few properties that were too small, Ellison and Hurd were walking along the river when Ellison turned the real-estate agent, swept his hand out and said, “how much for this area?”
The agent nearly choked. Ellison was pointing to acres and acres of premium land, one that included a partially finished apartment building.
Here is the front of the Austin Azul apartment building. My guides today are Oracle’s senior director of real-estate Lindsay Pomeroy (left), Oracle’s director of building services Ron Skipper Jr. (center), and a PR director, Greg Lunsford (right).
My tour guides also included four Class Of participants who work in the new facility.
They are (from left to right) Matt Cox from Boston College; Lauren Mosley from Baylor (originally from Southern California); Iesha Brown from Xavier University of Louisiana; and Jack Roberts from University of Virginia.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider
Elon Musk’s new Tesla pay package could make him $55.8 billion — and it’s a case study in what’s wrong with executive compensation (TSLA) Tesla shareholders this week approved a new pay package for CEO Elon Musk that will award him up to 20 million stock options if the company hits certain milestones. Although the company valued the options at a hefty $2.6 billion, they actually could be worth as much as $55.8 billion if Musk hits the top range of his goals. While Tesla’s directors argued that the pay package was needed to spur Musk to drive the company forward, Musk already had a big incentive in the form of the 37 million shares and options he already held — a stake that would appreciate by $106 billion if Tesla hits his top valuation target. The gigantic pay package is emblematic of what’s wrong with executive compensation practices and helps explain why inequality keeps getting worse.
Maybe it’s just me, but $106 billion seems like a lot of money.
Heck, for me, $106 million is a good chunk of change. I could be motivated to do a whole lot of stuff for a mere $106 million. I bet you could too.
The board of directors at Tesla, however, don’t think like you and me — and neither, it turns out, do the company’s shareholders.
You might have missed it amid all the uproar over the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, but Tesla shareholders this week approved a new pay package for CEO Elon Musk. Even if you did hear about it, you probably didn’t realize just how massive or outrageous the pay package is.
Long story short: Tesla’s shareholders agreed with the company’s board that $106 billion wasn’t enough money to encourage Musk to take the company’s valuation to new heights. They figured he needed another $55.8 billion, an amount that is itself equivalent to the annual gross domestic product of Bulgaria.
Musk’s payday is emblematic of just how broken executive compensation is this country. But it also offers a window into how inequality in this country has gotten so bad and why it keeps getting worse.
Tesla set lofty goals for Musk — but promised even loftier compensation
The payday Tesla shareholders approved for Musk on Wednesday consists of 20.3 million stock options that are subject to certain performance targets. Using a complex formula, the company estimated the value of the options, which have a 10-year lifespan, at $2.6 billion. That amount would be generous enough — it amounts to $260 million a year, after all, a heady salary for most CEOs — but it vastly understates the potential value of the options.
The way Musk’s pay package is structured, his windfall will increase exponentially with each milestone the company hits.
Tesla divided the options into 12 different tranches of equal numbers of shares. Each tranche only vests if the company meets certain operating results and its market capitalization reaches certain levels. Each market capitalization milestone is separated by $50 billion. The first tranche of options can vest when Tesla’s market capitalization reaches $100 billion, the second at $150 billion, the third at $200 billion, and so on.
Those targets will be tough to meet, no doubt. But the way Musk’s pay package is structured, his windfall will increase exponentially with each market capitalization milestone the company hits.
Tesla estimated that if only two of Musk’s group of options vest, and he doesn’t sell them until after both of them do, he’ll realize about $1.4 billion in value from them. If four of his tranches vest — and, again, he doesn’t sell until all of his options are vested — Tesla estimated he’ll see $6.3 billion in value from them. If all 12 tranches vest — and he doesn’t sell before they do — the total value of his options would be $55.8 billion, according to the company.
Even dividing that by the 10-year life of the options, that would still amount to a jaw-dropping payday of $5.6 billion a year.
Musk’s potential windfall amounts to a steep commission
Here’s another way of looking at Musk’s potential windfall. For his first two groups of options to vest, Tesla’s valuation will have to hit $150 billion, up from about $51 billion today. His own windfall from that gain would amount to about 1% of that rise in valuation. But his share of the increase would go up with Tesla’s market capitalization.
For all 12 tranches to vest, the company’s market capitalization would have to hit $650 billion. Tesla investors, of course, would be ecstatic if it got that high. But Musk’s windfall would amount to 9% of the total increase in Tesla’s valuation. That’s a pretty steep commission in my book — no matter how much of a gain investors would have seen.
Now, you can argue that if Musk is able to drive Tesla to the operating and valuation targets laid out in his pay package, it will be worth it to give him such an outsized portion of the company’s stock gains. After all, it’s a huge mountain that the company would have had to climb.
Tesla has struggled for years with with profitability and production. It’s currently producing only a small fraction of the number of its Model 3 car — the vehicle on which Musk has basically bet the company — than it expected. So its chances of achieving even half of the goals set out for Musk seem unlikely at best.
In a letter to shareholders explaining the award, Tesla’s directors said they intentionally gave him a tough challenge.
“Our aspirations may appear ambitious to some, and impossible to others, and that is by design,” the board members said in the letter. “We like setting challenging, hard-to-achieve goals for ourselves, and then focusing our efforts to make them happen. This is why we based this new award on stretch goals and why we gave Elon the ability to share in the upside in a way that is commensurate with the difficulty of achieving them.”
The directors designed Musk’s award to ensure his interests are aligned with shareholders, they said. After Musk received a similar structured grant in 2012, Tesla’s market capitalization increased 17 times, they noted.
“We believe [Musk’s] prior award was instrumental in helping Tesla achieve the objectives laid out in the original Tesla Master Plan and the tremendous stockholder value that was created as a result,” they said.
The rationale for Musk’s new pay package doesn’t make sense
Let’s set aside the question of whether the goals in Musk’s new pay package are achievable — or whether they’re even appropriate for him to focus on. The idea that Musk needs a $55.8 billion incentive to achieve all of them is laughable on its face.
The theory behind giving executives stock awards is to allow them to benefit from the company’s success, and thereby align their interests with those of shareholders. The assumption is that the executives generally don’t hold much in the way of the company’s shares, so they wouldn’t otherwise benefit from a rising stock price. We can argue about how well that theory holds up in practice, and the incentives it creates for executives, but that’s the basic idea.
But that theory just doesn’t apply to Musk. He already holds a huge stake in Tesla. As of the end of last year, he owned 33.6 million shares of the company’s stock, and held another 4.2 million options that could be exercised within 60 days. All told, that amounted to nearly 22% of the company’s outstanding shares.
Because of that stake, Musk was already going to benefit if Tesla’s valuation went up. And not in a small way.
Musk was already going to benefit if Tesla’s valuation went up. And not in a small way.
In fact, the value of that stake alone will go up by an $17.5 billion if Tesla’s market capitalization hits $150 billion — the second milepost in his new pay package — taking into account the dilution the company expects. If Tesla’s market capitalization goes all the way up to $650 billion, that stake would appreciate by $106 billion, again taking expected dilution into account.
In other words, Musk already had a $106 billion incentive to hit the top valuation target in his new pay package — even before being granted the new shares. Sure, he’d have to hold on to his current shares, but to see that $106 billion windfall he wouldn’t even have to hit any of the operating targets set out in his new package. Maybe I’m naive, but I would think that $106 billion is more than enough of a reason to get him to drive Tesla to that valuation.
If it’s not, then maybe Musk isn’t the right guy to be running Tesla. I admire Musk and what he’s trying to build with Tesla and SpaceX and all of his other projects. But I’m sure there are plenty of capable CEOs out there who would be more than willing to take on the challenge of leading Tesla to that kind of valuation for a lot less than $106 billion — much less the $161.8 billion, which is the total Musk stands to gain between his existing stake and his new pay package. For goodness sakes, it’s a CEO’s job to be driving longterm shareholder interest anyway — no matter how much the CEO is paid.
Musk’s potential gain would come at the company’s expense
In crafting this new pay package, Tesla board members said they actually did take into account Musk’s current stake in the company. But they didn’t explain why the expected appreciation of that stake alone wasn’t enough to encourage him to achieve the goals they set out for him.
Investors have the most to lose from Musk’s new pay package. If and as Tesla’s stock appreciates, their share of the gains will get smaller and smaller.
But they’ll lose out in other ways that are often not appreciated, especially since options and other stock awards are often treated as a trivial, non-cash expense that’s more than accounted for by dilution.
Each share awarded to Musk represents an opportunity cost for the company. It’s a share that the company itself could have sold to the public to raise money for its own treasury. That’s not a small consideration for Tesla, given that it has has repeatedly had to raise money to fund its operations.
What’s more, assuming Tesla is around long enough, it will almost certainly do what nearly every other company that hands out stock awards does — buy back those shares to soak up dilution and shore up its stock price. To do that, it will have to use actual cash that could have gone to other other, arguably better uses, whether that’s paying other employees, expanding its operations, or paying out dividends.
One would have hoped that given such costs — and the ridiculous size of this award — Tesla investors would have put their collective foot down. But no. While investors representing 27% of the company’s shares did vote against the pay package — a not insignificant amount — the vast majority of the rest backed it.
“We believe the final plan is well-aligned with shareholders’ long-term interests,” T. Rowe Price, a big mutual fund company told Bloomberg in an article Tesla’s board sent to shareholders to encourage them to vote for the package.
Such support is not unexpected. The big mutual fund companies often rubber-stamp executive pay and other initiatives proposed by corporate boards. Most are happy to go-along to get-along, and many of those mutual funds are eager to stay on good terms with directors in hopes of winning their business elsewhere.
It’s hard to have sympathy for such shareholders. They, after all, are the ones that approved Musk’s pay package. They ought to reap both the benefits and consequences of that decision.
But others stand to lose from it too
Unfortunately, though, Tesla shareholders aren’t the only ones who stand to lose from Musk’s outrageous pay package.
Corporate boards and their advisors typically justify their executive pay decisions by looking at the pay given to executives at what they consider to be their peer companies. Because of what’s been called the Lake Wobegone effect — where every company considers their executives to be above average — boards typically pay their managers above the average rate. With everyone looking at everyone else, executive pay gets ratcheted ever upward.
Thanks to that effect, you can expect corporate boards at other companies to look at Musk’s pay package and figure they need to up the pay of their own executives to astronomical levels also. So, thanks to Tesla setting a new bar for executive pay, stakeholders at other companies are likely to lose out as well.
But the phenomenon of ever-increasing executive compensation does more than affect corporate investors and shareholders. It’s also played a significant role in the growth in inequality in this country. Even as executive pay has soared over the last several decades, the pay of average workers has stagnated.
That’s not just a coincidence. CEO pay has increased almost in inverse proportion to the decline in the power and membership of labor unions, one of the forces that had previously helped to keep it in check and tilt companies’ economic spoils toward their employees.
Because so much of executives’ pay these days comes in the form of shares of their companies, and share prices are tied in large part to companies’ profits, executives see their pay rise as their companies’ bottom line improves. And one sure way to better the bottom line is to hold down costs — most notably labor costs.
Tesla is a case in point. Even as it was preparing its gargantuan pay package for Musk, the company was fighting off union efforts to organize its Bay Area factory workers, who reportedly get paid well below the industry average even while living in one of the most expensive regions in the United States.
Free market absolutists dismiss the danger of rising inequality, arguing that in a capitalist economy, you need to offer outsized gains to spur risk taking, innovation, and entrepreneurship. But the types of outsized gains Musk and other executives are seeing now are arguably way past what’s needed to encourage such ends.
And on the flipside, rising inequality is antithetical to democracy. It’s tied to a whole host of social ills. And it’s linked to slow economic growth and financial and political instability. Indeed, the last time the United States saw this much inequality was right before the Great Depression.
But, hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Elon Musk really does need the lure of another $55.8 billion on top of the $106 billion he’d already see to give him the motivation to drive Tesla to new heights.
After all, shouldn’t a CEO who’s shooting for the stars have a payday that’s equally lofty?
SEE ALSO: Snap CEO Spiegel’s $637 million bonus shows just how broken executive compensation is
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Elon Musk’s ‘Boring Company’ now prioritizes pedestrians over cars — here’s how it would work