What is worse than job interviewing in person? Interviewing with a bad webcam using a poor SKYPE connection.  You end up with the goldfish bowl look because of the camera distortion. Or your eyes are always looking down at the screen at the interviewers to whom you give no eye contact.

The fine art of interviewing is not improving anytime soon. It can still be a painful, dreaded, nerve-wracking experience on both sides of the desk. Everyone has a nightmare story about the "interviewer from hell", someone who was so bad at asking questions that you absolutely knew you were never going to be hired.

What about the interviewer who doesn't ask questions but rather just chats as the new best friend that you never hear from again? Or, the interviewer who asks questions so unrelated to the job you wonder if you applied for the wrong position?  Then there is the distainful interviewer, who acts as though it is a supreme imposition just having you in the room. I could go on and you can in the comments section to this blog.

How Do You Ace It?
Yes, bad interview stories are abundant. However, it still is on you to acquit yourself well during the interview. What does that mean?
- Should you ace all the questions with absolutely appropriate answers?
- Should you offer great, relevant examples, facts and figures with glib ease?
- Should you mirror the interviewers body language to make him/her comfortable in your presence?
- Should you create a dialogue to interact in easy conversation, thus putting your interviewer at ease?
- Should you provide business solutions to demonstrate the compelling value in hiring you?

Yes, of course, to all of the above!
But, while that will certainly go a long way to getting you hired, that's not it. If you do everything above, unless you are a glow-in-the-dark java software developer, it is not enough to be hired. And, if you do just some of the above with a less than stunning acquittal of your expertise and you successfully do one more thing, odds are that you will be hired.

Love Me, Like Me and Hire Me?
What is that one more thing? You must get them to fall in like with you..even love... if you can manage that. People hire people they like. People want to work with people they like. People want to be with people who like them. It is so simple yet powerful: get them to like you, a lot, by liking them even more. It's all about the chemistry.

I always tell the story about how Brian Epstein agreed to manage the Beetles before he had actually heard their music. When queried on that, his response was simply to explain how much he liked them. In order to get the interviewers to like you, you must be in like with them, with their company, and their products/services and they will reciprocate to you.

You really can't fake this as interviewers seem to have built in insincerity radar which is probably because many of them are so well practiced in it. How many times have you left an interview thinking you had the job because the interviewer was so positive, and, well, likeable?  I have seen this scenario played out even at the boardroom level. 

It rests upon you to target companies that you can fall in love with. It is much more difficult to exude sincere likability with a company that you are willing to just settle for. Be picky and don't wait for companies to find you, go after the ones you love with gusto. It will show through and they will like you in return.

And, hopefully hire you!

I have been working with top executives worldwide as well as in Silicon Valley for a number of years now. They are primarily employees of the big multinational European and American companies. Some are Americans, most are not, and many were educated in the USA at a top business school. The vast majority of them are not company "lifers" in that they haven't been with the same company for years, but have job hopped from company to company and country to country.

A Silicon Valley executive called me the other day thinking he needed to make a job move. His company (a top Fortune 500 software provider) was insisting that he take a promotion and 4 year transfer with his family to China. With a Chinese wife and his two small children becoming bi-lingual, this would have been a good experience for the family. He is in finance and the role would have been at the country level running all operations. It was a plum assignment. With Asian experience, he would be able to attract the best global opportunities from other corporations after this assignments.  It took much refection and research before he convinced himself to take the opportunity and see it as such.

In the corporate multinationals, having global experience on your resume is expected, even anticipated. In fact, it is understood now that if you are working in corporate America or corporate anywhere that working internationally will keep your career moving. This could take a number of avenues from doing international business development to working with distributed teams; taking short term assignments or actual relocation to other countries.

In this week's Time Magazine, Rana Foroohar's article, Companies Are the New Countries seems to sum up the global corporate employment situation from her vantage point at the World Economic Forum.

Here is an excerpt:
Meanwhile, the top companies seem to exist in a world apart: they are booming. If there was a metatheme to this year's World Economic Forum, it is that the world's largest companies are moving beyond governments and countries that they perceive to be inept and anemic. They are operating in a space that is increasingly supranational--disconnected from local concerns and the problems of their home markets..

...business leaders blamed for not sharing the $2 trillion in wealth sitting on corporate balance sheets argued that they did create jobs and prosperity--just not in the U.S....

...It's an argument that has more moral weight than you might think. You can say that creating jobs in China and India, for example, increases global well-being more than creating them in the U.S. would, since per capita GDP in those countries is so much lower.

There has been, since this year's Davos meeting, a recurring theme of stories on the issues of the employment dislocations, and the redistribution of jobs by geography, class, and education. It would be a nice reverie to think that this economic tsunami could just somehow be reversed and jobs would return to the USA. But that's not going to be the case. I spend considerable time strategizing with clients about their next company choice and geographic location, and on how to stay local and be global.

Where in the world are all the new opportunities, start-ups and business ventures? How can we position ourselves and transition our careers to take advantage of them as they arise? This realm of the global job search, the multi-hemisphere network, cross-border connections, and the online well-positioned personal brand.
 
Read the article here:

The World Economic Forum ended on a dark worried note about the future of the worldwide workforce. The Davos gathering didn't doubt the numbers or projections. It is the means to the end that gave them consternation.

According to Vikram Pandit, CEO of the global bank, Citigroup Inc., "The world needs 400 million new jobs between now and the end of the decade, not counting the 200 million needed just to get back to full employment, so "that should be our number one priority".

It is not a simple scenario to just materialize 600 million jobs in 8 years. It is a real and dire problem with the nothing less than the world economy at stake. The financial leaders and heads of corporations spent time finger pointing across national boundaries, but they came away without a tangible solution how to grow worldwide GDP and therefore jobs. 

That there is no concerted and coordinated global response to a looming work crisis may indicate a fundamental problem with how our worldwide economic system functions with implications that impact all class and economic levels.


We Aren't Entitled to Work?

Is there such a thing as a right to work in a free market, capitalistic, global economic system? Are we as a population in the USA entitled to earn a living if we are sound of mind, able bodied and skilled? It was easy to ignore this issue when unemployment numbers were composed of the poor, uneducated and unskilled. However since 1980, every recession has generated unemployment creep upwards from manufacturing, to white collar, to now the executive suite.

This has resulted in a substantial ongoing dislocation of the socioeconomic structure of the US population . Today the 12+ million "officially" out of work is about the size of Illinois and that fails to account for the underemployed and those not looking. At the same time, the employment agency, Manpower, reports that 75% of its revenues are now from outside the USA.  In America, we know where the jobs have gone and continue to go-- elsewhere.

But that begs the question as there still won't be enough work to go around worldwide with an emerging, educated, skilled, global middle class. Are we entitled to earn a working living at the expense of another somewhere in the world? Doesn't everyone deserve the opportunity to make a contribution and be paid for doing it?

The essence of work is contribution. You do a day's labor and are paid a living wage.  But what if there is not enough work to go around anymore? Does that mean that those that want to work and can't find it are facing life as an underclass of people who are going without the basic necessities of survival, and are deprived of being contributing members of society?

Will work, especially highly skilled, intellectual work, become an entitlement or privilege? Wherever you are in the world, you got your job because of a set of advantages. Call it luck, fate, geography, position, status, connections, or price-point. The others who missed out on the opportunity didn't quite have your unique set of advantages but they were just as smart, talented, hard-working, earnest and yet unemployed.

To the Privileged Go the Jobs

The top ten richest people in India are from family owned companies. The people at the top of those companies are continuing a dynasty of privileged executives. Dynasties of leadership and power from established wealth continues to expand worldwide. The forestalling of upward career mobility implies concurrent economic stagnation for middle and lower classes. Dynasties at the top mirror the same at the bottom regardless of the willingness of those at the bottom to strive above and beyond their economic class. Will the coal miner's son always be a coal miner too in the 21st century?

According to Bloomberg:
Singapore will cut salaries for its prime minister and top office holders after voter unhappiness over a widening income gap weakened support for the ruling party in last year’s elections. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s annual income will fall 36 percent to S$2.2 million ($1.7 million) while the president’s compensation would be reduced 51 percent to S$1.54 million.

In an interview on BBC, the Prime Minister of Singapore argued that organizations have to "pay competitively and pay commensurate with the position."  But, is that true only because the people at the top determine and set their own wages with no significant interference from those beneath them? Obviously when people get to vote on it, those at the top get a pay cut.


Work is Not for Everyone, Everywhere

Job creation going forward will be regionally unequal, unbalanced, and unfair. The statistics substantiate this For example Turkey, with twice the population of California, grew 3.4 million jobs in the last 5 years while California remains among the highest in US unemployment at 10+percent. Singapore is the 2nd biggest gambling mecca in the world (after Las Vegas with 20%+ unemployment) and has 15% of its households with $1M in assets. 

Emerging markets are taking the lion’s share of manufacturing and skilled worker positions because of the inequities of economic standards. The USA and Western nations will have large and sustained unemployment numbers with stagnating or lowered wages for years to come until the living standards and salaries of emerging markets catch up. 

Will China eventually stop its sweat shop, camp-living production factories that have created a workforce of national indentured servants, akin to the European guest workers, or the illegal immigrant workforce in the USA?  With gross inequities of pay scales worldwide, the jobs will go where the salaries are the lowest.
 
Do we have a right to work? Don't we tie basic survival rights to everyone's ability to pay for them?  Isn't that why they call it "earning a living"?  

In the 21st century, can a civil society require a portion of the populace go without the basic necessities of life, and be deprived of opportunity because there is not enough work to go around? 

If not, then where does the money come from to ensure that everyone has food, clothing, shelter, basic medicine, a decent education, and an eventual shot at a job?

Who pays for that? 

Private Equity firms own companies that employ 1 in 10 employees in the USA making them the nation's largest employer.  They own across all sectors including Harrahs, Hostess, Clear Channel, Energy Future Holding Company, AMC Movies.

How did the protestant work ethic of Sweat Equity get replaced by the Blood Equity of the leveraged buy-out?  No value is created, other people's money is used to buy companies and the resulting profits are gained by corporate dismemberment, divestiture, and downsizing.

This is the premise a new book by Josh Kosman, a veteran financial reporter and the author of The Buyout of America, How Private Equity is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy.

There is no point in turning this into a debate about the function of private equity given that it is now a phenomena that is well integrated into the warp and weft of the financial landscape in America. However, it is always wise to explore the career possibilities this portends for professionals and executives.  What are the opportunities?
 Start-ups
What are the employment opportunities that present themselves? Well, for starters, private equity firms have become very involved in start-up investments. Start-ups have always been the domain of the Venture Capital firms.  But they have been hard-pressed to fund new ventures in the past several years. They lost investors initially after the crash and then they have been preoccupied with keeping their current farm of companies afloat.  Private equity offers an alternative funding source for budding entrepreneurs for long-term funding.

Turn-Arounds
Seasoned senior executives who may be struggling to find a traditional long-term position in their indusrty may find relatively short term assignments doing turn-arounds for PE companies in distress. Depending on the expertise brought into play by the executive this could become serial well-paid assignments. Typically these engagements include significant profit sharing on the other end of a successful turn-around regardless of the outcome for the company.

Business Development and Due Diligence
Somebody has to do the deal finding, and due-diligence for a private equity firm. It is a very competitive environment and to the victor goes the best prizes. This is similar to the function done for venture capital investing and by analysts, indirectly, for investment banking.  It can very lucrative if you have an inside track on a sector and turn over a few rocks. For example, what are the odds of Yahoo now being a private equity buy-out once the current CEO fails to turn it around?

Starting Your Own Private Equity Firm
Remember all those well-off executives that you used to report to who are now all retired? They would be a perfect source of partners to start your firm. They would put up little money but lend their names and credibility to the banks who will leverage the deals for you. Their influence and reputation can enhance the consummation of those hard to find deals.

Taking Private Equity Offshore
As we move forward in an economy where emerging marketplaces are acting more like market makers, opportunities for leveraged buy-outs have great potential to emerge.  If you have spent time abroad or are living somewhere other than the USA, then you could escort US and European PE firms into new markets in other regions and countries. Applying your knowledge of a regional marketplace and the domain players within it could enable you to act as a deal-making liaison across borders.

The fine art of re-branding and repositioning one's career is built on a sound strategy to redefine who we are and where we are going. Like the target of a private equity leveraged buy-out, we may need to divest ourselves of out dated belief systems, cast off old non-essential experiences that drag us back to the past, and re-start our direction with leaner, more relevant value proposition. Heading off the beaten path to private equity may be the good result.


Read the article here:

As the saying goes you either have lunch or be lunch. When Kodak filed for bankruptcy restructuring, I wept over my vintage Brownie and played the Kodachrome lyrics by Paul Simon:

Kodachrome 
You give us those nice bright colors 
You give us the greens of summers 
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah! 
I got a Nikon camera 
I love to take a photograph 
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

What can executives and professionals take-away about from this? Why does a company have talented teams who create bleeding edge products see failure because executive management fails to capitalize on it?

"Through the 1990s, Kodak splurged $4 billion on developing the photo technology inside most of today's cellphones and digital devices. But a reluctance to ease its heavy reliance on film allowed rivals like Canon Inc. and Sony Corp. to rush largely unhindered into the fast-emerging digital arena. The immensely lucrative analog business Kodak worried about undermining too soon was virtually erased in a decade by the filmless photography it invented." This is from an article by Ben Dobbin for Associated Press. 

The article went on to quote:
"If you're not willing to cannibalize yourself, others will do it for you," said Mark Zupan, dean of the University of Rochester's business school. "Technology is changing ever more rapidly, the world's becoming more globalized, so to stay at the top of your game is getting increasingly harder." Read more here

Like Kodak, Xerox PARC (now just PARC) invented but never capitalized on the Graphical User Interface that made the personal computer a tool for the masses but Apple did with the Macintosh. Sony and Canon capitalized on Kodak's digital camera breakthroughs. Other sector leaders have met with the same fate such as RIM and AOL.  These companies were all market makers yet lost out to the competition by a failure to adapt, transform and innovate. 

Certain people have management styles that tend to be risk averse and impede the growth and expansion of the company with a "let's not get ahead of ourselves" attitude. They need too much proof and they take too long to make the right decision in the face of market movements. They lack a capacity to see beyond their self-imposed company rulebook, and, worst of all, they fearfully protect their next quarter profits by keeping dated products alive too long.

When a sector is moving, like the global economy, at the speed of light agility and flexibility are essential skills.

Keeping up is not sufficient when getting ahead is in order.

The same holds true for individuals. We must continually evolve and respond to organizational, market and economic changes. Knowing when to get out and move on is insufficient if you don't do it. 

Executives that do not embrace the trends of today will have the marketplace pass them by because of risk averse and dated views regarding their own career advancement.

Why are professionals so easily convinced that if they add on one more certification or degree they will somehow be more employable or desirable? My field is among the biggest offenders and first initiators of this practice that includes the breadth of services consulting: management, projects, counseling, coaching, IT, financial, etc. 

I don't mean certifications in technical, scientific tools and methodologies. I am speaking to certifications that fluff up one's perceived expertise, importance and value to the marketplace.
Just to name a few in my field as it's so easy to find them, but I am sure you can find them in yours as well:  

Master Career Counselor (MCC), Professional Certified Coach (PCC),  National Certified Career Counselor (NCCC), Master Personal Branding Strategist, Board Certified Coach (BCC), Career Management Fellow Practitioner (CMF), Career Development Facilitator Instructor (CDFI), Distance Credentialed Counselor (DCC), Master Resume Writer (MRW), Credentialed Career Master (CCM), Certified Employment Interview Professional (CEIP), Certified Job & Career Transition Coach (JCTC)

Let's take my favorite the Distance Credentialed Counselor. Since I work with clients all over the planet, I use a phone, SKYPE, a web-cam, web meeting sites, and file sharing tools. Does that require a certification? Really? Or do you just need a good IT person to set you up and provide tech support? 

Here is how the certificate is described:
A Distance Credentialed Counselor (DCC) will be nationally recognized as a professional with training in best practices in Distance Counseling. Distance Counseling is a counseling approach that takes the best  practices of traditional counseling as well as some of its own unique advantages and adapts them for delivery to clients via electronic means in order to maximize the use of technology-assisted counseling  techniques. The technology-assisted methods may include telecounseling (telephone), secure email communication, chat, videoconferencing or computerized stand-alone software programs.

Those unique advantages are further described as flexibility, convenience and asynchronous communications. Okay, but do you really need a certificate?

The phenomena is epidemic in professional services today because enterprising people in an industry discovered that the best way to make money is to sell certifications, products and tools to other professionals. Investment bankers are masters at this technique to expand their wealth. It is called leverage. 

From the professional's perspective, this is a way to get immediate credibility whereas a university extension program, let alone a college degree, would take longer, and be much more arduous and rigorous.  

Industry trade associations and Universities extension program certifications have blossomed into a hundred million dollar cash flow based on revenues from tuition and their profits help underwrite programs within the organization and the university.  At least, we can know that there is an academic, knowledge-based foundation to these programs with the organization or university's brand at stake.

However, all this has been been eclipsed by enterprising professionals who leverage a certificate out of their business and books...often not even that much.  For example, a business colleague extended his consulting practice on product management to tools, online training, books and now a certification. The degrees are non-regulated, with no legal compliance, and rest solely on the fame, expertise and brand of the provider. 

Am I flying a red flag here? Indeed, I caution any professional before spending 10's of thousands of dollars on unwarranted certifications to talk to potential hiring entities or customers in your target marketplace and see it they value your being certified.

If they would rely more on your Linkedin.com recommendations, tangible examples of the results you produced for others, and a solid, customized proposal with deliverables for the value solutions you provide to them, then forget the certification.

Competing for a piece of one pie leads all of us to try and get an advantage, but branding differentiation is not best done solely by degrees (or certificates)...no pun intended. 

_
Imagine a world in which any intellectual property holder can, without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom, shut down any website's online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The credit card processors and the advertising networks would be required to take quick action against the named website; only the filing of a “counter notification” by the website could get service restored.

It's the world envisioned by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in today's introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the US House of Representatives. This isn't some off-the-wall piece of legislation with no chance of passing, either; it's the House equivalent to the Senate's PROTECT IP Act, which would officially bring Internet censorship to the US as a matter of law.

Calling its plan a “market-based system to protect US customers and prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property,” the new bill gives broad powers to private actors. Any holder of intellectual property rights could simply send a letter to ad network operators like Google and to payment processors like MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal, demanding these companies cut off access to any site the IP holder names as an infringer.

The scheme is much like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) "takedown notices," in which a copyright holder can demand some piece of content be removed from sites like YouTube with a letter. The content will be removed unless the person who posted the content objects; at that point, the copyright holder can decide if it wants to take the person to court over the issue.

Here, though, the stakes are higher. Rather than requesting the takedown of certain hosted material, intellectual property owners can go directly for the jugular: marketing and revenue for the entire site. So long as the intellectual property holders include some “specific facts” supporting their infringement claim, ad networks and payment processors will have five days to cut off contact with the website in question.

The scheme is largely targeted at foreign websites which do not recognize US law, and which therefore will often refuse to comply with takedown requests. But the potential for abuse—even inadvertent abuse—here is astonishing, given the terrifically outsized stick with which content owners can now beat on suspected infringers.

Blockade One thing private actors can't do under the new bill is actually block a site from the Internet, though it hardly matters, because the government has agreed to do it for them. The bill gives government lawyers the power to go to court and obtain an injunction against any foreign website based on a generally single-sided presentation to a judge. Once that happens, Internet providers have 5 days to “prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.”

The government can also go after anyone who builds a tool designed for the "circumvention or bypassing" of the Internet block. Such tools already exist as a result of the US government's ongoing campaign to seize Internet domain names it believes host infringing content; they can redirect visitors who enter the site's address to its new location. The government has already asked Web browser makers like Mozilla to remove access to these sorts of tools. Mozilla refused, so the new bill just tries to ban such tools completely. (Pointing your computer's browser to a foreign DNS server in order to view a less-censored Internet still appears to be legal.)

Search engines, too, are affected, with the duty to prevent the site in question “from being served as a direct hypertext link.” Payment processors and ad networks would also have to cut off the site.

Finally, and for good measure, Internet service providers and payment processors get the green light to simply block access to sites on their own volition—no content owner notification even needed. So long as they believe the site is “dedicated to the theft of US property,” Internet providers and payment processors can't be sued.

"Industry norms" The House bill is shockingly sympathetic to a narrow subsection of business interests. For instance, buried deep in the back of the >70-page document is a requirement that the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator prepare a study for Congress. That study should analyze “notorious foreign infringers” and attempt to quantify the “significant harm inflicted by notorious foreign infringers.” (Talk about assuming your conclusions before you start.)

The report, which is specifically charged to give weight to the views of content owners, requests a set of specific policy recommendations that might “encourage foreign businesses to adopt industry norms to promote the protection of intellectual property globally.” Should the bill pass, the US government would be explicitly charged with promoting private “industry norms”—not actual laws or treaties—around the world.

In the request for the report, we can also see the IP maximalist lobby preparing for its next move: shutting off access to US capital markets and preventing companies from "offering stock for sale to the public" in the US.

Call it what it is Not all censorship is bad—but we need to have an honest discussion about when and how to deploy it, rather than wrapping an unprecedented set of censorship tools in meaningless terms like "rogue site," or by calling a key section of the new bill the "E-PARASITE Act."

You don't have to support piracy—and we don't—to see the many problems with this new approach. Just today, the RIAA submitted to the US government a list of "notorious markets." As part of that list, the RIAA included "cyberlockers" like MegaUpload, which are "notorious services" that "thumb their noses at international laws, all while pocketing significant advertising revenues from trafficking in free, unlicensed copyrighted materials."

It's not hard to imagine how long it would take before such sites--which certainly do host plenty of user-uploaded infringing content--are targeted under the new law. Yet they have a host of legal uses, and cyberlockers like RapidShare have been declared legal by both US and European courts.

Not surprisingly, the new bill is getting pushback from groups like NetCoalition, which counts Google, Yahoo, and small ISPs among its members. "As leading brands of the Internet, we strongly oppose offshore 'rogue' websites and share policymakers' goal of combating online infringement of copyrights and trademarks," said executive director Markham Erickson in a statement.

"However, we do not believe that the solution lies in regulating the Internet and comprising its stability and security. We do not believe that it is worth overturning a decade of settled law that has formed the legal foundation for all social media. And finally, we do not believe that it is worth restricting free speech or providing comfort to totalitarian regimes that seek to control and restrict the Internet freedoms of their own citizens."

Dozens of law professors have also claimed the original PROTECT IP Act, which contains most of the same ideas, is unconstitutional. But the drumbeat for some sort of censorship is growing louder.

Photograph by Tyler Menezes Further reading

• The bill text (PDF) (static.arstechnica.net)

Link to article and website

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.

_Being unemployed at the C-level can be the kiss of death. Of course, I have been accused of exaggeration and hyperbole, but not in this case nor by executives in that situation. They tend to confirm that finding a new similar position can be seemingly an insurmountable challenge.

I am not referring to the nose-bleed section of CEOs that collect a king's ransom in severance  after they are let go such as the CEO's of HP, Burger King and New Yorks Bank Mellon. They can afford to retire or buy their own company. The early (50 something or younger) CEO or c-level executive is usually not in that position. The serial CEO, CIO, CMO needs the next opportunity as much as wants it.  

How do you continue to look viable after losing a C-level job and better position yourself for a new opportunity? It depends on your net worth and network. Some of the ideas suggested here require significant capital while others rely on a substantial Outlook database of connections.  Your age and geographic location can be a determining factor as well. 

Obviously the ideal scenario is a job lost due to an M&A or buyout with no negativity that trails after you. The biggest pitfall with that scenario is that it happens often in a sector where acquisitions are driven by industry commoditization. Thus, executive career options are limited going forward as the positions are correspondingly eliminated as well.

And you can't count exclusively on executive search firms despite prior placements through them. Many executives report that search consultants unfortunately cannot consider them or do so as a last resort because typically their clients are expecting that the position be filled by a candidate who ideally matches all requirements, including current employment. 

However, if you still want skin in the game and crave the next challenge of running an organization, then here are potential strategies to pro-actively, and as triage, mitigate the damage of a lost C-level position to your career.  


Be on Boards
You can't do this soon enough in your career. Start early and at lower levels to work your way up while you pick up valuable networking contacts along the way. Don't wait to be CEO to entertain the idea of a board-level appointment. Many start-ups, and small companies seek out top executives across multiple business sectors to fill their board positions. Typically, these are paid in stock vs stipend or salary.   

Board positions are worthy to assume a greater role at the top of your CV to fill in for a current lack of employment. The network derived from it will help open doors for your next opportunity as a board member or executive.

Found Your Own Company or be a Serial CEO
Serial CEOs actually are plentiful in the world today. The magic ingredients to making that happen are an outstanding network of colleagues who help to open doors. There must be available doors to open which requires a growing not contracting sector. Lacking that, the ability to expand beyond your original sector and move into adjacent industries is crucial. 

A key to staying relevant, current and therefore, employable is your willingness to expand beyond a sector comfort zone to take on  challenges in affinity and tangential sectors. The other piece is the ability to build a case and sell yourself into that sector when you don't have the luxury to buy your way in. 

Try Politics
Running for office or actively working to elect a successful candidate can provide new career stability. You may luck out get elected and be on a secure career track for at least the duration of the elected term. 

At the minimum, the visibility and connections you will have gained from the effort may enable a government appointment at the state or federal level to head up a commission, committee, or even be a diplomatic envoy. Once any kind of government experience is secured by appointment or election, leveraging that back to the business world is an easy step. Think Al Gore.

Start an NGO
During the dot.com crash, a top executive founded a weekly lunch group for fellow unemployed executives to keep him company.  Attendance grew with a corresponding website, e-groups, corporate sponsorship and incorporation. He is now the salaried executive director of this well-established NGO. Of course it is not the money he had before but it fits his situation in life now.  Another colleague readily tells the story of how she founded a women's  professional association during the downturn that gave her a great network, and helped  keep her niche search firm going.

Become a  Philanthropist
If you leave with a small golden nest egg, then setting up a little foundation as a replica to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would be in order. Beginning with your own money can be a small capitalization when you reach out to the likes of a Warren Buffet-types to support the endeavor. This would not only do good in the world but provide job security indefinitely for you as the head of the foundation.

Be an Author
You don't actually have to write the book as ghost writers have a purpose in life. But, authoring a topic that both is timely, attention-getting, and paves the way for a new opportunity is a good way to spend time during a search. Book tours have an amazing effect on leveraging your network, creating visibility and building credibility. You become an instant thought leader and can at least raise substantial consulting and presentation fees. 

There is no easy panacea to unemployment at the C-level. The search for a new opportunity is long, very long, with available openings less abundant, and the competition fierce. It demands of you the openness and flexibility to try new strategies and tactics, and  the willingness to sometimes put aside your ego to think beyond titles. 

Most of all it requires taking stock of your dreams, goals and track record to envision a new future. If you are ready and willing to make a serious career move and not look back to the C-suite, then some of these ideas will suit you well.