Barbara Corcoran: I sent this email to get on 'Shark Tank'—after they'd 'already chosen someone else'
Seventeen years ago, Corcoran found out that the show's producer, Mark Burnett, had chosen another Shark candidate over her, she posted to LinkedIn on Friday. "They'd already chosen someone else, but I wasn't ready to give up," Corcoran wrote in her post.
Instead, she sent Burnett a lengthy email listing the reasons why she deserved the seat instead. "I understand you've asked another girl to dance instead of me," the email read, according to a screenshot posted by Corcoran, now 76. "Although I appreciate being reserved as a fall-back, I'm much more accustomed to coming in first."
From there, she walked Burnett through her character, work ethic and leadership style. She wrote about teachers who dismissed her because she struggled to read, battling dyslexia. She mentioned an ex-partner who swore she wouldn't be successful without him, and wrote that "everything I've done in business so far" had prepared her for this moment.
Instead of declaring that Burnett should choose her over the other candidate, she suggested that he fly both of them out to Los Angeles and compare them against each other.
"If you have both ladies in LA, you can mix it up a bit and see which personalities make the best combination for your show," she wrote. "I've found in building teams myself that the combination of personalities is always more important than the expertise or strengths of single individuals."
She closed her email with confidence, writing that "the reputation you have in your field is equal to the reputation I have in mind, Mark. I know you're the best at what you do and I trust you'll reach the right decision. I've booked my flight for the 6th and hope to be on that plane."
Sending that email ultimately got Corcoran the role, she wrote in her LinkedIn post: "Sometimes the door won't open until you knock louder."
Not taking rejection personally is a skill that takes time and self-awareness. The next time you're facing a rejection, you can take a page out of Corcoran's book, further explaining your qualifications and continued interest in the role. Or you can use it as an opportunity to build your network, Jolen Anderson, chief people and community officer at BetterUp, told CNBC Make It on April 15.
Say you've done a couple of interviews for a role and ultimately didn't get it. In your "thank you" email to the recruiter or hiring manager, add a sentence along the lines of, "I'm sorry that my skills didn't align with this particular role. Are there other opportunities at the company that you think might be a match for me or other people in your network you think you can introduce me to?" Anderson recommended.
Worst-case scenario: They don't respond, and you continue on with your search. Meanwhile, you've shown some good sportsmanship, and you might stay top-of-mind for a hiring manager who spent days getting to know you, your background and capabilities.
It's the "best thing that a candidate can do," said Anderson.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
NYT Strands Hints For Sunday, July 27: Today's Spangram And Answers (That's A Good Look)
Today's NYT Strands hints and answers. Before today's Strands hints, spangram and answers, here are Saturday's: Hey, folks! Today's NYT Strands hints, spangram and answers for Sunday, July 27 are coming right up. How To Play Strands The New York Times' Strands puzzle is a play on the classic word search. It's available on the NYT website and in the NYT Games app alongside the likes of Wordle and Connections (which we also cover in daily guides at Forbes Gaming). There's a new game of Strands to play every day. The game will present you with a six by eight grid of letters. The aim is to find a group of words that have something in common, and you'll get a clue as to what that theme is. When you find a theme word, it will remain highlighted in blue. You'll also need to find a special word called a spangram. This tells you what the words have in common. The spangram links at least two sides of the board, but it may not start or end there. While the theme words will not be a proper name, the spangram can be a proper name. When you find the spangram, it will remain highlighted in yellow. FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™ Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase Pinpoint By Linkedin Guess The Category Queens By Linkedin Crown Each Region Crossclimb By Linkedin Unlock A Trivia Ladder Every letter is used once in one of the theme words and spangram. You can connect letters vertically, horizontally and diagonally, and it's possible to switch directions in the middle of a word. If you're playing on a touchscreen, double tap the last letter to submit your guess. If you find three valid words of at least four letters that are not part of the theme, you'll unlock the Hint button. Clicking this will highlight the letters that make up one of the theme words. Be warned: You'll need to be on your toes. Sometimes you'll need to fill the missing word(s) in a phrase. On other days, the game may revolve around synonyms or homophones. The difficulty will vary from day to day, and the puzzle creators will try to surprise you sometimes. What Is Today's Strands Hint? Scroll slowly! Just after the hint for today's Strands puzzle, I'll reveal what the answer words are. The official theme hint for today's Strands puzzle is... That's a good look Need some extra help? Here's another hint... Put under the microscope There are seven theme words to find today, including the spangram. What Are Today's NYT Strands Hints? Spoiler alert! Don't scroll any further down the page until you're ready to find out today's Strands hints. Here are the first two letters of every theme word in today's puzzle. They're ordered from left to right, then top to bottom by any letter of the word appearing for the first time: What Are Today's NYT Strands Answers? Before I reveal the other the full word list, I'll first tell you the spangram and show you where that is on the grid. This is your final spoiler warning! Today's Strands spangram is... ANALYSIS Here's where you'll find it on the grid… New York Times Strands screenshot, showing the highlighted term ANALYSIS Today's Strands theme words are... Here's what the completed grid looks like... Completed NYT Strands grid for July 27, including the words WEIGHT, ANALYSIS, EXAMINE, STUDY, ... More SURVEY, INSPECT and SCRUTINIZE I struggled with this one, I have to admit. I needed hints to get started, and they helped me find STUDY, WEIGH and SURVEY. EXAMINE and INSPECT then fell into place. Although I had a decent idea about the spangram at that point, I threw my hands up and admitted defeat, getting SCRUTINIZE first. Maybe I'll find the spangram earlier tomorrow! I used three hints and the spangram was the last theme word I found. See you tomorrow for more Strands fun! Follow my blog for more coverage of Strands, Connections and other word games as well as video game news, insights and analysis. It helps me out a lot! If you want to chat about Strands, Connections and other stuff with like-minded folks, join my Discord server! Also, follow me on Bluesky! It's fun there.
Fast Company
7 hours ago
- Fast Company
LinkedIn's Aneesh Raman says the career ladder is disappearing in the AI era
As AI evolves, the world of work is getting even better for the most creative, curious, and growth-minded employees. So says Aneesh Raman, LinkedIn's chief economic opportunity officer. Raman has intriguing and urgent insights on why the career ladder is disappearing—and how AI will help transform it into more of a climbing wall, with a unique path for each of us. Learn which parts of the workforce Raman sees as most affected by AI, and why he remains 'radically pro-human' as the very nature of work dramatically shifts. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Bob Safian, the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. You wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times with a headline about the bottom rung of the career ladder breaking, and it went viral. Did that surprise you? I've been in the arena for moments of big change before—when I was with CNN, when I was with President Obama—so I have a sense of what it's like when cultural conversations start to take hold. With this one, I didn't know what exactly was going to happen. I did an op-ed in The New York Times last year, and that one—it percolated here or there, but it wasn't like this one. And so this one really hit, I think, an underlying tension that we're all feeling that something big is underway. That it isn't playing out cleanly, quickly, everywhere all at once. It's not like the pandemic, where we all just know what's happening and then our life changes overnight, but that it is coming to us eventually. And evidently, entry-level work is the place where we're all able to focus first, as a place where something real and big is happening. And that's what I've been encouraged by. Because a lot of what I wrote this op-ed for was to provoke the conversations about AI and work, which is: 'What do we do about this, and how do we get to better?' And there's speculation about where AI hits the workforce hardest. The CEO of Anthropic has pointed to white-collar jobs. You're talking about entry-level tasks. Are those two different scenarios based on different assumptions, or is it two parts of the same thing? The thing I can say with certainty is that this will affect every worker, in every company, in every sector, in every society. When it impacts every worker in every company, I don't know. It'll depend on where you work, what you do, but it's going to hit everyone. And it's going to hit everyone in a way that can lead to better for everyone, which I know we'll talk about. What I don't think anyone can do right now is in any absolute way predict net employment. We don't know so much of what's about to hit, and so much of where it goes depends on what we do as humans right now to shape this new economy as it forms. So we know historically, jobs have been disrupted, and new jobs have been created, every time we've gone into a new economy. It's unclear to me whether we'll see more jobs changing than new jobs emerging, and it's going to take a bit for us to figure that out. But what we know is happening right now is that everyone's job is changing on them, even if they are not changing jobs. And that's where we should be focused. And the data about roles that you see on LinkedIn's platform, the overall jobs numbers that come from the government, are fairly solid. Everything's happening and everything's not happening, because there's no, again, universal way. It's not an either/or situation. So I think a lot of what we've got to push beyond is this: Are entry-level jobs going away? Are they going to stay? It's neither. It's both. It's yes. So when I think about entering a new economy and I look back across economic anthropology and economic history, there are generally four phases. The first phase is disruption. This new technology becomes real. And this is, I think, a technology equivalent to general-purpose technologies like the steam engine, like electricity, like the internet. We're in that zone. So we already know that's happening. Any number of metrics of people using AI at work, we've got data. Nearly 90% of C-suite leaders globally say, 'AI adoption is a top priority for 2025.' So this technology is here, and it's in the day-to-day. Now, the second thing that happens when you enter a new economy is that jobs change. And a lot of what I looked at early on with AI is: 'Is AI going to be more like electricity or like the internet?' And the reason I ask that is that electricity changed everything for everyone, but it actually didn't change much for humans at work. We still largely did physical labor. We just did it in the factory rather than the farm. The internet came, and it fundamentally started to change work for humans. Suddenly, it wasn't just physical labor but intellectual labor that became valued by our economy. So the first thing I was looking at is, 'Okay, disruption's here. Jobs are going to change. How are they going to change?' A new economy's on the way that I'm calling the innovation economy. Because our core skills as humans, the things that differentiate our species—the ability to imagine, to invent, to communicate complex ideas, to organize around complex ideas—those are going to come to the center of work. And that's a whole new set of skills that our economy has never fully valued. In fact, we've derided those skills often as soft skills or people skills that are nice to have, not must-haves. So we're already starting to see in our data that communication is, like, the number one skill across job postings, not coding. All the jobs on the rise, aside from just general AI fluency or deep AI knowledge—if you're going for that small set of jobs explicitly about building AI—are all things like critical thinking, strategic thinking, closing that deal as a salesperson, persuasion, storytelling. So we're already seeing that jobs are going to shift; they're going to shift more to unique human capability. And then the fourth phase will come where we'll see a new economy emerge. And part of what I'm waiting for, and I don't think we have these signals yet, is new job titles. Mine got made up eight to nine months ago. Moderna's got a new chief digital and people officer that they've created. New roles will emerge that aren't just AI, because we're seeing head of AI jobs have gone up, I think, three times in five years. But also new business starts, like a whole new era of innovation that's going to happen through these tools. So there are some signals I'm waiting for. A different organizational workflow, like org charts become work charts. You have project-based work. There are a bunch of signals we'll start to see over the next year or two that start to suggest where and how the new economy is taking hold. You looked historically at electricity and the internet, and it sounds like you're saying it's more like the internet. But it's also going to be something completely different that we don't even really know yet what it is. Well, we know that whatever the role of humans at work is, it's going to be more human than work has ever been. And what's really important about that is . . . I always start with, 'Well, let's evaluate the status quo we've got before we A, get afraid of changing it, or B, want to imagine what it should become.' Work has never been human-centric, ever. The story of work is the story of technology at work, not humans at work.
Business Insider
8 hours ago
- Business Insider
'Grammatically correct and emotionally vacant': The pitfalls of relying on AI too much in your job hunt
Job seekers are going overboard using AI. With so many relying on tools like ChatGPT to cut corners, recruiters say they're getting stuck with piles of robotic-sounding résumés and applicants who appear to be cheating during video interviews. While the recruiters BI spoke with said there's nothing wrong with using AI to save time writing, research a prospective employer, or practice answering common questions, they warn that applicants are denting their odds of success by becoming too dependent on it. They say the timing of the trend is especially bad given how many people are looking for jobs. "In this market, you've got to stand out," said Steve Levy, a recruiter in Long Island, New York. When it comes to résumés, it's not just the well-known overuse of em dashes that's tipping off recruiters. It's also the eerie perfection of the documents themselves. "Every sentence is grammatically correct, evenly spaced, and emotionally vacant," said Levy, who's been a recruiter for nearly four decades. "Real résumés have scuff marks." Buzzwords and blunders Another telltale sign is that résumés written with AI feature the same formatting and hollow buzzwords, such as "dynamic," "innovative," and "cross-functional." Many also contain the same phrases such as "accelerated time-to-market" and "exceeding stakeholder expectations." Rather than use these, job hunters should find ways to insert personal touches that add substance to their résumés, said Tejal Rives, a hiring manager in Tempe, Arizona, for a large tech company. "There's no harm in using AI or templates, but the customization is not there," she said. "You're hurting your chances by sounding like everyone else." AI tools have a tendency to introduce factual errors in résumés, which are often apparent to recruiters because dates, numbers, and other details are inconsistent with what is on a candidate's LinkedIn profile or what the person says during the interview process. "Take a real fine-tooth comb to what AI produces for you," said Desiree Goldey, a recruiter in Austin, Texas, who reviews an average of 500 résumés a week and estimates that about half are written with AI to the point that it's noticeable. "Yes, it saves you time, but you have to go back and look at it." Overall, résumés written by AI tend to come across as soulless, she added. The human element is just missing and that's a turn-off. "You're not portraying yourself with any authenticity," Goldey said. "You become this robot and nobody is going to hire a robot." AI shows up in interviews, too Some candidates are also sneaking a peek at AI apps on their phones while interviewing with recruiters over video apps such as Zoom. Recruiters say these individuals repeat the questions they've been asked out loud, then sneak glances to the side of the screen at whatever AI program they're using so they can read the results it spits out. They also usually take a brief pause before answering. Goldey said it's fine to practice interviewing with AI, but when it's time to go on camera, she expects candidates to look at her the whole time — not their phones. "To use AI in an interview to me is a no," she said. "It's the worst thing you could do." Bonnie Dilber, a senior talent-acquisition manager for a fully remote software company, said she's seen such behavior rising over the past few months. She recalled an instance in which a candidate went even further by using an AI filter to impose their face on another person's body. The other individual — the one who could only be seen from the neck down — answered the recruiter's questions. "You could see the filter glitch," she said. Dilber suspects people are going to such lengths because they lack confidence in their interviewing skills and believe AI will give them an edge. Or, she said they could be engaging in fraudulent activity, such as trying to understand the interview process so they can sell the information they glean to job seekers. She and other recruiters on her team use an AI platform that records interviews for generating transcripts and summarizing what's discussed. If they sense something is fishy, they'll review the footage. "Recording the interviews for us is a huge way that we can catch these things," Dilber said. "I imagine a future in which maybe to begin an interview, you have to scan an ID." Have a job-search story to share? Contact the reporter via email at sneedleman@ here ' s our guide to sharing.
