The theory goes something like this. Employers like employees that are married because employees with responsibilities tend to be more serious about their jobs. They will likely have mortgages to pay down and kids to feed. They are less likely to make flippant decisions about leaving jobs and can usually be relied on to do the work they’ve been assigned. By the way, the same goes for single employees with mortgages to pay down.

Consider then the case of my friend “Jim”. He works for a large financial institution in IT with millions of transactions every hour. He takes his job seriously, is extremely hard-working and is known to be routinely anti-social at dinners by taking calls from colleagues about work-related issues. In a recent review, his manager suggested that he not work late into the night. His words were something to the effect of – “If you stay late, then others will have to stay late as well. It may be okay for you but others have families”. To the naked eye, it would seem like a marriage tax is being levied on Jim.

Is that really the case? Don’t we all know plenty of managers who hire young and single people simply because they don’t have family responsibilities holding them back from working overtime to get the product out and into the market? What is really going on here?

Is Jim really being hit by a marriage tax or is there something else going on?  Well, not quite. Employers want employees who are reliable – reliable when it comes to getting the work done, when it comes to internalizing input from their management, and reliable in carrying out orders. It does seem like Jim may simply be failing to reliably carry out orders, or that he is not taking a broader view of things. His manager wants his team to function smoothly and Jim’s extra work may be causing consternation amongst team members. Then again, maybe not.

I love online communities because they offer us our best hope of learning from each other and accessing the wisdom that exists in silos.  I also believe that human beings are happiest when they're with other human beings - working, conversing, playing, reading, doing anything - but in the company of others. So I believe that it is very important to nurture online communities and integrate them with offline ones. I think they can feed off each other.

Having said that, I have found it hard to find quality online communities.  By the term "community", I mean any site where users interact with each other. Let's examine the motivations of the members of the community. Let's take two big social networks - Facebook and LinkedIn. By and large, Facebook users are there to keep track of their friends and their lives. They're not there to be educated. They're there to have fun. The majority of LinkedIn users are there to keep in touch with professional associates and perhaps get found by recruiters. A small minority consists of recruiters, small consulting firms and entrepreneurs. This small minority creates the majority of the discussion on groups, and are there largely to get more clients.

A conversation with the leader of a non-profit Association, led us to do a cursory analysis of a group on LinkedIn. Here's how we broke down the first page of the Linked group under the discussions tab:-

This is the first in a series of articles we’re writing about associations of all sizes and persuasions. By definition, associations are gatherings of individuals that have common interests. Associations needed committed members. There are far too many associations that suffer from mediocre events, lackluster speakers, uninspiring discussions and little audience participation.

So how do you energize an association? Today we want to highlight an individual who’s made a marked difference in his association. The person in question is Alex Littlewood, President of SVAMA - the Silicon Valley chapter of the American Marketing Association. Alex has been involved with the AMA since the age of 17. He volunteered for them right through college and after.

That is how this article - Ask For Help: Why People Are Twice as Likely to Assist as You Think - concludes.

Agree wholeheartedly, though I must append a modifier or perhaps a clarifier - As long as people know your agenda, they're more than happy to help you. If you're walking down the streets of San Francisco, and someone walks up to you and says "Hi! My name is Joe, and I want to be your friend.", you're probably thinking "What does he want?  What's he going to try and push on me?"  On the other hand, if someone says "Hey, where's the closest Starbuck's?", even if you have to think a little, you'll spend the time giving directions or suggesting alternatives. Why? Because you know the person's agenda.

So make your agenda clear when you're asking for help. You will immediately disarm the other person.  Then ask for help, but ask for help in bits (like this article says). If you're asking for too much all at once, people will immediately have a reaction to it.

Let's say that you meet someone who can probably teach you a lot about something you want to learn. Don't ask for too much right away. Let the first few meetings be kinda loosey-goosey. You're seeing if you can work with each other. The other person is evaluating you. Just leave it at that.

Just like water finds its level, you will find the help you need. Don't be in a hurry. Play it slow and easy.

It has been my distinct impression throughout my career that besides wanting more in salary, employees simply want to learn from other successful people. A recent Deloitte report concludes just that. According to the report, young workers are more eager to contribute and take on responsibility earlier in their careers. They are not content to “pay their dues” and get promoted in due course. Unlike previous generations, they DO trust older people and are eager to learn from them.