Tuesday’s Tip: Insecure is OK, Meek is Not

Let’s face it, no matter what anybody says, everybody, to greater or lesser degrees, is insecure. How can we not be? We’re thrown into the big bad world, with people and events and billboards and malls and technology and relationships and escalators and rebate coupons–it’s a lot! The world is big and we are relatively small.

Well, guess what? The admissions committee realizes all of this. They’re not looking for a flawless past in your resume and vivid depictions of superhuman feats in your personal statement. They’re just looking for the humanity of it all, in it all. To feel insecure when facing the daunting task of excavating your past, polishing it and presenting your vision for the future is quite normal (ask any politician).

Knowing this, the adcoms (admissions committees) are actually looking for applicants who are not afraid to expose some personal vulnerabilities or professional missteps. But there’s a catch. To be insecure is ok. Again, all of us are to some degree. But to project insecurity is not. The difference? Perhaps it is better illustrated by an example plucked from an actual first draft submission by a client who struggled with using his natural self-consciousness to his advantage:

EXAMPLE:

Client Submission: I tend to avoid confrontation but when it came time for me to square up to the consultant who had identified the quality assurance department I lead as one that could stand to reduce its personnel, I didn’t balk. Knowing my team depended on me was all that I needed to motivate me to deliver what turned out to be a fiery speech somewhat out of character for me. In the end, the consultant sought cost-cutting measures elsewhere.

Twainstein Revision: Having successfully lead the quality assurance team to four consecutive years of record cost-saving, no outside consultant was going to come in and tell me that our staff ought to be slashed. Having exhausted all diplomatic attempts (sharing our internal numbers with him, allowing him in on staff production meetings), I took the hard-line–and unprecedented–stance of sealing access to our department’s personnel. Nobody likes needless confrontation except young children and producers of reality television. I’m no exception–save for cases where the station of leadership I hold all but demands it.

Soooo, what’s the difference? Well, for starters, the second one uses humor (well) as a device to defuse what is sure to be an intense paragraph. This demonstrates to the adcoms that, while serious, the applicant is capable of keeping a cool head about herself. Second, did you notice in the first version that the applicant implied she depends on others for her motivation (“Knowing my team depended…”)? In contrast, after our revision every bold move was solely attributed to our hero.

Lastly, and back to our main point–displaying vulnerability. In our client’s first draft, the recounting of the event almost seems painful for the writer; the exposition feels limp and tired. Contrast this with the revised version. Bold set-up, followed by bold action taken, followed by a recognition that, on the inside, there was some real emotional see-sawing going on.

In sum, embrace the emotional turmoil that comes with describing your past experiences but write them as someone who is willing to execute despite natural misgivings.

If you have any questions about this or past articles, please contact us directly.