Weekly News Roundup

Liking these posts? Follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook — this is the edited version of what we’re reading! (We also Tweet if we hear about a good sale through our CorporetteDeals Twitter feed.)

Second City Style rounds up some bags you may have seen in summer movies.  My favorite:  Julianne Moore’s Bottega Vennetta from Crazy Stupid Love (available at Saks for $2580).

– How is your “executive presence”? The WSJ notes that some leaders have it naturally — and others need image makeovers to get there.

– You might want to rethink your morning routine: a study cited in the Harvard Business Review finds that for women, an increase in personal grooming time is associated with lower earnings. (Hat tip: WSJ’s The Juggle.)  Speaking of which, Sally at Already Pretty wonders: can you be pretty AND smart?  Why must you choose?

– Start-ups by women are on the rise, Crain’s New York Business reports — huzzah!  (Congrats to Hoseanna cofounders Tracey and Katrina for their shout-out in the Crain’s piece!)

– Boss steal your idea again?  Fortune has some advice.

Mint tells us how to know when you need a financial advisor.  Meanwhile, Lifehacker rounds up the top 5 personal finance tools for your desktop.

Did we miss anything?  Post ’em here.

Comments

  1. That research on personal grooming and earnings really frosts me. Correlation does not prove causation- the grooming is not the reason for the income changes. Think of the other factors involved- age, natural beauty, minority/non-minority status, region, occupation. There is likely to be many factors at play and those researchers have not explored the most likely issues.

    • I call B.S. on the HBR coverage of that study. Even a cursory glance at the original report shows that this is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation. The original report does not claim that an increase in grooming time *causes* lower earnings for women; it simply says they are associated with lower earnings and then goes on to say that more research is needed to explore the causal link.

      Shame on you, HBR.

  2. lostintranslation :

    This. I was being nerdy and contemplating the experiment the researchers would need to be able to determine causality in this case but yikes (at my nerdiness and at the statements being thrown around in that article).

  3. PT lawyer :

    I need some feedback on my PT job. Its always been very PT — my boss initially wanted/promised 15-20 hours a week, but its always been more like 5-10/week. This summer has been extremely slow — I have billed 4 hours so far in August, total. Except for one very busy week, June and July were the same.
    I have little kids and I work from home so this “very PT” thing works for me, BUT I would like to work/bill more than I have been — more like the 15-20 hrs/wk. that was initially promised. What irks me is that I feel very out of the loop — the firm hired TWO new associates this summer! I’ve consistently asked for more work, contacted clients, etc., and I only found out about the 2 new hires via group (cc’d) emails. I’m wondering if I’m being frozen out — but what is there to freeze? I’ve always been the “leftovers” person, and I’m guessing the summer was slow all around. My boss and I have a good rapport too.
    So, I guess my issue is — how/should I deal with this? I’m not ready to go back to work FT (and lucky enough to not have to, financially). I admit that this job is kinda back-burner/keeping the resume alive until the kids are in school. I’m wondering if its administratively too difficult for my boss to keep me around? I also don’t want to be The Whiner — “gimme work, gimme work, why did you hire them” etc.

    • PT lawyer :

      ^^^ I should add that my reviews are uniformly positive, both from the boss and from clients. I’m just confused? challenged? mystified? by the slow summer and lack of communication.

work fashion blog press mentions