"They say your CV or resume should never be longer than two pages."

"What will they think if I say I need to limit my business travel?"

"Do they want you to put your e-mail address on your ad response?"

"They'll never hire someone from a different industry."

"If you're unemployed, they'll think you're damaged goods."

If you've uttered or even thought of one of these types of all-inclusive generalizations, you're guilty of imprecise thinking, which may adversely impact your job-search and career-transition prospects. There is no "they," no secret convocation of opinion leaders who define the rules of the game for all players in all situations. There's no safe harbor of conventional wisdom or quick guide to divining the needs, attitudes and hot buttons of interviewers and possible employers.

The mythical band of rule- and decision-makers called "they" is the result of our attempt to summarize a myriad of wildly differing situations into more a manageable, predictable form. It's like characterizing the stock market as a bull or bear market. There's no bull or bear, of course, just millions of transactions daily. If you review the individual data points from afar, they may blur into broad general trends, but what use is such broad stereotyping to individuals?

Suppose one job seeker lucks into a new position on the first day of a search, while a second takes a year to land one. The average of the two job searches is six months. Does that mean that the "average" job search -- or your own job search -- will take six months?

While seeking new positions, many savvy candidates suspend their judgment and abandon practical learning gained from their own unique career paths. Like impressionable children, they may embrace the canons of conventional wisdom and run the risk of the real dangers of over-generalization.

Why do many of us succumb to sloppy thinking and what danger does it pose to our efforts to find meaningful employment and a satisfying career path?

When immersed in the unfamiliar stresses of job hunting, we tend to draw on personal traits and develop "task personalities" that are different from our distinct personal style. A job-seeker's game face frequently assumes two characteristics:

1. The lone warrior mentality that seeks to dominate and win, and

2. An affiliation mentality characterized by a persistent eagerness to please.

In most of us, there's a frail balance between the need to be respected and the desire to be liked. We're reminded repeatedly that the job market is a merciless jungle with competitors and predators lurking at every turn. Self-reliance is the order of the day. You're told to take care of yourself, because no one else will.

If you turn up the volume on this channel and look at yourself in a mirror, you hope to see the grimly-determined face of a superbly-disciplined samurai. Or if you're more risk oriented, perhaps the face of a ronin, an autonomous, mercenary renegade warrior. Everywhere you turn, you hear the message: All for me and me for myself. Look out for No. 1. Be tough, hard and mean.

Be alone. Whoops. There's the other channel, the one that craves affiliation, inclusion, acceptance and stability. Legions of job seekers report feeling vulnerable and isolated during their journey to re-employment. They think: I feel so alone, powerless and out of control of my own destiny. I don't want to be a warrior. I want to be a member of the team, to be invited in out of the cold.

Ironically, in these conflicting emotional states, job hunters frequently acquire an unrealistic view of the their world. It's me against everyone else -- and everyone else against me. Out of this singular orientation comes the dreaded "they think." While this assumption may help produce adrenalin that can mobilize your defenses, it also can encourage you to lose sight of what's unique about yourself, your search objective and the nuances of the hundreds of impersonal transactions that make up an effective job search. Seeing the world in terms of a homogeneous generalized "other" creates an alarming possible outcome of depersonalizing your job search process.

It isn't hard to understand why our warrior side wants to depersonalize the enemy. That's the approved military way to ready yourself for the clawing and fighting needed to win without being crippled by remorse. As one career changer puts it, "It's ‘I' before ‘We' when you're alone out to sea."

The problem with depersonalizing the enemy in your job search -- with turning everyone and everything into a "they" -- is that suddenly everyone is the enemy. Sure, competing job seekers are the enemy; they want the job you want, right? But if you aren't careful, that hostility may wash over to your allies and potential employers. Your mind starts turning: The headhunter is a jerk, out only to collect his fee. The interviewer is an adversary, throwing high curve balls at me to strike me out. The person making me that job offer is out to trick me into accepting less money than I'm worth or she's able to pay.

Your other channel, the one eager to reintegrate with the herd, also tends to overgeneralize partly because we think that if team rules exist and we master them, we'll be included on the team. Feelings of isolation also breed a sense of victimization and a tendency to catastrophize in some of us. "They'll never hire a 58-year-old for a product manager job!"

Add the tendency to personalize -- "I knew it, they hated me" -- and you have the recipe for all-pervasive defensiveness that can lower your sights, overlook your individual strengths and appear defeatist and over-sensitive. This defensiveness can make you come across to others as disdainful, aloof, suspicious, thin skinned and paranoid. Wow, that's attractive.

The "they think" and over-generalization mentality is evident in the words and expressions we use. We speak, for example, of "the job market," as in "the job market always picks up after New Year's and Labor Day," or "the job market insists on scannable CVs or resumes these days" or "the job market doesn't know what to do with displaced middle managers." Used this way, the phrase supposedly describes the opinions and biases of all employers -- but there's no such thing or place as the job market. Why should you lump your skills, objectives and job-search campaign in with millions of people whose situations are completely different from yours? Far more relevant is your job market: the universe of jobs and opportunities keyed to what, when and where you perform your profession.

Consider how frequently and casually the adverbs "always" and "never" are used. Networkers are indoctrinated to "always meet contacts face-to-face and never accept no for an answer." Interviewees learn they must "always mail thank-you notes by 10:30 the day after the interview." Other ultimatums: "You must never wear loafers to an interview," and "Always include your CV with a direct contact letter." These rules may have some basis in common sense, but sound reasons for exceptions or alterations to the rule also may exist. There's nothing wrong with conventional wisdom as long as you realize it should serve as a foundation for your own judgment, not as an inviolable set of commandments.

As far as verbs go, "should" and "must" lead the way in encouraging over-generalized sloppy thinking. Both suggest a universal authoritarian norm, much like parents who tell you want to do: "You should never leave a job without having another one," "When asked the weakness question, always describe a strength as if it were a weakness."

How often do you slip into indiscriminate phrases such as "it's crucial to…" or "you gotta…" or "everyone knows that…"? When we substitute external rules for our own determinations of what's appropriate, we risk becoming pawns to the generalized other -- and compromising our individuality.

In most job search-interactions -- whether they involve networking, writing direct contact letters or answering ads -- the I-versus-they mindset undermines the more important goal of developing rapport between two individuals. It obscures the importance of figuring out if there's really a fit with this potential employer. All the components of a good fit, such as goal and value congruence, your potential contributions, rewards, recognition, affiliation and fun, build on perceived mutual interests, not on who vanquishes whom. If you think in terms of winning the interview or job offer, even of winning them over, you'll likely discover that you've only won a reputation for competitiveness, self aggrandizement or having a chip on your shoulder.

In his book, "Life Strategies" (Hyperion, 1999), Philip C. McGraw writes that "to manage people [in social interactions] effectively, you must do it in a way that protects their self-esteem." He also writes that everyone approaches every situation concerned with their own self-interest. They think, "What's in this for me?"

These are generalizations that can help a job search. They lead to a heightened awareness of how important it is to treat every person and every interaction as unique. This is hard work that demands attention and effort. But the payoff in terms of establishing powerful personal relationships is enormous.

We're flattered when someone remembers our name or treats us as an individual and repelled when we think we're being manipulated or turned into a statistic. Yet many job seekers inadvertently send signals that their interactions are perfunctory or impersonal. The mass mailing that begins "Dear Human-Resources Director," the two-minute commercial at a networking meeting that seems rehearsed or the interview answers that are glib, self-satisfied mini-scripts, not thoughtful responses.

Human nature plays out in a job-search the same way it does in life. The "job market" may be frantic, disorderly and unfair, but it responds to personalized and individualized attention. Behaviors that appear naïve, presumptuous, manipulative or impersonal in business settings won't seem clever, insightful or credible in interviews or networking meetings.

If you must generalize, adhere to the golden rule. Before mailing letters, making phone calls or rewriting a CV, think, "In this situation, how would I respond if I were on the receiving end? What would best show that I understand what's important and appropriate?" Or, as a human-resources director once said, "The more aware you are of my needs and priorities, the more self-aware I will think you are."

Whether it's called social intelligence, context awareness, street smarts or political savvy, the ability to adjust your behavior to fit the situation is a crucial element of good judgment. As a hiring expert explains, "I want potential employees to sell me what I need, not what they want to sell me. A canned one-size-fits-all pitch shows that they haven't the brains or initiative to figure out what I want -- or the courage to stand out from the crowd."

You don't want to fight the "they," be hired by the "they," or be one of the "they." Discipline yourself to focus on the here and now, the relevant and appropriate. Dwell on what distinguishes you from others, not from what you have in common with competitors. To create an extra advantage, recite this simple, mental mantra to yourself. "Personalize, individualize, personalize, individualize."