17 ms·

The Best Jobs Now Require You to Be a People Person

214 points by kareemm 11y ago

dkarapetyan 11y ago
As opposed to an animal person? So someone spent a few thousand words saying that emotional and inter-personal intelligence is a valuable skill to develop. Got it, thanks.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  You don't sound like a people person...
TheGRS 11y ago
I find that some of my co-workers who work the best are ones that are not necessarily good at talking to others, but are good at shutting themselves out from others for periods of time, which helps them get lots of work done. The risky part being that sometimes they get a lot of work done in a totally wrong direction.
- seivan 11y ago
  Yeah, I know a guy who quit and is planning on working at a grocery store. He's an amazing c++ dev (who did iOS) but got sick of everything else related.
onion2k 11y ago
Of the people in the world who are the most wealthy, I don't think many of them come across publicly as 'people person' types. There are myriad stories surrounding Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, etc and how they're dreadful to work with. Jobs especially - people can't write entire listicles about how awful you are if you're a people person, but Business Insider managed it - http://uk.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10?op=1 http://uk.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10?op=1 Maybe if you want a high paying job working for someone else then you should brush up on your 'soft skills'; but if money is really the driving force behind that decision then you'd be better off developing a fiercely ruthless attitude and starting a business of your own.
- dkarapetyan 11y ago
  Why can't you do it without being fierce or ruthless? I think this attitude is somewhat dangerous to propagate.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    Because ... cargo cults[1]. :) Maybe you can. Richard Branson seems to be an example of someone who has, but in that respect he's unusual among his billionaire peers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Metaphorical_uses_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Metaphorical_uses_o...
    - seansmccullough 11y ago
      Best analogy ever!
    - chaostheory 11y ago
      If I remember correctly, you can probably add the founders of SAS and South West to Richard Branson's side of the list as well
      - arethuza 11y ago
        I thought for a moment you the SAS and not SAS the company - "fierce and ruthless" being pretty much the the point of the former. Mind you, I can think of at least one military leader who was not only exceptionally good at doing his "day job" (bomber pilot) but who was also a remarkable leader and a thoroughly decent chap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire
- perlpimp 11y ago
  This is article is suspicious: Training in mathematics, computer science and other STEM fields (what Deming would count as “high cognitive skills”) is still a great investment; that “plugging away at a spreadsheet” is still valuable. “High-cognitive-skills workers still earn more,” Deming said, “but social skills increasingly are a complement to cognitive skills.” Lumping together droning on a spreadsheet and being a pleasant socialite as being not a bad asset and overall trendy.
meric 11y ago
The hardest things for machines to get right is to act human - i.e. social skills. As tasks that are easy to automate will continue to be rewarded less, and tasks that are hard to automate will increase in cost (e.g. education, health care), it pays, literally, to develop good social skills and become a people person, no matter what field you're in. It is by achieving the essence of what it means to be human, a person is valued within human society.
_pmf_ 11y ago
"Now" == since we developed structured social interaction
simula67 11y ago
This is a suspicious article. > nearly half of U.S. jobs would be vulnerable to automation within 20 years. But “computers aren’t good at simulating human interaction,” Deming said. That means a job as a manager or consultant is harder to automate, and the skills those jobs require become more valuable. If humans are being replaced with computers, then there will be need for fewer managers, supervisors etc. This would cause a decline in demand for people with "human skills" also. > Women are getting jobs that require more social skills. If the share of jobs that require interpersonal skill has in fact increased over the years just as the author postulates, is it really a wonder that share of women who hold these types of jobs have also increased ? Why exactly did the author show only the graph representing how the nature of jobs has changed for women ? Is the author trying to prove women are naturally better at these things ? > Although cognitive skills don’t vary by gender, Deming cites research from psychology showing that women consistently score higher on tests of emotional intelligence and social perceptiveness. This is a dangerous line of thinking. If women are naturally better at certain things, it is not a stretch to imagine that they would be naturally worse at certain things. This could impede our quest to bring about gender equality.
- donkeyd 11y ago
  > This would cause a decline in demand for people with "human skills" also. I think human skills remain important in order to figure out what the customer wants. Computers might do a lot of the work, but these computers still need to be programmed. You need to understand the customer's needs and translate these into a user friendly experience. The essence of this change seems to be that it's 'easy' to program a computer. It's harder to know what to program so that people will want to use it.
  - FilterSweep 11y ago
    >I think human skills remain important in order to figure out what the customer wants. I'd be careful with that one, the greatest value in Google and Facebook analytics are just that.
- MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  I agree its a puff piece. They are basically saying 1+1 > 1+0 - of course its better to have tech skills AND social skills on top instead of just tech, but thats trivial. 10 years ago at university a professor in economics told us that skills like design and social competence would become more important, as the actual tech would be outsourced to India or east europe, and focusing on tech would be unwise. When I look at the programmer consulting rates, the opposite has happened. Glad I made the right choice.
rodgerd 11y ago
I guess it would depend on how you define "best" - but I'd argue that's always been the case.
- draven 11y ago
  In the article, best = most lucrative.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    The King's physician may or may not be the best physician in the land - but he is definitely the best remunerated!
smegel 11y ago
Wow that changed quickly. Yesterday it was all about data science and machine learning!
jonesb6 11y ago
I guess Michael Scott was right after all..
pjmlp 11y ago
It has always been the case. In countries like my own, where the majority of IT market is consulting with very little product development, you need soft skills.
Simp 11y ago
>A 2013 paper by two Oxford researchers projected that nearly half of U.S. jobs would be vulnerable to automation within 20 years. Who says "social skills" can't be automated? > But “computers aren’t good at simulating human interaction,” Not yet you mean.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  most importantly, who's gonna build the automation? there are engineering needs for a hundred years or more* to transform current work centered society in an automation centered society, and even then those things won't just maintain themselves forever. *not because technical challenges, but because the resistance from who detains the status quo
  - tyilo 11y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
pen2l 11y ago
How does the dupe detector work anyway. First I thought one could resubmit after a certain amount of time... but no, I submitted this only a day or two ago. Maybe links can be modified (add a ?resubmit at the end, for instance), but nope, I submitted with exact same URI. I wonder. (Not complaining, just curious if anyone has insight into this).
walshemj 11y ago
Social skils beats Tech :-) a piece written by a non techie and seems to be written to support the old professions medicine and law. Worried that those greasy engineers might be getting to close them in terms of salary and status?
NumberCruncher 11y ago
>> The Best Jobs NOW Require You to Be a People Person "Even in such technical lines as engineering, about 15% of one's financial success is due one's technical knowledge and about 85% is due to skill in human engineering, to personality and the ability to lead people" - Dale Carnegie 1936
- Bouncingsoul1 11y ago
  Yeah I also think I heard this song before.
benashford 11y ago
Automation is a given, more-and-more things are going to be automated. People jobs are going to be the last to be automated too, perhaps these jobs never will be automated, although a lot of low-level traditionally people-facing jobs will, e.g. shop assistants, it's already started. But notwithstanding the above, there are logical holes in the rest of the article. I won't even mention that slight on high-tech work by equating it to "plugging away at a spreadsheet". The biggest flaw was the assumption that the automation to make the aforementioned spreadsheet obsolete would be done without those people. In reality, any person highly-paid to "plug away" at a spreadsheet would be paid due to their domain/industry knowledge and skills rather than purely Excel skills and would still be employed operating a new system, or even directly involved in building and maintaining such systems. This pattern is repeated throughout the article. Technology will obsolete low-tech grunt work first, mainly because contrary to the central premise of that article, technology is a people business. It's not a people business in the same was sales or marketing is, it's not about who's got the biggest set of contacts[0], but you'll never build a successful product without understanding the world it fits in to; building good technology requires a good deal of listening and empathy, both toward the customer, but also to the system as a whole and your fellow engineers. In the short-to-medium term, any acceleration in automation will also increase demand for engineers in that field. And any such systems will only be as good as those who made them, even knowledge-workers not in the automation business will still be required to operate/design/improve such systems. Maybe in smaller numbers... What happens after that, no one knows. The effects on the economy would be difficult to predict. And one day in ten, fifty, a hundred, several thousand years from now, fully autonomous AI will be here... and all bets are off. Long-term predictions would be foolish. [0] - except for the sale and marketing of a technology business, of course, it's not a binary situation.
signaler 11y ago
"People Person" is something I still see on resumes and frequently accompanied by the ever popular: "Enjoys Swimming, Reading, and playing guitar". Do I yet care? I really want to see if you are bursting with enthusiasm when applying for a job. Any less than full enthusiasm for a place and you are fired before you even get the job.
mdemare 11y ago
Being good at social skills also means being effective at manipulating other people. That doesn't sound so warm and fuzzy, but it sure is a valuable skill in management. I'm not sure if women have an edge over men there.
victorhn 11y ago
I know Smalltalk, i think i am on the safe side.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
So, in 20 years we'll all be in management? No thanks.
- ddingus 11y ago
  No. There will be a bunch of us in sales, or sales support if the actual selling is "icky." And that's pre-sales, or "applications / systems / solutions engineering" which equals, "engineer a perception of value in the customers mind so the sales person can close a deal. I have and continue to make a pretty good living doing that kind of work. Demand is high too. Growing. And a pile more in consulting, because we can't seem to automate the perception bias inherent in an opinion we pay for as opposed to one produced "in house."
amelius 11y ago
This is because the best skill to have is still to lure your potential clients to your product. Whether it is by special psychological sales techniques, by writing the coolest CSS, or by making the most appealing visual design. We can see it here on HN every day.
analog31 11y ago
The graph at the bottom of the page pretty much tells me that we're talking about a non-effect.
quaffapint 11y ago
I went on a tour with my son's robotics club to a company that makes robotic arms and such for factories. At the end the CEO said if their is one thing he can recommend to all kids (I was ready for him to say take STEM classes), is for them to take public speaking. He said it's so critical for them to be able to properly share your ideas and listen to people. Quite interesting.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Very interesting anecdote. I wasn't able to compete in physical competitions so I did get support undertaking Speech & Debate, eventually earning enough points to become a National Forensics League member. Having the self-assuredness to stand in front of 5 people (waiter) or 300 strangers (movie theater employee) and deliver information and interact is a skill that can't be taught out of a book. Also, unlike calculus or basic physics, human interaction and social norms are very fluid. As in math through high school and college and in the professional field is pretty static. Human interaction in each of those spheres / times of life, not so much. I think in certain disciplines there's study in "code switching" which attempts to describe the phenomenon. Such as an educated, excellent speaking person sliding into a drawl and slang when hanging around family members which don't share the same expectations of communication.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  While I don't necessarily disagree with this, its clear this is from a CEO's perspective where public speaking is a very important role. If you have 1000 hours of personal and technical development a year at your disposal and you spend 500 of those at toastmasters instead of learning libraries, tooling, and messing around with robotics projects, then who do you think will win out during an interview? You or the guy who had his nose in robotics textbooks and websites for that 1000 hours? I'd rather hire the guy who is a little mumble-mouthed and who knows his shit over the chatty guy who can't compete technically with the first candidate. The original guy can work on his social/speaking/managerial skills as his career develops. In the meantime, he needs to compete as a skill worker.
  - Apocryphon 11y ago
ComteDeLaFere 11y ago
Didn't we just have a story on HN claiming that introverts make the best something-or-other? I'm not even trying to keep up with things like this anymore.
- codyb 11y ago
  Entrepreneurs. It's been covered a few times, and not only just recently. http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/can-introvert-be-great-entrepreneurs.html http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/can-introvert-be-great-entre...
  - ComteDeLaFere 11y ago
    This is starting to remind me of health and fitness "advice". Every day there's a new article "debunking" yesterday's claims, in favor of something that will be "debunked" in another week. Here's some advice - work hard, do your best, say "yes" to as many opportunities as possible, and be kind. You'll make out in the end.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      Personal anecdote indicates that "work hard" and "do your best" have slight negative correlation to a positive observed outcome in some workplaces. Minor titration efforts suggest that "appear to work at slightly above the observed median level of effort" and "if doing your best and following orders conflict, follow the orders" work better in practice. This strategy has yielded more positive performance reviews than opening up full throttle. It depends a lot on workplace culture. Save your best efforts for personal projects, or for a company of which you own at least a whole 1%. Companies in this decade generally do not reward competence or diligence, or respect vocational passion. If your specific company does, then by all means, give them your best. Otherwise, don't cast your pearls before swine. Definitely be kind and pursue many opportunities.
      - ComteDeLaFere 11y ago
        Well said, but my opinion is that you should move away from thinking that success is a "positive performance review". I've found that "work hard" and "do your best" work well in combination with the other two thoughts, not so much on their own. It's a package.
qjighap 11y ago
This guy needs to get some better advertising sources. Take a look at "10 Jobs That Pay 6 Figures Without a Degree".
samwiseg 11y ago
I've definitely seen this after spending two summers at Airbnb. They take pride in being very selective re: culture fit and personality, and I think this is one of the most critical reasons why it's a great place to work.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Replace "people person" with "strong communicator" and I can buy into such a premise very easily. For many years I've expressed a belief that the only skill set that will remain viable throughout technological change is the ability to communicate. In simplified form, there are many friction points in social or commercial interactions which can be worsened by mis-communication or conflicting social norms. For example, certain cultures have very low opinions of women, and when expressed as though it's a norm in a different environment, that doesn't promote a successful outcome. For a shorthand example, just check out advertising. Yes, there's a significant amount of data-driven research, and I know Google is at the top of this pile of...commerce...with its AdWords, so I take that to infer advertising is one of the most hit-or-miss areas where disruption was beneficial. But here's the thing: Algorithms can't write jingles or colloquial slogans that will resonate with a particular audience. They can analyze them, but not create them, and I'm comfortable holding this belief until I see something which really revolutionizes technology in this field. I try to keep up with progress in conversational AI and the Turing Test challenge when I can, because I see that as the first major field where progress can be quantified and proven a success. Oh, and this is legitimately tongue-in-cheek, but if you want to see a great example of what I mean, just look at the role of a Chief Executive Officer. They don't actually work as we might define it by input of labor, crunching numbers, or assembling information - they take loads of input, run it through their internal processor, then tell people what to do. They network, socialize, and communicate and for some reason, in the US, get paid vast sums of money for performing this role. I find it kind of funny and sad how high they're held in esteem, when realistically, they put in fewer hours, less effort, and reap rewards far greater than the run-of-the-mill high school teacher.
abandonliberty 11y ago
Great move by the author preventing his article from becoming garbage clickbait: >he doesn’t know how much influence it might have, exactly. “I deliberately chose not to” estimate this effect, he said. “I didn’t want to give the illusion of certainty.” You can almost hear the journalist crying, wishing for that hard number they could put in the headline. Author displays great social skills in an article about social skills.
juddlyon 11y ago
How is this a new thing? Being technical + good social skills > being technical on its own isn't really news.
candybar 11y ago
This is a bizarre article. The author seems to think that being a doctor, a lawyer, a management consultant or a dentist requires some kind of advanced interpersonal skills but this is not true at all. The primary thing that qualifies to you become one of those is detailed technical knowledge and analytical skills, not too different from being a software engineer or a plumber. Virtually no one tries to become a doctor and drops out either at pre-med or in medical school because they realize they can't hack the social part of the job. There's a big difference between a job requiring social interactions and a job where you're primarily judged by social and interpersonal skills. If you place most jobs on the technical knowledge to the social skill spectrum, those jobs would be near the far technical end. The author also seems to think that there was ever a point in time where social skills weren't extremely important. Management always paid very well and it's by definition a job that requires social skills. Jobs requiring primarily social skills and not much else are on a decline and also the types of social skills required in the marketplace have changed dramatically. The internet as a medium massively increases connectivity and discoverability, obsoleting a lot of shallower social skills, like comfort with making introductions and being a low-level connector because it's easier to find the people you need and verify their trustworthiness without having to rely on a connector. On the other hand, it's probably easier to build a truly massive network and those skills are probably valuable, even if they aren't similar to traditional social skills. One major trend I see is that being book smart is more important than ever because more interaction is taking place over online and face-to-face interactions are becoming less necessary. This means understanding the medium and technology is more important than natural face-to-face social skills we learn when we're younger and also the ability to communicate concisely and precisely and the ability to predict its impact ahead of time are more important. Also the world is more complicated and simple technical knowledge is very easy to look up and learn - this makes advanced analytical and learning skills more important than simple, rote, static knowledge. Being a well-adjusted, normal, sociable and outgoing person, which I think most people would associate with "social skills" speaking colloquially, is less important than it has been for a while. The kind of social skills that get you paid well are more like the social skills that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have in abundance. The other trend is that women are increasingly outperforming men at school, resulting in more book smart women. That bodes well for women, much more than the author's bizarre insistence that social skills are suddenly more important and that somehow women have better social skills than men, both of which are really questionable assertions.
pasbesoin 11y ago
A few decades ago, I felt frustrated in college because the library had been remodeled to emphasized "shared workspaces." Some of us would wander around campus looking for open classrooms for the evening, to get a little peace and quiet. We weren't "non-people" people, by the way. We just studied and performed a hell of a lot better without constant distraction -- even distraction "in the background". Funny that often, those same people formed a good part of the top rank in my classes. I get out of school, to find workplaces pushing the same damned thing. Well, flash forward some decades, and the popular press is finally catching on that such "shared workspaces" are often a nightmare -- particularly for high performers. So now, the same yutzes are telling us that "people" people are the key to success. "Be more people!" (TM) I actually get along better with most people than, well, most people. Red necks to stereotypical gays, and everything in between. In each place I've worked, I've ended up getting to know and collaborating with people throughout the organization. BIG organizations. Why? In good part, because I identify and other people apparently identify in me people who "get things done." And not in the broke-ass way of the serial multi/many/manifold tasker. Rather, expeditiously but carefully: What's the most right we can do without unduly straining the resources at hand. So: "People" people. I've worked with them. A subset are truly good. The majority are, to some degree... "working their lines" and "working the system." Their value, to the extent it exists, lies in getting other people to do things. In the corporate world, too often this starts coming too close to being "manipulators." Keep your "people" people. Park them in some cubes, hopefully out of my way. I was going to add another sentence, but I guess that's about the best I can hope for.
analog31 11y ago
"people person" jobs are vulnerable to technology too. Who still wants to deal with a salesman?
crdb 11y ago
On the contrary, the software production value chain is fragmenting. On one end you have the hardcore mathematicians building things in Idris in the evenings (it's the future, right?), on the other the slick business folks with an arts background and enough experience to know where to steer the company/project/department. Neither wants to expend mental energy in the other's area of competence. As software gets increasingly more complicated and moves up levels of abstraction, there is an ecosystem being created in the middle to bridge the two. A business-minded, but aware-of-computer-science middleman who translates from one end to the other, produces a clean functional spec from a messy, day long conversation with the user, or tells the CEO "sorry, that's not actually technically possible". One does not need to know category theory to be useful there.
- hekker 11y ago
  Exactly the reason why I did a Bachelor in International Business Administration and a Master in Computer Science (Embedded Systems)! I feel that the gap in between is a good niche to be in. I have to say that there are some education programmes where the focus is on IT management that try to fill this niche too although I have some doubts about how effective it is to study IT management in itself.
dlwj 11y ago
One of the theories I have is that the best jobs in the U.S. require you to be culturally american. The U.S is great in that it is far more meritocratic than other countries but at the highest levels you still need to be culturally american. This helps with things like understanding other people's motivations as well as day to day rapport which builds up into deep camaraderie. People who are culturally un-american expend far more energy building rapport in this american way. (e.g. dealing with the "How's it going." exchange.) The advantage is the the cultural natives don't need to wear "masks" while cultural non-natives are required to keep their masks on at the correct times, draining energy that could have been used for thinking/maneuvering. Chinese and American culture for example have different default states for friendship amongst co-workers. Americans treat all people in a friendly manner but distinguish between co-workers and true friends. Friendship is not the default and is sought out based on mutual compatibility. In Chinese culture though, friendship based on environment (school, work) IS the default. Through their eyes, American's are two faced while from the other side, they are just trying to avoid awkward forced friendship. Another theory is that this difference in culture creates an exponential acquisition of skills in communication and selling yourself as well as avoiding awkward situations. Since these social skills are a constant part of life growing up, it is a natural strength in adult life. Chinese culture tends to structure growth of their children in a "follow the rules, memorize all the textbooks" way so Chinese children only start their social skill education in adult life. So to sum up...American culture creates people with stronger social skills because there isn't a "God" to tell you which road leads to heaven that you can diligently follow heads down. Immersion into American culture helps increase social skills the longer you are in it. Obvious acceptance of it (rather than avoidance) may make you seem more "coachable".

214 points by kareemm 11y ago

As opposed to an animal person? So someone spent a few thousand words saying that emotional and inter-personal intelligence is a valuable skill to develop. Got it, thanks.

enraged_camel 11y ago
You don't sound like a people person...

TheGRS 11y ago

I find that some of my co-workers who work the best are ones that are not necessarily good at talking to others, but are good at shutting themselves out from others for periods of time, which helps them get lots of work done. The risky part being that sometimes they get a lot of work done in a totally wrong direction.

seivan 11y ago
Yeah, I know a guy who quit and is planning on working at a grocery store. He's an amazing c++ dev (who did iOS) but got sick of everything else related.

onion2k 11y ago

Of the people in the world who are the most wealthy, I don't think many of them come across publicly as 'people person' types. There are myriad stories surrounding Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, etc and how they're dreadful to work with. Jobs especially - people can't write entire listicles about how awful you are if you're a people person, but Business Insider managed it - http://uk.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10?op=1 http://uk.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10?op=1 Maybe if you want a high paying job working for someone else then you should brush up on your 'soft skills'; but if money is really the driving force behind that decision then you'd be better off developing a fiercely ruthless attitude and starting a business of your own.

dkarapetyan 11y ago
Why can't you do it without being fierce or ruthless? I think this attitude is somewhat dangerous to propagate.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Because ... cargo cults[1]. :) Maybe you can. Richard Branson seems to be an example of someone who has, but in that respect he's unusual among his billionaire peers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Metaphorical_uses_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Metaphorical_uses_o...
  - seansmccullough 11y ago
    Best analogy ever!
  - chaostheory 11y ago
    If I remember correctly, you can probably add the founders of SAS and South West to Richard Branson's side of the list as well
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I thought for a moment you the SAS and not SAS the company - "fierce and ruthless" being pretty much the the point of the former. Mind you, I can think of at least one military leader who was not only exceptionally good at doing his "day job" (bomber pilot) but who was also a remarkable leader and a thoroughly decent chap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire
perlpimp 11y ago
This is article is suspicious: Training in mathematics, computer science and other STEM fields (what Deming would count as “high cognitive skills”) is still a great investment; that “plugging away at a spreadsheet” is still valuable. “High-cognitive-skills workers still earn more,” Deming said, “but social skills increasingly are a complement to cognitive skills.” Lumping together droning on a spreadsheet and being a pleasant socialite as being not a bad asset and overall trendy.

meric 11y ago

The hardest things for machines to get right is to act human - i.e. social skills. As tasks that are easy to automate will continue to be rewarded less, and tasks that are hard to automate will increase in cost (e.g. education, health care), it pays, literally, to develop good social skills and become a people person, no matter what field you're in. It is by achieving the essence of what it means to be human, a person is valued within human society.

_pmf_ 11y ago

"Now" == since we developed structured social interaction

simula67 11y ago

This is a suspicious article. > nearly half of U.S. jobs would be vulnerable to automation within 20 years. But “computers aren’t good at simulating human interaction,” Deming said. That means a job as a manager or consultant is harder to automate, and the skills those jobs require become more valuable. If humans are being replaced with computers, then there will be need for fewer managers, supervisors etc. This would cause a decline in demand for people with "human skills" also. > Women are getting jobs that require more social skills. If the share of jobs that require interpersonal skill has in fact increased over the years just as the author postulates, is it really a wonder that share of women who hold these types of jobs have also increased ? Why exactly did the author show only the graph representing how the nature of jobs has changed for women ? Is the author trying to prove women are naturally better at these things ? > Although cognitive skills don’t vary by gender, Deming cites research from psychology showing that women consistently score higher on tests of emotional intelligence and social perceptiveness. This is a dangerous line of thinking. If women are naturally better at certain things, it is not a stretch to imagine that they would be naturally worse at certain things. This could impede our quest to bring about gender equality.

donkeyd 11y ago
> This would cause a decline in demand for people with "human skills" also. I think human skills remain important in order to figure out what the customer wants. Computers might do a lot of the work, but these computers still need to be programmed. You need to understand the customer's needs and translate these into a user friendly experience. The essence of this change seems to be that it's 'easy' to program a computer. It's harder to know what to program so that people will want to use it.
- FilterSweep 11y ago
  >I think human skills remain important in order to figure out what the customer wants. I'd be careful with that one, the greatest value in Google and Facebook analytics are just that.
MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
I agree its a puff piece. They are basically saying 1+1 > 1+0 - of course its better to have tech skills AND social skills on top instead of just tech, but thats trivial. 10 years ago at university a professor in economics told us that skills like design and social competence would become more important, as the actual tech would be outsourced to India or east europe, and focusing on tech would be unwise. When I look at the programmer consulting rates, the opposite has happened. Glad I made the right choice.

rodgerd 11y ago

I guess it would depend on how you define "best" - but I'd argue that's always been the case.

draven 11y ago
In the article, best = most lucrative.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  The King's physician may or may not be the best physician in the land - but he is definitely the best remunerated!

smegel 11y ago

Wow that changed quickly. Yesterday it was all about data science and machine learning!

jonesb6 11y ago

I guess Michael Scott was right after all..

pjmlp 11y ago

It has always been the case. In countries like my own, where the majority of IT market is consulting with very little product development, you need soft skills.

Simp 11y ago

>A 2013 paper by two Oxford researchers projected that nearly half of U.S. jobs would be vulnerable to automation within 20 years. Who says "social skills" can't be automated? > But “computers aren’t good at simulating human interaction,” Not yet you mean.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
most importantly, who's gonna build the automation? there are engineering needs for a hundred years or more* to transform current work centered society in an automation centered society, and even then those things won't just maintain themselves forever. *not because technical challenges, but because the resistance from who detains the status quo
- tyilo 11y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

pen2l 11y ago

How does the dupe detector work anyway. First I thought one could resubmit after a certain amount of time... but no, I submitted this only a day or two ago. Maybe links can be modified (add a ?resubmit at the end, for instance), but nope, I submitted with exact same URI. I wonder. (Not complaining, just curious if anyone has insight into this).

walshemj 11y ago

Social skils beats Tech :-) a piece written by a non techie and seems to be written to support the old professions medicine and law. Worried that those greasy engineers might be getting to close them in terms of salary and status?

NumberCruncher 11y ago

>> The Best Jobs NOW Require You to Be a People Person "Even in such technical lines as engineering, about 15% of one's financial success is due one's technical knowledge and about 85% is due to skill in human engineering, to personality and the ability to lead people" - Dale Carnegie 1936

Bouncingsoul1 11y ago
Yeah I also think I heard this song before.

benashford 11y ago

Automation is a given, more-and-more things are going to be automated. People jobs are going to be the last to be automated too, perhaps these jobs never will be automated, although a lot of low-level traditionally people-facing jobs will, e.g. shop assistants, it's already started. But notwithstanding the above, there are logical holes in the rest of the article. I won't even mention that slight on high-tech work by equating it to "plugging away at a spreadsheet". The biggest flaw was the assumption that the automation to make the aforementioned spreadsheet obsolete would be done without those people. In reality, any person highly-paid to "plug away" at a spreadsheet would be paid due to their domain/industry knowledge and skills rather than purely Excel skills and would still be employed operating a new system, or even directly involved in building and maintaining such systems. This pattern is repeated throughout the article. Technology will obsolete low-tech grunt work first, mainly because contrary to the central premise of that article, technology is a people business. It's not a people business in the same was sales or marketing is, it's not about who's got the biggest set of contacts[0], but you'll never build a successful product without understanding the world it fits in to; building good technology requires a good deal of listening and empathy, both toward the customer, but also to the system as a whole and your fellow engineers. In the short-to-medium term, any acceleration in automation will also increase demand for engineers in that field. And any such systems will only be as good as those who made them, even knowledge-workers not in the automation business will still be required to operate/design/improve such systems. Maybe in smaller numbers... What happens after that, no one knows. The effects on the economy would be difficult to predict. And one day in ten, fifty, a hundred, several thousand years from now, fully autonomous AI will be here... and all bets are off. Long-term predictions would be foolish. [0] - except for the sale and marketing of a technology business, of course, it's not a binary situation.

signaler 11y ago

"People Person" is something I still see on resumes and frequently accompanied by the ever popular: "Enjoys Swimming, Reading, and playing guitar". Do I yet care? I really want to see if you are bursting with enthusiasm when applying for a job. Any less than full enthusiasm for a place and you are fired before you even get the job.

mdemare 11y ago

Being good at social skills also means being effective at manipulating other people. That doesn't sound so warm and fuzzy, but it sure is a valuable skill in management. I'm not sure if women have an edge over men there.

victorhn 11y ago

I know Smalltalk, i think i am on the safe side.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

So, in 20 years we'll all be in management? No thanks.

ddingus 11y ago
No. There will be a bunch of us in sales, or sales support if the actual selling is "icky." And that's pre-sales, or "applications / systems / solutions engineering" which equals, "engineer a perception of value in the customers mind so the sales person can close a deal. I have and continue to make a pretty good living doing that kind of work. Demand is high too. Growing. And a pile more in consulting, because we can't seem to automate the perception bias inherent in an opinion we pay for as opposed to one produced "in house."

amelius 11y ago

This is because the best skill to have is still to lure your potential clients to your product. Whether it is by special psychological sales techniques, by writing the coolest CSS, or by making the most appealing visual design. We can see it here on HN every day.

analog31 11y ago

The graph at the bottom of the page pretty much tells me that we're talking about a non-effect.

quaffapint 11y ago

I went on a tour with my son's robotics club to a company that makes robotic arms and such for factories. At the end the CEO said if their is one thing he can recommend to all kids (I was ready for him to say take STEM classes), is for them to take public speaking. He said it's so critical for them to be able to properly share your ideas and listen to people. Quite interesting.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Very interesting anecdote. I wasn't able to compete in physical competitions so I did get support undertaking Speech & Debate, eventually earning enough points to become a National Forensics League member. Having the self-assuredness to stand in front of 5 people (waiter) or 300 strangers (movie theater employee) and deliver information and interact is a skill that can't be taught out of a book. Also, unlike calculus or basic physics, human interaction and social norms are very fluid. As in math through high school and college and in the professional field is pretty static. Human interaction in each of those spheres / times of life, not so much. I think in certain disciplines there's study in "code switching" which attempts to describe the phenomenon. Such as an educated, excellent speaking person sliding into a drawl and slang when hanging around family members which don't share the same expectations of communication.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
While I don't necessarily disagree with this, its clear this is from a CEO's perspective where public speaking is a very important role. If you have 1000 hours of personal and technical development a year at your disposal and you spend 500 of those at toastmasters instead of learning libraries, tooling, and messing around with robotics projects, then who do you think will win out during an interview? You or the guy who had his nose in robotics textbooks and websites for that 1000 hours? I'd rather hire the guy who is a little mumble-mouthed and who knows his shit over the chatty guy who can't compete technically with the first candidate. The original guy can work on his social/speaking/managerial skills as his career develops. In the meantime, he needs to compete as a skill worker.
- Apocryphon 11y ago

ComteDeLaFere 11y ago

Didn't we just have a story on HN claiming that introverts make the best something-or-other? I'm not even trying to keep up with things like this anymore.

codyb 11y ago
Entrepreneurs. It's been covered a few times, and not only just recently. http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/can-introvert-be-great-entrepreneurs.html http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/can-introvert-be-great-entre...
- ComteDeLaFere 11y ago
  This is starting to remind me of health and fitness "advice". Every day there's a new article "debunking" yesterday's claims, in favor of something that will be "debunked" in another week. Here's some advice - work hard, do your best, say "yes" to as many opportunities as possible, and be kind. You'll make out in the end.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Personal anecdote indicates that "work hard" and "do your best" have slight negative correlation to a positive observed outcome in some workplaces. Minor titration efforts suggest that "appear to work at slightly above the observed median level of effort" and "if doing your best and following orders conflict, follow the orders" work better in practice. This strategy has yielded more positive performance reviews than opening up full throttle. It depends a lot on workplace culture. Save your best efforts for personal projects, or for a company of which you own at least a whole 1%. Companies in this decade generally do not reward competence or diligence, or respect vocational passion. If your specific company does, then by all means, give them your best. Otherwise, don't cast your pearls before swine. Definitely be kind and pursue many opportunities.
    - ComteDeLaFere 11y ago
      Well said, but my opinion is that you should move away from thinking that success is a "positive performance review". I've found that "work hard" and "do your best" work well in combination with the other two thoughts, not so much on their own. It's a package.

qjighap 11y ago

This guy needs to get some better advertising sources. Take a look at "10 Jobs That Pay 6 Figures Without a Degree".

samwiseg 11y ago

I've definitely seen this after spending two summers at Airbnb. They take pride in being very selective re: culture fit and personality, and I think this is one of the most critical reasons why it's a great place to work.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Replace "people person" with "strong communicator" and I can buy into such a premise very easily. For many years I've expressed a belief that the only skill set that will remain viable throughout technological change is the ability to communicate. In simplified form, there are many friction points in social or commercial interactions which can be worsened by mis-communication or conflicting social norms. For example, certain cultures have very low opinions of women, and when expressed as though it's a norm in a different environment, that doesn't promote a successful outcome. For a shorthand example, just check out advertising. Yes, there's a significant amount of data-driven research, and I know Google is at the top of this pile of...commerce...with its AdWords, so I take that to infer advertising is one of the most hit-or-miss areas where disruption was beneficial. But here's the thing: Algorithms can't write jingles or colloquial slogans that will resonate with a particular audience. They can analyze them, but not create them, and I'm comfortable holding this belief until I see something which really revolutionizes technology in this field. I try to keep up with progress in conversational AI and the Turing Test challenge when I can, because I see that as the first major field where progress can be quantified and proven a success. Oh, and this is legitimately tongue-in-cheek, but if you want to see a great example of what I mean, just look at the role of a Chief Executive Officer. They don't actually work as we might define it by input of labor, crunching numbers, or assembling information - they take loads of input, run it through their internal processor, then tell people what to do. They network, socialize, and communicate and for some reason, in the US, get paid vast sums of money for performing this role. I find it kind of funny and sad how high they're held in esteem, when realistically, they put in fewer hours, less effort, and reap rewards far greater than the run-of-the-mill high school teacher.

abandonliberty 11y ago

Great move by the author preventing his article from becoming garbage clickbait: >he doesn’t know how much influence it might have, exactly. “I deliberately chose not to” estimate this effect, he said. “I didn’t want to give the illusion of certainty.” You can almost hear the journalist crying, wishing for that hard number they could put in the headline. Author displays great social skills in an article about social skills.

juddlyon 11y ago

How is this a new thing? Being technical + good social skills > being technical on its own isn't really news.

candybar 11y ago

This is a bizarre article. The author seems to think that being a doctor, a lawyer, a management consultant or a dentist requires some kind of advanced interpersonal skills but this is not true at all. The primary thing that qualifies to you become one of those is detailed technical knowledge and analytical skills, not too different from being a software engineer or a plumber. Virtually no one tries to become a doctor and drops out either at pre-med or in medical school because they realize they can't hack the social part of the job. There's a big difference between a job requiring social interactions and a job where you're primarily judged by social and interpersonal skills. If you place most jobs on the technical knowledge to the social skill spectrum, those jobs would be near the far technical end. The author also seems to think that there was ever a point in time where social skills weren't extremely important. Management always paid very well and it's by definition a job that requires social skills. Jobs requiring primarily social skills and not much else are on a decline and also the types of social skills required in the marketplace have changed dramatically. The internet as a medium massively increases connectivity and discoverability, obsoleting a lot of shallower social skills, like comfort with making introductions and being a low-level connector because it's easier to find the people you need and verify their trustworthiness without having to rely on a connector. On the other hand, it's probably easier to build a truly massive network and those skills are probably valuable, even if they aren't similar to traditional social skills. One major trend I see is that being book smart is more important than ever because more interaction is taking place over online and face-to-face interactions are becoming less necessary. This means understanding the medium and technology is more important than natural face-to-face social skills we learn when we're younger and also the ability to communicate concisely and precisely and the ability to predict its impact ahead of time are more important. Also the world is more complicated and simple technical knowledge is very easy to look up and learn - this makes advanced analytical and learning skills more important than simple, rote, static knowledge. Being a well-adjusted, normal, sociable and outgoing person, which I think most people would associate with "social skills" speaking colloquially, is less important than it has been for a while. The kind of social skills that get you paid well are more like the social skills that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have in abundance. The other trend is that women are increasingly outperforming men at school, resulting in more book smart women. That bodes well for women, much more than the author's bizarre insistence that social skills are suddenly more important and that somehow women have better social skills than men, both of which are really questionable assertions.

pasbesoin 11y ago

A few decades ago, I felt frustrated in college because the library had been remodeled to emphasized "shared workspaces." Some of us would wander around campus looking for open classrooms for the evening, to get a little peace and quiet. We weren't "non-people" people, by the way. We just studied and performed a hell of a lot better without constant distraction -- even distraction "in the background". Funny that often, those same people formed a good part of the top rank in my classes. I get out of school, to find workplaces pushing the same damned thing. Well, flash forward some decades, and the popular press is finally catching on that such "shared workspaces" are often a nightmare -- particularly for high performers. So now, the same yutzes are telling us that "people" people are the key to success. "Be more people!" (TM) I actually get along better with most people than, well, most people. Red necks to stereotypical gays, and everything in between. In each place I've worked, I've ended up getting to know and collaborating with people throughout the organization. BIG organizations. Why? In good part, because I identify and other people apparently identify in me people who "get things done." And not in the broke-ass way of the serial multi/many/manifold tasker. Rather, expeditiously but carefully: What's the most right we can do without unduly straining the resources at hand. So: "People" people. I've worked with them. A subset are truly good. The majority are, to some degree... "working their lines" and "working the system." Their value, to the extent it exists, lies in getting other people to do things. In the corporate world, too often this starts coming too close to being "manipulators." Keep your "people" people. Park them in some cubes, hopefully out of my way. I was going to add another sentence, but I guess that's about the best I can hope for.

analog31 11y ago

"people person" jobs are vulnerable to technology too. Who still wants to deal with a salesman?

crdb 11y ago

On the contrary, the software production value chain is fragmenting. On one end you have the hardcore mathematicians building things in Idris in the evenings (it's the future, right?), on the other the slick business folks with an arts background and enough experience to know where to steer the company/project/department. Neither wants to expend mental energy in the other's area of competence. As software gets increasingly more complicated and moves up levels of abstraction, there is an ecosystem being created in the middle to bridge the two. A business-minded, but aware-of-computer-science middleman who translates from one end to the other, produces a clean functional spec from a messy, day long conversation with the user, or tells the CEO "sorry, that's not actually technically possible". One does not need to know category theory to be useful there.

hekker 11y ago
Exactly the reason why I did a Bachelor in International Business Administration and a Master in Computer Science (Embedded Systems)! I feel that the gap in between is a good niche to be in. I have to say that there are some education programmes where the focus is on IT management that try to fill this niche too although I have some doubts about how effective it is to study IT management in itself.

dlwj 11y ago

One of the theories I have is that the best jobs in the U.S. require you to be culturally american. The U.S is great in that it is far more meritocratic than other countries but at the highest levels you still need to be culturally american. This helps with things like understanding other people's motivations as well as day to day rapport which builds up into deep camaraderie. People who are culturally un-american expend far more energy building rapport in this american way. (e.g. dealing with the "How's it going." exchange.) The advantage is the the cultural natives don't need to wear "masks" while cultural non-natives are required to keep their masks on at the correct times, draining energy that could have been used for thinking/maneuvering. Chinese and American culture for example have different default states for friendship amongst co-workers. Americans treat all people in a friendly manner but distinguish between co-workers and true friends. Friendship is not the default and is sought out based on mutual compatibility. In Chinese culture though, friendship based on environment (school, work) IS the default. Through their eyes, American's are two faced while from the other side, they are just trying to avoid awkward forced friendship. Another theory is that this difference in culture creates an exponential acquisition of skills in communication and selling yourself as well as avoiding awkward situations. Since these social skills are a constant part of life growing up, it is a natural strength in adult life. Chinese culture tends to structure growth of their children in a "follow the rules, memorize all the textbooks" way so Chinese children only start their social skill education in adult life. So to sum up...American culture creates people with stronger social skills because there isn't a "God" to tell you which road leads to heaven that you can diligently follow heads down. Immersion into American culture helps increase social skills the longer you are in it. Obvious acceptance of it (rather than avoidance) may make you seem more "coachable".