3 ms·

For some reason in corporate environments, the ideal employee "gets along with others" but also "doesn't waste time." I mean quite literally they want an oxymor

For some reason in corporate environments, the ideal employee "gets along with others" but also "doesn't waste time." I mean quite literally they want an oxymoron. Also I find that these things can easily be gamed because they can try to figure out "what" contains the variables that allow for them to make themselves appear to be the ideal candidate; moldable to whatever position they desire. I think there is an over emphasis on this because upfront seeing that in an interview doesn't tell you much, and if you're skeptical of it, the supervisor already has a skewed view of you. Also from my experience, supervisors want complacency, not "diverse views." The whole diversity phenomenon is completely garbage that does not exist practically. I don't get why it's taught when it's not followed. The nature of the beast is for the top's will to be executed downward, not marginalized upward.

LeftHandPath 7y ago
I guess I've been lucky to avoid literally any of this at work. However, one of my classes at university has each student rate other students in their group with arbitrary personality factors that seem like they should be subjective. For instance, the model (we take quiz to evaluate how well we use it and how to rate each other) relies on things like "is late to meetings" or "does not fully consider everyone's ideas" to judge a student as being an underperformer. The most problematic was that it made us choose whether we are "details" or "overview" in terms of what kind of work we complete, with no room for being able to handle both (you are either the person who types individual sentences at the whim of your 'leader', or you are planning the entirety of the project and doing none of the grunt work). Speaking of 'leader', it also asks us to rate ourselves as leaders (good, mediocre, bad), and to state what kind of person we want to be led by. I'm expecting our responses to be used to assign us to groups and given roles in each group, but we will see. I just get annoyed when I'm stuck taking a survey that - by the nature of the questions on it - is almost certainly dubious.

LeftHandPath 7y ago

I guess I've been lucky to avoid literally any of this at work. However, one of my classes at university has each student rate other students in their group with arbitrary personality factors that seem like they should be subjective. For instance, the model (we take quiz to evaluate how well we use it and how to rate each other) relies on things like "is late to meetings" or "does not fully consider everyone's ideas" to judge a student as being an underperformer. The most problematic was that it made us choose whether we are "details" or "overview" in terms of what kind of work we complete, with no room for being able to handle both (you are either the person who types individual sentences at the whim of your 'leader', or you are planning the entirety of the project and doing none of the grunt work). Speaking of 'leader', it also asks us to rate ourselves as leaders (good, mediocre, bad), and to state what kind of person we want to be led by. I'm expecting our responses to be used to assign us to groups and given roles in each group, but we will see. I just get annoyed when I'm stuck taking a survey that - by the nature of the questions on it - is almost certainly dubious.