9 ms·

How to hire good people instead of nice people

134 points by gamechangr 13y ago

bretpiatt 13y ago
New Quartz broken for me on iOS 4.3 (1st gen iPad never updated), can't see past header, used http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php to read. Interesting hiring practice idea, key point is the nice vs. good. The rest is just sorting out how he figures it out. I actually do not agree with hiring a brilliant jerk unless you know what you are doing when you agree to work together. You can often select for both good and nice, they do not have to be mutually exclusive.
- alanh 13y ago
  I’m not sure you understood what he meant by “good.” > The opposite of good is bad. The opposite of nice is unlikeable. That’s still a little vague. “Good” can mean “skilled” (as I think you interpreted it), but he actually means “honest and ethical.” For instance: “Deborah was … clearly qualified …, but she called … and said, ’I have to drop out. I’m pregnant. The plan was that I wouldn’t tell you I was pregnant and work for six months, go on leave, and decide later if I’d come back. But now I realize I cannot do that to you, and I cannot do that to the other people who might deserve the job more than me. Then it hit me that I cannot do that to anyone because I’m about to be a mom and I have to think about what kind of role model I want to be for my child.’ … Good people like [Deborah] are hard to find.”
  - Kurtz79 13y ago
    I agree... for me "good" in a working environment means "skilled, capable", while "nice" could very well mean "caring, good hearted". Someone that is likeable, social but a selfish bastard behind his façade it's not what I'd call "nice". But apart from that, I agree with most of the article, good points.
- jckt 13y ago
  Instead of just complaining about a qz.com site, you offered an alternative, and even made a proper comment. More karma to you.
- jrabone 13y ago
  Broken on the desktop too, if you run Ghostery / ABP - endless loading spinner. Readability Redux for Chrome to the rescue!
svmegatron 13y ago
I was all ready to get up into high dudgeon about hiring people who are capable but can't get along with others - but that's not what this article is about at all. The author wants to hire people of integrity, not yes-men, and makes a particular point of hiring people who complement his skills. He also touches on several other points that might be undervalued in today's hiring climate. Very good stuff IMO
- busterarm 13y ago
  Definitely some great stuff. I've read a few of his other articles as a result and wow! I'm totally impressed. The securities industry gets a pretty bad rep. This guy has been a prop trader and hedge fund manager and has integrity in spades; believe it or not but I'm my experience that's a common trait with most of these guys.
krichman 13y ago
Thank you for posting this. This article is incredibly refreshing, and I think people in the position to hire new employees should definitely read this. I wish more people had such integrity.
- gamechangr 13y ago
  I posted this story to HN. I just wish there was a little more honesty in the world, mostly because there is no real dialogue going on in most interviews. I know his ideas are new (and some say creepy), but we need to swing the pendulum the other way. Honestly would increase the speed of productivity for everybody.
jaysonelliot 13y ago
I like the idea of starting a conversation instead of the usual resume and interview approach, but the example job listing (here: http://brookeallen.com/pages/archives/982 http://brookeallen.com/pages/archives/982) came off as creepy to me, somehow. Maybe it was the overly familiar tone from a stranger, or the slightly self-centered focus on the prospective employer's own personality, or the paternalistic tone of the listing, down to the closing line: "deal?" I would personally not be comfortable answering an ad like that. I prefer my professional relationships to at least begin with a more professional tone. Phrases like "I will not hire anyone until we both understand and care about each other" remind me of bosses I've had when I was younger that seemed to want to treat me more like a son or nephew than an employee, and it always made me kind of uncomfortable. I can imagine for a woman, this might set off even more alarm bells than it does for me as a man. Hire skilled, talented people. Looking for "good-hearted" people with "giving personalities" sounds to me like I'm going to have to hug you at the end of the day or something.
- jckt 13y ago
  I don't blame you. I thought the picture just sealed the creepy touch. But then again, one can argue that creepiness is a social construct, and that it itself is a barrier against making the conversation approach of interviewing for jobs seem unnatural, when really they shouldn't be. If more of us decided to be more "professionally personable" in the way that Brooke is, then perhaps this social construct of creepiness would change.
  - reaclmbs 13y ago
    you guys are rationalizing. brook's way ahead of ya
    - hype7 13y ago
      If he is, it's only because he's managed to take that load of crap job posting and somehow turn it into an article advertising the fact on Quartz. A bigger false dichotomy I have never seen in my life. Good vs nice, with some kind of implication that nice people cannot have integrity? It's the worst kind of these posts — just enough truth sprinkled in with the bullshit to make you think he's onto something.
johnjlocke 13y ago
There's some deep philosophy in the article. I wish everyone who was in charge of hiring took this sort of care to place people. So refreshing to see that integrity and honesty are still valuable assets.
- _pmf_ 13y ago
  > I wish everyone who was in charge of hiring took this sort of care to place people. One problem would be that in bigger companies, the people in charge of the hiring process are not the people doing the actual hiring.
blazespin 13y ago
Classic case of projection. The guy works in hedge fund management where success and 'goodness' is so easily observable (buy low sell high). His observations make sense ... for his industry. For other industries and roles, for example sales, niceness has its benefits.
- chmike 13y ago
  This is what I also ghough in the first place. But now I think beeing good is very important inside of the team. Relation with the outside has different constrains and may thus require different qualities.
- 300bps 13y ago
  I think you made the same mistake I did. I thought he meant "good" as in skilled. He actually meant "good" as in "not evil".
klepra 13y ago
I felt like author points out as being nice and good are exclusive traits. In most cases, however, they complement.
- Swannie 13y ago
  That is true, most of the time someone who is "good" (by the authors definition) will also be "nice". But there are many times where being "good", requires explaining to someone that their performance is below expectations, or that their behaviour is not acceptable. This is not "nice" as the author defined it. (Though based on the common definition of nice, you can certainly be nice about how you would make such an explanation!)
carlob 13y ago
I was shocked to hear he ended up not hiring the pregnant woman, wouldn't that be discriminatory?
- oneandoneis2 13y ago
  Uh.. no. She withdrew.
- mc-lovin 13y ago
  It's a new loophole: guilt them out of exercising their rights under federal law to get pregnant on your dime.
- precisioncoder 13y ago
  If a man was planning to work for just 6 months to fill a gap before he started a job he was looking forward to would you hire him?
  - RobAley 13y ago
    If the job was for a fixed period (like maternity leave) and he was planning to come back afterwards, and he was the right person for the job, then sure. I've hired like that before. People need time out in their lives for all kinds of reasons. If you're playing the long-game when hiring, which you often are (or should be), then you need to take that into account.
    - precisioncoder 13y ago
      In the right circumstances I would as well. I meant to simply point out the general idea that substituting man for woman will imply if it's sexist or not. In the article it also does not mention whether or not she was ever planning to go back to work.
  - yarrel 13y ago
    Yes. I've made that hire.
wittysense 13y ago
I really appreciate this. Thank you. There are good employers, huzzah.
chencha 13y ago
I agree that hiring good-hearted people makes for a better employment -- and who would argue against good-heartedness? But he self-servingly equates your willingness to do more recruiting for him, with "goodness." Being good comes in all flavors, and some of them don't include the desire to work for free, as a recruiter, while your employment offer is on the table.
kuchaguangjie 13y ago
Wow, I really want to work for/with people like the author.
bnegreve 13y ago
> Nice people care if you like them; .... Nice people stretch the truth; It is a strange definition of nice.. if nice means hypocritical, and good means honest then I agree that good people are probably better. In general I am a bit bothered by this very absolute vocabulary that we ear everywhere in the tech world. We ear about very talented people, awesome teams, beautiful designs. For me all this is just advertising and shouldn't be given too much attention. The reality is a lot more complex.
jumblesale 13y ago
An interesting approach, and it's refreshing to see an employer wanting to be honest and open during the recruitment process, but it feels like this advice has a limited audience. It's fine if you are hiring for a large established hedge fund where you can afford attractive salaries but how many people are in this situation? A lot of hiring happens in response to a crisis like having to replace an existing employee or having too much work for too few people. In these situations it's not feasible to invite every candidate round for pizza and a chat about ethics and then find all of them work. It's more about deciding what to compromise on. For most companies it's going to be more about things that are quickly testable: skill, experience, ability. 'Goodness' as the article describes is much more difficult to elicit in a candidate. Like any personality trait it's something that doesn't tend to manifest until much further down the line when the new hire has settled into the role. Allen doesn't really provide any details on how you would discover the 'goodness' of a candidate prior to hiring. Other than laying down the ground rules of what he expects there's no mention of how he estimates this quality in a candidate. According to his success stories the candidates simply self select but this can't be a reliable method. What about people who use their niceness to masquerade as 'good' people? It's good advice to be open and honest with potential employees but I don't really see what most recruiters can take away from this. Talented, experienced individuals can be difficult enough to find without having to look for some vague idea of how 'good' they are too.
- ScottWhigham 13y ago
  how many people are in this situation? I would guess almost every business that has < 10 employees is in this situation. It's good advice to be open and honest with potential employees but I don't really see what most recruiters can take away from this. I don't think this was for recruiters; I think the target audience was for the employer who has to hire without the help of a recruiter.
  - jumblesale 13y ago
    I think a 10 person organisation would probably still be at the stage where they have a lot more to worry about in potential candidates and probably don't have access to enough capital / cachet to be able to attract the ideal person.
Adrock 13y ago
If you're talking about degrees of "good," I like michaelochurch's breakdown in this post: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/gervais-macleod-14-expanding-alignment-plus-well-adjustedness/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/gervais-macle... Exemplary > Heroic > Virtuous > Humane > Natural > Pliable > Corrupt > Sadistic > Calamitous I've gotten the most mileage from his astute distinctions in the middle range.
tonyblundell 13y ago
I'd prefer to hire a nice person. Training nice people to be good at something is easier than training skilled people to be nice :D
- TheCoelacanth 13y ago
  Someone didn't read the article. It's about affable vs. having your best interests at heart, not affable vs. skilled.
  - tonyblundell 13y ago
    Isn't learning to do the best thing for the business irrespective of your instincts a skill?
biot 13y ago
This provides some good parameters around whether you should continue working at the job you currently have. Specifically: "If you have a dream, I need to know what it is so we can figure out if this job gets you closer." This makes me think twice about my present work.
- arkades 13y ago
  You may want to consider reading "Winning", by Jack Welch. If that little bit made you reconsider your job, his chapter on job fit would probably be right up your alley.
  - biot 13y ago
    Thanks for that. On the People / Opportunity / Options / Ownership / Work Content dimensions, I'm a 2/5... so yeah, maybe time to put some serious thought into that.
michaelochurch 13y ago
I think that the fundamental problem is that we're used to a certain low-level dishonesty in job prospecting. Even if you don't agree with it-- even if you'd rather people see how you really are so you don't end up in inappropriate roles-- you're expected to make nice and play along. Job applicants have to overstate their willingness to subordinate. Very rare is a talented person who wants to be a subordinate. Protege to an obvious superior (by which I mean person of superior skill)? Sure, but that's different because there's an obvious symbiosis. Subordinate order-follower? No, no one wants that. On the flip side, hiring managers often overstate the autonomy and future prospects associated with the role. Companies overstate their need for "passion". Passionate people never see themselves as subordinates. Proteges, possibly. Not subordinates. Never happens, never will. If you want people who are good at subordinating, you need to go to the other end of the passion spectrum and find people who are happy just to have a job. But no one wants to hire those because, even though they're often good at well-defined tasks, they're taken to be kind of a bummer. I feel like when people go too far to the good-not-nice extreme, you end up with dialogues like this (obviously, more subtly)... Hiring manager: all of the "vision" questions and tough technical brainteasers are a false lead. In reality, we're looking to add excess capacity to which we can delegate undesirable work. Also, the reason why we're overhiring is because it makes managers happy to have overqualified subordinates so they can say things like, "I have four Ivy Leaguers working for me". Candidate: I don't really see myself as a subordinate, and unless management takes a direct interest in my career and I get the best projects available, I'm going to start serving my own career interests in a matter of about 6 months. No one would hire anyone if people were that honest.
- gamechangr 13y ago
  "I think that the fundamental problem is that we're used to a certain low-level dishonesty in job prospecting." Exactly right. I think this guys is a little over the top, but good for him. We need a change to the system. There are excellent employees out there who do not interview well.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I hesitate to call it "dishonesty" because its like dating. Nobody lays all their cards on the table while trying to get a date. Everyone paints the idealized picture of themselves, tailored to the other person's expectations. Its mutual, concensual deception. You don't disclose, and they don't want to hear, that you're a fastidious basket case who will freak the moment the other person moves something in your apartment.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
krenoten 13y ago
"Nice people will allow you to hire them even if they know they are not among your best candidates; a good person won’t let you hire them unless that is what is best for you." Uhhhhh... Isn't that exactly the kind of person who values the external more than the internal that will go along with an evil plan?
confusedsquirel 13y ago
I was more interested in the site itself. As you scrolled to a new article, it changed the URL. Then if you visited that URL in a new tab, it was the new top of the page.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gamechangr 13y ago
Who wouldn't want to work for this guy?
VLM 13y ago
I think his article is smoothly written to recruit noobs. For example, I've been around for awhile, and when I hear the employer wants "giving personality" I'd like to think that means I mentor people and do some volunteer work. Been there, done that, think its cool. However experience has shown that really means "doesn't complain about unpaid overtime and excessive oncall and is a complete doormat". Ditto stuff like "I give honesty and require it in return." I'd like to think thats true, often it is, but then again often it just means I want a yes man but can't say it so I'll talk about the opposite instead in compensation. Some stuff is just creepy. "I won’t get between you and your dreams." My personal life outside of work is none of your business unless coincidentally we happen to overlap, in which case thats cool, although perhaps professionally awkward. Creepy! Some stuff I have never experienced in industry or even heard of. "If you don’t have a requisite skill right now". You've got to be kidding. Based on extensive observation, corporate communication about what's important is usually a strong indication of what's absent other than a slogan, not what's actually important. We believe in a work-life balance means their only contribution toward a work-life balance is talking about having one, actual implementation is strictly work oriented. Or "we're a professional organization" means drunken frat boy antics. If their contribution to honesty is exclusively bragging about how they like honesty, look out...
znowi 13y ago
"I want people with a good heart and a giving personality" - it's a little weird to hear this from a proprietary trader and hedge fund manager :)
tzury 13y ago
Usually, employers rapidly scan the resume of each job applicant looking for relevant education, skills, and work experience. They select 10 candidates for telephone calls, invite three in for interviews, and hire the one they like the best. Not sure in which industry this is the case, in our industry, i.e. IT/Startups/Hackers, and here in Tel Aviv area, the last line is more likely to be: "And then the Employee tells: 'I will let you know within a week or so, whether or not I'd like to continue with the process.." In those words, more or less. The fact is, that early screening process, brings in the better people, and given there is an extremely high demand for the "know-how", they know it, and stand for their benefits pretty well.
0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
This sounds nice, but the truth is I'm usually good and sometimes nice. Sometimes I can't even tell for sure. Are you certain you aren't oversimplifying? Don't you really want people who define good the same way as you do? For example, some people think a good email must have lots of introductory information and something like Xs and Os at the end. May they arrive at work early and endure many long meetings.

134 points by gamechangr 13y ago

New Quartz broken for me on iOS 4.3 (1st gen iPad never updated), can't see past header, used http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php to read. Interesting hiring practice idea, key point is the nice vs. good. The rest is just sorting out how he figures it out. I actually do not agree with hiring a brilliant jerk unless you know what you are doing when you agree to work together. You can often select for both good and nice, they do not have to be mutually exclusive.

alanh 13y ago
I’m not sure you understood what he meant by “good.” > The opposite of good is bad. The opposite of nice is unlikeable. That’s still a little vague. “Good” can mean “skilled” (as I think you interpreted it), but he actually means “honest and ethical.” For instance: “Deborah was … clearly qualified …, but she called … and said, ’I have to drop out. I’m pregnant. The plan was that I wouldn’t tell you I was pregnant and work for six months, go on leave, and decide later if I’d come back. But now I realize I cannot do that to you, and I cannot do that to the other people who might deserve the job more than me. Then it hit me that I cannot do that to anyone because I’m about to be a mom and I have to think about what kind of role model I want to be for my child.’ … Good people like [Deborah] are hard to find.”
- Kurtz79 13y ago
  I agree... for me "good" in a working environment means "skilled, capable", while "nice" could very well mean "caring, good hearted". Someone that is likeable, social but a selfish bastard behind his façade it's not what I'd call "nice". But apart from that, I agree with most of the article, good points.
jckt 13y ago
Instead of just complaining about a qz.com site, you offered an alternative, and even made a proper comment. More karma to you.
jrabone 13y ago
Broken on the desktop too, if you run Ghostery / ABP - endless loading spinner. Readability Redux for Chrome to the rescue!

svmegatron 13y ago

I was all ready to get up into high dudgeon about hiring people who are capable but can't get along with others - but that's not what this article is about at all. The author wants to hire people of integrity, not yes-men, and makes a particular point of hiring people who complement his skills. He also touches on several other points that might be undervalued in today's hiring climate. Very good stuff IMO

busterarm 13y ago
Definitely some great stuff. I've read a few of his other articles as a result and wow! I'm totally impressed. The securities industry gets a pretty bad rep. This guy has been a prop trader and hedge fund manager and has integrity in spades; believe it or not but I'm my experience that's a common trait with most of these guys.

krichman 13y ago

Thank you for posting this. This article is incredibly refreshing, and I think people in the position to hire new employees should definitely read this. I wish more people had such integrity.

gamechangr 13y ago
I posted this story to HN. I just wish there was a little more honesty in the world, mostly because there is no real dialogue going on in most interviews. I know his ideas are new (and some say creepy), but we need to swing the pendulum the other way. Honestly would increase the speed of productivity for everybody.

jaysonelliot 13y ago

I like the idea of starting a conversation instead of the usual resume and interview approach, but the example job listing (here: http://brookeallen.com/pages/archives/982 http://brookeallen.com/pages/archives/982) came off as creepy to me, somehow. Maybe it was the overly familiar tone from a stranger, or the slightly self-centered focus on the prospective employer's own personality, or the paternalistic tone of the listing, down to the closing line: "deal?" I would personally not be comfortable answering an ad like that. I prefer my professional relationships to at least begin with a more professional tone. Phrases like "I will not hire anyone until we both understand and care about each other" remind me of bosses I've had when I was younger that seemed to want to treat me more like a son or nephew than an employee, and it always made me kind of uncomfortable. I can imagine for a woman, this might set off even more alarm bells than it does for me as a man. Hire skilled, talented people. Looking for "good-hearted" people with "giving personalities" sounds to me like I'm going to have to hug you at the end of the day or something.

jckt 13y ago
I don't blame you. I thought the picture just sealed the creepy touch. But then again, one can argue that creepiness is a social construct, and that it itself is a barrier against making the conversation approach of interviewing for jobs seem unnatural, when really they shouldn't be. If more of us decided to be more "professionally personable" in the way that Brooke is, then perhaps this social construct of creepiness would change.
- reaclmbs 13y ago
  you guys are rationalizing. brook's way ahead of ya
  - hype7 13y ago
    If he is, it's only because he's managed to take that load of crap job posting and somehow turn it into an article advertising the fact on Quartz. A bigger false dichotomy I have never seen in my life. Good vs nice, with some kind of implication that nice people cannot have integrity? It's the worst kind of these posts — just enough truth sprinkled in with the bullshit to make you think he's onto something.

johnjlocke 13y ago

There's some deep philosophy in the article. I wish everyone who was in charge of hiring took this sort of care to place people. So refreshing to see that integrity and honesty are still valuable assets.

_pmf_ 13y ago
> I wish everyone who was in charge of hiring took this sort of care to place people. One problem would be that in bigger companies, the people in charge of the hiring process are not the people doing the actual hiring.

blazespin 13y ago

Classic case of projection. The guy works in hedge fund management where success and 'goodness' is so easily observable (buy low sell high). His observations make sense ... for his industry. For other industries and roles, for example sales, niceness has its benefits.

chmike 13y ago
This is what I also ghough in the first place. But now I think beeing good is very important inside of the team. Relation with the outside has different constrains and may thus require different qualities.
300bps 13y ago
I think you made the same mistake I did. I thought he meant "good" as in skilled. He actually meant "good" as in "not evil".

klepra 13y ago

I felt like author points out as being nice and good are exclusive traits. In most cases, however, they complement.

Swannie 13y ago
That is true, most of the time someone who is "good" (by the authors definition) will also be "nice". But there are many times where being "good", requires explaining to someone that their performance is below expectations, or that their behaviour is not acceptable. This is not "nice" as the author defined it. (Though based on the common definition of nice, you can certainly be nice about how you would make such an explanation!)

carlob 13y ago

I was shocked to hear he ended up not hiring the pregnant woman, wouldn't that be discriminatory?

oneandoneis2 13y ago
Uh.. no. She withdrew.
mc-lovin 13y ago
It's a new loophole: guilt them out of exercising their rights under federal law to get pregnant on your dime.
precisioncoder 13y ago
If a man was planning to work for just 6 months to fill a gap before he started a job he was looking forward to would you hire him?
- RobAley 13y ago
  If the job was for a fixed period (like maternity leave) and he was planning to come back afterwards, and he was the right person for the job, then sure. I've hired like that before. People need time out in their lives for all kinds of reasons. If you're playing the long-game when hiring, which you often are (or should be), then you need to take that into account.
  - precisioncoder 13y ago
    In the right circumstances I would as well. I meant to simply point out the general idea that substituting man for woman will imply if it's sexist or not. In the article it also does not mention whether or not she was ever planning to go back to work.
- yarrel 13y ago
  Yes. I've made that hire.

wittysense 13y ago

I really appreciate this. Thank you. There are good employers, huzzah.

chencha 13y ago

I agree that hiring good-hearted people makes for a better employment -- and who would argue against good-heartedness? But he self-servingly equates your willingness to do more recruiting for him, with "goodness." Being good comes in all flavors, and some of them don't include the desire to work for free, as a recruiter, while your employment offer is on the table.

kuchaguangjie 13y ago

Wow, I really want to work for/with people like the author.

bnegreve 13y ago

> Nice people care if you like them; .... Nice people stretch the truth; It is a strange definition of nice.. if nice means hypocritical, and good means honest then I agree that good people are probably better. In general I am a bit bothered by this very absolute vocabulary that we ear everywhere in the tech world. We ear about very talented people, awesome teams, beautiful designs. For me all this is just advertising and shouldn't be given too much attention. The reality is a lot more complex.

jumblesale 13y ago

An interesting approach, and it's refreshing to see an employer wanting to be honest and open during the recruitment process, but it feels like this advice has a limited audience. It's fine if you are hiring for a large established hedge fund where you can afford attractive salaries but how many people are in this situation? A lot of hiring happens in response to a crisis like having to replace an existing employee or having too much work for too few people. In these situations it's not feasible to invite every candidate round for pizza and a chat about ethics and then find all of them work. It's more about deciding what to compromise on. For most companies it's going to be more about things that are quickly testable: skill, experience, ability. 'Goodness' as the article describes is much more difficult to elicit in a candidate. Like any personality trait it's something that doesn't tend to manifest until much further down the line when the new hire has settled into the role. Allen doesn't really provide any details on how you would discover the 'goodness' of a candidate prior to hiring. Other than laying down the ground rules of what he expects there's no mention of how he estimates this quality in a candidate. According to his success stories the candidates simply self select but this can't be a reliable method. What about people who use their niceness to masquerade as 'good' people? It's good advice to be open and honest with potential employees but I don't really see what most recruiters can take away from this. Talented, experienced individuals can be difficult enough to find without having to look for some vague idea of how 'good' they are too.

ScottWhigham 13y ago
how many people are in this situation? I would guess almost every business that has < 10 employees is in this situation. It's good advice to be open and honest with potential employees but I don't really see what most recruiters can take away from this. I don't think this was for recruiters; I think the target audience was for the employer who has to hire without the help of a recruiter.
- jumblesale 13y ago
  I think a 10 person organisation would probably still be at the stage where they have a lot more to worry about in potential candidates and probably don't have access to enough capital / cachet to be able to attract the ideal person.

Adrock 13y ago

If you're talking about degrees of "good," I like michaelochurch's breakdown in this post: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/gervais-macleod-14-expanding-alignment-plus-well-adjustedness/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/gervais-macle... Exemplary > Heroic > Virtuous > Humane > Natural > Pliable > Corrupt > Sadistic > Calamitous I've gotten the most mileage from his astute distinctions in the middle range.

tonyblundell 13y ago

I'd prefer to hire a nice person. Training nice people to be good at something is easier than training skilled people to be nice :D

TheCoelacanth 13y ago
Someone didn't read the article. It's about affable vs. having your best interests at heart, not affable vs. skilled.
- tonyblundell 13y ago
  Isn't learning to do the best thing for the business irrespective of your instincts a skill?

biot 13y ago

This provides some good parameters around whether you should continue working at the job you currently have. Specifically: "If you have a dream, I need to know what it is so we can figure out if this job gets you closer." This makes me think twice about my present work.

arkades 13y ago
You may want to consider reading "Winning", by Jack Welch. If that little bit made you reconsider your job, his chapter on job fit would probably be right up your alley.
- biot 13y ago
  Thanks for that. On the People / Opportunity / Options / Ownership / Work Content dimensions, I'm a 2/5... so yeah, maybe time to put some serious thought into that.

michaelochurch 13y ago

I think that the fundamental problem is that we're used to a certain low-level dishonesty in job prospecting. Even if you don't agree with it-- even if you'd rather people see how you really are so you don't end up in inappropriate roles-- you're expected to make nice and play along. Job applicants have to overstate their willingness to subordinate. Very rare is a talented person who wants to be a subordinate. Protege to an obvious superior (by which I mean person of superior skill)? Sure, but that's different because there's an obvious symbiosis. Subordinate order-follower? No, no one wants that. On the flip side, hiring managers often overstate the autonomy and future prospects associated with the role. Companies overstate their need for "passion". Passionate people never see themselves as subordinates. Proteges, possibly. Not subordinates. Never happens, never will. If you want people who are good at subordinating, you need to go to the other end of the passion spectrum and find people who are happy just to have a job. But no one wants to hire those because, even though they're often good at well-defined tasks, they're taken to be kind of a bummer. I feel like when people go too far to the good-not-nice extreme, you end up with dialogues like this (obviously, more subtly)... Hiring manager: all of the "vision" questions and tough technical brainteasers are a false lead. In reality, we're looking to add excess capacity to which we can delegate undesirable work. Also, the reason why we're overhiring is because it makes managers happy to have overqualified subordinates so they can say things like, "I have four Ivy Leaguers working for me". Candidate: I don't really see myself as a subordinate, and unless management takes a direct interest in my career and I get the best projects available, I'm going to start serving my own career interests in a matter of about 6 months. No one would hire anyone if people were that honest.

gamechangr 13y ago
"I think that the fundamental problem is that we're used to a certain low-level dishonesty in job prospecting." Exactly right. I think this guys is a little over the top, but good for him. We need a change to the system. There are excellent employees out there who do not interview well.
rayiner 13y ago
I hesitate to call it "dishonesty" because its like dating. Nobody lays all their cards on the table while trying to get a date. Everyone paints the idealized picture of themselves, tailored to the other person's expectations. Its mutual, concensual deception. You don't disclose, and they don't want to hear, that you're a fastidious basket case who will freak the moment the other person moves something in your apartment.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

krenoten 13y ago

"Nice people will allow you to hire them even if they know they are not among your best candidates; a good person won’t let you hire them unless that is what is best for you." Uhhhhh... Isn't that exactly the kind of person who values the external more than the internal that will go along with an evil plan?

confusedsquirel 13y ago

I was more interested in the site itself. As you scrolled to a new article, it changed the URL. Then if you visited that URL in a new tab, it was the new top of the page.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

gamechangr 13y ago

Who wouldn't want to work for this guy?

VLM 13y ago

I think his article is smoothly written to recruit noobs. For example, I've been around for awhile, and when I hear the employer wants "giving personality" I'd like to think that means I mentor people and do some volunteer work. Been there, done that, think its cool. However experience has shown that really means "doesn't complain about unpaid overtime and excessive oncall and is a complete doormat". Ditto stuff like "I give honesty and require it in return." I'd like to think thats true, often it is, but then again often it just means I want a yes man but can't say it so I'll talk about the opposite instead in compensation. Some stuff is just creepy. "I won’t get between you and your dreams." My personal life outside of work is none of your business unless coincidentally we happen to overlap, in which case thats cool, although perhaps professionally awkward. Creepy! Some stuff I have never experienced in industry or even heard of. "If you don’t have a requisite skill right now". You've got to be kidding. Based on extensive observation, corporate communication about what's important is usually a strong indication of what's absent other than a slogan, not what's actually important. We believe in a work-life balance means their only contribution toward a work-life balance is talking about having one, actual implementation is strictly work oriented. Or "we're a professional organization" means drunken frat boy antics. If their contribution to honesty is exclusively bragging about how they like honesty, look out...

znowi 13y ago

"I want people with a good heart and a giving personality" - it's a little weird to hear this from a proprietary trader and hedge fund manager :)

tzury 13y ago

Usually, employers rapidly scan the resume of each job applicant looking for relevant education, skills, and work experience. They select 10 candidates for telephone calls, invite three in for interviews, and hire the one they like the best. Not sure in which industry this is the case, in our industry, i.e. IT/Startups/Hackers, and here in Tel Aviv area, the last line is more likely to be: "And then the Employee tells: 'I will let you know within a week or so, whether or not I'd like to continue with the process.." In those words, more or less. The fact is, that early screening process, brings in the better people, and given there is an extremely high demand for the "know-how", they know it, and stand for their benefits pretty well.

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago

This sounds nice, but the truth is I'm usually good and sometimes nice. Sometimes I can't even tell for sure. Are you certain you aren't oversimplifying? Don't you really want people who define good the same way as you do? For example, some people think a good email must have lots of introductory information and something like Xs and Os at the end. May they arrive at work early and endure many long meetings.