16 ms·

I love Warren Buffet's quote on hiring: “Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and ener

by slaxman 12y ago

I love Warren Buffet's quote on hiring: “Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” Often we tend to focus too much on intelligence and too little on integrity. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/76790-somebody-once-said-that-in-looking-for-people-to-hire http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/76790-somebody-once-said-tha...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
darkmighty 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is specially prevalent on the financial industry. It seems it's specially easy to make a lot of money in the short term if you're exceptionally intelligent and don't have integrity in the way -- but then you better hit home run quickly, because this potential doesn't last long. That's a hallmark of Buffet's success: he's in it for the long run.
tootie 12y ago
“I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.” Helmuth von Mioltke the Elder
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Funny, I had read this quote attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord by Hans Magnus Enzensberger.
  - gweinberg 12y ago
    Probably the Matthew effect. When it doubt, attribute a quote to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.
  - tootie 12y ago
    Attribution is apparently not clear: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/
  - tnorthcutt 12y ago
    http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/ The earliest evidence located by QI appeared in January 1933 in a periodical called “Army, Navy & Air Force Gazette” based in Great Britain. A passage attributed to German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord described the placing of officers into four classes.
- beefield 12y ago
  I think that the ones you really have to watch are the intelligent and industrious ones. They do not have time to stop wondering whether their goal is sensible or not, and being intelligent, they have means to push towards their goal much further that dumb and lazy will ever be able.
  - jackfoxy 12y ago
    That's why you put them on staff. You should be close enough to them to know what they are working on, and redirect them when necessary.
  - asdkl234890 12y ago
    Since we have intelligent vs stupid, I assume industrious is given as the opposite of lazy. So industrious really means hard working. And hard working can be dangerous. Very, very intelligent workaholics are responsible for some of the most expensive, least efficient work I've ever seen. No matter how hard and difficult, and too complicated things get, they just roll up their sleeves and go to work. And using their super intellect, they can manage it. But everyone else is hurt by that. Maybe you thought industrious meant inventive, or creative. But if it means only hard working. Then intelligent and hard working is a dangerous combination. Often successful but at a huge cost. Smart and lazy is just as often successful, but without those huge costs. When smart and lazy people get hard work, they think of ways to make it easier. That's where we get the old saying that civilization advances only thanks to lazy people. Hard working people just put up with however hard or inconvenient work is, lazy people get creative.
  - chc 12y ago
    That sounds like the same sort of person Helmuth was describing as "stupid and industrious" — they make a lot of progress in ill-advised directions.
- rasur 12y ago
  He seems to miss out the combination of clever & stupid. ;) (ok, industrious & lazy too, but...)
bostonpete 12y ago
> Often we tend to focus too much on intelligence and > too little on integrity. Maybe because integrity is virtually impossible to objectively evaluate for a candidate who you've got limited time to assess (aside from some extreme examples perhaps). I guess you could incorporate some sort of formal integrity test [1] into your hiring process but my impression is that those are costly and controversial. Do companies actually use them...? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_integrity_testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_integrity_testing
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  Maybe because integrity is virtually impossible to objectively evaluate for a candidate who you've got limited time to assess I would go even further and say that it's virtually impossible even over long periods. As a graduate from a military academy, the ostensible goal was graduating "Leaders of Character" with significant emphasis on "integrity" and "honor." I walked away feeling that the program did not perfect the evaluation. At the end of the day it's usually a "gut feel" as much as I hate that, and the perceptiveness of the screener really is pivotal.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  Integrity also means different things to Warren Buffett than it does to other people. Ripping someone's face off in a business transaction is a desirable quality to Warren Buffett.
  - seunosewa 12y ago
    As long as you don't lie about what you're doing ...
  - ethbro 12y ago
    > Integrity also means different things to Warren Buffett than it does to other people. Ripping someone's face off in a business transaction is a desirable quality to Warren Buffett. From the letter Gates was talking about (I've read about the 1st 1/3 of it over the last couple of days), integrity would be why Warren Buffett bought a major insurance company on a handshake and a one page document. No pre-audit. No financial review. He trusted the guy. In my opinion, that's the same definition of integrity everyone else uses.
xtrumanx 12y ago
Sorry for the dumb question but I think I'm having a hard time parsing and understanding the quote. > And if you don’t have the first (integrity), the other two (intelligence and energy) will kill you. If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy. I don't follow the logic there at all. I think I get the gist of what he is saying (without integrity, intelligence and energy don't matter) but I don't follow how he got to that conclusion. Can you explain it better?
- marcioaguiar 12y ago
  Someone with no integrity, can use their intelligence and energy for bad things.
- throwaway5752 12y ago
  He's saying that if someone does not have integrity, it's better that's they're dumb and lazy so they accomplish less and cause less harm. The tacit assumption is that someone without integrity will make decisions and act on them in ways that hurt the company.
- alex8022 12y ago
  If they don't have integrity, then intelligence + energy makes them "dangerous" to your company. Think Frank Underwood (House of Cards).. Smart and ambitious, but out to improve his own position, often at the expense of the nation (or company). If you hire someone who doesn't have integrity, you want them to be dumb and lazy to limit the damage they can cause.
  - swalsh 12y ago
    Frank Underwood is the perfect analogy.
Kalium 12y ago
Looking for people with integrity is often a good way to be told to go away.

by slaxman 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

darkmighty 12y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is specially prevalent on the financial industry. It seems it's specially easy to make a lot of money in the short term if you're exceptionally intelligent and don't have integrity in the way -- but then you better hit home run quickly, because this potential doesn't last long. That's a hallmark of Buffet's success: he's in it for the long run.

tootie 12y ago

“I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.” Helmuth von Mioltke the Elder

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Funny, I had read this quote attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord by Hans Magnus Enzensberger.
- gweinberg 12y ago
  Probably the Matthew effect. When it doubt, attribute a quote to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.
- tootie 12y ago
  Attribution is apparently not clear: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/
- tnorthcutt 12y ago
  http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/ The earliest evidence located by QI appeared in January 1933 in a periodical called “Army, Navy & Air Force Gazette” based in Great Britain. A passage attributed to German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord described the placing of officers into four classes.
beefield 12y ago
I think that the ones you really have to watch are the intelligent and industrious ones. They do not have time to stop wondering whether their goal is sensible or not, and being intelligent, they have means to push towards their goal much further that dumb and lazy will ever be able.
- jackfoxy 12y ago
  That's why you put them on staff. You should be close enough to them to know what they are working on, and redirect them when necessary.
- asdkl234890 12y ago
  Since we have intelligent vs stupid, I assume industrious is given as the opposite of lazy. So industrious really means hard working. And hard working can be dangerous. Very, very intelligent workaholics are responsible for some of the most expensive, least efficient work I've ever seen. No matter how hard and difficult, and too complicated things get, they just roll up their sleeves and go to work. And using their super intellect, they can manage it. But everyone else is hurt by that. Maybe you thought industrious meant inventive, or creative. But if it means only hard working. Then intelligent and hard working is a dangerous combination. Often successful but at a huge cost. Smart and lazy is just as often successful, but without those huge costs. When smart and lazy people get hard work, they think of ways to make it easier. That's where we get the old saying that civilization advances only thanks to lazy people. Hard working people just put up with however hard or inconvenient work is, lazy people get creative.
- chc 12y ago
  That sounds like the same sort of person Helmuth was describing as "stupid and industrious" — they make a lot of progress in ill-advised directions.
rasur 12y ago
He seems to miss out the combination of clever & stupid. ;) (ok, industrious & lazy too, but...)

bostonpete 12y ago

> Often we tend to focus too much on intelligence and > too little on integrity. Maybe because integrity is virtually impossible to objectively evaluate for a candidate who you've got limited time to assess (aside from some extreme examples perhaps). I guess you could incorporate some sort of formal integrity test [1] into your hiring process but my impression is that those are costly and controversial. Do companies actually use them...? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_integrity_testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_integrity_testing

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
Maybe because integrity is virtually impossible to objectively evaluate for a candidate who you've got limited time to assess I would go even further and say that it's virtually impossible even over long periods. As a graduate from a military academy, the ostensible goal was graduating "Leaders of Character" with significant emphasis on "integrity" and "honor." I walked away feeling that the program did not perfect the evaluation. At the end of the day it's usually a "gut feel" as much as I hate that, and the perceptiveness of the screener really is pivotal.
foobarqux 12y ago
Integrity also means different things to Warren Buffett than it does to other people. Ripping someone's face off in a business transaction is a desirable quality to Warren Buffett.
- seunosewa 12y ago
  As long as you don't lie about what you're doing ...
- ethbro 12y ago
  > Integrity also means different things to Warren Buffett than it does to other people. Ripping someone's face off in a business transaction is a desirable quality to Warren Buffett. From the letter Gates was talking about (I've read about the 1st 1/3 of it over the last couple of days), integrity would be why Warren Buffett bought a major insurance company on a handshake and a one page document. No pre-audit. No financial review. He trusted the guy. In my opinion, that's the same definition of integrity everyone else uses.

xtrumanx 12y ago

Sorry for the dumb question but I think I'm having a hard time parsing and understanding the quote. > And if you don’t have the first (integrity), the other two (intelligence and energy) will kill you. If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy. I don't follow the logic there at all. I think I get the gist of what he is saying (without integrity, intelligence and energy don't matter) but I don't follow how he got to that conclusion. Can you explain it better?

marcioaguiar 12y ago
Someone with no integrity, can use their intelligence and energy for bad things.
throwaway5752 12y ago
He's saying that if someone does not have integrity, it's better that's they're dumb and lazy so they accomplish less and cause less harm. The tacit assumption is that someone without integrity will make decisions and act on them in ways that hurt the company.
alex8022 12y ago
If they don't have integrity, then intelligence + energy makes them "dangerous" to your company. Think Frank Underwood (House of Cards).. Smart and ambitious, but out to improve his own position, often at the expense of the nation (or company). If you hire someone who doesn't have integrity, you want them to be dumb and lazy to limit the damage they can cause.
- swalsh 12y ago
  Frank Underwood is the perfect analogy.

Kalium 12y ago

Looking for people with integrity is often a good way to be told to go away.