![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFrom reading flist, seem to be amongst the few that had to work today (read that few who had a job and had to work today, so not complaining about the former.) Speaking of the job thing, have an interesting tidbit for anyone who followed my saga of the monster boss from hell. For those who didn't, the skinny is - I had a boss who decided one day he hated me and would drive me out of the company. I know this because he told people who later passed the news on to me, also by his behavior. At any rate, traumatized and close to losing what was left of my sanity, I quit the company without a job but my integrity intact. That was in 2002. Evil boss who drove me out of company, was making quite the money and smiling his little smirk. Leap ahead three years.
Spoke to old work colleague who still works at former company on Friday and she related the following little story:
Monster Boss - I'll call him Mikey, was let go by company to get his act together. But not fired out-right due to a certain medical and addiction problem that I won't describe to protect anyone who may have a similar ailment but is nothing like Mikey. Trust me, ailments do not make people nasty by themselves. At any rate, company is worried of being sued by Mikey so they let him come back. Mikey had to come back because short term disability ran out and he is broke. But, here's the thing, the President of the company, who Mikey told me was such a nice guy - who also permitted Mikey to mistreat me, is now treating Mikey exactly the same way Mikey treated me and the two women who came after me. That's right Mikey is now being bullied, forced to do horrid tasks, and has no where to go.
See? Karma. It does exist. Just takes a little time is all. No need for retribution, karma man. It's a bitch.
In other news, finding social pysche rather interesting. Last night read an article about "the New-boy Network" from Readings in Social Psychology: General, Classic, and Contemporary Selections ed. by Wayne A Lesko
The article was about interviewing job candidates and how most companies selection process based on a 10-90 minute interview is not the best way of picking someone for a job. You think? Gee. I cackle at this. Why? Hee. I have been to over 100 interviews in my lifetime. Some quite humilating and rigorous. And in most cases the interviewer makes their decision in the first five minutes - on how I smile, shake their hand, or just twitch.
What they are looking for is not a good employee but a friend.
Here's what the writer states: " We are looking for someone with whom we have a certain chemistry, even if the coupling that results ends in tears and the pursuer and the pursued turn out to have nothing in common. We want the unlimited promise of a love affair."
Then he discusses a interview subject, a highly intelligent graduate of MIT hunting a high-tech job who has not only studied interview techniques but perfected them. This guy has figured out something that I really wish I had. Would have made my life so much easier. The writer, Malcolm Gladwell, (who wrote the article for The New Yorker, May 29, 2000, pp. 68-86.)asks his subject what his technique is and he states:
"One of the most important things is that you have to come across as being confident in what you are doing and in who you are. How do you that? Speak clearly and smile."
LOL! Yes. Right. Okay.
He goes on to state:
"For a lot of people that's a very hard skill to learn. But for some reason I seem to understand it intuitively."
Well, there is a difference between smiling and beeming with confidence. And it is easy to beem with confidence if you have had a series of successes, ie. graduated with a good grade point average from MIT, had a successful internship with Microsoft, and enjoy what you do. What so many people don't get is confidence is not a born trait. It's not a god given trait. It is a learned trait that comes from people stroking your ego.
What is interesting to me about the article is the writer seems to disparage basing a hiring decision on likability of the candidate in an interview. He states that we make the error of making a biasis towards friends. Instead of hiring our nephew, we hire the person who impressed us the most when we shook his or her hand. Not necessarily the best fit for a job.
Too true. Seen this error more times than I can count.
The better method of interviewing - a much longer, harder process for the interviewer - is to ask a series of structured scripted questions designed to obtain the necessary info that contain no right or wrong answer.
Here are a few examples:
1. Tell me about a time when you had to do several things at once. How did you handle the situation? How did you decide what to first? (the easy version - with the easy answer: " I just had to be very organized. I had to multitask. I had to prioritize....")
2. You're in a situation when you have two very important responsibilities that both have a deadline that is impossible to meet. You cannot accomplish both. How do you handle the situation? (Not so easy.
and
3. What is your greatest weakness?
4. At your weekly team meetings, your boss unexpectedly begins aggressively critiquing your performance on a current project? What do you do?
The hard version is called structured interviewing and according to Gladwell is used to determin items such as who is shy and who is outspoken and in what situations.
Everyone acts differently depending on the context. For instance I'm very introverted in a group that I'm not comfortable, I may appear shy. Reserved. Or I may appear very extroverted in a group I'm not comfortable in, babbling, talking to much. It's not necessarily my comfort level that is a determining fact as the group I'm in, the people, the chemistry of the group, the situation, the activity. If I'm nervous and have just ripped my hose, have a blister on my foot, and missed my train prior to an interview - needless to say, it will show.
Or if it is a beautiful day and I was just given a wonderful present prior to the interview - that will show.
So many factors affect how people reacte to one another.
Another article I read, this time in Thomas Gilovich's book How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallability of Human Reason in Everyday Life - stated that we often base whether we like someone or dislike them on a first impression of that person. Hunting confirming evidence to show that we are right, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Truth is - people aren't the same in every situation. I remember my mother telling me a story once about how a friend of her's initial impression of her was that she was aloof and unfriendly. If that friend had decided to avoid my mother based primarily on that first impression they would never have become friends. I've equally met people that I had a positive first impression of (my freshman roommate), and after getting to know them better, realized I could not stand them. Does this mean that I have bad instincts regarding people? No.
No one can know what someone else is like upon just meeting them. This is why speed dating and job interviews are such a crap shoot. Not to mention fraternity and sorority rushes. Yet, we continue to think we can figure out based on a first impression whether someone is the right fit. Why is that? According to Gilvoich it's something called a seemingly-fulfilled prophecy, we only see the information that confirms our belief. Or rather we base a belief on incomplete information or data - something I've been accused of more than once of doing myself on the internet, because I'm a lazy bum and hate research. The other reason posed is that and this is a valid point - " Oftentimes, the lifestyles we lead, the roles we play, and the positions we occupy in a social network deny us access to important classes of information and thus distort our view of the world."
This was proved by a comment I heard recently from an acquaintance, who has never lived anywhere but New York City. They said and I quote:" No one outside of New York can hold a sensible conversation. They have braces on their brains and are uninformed. They know nothing of the world outside of their own little bubble. A friend of mine who moved from New York to Georgia, says it is even worse down there." Note she has only lived in NYC.
Her friend moved from New York. Her lifestyle has limited her range of information.
Gilvioch ends the article or chapter, with the statment: " Unless we recognize the sources of systematic distortion and make sufficient adjustments for them, we will surely end up believing some things that just aren't so..." And I think these beliefs greatly affect, for me at least, how I interact with the world around me. I make judgements without obtaining all the data, thinking I know more than I do. For example - the Red Cross, it is relatively easy for me to dismiss this organization as imcompetent based on a four examples provided by people I don't know and do not know all the specifics of the experience. I'm not saying their information is invalid, but it is more than possible that it is clouded by other factors that have nothing to do with how useful the Red Cross is in certain situations. Also for every detractor, I have heard just as many good stories as well. I pride myself on making up my mind for myself, waiting until I get more data. But I admit I occassionally am swayed by other's opinions or experiences, experiences I'm not privy to or have limited knowledge of. To decide not to donate to the Red Cross based on four negative experiences would be wrong.
Like any human organization, it has its failings. I've been in and out of over 50 organizations, non-profit, profit, government, etc and I can't say any of them are perfect. I've had positive and negative experiences with the Salvation Army for instance. Had bad experiences with Domestic Violence Coalition. Not to mention the Kansas State Legislature. Human beings aren't black and white so much as grey, the same can be said I think for our organizations. But we need, we desire to catalogue things, organize. And that systematic tendency is, I think, where we make errors. It's seeing the errors for what they are that is challenge.
Spoke to old work colleague who still works at former company on Friday and she related the following little story:
Monster Boss - I'll call him Mikey, was let go by company to get his act together. But not fired out-right due to a certain medical and addiction problem that I won't describe to protect anyone who may have a similar ailment but is nothing like Mikey. Trust me, ailments do not make people nasty by themselves. At any rate, company is worried of being sued by Mikey so they let him come back. Mikey had to come back because short term disability ran out and he is broke. But, here's the thing, the President of the company, who Mikey told me was such a nice guy - who also permitted Mikey to mistreat me, is now treating Mikey exactly the same way Mikey treated me and the two women who came after me. That's right Mikey is now being bullied, forced to do horrid tasks, and has no where to go.
See? Karma. It does exist. Just takes a little time is all. No need for retribution, karma man. It's a bitch.
In other news, finding social pysche rather interesting. Last night read an article about "the New-boy Network" from Readings in Social Psychology: General, Classic, and Contemporary Selections ed. by Wayne A Lesko
The article was about interviewing job candidates and how most companies selection process based on a 10-90 minute interview is not the best way of picking someone for a job. You think? Gee. I cackle at this. Why? Hee. I have been to over 100 interviews in my lifetime. Some quite humilating and rigorous. And in most cases the interviewer makes their decision in the first five minutes - on how I smile, shake their hand, or just twitch.
What they are looking for is not a good employee but a friend.
Here's what the writer states: " We are looking for someone with whom we have a certain chemistry, even if the coupling that results ends in tears and the pursuer and the pursued turn out to have nothing in common. We want the unlimited promise of a love affair."
Then he discusses a interview subject, a highly intelligent graduate of MIT hunting a high-tech job who has not only studied interview techniques but perfected them. This guy has figured out something that I really wish I had. Would have made my life so much easier. The writer, Malcolm Gladwell, (who wrote the article for The New Yorker, May 29, 2000, pp. 68-86.)asks his subject what his technique is and he states:
"One of the most important things is that you have to come across as being confident in what you are doing and in who you are. How do you that? Speak clearly and smile."
LOL! Yes. Right. Okay.
He goes on to state:
"For a lot of people that's a very hard skill to learn. But for some reason I seem to understand it intuitively."
Well, there is a difference between smiling and beeming with confidence. And it is easy to beem with confidence if you have had a series of successes, ie. graduated with a good grade point average from MIT, had a successful internship with Microsoft, and enjoy what you do. What so many people don't get is confidence is not a born trait. It's not a god given trait. It is a learned trait that comes from people stroking your ego.
What is interesting to me about the article is the writer seems to disparage basing a hiring decision on likability of the candidate in an interview. He states that we make the error of making a biasis towards friends. Instead of hiring our nephew, we hire the person who impressed us the most when we shook his or her hand. Not necessarily the best fit for a job.
Too true. Seen this error more times than I can count.
The better method of interviewing - a much longer, harder process for the interviewer - is to ask a series of structured scripted questions designed to obtain the necessary info that contain no right or wrong answer.
Here are a few examples:
1. Tell me about a time when you had to do several things at once. How did you handle the situation? How did you decide what to first? (the easy version - with the easy answer: " I just had to be very organized. I had to multitask. I had to prioritize....")
2. You're in a situation when you have two very important responsibilities that both have a deadline that is impossible to meet. You cannot accomplish both. How do you handle the situation? (Not so easy.
and
3. What is your greatest weakness?
4. At your weekly team meetings, your boss unexpectedly begins aggressively critiquing your performance on a current project? What do you do?
The hard version is called structured interviewing and according to Gladwell is used to determin items such as who is shy and who is outspoken and in what situations.
Everyone acts differently depending on the context. For instance I'm very introverted in a group that I'm not comfortable, I may appear shy. Reserved. Or I may appear very extroverted in a group I'm not comfortable in, babbling, talking to much. It's not necessarily my comfort level that is a determining fact as the group I'm in, the people, the chemistry of the group, the situation, the activity. If I'm nervous and have just ripped my hose, have a blister on my foot, and missed my train prior to an interview - needless to say, it will show.
Or if it is a beautiful day and I was just given a wonderful present prior to the interview - that will show.
So many factors affect how people reacte to one another.
Another article I read, this time in Thomas Gilovich's book How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallability of Human Reason in Everyday Life - stated that we often base whether we like someone or dislike them on a first impression of that person. Hunting confirming evidence to show that we are right, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Truth is - people aren't the same in every situation. I remember my mother telling me a story once about how a friend of her's initial impression of her was that she was aloof and unfriendly. If that friend had decided to avoid my mother based primarily on that first impression they would never have become friends. I've equally met people that I had a positive first impression of (my freshman roommate), and after getting to know them better, realized I could not stand them. Does this mean that I have bad instincts regarding people? No.
No one can know what someone else is like upon just meeting them. This is why speed dating and job interviews are such a crap shoot. Not to mention fraternity and sorority rushes. Yet, we continue to think we can figure out based on a first impression whether someone is the right fit. Why is that? According to Gilvoich it's something called a seemingly-fulfilled prophecy, we only see the information that confirms our belief. Or rather we base a belief on incomplete information or data - something I've been accused of more than once of doing myself on the internet, because I'm a lazy bum and hate research. The other reason posed is that and this is a valid point - " Oftentimes, the lifestyles we lead, the roles we play, and the positions we occupy in a social network deny us access to important classes of information and thus distort our view of the world."
This was proved by a comment I heard recently from an acquaintance, who has never lived anywhere but New York City. They said and I quote:" No one outside of New York can hold a sensible conversation. They have braces on their brains and are uninformed. They know nothing of the world outside of their own little bubble. A friend of mine who moved from New York to Georgia, says it is even worse down there." Note she has only lived in NYC.
Her friend moved from New York. Her lifestyle has limited her range of information.
Gilvioch ends the article or chapter, with the statment: " Unless we recognize the sources of systematic distortion and make sufficient adjustments for them, we will surely end up believing some things that just aren't so..." And I think these beliefs greatly affect, for me at least, how I interact with the world around me. I make judgements without obtaining all the data, thinking I know more than I do. For example - the Red Cross, it is relatively easy for me to dismiss this organization as imcompetent based on a four examples provided by people I don't know and do not know all the specifics of the experience. I'm not saying their information is invalid, but it is more than possible that it is clouded by other factors that have nothing to do with how useful the Red Cross is in certain situations. Also for every detractor, I have heard just as many good stories as well. I pride myself on making up my mind for myself, waiting until I get more data. But I admit I occassionally am swayed by other's opinions or experiences, experiences I'm not privy to or have limited knowledge of. To decide not to donate to the Red Cross based on four negative experiences would be wrong.
Like any human organization, it has its failings. I've been in and out of over 50 organizations, non-profit, profit, government, etc and I can't say any of them are perfect. I've had positive and negative experiences with the Salvation Army for instance. Had bad experiences with Domestic Violence Coalition. Not to mention the Kansas State Legislature. Human beings aren't black and white so much as grey, the same can be said I think for our organizations. But we need, we desire to catalogue things, organize. And that systematic tendency is, I think, where we make errors. It's seeing the errors for what they are that is challenge.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 03:27 am (UTC)I always wonder at people who sometimes view things so black and white, how after one or two or even many more meetings another persn's behavior can be a surprise. Well, yes, it can be a surprise because in each meeting you can't possibly know all there is to that person. Facets upon facets upon facets. Being able to pin people down and label them is just a lazy way of getting to know people. That way you don't have to delve any deeper.
Likability is a hard thing to get over. I'm just as guilty of it. Impartiality is a hard value to maintain. As soon as the person across from you starts smiling and appealing to whatever part of you that says "nice" it's tough. The one time this completely backfired on me was when our Exec VP asked our dept's opinion on a potential Director that they were interviewing. Ina highly unusual move, they let us meet with him and chat about what his background was. It wasn't an interview as they had already gone through that. I found him to be very charming and likable and mentioned that to the Exec VP. Boy, was I ever wrong. A better choice would've been to meet with his employees and ask questions about his work style, questions that they could've answered truthfully enough that it wouldn't be seen as bad mouthing of any sort. So to this day (the director is still here and he is just the most incompetent ass as ever there was one) I'm still dealing with that mistake. But things remain to be seen. Our structure is changing a bit and it's entirely possible that his position will be eliminated or his responsibilities would be so reduced that he would leave of his own volition to find something else more "challenging". I say challenging because this man really doesn't have any skills other than looking busy.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 05:33 pm (UTC)What you describe above about the Exec VP - was similar to my initial impression of monster boss. When I first met him he seemed nice, encouraging, and responsive. Even though a friend of mine warned me about him, I shrugged it off, going with my first impression until he proved me wrong. Although I was right to make up my own mind, at the same time it has taught me that you can't trust first impressions nor are people stagnatic - they change over time, interests, likes, dislikes, personality - so how someone appears one day may be completely different the next - all we're seeing is one facet of them.
I think Exec VP is probably going to get kicked soon. From what you've described...it is only a matter of time. Seen too many similar situations.
Karma. Also strongly believe in it, although it worries me at times...you can't explain everything through karma. I know people who haven't done a thing to anyone and end up getting really hurt. While others who seem to do nothing but hurt people get whatever they want.
So it can seem like a random thing at times.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 08:00 pm (UTC)Yeah. There are just those things that you just can't explain nor understand.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 04:32 am (UTC)I love questions like this. How people answer tells you a lot about who they are... in my case, I know that my instinct is to immediately start doing a calculus. Basically centered around judging what the Worst Case Scenario is. Because my strategy is to basically do what I can to stay afloat and plan to have a come back later... so for me, it's all about averting disaster first and then looking for the best success. Rather than, maybe looking at the best opportunity, or what's first important....
Which works for some people, and doesn't for others. But that is who I am, and people like it or don't, and at least they'll know if I am or am not a fit. I can live with that.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 04:39 pm (UTC)In the article - Gladwell, the author, stated that he would do the task that he knew he could do the best. Instead of doing both poorly or one poorly, he picked the one he knew he'd excell at.
The interviewer told Gladwell - that this shows he's focused more on his own abilities and not necessarily on what is best for the company, which is not always a bad thing. Depends on the job and the company.
Another way of answering the question - is to ask your boss which task was the highest priority or the company needed done the most. Which would avert disaster and which, if done too late may not be disasterous.
I make these types of decisions all the time and to be honest, I've done the following, if I'm honest - the task I can do the quickest - first, the task that would effect the company the most and hurt it the most if not done - first (even if it takes more time), and asked my boss which to do first if completely at a loss.
What's fascinating about the question is there isn't necessarily one right or one wrong answer.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 04:50 pm (UTC)Right. It reveals characters, priorities and valuations, without any particular connotation. And you can pick and choose based upon what value-set you look for.
the task I can do the quickest - first, the task that would effect the company the most and hurt it the most if not done - first (even if it takes more time), and asked my boss which to do first if completely at a loss.
Which is sensible to me. I think the most important thing here is probably being self-aware and understanding of what your own decision-making process is, and what your values/priorities are. Because people tend to work better together when each knows what the other is likely to do. You know how to read/react/respond in a chaotic situation.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 07:24 pm (UTC)Agreed. Where many interview trainers or career counselors go wrong - is they advise the interviewee to come up with the answer most likely to get them the job. Instead of the answer most likely to show the interviewer who they are and if they are the best fit for the job.
We need to know how people respond to situations to gauge where they fit in an organization and how they'll interact with others. If you lie or worse pretend to be something you're not, sooner or later it will catch up with you as well as whomever is depending on you. Which is why it is hard to find a job when you are desperate, because you often err on the side of getting "any" job as opposed to getting a job that fits your abilities the best.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 04:42 am (UTC)#1 - talk as little as possible, they gave you an interview because they thought you'd be good based on your resume, so the less you say the more likely they'll continue to believe you're perfect. In response to all questions, give as short and simple an answer as possible and follow up with a question or comment that is supposed to get your interviewer talking. The more time the interviewer spends talking about the company, the job, or themselves, the more likely they'll end up believing you're perfect for the job (kind of a mirror thing...they are flattered by the attention and read qualifications into it).
#2 always follow up with a thank you note. Just repeating a few things the interviewer said, making it clear now impressed you were with them. This is also a flattery thing, and it shows that you are courteous, AND it means they have to pull out your resume and attach an extra page to it.
I actually found these two points to be amazingly helpful! LOL
And thanks for the additional comment about the Red Cross, I guess I should really investigate organizations myself before donating to them...or giving up on them.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 04:51 pm (UTC)There really isn't a formula or rule to follow here, as much as we wish there were. I know because the job I got - wasn't the one I sent the thank you letters to. The ones I did? Sometimes got a nice note in response, sometimes didn't. That's not to say it's a bad idea to send them, it certainly can't hurt, but what you say in a thank you letter can hurt your chances just as much as it can help them - depending on how it is worded. Also - when I interviewed people for a job over five years ago? Rarely looked at the letters and didn't always file them, was known for throwing them into a file or in the garbage. Since company policy was that I, personally, couldn't respond - HR had to.
Did they make me rethink my decision regarding the candidate? Not unless the position was about writing - and even then, I knew that it was possible the candidate didn't write it.
Regarding interviews - resumes get you in the door, but an interview gets you the job. People lie on their resumes all the time - they also tailor them. Plus if you've ever looked at a stack of resumes - after a while they begin to look a bit alike. Interviews are a way for the employer to get a sense of what the applicant looks like and how they reacte. A quiet applicant - could come across as negatively as an outspoken one. The trick is balance.