U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-21-2012, 11:18 AM
 
18,797 posts, read 9,614,866 times
Reputation: 5279

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
Not so. Those invited for an interview have the skills to do the job. The resumes of people without the required skills, end up in the trash. They never even meet with an interviewer.
Precisely. In addition, your ability to work well with the team is a more important part of your overall skill set.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2012, 11:18 AM
 
5,191 posts, read 4,885,222 times
Reputation: 3314
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
This is where we disagree. What a person chooses to do outside of work is extremely relevant to the job.
How so? My job has absolutely nothing at all to do with skiing. So why is it that you say skiing is "extremely relevant to my job"?

Quote:
And it is also not a good idea to hire someone who hates sports when everyone at the office loves them. Group cohesiveness is very important.
I see where you are coming from. But I still argue that it's dangerous to only hire people who are interested in 1 particular sport. You still have not answered my question: what are they supposed to do if overtime is needed on a winter weekend, and nobody is willing to cancel their ski trip and work overtime? The company will be in very serious trouble. You can't just threaten to fire those who don't work the overtime, or else you'd be firing everyone, and would be left with literally no staff.

Do you understand my point that, due to "group cohesiveness", they are right to primarily hire skiiers, that it is still to the company's advantage to hire a small number of non-conforming employees (in this case, non-skiiers), even if for no other reason than to work overtime when nobody else is willing to do so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 11:18 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,847 posts, read 30,345,392 times
Reputation: 22356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobless and Broke View Post
OK, I finally got a Human Resources person to tell me why I was not hired into a job that I put so much effort into the application process. I put together lots of supplemental information; tried to create a link between the job description and my background and studied lots of interview books.

So here is the reason they said I was not hired: Likability. They did not like me.

Is this a good reason? I was hired to work not put on a coffee party, right?

I was interviewed for an Office Manager job.
A management position, by definition requires a lot of interaction with people. That being said, however, likability is not something I would expect nor require from a manager. Quite the opposite, actually, the LAST thing you want in a manager is someone who cares about being likable.

What you are saying is that the HR person did not like you, which, typically is irrelevant. Unfortunately for all of us, human resources people are on an extraordinary power trip (most of the time, not always), because they know they have "da power".

There really isn't much you can do about it unfortunately unless you know someone high up in the corporate structure who can pull some strings on your behalf from his/her end.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 11:26 AM
 
18,797 posts, read 9,614,866 times
Reputation: 5279
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson View Post
A management position, by definition requires a lot of interaction with people. That being said, however, likability is not something I would expect nor require from a manager. Quite the opposite, actually, the LAST thing you want in a manager is someone who cares about being likable.

What you are saying is that the HR person did not like you, which, typically is irrelevant. Unfortunately for all of us, human resources people are on an extraordinary power trip (most of the time, not always), because they know they have "da power".

There really isn't much you can do about it unfortunately unless you know someone high up in the corporate structure who can pull some strings on your behalf from his/her end.

20yrsinBranson

Completely incorrect.

Firstly, HR doesn't make hiring decisions. Hiring managers make that decision.

Secondly, there is A LOT you can do to make yourself more "likeable." I actually had it spelled out in steps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 11:34 AM
Status: "could've~would've~should've used 'have', not 'of'" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
10,456 posts, read 14,303,163 times
Reputation: 23200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
If they can't hold a conversation with me for an hour, how can I trust them to interact with co-workers/customers when they need to?
So they don't click with YOU? Maybe something about you makes them uncomfortable or nervous. What if they were able to click with your partner, or the person that would be their direct supervisor, or other people on the team? I simply don't see why one persons opinion as to whether someone is likable should make so much difference.
I've had several managers over the years, some I clicked with and others not so much. It does not make a lot of difference to my job performance, until there is a situation of active dislike for someone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 11:39 AM
 
Location: On the edge of the universe
994 posts, read 1,352,096 times
Reputation: 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
The problem is that "likeable" has changed.

In a sane world, people would need to be qualifed and able to work well with the team. Most normal people can work well with most other normal people... though, from what I've seen, dysfunctional organizations place much higher priority on hiring and retaining people who support the dysfunction vs. those who "just" do their jobs and work well with others.

"Likeable" also should not mean a person is judged on the following characteristics:

1) If they are "hot" or not.
2) If the boss would like to hang out with them while drinking beer and watching the game.
3) If the person perfectly agrees with the hiring manager on some annoying wedge issue (politics, religion, etc.)
4) If the person makes a good scapegoat and/or is willing to take the fall for the mistakes of more senior workers.
5) The person graduated from the same college as the manager or many other people in the company.
6) Other idiocy, such marital status, if you have kids or not... if you have kids and aren't married, etc.
7) Health, especially things which cannot be controlled.
8) How extroverted the person is. Being an introvert should not be a sin; in most jobs, it really doesn't matter.

In a terrible economy, the employer has tremendous power, and with that power comes abuse and exploitation since power corrupts. Many people won't accept this, and some even claim it is a "good thing" since it supposedly enhances profits or keeps the "lazy" people out of work, but it is really a problem. We're rapidly becoming a nation of "American Idol" wanna-bes, where we are judged on far more than what is relavent to the job or what we can even control. I swear that many employers these days are more picky about hiring people than they are about dating or marriage partners?!

Like it or not, everyone needs a job, and qualifications should matter far more than if the boss finds you attractive, or if you have the same political views as everyone in the office, or if you graduated from the same college, etc.
For the most part I agree with you on your list. I haven't encountered or seen any job discrimination due to health issues myself but my sister was discriminated against at the local votech school due to her eyesight. That problem, to make a long story short, got the state government involved and eventually was taken care of but left a bad taste in her mouth (along with mine since I graduated from there).

Companies pull this stuff all the time. It's not usually the best way to hire people but most companies don't care. I do want to say that you do want a workforce that gets along with each other; if two people on your team don't see eye to eye but aren't very problematic, you would be best to leave them alone and have them leave each other alone. Of course, a social club can only do so much in any kind of company or organization. An incompitent social club won't be able to beat a competitor that might not have a 'family' style of management but is skilled enough to smack around the good old boys network. This is what happened to the domestic automakers when the foreign brands started to really come into the US markets in the 1970s or so. Detroit was run like a social club (and still is somewhat today) and it ended up costing them a couple generations of customers. Many of the managers in the Detroit 3 were promoted and hired based on how well they played the politics game; a lot of the front line people were hired because of family connections instead of whether they actually did the work or not (supposedly, for example, they had some front-line people sleeping on the line at a couple of the Ford plants. These people weren't disciplined because of the social club politics.) Even the executive management operated on this basis! It's part of the reason why so many companies are so problematic today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 11:40 AM
 
43 posts, read 86,301 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobless and Broke View Post
OK, I finally got a Human Resources person to tell me why I was not hired into a job that I put so much effort into the application process. I put together lots of supplemental information; tried to create a link between the job description and my background and studied lots of interview books.

So here is the reason they said I was not hired: Likability. They did not like me.

Is this a good reason? I was hired to work not put on a coffee party, right?

I was interviewed for an Office Manager job.
Yes, I think it is something that is high on the list. These people are interviewing you and while doing so they are picturing themselves dealing with you on a daily basis. Would you want to deal with a person you did not like on a daily basis if you could avoid it? That is the key right there, They can avoid it.

I empathize with your situation. I too am not what I would call "likeable". I am not bubbly or full of smiles. I have even been upfront with interviewers about the fact that I do not come across as approachable "but I am very approachable" and it is something I work on. It really all comes down to first impressions. Many people are quick to judge anymore and in a job interview they kind of have to be. The best advise I can give you is something I got from a manager while working at Sears. Empathize, because it works. Even in an interview you can come across and empathetic and create some warmth in your personality. Be uncomplicated and look people in the eye with a smile on your face. Do not be too dry because it makes you and everyone uncomfortable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 12:31 PM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,419,463 times
Reputation: 5453
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
How so? My job has absolutely nothing at all to do with skiing. So why is it that you say skiing is "extremely relevant to my job"?
The fact that you are the kind of person who goes skiing or rock climbing, or collects stamps, or chooses to live green says a lot about your personality. In hiring someone, I have an extremely small window to get to know a person as best I can. Ideally I would be able to watch someone work for a few months before hiring (which is why internships are amazing things), but that is often an impossibility. Because of that, like it or not, a certain amount of personal judgment has to be used. If you are interviewing for a job as a computer programmer where extremely small details are the difference between a wildly successful project and a dramatic failure, the fact that you don't have the focus/energy to even keep your car clean tells me something. If the job requires a person to stay late for a week or so every quarter, but the candidate isn't even motivated enough to keep their house clean, then that is a warning to me.

Is this fair? Absolutely not, but it is reality. Hiring someone is about minimizing the chances of hiring a poor candidate, so (like it or not) we have to make judgement calls that occasionally are simply not fair.

Quote:
I see where you are coming from. But I still argue that it's dangerous to only hire people who are interested in 1 particular sport. You still have not answered my question: what are they supposed to do if overtime is needed on a winter weekend, and nobody is willing to cancel their ski trip and work overtime? The company will be in very serious trouble. You can't just threaten to fire those who don't work the overtime, or else you'd be firing everyone, and would be left with literally no staff.

Do you understand my point that, due to "group cohesiveness", they are right to primarily hire skiiers, that it is still to the company's advantage to hire a small number of non-conforming employees (in this case, non-skiiers), even if for no other reason than to work overtime when nobody else is willing to do so?
You might be getting posts confused. Another poster brought up the skiing example, and I made the statement that hiring all skiers isn't something that would build a strong culture, but hiring all people who enjoy sports in general would.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DubbleT View Post
So they don't click with YOU? Maybe something about you makes them uncomfortable or nervous. What if they were able to click with your partner, or the person that would be their direct supervisor, or other people on the team? I simply don't see why one persons opinion as to whether someone is likable should make so much difference.
I've had several managers over the years, some I clicked with and others not so much. It does not make a lot of difference to my job performance, until there is a situation of active dislike for someone.
Whether or not the click with me is not what I am talking about. I am talking about if they don't click with the culture of the team I lead, and the culture of the company I work for. I represent a team, not myself. Having a team where everyone on the team 'clicks' is a great way to produce dramatic results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 12:49 PM
 
Location: California / Maryland / Cape May
1,548 posts, read 2,514,240 times
Reputation: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobless and Broke View Post
OK, I finally got a Human Resources person to tell me why I was not hired into a job that I put so much effort into the application process. I put together lots of supplemental information; tried to create a link between the job description and my background and studied lots of interview books.

So here is the reason they said I was not hired: Likability. They did not like me.

Is this a good reason? I was hired to work not put on a coffee party, right?

I was interviewed for an Office Manager job.
Yes and no. One of my first jobs I was completely under-qualified for, in my opinion. After I landed the job, I inquired why they picked me over others with more experience and certifications and they said that they can send me to school for anything I needed to know, but no classes can teach me how to be likeable.

Fast forward to the rest of my career, after hiring and firing assistants of my own, I completely get that sentiment now (likeability is far more important to me than most anything else).

Now, if you're working in a role where you have little to no contact with others, I'd say it's less important. If you're in a role such as Office Manager, likeability is surely a large component of the role.

I hate to say it, but you asked for opinions, and that's mine.

Either way, good luck. I'm sure you'll find the right match soon!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 01:25 PM
 
26,590 posts, read 54,571,346 times
Reputation: 13019
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
How so? My job has absolutely nothing at all to do with skiing. So why is it that you say skiing is "extremely relevant to my job"?



I see where you are coming from. But I still argue that it's dangerous to only hire people who are interested in 1 particular sport. You still have not answered my question: what are they supposed to do if overtime is needed on a winter weekend, and nobody is willing to cancel their ski trip and work overtime? The company will be in very serious trouble. You can't just threaten to fire those who don't work the overtime, or else you'd be firing everyone, and would be left with literally no staff.

Do you understand my point that, due to "group cohesiveness", they are right to primarily hire skiiers, that it is still to the company's advantage to hire a small number of non-conforming employees (in this case, non-skiiers), even if for no other reason than to work overtime when nobody else is willing to do so?
If it's a company that sells skis, I can see why they wouldn't want to hire anyone who doesn't participate in the sport.

The obvious answer to the question, "Do you ski?" is "No, but I enjoy the atmosphere at ski lodges--I love to sit in a hot tub with snow all around." It shows that while you don't participate in that sport, you understand it and would be able to fit in with the skiers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top