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.
I would argue it's that H1B that is more of the problem.
Uhm, that was sarcasm. Asians actually have a substantially higher median income than whites, and every other racial group for that matter. And higher levels of educational attainment as well. No coincidence between the two, of course. The point being that the idea of interviewer bias disfavoring Asians is ludicrous on its face; and to the extent that it might actually be true, that bias is obviously greatly outweighed by other factors in their favor.
No, they're supposed to select the best person for the company, but that is a far cry from the one with the most merit. Very often the most technically skilled, the brightest, the one with the most ability, is not the best person for the company within a specific position. Only going with the brightest or the one with the most merit will destroy you.
The best person for the company is by definition the person who adds the most value to the company not the person that adds the best value to the manager's or coworkers social club. That last sentence is preposterous unless the person is extremely antisocial.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
The best person for the company is by definition the person who adds the most value to the company not the person that adds the best value to the manager's or coworkers social club. That last sentence is preposterous unless the person is extremely antisocial.
It isn't preposterous at all. When you're hiring people, you're building a team. The best person stats wise very often isn't the best person for the team. You can pull together a team full of all stars, but they won't be the best for your company. A bit of a sports analogy, but as it works in sports it works with the workforce team.
Introverted or not, if a person cannot clearly articulate what they have accomplished in previous jobs, then I cannot consider hiring them. They need to be able to communicate and do so with confidence. This is a company, not a cloistered monastery.
And what makes you think they are truthful about what they accomplished at a previous job and how do you verify it. That is the entire point of the article. You are being duped into hiring subpar BSers who agrandize themselves and their accomplishments.
There's no I in team. Do you know how miserable it is to work with someone that is a recluse and doesn't want or know how to interact with the section/team members?
Every workplace has a personality all its' own. To step outside that will be changing that cultural dynamic, most managers would rather avoid, especially if the team is firing on all cylinders.
I think you need to read up on management 101, Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning.
Are there bad managers out there? Yes. Are there terrible cultural environments you would rather not be apart of? Yes, but that is the reason for the interview. It's to see if you would fit in with the company and if you would personally want to be in that culture. The only difference is the employee needs to the employer much more these days, as the job market is lacking. So, you end up with people in positions just because they are positions, not because they necessarily want to be there in the first place.
No one is trying to say that corporate politics and favoritism is a great thing.
Let's not confuse shyness with introversion. Big difference between the 2. Sure, there are shy introverts -- and there are also shy extroverts.
Exactly my brother is less shy than I am but he is an introvert with personal information. He only told the family that he was dating someone when he was not going to be able to help with cleaning on a Sunday. Otherwise we may have never found out about it. Me, I am shy in situations that I don't need to not be shy (say interviews or jobs that require me being out going.) I wouldn't say I am similar with personal information. Not giving personal information off the bat isn't that bad of a thing.
And what makes you think they are truthful about what they accomplished at a previous job and how do you verify it. That is the entire point of the article. You are being duped into hiring subpar BSers who agrandize themselves and their accomplishments.
Part of being in management is reading people. You know the same way you know a plumber is giving you b.s. when you ask him what's wrong. You learn to probe enough until they either convince you or hang themselves. It's called street smarts.
It's not just about what they say, by the way, it's the way they carry themselves, answer questions and their body language.
If someone is so quiet they cannot tell me what they've accomplished, even in humble terms, they won't be a good fit for my team.
As far as verifying it, that's what references are for.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
Part of being in management is reading people. You know the same way you know a plumber is giving you b.s. when you ask him what's wrong. You learn to probe enough until they either convince you or hang themselves. It's called street smarts.
It's also why we often go the networking route for candidates as opposed to just placing an ad on a job board. We generally find far better qualified candidates by having our team reach out to their networks, and in this respect we can talk to people we know and trust about the candidates. No, not the no information reference we get from HR or their manager that has to follow company guidelines, but the feedback from a person that is willing to talk about real strengths and weaknesses of a potential candidate.
While the death of investigative and factual journalism is a valid topic for discussion, I think it is difficult to disagree with the article.
Pretty much everything in corporate culture rewards extroverts and those who are good at self-marketing and taking credit. That is frustrating enough for skilled introverts who don't make a hobby out of bragging, but it really becomes an issue when morons and idiots get hired, retained, or promoted based on BS vs. ability. This, again, is something that happens frequently, and while there's no clear-cut solution, it is a problem that should be recognized. I just wish corporate leaders were more clued-in on this and were not so easily deceived by a smiling face and a hand-shake from a "buddy."
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.
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.
