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.
Ugh, since when? I already spend 8 hours a day with these people. That's enough. If they want people to have a balanced amount of time between work and their real lives where they may want to see loved ones, their kids, their REAL friends, etc, then shorten the workday and use that extra hour just for these purposes.
I get socializing occasionally, but in some environments (a lot) they expect it every chance they get. For everything. Lunch. After work. If you seem to have some down time. And worse yet, they are NOT your friends. Say the wrong thing and you may be out of a job or seen as weird. So why pretend?
I think for the people who want work bffs, they eed to feel like they know the real you. I am pretty private with most coworkers, but i generally share one aspect of my life, a pretty neutral topic. For example, i'll be open about what i'm reading and what i like to eat (i am a foodie). They'll know a lot about one area of my life and feel like i am letting them in, while i do not have to give up anything particularly sensitive.
Quote:
Good point. I've never heard of an extrovert getting canned for not wanting to socialize, but I guess there must be cases like these. Thanks for sharing that perspective. But like I said, they do get the fact that they will never be true BFF's, right? Because you can say anything with your real friends, act however, be yourself, etc. You can't be that way after work, or during work, with your coworkers, so them thinking you're building real relationships are BS. And then if they fire you, all that relationship building goes out the window.
Lol generally my rule is i can form friendships with peers outside of my department. Everyone else is off limits. But tread carefully until you know the politics.
I do best in work environs where everyone is friendly, but there are few outside of work friendship expectations. Once or twice a month is fine, bookended on the workday.
Pretty much and if I go through an entire interview without discussing chemistry and instead the interview is based on HR quackery then it raises red flags in my mind. Will I be spending my time carrying the slack or cleaning up after all those "great fit" hires? I've had that experience.
Like I said a lot of hiring teams have seriously Fed up priorities. It will cost them a lot of money and productivity but they will probably never learn.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,045,818 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations
We had a candidate come in for an interview today who had an absolutely sterling resume. She was the perfect technical fit. We essentially do round-robin interviews where most of the staff interview the candidate for short amounts of time (15-30 minutes). The theory is seeing how she reacts to both technical questions from other staff and more social/behavioral stuff I will ask.
This candidate just didn't have the "it" factor. On paper, she was great, but in person, she was completely flat. She did nothing wrong, but didn't make anyone want to hire her.
She has great qualifications, but never made us really think we should hire her. Are the soft skills more valuable than technical ones?
No, but they're just as important. I've worked with some absolutely brilliant and hard working people, that were still not productive employees because they couldn't communicate ideas, engage in real conversation (as opposed to speaking at someone), and work as a team.
So again, I return to a question that never really got answered before.
How does a hard-working, polite person who nonetheless does not have that "it quality" find a good company that will accept him? I don't think most introverts/awkward people are going to go for the retail job that works on commission or cold calls, or want to work in the open-office format where you're working as teams all day long. But there are lots of behind-the-scenes jobs people need to do, right? If even "brilliant and hard working people" are seen as liabilities if they're not able to schmooze well, where do they go?
So again, I return to a question that never really got answered before.
How does a hard-working, polite person who nonetheless does not have that "it quality" find a good company that will accept him? I don't think most introverts/awkward people are going to go for the retail job that works on commission or cold calls, or want to work in the open-office format where you're working as teams all day long. But there are lots of behind-the-scenes jobs people need to do, right? If even "brilliant and hard working people" are seen as liabilities if they're not able to schmooze well, where do they go?
Again, I kind of need a definition for what the "it" quality is. I could say that it's having an outgoing personality. Or maybe it's an apparent willingness to learn. Someone who seems loyal? Someone who's smart? A social-butterfly of an extrovert? Someone who is undoubtedly attractive? Without said definition I can't tell you, because my answer would vary.
Beats me. I've been told all my life by my friends (independently, from different walks of life) that they're glad they "gave me a chance" to get to know me, because my first impressions are always awkward. I can't figure out what they mean, and I've pressed for specifics, but no one ever really says anything, they just say that it's intangible. Even my husband says that I say the right things (politeness, etc.) but I come across... sketchy, or dishonest, until people realize that I'm genuinely not. I asked him about that, as it wouldn't even cross my mind to be deceptive to anyone, and he just shrugs and says he's not sure. Another good friend said that I'm a lovely person but I'm definitely not charming. Whatever THAT is supposed to mean. I've studied up on body language, small talk techniques, etc. Now that I'm older (early 30's) it's not that big of an issue, and I guess I'm not as awkward as I used to be, but these things make me wonder. I consider myself fairly intelligent, I'm definitely reliable, hard-working, honest, and aim to do the best job I can whatever I'm doing. But threads like this make me seriously wonder if the jobs I've had in the past were due to just random strokes of luck.
I know, in retrospect, that I totally fudged up my shot at getting hired when I was an intern because I did zero socializing, I just stuck to work. And another workplace had a brutal social environment, so much so that I quit very early on - when I wasn't getting hit on by the resident social worker (in a totally obvious and inappropriate manner), I had the staff coming in and straight laughing in my face, saying they "could never respect me because I looked young enough to be in middle in school." (I was done with college by then.) Maybe if I had been more socially smooth, I could have somehow gotten past those situations, but as it was... it wasn't a good work environment - even though the actual WORK part I was fine at.
The point of an interview is to determine the best fit and get a sense of the person and their personality, otherwise you would just pick one of the resumes and hire - no questions asked (I got my first job like this).
No one wants to work in a miserable place. Morale is important. It's just as important as productivity. People will be inclined to leave when possible if they are unhappy. A hiring manager should do everything in his/her power to foster a good work environment.
I thought that the major part of the interview was, yes, seeing how people can present themselves (are they neat and dressed professionally, are they polite, etc.) but more so, elaborating on the skills on their resume and seeing how their skills would transfer to the job. And also to elaborate more on the job description, negotiate salary expectations, etc. Maybe even give a test of "how would you handle this job-related situation". Unless the job description involved some sort of really creative task, I wouldn't consider tests of "thinking on your feet" to be really super essential unless directly related to the job.
But hey, I'm not in HR. When I choose people to work with on projects, I look to see whether they can do the job well, not necessarily if they're likeable or not. But we collaborate remotely, and communicate mostly via email, so I guess it's not as bad as if I was spending eight hours a day with them in the same building.
After reading more of the responses on this thread, I have amended my view to only include one thing:
It matters how well you mesh with your manager/supervisor, more than your coworkers. Honestly, the superior/subordinate working relationship is what can make or break the experience at an employer. Coworkers can be changed out at a more frequent rate than your superior. IMO, I think at an interview if employers are truly interested to see how a candidate will fit in, they should meet the potential supervisor, do a short "shadowing" or sorts with the supervisor, and get feedback from both. It is so easy to pass off a contrived "oh, he/she's perfect" during the interview with a department manager or hiring recruiter.
A hiring manager should do everything in his/her power to foster a good work environment.
It's a great idea in theory.
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.
