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.
How else am I going to learn, if not from the wisdom and intellect of others who are further along? If I had the resources, I'd hire an entire team of mentors and advisers for myself.
Simple question: Let say you’re a hiring manager. Would you hire someone ‘smarter’ than you?
If you hire that smart person your team and company become more successful and your job easier. You don’t have to micromanage. S/he can come up with great ideas, help with process improvements, and so on.
On the contrary, this person will get bored with less challenging tasks, and may eventually look for another job. Further s/he could grow into taking your job and do it better than you.
Absolutely? That's a bonus in my book
In general though - I would hire the best person for the role. While intelligence is a factor, it's not the only one or is it always the sole factor. The best person for the role may not be the smartest person that interviewed.
As for the bolded - while that can happen. I don't see that as a automatic concern. Their experience/interests is a bigger factor to them being challenged/unchallenged vs. their intelligence alone.
I wouldn't hire simply on the basis of being smart.
I used to work for a tech company that screened for intelligence with a certain test. Passing the test was mandatory to be hired. The "issue" was that so many of the candidates, even the computer/software engineers they were purportedly targeting, failed the test, and anyone who passed the test was basically given an offer.
What we ended up with were a bunch of very smart type A personalities and often big egos who couldn't work together. People were constantly trying to one-up each other. Some people would throw fellow employees under the bus to curry favor with a customer. Others basically tried to cowboy things on their own, thinking they were smarter than everyone else. Teams never really gelled.
I wouldn't hire simply on the basis of being smart.
I used to work for a tech company that screened for intelligence with a certain test. Passing the test was mandatory to be hired. The "issue" was that so many of the candidates, even the computer/software engineers they were purportedly targeting, failed the test, and anyone who passed the test was basically given an offer.
What we ended up with were a bunch of very smart type A personalities and often big egos who couldn't work together. People were constantly trying to one-up each other. Some people would throw fellow employees under the bus to curry favor with a customer. Others basically tried to cowboy things on their own, thinking they were smarter than everyone else. Teams never really gelled.
No question that this can be a problem, but I interpreted the question not as "would you hire someone with serious employability and interpersonal problems because they're smarter than you?" but rather as "would you be afraid to hire an otherwise suitable person because they're smarter than you?"
Given the extremely large number of people who are smarter than me, it's almost inevitable.
I wouldn't hire simply on the basis of being smart.
I used to work for a tech company that screened for intelligence with a certain test. Passing the test was mandatory to be hired. The "issue" was that so many of the candidates, even the computer/software engineers they were purportedly targeting, failed the test, and anyone who passed the test was basically given an offer.
What we ended up with were a bunch of very smart type A personalities and often big egos who couldn't work together. People were constantly trying to one-up each other. Some people would throw fellow employees under the bus to curry favor with a customer. Others basically tried to cowboy things on their own, thinking they were smarter than everyone else. Teams never really gelled.
Being smart is measured different ways. Hiring people based purely in intellectual ability (or technical ability) is often a mistake. There are a lot of people who are very intelligent (more often than not engineers/developers/technical workers) who are lower on the side of social skills. We can debate the terminology for it (intelligence vs being smart, intelligence vs wisdom, IQ vs EQ, etc.) but raw intelligence or raw technical ability is maybe 1/2 of what people are looking for.
I can see passing a test as a baseline to get an in person interview for those kind of jobs, but in the interview they will need to show they can work on a team, they have a non-toxic personality, their ego won't be an issue, etc. At the end of the day, technical skills can be taught much easier than personality.
Absolutely, always hire those more gifted than yourself who can bring more to the table. Also always take a job where everyone is smarter than you and has more experience. It's the best way to keep growing your knowledge and capabilities.
Simple question: Let say you’re a hiring manager. Would you hire someone ‘smarter’ than you?
If you hire that smart person your team and company become more successful and your job easier. You don’t have to micromanage. S/he can come up with great ideas, help with process improvements, and so on.
On the contrary, this person will get bored with less challenging tasks, and may eventually look for another job. Further s/he could grow into taking your job and do it better than you.
The best boss I ever had told a story of how she found her director of education..
She was giving a lecture for continuing education which the future DOE was attending. Apparently, the boss (who is intelligent in many ways, but not the traditional "book smarts" studious type) made a couple of errors, which the future DOE was quick to correct. Boss said after the 2nd time "lady if you keep correcting me, I'm going to have to hire you!" Which she did.
Yes, I think the "boss" is the one with charisma, a figure head, but perhaps not the smartest person in the room if we are judging by IQ type smarts.
The best boss I ever had told a story of how she found her director of education..
She was giving a lecture for continuing education which the future DOE was attending. Apparently, the boss (who is intelligent in many ways, but not the traditional "book smarts" studious type) made a couple of errors, which the future DOE was quick to correct. Boss said after the 2nd time "lady if you keep correcting me, I'm going to have to hire you!" Which she did.
Yes, I think the "boss" is the one with charisma, a figure head, but perhaps not the smartest person in the room if we are judging by IQ type smarts.
that sounds like something I would do! I'm actually not detail oriented or studious. I'm great at motivating, listening, leading, and directing. But nothing feels better than hiring people that are detail/task oriented. We are a match made in heaven!
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.
