|
BillWoodruff wrote: In my opinion short-term Cognitive Behavioral therapy (CBT) is often effective for helping people who have such "rigidly defended" points-of-view, and are often suffering depression, and frustration, at being stuck in old habits, and stereotyped patterns of behavior.
Could that be a smirk I'm detecting? 
BillWoodruff wrote: Speaking as a former licensed psychotherapist, and Board Certified Member of the American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama
You must know the field well. I know better than to cross paths with psychotherapist! 
|
|
|
|
|
Salaam, Abbas, no smirk intended; i'm just an old whale blowing his spout as he is about to beach himself. i am certain you are a healthy, happy, and productive, young man !
the one thing i try and never underestimate is the ability of individuals to grow and change; at the same time, healthy people can maintain a set of core values that are consistent, and that they/we struggle to defend as we encounter the inevitable speed-bumps on the path of life: loss, disease, hardship, bad luck, family difficulties, etc.etc.
Gandhi-ji said: "I want the winds of all cultures to blow around my house, but, I don't want to be knocked over by any of them.
Remember what Kabir, and Gandhi said, and forget what bill said
cheers, bill
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Abbas, no smirk intended
I'm sure, I was just joking around. Perhaps I should've been clearer...
BillWoodruff wrote: the ability of individuals to grow and change
Sure, people do change (in their actions), their nature remains the same their instincts will always deceive their better judgement. Not that I'm taking away any credit from them, it takes great effort and care to do so. But my point was the very nature does not change, it is that voice in your head that keeps telling you to avoid doing the right thing. It is that compulsion in our heads that tentatively draws us towards our own undoing. And just like any other bad habbit, when you give in to it even once, you've gone back to your old ways.
BillWoodruff wrote: forget what bill said
No, give yourself a little credit.
|
|
|
|
|
People learn my imitation of others, rather than their taught learning.
In the article (covers more than cooking!) How do people learn to cook a poisonous plant safely? - BBC News[^] we see we are creatures of social habit. We often don't really learn, unless shown, so that we can 'copy'.
The hiring methods only need to work adequately, rather than well.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilipOakley wrote: People learn my imitation of others, rather than their taught learning.
If that is true for you, how do you account for the murder of the English language in this sentence  PhilipOakley wrote: The hiring methods only need to work adequately, rather than well.
I hope you are joking !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: murder of the English language
As a Yorkshire man living in Scotland, I've yet to find a real English language... 
BillWoodruff wrote: hiring methods... joking !
Semi-seriously, as a Systems Engineer, the idea of the `hiring process` is to have 100% of folks be out of the top 5%, which isn't sustainable across the industry.
You get ~50% of folks out of the top ~40% (with the difference being those who don't get the employment . Performance is generally determined by the system that the component is in. It's only when the system has few components that it can be the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
As a Yorkshire man living in Scotland, I've yet to find a real English language...
So, everyone from Yorkshire is retarded in terms of spelling, and grammar ... or, is it bagpipes' related brain damage from living in Scotland ?.Semi-seriously, as a Systems Engineer, the idea of the `hiring process` is to have 100% of folks be out of the top 5%, which isn't sustainable across the industry. You get ~50% of folks out of the top ~40% (with the difference being those who don't get the employment . Performance is generally determined by the system that the component is in. It's only when the system has few components that it can be the other way around.
You must be part Irish to spout blarney like this.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
That is beautifully said. The problem is not ones nature, but self esteem. Early in my career as a software developer, a coworker enlighten me to the fact the software genius that architected the whole system related his code to his genital size.
It was only a few years ago when I was working with someone else of that nature and that person was going off on a rant about something I realized I suffered from the same problem a bit. I vowed to change where I get I sense of self and today I am a much better team player than I was 20 years ago.
I didn’t ‘change my nature’, rather I cleared out the weeds so the flower can grow. It is hard, hard work, but anyone can do it if they want and have good folks to support and guide them.
|
|
|
|
|
The personality of one ex-coworker made two people (1/3rd of that team), including me, quit the company.
Having a toxic coworker can severely damage your product, the team and your company.
No amount of technical skills (or whatever profession you're in) can change that.
I've had another such coworker at another company who didn't make anyone leave, but probably only because he was one of the bosses and he could work alone for the most part.
His personality made that he called the customer and asked "I'm reading in your document about an EPAL-pallet, but what's that?"
The definition of an EPAL-pallet is easily Googlable, he could've asked a coworker, it wasn't necessary to complete the job to begin with, but he called the customer making the whole company look like a fool who clearly didn't have domain knowledge (while that was kind of our sales pitch).
I think the customer even asked for a discount because of that phone call, because they expected real professionals who knew what an EPAL-pallet was.
Another time, a coworker and me where waiting at the client, it was like 8:55 and we had a meeting at 09:00, so this EPAL-pallet guy comes in and says, in front of the CFO who occassionally gave us a hard time, "well then, I see [name of our company] is standing with it's hands in their pockets." He then grabbed his laptop and started to work (he wasn't invited for the meeting).
He honestly did not see the damage he had just done while my coworker and I were holding our breath (luckily, we never heard from that incident again).
That's what the personality of one person can do.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a growing trend, I think.
More companies seem to be looking for professionals who can communicate pleasantly, fluently and with self-confidence first, and do all the rest second, as everything else is more and more expected by-default.
It's probably because of Agile and SCRUM.
More meetings basically means we need better soft-skills, or meetings become a chore with struggling ego's and pointless debates about personal preferences.
Here's a thought experiment:
Imagine an enterprise meeting room with a product owner, a system architect, a back-end dev, a tester and a senior analyst talking about anything work related for an hour.
Are you starting to feel nauseous yet? 
|
|
|
|
|
Very well-said. cheers, Bill
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
My old company had a no a**holes policy. They were burned one time too many by smart-ish jerks whose ability to stop a project with pointless squabbling, and rudeness out weighed their ability to complete a project.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Seem a bit contradictory ?
Not at all. Confidence is important to communicate with trust, specially if we have multidisciplinary engagements and sometimes, with clients. Confidence is very important to firmly show a point so its absorbed by the audience. Whereas overconfidence is very dangerous and can easily blind the overconfident from the truth (and blind others too) and can also quickly lead to arrogance. When someone is overconfident re-validation of his beliefs do not happen as frequently as they should.
BillWoodruff wrote: ... how much does personality come into play ...
A lot! I for one have experienced a fair share of behavior that can intoxicate a whole team. You mentioned extreme behavior, but the extreme behavior in many ways are silent. Someone that is overconfident may shadow an entire team and enforce the rule of "my way or the highway". I have seem plenty of this happening to teams I participated in and also the ones I had contact with. Some types of behavior can can hinder innovation, demotivate peers and simply steer the team in the wrong direction as if it was right.
Teaching skills is much cheaper and faster than changing someone's behavior and also carries a lot less risk to the company. All we need is someone eager to learn and with the right cultural fit in the company and the team.
BillWoodruff wrote: I hate that inevitable question about: "the time when you made a mistake ..." !
It is a great question! It can tell a lot about the candidate's ability to admit he makes mistakes and how he deals with it. Hiding a mistake can be very costly and have worse consequences than the mistake itself. Learning how the candidate deals with mistakes can tell a lot about his arrogance or humbleness, his ability to react to negative situations, teamwork, ability to learn and adapt. This question alone can help raise lots of flags about the candidate.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Confidence? Does that include the confidence to let the interviewer know that you don't want to work with him/her?
The most recent interview that I deliberately "flubbed" was with RIM a few years back (shortly before they went bankrupt). I had pretty much decided I did not want to work with the folks that were interviewing me (I thought their interview technique was essentially useless, and they appeared to be having problems with employee retention), when they asked, "How good are you at multi-tasking?"
My reply: "I suck at it, and so do you, especially if you think you don't." That little truth-bomb was pretty much the end of the interview.
|
|
|
|
|
celticfiddler wrote: Confidence? Does that include the confidence to let the interviewer know that you don't want to work with him/her?
I guess. The moment that you feel you don't want to work with them, you can end the interview right there (you don't need to be impolite) so you stop wasting both people's times.
celticfiddler wrote: That little truth-bomb was pretty much the end of the interview.
Although I can understand the motivation for having a little bit of fun before ending the interview, I wouldn't do it myself. That's a little bit of my life experience that what goes around comes around.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
The Dunning-Kruger effect is not about "confidence" as that word is commonly used [^].
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
It seems similar to the effect when people believe their own lies.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
It works both ways, I have interviewed with very inexperienced interviewers who were so nervous that as a young man I was unequipped to deal with that. In that instance, neither has a strong enough personality to make the interview work.
In other situations I interviewed with an interviewer who had a really strong personality. It felt like an interrogation, I came out shaking, though I did get the job. It turns out he was doing that on purpose and he was impressed that I did not break down during the interview.
In another case I was interviewed by someone who was roughly my equal though he was more mature. The interviews went well, I got the job.
So, yes, personality matters, it always will. At least until Robots and AI's are doing the hiring, then it will be one sided, until the applicants are robots and AI's.
|
|
|
|
|
The very best programmers I have ever worked with were mildly to severely introverted, and mildly to moderately (high-functioning) autistic.
When I started my career as a programmer, I was very slightly introverted, and more than just slightly autistic. As my career progressed, I became more introverted, and less autistic (I think the latter was mostly due to dietary changes).
Since I am personally familiar with introversion and autism, if I was interviewing a programmer for a position at my company, I would look for signs of both of those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jakeshare wrote: Nobody wants to work with a dick who's an expert at (e.g.) C++ and is obnoxiously right most of the time.
Glad to see you have an active fantasy life 
jakeshare wrote: Hard skills training is a lot easier than soft skills training
I can see why you're a recruiter.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a recruiter. I teach people how to find jobs.
---
Job Search Expert
JobMob
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on not being a recruiter !
I read your article up until I read:Quote: Why are soft skills important?
A 1918 study – yes, over 100 years ago – by Harvard University, the Carnegie Foundation and Stanford Research Center, found that “85% of a person’s job success is a product of interpersonal (soft) skills and that only 15% of his success is the result of technical knowledge (hard skills).”
Does that still hold up today? It certainly feels right, give or take.
What is true is that many recruiters prefer candidates having all the desired soft skills while missing some of the required hard skills rather than vice-versa. Hard skills training is a lot easier than soft skills training.
At which point I threw up 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shirley you mean "Last 0.3048 meterage of Kilometres Davis".
Get hip with the times, Baby!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
