 |
 |
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Tom Johnson < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > .... > At the very least, if you're going to hire for personality traits, you need > to do some very serious thinking about whether and why you think those > traits will actually make the person more effective at their job. Do the > reasons amount to prejudice? Are they exploitative in some other way? > This is what it boils down to. These traits can be slippery at times, but they are still essential. A person is much more than a set of skills, how long they've warmed their chair, and whatever they can tick off on their resume. Whatever you do, you have to engage well with the rest of the team and help bring out best in others. You need to identify and be working on problems before anyone knows they exist. No amount of knowledge can make up for a bad attitude and lack of motivation. This works both ways. What makes a job great or lousy is rarely what people ask about. You can have a great title, great pay, good budget, etc, but that does you little good if you have to work in a dysfunctional atmosphere. One of the questions I always ask is "If I'm hired, what will I really wish I asked a year from now?" You want to know about turf and trust issues, screwball personnel situations, and a host of other things that make or break an environment. There absolutely is such thing as "fit" and I've been told before that I wasn't a fit. That's not fun if you don't have a job already (which was the case for me at the time). But the institution that did this was absolutely right. None of us fit everywhere, so when the fit is bad, you're way better off going someplace where you have a better chance of succeeding. kyle