Top 7 Qualities Employers are Looking for in Candidates

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, what I meant that 'personal best' for everyone is relative. I never intended that 'personal best' be a finite description.

For example, regarding my workplace, I do not feel adept at organizing my papers. I may be seen by others as adept in doing this, though I strongly doubt it. For now, my personal best in this area is to group them according to broad subject area. In the future, my personal best may be to organize them by subject, then by date within that subject file folder, and then when I get to that level, to further advance and to color code the specific items on each page that relate to different project lines.

When I played on a soccer team... the personal best for my teammates was to pass the ball up the field and score a goal. My personal best was to understand the communication from my teammates and to hopefully kick the ball in the general right direction.

As a person who provides children's programs, which is my area of focus and special interest, it is to provide the most innovative programs that meet community needs.

I don't know that there is a rubric. Usually, I take a look at what my boss, coworkers, my job coach and the few friends that I have say, and try to better myself in whatever area I am being criticized.

My aunt, who is a principal of a large school, told me that when it comes to self improvemtn, people will tell me things that I will not enjoy hearing, but that I am to respect them, to take their words into consideration and to act on them. This was said after I had a meltdown when my aunt tried giving me decorating tips for my apartment. Without knowing it, I hurt her pretty badly. Her sage words about listening and trying to improve kept me from being fired on one or two occasions.

What you must grow in is whatever things your employer says you must do in order to stay employed or become a candidate for promotion, if promotion is what you wish. Personal growth also entails developing yourself wherever you feel that it is necessary to live your life the way in which you, and your family if you have one, will be most happy.

I'd say no, we do NOT have freedom of expression in the workplace. When somebody is paying you to do a job for them, they are paying you to do a job for them, not to express yourself. As a rugged individualist myself, I would strongly suggest you save your individuality for your own time.

In fact, I would go one step further: Keep your opinions to yourself unless you are directly asked for them. This is true for everybody, but doubly true for aspies. Just as your rump is on the line if you don't do your job, the same is true for your boss. The best approach is for you to do your job and let your boss do his or hers.

As far as being a leader goes, I'm not big into pop psychology and the management fad du jour. My definition of leadership goes straight back to Machiavelli: We can't make our subordinates love us--and if they do, we're likely not doing our jobs. But we can make our subordinates fear us or hate us. The trick is to make one's subordinates fear us without hating us.

This does NOT in any way justify, rude, boorish, or imperious treatment of employees. What I'm referring to is a sword of Damocles--the unspoken fact in all work places that one either does his job well and without causing more problems than he solves, or one is gone. That is the fear element.

The hate element is engaging in the aforementioned demeaning behaviors without good reason, and should be avoided at all costs. The good boss only uses his authority insofar as it is necessary to do the job. It is his job to do so while treating his employees with dignity and respect.

There is a fine line between touchy-feely and being a hated tyrant. Good leadership is about walking that line. It is not necessary that employees love their boss; but it is necessary that they don't hate him.

I learned my leadership techniques while serving in the Navy. And while they are hardly universally popular in today's therapeutic culture, they have worked since time immemorial, and continue to work to this day. It's a matter of keeping things as simple and painless as possible by using time-tested techniques.

"Oh, what I meant that 'personal best' for everyone is relative. I never intended that 'personal best' be a finite description."

What Tina says is definitely the case. Once one has mastered their own job reasonably well, then one can set one's sights on mastering the job they want, which is how promotions happen. But do NOT, under any circumstances, try to show one's boss up. Merely observe what one's boss does so that it can be emulated.

For example, regarding my workplace, I do not feel adept at organizing my papers. I may be seen by others as adept in doing this, though I strongly doubt it. For now, my personal best in this area is to group them according to broad subject area. In the future, my personal best may be to organize them by subject, then by date within that subject file folder, and then when I get to that level, to further advance and to color code the specific items on each page that relate to different project lines.

One very slight qualification to my thoughts on organization: The good boss does not micromanage. The good boss is one who allows his or her employees a certain amount of latitude in their procedures while focusing on the end result and ensuring that proper protocol is maintained. And normally a boss will not micromanage as long as an employee is producing satisfactorily, though there certainly are unfortunate exceptions. So, if Tina wants to keep her desk messy, as I keep my own, the good boss will be indulgent provided we the end result is satisfactory.

You brought up the therapeutic culture and Machiavelli. I have further questions on these things here.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt235062.html

What you two said is awesome. You all give specific examples. When you all break this stuff down to me like this I can understand what is required of me. Why don't some people or the articles talk in specifics like you two do? Why can't I ever get simple straightforward answers even from the psychologists like I can get here?

As far as psychologists go, they are working their way into much-deserved obsolescence and irrelevance. The first rule of ethics is where one can do no good, one must do no harm. In my experience, psychologists create more problems for us than they solve.

The last psychologist I saw--and it will be the last--told me to close my eyes and dream. And that if I dream it, it is real--that reality is a totally plastic commodity. I told her my dream was not to pay her bill, and to fly out her second-floor window and across the street to my truck, and I got up and left. It's not only more harmful than helpful, it's a waste of perfectly good time and money.

Was this a real psychologist or a charlatan? How was closing your eyes, going to sleep and dreaming supposed to do anything for you? Was it a relaxation technique?

I found my psychologist helpful. I think it sometimes can sometimes be down to who you get. But I applied for my diagnosis through the Learning Disabilities Association in my province, so they consult with psychologists who know something about developmental disorders, attention disorders and learning disorders, as these conditions go hand in hand sometimes.

Maybe I did not understand freedom of expression enough. What I understood was freedom of expression through dress, artwork you might put at your desk, or way you rearrange the look of your workspace. If it does not interfere with the policy of the workplace and it does not hurt your ability to do whatever it is that your boss wants, do it. But if your boss says to do something, you do it.

Please, understand that I am giving you advice that I have learned as a manager this past year. And very very hard-won knowledge that I got in my job last year, where I had never had so many complaints and subtly nuanced messages thrown at me. I constantly felt so confused, to say the least!

Workplaces can look challenging! I am glad that you are asking these questions here on Wrongplanet. Some people just think that there are things that they do not have to explain. Luckily, i have a good friend with whom I have phone conversations, and she does not shy away from telling me the 'straight facts' when I ask about my social skills, or about body language. I will try to be like her in this way the best I can. Know that I will not be twofaced...if you have further questions, ask them! I will try to answer if I see them!

My definition includes what you said and more. My definition also includes offering suggestions and questioning bosses and co-workers there especially if it would help improve their processes or I am trying to understand something. Mine means I can state that x is a bad idea and the reason I believe so is a, b and c without being told I am being negative. Mine means that I can say straight away why I don't like to shake hands with a firm grip because I don't want to hurt the other person and I am being considerate to that. This is overlooked and accepted. My certain quirks and body language is accepted as is and is a form of self-expression.

Mine means that I should be able to complain about something to be able to vent it out and then get to work. Mine is that I should be able to express negative emotions to a certain degree. Let's face it. I am a natural grump. In the workplace I will have many complaints but at the end of the day I have a job to do. It has to get done. To be forced to pretend that I like it and everything is okay is a hard pill for me to swallow. I would get on board but I should be able to say that "this sucks" and express my discontent. Of course I would not actually say "this sucks." I would express it in a polite way and respectful way of course. After that, I need to go get a cup of coffee and then I have to quit complaining and get my butt back to work and do whatever the top heads want. This is how I think about it. At the end of the day, it has to be done. If extra crates have to be moved that weren't anticipated then my coworkers and I have to move those crates at the end of it all. What is expected is for me to be positive 24/7. I can't do that. Finding problems and solving them is who I am. I am not Pollyanna.




I do indeed understand.



Why is this?



With certain compromises of course why do I have to have this so called perfect ideal body language? Why can't I be who I am and they accept certain quirks? Of course, I would not streak naked, scream or anything outrageous. Of course I will not make so much noise I would disturb the people around me. But c'mon, why is it a big deal that I have to shake hands with a certain grip or walk a certain way? Why can't they just overlook my reduced eye contact or just simply overlook certain things? To me, certain things borderline on ridiculousness and absurdity. Of course I am willing to compromise but how much do I have to compromise? Will I have to do that until I am not "me" anymore?

Here is my reply below.

Last edited by managertina on 11 Jul 2013, 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hey there, as usual, good questions. I have tried to answer them to the best of my knowledge at this point.

Paragraph one of your last post.

My definition includes what you said and more. My definition also includes offering suggestions and questioning bosses and co-workers there especially if it would help improve their processes or I am trying to understand something. Mine means I can state that x is a bad idea and the reason I believe so is a, b and c without being told I am being negative. Mine means that I can say straight away why I don't like to shake hands with a firm grip because I don't want to hurt the other person and I am being considerate to that. This is overlooked and accepted. My certain quirks and body language is accepted as is and is a form of self-expression.

My answer.

Your post tells me that you are a creative person with lots of ideas. If you want your ideas to be accepted by those in your workforce, it is not wise to appear to question your boss, especially in a new job. There is a reason why he or she is your boss. Or your coworkers. In questioning them outright, you appear to neglect that they are experienced too. Especially in the first year of your being new on the workforce. This is bad practice, and in some situations, it shows a lack of respect for other people, and it opens you up for criticism from your colleagues, in my opinion. If you are new, you are less likely to know whether or not your bright idea has been tried in the past, or if their are certain parameters that need to be followed for valid reasons, like legal reasons, which are frustrating barriers that your employer or coworker must follow. I wanted to criticize my workforce last year, and my coworker Laura, ever the voice of reason, explained why not to do it in a similar way to the way I just wrote it down now.

My dad, who manages sales contracts, has found success with this method. Once you have been there for a while, you might ask, 'what if I try doing x in y way? It might benefit the company by x, y and z results, and make a, b, and c easier to achieve'. There is no inherent negativity to that. There have been times this last two years when someone was bluntly negative with me about my ideas and projects, and that made me feel angry and sad. Angry that my good intentions were not being heard, so I felt, and sad that I had inspired such negativity unwittingly. This is what other people might feel to only getting negativity. You have to be gentle in correcting people, and be positive. That is a baseline rule that cannot be broken in the workplace. Freedom of expression does not exist in being negative.

Your second paragraph.

Mine means that I should be able to complain about something to be able to vent it out and then get to work. Mine is that I should be able to express negative emotions to a certain degree. Let's face it. I am a natural grump. In the workplace I will have many complaints but at the end of the day I have a job to do. It has to get done. To be forced to pretend that I like it and everything is okay is a hard pill for me to swallow. I would get on board but I should be able to say that "this sucks" and express my discontent. Of course I would not actually say "this sucks." I would express it in a polite way and respectful way of course. After that, I need to go get a cup of coffee and then I have to quit complaining and get my butt back to work and do whatever the top heads want. This is how I think about it. At the end of the day, it has to be done. If extra crates have to be moved that weren't anticipated then my coworkers and I have to move those crates at the end of it all. What is expected is for me to be positive 24/7. I can't do that. Finding problems and solving them is who I am. I am not Pollyanna.

My response.

Of course. I agree that no one can be Pollyanna all the time. People get moods from time to time. Just don't make it <I> all </I> the time. Besides, what's to say that you won't enjoy at least some of your job? If you are asked for your opinion, give it but in a positive way rather than being an outright grouch. People do not listen to grouches, and that is a fact. When your boss gives you an order and tells you something must be done in a certain way, do it that way.

My aunt, the school principal, one day told me that people will remember how I give them comments, and that if there is anything negative to be said, I must give it a day and phrase it carefully. Not being careful and considerate, I was told, damages relationships, like workplace ones. They are important.

And now my feelings on your third paragraph about body language: because it helps you fit in. And for that reason alone. You do not lose your personality. You do not become less you. It is like speaking a second language. Say for example that you learned some Spanish for a business trip. It helps you to communicate better with the locals, but you don't get less fluent in English. So, learning how to shake hands, smile and look someone in the eye won't make you any less of the curious and smart person that I see you to be. Instead it just gives you another skill.

I have been told that I will never completely fit in, but it won't stop me from trying. Total conformity is boring. Conform in necessary situations, like interviews and certain parts of the work day. Don't think of it as fitting in, but as trying to communicate with your coworkers. Fitting in and conforming is overrated, in my opinion.

I am no guru, but I just try to be as honest in giving you what I feel I have learned.

I appreciate your compliment. I understand what you're saying. I did not think of any of this especially the legal reasons. My father is retired now but he used to be a management analyst who worked for the army. He wasn't in the army mind you. During his time, there was a law in place called the Davis-Bacon act. It used to cost them a fortune to follow. He helped spearhead its repeal. During the time, he and the organization had to follow this law. As being a government bureaucrat the first and foremost they have to ask first is does it comply with the law or not whether they do or don't do something. This is top priority before anything else.



I am wondering if I am interpreting things like be yourself wrong. Maybe I can be myself and be true to myself but only within certain given parameters. I still have to conduct myself with certain proper behaviors. Am I correct so far? What happens is NTs implicitly know there are constraints and what they are. When they give advice they're giving advice like be yourself within the context of these constraints am I correct?






Oh, I thought they wanted Pollyanna all of the time. This means I missed the constraints they have and I did not stay within their context.



I kind of can do this. It's difficult for me especially when we can't just get to the point.



thanks for the compliment again. I didn't see it the way you saw it or think of it in this fashion. I will have to think about this one Tina and meditate on it.



If one can only be true to himself within certain constraints then this has to stand to reason since conformity is the opposite of being oneself that one must conform within certain constraints as well.

Check out this Venn diagram. http://tinyurl.com/phdhufr

Look at the two circles and how they're together. The orange and the green make the yellow. The yellow is a part of both the orange and green circles. Imagine the orange circle represents be true to yourself and the green represents conformity. What NTs are telling me is to constrain myself to the yellow. Am I correct?

I think what I am doing wrong is I am seeing certain things as mutually exclusive when they're not supposed to be meaning the circles do not intersect at all and there is no yellow part.



Thanks! I appreciate it.

I think that I get what you mean with regards to the Venn diagram. And I think it is in the right direction.

These questions you are asking are what I should have been thinking a couple years ago before I started being a librarian.

What sort of work do you wish to do?

Information Technology which I have a degree in. I couldn't figure out how to get into it.

Cubedemon, I think that article is spot on and your questions are mostly nit-picking. It's fine to play the devil's advocate and question things. Some of your questions are valid, but others misrepresent the article's points or interpret it too rigidly. If it helps, remember that the article was (very likely) written by an NT. These are general guidelines - they are what most employers, who know what they're doing look for for most professional jobs. There are many exceptions. Also remember that the article does not say "anyone who doesn't rank highly on all of these criteria will not get a job". It says: "this is what employers look for".

To address a few of your points:

1. Intelligence - I've always thought it was the more higher ups, mainly the manger's, duty to plan, to organize, set priorities, and solve problems. I thought it was everyone's duty to get the job done.

Yes, it is and it is. But an intelligent person will get the job done better. They also need less management and can be relied on more - that's good for managers.

Probably not because of the intelligence of the questions, per se. It may have been the way you asked or they may have just been insecure people. Their reaction certainly doesn't mean hiring intelligent people is undesirable.

2. Leadership - How is it logically possible for everyone to be a leader?

Firstly, the demand for good leaders exceeds supply, so this is not a problem in practice. However, even if this wasn't true the article would still have a good point. It does not say that everyone must be in a leadership position. It says that employers look for leadership qualities. They do that for two reasons. Firstly, even if they're not hiring for a leadership position now they have to plan for the future and it's better to hire someone who could be a leader, if the need arises, than someone who could not. Secondly, leadership qualities (as described in the article) are useful even if the employee is not in a leadership position - they just help to get things done.

What if negativity is a part of who a person is? What if a person is not warm, friendly, etc.?

Then that person is not sought by employers - at least not as much as if they were positive, warm, friendly, etc.

7. Why would these inevitable crises frequently occur during the day?

The article doesn't say that they do - you're putting words into the author's mouth.

Wish I could help you, but don't think I can. I know that libraries sometimes look for IT specialists that are non-librarian, but that is all I can think of.

Tina