Top 7 Qualities Employers are Looking for in Candidates

Post Reply New Topic

For the most part, what you state is correct. I did interpret things as too rigidly. Tina and I had a discussion about it and she showed me where my reasoning was off. One of the things I have discovered that I do is I assume certain things are mutually exclusive when they are not.



I misunderstood then what it said. These things are not ironclad rules? They're more like desires that some employers may not always be able to receive am I correct?

To address a few of your points:



I've always thought of it in the Taylorian sense. Have you ever heard of Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management. In this system, the workers did the work and the managers did the managing. The supervisors were like miniature managers of their given area. I always been taught that the manager's role were separate and distinct from the workers. I did not know the roles meshed. This is where I am very confused. What is the role of the manager vs. the supervisor vs. the worker? Are they separate and distinct or do the roles mesh?





My wife has said that at times I can be too abrupt, to blunt, and to direct. What is she trying to convey to me?

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



I do understand the first reasoning. They're using what is called forward thinking I believe and it does make some sense. With the second one, this is not as clear. This goes back to the concept of roles? Do the employees including managers, supervisors, and workers have separate, distinct and ironclad roles or do their roles mesh at different points in time? Again, I am very confused about this and what roles everyone has and who is supposed to do what at what different times.




Tina helped to clear this part up with me. She showed me that I was taking something as mutually exclusive when it was not. I can be true to myself but if I work for an organization I am supposed to keep myself within their constraints.





If you say it does not then what does this paragraph say? I must've misunderstood it then. It is true they did not say the word frequently. I will admit my mistake on that one. The last sentence seems to state that at least one crisis will occur every single day the company is performing its' day to day operations. Why would at least one crisis crop up every single day? Besides that one word, where is my logic and reasoning off? What is this paragraph saying?

Hi cubedemon6073,

I'v just read most of this thread.
Some comments:

Let me just assume you think about office work. The way I see it, and the way I think works best, is that everyone is a manager ( in the field of his/her own expertise ) at the office. For example where I work, as a software developer, my boss is not an IT professional. He does organize all the things we don't have for, he takes the time, and responsibility to make some decisions. I as a software guy have to make software, and I am a manager in this context, if I will be responsible for project A, I will have to know that I will have to work together with coworker B, who is a database expert, and sometimes with coworker C, who is a user interface expert. Then at some point in time, we will have to communicate with our system administrators, D, to ask them to do something needed for project A, etc.. Our boss is not a software guy, so can't organize these things, he can't be manager in this.
It would be hard to find a job, where the manager has all the skills that the different people working "under" him have.


That depends on the workplace. Think about a dentists office, there can be a large fight in bar one night, with 7 people, who need immediate dental help, because they just beat each others face. Then the same thing happens the next day. The dentist can't prevent that. The next day, there is an accident at a power plant, and the power goes out while he is in a patient's mouth, with an open wound.
Or if you would work at a suicide hotline, that means dealing with crisis every day.
Or maybe at tech support.
At most workplaces this would rather mean, that you don't panic when something unexpected happens, but calmly do the best you can. Unforeseen things happen at most places, for example in software development, if one would want to create a perfect software, making sure there are no errors, and prepared for all cases ( power outage, coup d'état, internet outage due to nuclear war ), the software would take decades, or centuries to make. Actually, it is impossible to prepare for everything. Instead we take risks, some companies take a bit more risk, some companies take a bit less risk. So some companies have days crisis sometimes, some companies have a lot, and a few companies go bankrupt, but they have a chance to ship a product on time. If on the other hand, a company would just try to prepare for everything, there would be no chance to ship a product on time. The conclusion is, some unknown chance to win ( with possibility of crisis on some days ) seems better, then zero chance ( with no crisis ). If you still don't understand it, read some about insurance companies, I work there. That can give you some understanding, their main business is crisis.

Correct. Many people don't have all 7 qualities (or at least can't show during the interview that they do!), yet they still get hired.

No, I haven't heard of Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management. Is there overlap between the roles of manager and worker? I'm sure it varies heavily from job to job, but I would say in most cases there is some overlap. If the worker is an assembly worker then probably not, but in any role where they have a bit of autonomy there are decisions to be made. Some will be made by the manager, some by the worker. The boundary isn't always clear. Eg. a call centre operator may have the authority to issue refunds up to $50, but have to refer anything above that to a supervisor. That already requires some intelligence.

Now, let's say the supervisor is away or busy and a valuable customer calls, pissed off, urgently wanting a refund for $60. The request is reasonable and the operator is fairly sure the supervisor would have approved it. Now the operator has a more difficult decision to make - and this is where intelligence comes into play. In any sane company the correct decision would be to grant the refund. Many operators will not make that decision and will lose the valuable customer instead. That's what the company gets for either having rigid policies or hiring people who are not intelligent or just don't care.



Possibly that the way you point out other people's mistakes is so direct that it doesn't allow them to "save face". It makes it clear to everyone that they're wrong - and most people don't like to have that pointed out, even when they know damn well that they are! Asking questions can often be interpreted by NTs as point out errors as well (sometimes correctly, sometimes not). This is an issue I often run into as well.

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



Roles are rarely "ironclad". Exceptions to rules come up all the time. Even if someone is not in a leadership position taking initiative, being organised and responsible (leadership qualities) will let them do their job better. For example, suppose a worker needs something from another team before they can continue their work. They could ask someone from the other team directly, but they've never spoken to them before, so they don't really know who to ask, etc. This is where some people will find out who to speak to, speak to them and get on with the work without bothering their manager. Others will go and tell their manager and get them to sort it out. The manager might be busy with something else, so while that's happening they sit idly. Others will do even worse than that and not say anything until their manager asks them.

Another example might be if a worker finds a more efficient way to do something. Some workers will just do it the way they were told (the less efficient way). Some will use the more efficient way. Some will do that and help others to do the same. I think this is the sort of thing the article refers to as "leadership qualities".



I think you're taking "day-to-day" a bit literally here - it means "regular" operators. It does not mean "crises occur regularly", it means "crises occur during regular operations". In other words, even while doing the things you normally do crises will sometimes occur. I think the point he's making is that you cannot have one team of workers for the "regular" work and have another team standing by to take over in a crisis - the people who do the regular work must be able to handle crises as well, however frequently or infrequently they occur.

Scientific Management
http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/ ... Taylor.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911taylor.html




My thinking would be this. Let's go with your scenario. This is where my issues crop up. I see possibilities. I have an INTP personality. http://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality

Let's say the company was huge maybe with 400-500 operators. How frequently would a pissed off customer crop up? It may not even be that they're pissed off but may have just changed their minds on something. They could just be slightly irritated. How frequently would a refund issue crop up that is over $50.00? Let's say 5-10 customers per day ask for a refund for about $60.00 or over. This would be about $300.00-$600.00 over per day the company would possibly lose because employees did something that was unauthorized. Would this not be a form of insubordination? How much would one lose if one lost a potential customer?

For all I know, may losing a few potential customers is worth it. Therein lies the problem. The problem is this a matter of subjectivity, opinion and open to interpretation. In my opinion, I did use intelligence. If I am wrong on this then I have to ask what intelligence is because maybe I am completely ignorant as to what they really mean bit.





I have seen many the way a number of members point out something. For me, I ask questions like I am doing here. She says I interrogate her. I don't state that x is a. If she or someone else says that x is b.

I will state that I am confused. I always thought x was a. Did I interpret something wrong in my reasoning and if so how did I interpret it wrong? My thinking is that I don't really know all with absolute certainty so I have factor in that I may have erroneous information which I transformed into erroneous data. The way I come about things is slightly different than some of those on here. It still annoys people and even one ASD person on here found my questioning annoying. Why?




Therein lies the issue again. This is a matter of interpretation. My thinking is am I even authorized to even do this. Let's say this item had to have approval by the manager for whatever reason before it enters the department. Maybe the manager in our department likes to keep an account of what is what in our department. I don't know. Maybe certain things have to be approved before I can receive this thing. Let's say by my taking initiative in this case it cost them money or it screws certain things up. I think in possibilities like this. This is what causes me great difficulty in functioning in the workplace.



Well, again, this is a matter of my interpretation. What if what I think is efficient is not the efficient way? How do I determine what is truthfully efficient and what is not? I remember I was at a job readiness program called worktec (didn't work out by the way) to try to get help in obtaining a job. I found what I thought was a more efficient way. They said what I did was not efficient at all and in the workplace I am not supposed to deviate from their policy like they did. They told me that they studied what the most efficient way was and I wasn't supposed to deviate from that. I tried to talk to one of them and told them I thought I was taking initiative and I thought this is one of the things employers valued. I told her that I did not understand where my reasoning was off. She didn't understand what I was trying to get at it seemed like to me. I did not want to get into an argument so I just shut up.

In addition, I may do something efficient on my end that does things faster but as a whole it may not be effective. If I find a method that produces 20 more widgets in a given hour I could overwhelm the person who inspects these widgets. The efficiency on my end could clog the organization as a whole. My father who worked in reengineering for the army could tell you stuff about this. He told me a story along these lines. What is efficiency exactly? How do I know if I am being efficient or not? How do I tell if my new way is truthfully efficient to the organization as a whole or not? This is why I have major difficulty functioning in the workplace and sometimes my day to day life.





I understand what you're saying. If one is not so good in this area because he thinks in so many possibilities like I do what can one do to improve?

These issues are a major part of the reason I am on social security disability today.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 15 Jul 2013, 8:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

Well Tina, you're awesome. You gave me the dialogue I needed and I appreciate it. I wish people in my real life would do this.

My two cents on this topic is simply this:

The qualities that they are looking for are some pretty high standards, and many in charge of hiring just think that is what they are looking for. Many times in the real world, what they are actually looking for is for someone to present the appearance of these qualities in the job interview process. I interview poorly, partly because of my body language/facial expression issues, and partly because I am blatantly honest about my strengths and weaknesses.
For example, I will be the first to admit in an interview that my social skills are below average (even though I qualify it by mentioning that my written communication skills are far above average). I will also admit that my ability to socialize is lacking. Personally, I'd think that in jobs that don't require personal interaction on a regular basis this would be an asset, since less time socializing means more time working. I think that in many jobs (professional or otherwise), employers will not consider hiring a person that admits his/her verbal communication and/or social skills are less than stellar.

I think that the difference in what they want and what they consider an indication of what they want is the reason that job interview books, articles, blogs, websites, videos, and coaches are big time money makers. Like most systems involving human beings, it has become a matter of knowing all the tricks better than the competition.

Yes, you did. My point wasn't really about which decision was correct (to grant the refund or not), but that there are decisions to be made even by employees who are not managers. Intelligence helps to make good decisions, which is why (intelligent) employers value it. Yes, it is subjective and open to interpretation - if it wasn't, they'd get a computer to do it!



It's hard to say why. I'm still trying to figure this out myself. However, I think a strong possibility is that NTs don't interpret such questions as genuine questions, but as ways to make a point. (And sometimes they're right, at least for me.) Eg. if someone believes in horoscopes and says to me "my horoscopes always come true!" I may respond "OK, but... how did you determine "true" here? Now, technically this is a question, but the person will probably interpret that as me doubting their claim - and they would be right in the sense that this is the reason behind the question. Now this is where aspies and NTs would often respond differently. Most aspies would respond to the question, while those most NTs would ignore the question and respond to the "hidden meaning" behind it - which they often misinterpret. (This, of course, drives me nuts when I actually want an answer to a question!) In this example, if we suppose they interpret the reason behind the question correctly (me doubting their claim) they may get upset about it rather than think "hey... maybe I'm actually wrong... let me check my facts and reasoning".



Yes, it is subjective and whenever you make a decision you risk being wrong. Often you have to make a decision with incomplete information. This is one of the reasons higher-level managers get paid more - they have to make more difficult decisions. (Which doesn't mean they're actually better at it - but at least they convinced themselves and others than they are. ) Anyway, as you say, it would be very difficult to function in the workplace if you cannot make decisions with limited information.



So you made a decision and it turned out not to be the right one in that scenario (or at least your manager didn't think so). You took a risk and it didn't pay off. That happens all the time. As long as the downside wasn't anything drastic (like getting fired) you were probably still right to try it.