2012/01/30

Hire For Attitude


ENTREPRENEURS
 
|
 
1/23/2012 @ 9:31上午 |123,333 views



Mark Murphy
Subscribe to my updates atFacebook.com/DanSchawbel.
Mark Murphy is the author Hiring for Attitude, as well as the bestsellersHundred Percenters and HARD Goals. The founder and CEO ofLeadership IQ, a top-rated provider of cutting-edge research and leadership training, Mark has personally provided guidance to more than 100,000 leaders from virtually every industry and half the Fortune 500. His public leadership seminars, custom corporate training, and online training programs have yielded remarkable results for companies including MicrosoftIBM, GE,MasterCardMerckAstraZeneca, MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Johns Hopkins.
In this interview, Mark talks about why so many new hires fail so quickly, why soft skills are so important now, how the hiring landscape is changing, and more.
Why do so many fail within the first 18 months of taking a job?
When our research tracked 20,000 new hires, 46% of them failed within 18 months. But even more surprising than the failure rate, was that when new hires failed, 89% of the time it was for attitudinal reasons and only 11% of the time for a lack of skill. The attitudinal deficits that doomed these failed hires included a lack of coachability, low levels of emotional intelligence, motivation and temperament.
Are technical and soft skills less important than attitude? Why?
It’s not that technical skills aren’t important, but they’re much easier to assess (that’s why attitude, not skills, is the top predictor of a new hire’s success or failure). Virtually every job (from neurosurgeon to engineer to cashier) has tests that can assess technical proficiency. But what those tests don’t assess is attitude; whether a candidate is motivated to learn new skills, think innovatively, cope with failure, assimilate feedback and coaching, collaborate with teammates, and so forth.
Soft skills are the capabilities that attitude can enhance or undermine. For example, a newly hired executive may have the intelligence, business experience and financial acumen to fit well in a new role. But if that same executive has an authoritarian, hard-driving style, and they’re being hired into a social culture where happiness and camaraderie are paramount, that combination is unlikely to work. Additionally, many training programs have demonstrated success with increasing and improving skills—especially on the technical side. But these same programs are notoriously weak when it comes to creating attitudinal change. As Herb Kelleher, former Southwest Airlines CEO used to say, “we can change skill levels through training, but we can’t change attitude.”
How will the hiring landscape be different in 2012 and beyond?
Between the labor pool from China and India and the fact that there are so many workers sitting out there unemployed, we can find the skills we need. The lack of sharp wage increases in most job categories is further evidence of the abundant supply of skills. Technical proficiency, once a guarantee of lifetime employment, is a commodity in today’s job market. Attitude is what today’s companies are hiring for. And not just any attitude; companies want attitudes that perfectly match their unique culture. Google and Apple are both great companies, but their cultures are as different as night and day.
As the focus on hiring has shifted away from technical proficiency and onto attitude, it’s precipitated a lot of tactical changes in how job interviews are conducted. For example, the new kinds of interview questions being asked are providing real information about attitude instead of the vague or canned answers hiring managers used to get. Smarter companies are less likely to rely on the old standby questions like “tell me about yourself” and “what are your weaknesses?” Companies now have answer keys by which to accurately rate candidate’s answers. Interviewers can listen to candidates’ verb tense and other grammar choices and make accurate determinations about someone’s future performance potential.
Where are companies finding candidates with the right attitudes? The majority is using social networks but is that even working?
Companies are not getting high performers from the usual sources. They’re hiring in, what we call, the “Underground Job Market”. According to our latest research (outlined in Hiring for Attitude), companies are finding their best people through employee referrals and networking. They have started to realize that the high performers they already have fit the attitude they want and that these are the people they should be asking to help find more people just like them.
Given that data, it seems like candidates should be networking in every way possible—including social networking. But one thing that people misconstrue is what networking is actually about. Too many people are not networking; but rather are ‘need-working,’ as in: “I need work, or a lead, or an introduction from you”. Usually people on the receiving end of this dodge those inquiries. Job seekers need to ask themselves ‘how can I add value to this person’ and then go from there.
Attitudes change as workforce dynamics change. What happens in this case?
The attitudes for which organizations should hire are not abstract or based on a theoretical ideal, but rather are just the characteristics that separate high and low performers.
Southwest, Google, Apple, and The Four Seasons are all great companies and they all hire for attitude. Their high-performing employees live their attitudes every day and it’s a big part of what makes these organizations so successful. Low performers struggle with those attitudes are typically rejected by the culture. But those companies’ attitudes are very different from each other. They couldn’t successfully emulate each other’s attitudes. Every company has to discover the attitudes that make their organization unique and special. And even if the company’s attitudes change over the years, those attitudes will always be an organic reflection of their most successful people.
Subscribe to my updates at Facebook.com/DanSchawbel.
Dan Schawbel, recognized as a “personal branding guru” by The New York Times, is the Managing Partner of Millennial Branding, a full-servicepersonal branding agency. Dan is the author of Me 2.0: 4 Steps to Building Your Future, the founder of the Personal Branding Blog, and publisher ofPersonal Branding Magazine.


2012/01/27

Don’t Call Introverted Children ‘Shy’


Aaron Fedor

Don’t Call Introverted Children ‘Shy’

Society rewards extroverts, but quiet types have a hidden strength all their own
Sandro Di Carlo Darsa / PhotoAlto / Getty Images
SANDRO DI CARLO DARSA / PHOTOALTO / GETTY IMAGES
Cain's book,Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, was published in January 2012.
Imagine a 2-year-old who greets you with a huge smile, offering a toy. Now here’s another child who regards you gravely and hides behind his parent’s leg. How do you feel about these two children? If you’re like most people, you think of the first child as social and the second as reserved or, as everyone tends to interpret, “shy.” From a very young age, we categorize children as one or the other, and we usually privilege the socialdesignation. But this misses what’s really going on with standoffish kids. Many were born with a careful, sensitive temperament that predisposes them to look before they leap. And this can pay off handsomely as they grow, in the form of strong academics,enhanced creativity and even a unique brand of leadership and empathy.
One way to see this temperament more clearly is to consider how these children react to stimuli. When these children are at four months, if you pop a balloon over their heads, they holler and pump their arms more than other babies do. At age 2, they proceed carefully when they see a radio-controlled toy robot for the first time. When they’re school age, they play matching gameswith more deliberation than their peers, considering all the alternatives at length and even using more eye movements to compare choices. Notice that none of these things — popping balloons, toy robots, matching games — has anything to do with people. In other words, these kids are not antisocial. They’re simply sensitive to their environments.
But if they’re not antisocial, these kids are differently social. According to the psychologist Elaine Aron, author of the book Psychotherapy and the Highly Sensitive Person, 70% of children with a careful temperament grow up to be introverts, meaning they prefer minimally stimulating environments — a glass of wine with a close friend over a raucous party full of strangers. Some will grow up shy as well. Shyness and introversion are not the same thing. Shy people fear negative judgment, while introverts simply prefer less stimulation; shyness is inherently painful, and introversion is not. But in a society that prizes the bold and the outspoken, both are perceived as disadvantages.
Yet we wouldn’t want to live in a world composed exclusively of bold extroverts. We desperately need people who pay what Aron calls “alert attention” to things. It’s no accident that introverts get better grades than extroverts, know more about most academic subjects and win a disproportionate number of Phi Beta Kappa keys and National Merit Scholarship finalist positions — even though their IQ scores are no higher. “The glory of the disposition that stops to consider stimuli rather than rushing to engage with them is its long association with intellectual and artistic achievement,” observes science writer Winifred Gallagher. “Neither E=mc² norParadise Lost was dashed off by a party animal.”
Children with an alert, sensitive temperament also pay close attention to social cues and moral principles. By age 6, they cheat and break rules less than other kids do — even when they believe they won’t be caught. At 7, they’re more likely than their peers to be described by parents and caregivers as empathetic or conscientious. As adults, introverted leaders have even been found to deliver better outcomes than extroverts when managing employees, according to a recent study by management professor Adam Grant of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, because they encourage others’ ideas instead of trying to put their own stamp on things. And they’re less likely to take dangerous risks. Extroverts are more likely than introverts to get into car accidents, participate in extreme sports and to place large financial bets.
But we wouldn’t want to live in a world composed entirely of cautious introverts either. The two types need each other. Many successful ventures are the result of effective partnerships between introverts and extroverts. The famously charismatic Steve Jobs teamed up with powerhouse introverts at crucial points in his career at Apple, co-founding the company with the shy Steve Wozniak and bequeathing it to its current CEO, the quiet Tim Cook. And the three-time Olympic-gold-winning rowing pair Marnie McBean and Kathleen Biddle were a classic match of dynamic firecracker (McBean) and steely determination (Biddle).
The ideal scenario is when those two toddlers — the one who hands you the toy with the smile and the other who checks you out so carefully — grow up to run the world together.

Susan Cain, a former corporate lawyer and negotiations consultant, is the author of Quiet. The views expressed are solely her own.
Related Topics: extroversionextrovertintroversionintrovertquietshyshynessHealth & Science,Psychology


Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/26/dont-call-introverted-children-shy/?iid=op-main-lede?iid=tsmodule#ixzz1kjBcT3P1

閱讀地圖

歷史上人為書而瘋狂, 但現實裡, 愛書的人仍有但是越來越難尋. 一切知識的傳播都是靠書, 書靠印刷術的發明的普及與傳播. 書,權勢的權力還是在讀者, 有讀者,書才會有意義..