From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: billg@jk.pst.com Subject: Re: Your english sucks, mine is better. Date: 1997/11/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 292947539 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> Organization: IDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-11-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , nojunkmail@ever.com says... > Ah. So y'dont ask for references when hring someone, or about past job > performance, or even verify job history? No. > > Sure, "one's past' should be able to be "lived down", depending on what it > is. :-) But.... > > It's for practical reasons: > * if you hire someone, you'll have to spend time training them on the > project. > * they'll have to work well witht he othrs in your group. > * you'll be paying them. > > Don't y'think its a responsible thing to do to verify what a prospective > employee says? No. If you can't tell whether a person is being honest or ask _that person_ more questions to verify, or give opportunity, then you should be one to hire people (I know, this is OPINION, YMMV). The moment you "check up" on someone, you have broken a potential trusting relationship. Expect less than working toward common goals. > And yes, postings in technical newsgroups can be used as a measure. :-) > Even the non-technical stuff can give one a good idea of the persons > communication skills and how > one handles disagreements. Should it be the sole judge? Nah. > > If y'hire someone, and they turn out to be "difficult" or a bad fit, or > doesnt get alog well with anyone in the org, eventually you;ll have to let > the person go...and that time & money wouldve been wasted. :-) There are no bad employees, just bad managers. > Maybe. Of course some "difficult" employees are just difficult. :-) There are no bad employees, just bad managers. > It's just as likely that difficult person was NOT "beyond the average" or > have higher ethical standards. Really, on what do you base your above > comments? :-) OK, so I forgot to add that the person may be very ambitious. That doesn't mean they are "difficult" or even that it is their fault for not "seeing" everything. But you as "manager" have no excuse. It is your fault. Especially for not handling the situation appropriately by taking the all to often used "you're difficult, you're fired". Perhaps, for instance, you "forgot" (conveniently forgot in order to play the odds that you would be able to excercise control over the individual or force him/her to follow you) to explain that your machine was such that people are only machine parts and their inherent worth is not valued. ;) There are no bad employees, just bad managers. > Hmm..is it my job to try to understand how you really are, or your job to > show me how you really are? ;-) Is it really that difficult for you? Here you go: assume people are inherently "good". That should get you started. > > Ah..so the leaders dont lead. How cunning! Less (no?) leaders get to the top within a company they don't own than those who cleverly play the game (game of manipulating the leaders!). > > Yeah, there are those who will backbite, oppress, unethically manipulate and > whatever else. Ah, the typical "manager" in practice! (Driven by constant denial and desire to be above others). > There are also those who will NOT do those things, and will rise on > achivement alone. > At least, thats what I've seen where I work. > If you wind up working for the former....I'd suggest looking for a new job. > :-) The former is in ample supply, the latter rare. billg