Re: Your english sucks, mine is better.

["Dennis Weldy" <nojunkmail@ever.com>]

billg@jk.pst.com wrote in message ...
>In article <EK5KMz.B41@research.att.com>, ark@research.att.com says...
>> In article <MPG.ee2636b141efc8b989781@news.idt.net>,  <billg@jk.pst.com>
wrote:
>>
>> > No you can't.  You are in their control and not the other way around.
>> > You are a reactionary to things people post perhaps to get a particular
>> > effect.  A lot of the posts in newsgroups are simply lies and marketing
>> > tactics (lies again).  Not everyone feels that this medium requires
>> > honesty, integrity, ethics etc.  The internet on one hand is a
sesspool.
>>
>> You're quite right -- writings will not prove someone's honesty by
themselves.
>> It's like black-box software testing -- it can never prove the absence of
bugs.
>>
>> On the other hand, black-box software testing can often reveal the
>> presence of bugs, and reading what people have written can often
>> reveal that there would be no point even in interviewing them if they
>> were to come looking for a job.
>> --
>> --Andrew Koenig
>>   ark@research.att.com
>>   http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
>>
>That's my edge in hiring good people and getting them to enjoy their
>stay.  I don't rely on external sources to determine the value of a
>person.  I give them the option to move on from the past (instead of
>requiring them to suppress their personalities).  You've already defined
>the "us vs. them" mentality.  Your starting point is one of distrust and
>therefore you have already limited the potential relationship severly.
>This is very fragile ground.  If you are not a believer in people, then
>get ready for union negotiating because that is the outcome of
>communication breakdown.

Ah. So y'dont ask for references when hring someone, or about past job
performance, or even verify job history?

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?
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. :-)

>
>The minute you do that (question someone's integrity), you no longer have
>a trusting relationship.  Actually, I find that most people with "a past"
>usually have a reason for it that was beyond their control.  And yes that
>reason may be misunderstanding of their needs and modes of operation (not
>"playing the game" is supposedly a big black mark for some).  Many times
>it is failure to follow false-leadership (the management game).  Show me
>a "difficult" employee and I'll show you someone with capabilities beyond
>the average and probably higher ethical standards--not to say these
>people won't be tough on you when you break the unwritten rules.  You
>just have to understand them.  Show me the non-game players, I want to
>work with them!  10% of the pop.?  2%?  hmmm...

Maybe. Of course some "difficult" employees are just difficult. :-)
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? :-)

>
>I understand that most will not be able to recognize people as they
>really are and their potential value in their lifetimes though.  It is
>indeed a gift!  Yes, if you want game-players and oppressors and people
>who unethically manipulate, look for a history of rising through the
>ranks of political (most large) companies.  To find the leaders, look for
>those who didn't.  Oops!  I gave away a trade secret!

Hmm..is it my job to try to understand how you really are, or your job to
show me how you really are? ;-)

Ah..so the leaders dont lead. How cunning!

Yeah, there are those who will backbite, oppress, unethically manipulate and
whatever else.
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.
:-)

>
>None of this or any other post was directed toward any particular person
>or poster.  Certainly your leadership in your trade is unquestionable and
>hopefully you will stay out of the politics as we (the productive side of
>us) need non-political elements to learn from!
>
>billg