The three hidden requirements for Job Hires

[Shu]

Morning..

So I was thinking to myself, part of any job requirement is the intellectual mindset of you need a certain amount of certifications or at least a bachelors degree, but I wanted to touch on the other "hidden" requirement that jobs have. Most folks look for someone who 1) Looks good. 2) Can handle people. 3) The employer doesn't know it, but a person to talk to on a personal level.

1) I know it really depends on the job, for instance engineers are purely hired by technical experience as well as accomplishments in academics. Though in the business since, most people are hired purely on their looks. If everyone could have a model to be their receptionist, they would. If she could barely get past the filing and was ditsy, she would still get hired. Why? Well when people visit an office, the first person they see usually is the receptionist. If he/she (mostly female, but just in case) is anything but pretty, it surprises the heck out of me. It's for the appeal for the client/seller/buyer. I assume it's more of an invitation to see a good looking person, than someone who is a little rough around the edges. Salesmen, Marketing, and a lot of other jobs have that stigma as well. You don't see too many dog ugly salesmen. They all go for the bleached teeth look, the dress shirt, suit pants, tie and nice shoes.. and they all act a certain way.. which leads to my next point.

2) The person also has to be personable. When's the last time a worker gave you an attitude in their corporate office? Even at Target, I was told to always come up and ask a customer if they need anything... and I was on the night shift stocking crew, which sometimes lead me to working from 10:30pm till 11:00am the next morning. People look for lively people, even if it's the fakest thing in the world. Always have a smile, always greet people like they were in your own home, etc..

3) Last but not least.. which is the major reason for creating this post.. is employers have a hidden agenda to hire out drinking buddies. What I mean by this.. is often times people are hired because they know they won't question the employer. Other times they are hired to be a shoulder to lean on. Lastly others are hired to be the little "psychologist" in the company. In a team environment you always have that one guy who tries to keep everyone optimistic, while the team takes grenades in the trenches. He always plays off of people's emotions, and often times he's actually the least qualified of the group. A lot of work that people do requires the motivation to even come into work in the first place. If I woke up every day, dreading work, and then coming home from a work that I was ill appreciated, I'd think about either leaving or take the worse alternative and wait till there is some potential. By potential, I mean someone who has new drive, new ideas, and a way to lead a team.. in a positive manner.

---

So what do you think? Are any of the ways above how you see it? Or do you think a different way when looking around at your coworkers or new hires.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

1) I would hire a physically unattractive person, or someone who was weird, cocky or standoffish. The main point for me would be whether or not they were a decent person, if they were willing to learn and how good they were at their job, etc. I wouldn't hire someone who was two faced, or someone who was a bully in the workplace or a person who talks shit about people and causes drama... I would try to work out a process of weeding out those types of people from being accepted into employment. I guess my mentality is that there are diamonds in the rough. And, its easier to take a rough looking diamond and polish it, than it is to take a turd and transform it into a diamond.

2) If I was an employer I would work on a process by which people could develop the skills and traits necessary to be god-like at their jobs. If I hired someone who was obese, unattractive and unenthusiastic who seemed to be a decent person. I would implement a program to help them to be more attractive, enthusiastic and outgoing if they so wished. It wouldnt be a one way street where people only contribute to the company & are exploited & paid minimum wage working 12 hour days, 7 days a week to make an owner rich as the CEO reclines on an exotic beach somewhere collecting dividends. The company would also contribute to the workers..

3) I wouldn't target potential drinking buddies, lovers or shoulders to cry on in terms of the employment process. If I had a business, company or corporation my end goal would be world domination & it would be a team that was specifically assembled for that purpose & that purpose alone. In methodology I lean moreso towards the spartan & minimalist ideal of asian businessmen whose CEO's fly on regular airlines as opposed to having a private jet. I wouldn't be interested in blatantly abusing my power and authority and would probably feel like less of a person if I caught myself doing so..

So, yeh. Lofty ambitions and backwards methodologies in terms of the status quo. What else would you expect from me?