Here’s how the unemployment trap works
- Thread starter onq
- Start date
Only if I can be the original employee... How long have you worked here?You don't work where I do, do you?
Very well said MPsox.
For a long time I have been of the opinion that if I’m paying someone I want to learn from them as well.
I like working with people who make me better at my job (rather than making it look like I’m better at it) while doing theirs.
I honestly don’t know anyone who would be afraid to hire someone because that person is more skilled/competent than they are.
For a long time I have been of the opinion that if I’m paying someone I want to learn from them as well.
I like working with people who make me better at my job (rather than making it look like I’m better at it) while doing theirs.
I honestly don’t know anyone who would be afraid to hire someone because that person is more skilled/competent than they are.
ONQ, just go back over the thread. I offered a comment on the general nature of the article and the unemployment trap as you presented. I put forward an argument that it wasn't as simple as that and that a lot of professions based on the construction industry were in a similar situation. Your first response was to reject my argument by assuming I hadn't read the article. And what do we call that form of approach?
Purple put forward a comparisson with Master Craftsmen. Your response was to say it isn't comparible even though it was.
I and others have suggested we are all involved in hiring people and that we offer our own examples of what influences our decisions. I have hired people who are much better than me on paper and in person and encouraged them after a while to go for other positions. Three of whom are in more senior positions now than me. I have also rejected people who on paper were ideal, but who on interview didn't fit with the culture. It's not tangible, I can't explain it, but I could tell they weren't right for us and we weren't right for them.
I'll also point to Apple, Google, Facebook, HP and numerous other excellent employers where the culture is to employ people better than you. This has been learned from Pixar and their policies. My generation are now the CEOs and they're influencing decisions and hiring policies, this is now creeping into other industries.
The problem is we have gone from a point where professional people (myself included) had all the power to the extent that we could at the drop of a hat send off our CV and get another job and probably for better money. We now can't. We now have to compete with hundreds/thousands others for those positions. We can hope our CV and experience speaks for itself or we can look at developing what we can offer in addition to the competition or look at what our experience could contribute to a different field altogether.
The point however is that this is a reasoned rebuttal to your ascertion that incompetence and fear of stronger employees stands in the way of people being hired.
As to refuting your point I can't because it is not possible to refute anecdotal evidence, I can offer a rebuttal that in my (and it appears others') experience there is more to picking candidates than being scared they are better than you.
When I was with another firm they did a clean room facility as part of a large FAB installation, one of the first in Ireland at the time.
The brief was carefully formulated with the client to take everything into account.
Specialists were called on to give advice on several aspects of the building.
There was a research period, as with any project an architect does.
Then the building was designed, approved and built.
Architects specialize in design.
Architects don't specialize in getting pigeon-holed.
People in a profession have already specialized - in that profession!
Its a logical fallacy to treat the professions as needing further specialization.
People trying to "get" a barrister who "specializes" in certain court actions make the same mistake.
The issues is whether or not the barrister is of high quality, not where the preponderance of his cases arise.
And barristers, like architects are as good as their last case/building.
To turn your argument totally upside down, I would be much happier to see an architect whose experience and achievements show a wide range of abilities and a mastery of design over several building types and scales.
That way I could be more certain that he would be up to the task of co-ordinating the several disciplines that a specialist class of building would require.
I would be very wary of considering someone for a specialist FAB installation if that person or firm had "only" done schools.
ONQ, I’m not alone in questioning the opinion expressed in the article and supported by you.
My answer to it is to say “I don’t believe it to be true to any meaningful extent”. It is clear that most posters share that view.
Nothing you have posted on this thread so far backs up the assertion (be it implicit or explicit) that the opinion of the journalist it based on anything other than a few anecdotal cases. It’s good for a chat down the pub but that’s about it.
My answer to it is to say “I don’t believe it to be true to any meaningful extent”. It is clear that most posters share that view.
Nothing you have posted on this thread so far backs up the assertion (be it implicit or explicit) that the opinion of the journalist it based on anything other than a few anecdotal cases. It’s good for a chat down the pub but that’s about it.
Your comment is generally well balanced and reasoned and thanks for making it.
I accept that you may have followed an enlightened approach in your day and well done you - I too didn't stand in others way.
I didn't and don't agree with Purple's comment about Master Toolmakers (not Craftsmen BTW - different animal, hands, not machines).
However your past is not the present and your rebuttal, while it may correct in as far as the subset of companies to which you refer, certainly isn't correct in my experience of Irish companies in general, even in the design field.
Purple,
You have responded to someone's anecdotal article with the comment that you don't believe it.
Most of the comments in the Letting Off Steam section are good for chats down the pub.
What's your point?
This isn't a forum for the scientific evaluation of criteria for successful applicants.
This discussion shows that there is a perception about an unemployment trap.
If one poster could show an example that proved the contrary, fine.
Not one has done so - its all "belief" and "conjecture".
In the absence of proof to the contrary, I rest my case.
Are you aware that there are patent solicitors, constitutional law solicitors, family law solicitors, contract law solicitors, tax law solicitors etc.?
All of these people hold the same basic professional qualification but specialise in different areas.
The same is true for accountants, doctors (would you let a psychiatrist perform a heart bypass?) and, despite your assertion otherwise, Barristers.
It seems that Architects are masters of all aspects of their profession. If this is the case then either they truly are gods amongst men or their profession is very narrow and far simpler to master than most.
A 'logical fallacy' to treat the professions as needing further specialization?? This perhaps shows how locked in you are to only considering architecture in your attempted arguments. Virtually all doctors specialise in one area. There are specialist areas of dentistry (gums, braces, reconstruction). Most accountants working in large practices would have an area of specialism (financial services, tax, cross-border...) Many lawyers specialise (corporate, financial services, family law etc.). It is uncommon to NOT specialise (even a GP is a 'specialist' in general medicine - he is not a heart surgeon) and if I was seeking out ANY professional for ANY service, I would prefer a specialist. And I expect I would find one.
My point is that you are arguing in favour of an opinion based on a small sample of second hand anecdotes and expecting hard evidence from those who disagree with you. That is unreasonable.
You haven’t made a case; you have simply agreed with an unsubstantiated opinion.
Others have disagreed on the basis that there is no evidence to substantiate your opinion. That is a reasonable position to take.
This is a bizarre thread.
ONQ, as a matter of interest, have you personally known any middle management who refused to hire someone for fear of being shown up as less capable than those they would be commanding?
A manager needs different skills than those he/she supervises, so an experienced IT engineer of 25 years and multiple languages/technologies would bear little relation, or pose little threat, to someone who can organise those kind of people into an effective team and produce the necessary product.
A good manager is one who surrounds themselves with good people. Hiring the best candidate (as has been said, may be the best 'fit' not the most qualified, experienced, etc) ultimately reflects well on the manager.
I am struck by the tone of bitterness and injustice of your argument tbh that does't appear to be backed up by any source or evidence.
ONQ, as a matter of interest, have you personally known any middle management who refused to hire someone for fear of being shown up as less capable than those they would be commanding?
A manager needs different skills than those he/she supervises, so an experienced IT engineer of 25 years and multiple languages/technologies would bear little relation, or pose little threat, to someone who can organise those kind of people into an effective team and produce the necessary product.
A good manager is one who surrounds themselves with good people. Hiring the best candidate (as has been said, may be the best 'fit' not the most qualified, experienced, etc) ultimately reflects well on the manager.
I am struck by the tone of bitterness and injustice of your argument tbh that does't appear to be backed up by any source or evidence.
That is a perfect summary. Basically, we do not have capitalism, we have cronyism. These are not like two different flavours of ice cream, they are like ice cream and soup.
The burden of proof lies with you not with Latrade. You have made the claim that there is a general practice by middle management to not hire extremely qualified people, but there is absolutely no proof of this happening on any scale more than a couple of people mentioned in the article.
I fully agree, and there are some great insights in your post as well. If business owners and business managers focus on anything but maximising productivity through hiring the most suitable people, then they will very quickly find themselves out of business.
I fully agree with this. If there is a tendency for middle management to hire a less competent person then this will quickly reflect in performance and productivity and will draw attention from the owners of a business. It is in every department managers best interest to make the department as productive as possible, not to make it less productive.