Reading this:

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Three-for-Three,-Recursion-Threads,-and-Wrong-Answer.aspx

I started wondering two things:

  - How often it happens that bosses hire people based on their resumes
(or, more precisely, the personal impression that the boss gets from the
resume) completely ignoring the results of the job interview, even when
the interviewer vehemently opposes the hiring?

  - How often it happens that an interviewer does not recommend an applicant
to be hired because the applicant knew way more about the job than the
interviewer (causing the interviewer to feel outsmarted and a fool)?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/07/2011 05:42 PM, Warp wrote:

> I started wondering two things:
>
>    - How often it happens that bosses hire people based on their resumes
> (or, more precisely, the personal impression that the boss gets from the
> resume) completely ignoring the results of the job interview, even when
> the interviewer vehemently opposes the hiring?

How many times does the boss hire somebody because the boss likes their 
attitude, rather than because they know anything whatsoever about the 
job they're being hired for?

What, you mean having a positive attitude *isn't* all that's required 
for a highly technical position like computer programming?

Guy X says "this system will take years to develop". Guy Y says "yeah, I 
could get that done for you by the weekend". Who is the moronic boss who 
knows nothing about computers going to hire? /Sure/ he's going to hire 
the guy who tells him what he wants to hear.

Of course, TRWTF is a guy who knows nothing about the subject thinking 
he knows more about the subject than the person he pays to be an expert 
on the subject.

>    - How often it happens that an interviewer does not recommend an applicant
> to be hired because the applicant knew way more about the job than the
> interviewer (causing the interviewer to feel outsmarted and a fool)?

This is also apparently depressingly common.

My employer actually has a list of "the twelve company commandments", 
one of which is "I support the hiring of people who are smarter then I 
am". To which I can hardly resist responding "well that should broaden 
the range of available hires significantly then". :-P

Post a reply to this message

Le 25/07/2011 11:40, Invisible nous fit lire :
> 
> My employer actually has a list of "the twelve company commandments",
> one of which is "I support the hiring of people who are smarter then I
> am". To which I can hardly resist responding "well that should broaden
> the range of available hires significantly then". :-P

Well, remember that in the end, the money get more into the boss's
pocket than in the hiree. No problem: You're smarter, I gain more (and
can keep my stupid head).

Thus who can, do. Thus who can't, teach. Thus who can't do nor teach,
manage.
The progression is also true for the income: Doer < teacher < manager.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Thus who can, do. Thus who can't, teach. Thus who can't do nor teach,
> manage.

  And who can't do nor teach nor manage, is a consultant.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2011 12:22 PM, Warp wrote:
> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr>  wrote:
>> Thus who can, do. Thus who can't, teach. Thus who can't do nor teach,
>> manage.
>
>    And who can't do nor teach nor manage, is a consultant.
>

Oi! I resemble that remark. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message