Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
holloway.com
Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#2Conscientiousness is very plastic across the lifespan. Hiring like this just doesn't work. It leads to the same issues - there simply aren't enough people who fit the criteria, so creative bullshitting becomes prevalent to meet the demand. You need a blend of people, including people high in openness (creativity), otherwise your organization becomes a stagnant bureaucracy.
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#3> “I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!”
I find the above amusingly accurate in a lot of cases backed up by anecdotal evidence. Aside form contradicting the thesis in the submission it has the huge advantage of not requiring to pay for and to read a whole book and I think it will provide just as useful for practical application, meaning not very.
As for the Big Five personality traits - I guess it's better than nothing but I find it funny how close its application is to teenager magazine tests from years ago "the 10 traits of the perfect boyfriend".
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#4Find people you can squeeze harder without paying them more.
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#5> I realized that most of them had a unique “theory of hiring”—some “secret ingredient”
I watched an interview with Jordan Peterson (yeah, I know...) a few years back, and he stated that the two big predictors for success in the workplace are intelligence and conscientiousness, so at the very least this isn't a secret ingredient.
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#6> Look for evidence of side-projects or things that go above and beyond. This is always a good sign. Of course, be understanding of people’s personal situations—not everyone has a personal and professional life that allows them the luxury of side projects. That said, I believe most conscientious people will have evidence of these types of projects, even if they are doing them as part of their day job.
I have side projects, but they are not public. I could talk about them if required in an interview, but then I guess the author would then not consider me to be enough "conscientious".
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#7> “I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situation…
haha, yes.
See also Dr Ben Hardy's book "Personality Isn't Permanent".
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#8Was anybody else completely turned off by the pop-up that screams "Keep Reading..."? Ugh. I quit after that.
Also, please don't confuse conscientiousness with bed-side manner. They are plenty of people have excellent "bed-side manner" (all industries), but are not conscientiousness. Think of a school librarian who is loved by the children, but cannot manage the day-to-day work of library operations. The two may be correlated, but certainly not 100% as this author implies.
To me, testing a software developer for conscientiousness, I could think of two different, but equally valuable ways:
(1) A ridiculously complex set of _written_ requirements to code a function. Literally, show the man page for class C-function "atoi()", then ask them to re-impl in any language. There are /so/ many corner cases. Oh yeah, then testing too. There are harder versions of this function, like "strtol()". Another good one: Ask someone to write a function that can add/subject date periods using multiple holiday calendars. Almost none of them will program it where weekends may be days other than Sat/Sun (looking at you Middle East zone). Example: Subtract six business days using these holiday calendars and these weekend days.
(2) This part is behavioural. Think of an absolutely ridiculous "obstacle course" that you _personally_ needed to complete in the last three months to get something trivial done. Use this as your template. Now create a "Choose Your Own Adventure" style story in your mind. Prompt the candidate with an issue, such as add 10GB of disk space to a network attached storage mount or open/whitelist a port on a firewall. Imagine how many things can go wrong. Every step of the way, challenge with new and absurd obstacles. Check how persistent they are to try different paths. Example: "I cannot log into the website to make the request. Help desk says it takes 3 days to get that access." Better candidates will quickly pivot to ask their teammates -- "Can you help me log into this website?" Etc.
Yes, it is impossible to get perfect on both tests, unless you are a robot or Singularity AI. I've met a few incredibly strong co-workers in one of those categories. If they were even average in the other category, they were a top 5% worker -- easily.
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#9Wow, I did not know conscientiousness meant honesty, creativity, resilience, engagement, and teamwork - an all-in-one package !
Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)
#10> Look for evidence of side-projects or things that go above and beyond. This is always a good sign. Of course, be understanding of people’s personal situations—not everyone has a personal and professional life that allows them the luxury of side projects. That said, I believe most conscientious people will have evidence of these types of projects, even if they are doing them as part of their day job. I have side pro…
I agree. In 2022, it is amazing that people are still using (public) "side projects" as a very strong signal for good job candidates.
Taken to the absurd: >
That also means most people with heavy emotional labour duties (pregnancy, family care, illness, health issues, etc.) are excluded, almost by definition.