Hi Tara, I really loved this article, is it possible for me to translate it into portuguese so I can share it with my peers here in Brazil? We really lack this kind of vision with our recruitment people...
The only one I disagree with (ha) is the ‘Disagree and Commit’ — low ego yes, but I was never a huge fan of this as a codified operating principle; it can lead to some dissonance committing to something while unconvinced. Most high potential people I know wouldn’t pass this test.
As an aside, while reading your list, I did think of David Lieb — the underrated creator of Google Photos, who was able to push through Google’s corporate bureaucracy to launch a wildly successful follower product (almost getting fired twice in the process). It’s a fascinating story. His arc shows all the traits you’ve described here.
One thing that I try to find is about the ability to work with other people as a team. This is not always obvious from an interview, and many people find it hard to communicate properly (either not communicating , or just find it very hard to collaborate). However, it is usually something that you’ll also find outside of work (e.g. doing university works together with friends, working on community projects (like OSS projects).
I've been working with underemployed people for 5-7 years and I have to imagine you are referring to some other group of people who are transitioning from one profession to another.
When you gave the example of you taking a chance on 'ex-Juilliard' candidates as an example of 'Finding diamonds in the rough', I am sitting here thinking to myself "You sure are gambling by considering to hire people who managed to compete and make it into one of the most prestigious schools in the world..." I have to imagine you have better stories with your 1k hours interviewing than people who could have easily gotten into Harvard if their passions differed. If you are only speaking on how to hire rich people with a lot of support who just don't have the 1-2 years experience required on resume, that's fine, but a little lacking.
Underemployment happens for a lot of reasons, most of which comes from poverty / lack of perspective / inability to believe that success is achievable / not knowing the steps to take to achieve success. Most of these issues deal with the candidates inability to understand their own work history and struggles and put these things in the right context for the interviewer to understand. You are asking these candidates to (Pulling these from your bullet points):
1. Be in a situation that was mission critical, understand that situation, accurately report it, and package that experience in an easy way for an interviewer to understand. Obviously someone who can do this is a top tier candidate because this is the skill of a top tier candidate, not someone who is 'rough'.
2. Having had control over their life and pick things because they had the opportunity to pick their area of work / develop their expertise. A lot of people need to make choices out of convenience and not because they are a maverick. If your advice is to say to hiring managers "Look, I know you are looking to hire college -> advanced degree -> 1-2 years of relevant experience in a field..But actually if they took those 2 years of relevant experience and instead did something else difficult and hard, it might be worth hiring them.." then w/e. This is the smallest most obvious statement. But I feel you are looking through a field of gemstones at this point and deciding not the prettiest gemstone
3. I hope everyone is well adjusted in society, but turns out there are some negative experiences that are associated with being underemployed, expecting people to walk out unscathed is a bit rough. Obviously you have to work with the person, but pretending as if they are undamaged is unrealistic.
Actually, at this point in my writing, I saw you are looking for D1 footballers who are the top 99.79% in their field. You are only speaking to candidates who are the best in their field (Magic Card Artist, top puzzler..) and your article telling companies that they should consider hiring people who have already demonstrated being more competitive than anyone they choose to compete with.
I guess I just disagree with you that these "Top Nationally Recognized Achievers" are in any sense in the 'rough'.
Hi Tara, I really loved this article, is it possible for me to translate it into portuguese so I can share it with my peers here in Brazil? We really lack this kind of vision with our recruitment people...
Nepotism always wins.
A comprehensive list, love it!
The only one I disagree with (ha) is the ‘Disagree and Commit’ — low ego yes, but I was never a huge fan of this as a codified operating principle; it can lead to some dissonance committing to something while unconvinced. Most high potential people I know wouldn’t pass this test.
As an aside, while reading your list, I did think of David Lieb — the underrated creator of Google Photos, who was able to push through Google’s corporate bureaucracy to launch a wildly successful follower product (almost getting fired twice in the process). It’s a fascinating story. His arc shows all the traits you’ve described here.
An excellent article with great insights!
Great article. Loved reading it. Excellent advice.
This is great advice! I’m sharing with my SCORE clients.
Every Interviewer should read this before rejecting a good talent for the crazy 5-10+workex requirements. I hope the things to get normal soon.
One thing that I try to find is about the ability to work with other people as a team. This is not always obvious from an interview, and many people find it hard to communicate properly (either not communicating , or just find it very hard to collaborate). However, it is usually something that you’ll also find outside of work (e.g. doing university works together with friends, working on community projects (like OSS projects).
I've been working with underemployed people for 5-7 years and I have to imagine you are referring to some other group of people who are transitioning from one profession to another.
When you gave the example of you taking a chance on 'ex-Juilliard' candidates as an example of 'Finding diamonds in the rough', I am sitting here thinking to myself "You sure are gambling by considering to hire people who managed to compete and make it into one of the most prestigious schools in the world..." I have to imagine you have better stories with your 1k hours interviewing than people who could have easily gotten into Harvard if their passions differed. If you are only speaking on how to hire rich people with a lot of support who just don't have the 1-2 years experience required on resume, that's fine, but a little lacking.
Underemployment happens for a lot of reasons, most of which comes from poverty / lack of perspective / inability to believe that success is achievable / not knowing the steps to take to achieve success. Most of these issues deal with the candidates inability to understand their own work history and struggles and put these things in the right context for the interviewer to understand. You are asking these candidates to (Pulling these from your bullet points):
1. Be in a situation that was mission critical, understand that situation, accurately report it, and package that experience in an easy way for an interviewer to understand. Obviously someone who can do this is a top tier candidate because this is the skill of a top tier candidate, not someone who is 'rough'.
2. Having had control over their life and pick things because they had the opportunity to pick their area of work / develop their expertise. A lot of people need to make choices out of convenience and not because they are a maverick. If your advice is to say to hiring managers "Look, I know you are looking to hire college -> advanced degree -> 1-2 years of relevant experience in a field..But actually if they took those 2 years of relevant experience and instead did something else difficult and hard, it might be worth hiring them.." then w/e. This is the smallest most obvious statement. But I feel you are looking through a field of gemstones at this point and deciding not the prettiest gemstone
3. I hope everyone is well adjusted in society, but turns out there are some negative experiences that are associated with being underemployed, expecting people to walk out unscathed is a bit rough. Obviously you have to work with the person, but pretending as if they are undamaged is unrealistic.
Actually, at this point in my writing, I saw you are looking for D1 footballers who are the top 99.79% in their field. You are only speaking to candidates who are the best in their field (Magic Card Artist, top puzzler..) and your article telling companies that they should consider hiring people who have already demonstrated being more competitive than anyone they choose to compete with.
I guess I just disagree with you that these "Top Nationally Recognized Achievers" are in any sense in the 'rough'.
Tara, would you have any advice for people who see themselves in the qualities you describe here, but struggle to get a foot in the door?