Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly the bigger the company the more prevalent that is. I work for a company in the top 1/2 of the Fortune 500, my office is right by one of our busiest (and loudest) recruiters so I hear things like that all the time. It's pushed by the people who bought MBAs and think business can be run 100% from a spreadsheet. Don't have at least a 3.75 from the right school and your resume won't even be looked at, much less get an interview these days. "wrong" degree or <gasp> no degree but years of experience counts for nothing if you don't already have an in at the company.
Character does count though, in some ways more than ever because most positions are filled by being recommended by someone already at the company. People won't stick their neck out and put someone in front of a hiring manager if they don't believe in the person. There may not be ads looking for 'a good man' but if you're a good man (or woman) chances are networking is going to be more valuable than your degree.
I think the smaller the company the more character counts vs the right degree or GPA. I suppose that explains why at the largest corporation (the US government) paper counts for more than character.
I remember a time when one did not have to network, to be deemed of good character and hired. If I had, had a crystal ball back in 1997 and I had known that networking was the only way I would be getting a job today...I would have wrote down all the names and numbers of the people that told me, 'if you ever need a job, call me' and I would not be a part time employee today, but a full time one instead in a job more suited to my, no degree, skills sets.
Who knew that the Internet burst, joblessness was going to follow...and a good man would be hard pressed to land a decent job paying a decent wage. Information Super Highway was thought to be a job creator, not destroyer...so what happened? Hiring practices changed and even those with MBA's can't get a job unless they know some one inside the company willing to go to bat for 'em, that's what happened.
So, how many people do you know is the question, rather than what experience or GPA do you have? And if you can't pass the personality test you're sol and the person who spoke up for you, is now embarrassed.
No, actually, these things are done to prevent hiring someone who might, say, support the TEA Party, or have a poor credit rating (and thus, cause liability insurance to go up). You can't tell a person's character from their credit rating or a "no evidence" response from a background check. But those are metrics insurers use.
Every job I have ever gotten, I got because of who I am, not because of a background investigation, not because of a resume ( the resume I give out is one short page that says almost nothing).
I didn't say they did. I said they hire based on trivia, not on character.
No, actually. I got my first car loan because the man at the bank looked at me and said "Do you have a job?" And even though I was young and not all that dry behind the ears, he gave me a chance because he judged me honest, even though I had no credit file. And he had decades of experience judging people's character.
I guess you haven't seen the hiring processes these days...
Your character had nothing to do with your new car loan. Your job was the only thing needed.
Banks make money by loaning money out and getting more money back from the loans. Period.
Did the car dealership consider your character? Nope. They need to sell cars. That's how they make money. Banks sell money to make more money.
You could have had a sterling character or you could have been as crooked as a dog's hind leg- no difference to the bank. Your job gave them the legal means to collect the money you owed them through legal means if necessary.
What about the 'character' of the car salesman or the loan officer? Both probably turned someone else away the same week you bought your car. Both sold what the offered to someone else who was a real jerk and a real pain in the butt to both that same week. Both took a greater risk with someone else than you that same week. Both had cream puff deals happen that same week.
Your character didn't mean doodley-squat to any of that at all. These days, since everyone knows much more about your financial history than in earlier times, even a job might not be good enough to land another new car loan for you. Or me. Charity depends on character. Business is not charity if it is to be successful.
Meh.
You started the game, then refused to play it.
The fact is: Business and politics have no equivalency. Chrysler was not just a good mechanic. If he was only a good mechanic, he would never have left his first good job.
Chrysler was a Businessman. Business was where his skill set was from the beginning. he just discovered that ability over time. There were millions of mechanics that never had the skills to begin with then, just as now.
Politicians have a totally different skill set. Governing is not a business. It is the management of society, not management of only dollars and cents. It is a skill of understanding another person's mentality, not the understanding of a ledger. Imagination is equally important in both, but are totally different in their application and skills at their utmost highest levels. The Federal government is the topmost level for politicians. A billion dollar corporation is the topmost lever for business people. Each has it's own singular demands, priorities, and needs.
Governement, after all, creates a national currency. Business after all, only uses the currency. Both spread it around equally, but in completely different ways.
When it comes to stuff like "character", our history is full of saints and scoundrels on either side of the game you chose. The real truth is neither business nor politics depends on soldiers throwing themselves on grenades. That's a completely different kind of character entirely. Throwing a bag of your jumbled beliefs doesn't help help your position any. Combat does not equal business, and business does not equal politics in the basic realities of them all. You have metaphor mixed up with reality.
So- where do you want to play the game you started? You began the false equivalency. Do you want to argue the relative merits of Chrysler vs. Henry Ford, both now historical figures in the distant past, or do you want to argue the relative merits of Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama?
It's your topic. Since this is a Politics forum, you can't argue both at the same time. That's like debating the relative merits of a wrench vs. a living creature.
There's another forum here for History, and another forum here for Business. If you aren't willing to argue half of your false equivalency on its political side, then take it to the forum you want to argue it. You can't use one for arguing the other.
If I decide to play your silly game in this forum, then all I have to say is: Who won? who lost? Who lost once? Who won twice?
Even on this side of your false equivalency, our choice of people is a double falsity; one ran for President, the other did not.
Since both Palin and Obama are finished politically, maybe you should take this one up in History instead. Let's argue about alternative history… that's always a never-ending subject that leads in any direction a person wants to take. I think you would be much more comfortable there.
That, that I placed in bold...a 'good mechanic' in today's time Chrysler would be hard pressed to find a mechanics job if he can not pass the personality test during the hiring procedures.
Last year at this time I over heard a conversation between a career counselor and a person looking for a job as a mechanic. She told him that when he went to apply at xyz company that he would be asked to take the personality test. She said and I quote, 'you can be the best mechanic in the world, but if you fail that test, you will not get the job'.
So the 'good man' that the op is referring too has been replaced by the 'good personality tests' and amateur psychologists.
Now maybe that is the test we need to give our prospective presidents as seems it works so well in the private sector of employment to weed out those with character flaws.
Your character had nothing to do with your new car loan. Your job was the only thing needed.
Banks make money by loaning money out and getting more money back from the loans. Period.
Did the car dealership consider your character? Nope. They need to sell cars. That's how they make money. Banks sell money to make more money.
You could have had a sterling character or you could have been as crooked as a dog's hind leg- no difference to the bank. Your job gave them the legal means to collect the money you owed them through legal means if necessary.
What about the 'character' of the car salesman or the loan officer? Both probably turned someone else away the same week you bought your car. Both sold what the offered to someone else who was a real jerk and a real pain in the butt to both that same week. Both took a greater risk with someone else than you that same week. Both had cream puff deals happen that same week.
Your character didn't mean doodley-squat to any of that at all. These days, since everyone knows much more about your financial history than in earlier times, even a job might not be good enough to land another new car loan for you. Or me. Charity depends on character. Business is not charity if it is to be successful.
Actually they make more money if the person defaults on the loan. Bush, 'everyone should own a home' that was not to long ago. The banks were lending because they could. They knew that even if the person taking the risk failed to pay up, they could in turn re sell the home and in doing so, they made more money.
Then the real estate bubble burst.
So when Obama came in with his, 'yes we can' slogan, my immediate thought was, just because some one says we can, doesn't mean we should.
Don't employers rely on your credit history to determine your credit-ability (character)?
It depends on the job. I work for a major contributor in the snack food industry, they hired me, not because I passed a personality test which is good, cause I fail those and not because I have a good credit score, which is good cause I haven't one of those either, but because I was given a shot and proved myself of good character.
Banks or any industry where a person deals with cash or would have access to cash records, they must have a good credit rating, because, here's the kicker, it is thought those with good credit rating are least likely to steal.
Guess what my last good job was...cash management! And I never saw a penny as all work was back office to ATMs and done on spreadsheets using the raw data gathered from the machines. (2001, long time ago)
I use to be awesome and I'm not any more and it sucks to be me. But I am of good character and my present employer knows that, so...it must count for something right? No millions in my future....
That, that I placed in bold...a 'good mechanic' in today's time Chrysler would be hard pressed to find a mechanics job if he can not pass the personality test during the hiring procedures.
Last year at this time I over heard a conversation between a career counselor and a person looking for a job as a mechanic. She told him that when he went to apply at xyz company that he would be asked to take the personality test. She said and I quote, 'you can be the best mechanic in the world, but if you fail that test, you will not get the job'.
So the 'good man' that the op is referring too has been replaced by the 'good personality tests' and amateur psychologists.
Now maybe that is the test we need to give our prospective presidents as seems it works so well in the private sector of employment to weed out those with character flaws.
No argument on this from me, Ellis, except to say that I wonder if this new way of hiring is serving us well or not. There's no doubt it's a fact, and it's been going on for a long time now. I got one myself in 2003.
And, if there is any statistical evidence that this practice does make for better employees, then maybe similar studies could be done with an eye toward using it in our political choices.
I don't think anything that was designed for the business world would apply with the same tests, however. I still believe the endeavors are too different from each other.
It depends on the job. I work for a major contributor in the snack food industry, they hired me, not because I passed a personality test which is good, cause I fail those and not because I have a good credit score, which is good cause I haven't one of those either, but because I was given a shot and proved myself of good character.
Banks or any industry where a person deals with cash or would have access to cash records, they must have a good credit rating, because, here's the kicker, it is thought those with good credit rating are least likely to steal.
Guess what my last good job was...cash management! And I never saw a penny as all work was back office to ATMs and done on spreadsheets using the raw data gathered from the machines. (2001, long time ago)
I use to be awesome and I'm not any more and it sucks to be me. But I am of good character and my present employer knows that, so...it must count for something right? No millions in my future....
The term 'good character' has different meanings. I take it that you imply the term to mean that you were honest in regards to trusting you with cash. Honesty tends to give some honest folks a prickly nature, which usually doesn't score well on a personality test. At the same time, honesty at a time when a person's credit rating shows record of financial difficulty may be evidence of integrity as well as honesty, both traits that would be more valuable tham a sweet temperament when handling a lot of cash is the nature of the job.
While I'm not saying you lack character, or that you do, I'm just point out that the word may be different for the guy who hired you than it is for you.
I'm fairly sure you are honest for the same reasons I am… you never have to worry about what you said, because what you said was either the truth or an unintentional falsehood, and you're honest because honesty never keeps you awake at night wondering if you a bad thing you did will be found out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I am of good character and my present employer knows that, so...it must count for something right? No millions in my future....
