"Hiring for Attitude" - New Trend?

Post Reply New Topic

I would invite readers to check out this article, and also to read through the comments that people have left:

Hire For Attitude

Is this new focus on social intelligence going to make things even harder for Aspies trying to get established in tough economic times?

Is the insistence that one's ability to build and maintain relationships be a prerequisite for professional success not something that people with challenges in these areas (but marketable skills in other areas) should speak out about?

I see multiple problems in this new trend for people on the spectrum. We have to remember that lack of relationship skills is not a choice for those with Aspergers...

What are your thoughts?

I don't think it's a new trend - for as long as I can remember job ads always asked for "high energy people person" or "must love people", etc. I always thought of it as discrimination against the introverted, but it certainly discriminates against people on the spectrum as well, since the vast majority of us are also introverts.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the trend is accelerating.

But what can we do? Speak out about it - to whom?

My feeling is that society (and government) doesn't care, period, and not just about Aspies, but anyone who doesn't fit in well. My experience is that the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) has no teeth - it is sham legislation that makes it appear that people are being protected when in fact we're not. Just try to find an attorney who will take an ADA case against an employer. You'll find that every lawyer you contact who handles employment law works for employers only, and doesn't take cases for employees or discriminated against job applicants.

This is one reason why the political and economic developments along these lines have been so alarming over the past 30 years and these are deepening. The abandonment in 1980 of the full employment goal and the deliberate maintenance of a Reserve Army of Labour in order to suppress wages (this allows employers to be much more selective when it comes to the behaviours and personal habits and the question of introversion of candidates) and the promotion of Social Darwinism in the media and society to justify the destruction of those who are deliberately locked out and the deepening of these policies particularly as a result of the crisis caused by these very policies. This is war.

My ideal Aspie-friendly workplace would be one very similar to what we currently have - minus the politics.

Honestly... if work simply remained work-related, and based on an honest exchange of facts, with issues discussed honestly and openly with a goal to constructiveness for all - I think there wouldn't be any issues.

But when you read articles like that one stressing that the most important quality is basically knowing how to be a "player" - well, then, those of us with social communication challenges are suddenly dealt one hell of a (totally unjust, IMHO) blow.

xenon13 - that was an absolutely brilliant post!

A few years ago I would have been clueless as to what you were talking about. Today I see it exactly like that, but I've never been able to express it as clearly as you have. I am so fearful - almost NOBODY seems to know what's really going on - the media is 90% distraction and disinformation. Who gives a damn about people like us and what is happening to us? War indeed. Social Darwinism indeed. And why? Don't we have strengths as well as deficits? Don't we have something to contribute? Why do they want us dead? And who the hell are these people anyway, deciding our fates, making life and death decisions behind closed doors, beyond any public scrutiny let alone accountability? I'm sure they are way above the elected officials we're taught to believe are at the top of the power pyramid.

^ You might look up Leo Strauss. He was a philosopher of sorts at the University of Chicago in the past (I forget how long ago). It won't tell you who those people are, but it will tell you what they think.

Basically, there are those who don't believe in democracy. They believe that the right way of things is for the elite few to rule the masses. And they accept that the masses will not accept that view. So they accept that it is necessary to lie to the masses, because they're not strong enough to handle the truth. I.e. Patriotism is one of their "noble lies."

^ U of Chicago? Then clearly he was a smart guy. I will definitely look up Leo Strauss. Is there anything specific I should look for? (a book of his that you read, or something?)

xenon13's analysis is really compelling.

Put in simpler terms, I see our society now as having entered a downswing when it comes to decency and community. Competition has been made into a holy value. It's not about everyone having a shot at making a decent life for himself so long as he's willing to work and apply himself - it's now about attracting only "the best and brightest" everywhere. There was an article some time back that emphasized that being "average" is no longer cutting it. That right there shows you how the forces that be are trying to sabotage the idea that all human beings have inherent value. Obviously, they don't agree, and want people outcompeting one another.

HR was supposed to eliminate the unfairness of the "old boy network" of the past - but instead, it has grown into a bureaucratic oppressive monster itself, where I think the hurdles being created are much worse than anything that existed previously...

Business rhetoric today is full of superlatives - more so than I remember in my relatively young lifetime.

I don't think this is very new. I think companies have been hiring like this for some time, at least since the 90's.

Anyway what I think it shows, and bear in mind that a lot of hiring managers and HR people do not really understand this well enough to execute it effectively, is that companies are trying to fill themselves with what they see as safe employees.

There will NEVER be a 'perfect' mix of people in an organisation. Teams and departments will always have people leave within 18 months (they will move on for more money, more challenge, or because of interpersonel differences, which is the number one reason anyone leaves their job), there will always be periods where an employee under performs, there will always be the 'bosses favourite', there will always be the cliquey colleagues who prop each other up.

Searching for people who they think have a particular attitude will only give HR a new game to play when they are interviewing.

Also if they are seeking these 'game players', they will find them. Because people are good at bullshitting, especially NT's, and so people will learn what to say to various questions, even down to what tone of voice to use in answering them, what verbs to use etc. They will fool the interviewers and the companies will end up with a firm full of bullshitters.

Look at the banks, look at Enron. They went tits up because they were full of risk taking bullshitters who knew how to 'play the game'.

It will end in tears for the lot of them.

Robdemanc, thanks for that. I like the way you analyzed the whole situation.

I wish we lived in times again, where honor and character would earn one respect rather than this much loved ability to BS and be a player. Someone once wrote that it all started when American culture changed with the rise of the salesman. I don't have a reference for that but I agree with the basic argument.

So many HR recruiters today are twentysomethings who, to be completely fair, don't have the life experience to judge a person's character adequately. I have a NT buddy who is an older guy and has gone through the HR wringer so many times it's not funny. I listened to him tell me recently what it felt like to sit through an interrogation... er, interview, with a young woman who clearly had the office culture persona but obviously little life experience being so young. He said afterwards that he felt that had he been allowed to have a one-on-one discussion with the head engineer of the company, he could have made a more meaningful pitch. Now he regrets not having gone into business for himself years ago.

I think that the rise of HR and a new conservatism among companies has created a situation where a lot of people who might be very good (not perfect - very good) fits at certain positions are simply eliminated on some tiny checkbox or other trivial thing. That may fill quotas for company bureaucrats... but the problem is, it's hurting our society and economy.

I've only looked up things on the web about him rather than by him. His writings are apparently (deliberately) impenetrable unless you have an advanced degree in philosophy (which I don't).

I have been in the same situation as your friend and I'm sure many people have too. Many recruitment agents have given me feedback after a job interview and it went along the lines of: "The IT manager liked you and was keen on employing you but HR were not keen....blah blah."

It makes me laugh that companies think HR have the best idea of who can do specialised technical jobs. They haven't got a clue.

And you are right, they are usually made up of twentysomethings who are so inadequately equipped that they can only 'go by the book'. But as the article states, unemployment being high means organisations can take their pick, and so they are looking beyond the skill set and trying to find the personality.