Careers

Flaws that would make someone unemployable?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 10th, 2012 10:52 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 15, 2011
5835 posts
1213 upvotes
aGincourt
Being introverted. I'm pretty reserved, but I always put on an act for the interviews. People who are naturally extroverted are more successful with job interviews, because everyone wants to work with the friendly, outgoing, cool, casual guy. Too bad most of them have no work ethic and think of work as an after school program.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3221 upvotes
Calgary
sirex wrote: Mark 77, professional!

This is the most rediculous thread I've ever ready. No one needs snobby professionals, and that's why they are side lined.
Who's snobby? And professionals are expected to be authoritative sources of information in their respective professional fields. That's why they're called professionals.
As for the entitlement, this is actually a HUGE Problem that managers are facing when it comes time to hire. 2 people interviewed last week were of this calibre. very dissapointing.
Some firms often have a sense of entitlement as well. Especially in IT -- many employers demand a laundry list of 'skills' a mile long, many of those 'skills' relatively trivial. And then they throw their hands up and refuse to hire people who have the aptitude to learn those skills easily, claiming a 'labour shortage'.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3221 upvotes
Calgary
Swswswish wrote: Being introverted. I'm pretty reserved, but I always put on an act for the interviews. People who are naturally extroverted are more successful with job interviews, because everyone wants to work with the friendly, outgoing, cool, casual guy. Too bad most of them have no work ethic and think of work as an after school program.
Some jobs want introverts, some jobs want extroverts. Introvert versus extrovert is somewhat of a matter of subjective opinion. A person can be an 'introvert' in terms of the general population, but they can be quite extroverted when viewed in terms of a specific population (ie: nerdy engineers, for instance, who tend to be introverts).

Also, there's the whole concept of social conditioning. A lot of engineers, for instance, were the nerdy types in school. Often bullied or marginalized. Put them into an environment of their true intellectual peers, where their intelligence is valued/respected, and they are often entirely different people. Interview them and ask them about trivial nonsense in their past -- and that leaves a lot of those folks uneasy.

I happen to think that its actually quite dangerous for firms to be engaging in a lot of psychological profiling of staff. The best teams are formed with a diversity of individuals, a diversity of opinions, and a diversity of skillsets.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Fanatic
Oct 7, 2010
9430 posts
1464 upvotes
Sylvestre wrote: The biggest turn off for me is people who come in not knowing or caring about the industry i.e they just want a paycheque and don't care about the work. We see so many people passionate about the industry it's easy to write-off someone who doesn't have it, and only cares about getting that 1st job and/or money. If after 4 years you don't have an inkling of what you want to work on, you wasted a lot of time and money.

Another flaw is coming unprepared. I always start with "tell me about yourself". Likely the single most common and expected question and it's sad how many people truly don't expect this, or respond by saying "well, what do you want to know?" If, after 4 yrs of school, you've not done an interview and thought about this question - you won't get far in the world.

Anything "crazy". Hard to describe but I did have a guy who seriously wanted to work part-time so he could do his other job (offer was for full-time including significant travel). Another guy said he couldn't work (in Mississauga) because he lived in Ottawa and didn't want to move - but was willing to start a new office there (from a fresh grad). One guy told us he had a problem with taking orders and got into fights a lot. Seriously, why even apply?
You are the only one who is making sense here. Not too sure what JK400 / Mark77 is talking about there. They always seem to get on each other's nerves.

At least none of your higher ups decide to hire the crazys. I got one guy who is doing full time/take full time pay, then do work on the side during office hours (hence part time). Not fired yet. Not sure why they stay to work there if they don't think they want to commit full time. The one you have about not wanting to move it's exactly like that guy on here who is apply a job in Thunder Bay, but don't see why he want to work there, and think the company should have a office in Toronto (so he can stay in Toronto).

There are a lot of crazies / entitled ones this day and age. Not to mention that other kid on the other thread thinking he grad from HS, don't have any skills, but don't want to do any manual labour. HS grads = manual labourers (obviously..).
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 23, 2009
5020 posts
2173 upvotes
spike1128 wrote: There are a lot of crazies / entitled ones this day and age. Not to mention that other kid on the other thread thinking he grad from HS, don't have any skills, but don't want to do any manual labour. HS grads = manual labourers (obviously..).
It's not that HS Grads = manual labourers .... it's the fact that you don't have any skills.

If you take the labour job and show that you can do it well and are not a total dunce, they will give you more responsibility which comes with better pay.

Do that job well, and again you will move up.

People are looking at where there parents are at life and pretty much want to be exactly there when they finish school.

That is silly.

See, education does not guarantee a good job, but if you show that you are capable, someone will give you that opportunity.

The problem in the education system is that passing high school doesn't prove anything, and the same thing is happening at the college level. The education system here in Ontario, is a joke.

This has happened because these schools let anyone pass.

....

But the truth is that people do act like they are entitled to the best job. That inability to do another job before they can do what they want to is a flaw. Many companies hire people to do grunt like work to see if you are an appropriate candidate to the work you want to. Unfortunately, people feel entitled to a certain job. That's a big flaw in today's job market.
Member
Jan 27, 2010
440 posts
48 upvotes
sirex wrote: As for the entitlement, this is actually a HUGE Problem that managers are facing when it comes time to hire. 2 people interviewed last week were of this calibre. very dissapointing.
I find this is a two-way street. Some applicants are looking for too much, but some companies look for too much as well. I've interviewed for a couple of "new grad" positions where they wanted multiple years of experience in a union-based manufacturing environment. Either way, it just means that one party is unwilling to put enough effort in to support the needs of the other. Frankly I think it's a bad sign when a company wants professionals coming in with very specific skills already under their belts, it indicates that they're not willing to spend money on professional development, which doesn't bode well for the company in the long term.

I've only been to a couple of places with an attitude of "we're looking for people with good potential, you'll learn all the specifics on the job," and big surprise, those were also the companies with happy employees, high performance, and great employee retention. If your company manages to hold on to highly skilled people even when the competition is trying to poach them with more money, that's a pretty good sign in terms of the work environment.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3221 upvotes
Calgary
Elfer wrote: I find this is a two-way street. Some applicants are looking for too much, but some companies look for too much as well. I've interviewed for a couple of "new grad" positions where they wanted multiple years of experience in a union-based manufacturing environment. Either way, it just means that one party is unwilling to put enough effort in to support the needs of the other. Frankly I think it's a bad sign when a company wants professionals coming in with very specific skills already under their belts, it indicates that they're not willing to spend money on professional development, which doesn't bode well for the company in the long term.

I've only been to a couple of places with an attitude of "we're looking for people with good potential, you'll learn all the specifics on the job," and big surprise, those were also the companies with happy employees, high performance, and great employee retention. If your company manages to hold on to highly skilled people even when the competition is trying to poach them with more money, that's a pretty good sign in terms of the work environment.
+1, I couldn't have said it better.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Jun 11, 2010
1195 posts
95 upvotes
Elfer wrote: I find this is a two-way street. Some applicants are looking for too much, but some companies look for too much as well. I've interviewed for a couple of "new grad" positions where they wanted multiple years of experience in a union-based manufacturing environment. Either way, it just means that one party is unwilling to put enough effort in to support the needs of the other. Frankly I think it's a bad sign when a company wants professionals coming in with very specific skills already under their belts, it indicates that they're not willing to spend money on professional development, which doesn't bode well for the company in the long term.

I've only been to a couple of places with an attitude of "we're looking for people with good potential, you'll learn all the specifics on the job," and big surprise, those were also the companies with happy employees, high performance, and great employee retention. If your company manages to hold on to highly skilled people even when the competition is trying to poach them with more money, that's a pretty good sign in terms of the work environment.
There is definitely a disconnect between graduate eligibility for jobs, and general availability of jobs.

I was having a conversation yesterday with a baseball buddy of mine, and he said - "My dream job just opened up the other day. It's what I went to school for, so I really hope I get it." It just seems a little sad that this guy went to school to be this thing (I think it was forest conservation) and a few years down the road he's still dreaming of the day when he can actually get a job doing the damn thing he want to school for.

I mean the school says he's perfectly eligible. He has a piece of paper that says, "Hey I set aside a couple years of my life and a bunch of money to train myself so you don't have to!" and he can't just do the damn thing. He's a perfectly nice guy too.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3221 upvotes
Calgary
vaportrails wrote: There is definitely a disconnect between graduate eligibility for jobs, and general availability of jobs.
Absolutely. And the worst is when HR exxagerates the 'experience' requirement, simply because they get a thousand resumes. I've watched as positions that were clearly entry-level in 1998-1999, for engineering -- are, these days, positions that demand 8-10 years of in-depth experience. Of course, if you talk to HR and ask them "where am I supposed to get that 8-10 years of experience", they'll tell you to go apply somewhere else.
I was having a conversation yesterday with a baseball buddy of mine, and he said - "My dream job just opened up the other day. It's what I went to school for, so I really hope I get it." It just seems a little sad that this guy went to school to be this thing (I think it was forest conservation) and a few years down the road he's still dreaming of the day when he can actually get a job doing the damn thing he want to school for.
Some programs clearly aren't creating people who are all that employable. For instance, MBA schools like to imply that a MBA recipient will enter a business as a manager, but very few businesses will actually employ a 20-something-year-old as a manager, even with that shiny MBA.
I mean the school says he's perfectly eligible. He has a piece of paper that says, "Hey I set aside a couple years of my life and a bunch of money to train myself so you don't have to!" and he can't just do the damn thing. He's a perfectly nice guy too.
Yup, very common in engineering (ECE specifically). You have a lot of extremely brilliant people, who could contribute a lot, sitting on the sidelines. While intransigent HR personnel are often to blame, there is the very serious problem in the economy of not enough economic activity, particularly in the ICT sector, but also more generally (esp. in productivity-enhancing industries), to support the base of engineers out there.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 20, 2010
2219 posts
499 upvotes
With HR taking over and destroying companies these days, resumes are often filtered for the right buzz words and 'soft skills' rather than the technical abilities. Employers are often intimidated by people with more education and intelligence than them, and they are also intimidated by people with confidence who are in good shape and have full heads of hair. With the collapse of Nortel, the market is now flooded far past the saturation point and the likelihood of you winning the HR selection lottery recruitment process is almost nothing.
Deal Guru
Aug 14, 2007
10818 posts
1966 upvotes
Toronto
Nucks wrote: I wonder if I'd get any sympathy points if I tell recruiters that my hair magically starts curling like an afro after it grows 2 cms and makes me look absolutely disgusting? I need to cut my hair every three weeks to not look like a werewolf in the office!
Same for me, but i get a wierd puff at the crown of my head
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 1, 2006
3370 posts
343 upvotes
Brisbane
What I hate is the conspiracy between all the HR departments and senior management to depress wages and employ only dumb people. It's a travesty for our economy, and intelligent people should be creating and innovating with their gigantic brains and good looks.
Jr. Member
Aug 3, 2010
154 posts
13 upvotes
Vancouver
Maybe if Nortel had laid off all those useless engineers and the ten support staff for each of them they wouldn't have gone under.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3221 upvotes
Calgary
JuanExprales wrote: Maybe if Nortel had laid off all those useless engineers and the ten support staff for each of them they wouldn't have gone under.
Nortel's problems weren't in the engineering department (they almost always had industry-leading products) -- the big problems were in the accounting function, and business leadership.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Jr. Member
Aug 3, 2010
154 posts
13 upvotes
Vancouver
Mark77 wrote: Nortel's problems weren't in the engineering department (they almost always had industry-leading products) -- the big problems were in the accounting function, and business leadership.
Even with all those industry leading products they were going under. That's why the accounting types at the top decided to cook the books. If the company was making money the accounting types wouldn't have needed to cook the books.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3221 upvotes
Calgary
JuanExprales wrote: Even with all those industry leading products they were going under. That's why the accounting types at the top decided to cook the books. If the company was making money the accounting types wouldn't have needed to cook the books.
And they weren't making money because the business folks had committed to over-expansion, overpaying for acquisitions (many of whom had technology that would have been trivial for in-house Nortel engineers to replicate), wasteful practices (ie: they almost single-handedely kept Canadian Airlines in business with all the business class tickets they bought), and overproduction.

These were mainly business decisions. An engineer who was an expert in, say, optical networking, or in building cell phone base stations, for instance, had absolutely no part in the demise of the firm, but suffered most of the consequences. The $100-$150k/year such engineer was probably paid was a mere pittance compared to the other costs of the firm.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
Jul 3, 2012
53 posts
3 upvotes
You have an attitude and doesnt know how to blend in with your office mates, well that can be a reason for you to lose your job.
Banned
Nov 27, 2006
2200 posts
444 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote: And they weren't making money because the business folks had committed to over-expansion, overpaying for acquisitions (many of whom had technology that would have been trivial for in-house Nortel engineers to replicate), wasteful practices (ie: they almost single-handedely kept Canadian Airlines in business with all the business class tickets they bought), and overproduction.

These were mainly business decisions. An engineer who was an expert in, say, optical networking, or in building cell phone base stations, for instance, had absolutely no part in the demise of the firm, but suffered most of the consequences. The $100-$150k/year such engineer was probably paid was a mere pittance compared to the other costs of the firm.
Mark, you mention a common problem with most business and business owners/people.

That need for ever expansion. It is what all business models seem to be built on. expand and expand. but what is interesting is that how can you expand ad infinitum, however be on a planet with finite resources and people?

It seems that today, all corporations are in a race to get to the top and to keep growing.

Why cant a corporation grow to a size, become stable, inovate new products, and survive that way?

It's not that it can't. It's that our society is stupid.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3221 upvotes
Calgary
sirex wrote: Mark, you mention a common problem with most business and business owners/people.Why cant a corporation grow to a size, become stable, inovate new products, and survive that way?
John Roth and the Board (ie: Red Wilson and friends) were like drunken sailors. Buying businesses for the sake of creating hype. Some of it made a lot of sense, but much of it was barely coherent.

Probably if they had more involvement of engineers at the executive/board level, and more importantly, some technological understanding of what they were buying, more of the value of the business would have been preserved.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...

Top