2009-09-10 01:16:02frank
「彼得原理」與「呆伯特法則」(Part II)
大部份的人在得知「彼得原理」之後，除了以資茶餘飯後的閒談之外，或許也會想自己是否有一天也會升到一個無法升任的位子呢？
前幾天，與以前的同事聊天，他提及他曾搞砸了一個大案子，主管一直盯他要如何補救，但實在已無法挽回，他要主管把他拔階(降級)。另外他還告訴我，因為考量要多延長幾年工作，所以拒絕升官。他是我在現實生活中遇到除了Ａ大爺外，另一位有智慧的人。
康乃爾大學的心理學家們做了一個研究"Unskilled And Unaware Of It"或許可以翻譯成「不擅長又無知」，而這個研究的結論實在令人擔憂，正如伯特蘭·羅素(Bertrand Russell, 1872~1970) 所說的「這個世界最麻煩的事是愚者遇事自信篤定，智者卻事事存疑。」而研究也附和了這個論點。這個現象對上班族(薪水階級)來說，或無奈，或憂心，但是對老闆(企業主)而言，是個棘手的難題，下面這篇選自紐約時報網站的專欄文章或許可供參考。
面對這樣的隱憂，大部份的人可能會補強自己的弱點，讓自己在機會敲門時，能拿把握住，並有好表現。可是，就算是明白自己的弱點，通常也無法找到真正有效的方法來補強。所以也有一些人深諳組織行為，發展人際網路，以種種政治或交際技巧，來掩護能力不足。
有一位行銷專家馬可仕·白金翰根據蓋洛普公司的調查資料發現：真正的成功者是充分的利用自己的長處。因此他建議：如果你明白自己的弱點，就已經勝過大部份的人了，不需要浪費時間補強弱點。專注自己擅長的事(工作)，才是真正的解決之道。
在職場，收入通常隨著年資與階級的升高而增加，尤其是後者。子曰：「學如逆水行舟，不進則退。」學習當然是無止境的，專業技能、應變、溝通、協調、待人接物、應對進退、團隊合作... 等等，在這個講究競爭的時代，沒有學習的心，是會被淘汰的。但在階層組織中，是否也是「不進則退」？當有晉升機會時，真是要好好思考這個問題。
Remarks:
這篇網誌應該在昨天就寫完，但因為打字太慢，搞到半夜仍無法完成，所以分成兩篇。若你只看此篇，也請讀昨天發表同名網誌裡所選自英國衛報(The Guardian)的專欄文章。
August 19, 2009, 3:56 pm
Updating the Peter Principle: How to Hire After the Recession
By Jay Goltz
There are some signs that the economy is starting to turn around. If you have been running lean on people, you might be considering hiring someone soon. Happily, there are some very good people out there looking for jobs — but there are many more less-than-good people. The question is, how do you know which is which? You can get lucky only so often. I can tell you that most of the business problems I’ve had over the years have been because of bad hiring.
First of all, understand that entrepreneurs frequently aren’t great at hiring. They tend to like people and to be optimistic, which is dangerous in the hiring process. Here’s a better approach: Think guilty until proven innocent. People lie and are delusional. And some of the worst are the best at interviewing; they have lots of experience!
The problem is that busy entrepreneurs want to get through the hiring process as quickly as possible. During interviews, they spend too much time talking about the great company they are building. And they either don’t take the time to check references or don’t know how to do it. They hear what they want to hear, and they don’t know how to ask the tough questions. For instance, if he was such a great sales person, why did you lay him off?
Here’s another good one: Would you rehire her? The typical corporate response is: No, it’s against our policy to rehire. Well, what if it weren’t your policy? That often brings a long silence, which is when you know you’ve got a problem.
There is also the matter of money, or lack of it. Trying to hire great people requires more money than we can sometimes afford, or at least think we can afford. Looking back, I realize that I would have been better off paying more money for experienced people than getting a bargain on someone too green or too mediocre.
At a time like this, it’s important to remember “The Peter Principle.” The book, written by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in 1969, describes how people advance in a company — doing a good job and getting promoted until they hit their level of incompetence. Then they stop getting promoted.
I would like to update this theory. These days, instead of not getting promoted, they get laid off, downsized or job-eliminated. (Take your fingers off that keyboard! I’m not saying that all people who are laid off are incompetent!) Then maybe I hire them, thinking I’m getting the other company’s secret sauce. Or you hire them, thinking they are going to help “take you to the next level.” Sometimes it works. Frequently, it does not. You need to improve the odds.
When I was finally ready to hire a showroom manager to oversee my five or six sales consultants a few years back, I interviewed a woman who had been running a lighting showroom with five people. I asked her how many people she had to go through to end up with the five good people she had. She said none. She said everyone she had hired worked out well. I laughed. Then I told her, “Either I have much higher standards than you, or you are some kind of hiring goddess.”
I hired the woman. Her name is Ivy. She is a hiring goddess. She was with me for about six years until she left to move to Portland, Ore., about 10 years ago. Most of the people she hired are still with me. We would interview together, and afterward she would ask me what I thought. I would frequently say that I liked the candidate. She would then proceed to tell me the many reasons why the person would be a horrible hire. I stopped interviewing with her. Her batting average was about 90 percent. Mine was about 50 percent. I found better things to do.
There are other ways to hire for crucial positions. You can use a contingency search firm, which charges a percentage of the yearly salary. I have tried that a few times, and it has never worked out. Maybe I picked the wrong firms.
Another option I have found is hiring a contract recruiter. This person does the interviewing for you and charges by the hour. I asked Miriam Berger, owner of A Hire Authority in Deerfield, Ill., and someone whose services I had used, why companies hired independent contract recruiters. Many companies, she explained, do not hire enough people to justify the expense of a full-time recruiter. The company saves a lot of money by paying the recruiter by the hour instead of a percentage. Plus, the person becomes intimately familiar with the company and can hire more than one person at a time without extra expense.
Establishing a better hiring process will have a profound impact on your business. When you hire better people, not only does your business get better, but your life also gets easier. It’s the ultimate win-win.
Jay Goltz owns three small businesses in Chicago.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/updating-the-peter-principle-how-to-hire-after-the-recession/
The essay in English was taken from The New York Times. The copyright of the essay remains with its original owner. The author of the essay and The New York Times are not involved with, nor endorse the production of this blog.
Photo taken at Houshan, Yangminshan National Park, Taipei by Frank, 2009.3.15.
前幾天，與以前的同事聊天，他提及他曾搞砸了一個大案子，主管一直盯他要如何補救，但實在已無法挽回，他要主管把他拔階(降級)。另外他還告訴我，因為考量要多延長幾年工作，所以拒絕升官。他是我在現實生活中遇到除了Ａ大爺外，另一位有智慧的人。
康乃爾大學的心理學家們做了一個研究"Unskilled And Unaware Of It"或許可以翻譯成「不擅長又無知」，而這個研究的結論實在令人擔憂，正如伯特蘭·羅素(Bertrand Russell, 1872~1970) 所說的「這個世界最麻煩的事是愚者遇事自信篤定，智者卻事事存疑。」而研究也附和了這個論點。這個現象對上班族(薪水階級)來說，或無奈，或憂心，但是對老闆(企業主)而言，是個棘手的難題，下面這篇選自紐約時報網站的專欄文章或許可供參考。
面對這樣的隱憂，大部份的人可能會補強自己的弱點，讓自己在機會敲門時，能拿把握住，並有好表現。可是，就算是明白自己的弱點，通常也無法找到真正有效的方法來補強。所以也有一些人深諳組織行為，發展人際網路，以種種政治或交際技巧，來掩護能力不足。
有一位行銷專家馬可仕·白金翰根據蓋洛普公司的調查資料發現：真正的成功者是充分的利用自己的長處。因此他建議：如果你明白自己的弱點，就已經勝過大部份的人了，不需要浪費時間補強弱點。專注自己擅長的事(工作)，才是真正的解決之道。
在職場，收入通常隨著年資與階級的升高而增加，尤其是後者。子曰：「學如逆水行舟，不進則退。」學習當然是無止境的，專業技能、應變、溝通、協調、待人接物、應對進退、團隊合作... 等等，在這個講究競爭的時代，沒有學習的心，是會被淘汰的。但在階層組織中，是否也是「不進則退」？當有晉升機會時，真是要好好思考這個問題。
Remarks:
這篇網誌應該在昨天就寫完，但因為打字太慢，搞到半夜仍無法完成，所以分成兩篇。若你只看此篇，也請讀昨天發表同名網誌裡所選自英國衛報(The Guardian)的專欄文章。
August 19, 2009, 3:56 pm
Updating the Peter Principle: How to Hire After the Recession
By Jay Goltz
There are some signs that the economy is starting to turn around. If you have been running lean on people, you might be considering hiring someone soon. Happily, there are some very good people out there looking for jobs — but there are many more less-than-good people. The question is, how do you know which is which? You can get lucky only so often. I can tell you that most of the business problems I’ve had over the years have been because of bad hiring.
First of all, understand that entrepreneurs frequently aren’t great at hiring. They tend to like people and to be optimistic, which is dangerous in the hiring process. Here’s a better approach: Think guilty until proven innocent. People lie and are delusional. And some of the worst are the best at interviewing; they have lots of experience!
The problem is that busy entrepreneurs want to get through the hiring process as quickly as possible. During interviews, they spend too much time talking about the great company they are building. And they either don’t take the time to check references or don’t know how to do it. They hear what they want to hear, and they don’t know how to ask the tough questions. For instance, if he was such a great sales person, why did you lay him off?
Here’s another good one: Would you rehire her? The typical corporate response is: No, it’s against our policy to rehire. Well, what if it weren’t your policy? That often brings a long silence, which is when you know you’ve got a problem.
There is also the matter of money, or lack of it. Trying to hire great people requires more money than we can sometimes afford, or at least think we can afford. Looking back, I realize that I would have been better off paying more money for experienced people than getting a bargain on someone too green or too mediocre.
At a time like this, it’s important to remember “The Peter Principle.” The book, written by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in 1969, describes how people advance in a company — doing a good job and getting promoted until they hit their level of incompetence. Then they stop getting promoted.
I would like to update this theory. These days, instead of not getting promoted, they get laid off, downsized or job-eliminated. (Take your fingers off that keyboard! I’m not saying that all people who are laid off are incompetent!) Then maybe I hire them, thinking I’m getting the other company’s secret sauce. Or you hire them, thinking they are going to help “take you to the next level.” Sometimes it works. Frequently, it does not. You need to improve the odds.
When I was finally ready to hire a showroom manager to oversee my five or six sales consultants a few years back, I interviewed a woman who had been running a lighting showroom with five people. I asked her how many people she had to go through to end up with the five good people she had. She said none. She said everyone she had hired worked out well. I laughed. Then I told her, “Either I have much higher standards than you, or you are some kind of hiring goddess.”
I hired the woman. Her name is Ivy. She is a hiring goddess. She was with me for about six years until she left to move to Portland, Ore., about 10 years ago. Most of the people she hired are still with me. We would interview together, and afterward she would ask me what I thought. I would frequently say that I liked the candidate. She would then proceed to tell me the many reasons why the person would be a horrible hire. I stopped interviewing with her. Her batting average was about 90 percent. Mine was about 50 percent. I found better things to do.
There are other ways to hire for crucial positions. You can use a contingency search firm, which charges a percentage of the yearly salary. I have tried that a few times, and it has never worked out. Maybe I picked the wrong firms.
Another option I have found is hiring a contract recruiter. This person does the interviewing for you and charges by the hour. I asked Miriam Berger, owner of A Hire Authority in Deerfield, Ill., and someone whose services I had used, why companies hired independent contract recruiters. Many companies, she explained, do not hire enough people to justify the expense of a full-time recruiter. The company saves a lot of money by paying the recruiter by the hour instead of a percentage. Plus, the person becomes intimately familiar with the company and can hire more than one person at a time without extra expense.
Establishing a better hiring process will have a profound impact on your business. When you hire better people, not only does your business get better, but your life also gets easier. It’s the ultimate win-win.
Jay Goltz owns three small businesses in Chicago.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/updating-the-peter-principle-how-to-hire-after-the-recession/
The essay in English was taken from The New York Times. The copyright of the essay remains with its original owner. The author of the essay and The New York Times are not involved with, nor endorse the production of this blog.
Photo taken at Houshan, Yangminshan National Park, Taipei by Frank, 2009.3.15.