Job Interview

I have been in a few during my journey on planet earth. There are lot of variety how they are conducted.

As an applicant, it is important to take use of the opportunity to figure out what kind of place the employer is - it is a two-way interview, also the employer is an applicant, which sometimes is not fully understood by the presentative of the employer.

A good approach I have concluded, is, in top of normal guidance of knowing the company:

• Spend time on a company website if they have such
• Study their values, vision, story. Values should not only be about delivery.
• If there are external interviews, case studies, presentations study these.
• Discuss about values, and how they guide the everyday work. This both with HR and hiring manager. Ideally one does not need to think values separately them being organic part of person but they still need to act accordingly.
• Ask retention, how many people have left and to where
• Try to get in talks with current team members, preferrably with diffrent backgrounds, this was hugely beneficial for me to put pieces together.

• Try to evaluate how hiring manager is talking about team, the words I, me, us, responsibility, trust how they are used in rhetoric can show the attitude (generally, as an example, more experiend and best managers do not use I, say "trusting team" instead of "giving responsibility” etc)
• Ask career possibilities, objectives, bonuses.
• if company says learning organization, walk the talk is support employee thinking - this means r&d and entreprenourial spirit should be supported. Common thing is to lean into conventional historical way of doing, sometimes which is good on some areas, but it prevents thinking.
• Be honest. tell that, reason being that if you lie then you are different person at work than they hired.
• Where do you want to be n years, this figures out if having direct goals. Sometimes not understanding Zen-thinking that goals may not work so dreams is better, and if explaining otherwise than career ladder, try to mirror it to goal, like better expert and gaining more holistic understanding of various areas you are supporting.
• There are some common questions which can be interpreted wrongly, like I commonly am thought to be seeking short term jobs, but have not yet fully figured out why that is thought since it is not the case. This means that you should explain your stance for question within what context it is valid. Naturally, this means that interviewers should first get to know the interviewee before making definite conclusions how to interprete the assessment.
• They may ask about values. Based on psychological competence, the unconscious competence is best, meaning the competence is "second nature", without extra thought into it. This is ideal situation with values, no separate thought as it comes naturally. However it depends on the interviewer how things are interpreted.
• Questions about weaknesses, well that depends on the job. Some jobs are easier to know before hand, some others are more difficult - it is not that person does not know himself. Some may think this being a sign of emotional intelligence when knowing weaknesses, but it is quite difficult to know if job is more abstract.
• Questions from interviewers can be indirect. This means that they can ask questions which they think may give an answer to a question which was actually not asked. You may want to ask clarification as well what is wanted to be known. This where do you want to be in n years can be such.
• One interesting thing could be to try to ask if you are hired as an expert or proficient, competent, advanced beginner, or novice person. This sets some requirements for you in regards way of working, and also to figure out how the management works - e.g closer to expert you are, less rules and management there must be.
• Try to ask corner cases, like how is remote work supported, or how you can buy a computer which is not attached to a corporate network. Those seeing it as mandatory evil try to keep you at office, as well as more junior managers.
• Note also that a companies who restrict employee thinking and want them to adapt for conventional way or working blindlessly, they may see curious person with many questions a potential danger for existing culture.
• ideally a new member into company, team, should complement the team - not blend in.
• Wanting external views mean that internal thinking is not in shape.

Generally speaking, you are trying to assess the maturity of your boss, internal culture, available freedom, ability to think instead of purely being told what to do.
One generic article supporting this:
https://hbr.org/2016/12/6-traits-that-predict-ethical-behavior-at-work
One good description of the evolution of a leader can be found here:
http://http://c4isys.blogspot.fi/2016/06/genesis-of-leader.html

Some very good guidance, in my opinion can be found from the links below, please note that not everyone need to reverse, program - they unconsciously teach you logical, mathematical thinking which is essential. I selected some of the advices breaking into security field, as it is a special field when comparing to others, like an form of art, craft instead of mechanical science although many think it as a science.

https://moxie.org/blog/career-advice/
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/06/how-to-break-into-security-ptacek-edition/
http://https://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/08/how-to-break-into-security-miller-edition/
https://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2016/08/so-you-want-to-work-in-security-but-are.html

A totally different posting could be different suitability tests, which can give very varying outcomes, lets just say that if you eveluate a fish for its ability to climb a tree, it will think being stupid for rest of its life. This means that same test should not be used for everyone. People just are different, and some of the most famous scientists did not succeed on Mensas test either. Spatial intelligence can be trained with Sudoku, when you look numbers as symbols instead. Mathematical questions typically are on high school level.

R.I.P Good Journalism

The power of the internet is that everyone can be a journalist. The downside of the internet is that everyone can be a journalist.

The power of internet is that speed upon which people get news from any event. The downside is the speed. People get used to speed, and that creates cycle to create news fastly, which then can lead into incomplete, potentially erranous news.

The competition to get news out is the new goldrush. This means having news is the news. Speed over content. Correctness, truthfulness of them is seconday, and if there are any corrections, not many read those - corrections are not news anymore. If people spend time to send the corrections, the writer tends to add the correction in a form "n.n send this: blahblah" - aka not admitting the mistake on the first place but pointing out someone sending it (this is same as saying "sorry if i have offended anyone" - the word "if" points out not taking responsibilit) and bringing totally outsider into a limelight. Admitting mistakes would be crucial to gain trustworthiness.

Internal politics, cloak and dagger - world

What would Batman do a situation like this?

That was what came into my mind when I heard one manager confessing that he cannot fix one problem at his employer since the person to whom he would need to say about that, is equal level in organizational hierarchy to him. So there can be constant problems presented by situation, mocking etc but not telling the problem to stop this due being scared to talk to other person who has a same title.

Let that sink in for the moment, and then repeat it:

"Organization, and people within, can suffer when a manager makes a decision to refuse telilng other manager some things" Which one from those two is more important?

Got it?

Who is to blame on this kind of situation? the original wrongdoer? the manager who is scared? organization?

Unfortunately these kind of situations are not rare in corprate world. The twisted picture of successful person supports cloak and dagger, stomping into feet, extrovert, talking rather than doing. It is also difficult to see this, since in short term such a behaviour looks successful and thus the path one should take.

It should start from the top, to punish such behavior. The below video shows the correct way to react - preventative would be always best but sometimes reaction is needed and this is the way to do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U

Do you care about your (social) network?

World has been changing a bit, actually it changes all the time. We used to have network of people around us, immediate family, neighbours, classmates, work mates. This has changed due ability to reach out fmor the physical homebase, traveling, calling, sending cards, internet. Due the connected nature via internet, our network can be much greater than it used to be - with shorter amount of time than otherwise. Also the value of your network makes us more valuable. It is quite common that deals, knowledge are based on trust - and that can be based on who can vote for you.

Trust.

Before being trusted, one needs to gain trust. It can take years to get it. It is said that network is built before it is needed. It is a social network after all.

Social.

What does it mean being social Should the extrovert behaviour then be preferred? One should know that introvert is not same as shy.

There has been interesting studies, thoughts, about how people change their social network when becoming older, even lessening the amount of people on it, becoming more lone (but not lonely) wolf. This is interesting when comparing the youth, when trying to seek who we are, common acceptance and such. Yet, animals do the same - after initial childhood they are exepcted to fly out from the nest. This essentially means we actually are exepcted to live like introverts want to live. Being together with other people was for seeking safety and security. So the introverts are the brave ones, and not the one who move to big cities as they are “just” seeking the safety?

Caring.

Now, it is important to nurture the connection, and not only utilize the network when you need it. That way you need network of altruistic givers and never reveal the sources if wanting not to be seen as exploitater of other people. It may not always feel good to help people who always exploit others. Do you care about your (social) network?

Do you value your values?

Values. They do mean a different things to different parties.

Values what do they mean for you in a conceptual level? A treasure? A jewel perhaps? a wedding ring?

Do they mean same to your employer than to you? Do employer’s values mean same to you than to them?
At work they are words to show what principles company work at. Some take them more literally than others. In military, values can be thought to be a doctrine - and surpsingly then they actually have a meaning.

Values are worthless if they are not followed. Yet they bring extreme value (pun intended) when they are followed.

When interviewing into a job, it may be valuable to have a discussion about values. In this way it can probably prevent landing into a micromanagemented job, where one does not like to be. Values, philosophical discussion about humanity for finding that, and then discussion about technical corner areas to find others. Instead, quite often the job interview concentrates on mechanical things, like job history, but that does not carve out people who have egoism etc - character is more important. Or not so often what made a manager eligible to manage in the first place

What if they give us work and nobody came?

Work.

What is work? Exchange of some benefits - a service, in many forms to other side, and then exchanging of goods as return. Commonly a money given for gaining some activity.

Times have been tough for some companies due industry revolutions, global competition, which means that company may face a new competitor that he did not even know existed before. The increased competition creates a bit more complex environmnet, this together of feeling of security creates a loop where managers try to do cost cutting and gain more control whereas the opposite would be the right approach.

This means that on many places it is very short sighted management, and not creating an environment where people could thrive and as an outcome make company to succeed. And due increased competition, it may be that managers look that employees should be happpy they have work. After all there are constant layoffs, beware that you would not be among them.

In some industries there is a market of employees, meaning that employer is in need of an employee. Some managers do not understand that. Also people talk about places, meaning that if there is toxic culture, it will be known among the people who think if they should be employed by you.

And that, dear employers, will mean that nobody will come.

change again

Only thing constant is the change.

Took a possibility to work with a company filled with people i knew, friends. Turn out it may not have been the best of decisions, especially when my reasons to do so feel - as of writing - quite thin.

During negotations there were mishaps which i forgave, not rised an issue due having the thing going according to talks. Now seeing should have seen the signs. Also was thinking that since been spending quite much time on learning, researching, excercising leadership, mgmt etc, thought that able to see more mistakes and thought common was ok.

The managers are not mature, they aim for control, yet are not transparent. Lot of decisions done without thinking reality, thus when decisions hit reality - aka doing differently instead they focus on outcome not the reason. This can be thought to be micromanagement. Control freak. Uncertain.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Life - you cannot always choose it

Ancient life guidance says "in the beginning, you are given one body - like it or not but it is yours to keep”.

Some modern wisdom says that everyone can do anything, or being the blacksmith of her own life. Nonsense, we all have different possibilities which we cannot choose; like we cannot choose familiy we are born into, or that our surroundings define what we can do. As well as situations may change in any second; car might hit, getting shot etc.

Clayton Christensen told on his book called "How do you measure your life” about how people may not have planned going jail, getting divorced, shot and so forth. Meaning that even when having plans for life, life may have other plans for you.

On my case, on one autumn morning I walked as a healthy person to see the nurse - only to walk back with a diagnosed disease, most likely for life. That was a day - or life - I had not planned for, but now live on. A life sentence sort of. But it is "just” adaptation to situation.

As Kurt Vonnegut said: *"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you different."*

Show must go on.

Workplace is not a mechanical toy

Leading people has finally changed, the companies are realizing that they cannot treat employees like they would work in a slave farm, meaning giving orders and tasks but benefitting the collective wit, knowledge, combining those to the higher reason, and gaining success.

Does this sound like your working place? Mine neither. The above description on fits to very rare amount of companies who have realized the way of working which gains success to them. Typically these rare gems have followed values, or are new hight companies. And sometimes even realizing that money comes by keeping employees happy, not doing cost cuttings.

What is in the title of this post then? It is that a workplace is a adaptive, organic system, influenced by persons, personalities, their interactions, diversity and the goal of the work. And that era of control as a method of managing should be thrown out for the window, maybe even the managers doing it.

Becoming self vs group

This post can be quite provocative.

Individualism.

There was an interesting discussion about individualism, and groups. It consisted about people having less friends when they grow up older.

One contribution to this was point that there is no need to seek her/himself what person will be, and maybe also found a partner to live with.

This could be an interesting when thinking e.g that animals live 1-2 years with their mother before leaving to live on their own.

So in theory, as deducting one thought from those, is that we seek safety from the groups, and when being self sustainable, we are meant to live on our own instead of staying on the groups. Which means that "weakest” ones stay on groups, gather into cities instead of live on without noise, knowledge where the next door neighbour is.

Which essentially could also mean that we are meant to be more introvert than extroverts, extroverts have just evolved from the people who sought safety of others, not capable being, and surviving, on their own. This and also the places for resources such as food, minerals, material etc.

Sent from my iPad

Laws come and go; the ethics stays.

The title is a quote from Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s book. I thought it sticks quite well about the character of the persons we deal with.
The previous posting went through a liar’s sayings when we dealt with a monetary award from the job done. In war, life, business it is imperative, at least important, to be able to trust a person next to you. When a lie starts, then as old quote says:

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

I once faced a situation when I was not having any identity proofing documents, but had upcoming meeting coming in a place which required me to have such to go there, according to law. I was told that it is OK to come, that papers are not normally asked at all.

I decided not to go. Felt that due my profession being based on trust, integrity, my believability is on the line.

It happend that it both increased my self-feeling, but also increased the trust people see on me, so it was also a professionally and personally worthwhile to take short term hit, for long term gain. **It takes years to build the trust, and it can be lost in seconds, if you are not having skin on the game.**

Should have seen it coming

When learning about leadership and management, it gives enlightening thinking about how things should have been done but also confirmation (bias?) that the way one knows was correct.

Interviewing the employer during employee interviewing is important thing to do. It is a mutual selection - which is an issue sometimes forgotten by the employer. From here one can see group bias as well - how company sees themselves, have they gone blind for issues which can be interpreted as job harassment, managing with fear etc.

On previous place there were issues which according to law were job harassment, yet which was sort of accepted by the culture. Now those managers are “freed” to repeat their ways on the wild. Yet some seem to say that they are “close to human” - approach. Right.

On one occasion, I was discussing about the salary. Normal talks how money is not everything, and also told some personal life matters which have lead me to ask decent salary - instead of lower, which was suggested by employer giving even examples how low salary this boss was having. It was really low, about three times lower than i asked. Only months later, when employed, I did found out that this person takes twice amount of my yearly salary as unearned income (what a funny name for income from shares).

This means that person who is representative of a company sets a tone where he sets himself above you, and does not see the problem with hiding - possibly lying - in order to reach his goals.

Would that be place where you would like to work? Is it in line with your values? Would that change you to act accordingly?

change again

Only thing constant is the change.

Took a possibility to work with a company filled with people i knew, friends. Turn out it may not have been the best of decisions, especially when my reasons to do so feel - as of writing - quite thin.

During negotations there were mishaps which i forgave, not rised an issue due having the thing going according to talks. Now seeing should have seen the signs. Also was thinking that since been spending quite much time on learning, researching, excercising leadership, mgmt etc, thought that able to see more mistakes and thought common was ok.

The managers are not mature, they aim for control, yet are not transparent. Lot of decisions done without thinking reality, thus when decisions hit reality - aka doing differently instead they focus on outcome not the reason. This can be thought to be micromanagement. Control freak. Uncertain.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad