A survey by the Wall Street Journal shows ‘Soft Skills’ Like Critical Thinking in Short Supply.
The sought-after soft skills most in demand are communication, organization, teamwork, punctuality, critical thinking, social savvy, creativity and adaptability.
The job market’s most sought-after skills can be tough to spot on a résumé.
Companies across the U.S. say it is becoming increasingly difficult to find applicants who can communicate clearly, take initiative, problem-solve and get along with co-workers.
A recent LinkedIn survey of 291 hiring managers found 58% say the lack of soft skills among job candidates is limiting their company’s productivity.
In a Wall Street Journal survey of nearly 900 executives last year, 92% said soft skills were equally important or more important than technical skills. But 89% said they have a very or somewhat difficult time finding people with the requisite attributes. Many say it’s a problem spanning age groups and experience levels.
A LinkedIn analysis of its member profiles found soft skills are most prevalent among workers in the service sector, including restaurant, consumer-services, professional-training and retail industries.
To determine the most sought-after soft skills, LinkedIn analyzed those listed on the profiles of members who applied for two or more jobs and changed jobs between June 2014 and June 2015. The ability to communicate trumped all else, followed by organization, capacity for teamwork, punctuality, critical thinking, social savvy, creativity and adaptability.
At Two Bostons, a small chain of pet boutiques outside Chicago, owner AdreAnne Tesene conducts at least three rounds of interviews before she hires someone.
For higher-level positions, she invites job candidates and their significant others out to dinner with the rest of the management team, “so we can see how they treat their family.” She also has her employees fill out an evaluation of a new co-worker after 90 days.
Ms. Tesene, who opened her first store 11 years ago, said she sees fewer candidates who can hold a conversation, want to interact with people and are eager to excel.
Dare to Be Different?
Outside of communication and punctuality, I wonder how many companies really want what they say. Large technology firms like Google and Apple do. So might small startups.
What about banks?
For most bank positions, the last thing banks want is for someone to think for themselves. There are rules for everything.
Group Think
Critical thinking was 5th on the list. How many companies really want just that? One way to find out is to express opinions different that the one your boss has.
Want to work on a government sponsored global warming project? If so, you better not have be open to the idea that man-made global warming is a theory and not a fact.
Want to replace Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen when they retire? If so, you better think just like them.
When your job depends on believing idiocy, you believe idiocy. You won’t get hired in the first place if you don’t.
Regardless of what they say, most companies really want punctual robots, not creative thinkers.
No one will care if robots are “socially savvy” as long as they do not make blatantly obvious mistakes.
What About Unions?
Public unions are the worst of all.
Union leaders expect union members to be paid on the basis of how long they have been on the job, not how well they do the job.
Not even communication skills matter, once someone is hired in the first place.
Short Supply or Lack of Demand?
If critical thinking is in short supply, it’s for one reason only: Lack of genuine demand.
Unions permeate the “thinking not necessary” culture, so do something for nothing beliefs at the Fed. So does Obama, and so do Democrats in general with counterproductive government handouts.
In general, critical thinking is so unwanted. It’s fully functional robots that are truly in short supply.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Businesses like team-players:
Critical thinking applied to achieve the stated goal they mean, not critical thinking in a lateral sense. It is highly paid art, how to present critical essay that leads to wanted conclusions, sounding comprehensive but actually narrowing the field of view to a single point.
RE: “Critical thinking applied to achieve the stated goal they mean…”
Which means if the goal is crappy (such as Neo-cons wanting war with Russia),
critical thinking is just a ruse to cast blame on others…….
Maybe perhaps……….
I simply can’t understand why critical thinking would be considered a soft skill. It’s the ability to think for yourself and question prevailing rules and thought that creates good leaders and moves organizations forward. It has always been a trait I look for when hiring someone.
Excellent point
I had the same thought but did not express it.
It’s called “soft” because you cannot measure it like you can a math test.
“I had the same thought…”
Ditto. On the testing point, not nearly as easily tested for as rote learning skills with their multiple choice tests, however:
Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-testing-and-assessment/594
It’s a skill that’s obviously in short supply worldwide simply because it’s never specifically taught in primary education and only rarely taught in secondary education as an elective. Many learn it via scientific and technical courses and pursuits, courses which many students avoid, I suspect, because they require the use of that skill which so many apparently do not possess
“Despite the favorable opinions of undergraduates and alumni, a closer look at the record…shows that colleges and universities, for all the benefits they bring, accomplish far less for their students than they should… Many cannot reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, non-technical problems, even though faculties rank critical thinking as the primary goal of a college education…Most have never taken a course in quantitative reasoning or acquired the knowledge needed to be a reasonably informed citizen in a democracy.” – Derek Bok, former 20 year president of Harvard University
“I think people in power have a vested interest to oppose critical thinking. You see, if we don’t improve our understanding of critical thinking and develop it as kind of second nature, we are just suckers ready to be taken by the next charlatan who ambles along… there are lots of ways to gain power and money by deceiving people who are not skilled in critical thinking.” – Carl Sagan
Where oh where can that critical thinking be?
http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/#comments
2) On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology.
Many organizations don’t look to move forward , they are often more interested in pushing others backwards . That is particularly true as they mature and become well established . Part of that is because over time the basis an enterprise is founded on changes (society , economy etc.) and it is hard to work through new mindsets given the knowledge and experience that holds an organization together will by then have an established mentality or character .
Soft skills are defined as personality traits that do not require acquired knowledge …
“A study conducted by Harvard University noted that 80% achievements in career are determined by soft skills and only 20% by hard skills.”
“Studies by Stanford Research Institute and the Carnegie Mellon Foundation among Fortune 500 CEOs established that 75% of long term job success resulted from people skills and only 25% from technical skills.”
Wiki.
“Test ideas by experiments and observations. Build on those ideas that pass the test. Reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything. ”
Neil deGrasse Tyson
I will add that although critical thinking is described as an objective process , from an outside perspective it is also subjective – to the opinion, experience, or rational of the thinker . That is why group think, where it can take place constructively, is so valuable , you have associates, who bring their own knowledge , picking off errors from where they cannot be seen by an individual .
“A study conducted by Harvard University noted that 80% achievements in career are determined by soft skills and only 20% by hard skills.”
It’s not what you know, it’s who you know. Nepotism is one of the best skills to have.
Mish-you hit the nail on the head again! Great article and spot on!
Great headline. It had my brain going before I started reading the article. Funny I didn’t even consider the article was about new employees though. Religion, politics. Lots of areas where critical thinking is in low demand.
I think this needs further study. Not sure if the following makes sense to anyone else, but I am inclined to hire people who are not looking for a job. I want people who are looking for work. To me, there is a subtle but important difference.
I am inclined to hire people who are not looking for a job. I want people who are looking for work
It took me a while but I see what you mean
I’m glad because communication skills are not in my strong suite 🙂
I would have said something along the lines of have you ever heard a person say “I hate my work”? I never have. It’s always “I hate my job.” I discovered after many years that if you decide you simply love working, you can succeed at any job up to your level of competence. Finding such people is hard because they are generally always busy. I think such people are becoming fewer in number as the article alludes to because of the welfare mindset that permeates our society. We joke about the “free-shit” crowd, but it’s becoming a very real problem.
In engineering, common sense is no longer a job requirement. Applicants are filtered by recent experience and skill-set then simply tested academically for their ability to mindlessly apply methodologies, academic techniques or algorithms to paper under pressure. It is literally a bums on seats approach to recruitment, as if being an engineer and holding a degree is the same as being a street sweeper and owning a broom.
This is a by-product of two basic problems.
* Too many people applying for work with degrees that are now a dime a dozen, particularly in countries where everyone regardless of intellectual acuity is expected to be able to get a university degree. Countries where education is free or student loans are easy.
* Not enough jobs. There are a million web-site (service industry) development jobs which almost anyone with double digit IQ can do but only a few (heavy industry) robotic, appliance, communications, research positions requiring thinkers and inventors. Clearly technology R&D in heavy industry has declined or moved to China/India.
It is no surprise therefore that every (real) engineering/software job advertisement garners 1000s of applicants, too many to appraise properly. Filtering by past experience and education levels or the ability to pass an academic test simply makes sense.
Unfortunately this results in:
* Pigeon holing: hiring back the very employees that have resigned or hiring clones from the same industry.
* Hiring professional academics. That is: those few who are good at remembering techniques and applying them to paper in a graduate level exam. This precludes the more broadly experienced who may have a lot of common sense, relevant skills and knowledge for out-of-the-box thinking in specific areas but no longer have the skills to perform well in such an exam environment. For example: a neurosurgeon of 20 successful years is unlikely to be as familiar as he once was with knee anatomy; does that make them incompetent to be a GP? According to modern job application methodologies the answer will probably be: yes. Under the same testing a graduate MD will often prove to be a better candidate. Given those two choices, who would you prefer to look at your knee?
* Why pay for 20 years experience when according to the job application strategy someone with 5 can do the job.
That is because some many EPCs and other “engineering firms are just selling paper. Just sell a spec, don’t worry if it is the best (or even marginally effective) solution. So long as there is sufficient documentation, sell it.
They don’t think anymore, they just dot i’s and cross t’s.
The only skill ever in demand in a Capitalist Society is skill with the media.
Not even money…let alone the illusion of money…matters in a Capitalist Society.
Still…I do find it odd that the Government always goes along with this.
In America this has always been true though.
The oddity of the War on the Terrorists being “the only terrorists are Americans” is a new one I think.
That is what the media says though…and what all the “fighters against the Terrorists” keep repeating.
“You’re the terrorist America…and we’re here to rip you off!” seems to sum up this entire War.
It is funny that prices are in fact falling though.
Clearly we all need to buy more negative yielding debt from foreign countries who don’t even have a functioning Government™ in order to keep winning!
a driverless tractor https://twitter.com/hashtag/TheDayTheFarmChanged?src=hash
Thought you would enjoy
“I wonder how many companies really want what they say.”
Perhaps the question is how many company managers really want what they say, as it is, generally, the company managers who are asked this question.
Several years ago I signed up for a college physics course – electricity and magnetism. The professor announced on the first day of classes that there would be no textbook and no tests. You would ‘contract’ for your grade and agree to a workload that matched the grade you would earn. You would have to do things like post videos and comment on other people’s posted videos. (I didn’t put up this BS for long.)
When asked why, the professor explained that when they surveyed employers, the employers said they wanted employees who “worked well with people”.
I suspect that the managers who were asked what they wanted may have believed they wanted people who agreed with them. What they will get, however, is people who are just plain dumb. In a technical workplace, a person who understands his math, etc. is likely to work well with others – especially other smart people. The person who hasn’t a clue is more likely to sit in his cubicle.
I was about to agree with you , but as I don’t have a cubicle to return to maybe we should open a bijective conversation on using combinatoric polynomial algebraic expression to solve the distributive property of Euclidean geometrical factors in manifold quartic equations .
I’ll gracefully allow you to propose a primary sequence from which to start our analysis .
BTW , though I have probably described an as yet undiscovered field of mathematical theory that will eventually expose dimensions not yet known, so being worthy of several prizes for science , it was a complete fluke .
I’ll stay in my cubicle.
I might even agree, and return to mine .
Cry, you forgot to end with “and the mome raths outgrabe”.
I’m still trying to find the cubicle I don’t have.
In my experience very few managers can tolerate challenges to the way they think or the views they express or the way they want want activity to be conducted. People are expected to suck it up.
Loyalty is the only skill that matters.
Beats competence
Beats honesty
Beats professionalism
Beats everything
Thinking? Just gets in the way of loyalty
The loyalty you speak of is indeed paramount, but it is a fiction (in the corporate environment).
Real loyalty is reciprocal – a two-way street.
So this loyalty that managers & corporations desire/demand is largely fake, because employees KNOW that their loyalty will never be reciprocated… to the contrary, the longer one performs, the more likely they will be canned/down-sized.
I was wildly loyal to my first employer, and then they screwed EVERYONE except the executives who got their golden parachutes. I’ll NEVER develop that sort of loyalty for an employer/manager ever again, and I think most people in my age group/demographic feel the exactly as I do…
Work is now something that I do only for myself. Everything else is just a job. I wish it were different, but experience has taught me that ‘loyalty’ = naive in the corporate world.
Critical/skilled thinkers have to sort of “hide” as they climb corporate ladders. Nothing stalls a career more than being seen by the leader, or being suggested by others about a “critical” think to the leader, that the person is not a team player or something like that. Then, magically, when the the people who were successful in getting through that career mine-field politics and hiding and they become the “leader”, they soon learn that to succeed they have to … wait for it … think.
Banks do not have rules – they are trying to have rules communication is a big mess and as a result they have a bunch of often mutually exclusive processes. So in order to be successful you need to be a good team player, with communication, organisational and creativity to figure out how to overcome this artifitially created obstacles. I agree about critical thinking tough – this is not something many really want.
I think critical thinking is harder than you realise Mish. It means questioning what you KNOW to be true. What your subconscious is biased towards and still being objective to the facts of the issue. Then it’s a constant fight as you look at that issue objectively as your subconscious tries to sway your opinion with biases.
It’s the first step, figuring out that your truth may not actually be true, that I think is the hard part. Questioning your strongest held beliefs that are ‘just true’ and your brain doesn’t even think it needs to question. It’s a bit like ripping your mind apart.
It’s a very understandable human flaw that we all have and you criticise others for it at your peril without mentioning that it inevitably still effects us all, you included, without us realising, however critical we think we are of ourselves.
Everybody thinks the other person doesn’t think critically and is stupid.
It seems to me that you absolutely know that global warming is not true. The fact you show no doubts or humility about that opinion says to me that maybe you aren’t as critical a thinker as you think.
This article would have more weight if you went through something that you think is true, say global warming is nonsense, and work through the facts with us.
To make it even more rigorous, maybe you can have a discussion with a climate scientist on video and really test your opinion? I’d respect you for that and would be interested in it hugely.
I’d love to see your evidence and thinking on climate change but all I’ve ever seen is your opinion that climate change is nonsense.
As I understand it (and that may well not be very well at all so take this paragraph with that huge caveat) I Don’t think there’s any empirical evidence, as you say, but that’s because you’d literally need multiple earths to do that perfect test. That’s why we have to use climate models etc with an understanding of how different gasses insulate at different rates and make as good a guess as possible. That’s still science, it doesn’t mean climate science is nonsense.
I picked global warming because of this paragraph:
“Want to work on a government sponsored global warming project? If so, you better not have be open to the idea that man-made global warming is a theory and not a fact.”
This is where you really show your hand I’m afraid. You show that you don’t know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and a “fact” (the very very basics of science). Because of that I have to question your opinion on anything that is scientific, including climate science/global warming.
I still love your blog though. Keep up the good work.
Thanks.
It seems to me that you absolutely know that global warming is not true. The fact you show no doubts or humility about that opinion says to me that maybe you aren’t as critical a thinker as you think.
Not what I have ever stated at all.
What I have stated many times is “Even if there is man-made global warming, it is silly to believe government will do anything about it”. Indeed look at what is about to happen with cars. Much carbon will be reduced, by the free market. China may do something about it, but it will not be because of carbon. Rather it will be because so many people dying from pollution. If temperature is rising it may be because … well temperature is rising. These cycles go millions of years and we look at some minuscule time frame and say there is huge warming over the last 100 years or whatever. Is that possible? Yep. So what?
Hi Mish. I’m a bit confused by your response. Not sure which bit you have never stated.
I thought you’d stated at least a few times that you think climate change is “nonsense”. Maybe I’m wrong. Sorry if so.
As far as your argument about climate cycles go etc, you need to take that up with a climate scientist. I’m sure they would have thought about that, and clearly they’ve dismissed it or worked it into their findings as an extra effect.
That’s ultimately my point. Neither you or I are climate scientists. If we have questions surely we should ask climate scientists, especially if, like you, we have a platform to reach many people.
I take the wisdom of Charlie Munger who says “I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.”
Thanks.
I have called climate change nonsense – as it is presented – supposedly as a fact.
Ok, I missed that subtlety.
As you’re not a climate scientist though, I’d question your ability to make even that judgment.
Yeah Mish. And don’t ask patent clerks about Special Relativity either. Who do they think they are making up theories when they should just be stamping patents? If you do not have the right initials after your name, you aren’t qualified to talk about anything, no matter how much you have studied chemistry, physics, or anything else.
Sam – your brilliance in shutting down Mish is amazing. When you grow up and learn some critical thinking, maybe you will recognize the irony…
I presume Mish isn’t a climate scientist and hasn’t studied the subject formally or informally to a high level. He’s certainly never mentioned it if that is the case. Happy to be told otherwise, and happy to defer to his expertise if that is the case.
Einstein worked as a patent clerk but was a physicist. His expertise in physics came from studying physics (formally or informally, I’m not sure).
He wasn’t a patent clerk who didn’t study physics but just came up with special relativity.
Presuming Mish hasn’t studied climate change to a very high level my point stands.
You’ll have to point the irony out to me?
Einstein had studied physics, but could not get a job as a high school (Gymnasium) physics teacher, hence the patent clerk job. But my point is that there is a fine history of discoveries made by non-experts or outside of what one would call one’s area of expertise. Clearly Einstein was not viewed as an expert in physics at the time he started writing his articles.
The irony is in supporting the notion that only a formal climate scientist is qualified to pass judgement on climate theory under an article on critical thinking being in short supply.
Even if it is fact- so what?
There is nothing that could be done to stop it. Well – we could stop burning fossil fuels…. and collapse civilization…
I don’t think anyone wants to see that — even the AGW protestors who drove to the protest instead of taking the bus — or heaven forbid – walk
If I came across as thinking/saying that only a formal climate scientist can be an expert that wasn’t the intention. I may have just said climate scientist in my rush to the point.
I’m very aware that non formal experts can make huge breakthroughs in all fields.
I was really trying to make the point that Mish isn’t qualified to make a judgment, formally or informally. That presumption might be mistaken though.
I presume he hasn’t done the years of studying on the insulating properties of different gasses or on climate modelling and whatever else goes into climate science. Maybe I’m wrong in presuming that, Mish will have to let us know.
It’s all moot — because there is nothing that can be done about AGW that will not result in the collapse of the global economy
I think critical thinking is harder than you realise Mish. It means questioning what you KNOW to be true. What your subconscious is biased towards and still being objective to the facts of the issue. Then it’s a constant fight as you look at that issue objectively as your subconscious tries to sway your opinion with biases.
It’s the first step, figuring out that your truth may not actually be true, that I think is the hard part. Questioning your strongest held beliefs that are ‘just true’ and your brain doesn’t even think it needs to question. It’s a bit like ripping your mind apart.
It’s a very understandable human flaw that we all have and you criticise others for it at your peril without mentioning that it inevitably still effects us all, you included, without us realising, however critical we think we are of ourselves.
Everybody thinks the other person doesn’t think critically and is stupid.
It seems to me that you absolutely know that global warming is not true. The fact you show no doubts or humility about that opinion says to me that maybe you aren’t as critical a thinker as you think.
This article would have more weight if you went through something that you think is true, say global warming is nonsense, and work through the facts with us. Maybe you can have a discussion with a climate scientist on video and really test your opinion? I’d respect you for that and would be interested in it hugely.
I’d love to see your evidence and thinking on climate change but all I’ve ever seen is your opinion that climate change is nonsense.
As I understand it (and that may well not be very well at all so take this paragraph with that huge caveat) I Don’t think there’s any empirical evidence, as you say, but that’s because you’d literally need multiple earths to do that perfect test. That’s why we have to use climate models etc with an understanding of how different gasses insulate at different rates and make as good a guess as possible. Thst’s still science, it doesn’t mean climate science is nonsense.
I picked global warming because of this paragraph:
“Want to work on a government sponsored global warming project? If so, you better not have be open to the idea that man-made global warming is a theory and not a fact.”
If you don’t know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and “fact” then I have to question your thoughts on anything that is scientific.
” you better not have be open to the idea that man-made global warming is a theory and not a fact.”
Exactly right Mish. People need to understand that evolution and gravity are only theories also.
Well, it is hard for theories to become facts since they are things of a different nature. Theories are explanations. When you explain the movements of something like billiard balls with concepts such as force, you have a brilliant and useful explanation, but you cannot actually see or measure forces directly, but only by way of the behaviour of physical bodies. Facts themselves are not simple either. If you compare two measures of the temperature, concluding from the last that it is getting colder, this in itself is not a real fact. You have to interpret the measurement: How was the temperature measured? Was the instrument calibrated? How accurate? Same instrument? Were both taken under similar circumstances? What time of day? In the shade? For instance, it could be that the second temperature was taken in January and the first in August, which means it isn’t really getting colder, but that winters are colder than summers. Without some framework of theory and interpretation, measurements are an infinity of meaningless numbers and not facts. Theories lead you to discover facts, and facts lead you to reinterpret theories. Sometimes you have experiences which defy a hypothesis. In such cases you don’t know where to look for facts, and have to wait until you imagine a relationship somewhere.
Yes, theories are explanations for observations (facts). And the very purpose of science is to prove theories to be false. If a theory is not falsifiable, it is not a true scientific theory.
When enough experiments have been run and you have been unsuccessful at disproving a theory, the theory becomes “well regarded” by science. Meaning it is never considered “true”, only facts are true. But it is very highly likely to best explain the observed set of facts.
The theories of gravity and evolution are highly regarded by the scientific community. They have never been proven false. Interestingly, Anthropogenic Global Warming is also highly regarded in the scientific community.
Of course, there are still many who believe God created everything 6000 years ago, things fall to the ground because they want to be with Mother Earth, and global warming is caused by solar cycles. And those things might all be true. But they just don’t fit the observed data, meaning they’ve been scientifically falsified, and are therefore not scientific theories.
“… and global warming is caused by solar cycles. And those things might all be true. But they just don’t fit the observed data”
What observed data? Actual data did not fit the pre-conceived modeling.
The median temperature over a period of 18 years did not rise. We had an El Nino, in which the peak was slightly higher than the 1998 peak and suddenly we are supposedly rapidly increasing in temperature. Since the El Nino peak, global temperature has been dropping. The news media is silent about that.
“The median temperature over a period of 18 years did not rise”
The median temperature from 1997 to 2011 did not rise, which is 14 years. However, the median temperature from 1998 to 2011 rose substantially. That’s because 1997 was a strong El Nino year. 1997 was the hottest year in recorded history until 2011.
Every year after 2011 has been hotter than 1997 and hotter than the year before. 2015 (and into 2016) was the hottest year not just in recorded history, but likely since prior to the evolution of homo sapiens. Of course it was also a strong El Nino year. So we can expect the rest of 2016 and 2017 to be cooler than 2015.
I am a conservative. I don’t like to just roll the dice on change and hope for the best.
The problem with AGW is that it has been falsified for the past 17 years so now it’s not a theory, but a belief of many people whose paycheck depends it and liberals, who are far too deeply in touch with their inner hunter-gatherer.
Organizations & their HR mgrs. include ridiculous & arbitrary ‘requirements’ in their hiring/job descriptions, which generally disqualify the best/smartest candidates before the first interview.
Critical thinking? That’s way down the list. Rather than hire a talented generalist that could grow/perform in a number of roles, HR mgrs. simply match the keywords and hire the person that will barely perform w/in the small box defined by s specific job description. It’s laughable.
My manager isn’t laughing. He’s been trying to fill a position for the past 3 months. HR has given him resumes where the candidate doesn’t have the hard skills to get the job done. Two candidates have cancelled phone interviews. One accepted a job elsewhere, and the other blew off the interview altogether. Many candidates are immediately rejected based on large gaps in employment caused by the bursting housing bubble. All this is additional job security for me as work piles up.
Sorry to hear that. Really.
Some advice for your manager – get rid of or skip the HR “professionals” b/t him & the candidates… they all think it’s ‘buyers market’, that candidates should be begging them for the job. Wrong. It’s a ‘sellers market’. The strong/qualified candidates are heavily recruited. If your manger wants one, he’ll have to go & get them… HR won’t reel-in that fish for him, imo.
BTW, automatically disqualifying candidates based on ‘resume gaps’ alone, is idiotic. Most of the best talent available out there have VERY non-traditional, non-linear resumes… the kind of resumes that HR hates, but managers/organizations need, even if it they don’t know it.
Can a true critical thinker get to the top of the inane computer application and evaluations and be seen? Most companies hiring programs eliminate the very candidates with the soft skills they profess to desire.
Having worked in several corporations over the years I have seen that true critical thinking is rarely welcome and is, in fact, harmful to your career.
That said, the corporations I’ve worked for DO want critical thinking, so long as it is channeled to very specific areas. Just keep your thinking within tightly proscribed bounds.
Unfortunately, this type of contained critical thought is tough to achieve. The people who are really good at critical thinking don’t tend to turn off their minds for some parts of their lives and then turn it on only for some things.
Critical Thinking.
Let’s try some:
Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000. “The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programmes. Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120,” he said
According to the OECD Economics Department and the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices.
So we need oil to be priced at over $100 or producers collapse.
But if oil is priced anywhere near that the economy collapses.
The central banks understand this – and that is the reason for the never-ending stimulus:
JUNE 13, 2003 – There is increasing evidence that massive economic stimulus — monetary, courtesy of the Federal Reserve, and fiscal, thanks to the president and supply-side minded lawmakers — is taking hold. The magnitude of the policy turnaround, which caps a constructive, multi-year reflation process, should overwhelm the economic negatives — including the drag from expensive oil and poor finances at the state- and local-government levels.
Expensive oil and its impact on other energy costs remains a concern.
The current level of U.S. monetary stimulus is massive. Real interest rates have fallen 5.2 percent from December 2000 to March 2003, reaching -1.2 percent. A swing of this magnitude may be historical.
Links to all analysis to be provided upon request (as links seem to prevent publishing of comments)
I hear this all the time. Employers want critical thinking skills. In low-paying jobs.
People with problem-solving skills are usually adept at solving the “Find a better job” problem.