Myopic

 
Welcome, Unflagging Followers of the Sublimely Ludicrous.

I have no idea where I'm going to end up over the next few months.  At the very least, I don't want to end up working for yet another morally bankrupt organization which is more concerned with shareholder erections then satisfied customers or happy and productive employees. 

In order to avoid this fate I may be have to open my own business one of these days.  Should that ever happen, I hereby promise, that I will never, ever be so short-sighted as to disqualify potential employees just because they don't posses some sort of valueless accreditation or self-declared proficiency in an inert piece of software or some computer program.

Let's be realistic, folks, we now live in a day and age when you can type any conceivable question into a Google search and receive a font of knowledge in return.  Is it always accurate?  No.  But a discerning and inquisitive mind should be able to conjure up a slew of reliable resources explaining how to do just about everything in nauseating detail.  Hell, you can even find step-by-step videos explaining every possible application of a computer program or chunk of software.

Let me give you a specific example.  Let's just say a potential employer is looking to hire a promotions rep.  Someone applies for this job in earnest because they possess every single qualification listed in the job description save one: they aren't formally trained in a specific program, say Photoshop.  The big question then becomes, should the candidate lie and say that they're proficient in this program anyway?  Lord no, that would be dishonest.

But when our plucky applicant learns, long after the fact, that their resume was effectively thrown in the hopper because the word "Photoshop" didn't appear anywhere on it, they might feel tempted to be less then honest next time out.  After all, the internet is a limitless resource for self-instruction.  You might not have that cost-prohibitive software installed on your laptop at home or a fancy piece of paper to back up your claim or the testimony of a previous employer, but you can certainly use the nigh-omniscient power of the innerwebs to self-coach yourself to the point where you look as if you know what you're doing.

Honestly, if you hire someone strictly on the basis of whether or not they can manipulate a computer program, can you honestly say that you've hired the best possible candidate for that job?  Especially when their value might just boil down to digesting a few video tutorials on YouTube?   

You know what's a lot harder to fake?  A good personality.  Creativity.  Experience.  Enthusiasm. Three-dimensional thinking.  Gratitude. Multitasking.  Honesty.  The ability to design and implement an effective presentation.  Dedication.  Intelligence.  Effective communication skills.  A reliable work ethic. Wisdom.  The ability to work independently or as a team.  Y'know, positive and rare human traits that can't so easily be instructed.

If I ever find myself in the position to hire someone for my own hypothetical business I'll start by retaining someone who exhibits these priceless qualities, not someone with a tenuous claim of mastery over some easily-digested computer program.

Cripes, if the software is really that critical, I'll just hire the best person for the job and then train them myself.

EPIC MEME    Not even vaguely suitable for work, but still oddly apropos.

 

ANOTHER EPIC EXAMPLE  This is precisely what I'm on about, right hur.

FAILED FEDERAL FHILOSOFIES Although corporations love to bitch that they can "never find workers with the right skills", they probably wouldn't want it any other way.  And why would they?  Under the current paradigm, workers spend gobs of their own money to train themselves, resulting in slavishly devoted debt-monkeys.  No surprise then that the current of CORP-serve-ative creeps in office tirelessly propigate this ass-backward philosophy.

A FAIL-URE OF FORESIGHT  One article among many which attempts to explain why companies don't train employees anymore (and how wrong-headed that approach really is).