Re: (recommended article) When Smart People are Bad Employees (includes free bonus sermon by Yours Truly)

[Guest guest]

CJ wrote:

>

> I thought this frank, straight-shooting article from Forbes was excellent.

Your little " sermon " is as good. Good job, CJ. - Bill

>

> It seems that a lot of adults prefer to believe that their ability to perform

their daily tasks is all that is necessary to be regarded as a valued employee

or volunteer.

>

> These folks may be intelligent and competent on some level, yet the scope of

their intelligence and competence would seem to be very narrow if they focus

only on their daily tasks, and disregard the " softer " skills that employers and

organizations value the most.

>

> In the context of this article, I mean the ability to be flexible and

resilient, get along with coworkers, control frustration and emotional

outbursts, and refrain from undermining morale by tossing " truth bombs " around

in the office with respect to the employer/organization and its management.

>

> Most employers and organizations would far prefer to hire and retain an

employee or volunteer who isn't disruptive than one who is solely capable of

performing their tasks to some degree of excellence. After all, further

training is readily available and can be mastered by most employees and

volunteers within a relatively short amount of time.

>

> OTOH, deeply entrenched behavioral problems are not so easy to change,

especially when the employee or volunteer has poor theory-of-mind skills and is

just plain ol' stubborn about Being Right. Since nearly every position requires

that an employee or volunteer be able to work as a team, maintain grace under

pressure, avoid public emotional outbursts, and exercise discretion with respect

to their opinions of their coworkers and management -- it's no wonder that

employers and organizations place a much higher value on people who can " play

nice " than on a difficult individual who can perform their tasking at warp

speed.

>

> In my experience, quite a few spectrum folks (males in particular) seem to

have difficulty understanding this concept. They focus only on competently (as

they define that term) performing their actual tasks, as they don't regard these

" softer " skills to be a bonafide part of their job description. Whether it be

due to naivete, a stubborn nature, or just plain ol' theory-of-mind deficits,

they hold this viewpoint at their own peril.

>

> No matter how competent an employee or volunteer may be at programming a

computer, stocking a shelf, or sweeping a floor, ultimately the company or

organization is about people functioning well together in order to turn a profit

or achieve an objective. An employee or volunteer who is constantly acting out

or stirring up $#!t is counterproductive to these goals... not to mention

unpleasant to be around.

>

> Those individuals who repeatedly fail on the job due to behavioral issues

often find that their problems become magnified when they interpret their

repeated job losses as 'persecution' and 'unfairness' on the part of management,

rather than precipitated by their own behavior. This can result in anger,

defensiveness, and bitterness that they carry forward into their next job,

creating a worsening downward spiral. Until these individuals come to accept

that being a good employee or volunteer requires a broad level of intelligence

and competence (as defined by management) on a number of levels, they doom

themselves to a persistent pattern of rejection.

>

> So much for the free bonus sermon. Here's the article that served as its

inspiration.

>

>

> When Smart People are Bad Employees

>

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/01/03/when-smart-people-are-bad-empl\

oyees/

Good article; good examples.

- Bill ...AS, ...retired geneticist

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm