(06-13-2018 07:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:00 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree about hierarchical models Frank. But in working with them their social skills were so deficient that they had major problems working with a clientele base. Part of that was a disinclination to humility, and part of it is that they couldn't or wouldn't listen. Then when issues arose with the customer they tended to try to put a lid on it rather than admit there was a problem. They also were not good team players and we are talking about healthy resourcing not taking one for the team.

I find their resume's to be inflated in comparison to what they should actually know. I consider it to be another form of grade inflation which by the way occurs at some of the finest institutions.

As for working, nobody griped more about overtime situations or tight deadlines.

So my experience has been quite different from yours.

I stand by remarks as the overall quality of their performance.

May I ask:

What year(s)?
What types of positions and what sort of salary/benefit package was offered?
Who did the interviewing/hiring?

No offense intended here, but if the person doing the hiring had "been doing it this way since 19__" and was only offering below market compensation for entry level positions, well....you get what you pay for.

Salary ranges were from 25K to 80K depending upon the position. Hires were by a committee, and not a single individual, and the committee was experienced and diverse. And Gamecock, no offense intended here, but they under performed across the board and so much so the company started looking for older applicants.

They had impressive degrees, impeccable academic credentials, and didn't know a damn thing about how to work, how to work with other people, when to ask for assistance, or how to admit an error, and they quite literally despised instruction and almost universally refused to read manuals. But even worse most of them failed to grasp the theory behind what it was they were supposed to do.

My father's generation would have referred to them as $2 pistols. They won't work, and you can't fire them, and least not without a government required paper trail.

In some of my non profit days I did the hiring. They had the right spirit of inclusivity but lacked the social skills, and in many cases the desire to work with the underprivileged. I had one who was supposed to appear to an introductory event where she would speak to a group that she would be working with in leading some projects for a local community. She failed to show. When I called to inquire why she was absent she said that she was so happy to have the position that she and her husband had gone out to celebrate the job so she was taking her first day off and would see me on Monday. I made the speech and began her termination file. Her credentials were in order and she came with recommendations. It took her less than a year to drop the ball twice more and she was terminated.

In business our committee hired one for in house editing. Again he came with stellar credentials from a top AAU school and solid recommendations. He had problems with spelling which a spell checker could have assisted, but he also had issues with sentence fragments and comma splices and other basic grammar issues. His undergraduate major had been in English from an ACC school and his masters had come from a prestigious journalism school. Since he spent long hours trying to get it right we assumed that he was not lazy. He simply couldn't spot and correct issues because he had so many issues of his own that they simply didn't stand out for him. The sad thing is that the grammar issues were low priority for the job because grammar and spell checkers caught most of them. He was actually supposed to edit for content, brevity and clarity. The former was so bad we couldn't even begin to address the latter.

Now true those are just a few examples out of many but they stand out in my memory because of the totally unbelievable nature of the screw ups. The Millennials that did stellar work were few, but the ones that were stellar were going places because of the quality of their character, especially when compared to the majority of their generation that they were competing with. I was happy to write letters for them for admittance to professional schools (mostly career changes), or for significant position upgrades.

There was practically no turf protection going on in either the business or non profit positions I worked in because the work load in both was extensive and we wanted all hands on deck. So when balls were dropped it just meant longer hours for everyone who was simply trying to get the job done. And when mistakes were covered up it just exacerbated the difficulty of recovering the business relationship involved.

When I go into a business today I frequently find that I have to go behind my agent and dot his/her I's and cross their T's and through observation correct problems that their inattention to detail, or lack of understanding, are going to create by the data they are entering. Now make that your medical data and you can be doubly screwed on your insurance, or worse on your medical record. I've caught errors of incorrect drugs and dosages entered by the nurses or medical practitioners or even my doctor. The most competent and consistent medical assistance I receive is at my pharmacy where a few mistakes were caught that slipped by me.

A friend of mine who is the head nurse at a local hospital told me to complain all I liked about the dropped details. She said that the administration realized that often in a hospital setting the squeaky wheel survives.

Interesting stories. I still find it mostly hard to believe that it would be that striking of a difference. Honestly in my experience it has been the older employees that constantly have their phones go off in meetings, go off topic/off message in public speaking, forgot to run spellcheck, and generally just coast. Millennials May be more prone to show up late after being hung over or whatever, but in my (brief) experience they’ve been more resourceful and polite

Then perhaps you are the one working for the wrong company!

(06-13-2018 07:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:00 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree about hierarchical models Frank. But in working with them their social skills were so deficient that they had major problems working with a clientele base. Part of that was a disinclination to humility, and part of it is that they couldn't or wouldn't listen. Then when issues arose with the customer they tended to try to put a lid on it rather than admit there was a problem. They also were not good team players and we are talking about healthy resourcing not taking one for the team.

I find their resume's to be inflated in comparison to what they should actually know. I consider it to be another form of grade inflation which by the way occurs at some of the finest institutions.

As for working, nobody griped more about overtime situations or tight deadlines.

So my experience has been quite different from yours.

I stand by remarks as the overall quality of their performance.

May I ask:

What year(s)?
What types of positions and what sort of salary/benefit package was offered?
Who did the interviewing/hiring?

No offense intended here, but if the person doing the hiring had "been doing it this way since 19__" and was only offering below market compensation for entry level positions, well....you get what you pay for.

Salary ranges were from 25K to 80K depending upon the position. Hires were by a committee, and not a single individual, and the committee was experienced and diverse. And Gamecock, no offense intended here, but they under performed across the board and so much so the company started looking for older applicants.

They had impressive degrees, impeccable academic credentials, and didn't know a damn thing about how to work, how to work with other people, when to ask for assistance, or how to admit an error, and they quite literally despised instruction and almost universally refused to read manuals. But even worse most of them failed to grasp the theory behind what it was they were supposed to do.

My father's generation would have referred to them as $2 pistols. They won't work, and you can't fire them, and least not without a government required paper trail.

In some of my non profit days I did the hiring. They had the right spirit of inclusivity but lacked the social skills, and in many cases the desire to work with the underprivileged. I had one who was supposed to appear to an introductory event where she would speak to a group that she would be working with in leading some projects for a local community. She failed to show. When I called to inquire why she was absent she said that she was so happy to have the position that she and her husband had gone out to celebrate the job so she was taking her first day off and would see me on Monday. I made the speech and began her termination file. Her credentials were in order and she came with recommendations. It took her less than a year to drop the ball twice more and she was terminated.

In business our committee hired one for in house editing. Again he came with stellar credentials from a top AAU school and solid recommendations. He had problems with spelling which a spell checker could have assisted, but he also had issues with sentence fragments and comma splices and other basic grammar issues. His undergraduate major had been in English from an ACC school and his masters had come from a prestigious journalism school. Since he spent long hours trying to get it right we assumed that he was not lazy. He simply couldn't spot and correct issues because he had so many issues of his own that they simply didn't stand out for him. The sad thing is that the grammar issues were low priority for the job because grammar and spell checkers caught most of them. He was actually supposed to edit for content, brevity and clarity. The former was so bad we couldn't even begin to address the latter.

Now true those are just a few examples out of many but they stand out in my memory because of the totally unbelievable nature of the screw ups. The Millennials that did stellar work were few, but the ones that were stellar were going places because of the quality of their character, especially when compared to the majority of their generation that they were competing with. I was happy to write letters for them for admittance to professional schools (mostly career changes), or for significant position upgrades.

There was practically no turf protection going on in either the business or non profit positions I worked in because the work load in both was extensive and we wanted all hands on deck. So when balls were dropped it just meant longer hours for everyone who was simply trying to get the job done. And when mistakes were covered up it just exacerbated the difficulty of recovering the business relationship involved.

When I go into a business today I frequently find that I have to go behind my agent and dot his/her I's and cross their T's and through observation correct problems that their inattention to detail, or lack of understanding, are going to create by the data they are entering. Now make that your medical data and you can be doubly screwed on your insurance, or worse on your medical record. I've caught errors of incorrect drugs and dosages entered by the nurses or medical practitioners or even my doctor. The most competent and consistent medical assistance I receive is at my pharmacy where a few mistakes were caught that slipped by me.

A friend of mine who is the head nurse at a local hospital told me to complain all I liked about the dropped details. She said that the administration realized that often in a hospital setting the squeaky wheel survives.

Interesting stories. I still find it mostly hard to believe that it would be that striking of a difference. Honestly in my experience it has been the older employees that constantly have their phones go off in meetings, go off topic/off message in public speaking, forgot to run spellcheck, and generally just coast. Millennials May be more prone to show up late after being hung over or whatever, but in my (brief) experience they’ve been more resourceful and polite

My last job when I told the boss I was leaving asked me who should be the interim and if I had a suggestion for my replacement. I said X who was just two years out of law school should be the interim. Of course this horrified my soon to be former boss and I explained X was the only one who had leadership skills and the only one who could mediate the lawyers I had inherited who were busy fighting each other.

So X didn't get it because the wisdom was that it should go to someone who paid their dues. The most senior was named interim which the most senior viewed as victory over their mortal rival and before my replacement was hired one of the best administrative support people took a lower paying job to escape. X was next out and is now managing a large staff.

(06-13-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 07:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:00 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree about hierarchical models Frank. But in working with them their social skills were so deficient that they had major problems working with a clientele base. Part of that was a disinclination to humility, and part of it is that they couldn't or wouldn't listen. Then when issues arose with the customer they tended to try to put a lid on it rather than admit there was a problem. They also were not good team players and we are talking about healthy resourcing not taking one for the team.

I find their resume's to be inflated in comparison to what they should actually know. I consider it to be another form of grade inflation which by the way occurs at some of the finest institutions.

As for working, nobody griped more about overtime situations or tight deadlines.

So my experience has been quite different from yours.

I stand by remarks as the overall quality of their performance.

May I ask:

What year(s)?
What types of positions and what sort of salary/benefit package was offered?
Who did the interviewing/hiring?

No offense intended here, but if the person doing the hiring had "been doing it this way since 19__" and was only offering below market compensation for entry level positions, well....you get what you pay for.

Salary ranges were from 25K to 80K depending upon the position. Hires were by a committee, and not a single individual, and the committee was experienced and diverse. And Gamecock, no offense intended here, but they under performed across the board and so much so the company started looking for older applicants.

They had impressive degrees, impeccable academic credentials, and didn't know a damn thing about how to work, how to work with other people, when to ask for assistance, or how to admit an error, and they quite literally despised instruction and almost universally refused to read manuals. But even worse most of them failed to grasp the theory behind what it was they were supposed to do.

My father's generation would have referred to them as $2 pistols. They won't work, and you can't fire them, and least not without a government required paper trail.

In some of my non profit days I did the hiring. They had the right spirit of inclusivity but lacked the social skills, and in many cases the desire to work with the underprivileged. I had one who was supposed to appear to an introductory event where she would speak to a group that she would be working with in leading some projects for a local community. She failed to show. When I called to inquire why she was absent she said that she was so happy to have the position that she and her husband had gone out to celebrate the job so she was taking her first day off and would see me on Monday. I made the speech and began her termination file. Her credentials were in order and she came with recommendations. It took her less than a year to drop the ball twice more and she was terminated.

In business our committee hired one for in house editing. Again he came with stellar credentials from a top AAU school and solid recommendations. He had problems with spelling which a spell checker could have assisted, but he also had issues with sentence fragments and comma splices and other basic grammar issues. His undergraduate major had been in English from an ACC school and his masters had come from a prestigious journalism school. Since he spent long hours trying to get it right we assumed that he was not lazy. He simply couldn't spot and correct issues because he had so many issues of his own that they simply didn't stand out for him. The sad thing is that the grammar issues were low priority for the job because grammar and spell checkers caught most of them. He was actually supposed to edit for content, brevity and clarity. The former was so bad we couldn't even begin to address the latter.

Now true those are just a few examples out of many but they stand out in my memory because of the totally unbelievable nature of the screw ups. The Millennials that did stellar work were few, but the ones that were stellar were going places because of the quality of their character, especially when compared to the majority of their generation that they were competing with. I was happy to write letters for them for admittance to professional schools (mostly career changes), or for significant position upgrades.

There was practically no turf protection going on in either the business or non profit positions I worked in because the work load in both was extensive and we wanted all hands on deck. So when balls were dropped it just meant longer hours for everyone who was simply trying to get the job done. And when mistakes were covered up it just exacerbated the difficulty of recovering the business relationship involved.

When I go into a business today I frequently find that I have to go behind my agent and dot his/her I's and cross their T's and through observation correct problems that their inattention to detail, or lack of understanding, are going to create by the data they are entering. Now make that your medical data and you can be doubly screwed on your insurance, or worse on your medical record. I've caught errors of incorrect drugs and dosages entered by the nurses or medical practitioners or even my doctor. The most competent and consistent medical assistance I receive is at my pharmacy where a few mistakes were caught that slipped by me.

A friend of mine who is the head nurse at a local hospital told me to complain all I liked about the dropped details. She said that the administration realized that often in a hospital setting the squeaky wheel survives.

Interesting stories. I still find it mostly hard to believe that it would be that striking of a difference. Honestly in my experience it has been the older employees that constantly have their phones go off in meetings, go off topic/off message in public speaking, forgot to run spellcheck, and generally just coast. Millennials May be more prone to show up late after being hung over or whatever, but in my (brief) experience they’ve been more resourceful and polite

Then perhaps you are the one working for the wrong company!

It’s state government, so perhaps you are right

I agree with the sentiment that we don't know how the viewing habits of younger generations will shake out. I've noticed men tend to gravitate to at least one team or individual sport as they gracefully age, if only to enjoy some time to themselves, away from a needy significant other, such as a pet or grown child or sibling. Another major generic observation is that people of both and possibly, all genders really like teams that win. The more their newfound team wins ("honey, who knew there's a(n) ____ State!"), the more they watch. It's actually a very easy and complex-free algorithm.

As for all this Millennial bashing, it has inspired me to list the groups of people I'm most aggrieved with (in no order):
Millennials
Boomers
Tom Brokaw fans
Sumerian Immigrants
SEC (football overlords)
SEC (financial overlords)
Native Americans (all that free land...)
Great Northern Conference
Cable cabals
Bert Jones Fan Club
Harvey Weinstein Impostors
SABR
Next Next Last 4

(06-14-2018 12:42 PM)PDNJ Wrote:  I agree with the sentiment that we don't know how the viewing habits of younger generations will shake out. I've noticed men tend to gravitate to at least one team or individual sport as they gracefully age, if only to enjoy some time to themselves, away from a needy significant other, such as a pet or grown child or sibling. Another major generic observation is that people of both and possibly, all genders really like teams that win. The more their newfound team wins ("honey, who knew there's a(n) ____ State!"), the more they watch. It's actually a very easy and complex-free algorithm.

As for all this Millennial bashing, it has inspired me to list the groups of people I'm most aggrieved with (in no order):
Millennials
Boomers
Tom Brokaw fans
Sumerian Immigrants
SEC (football overlords)
SEC (financial overlords)
Native Americans (all that free land...)
Great Northern Conference
Cable cabals
Bert Jones Fan Club
Harvey Weinstein Impostors
SABR
Next Next Last 4

Were you a Colt's fan? Or did you just hate L.S.U.? Bert Jones Fan Club was off-putting how? Being a Big 10'er I can appreciate your disdain for SEC overlords. I also appreciate your sarcasm.

By the way, the basest form of entertainment comes from the basest form of art. Literary critics stated that it was the propagation of pity and fear as it appealed to natural emotions. Likewise the highest forms of art appeals to the intellect in challenging or affirming ways and play in general to the better aspects of humanity. Therefore is it any wonder that most message boards thrive on the propagation of pity and fear? If you want to drive posts then present an interpretation of an event in a threatening way. If you want heartfelt defense appeal to pity. Hence P5 vs G5, Cable Cabals, the Corporate Threat, Politics, North vs South, Generational Divides, etc. They all appeal to base instincts and emotions.

If you want a totally dull thread with few, but informed views, then discuss rationally the aspects of a business deal, contract, or statistics, or worse, the economy.

Huge Bert Jones fan as a Colt when I was a kid. Of course, as a harbinger of my overall rooting interests, as soon as I started following him, his shoulder injuries happened and thus the decline. He's the reason why there are only 4 preseason games, and frankly, maybe two at most are really needed. It's not like personnel decisions haven't already been decided as soon as these guys put on the pads. Anyone ever try changing a football coach's mind?

(06-14-2018 02:41 PM)PDNJ Wrote:  Huge Bert Jones fan as a Colt when I was a kid. Of course, as a harbinger of my overall rooting interests, as soon as I started following him, his shoulder injuries happened and thus the decline. He's the reason why there are only 4 preseason games, and frankly, maybe two at most are really needed. It's not like personnel decisions haven't already been decided as soon as these guys put on the pads. Anyone ever try changing a football coach's mind?

I loved watching the Ruston Rifle play when he was at L.S.U.. Always seemed like a nice guy too. He gave my Auburn Tigers fits. I followed him while he was with the Colts. And I totally agree with you about the preseason games. Two would be plenty. There are enough full speed drills at practice to see what position players are going to start.