Testing People: Cons

I seldom test people despite my total agreement with Mr Regan's dictum that 'Trust but verify.'

Maybe when I become as important Mr Regan I may have to do more testing. But for now, I am enjoying my test-free life.

The need to test or verify arises more often in virtual world, especially in social media than in real life. In real world, a person posing to be a billionaire has to make up some entourage and to acquire/borrow some status symbols. On Facebook, it's so easy to be a software tycoon of some bogus companies.( You know the degree factory in Somewherestan, where any one of their websites refers to some other 300-plus websites they themselves have put up? And these days, putting up a website is a matter of minutes.)

On Facebook, some of my dead friends even came back to life again. I got so delighted to see them again.

Still I refuse to test people because I know I cannot escape a universal, fundamental law.

When you test, there will be some who fail and some who pass. You must give rewards to anyone who passes. If you fail to do so, you owe those something and you become indebted, with compound interest.

So, let's stop testing if we don't have enough rewards to pass around.

At EssayKKN, whenever we test students, we reward then more than their effort.

People Decisions | Mao-Zedong-like Employees

Imagine Mao Zedong is applying for a job with your government or political party, or he's already got a job there. Also assume:

1. You belong to the same ideology as his.
2. He hasn't done stuffs like Cultural Revolution etc. Say, it's in early 1950s.
3. You're 100% certain that he won't overthrow you and seize power for himself. He won't undermine you in any way.

Even then, you are unlikely to use him properly.

Hard to Pigeonhole Talent

One group of experts say:

1. Mao is a bad politician.
2. He rose to power simply because he won battles and eventually wars.
3. Mao's politics is, "Power comes out of the gun barrel." etc.

So Mao can't be used in your Political Dept. You use an FDR, a Nixon, a Clinton, instead.

Another group of experts say:

1. If Japanese didn't enter China so soon, Mao had no chance against the Government army backed by German military advisers.
2. Mao's military knowledge is merely that of a bandit.
3. His generals (Chu Te, Lin Pao, etc) did all the work and he took credit.
4. Long March is a military disaster.

So Mao can't be used in your Military Dept. You use a Patton, a Mc Arthur, a Grant instead.

Mao Was Not Hired. But Those You Hired Floundered.

When Nixon made a Military-101 mistake, Patton got into trouble.
When McArthur made a Political-101 mistake, FDR got burned.

Paradoxically, sometimes, 100 plus 100 can be less than 55. Patton's 100 for his military expertise and FDR's 100 for his political expertise can combine to become 200 or 10.

And Mao will exploit that. He won't play your game, he won't let you play your own game either.

Chelsea manager said after this team's loss to Inter Milan: “I think we didn't play how we wanted to."

Perhaps Mao is one of the T people, a Jack of all trades.

Label him anyway you like. But should that prevent you from hiring him?