Do the best actors (who look right) get the job? At work, are the best actors (playing the right role of course) most successful? Are the most impressive employees usually acting or are they simply reacting in a style they believe will be most effective in the circumstances? Another possibility, of course, is that the person is responding to whatever it is in a natural and sincere fashion. What do you think? Is there also room for the rebel who may be somewhat obnoxious, but exudes brilliance in his/her field?
Does it really matter? Is sincerity so important in a captive environment? It does make sense to develop an adaptive style within an organization and sometimes it is necessary for survival. It can also help in developing tolerance and showing compliance in ways that may not make sense but are necessary. There are reasons, of course, why employees should be appealing to others, but is it an integral part of the job, measurable and as important as getting the work done, or is it simply personal marketing?
Are managers (including executives) compromising the success of the organization by insisting on working with people they like the look of and who say the right things? Are managers putting ego and “nice” (in their opinion) employees ahead of BEST WORK RESULTS! I believe that is often the case. Consistent with the “personality cult”, is the focus of managers on short-term success they will get credit for, rather than long term sustainability that will benefit others in the future? Is the focus often more on personal short-term security than corporate long-term success?
It seems that many managers have been allowed to hire in their own image and for their own comfort and companionship (?) rather than bona-fide job related reasons. The frequent excuse is that the manager must commit to the employee he/she personally selects! The prevalent subjectivity in selection is widely known to job applicants, and preparation for an interview can be more focused on presentation and likeability factors than focus on the job. The best actors will learn and play the part best and get the job. Their selection over better-qualified and more capable candidates can be not only discriminatory but in conflict with the best business interests of the organization. What do you think?
All the world is a stage and that can particularly apply in the workplace. A workplace that superficially may seem the greatest, but often places more emphasis on looking right than actually doing what is best. All the right policies may be in place, all the right social commitments, but is it reality or only words? Focusing on what we are comfortable with and keeping it that way by hiring in our own image, rather than hiring people who may be a little different, but, nevertheless, have the best skills and ability to get results in any environment.
I believe the obligation to an organization, is have employees most capable of performing the work (including the interactive requirements) rather than hiring and promoting people we like the look of and we believe will fit in with our style. To be competitive, we need to focus on hiring people with the best skills and results capability and selecting managers who are able to inspire and provide leadership to smart, innovative and high potential new age employees. Much more difficult to supervise the best than “direct” the good actors who know the game and foster their own wellbeing by making the boss feel good.
What do you think? Are the best actors most successful? Is role-playing within an organization often more important than results? If there is such an emphasis on looking right, is that likely to inhibit individuality and, particularly, innovation and progressive thinking? What do you think?
Thank you for your interest. I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have.