I agree with it broadly - I know I'm a gonna if I work in the wrong culture. I'm like a cat in a sack.
A very long time ago, a boss of mine deliberately set out to employ using just cultural fit/personality as a yardstick to see if it could work/wrote a paper on it. I later found out I was the lab rat in this organisational experiment. We fitted each other like a glove and both did really well out of it.
Can only provide my own personal anecdata here - but it was fascinating to discover what game he was playing from the outset = deliberately recruiting someone with no technical or industry experience that demanded a lot of it.
Does job success depend on data rather than your CV?
"The bald truth is that most companies are pretty bad at recruitment.
Nearly half of new recruits turn out to be duds within 18 months, according to one study, while two-thirds of hiring managers admit they've often chosen the wrong people.
And the main reason for failure is not because applicants didn't have the requisite skills, but because their personalities clashed with the company's culture.
So these days employers are resorting to big data analytics and other new methods to help make the fraught process of hiring and firing more scientific and effective.
For job hunters, this means success is now as much to do with your online data trail as your finely crafted CV.......
For example, recruitment technology firm Electronic Insight doesn't even bother to look at your skills and experience when analysing CVs on behalf of clients...
"We just look at what people write and how they structure their sentences," says Marc Mapes, the firm's chief innovation officer.
Its algorithm analyses language patterns to reveal a candidate's personality and attitude, and then compares this against the cultural profile of the company.
"About 84% of people who get fired do so because of lack of cultural fit, not because of lack of skills," he maintains.
And companies such as Silicon Valley start-up Knack are even developing games as a way of assessing the suitability of job candidates. "
This box-ticking/imaginary deductions approach to recruitment worries me. Reminds me of the time when I was given a blank sheet of paper and was asked to write about what I 'saw' in it. Or another time when my handwriting was analysed for personality traits.
Personally, a time of internship reveals far more but is time consuming but probably not more costly.
Those are fascinating - it's a bit like half of Labour voters preferring Cameron over their own bloke to be PM.
But even when you like a Party - there's no amount of *Facts* that will change your mind unless you get mentally divorced from them. Even Labour voters floated back finally after Iraq.
Yes but Labour still have a vestigial memory of what first attracted 1/3 of people to them. But these people are aging and getting wiser and eventually will either die or some may come to their senses. What Labour do not have is lots and lots of reasons for people to stay in the relationship. They have lots and lots of reasons to leave.
How do you square that with Labour being MUCH more popular with people of working age than with pensioners? The key Labour cohort is the 45-65 age bracket. It's the Conservatives who are ageing.
The people in the 45-65 bracket would have largely voted Labour in 1997. That group are still carrying their "first love" commitments through as they age, although it is diluting each year. The younger groups are economically right wing classical liberals. That is the future Labour has yet to wake up to.
I'm not sure that's quite right. I recall the LDs being very rude about Tories at one of the Coalition conferences when they attempted to act their shoe size by pulling away from their own HMG and knocking their own partners in quite colourful terms.
I know conference season is a bubble - but things said there do matter amongst the activists and politically interested.
Am expecting a lot of name-calling from the LDs over the next couple of days.
Home Office source responding to Lib Dem attack on Theresa May: 'Nick Clegg is a w******'
This is going to be a tricky few months for the Coalition as the partners seek to differentiate themselves. We have not seen this before and our politicians will be making up the rules of engagement as they go along.
The squeals from Danny Alexander yesterday suggested his big idea had just been snaffled. The Lib Dems will have to be careful to make sure their conference does not just become a commentary on the others. They need to find some things to believe in themselves.
On topic: Using the constituency polls for England and Wales and some scottish polls, I've calculated that presently the LD will lose 28 seats: 13 seats to LAB, 12 seats to CON and 3 seats to the SNP.
On Rochester: There hasn't been any constituency poll there, until a poll is published the odds, like in Heywood, are not worthy as a prediction. I'm sure that if a poll in Rochester or Heywood is published the odds will be different (in Heywood a poll will push UKIP's odds even further away). In Heywood no one is actually willing to do a poll, in Rochester I expect at least one constituency poll to be published before the byelection, therefore I advise any betting before a poll is published to be limited.
Those are fascinating - it's a bit like half of Labour voters preferring Cameron over their own bloke to be PM.
But even when you like a Party - there's no amount of *Facts* that will change your mind unless you get mentally divorced from them. Even Labour voters floated back finally after Iraq.
Yes but Labour still have a vestigial memory of what first attracted 1/3 of people to them. But these people are aging and getting wiser and eventually will either die or some may come to their senses. What Labour do not have is lots and lots of reasons for people to stay in the relationship. They have lots and lots of reasons to leave.
How do you square that with Labour being MUCH more popular with people of working age than with pensioners? The key Labour cohort is the 45-65 age bracket. It's the Conservatives who are ageing.
The people in the 45-65 bracket would have largely voted Labour in 1997. That group are still carrying their "first love" commitments through as they age, although it is diluting each year. The younger groups are economically right wing classical liberals. That is the future Labour has yet to wake up to.
Total rubbish! One of the only groups labour won a plurality of votes was the 18-24 group!
Those of us - the saddest of the sad - who watched First Minister's Questons live an hour ago will have seen Eck proclaim the advent of a Panel Base poll later today that makes joyous reading for the SNP but alas not for either Labour or Conservatives.
Without wishing to sully this fine thread - you're clearly unfamiliar with what is typically the relationship between subs and doms. It's the other way round when it comes to who has the power.
Using your example, Cameron is actually the sub since you think he has the power. After Cameron talking about going to bed with Nigel and waking up with EdM - I now need a damp cloth on my forehead.
Home Office source responding to Lib Dem attack on Theresa May: 'Nick Clegg is a w******'
This is going to be a tricky few months for the Coalition as the partners seek to differentiate themselves. We have not seen this before and our politicians will be making up the rules of engagement as they go along.
The squeals from Danny Alexander yesterday suggested his big idea had just been snaffled. The Lib Dems will have to be careful to make sure their conference does not just become a commentary on the others. They need to find some things to believe in themselves.
It's fascinating that the Tories feel at liberty to be so nasty about Clegg and yet Labour have obviously gone soft on him. Why aren't the Tories afraid of alienating someone who they will likely rely on after the next election? Clegg tries to act like a dom but everyone knows he's a sub. He just looks silly. He'll take any abuse from the Tories because he knows which side his bread is buttered.
Those are fascinating - it's a bit like half of Labour voters preferring Cameron over their own bloke to be PM.
But even when you like a Party - there's no amount of *Facts* that will change your mind unless you get mentally divorced from them. Even Labour voters floated back finally after Iraq.
Yes but Labour still have a vestigial memory of what first attracted 1/3 of people to them. But these people are aging and getting wiser and eventually will either die or some may come to their senses. What Labour do not have is lots and lots of reasons for people to stay in the relationship. They have lots and lots of reasons to leave.
How do you square that with Labour being MUCH more popular with people of working age than with pensioners? The key Labour cohort is the 45-65 age bracket. It's the Conservatives who are ageing.
The people in the 45-65 bracket would have largely voted Labour in 1997. That group are still carrying their "first love" commitments through as they age, although it is diluting each year. The younger groups are economically right wing classical liberals. That is the future Labour has yet to wake up to.
Total rubbish! One of the only groups labour won a plurality of votes was the 18-24 group!
I'm assuming you know the scores on the doors here as that comment, while correct, is pretty funny.
Those of us - the saddest of the sad - who watched First Minister's Questons live an hour ago will have seen Eck proclaim the advent of a Panel Base poll later today that makes joyous reading for the SNP but alas not for either Labour or Conservatives.
According to What Scotland Thinks, the last Panelbase Westminster voting intention poll was in September 2013, and showed:
Conservative 15% Labour 45% Liberal Democrat 7% Scottish National Party/SNP 26% Other 6%
Those of us - the saddest of the sad - who watched First Minister's Questons live an hour ago will have seen Eck proclaim the advent of a Panel Base poll later today that makes joyous reading for the SNP but alas not for either Labour or Conservatives.
According to What Scotland Thinks, the last Panelbase Westminster voting intention poll was in September 2013, and showed:
Conservative 15% Labour 45% Liberal Democrat 7% Scottish National Party/SNP 26% Other 6%
I think - but could well have misheard - that Salmond claimed that the SNP had a 14% lead over Labour for Westminster VI.
The people in the 45-65 bracket would have largely voted Labour in 1997. That group are still carrying their "first love" commitments through as they age,
Many of them are still fighting 'Fatcha'.
Populus usually does a 55-64 grouping, the Tories often winning (9 points clear on Monday), so it suggests that it will be the 20 year olds from the mid 80s most likely backing Labour.
This morning Labour is staring into the abyss. Or rather, it’s staring into a mirror. For the first time Labour activists are looking at what the country is looking at. A leader whose final vestiges of credibility have been torn away. A political offer that is incoherent, reactionary and fantastical. An opposition that is staggering like a punch-drunk boxer towards the electoral finishing line.
“It is a core vote strategy … Mr Cameron mostly ignored social policy in favour of throwing lumps of red meat to the Conservative crowd … the same core message – flag, family and small government.” The Guardian’s narrative will become Labour’s narrative. In a vain attempt to keep his party out of Nigel Farage’s clutches, David Cameron has made a desperate swerve to the Right.
It is a bankrupt narrative. Indeed, it is a narrative so stupid, so facile and so short-sighted, that it will display in bright, flashing neon lights the full extent to which Labour and the wider Left have lost their own way, vision and purpose.
Those of us - the saddest of the sad - who watched First Minister's Questons live an hour ago will have seen Eck proclaim the advent of a Panel Base poll later today that makes joyous reading for the SNP but alas not for either Labour or Conservatives.
Hadn't he recovered his faith in polls remarkably quickly after they let him down so badly but a few weeks ago?
This morning Labour is staring into the abyss. Or rather, it’s staring into a mirror. For the first time Labour activists are looking at what the country is looking at. A leader whose final vestiges of credibility have been torn away. A political offer that is incoherent, reactionary and fantastical. An opposition that is staggering like a punch-drunk boxer towards the electoral finishing line.
and this made me squirm.
Yet while they look, they still cannot see.
Today the Guardian has reproduced the official Labour Party “line to take” on David Cameron’s conference speech, and the election strategy underpinning it. You’ll be hearing this line a lot over the next few weeks.
“It is a core vote strategy … Mr Cameron mostly ignored social policy in favour of throwing lumps of red meat to the Conservative crowd … the same core message – flag, family and small government.” The Guardian’s narrative will become Labour’s narrative. In a vain attempt to keep his party out of Nigel Farage’s clutches, David Cameron has made a desperate swerve to the Right.
It is a bankrupt narrative. Indeed, it is a narrative so stupid, so facile and so short-sighted, that it will display in bright, flashing neon lights the full extent to which Labour and the wider Left have lost their own way, vision and purpose.
The Labour lead was 7% in the Yougov last night wasn't it? Or am I imagining things?
How to pin it down? The noteless gimmick, the banal anecdotes, forgetting critically important issues, the sheer impotence over economics, the lack of necessary seriousness and gravitas that should have pervaded the speech and indeed the whole conference 7 months out from the election.
I'd have thought it obvious to the strategists that this was a Labour conference to play dead straight. I think Cameron may well have outdone Ed on the speeches regardless, but to use football parlance better a competitive 2-1 defeat than the 6-0 drubbing Miliband allowed himself to receive by such a shambolic showing.
The first result merits a dusting down, learn the lessons, but cherising the positives and getting on with it. The second requires a wholesale root and branch reassessment of the team's outlook.
No doubt my vexation will pass! Like too many Labour activists I'll delude myself that no one takes any notice of conference speeches and their aftermath. Last week I was merely very disappointed for a few days, but by the weekend felt back to being reasonably confident about Labour's prospects. Cameron ignited a harsher assessment yesterday.
Excellent post. And spot on. The essential problem is that EdM is not a leader and so is incapable of providing Labour with a proper sense of urgency or direction. As a result, they are bereft of a coherent, credible message, let alone a set of policies that can be put in front of voters with a straight face. The only strategy Labour under Ed has is to rely on the unpopularity of the Tory brand. Even if that turns out to be successful to the extent of winning most seats in a hung parliament it is no mandate for government.
Wonder if anyone is going to act.
IMO Cameron's speech, whilst well delivered, was only possible because of the acres of political space he has been given. His claims go unchallenged, his mistakes go unpunished.
If Milliband had claimed to have "paying down the debt" or come up with £7bill of free money he would have been eviscerated. Cameron gets away with it.
It's not free money: it's the money that's been saved by the years of austerity leading up to 2018.
You crazy , what have we saved given we are still borrowing more than £90B a year.
How to pin it down? The noteless gimmick, the banal anecdotes, forgetting critically important issues, the sheer impotence over economics, the lack of necessary seriousness and gravitas that should have pervaded the speech and indeed the whole conference 7 months out from the election.
I'd have thought it obvious to the strategists that this was a Labour conference to play dead straight. I think Cameron may well have outdone Ed on the speeches regardless, but to use football parlance better a competitive 2-1 defeat than the 6-0 drubbing Miliband allowed himself to receive by such a shambolic showing.
The first result merits a dusting down, learn the lessons, but cherising the positives and getting on with it. The second requires a wholesale root and branch reassessment of the team's outlook.
No doubt my vexation will pass! Like too many Labour activists I'll delude myself that no one takes any notice of conference speeches and their aftermath. Last week I was merely very disappointed for a few days, but by the weekend felt back to being reasonably confident about Labour's prospects. Cameron ignited a harsher assessment yesterday.
Excellent post. And spot on. The essential problem is that EdM is not a leader and so is incapable of providing Labour with a proper sense of urgency or direction. As a result, they are bereft of a coherent, credible message, let alone a set of policies that can be put in front of voters with a straight face. The only strategy Labour under Ed has is to rely on the unpopularity of the Tory brand. Even if that turns out to be successful to the extent of winning most seats in a hung parliament it is no mandate for government.
Wonder if anyone is going to act.
IMO Cameron's speech, whilst well delivered, was only possible because of the acres of political space he has been given. His claims go unchallenged, his mistakes go unpunished.
If Milliband had claimed to have "paying down the debt" or come up with £7bill of free money he would have been eviscerated. Cameron gets away with it.
It's not free money: it's the money that's been saved by the years of austerity leading up to 2018.
Comments
A very long time ago, a boss of mine deliberately set out to employ using just cultural fit/personality as a yardstick to see if it could work/wrote a paper on it. I later found out I was the lab rat in this organisational experiment. We fitted each other like a glove and both did really well out of it.
Can only provide my own personal anecdata here - but it was fascinating to discover what game he was playing from the outset = deliberately recruiting someone with no technical or industry experience that demanded a lot of it.
I know conference season is a bubble - but things said there do matter amongst the activists and politically interested.
Am expecting a lot of name-calling from the LDs over the next couple of days.
Using the constituency polls for England and Wales and some scottish polls, I've calculated that presently the LD will lose 28 seats: 13 seats to LAB, 12 seats to CON and 3 seats to the SNP.
On Rochester:
There hasn't been any constituency poll there, until a poll is published the odds, like in Heywood, are not worthy as a prediction.
I'm sure that if a poll in Rochester or Heywood is published the odds will be different (in Heywood a poll will push UKIP's odds even further away).
In Heywood no one is actually willing to do a poll, in Rochester I expect at least one constituency poll to be published before the byelection, therefore I advise any betting before a poll is published to be limited.
Kippah 2 - 2.4
Con 2- 2.44
Lab 8-12
Using your example, Cameron is actually the sub since you think he has the power. After Cameron talking about going to bed with Nigel and waking up with EdM - I now need a damp cloth on my forehead.
Conservative 15%
Labour 45%
Liberal Democrat 7%
Scottish National Party/SNP 26%
Other 6%
Populus usually does a 55-64 grouping, the Tories often winning (9 points clear on Monday), so it suggests that it will be the 20 year olds from the mid 80s most likely backing Labour.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100288514/finally-labour-party-activists-can-see-what-the-rest-of-the-country-can-see/ and this made me squirm.
John Curtice points out only 3 Scottish seats would switch from Lab -> SNP on a 10% swing http://bit.ly/YUqZAj McEarthquake unlikely.
Labour Party 6070 (2010: 5205)
Tory Party 4742 (2010: 5620)
Labour increase in votes: 15.14%
Tory decrease in votes: 15.81%
Labour 2010 vote share * 1.1514 = 34.16%
Tory 2010 vote share * 0.8419 = 31.13%