When is the last time?

[keannu]

The writer doesn't seem to ramble, but my workbook's question seems to. What does the underlined mean? Is it a rhetoric question to mean that they rarely hire such people as have emotional strengths but do hire people with working competence to complement the exisiting shortcomings? The theme seems to go back and forth in every line, confusing me.

st197
ex)Rarely are people recruited to an executive team because their strengths are the best complement to those of the existing team members. When is the last time you heard a leader talking about how your team needed to add a person who not only had the technical competence but who could also help build stronger relationships within the group? The vast majority of the time, we cruit by job function - and all but ignore individuals' strengths. What's worse, when leaders do recuirt for strength, they all too often pick people who act, think, or behave like themselves, although unintentionally in most cases. It's an age-old dilemma. How is a company supposed to grow, adapt, and change if a domineering CEO continues to pick people who agree with him and who have similar background and personality?

 

[bhaisahab]

The writer doesn't seem to ramble, but my workbook's question seems to. What does the underlined mean? Is it a rhetoric question to mean that they rarely hire such people as have emotional strengths but do hire people with working competence to complement the exisiting shortcomings? The theme seems to go back and forth in every line, confusing me.

st197
ex)Rarely are people recruited to an executive team because their strengths are the best complement to those of the existing team members. When is the last time you heard a leader talking about how your team needed to add a person who not only had the technical competence but who could also help build stronger relationships within the group? The vast majority of the time, we cruit by job function - and all but ignore individuals' strengths. What's worse, when leaders do recuirt for strength, they all too often pick people who act, think, or behave like themselves, although unintentionally in most cases. It's an age-old dilemma. How is a company supposed to grow, adapt, and change if a domineering CEO continues to pick people who agree with him and who have similar background and personality?

It's a rhetorical question.

 

[keannu]

It would be good for me to get a little bit longer answer from you to understand better.

 

[bhaisahab]

It would be good for me to get a little bit longer answer from you to understand better.

You asked if it was a rhetorical question and I said that it was. What other information do you need?

 

[keannu]

I'd like to know if it means "They want to hire people with emotional or skillful ability to complement the organization". Does "when is the last time" mean "such trend doesn't exist any more"?

 

[SoothingDave]

It means it doesn't happen at all, or very rarely. The point here is that companies hire people based on their technical skills, not on how they can "build stronger relationships within the group."

 

[Barb_D]

In point of fact, this is exactly what my company does, from new hires to the company to forming internal teams, and we make sure that people know that "has strengths exactly like mine" is NOT a way to build a team. Not related to the grammar or meaning, but just to say that I can answer this rhetorical question with "just about every time we talk about a team or a new hire" here.

 

[SoothingDave]

I agree. Even if it's not a formal goal, you bring a prospective hire in and have your existing team talk to him. He could be the most competent person out there, but if he rubs everyone the wrong way, he probably won't get hired.

 

[keannu]

Could you let me know what "strengths" here means by examples?

 

[keannu]

Maybe my question was so long as to make teachers avoid it, so I shortened it to "the meaning of strengths".

 

[emsr2d2]

Your "strengths" are simply the things you do particularly well.

 

[Barb_D]

What you're good at.

 

[keannu]

I already know the basic meaning, but I meant what kind of strengths can't be accepted in companies. Like your harmornizing ability with others or impersonation skills(as I had before even appearing on TV) to make your coworkers crack up?
When I told my first company coworkers I would quit and go to another company, someone told me as a joke "Were you hired as the entertainment show leader with your impersonation skill, not as a plain employee"?

 

[emsr2d2]

It depends on the company. Some companies want people who rock the boat - people who can shake things up and have great new ideas. Some companies want people who happily toe the line and are good at following orders, meeting deadlines and don't cause problems. Every company will be looking for different strengths in its workforce, and different strengths will be required within each individual department within each company.

 

[BobSmith]

By "strengths", the writer means specifically

but who could also help build stronger relationships within the group

 

[keannu]

Then, is the writer thinking that such strengths as building good relationships is less important than your working skill?
Maybe it's his or her opinion, but to mix others is also a necessary ability in an organization, especially in Korea, Japan, or China. I once worked in a Canadian company back in Canada, and they didn't have any business party, all they did for gathering was playing some games at lunch break.

 

[Barb_D]

I didn't see anything that made me think the writer thought that core working skills were less important than such strengths.

Strengths may also be your ability to think strategically, the communicate effectively, to create better harmony among the people you work with, to get stalled projects moving, to take responsibility at a personal level for the success of a project, etc. You don't have to have parties or play games at lunch to value a person's ability to create strong collaborative relationships.