How the language of job postings can attract rule-bending narcissists

Looking to hire someone? Check your wording very carefully.

See full article...

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

Problem is.. you kind of NEED some of these people in order to advance the goals of a company/science/etc..

You only "need" rule-benders when the organization has too many poorly-considered rules that block people from doing things that actually help the whole team. Which is why managers who don't understand the work and enforce idiotic processes end up creating dysfunctional work environments where only assholes get anything done.

Good processes that are suitable for the work and the team make everyone more productive by minimizing the time they spend figuring out who should do what or fixing things that weren't done right the first time.

edit: typo

 

[Emon]

You only "need" rule-benders when they organization has too many poorly-considered rules that block people from doing things that actually help the whole team. Which is why managers who don't understand the work and enforce idiotic processes end up creating dysfunctional work environments where only assholes get anything done.

Good processes that are suitable for the work and the team make everyone more productive by minimizing the time they spend figuring out who should do what or fixing things that weren't done right the first time.

Also, narcissists are more likely to institute useless rules due to their insecurities. Narcissistic traits are how you get managers clamoring for RTO because they can't look over employee shoulders (setting aside other RTO reasons)

Narcissistic traits are not good for anyone, ever. They're only good for the narcissists.

We only think we need "rule benders" because the rule benders in power have pushed that narrative. They're not bending the rules for collective benefit. They're bending the rules for themselves and their friends.

I really don't understand what's hard to grasp about this and I'm astonished at the narcissistic apologism in this thread. The "rule bender" narrative is the one endlessly pushed by exploitative billionaires. It's the shit your read on Forbes or Business Insider. It's nonsense. No one bends the rules and freely shares the profits with everyone. What kind of Robin Hood fantasy is that??

Frankly, I think it's a sign folks need to look inward. If you find yourself saying "we need a balance of these traits," you really, honestly might want to see a therapist.

 

[Demosthenes642]

So how much corporate data is just flat out fabricated by narcissists looking for advancement?

I've long heard rumors of a lot of corporate data being massaged or outright fabricated. Boss says they want data before they make a decision, so you just write up a BS or half-BS report. They look at it for five minutes and make a decision. On to the next thing.

We don't have any way to verify one way or another.

Very little is outright fabrication. A lot is chock full of assumptions and interpretation that may be misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally. A good executive asks a ton of questions to get to the bottom of just how much those assumptions and generous interpretations are the report author's and how much is real info. It's not just narcissists, everyone in a business brings their desires, biases and ambitions to the table in their work product.

The reason for the above is that measuring stuff is really really difficult and you can't operate a business just changing one variable at a time. People have to give their input on what they think is causing X with imperfect data and so they insert themselves into the interpretation of the data. Leaders need to take that into account and the level of reliability of the data when understanding the risk of decisions based on that data. With any level of risk there's always the potential to get it wrong too.

 

[blindeye0]

As an engineering leader, I look at those follower/bender lists and definitely lean toward rule breakers in hiring. The follower phrases make me think of someone set in their ways and not innovative or responsive enough. But I get that the needs of every function are not the same.

I tend to talk with salaried engineers about working smarter not harder, in the sense that an extra hour of work for an accountant means so-many more entries or reconciliations while an extra hour of engineering may or may not be productive. We try to focus more on outcomes than efforts.

Agreed.

The bender list reads like an R&D engineer while the follower list reads like a Quality engineer. If you hired R&D engineers based on the follower criteria you'd never create anything new. If you hired Quality engineers based on the bender list you'd fail audits and suffer the consequences.

Analyzing the wording of job postings independent of the actual roles seems silly.

 

[Zeppos]

Please make this article a mandatory read for recruiters... Especially for tech related jobs.

* edit * after reading quite some comments going for the bender. I worked in a company with one narcissistic bender. He innovated! He did magnificent things! He did miracles. In reality, he just did Trump manoevers all the time. Lying about accomplishments, putting the blame on others when it went wrong or his fraud came out. Taking credit for other people's work. Rampaging to the boss to get someone fired who did not follow his (impossible) instructions to the letter.
We were desperate for staff. He actually managed to break down one of our new promising juniors in such a way that he decided to switch his career completely and never worked in our industry again.
The guy was smart, but not exceptional. He moved up the ladder quickly. Then he started doing these things with high management. Let's just say he suddenly decided to leave the company for family reasons. He made sure everyone knew the projects would fail without him. We managed fine. It was actually a lot better after he left. All of the sudden things went a lot smoother. Followers took more initiative as they did not have to fear backlash. Sure, they fucked up from time to time, but we corrected that a a team. People flourished and so did work. He was not worth the trouble.

Don't write down the followers. His replacement was a follower. A real genius. Improved mister bender's designs. Bender worked 2 months on it. He made it better in all aspects in... three days. Very modest and silent guy. He should be given a medal.

 

[The Dark]

I think tactical communication is the kind concerned with things like breaching or bypassing a defensive phone-tree line in order to reach a specific target with purchasing authority; while strategic communication is the kind you do indiscriminately to entire population centers at a time.

Because using cold war era doctrine to understand the difference between sales and advertising couldn't possibly produce conceptually confused results, could it?

So if I'm understanding you correctly, "Reply All" is a strategic error rather than a tactical blunder?

 

[ZippyPeanut]

I'm not really sure what "tactical" communication is, but I'm pretty sure I don't want it.

I'm guessing it's a polite way of saying "manipulative." See also Grima Wormtongue and Stephen Miller.

 

[adespoton]

Are people really that specific about what jobs they apply to? I just look at the job title and duties and Google the company. I can't imagine deciding to apply or not apply to a job based on whether or not it said I need to be an innovative self-starting out-of the box team player - that's just packing peanuts in the job listing.

I've been thinking about this a bit. While it wouldn't affect whether I apply for a job, when I fill out the application, I'm going to use their language to reflect my skills and strengths.

I always find this bit annoying, because often I'm essentially saying "see, here's how my previous work experience shows me to be a narcissist" when a) I'm not a narcissist and b) the job I'm applying for doesn't WANT a narcissist.

So while if I get through to an interview, my own personality and skill set will shine through, during that initial culling stage of applications, my application likely won't stand out to the HR person (or AI) filtering down the list.

As such, HR ends up self-selecting for rule benders before the department even gets to look at the applicants.

 

[Emon]

Very little is outright fabrication. A lot is chock full of assumptions and interpretation that may be misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally. A good executive asks a ton of questions to get to the bottom of just how much those assumptions and generous interpretations are the report author's and how much is real info. It's not just narcissists, everyone in a business brings their desires, biases and ambitions to the table in their work product.

The reason for the above is that measuring stuff is really really difficult and you can't operate a business just changing one variable at a time. People have to give their input on what they think is causing X with imperfect data and so they insert themselves into the interpretation of the data. Leaders need to take that into account and the level of reliability of the data when understanding the risk of decisions based on that data. With any level of risk there's always the potential to get it wrong too.

I get what you're saying and my running assumption has been similar. Less outright fabrication and more a lot of massaging.

But...how do we know? Like, are there studies on this? How would the studies tell? Because if not then it seems like hopium. It seems like, "oh well no way THAT could happen!" Just assuming it doesn't happen because it would be so incredulous if real. I really think we have a lot of baked in assumptions about corporate norms and we don't really challenge them enough. We assume it's the way it is for good reasons. That may or may not be the case.

And using words like "good executive"...well, a lot of them are not good at all, so...

 

[NorthGuy]

Every recruiter should read this article. Creative software gets you promoted. Creative accounting gets you thrown in jail and your company fined for millions.

 

[wonn]

I've noticed that I am wholly incompatible with modern hiring practices. I absolutely detest the idea of lying about myself or exaggerating my skills or knowledge and as such I wholly refuse to do that. Alas, no one these days wants an employee who is actually honest about themselves. If anything, it seems to me like people think you're hiding something, like e.g. you're secretly an axe murderer, if you don't lie and exaggerate.

Yep, this is me. I've given up on self-promotion and just pay for professional help finding jobs.

 

[kingjj]

That's why there are so many "entry-level positions" that require 3-7 years of experience.

I actually asked an HR person about this once, and they told me it was "a way of separating the wheat from the chaff". I guess by ensuring the wheat doesn't bother to apply.

Anyway, it's studies like these that made me transition from 'choosing one words carefully' to 'saying whatever I want' long ago. Because it's seemingly impossible to deduce what words are going to set off what 'red flags' to whom.

"What would you say is your worst quality??"

"That I haven't concocted an answer to this question that doesn't sound like complete horseshit, even though I've been asked it roughly 77 times"

 

[terrydactyl]

Please make this article a mandatory read for recruiters... Especially for tech related jobs.

My experience is that recruiters don't care. They filled the role, then they wipe their hands clean. And it will be 6 to 12 months before someone realizes they hired the wrong person.

 

[Erbium68]

The best candidates know which rules to bend and which to respect, and which to ask for permission to bend vs doing the thing and asking for forgiveness later. It's a very delicate balance in the real world.. you don't want an exclusive bunch of formality and rules bound people or you'll usually not move fast enough, but you don't want an exclusive set of self-important rule breakers to ruin culture, go too far, or cross certain ethical lines.

I once got shouted at by an engineer because he claimed I broke rules and yet got paid a lot more than he did. I said to him "The extra pay is for my responsibility in knowing when to break rules, and my risk of getting fired if I make a mistake."
As you say, it is a delicate balance. The problem comes in the difference between the people who break rules because experience or new information shows them that the rules are inappropriate in the situation, and the ones who break rules because they are just not aware of a rule based order.
One thing I have never compromised on, honestly, is refusing to break rules so that something knowingly substandard could get to a customer. The number of disasters attributable to people doing this is considerable.

 

[PhaseShifter]

I would really prefer if job postings stopped including all the useless filler.

"Innovative", "team player", "fast paced", whatever whatever. Not useful. It's all telling not showing.

Especially when that filler tends to interfere with search queries.

"We're looking for someone with the right chemistry" doesn't help you find better sales associates. What it does accomplish is adding a keyword that shows up as a false positive for every chemist or chemical engineer looking for a job.

I strongly suspect that the reason "communications skills" are such a high priority for new hires is that the HR people don't have any.

 

[LotusPoet]

Also, narcissists are more likely to institute useless rules due to their insecurities. Narcissistic traits are how you get managers clamoring for RTO because they can't look over employee shoulders (setting aside other RTO reasons)

Narcissistic traits are not good for anyone, ever. They're only good for the narcissists.

We only think we need "rule benders" because the rule benders in power have pushed that narrative. They're not bending the rules for collective benefit. They're bending the rules for themselves and their friends.

I really don't understand what's hard to grasp about this and I'm astonished at the narcissistic apologism in this thread. The "rule bender" narrative is the one endlessly pushed by exploitative billionaires. It's the shit your read on Forbes or Business Insider. It's nonsense. No one bends the rules and freely shares the profits with everyone. What kind of Robin Hood fantasy is that??

Frankly, I think it's a sign folks need to look inward. If you find yourself saying "we need a balance of these traits," you really, honestly might want to see a therapist.

 

[WereCatf]

As an engineering leader, I look at those follower/bender lists and definitely lean toward rule breakers in hiring. The follower phrases make me think of someone set in their ways and not innovative or responsive enough.

That's not what it means. A rule follower is just someone who tends to follow the rules of the workplace, it has nothing to do with not being responsive or being set in their ways -- you're mixing up completely unrelated things here.

 

[Mazzicc]

One that I saw a lot in my recent job search was things around the concept of "go getter" attitude or "growth mindset" type things, especially "startup culture".

I treated those as keywords for "we want you to work harder for less, and we don't have a clear definition of your role so you'll be asked to do EVERYTHING", and accordingly, I didn't apply for those roles.

 

[LotusPoet]

I actually asked an HR person about this once, and they told me it was "a way of separating the wheat from the chaff". I guess by ensuring the wheat doesn't bother to apply.

Anyway, it's studies like these that made me transition from 'choosing one words carefully' to 'saying whatever I want' long ago. Because it's seemingly impossible to deduce what words are going to set off what 'red flags' to whom.

"What would you say is your worst quality??"

"That I haven't concocted an answer to this question that doesn't sound like complete horseshit, even though I've been asked it roughly 77 times"

Interviewer: So, why do you want to work here?
Me: Because you're hiring and I'm broke?

Granted, when I was working I was a cook, so "innovative" meant flipping the burger with my left hand and "HR" was finding a new job... Actually, anecdote time for "HR":

Me: (tries explaining to the new dishwasher kid that we need some plates, please)
Kid: Fuck you! (pulls one of those cute little flip-knives)
Me: (picks up the meat cleaver and grins)
Kid: Oh... (puts knife away and starts a load of plates)

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I'm not really sure what "tactical" communication is, but I'm pretty sure I don't want it.

It comes in matte black, has a superfluous Picatinny rail, and a crenelated strike bezel for enhanced self-defense.

 

[Lazerpop]

All of those filler words in job postings have a meaning? It's all rubbish. Sometimes you need to think for yourself and sometimes you need to ask others for their perspective. Sometimes you need to follow protocol to the letter and sometimes you need to creatively interpret. Anybody who only does one or the other of these things will be inherently inflexible. And anyone who takes this part of the job description seriously is a clown. "They said they need an out of the box thinker and I never got my cert in that... I won't waste their time..."

 

[Robin-3]

They don't assume that. The second-to-last paragraph says "it is unclear whether this is intentional."

Ah, clearly I'm hitting it out of the park in the reading comprehension department today. You're quite right; thank you.

 

[Robin-3]

"contend"

You're welcome.

Gah. Between that and @Pluvia Arenae correctly noting that I overlooked a bit towards the end of the article, I'm really doing well today with the reads-and-understands-language skillset.

 

[Random_stranger]

Honestly, I think it all stems from the general guidance to make one's job and resume sound impressive by using action words and fluffing everything. Except that now everyone's job and resume sounds equally impressive and ridiculous.

If you really want to see ridiculous look no further than software development related roles. Junior devs needing 10 years of experience and need to be experts in the entire dev stack as if they are going to build an enterprise application by themselves.

And then with resumes, "Instrumental in driving process improvement and cost reduction efforts for the enterprise accounting and finance departments" = fixed some formulas in someone else's Excel model.

Perhaps oddly, I've never found a job through responding to a job ad or through a recruiter. Every job I've had has come from knowing someone and being referred.

EDIT: If you want to find narcissists, LinkedIn is the place. I haven't been on in years, but I remember my feed being filled will people writing novels about how they found a new "opportunity" and look forward to their next career stage and appreciate everyone they've worked with for the last 3 months. I can almost promise they worked harder writing that post to pat themselves on the back looking for attention than they did at their previous job.

I agree with the "having to fluff your resume" to make it sound impressive. I mean, I worked at <tech company> for almost 15 years and got promoted once (they don't promote often). Pretty sure that means I'm not useless, even if I was laid off eventually. I guess I got disillusioned when the 40-50% extra work for a couple of years got someone else promoted instead, and got me assigned an "impossible to succeed" task.

I'm going to disagree with the job ad / recruiter parts though. Got my first job in the US through a classified ad in the Mercury Times (or maybe yahoo jobs?), IIRC (2005). Got several job offers from applying to ads (either on company website, or posted online). Second job was mostly through referral from first job.

Got my current job through clicking on a LinkedIn ad and not actually expecting much. This after having done quite a few applications, talking to recruiters, contract agencies, etc. (in my 50s in tech, wasn't sure I'd get one more job before having to pivot). In fact, the person I "knew" from the longterm 2nd job who contacted me about a contracting position screwed me over by referring me to a shyster (whom he had invested with because he was his longtime friend). So referrals aren't the be-all and end-all either. Having moved to SV in my 30s (for spouse) it's hard to make good friends for some people. And the people I met socially were mostly due to other interests (sports, cars, etc) and very few in tech.

I guess my TL;DR: YMMV.

 

[Random_stranger]

Also, narcissists are more likely to institute useless rules due to their insecurities. Narcissistic traits are how you get managers clamoring for RTO because they can't look over employee shoulders (setting aside other RTO reasons)

Narcissistic traits are not good for anyone, ever. They're only good for the narcissists.

We only think we need "rule benders" because the rule benders in power have pushed that narrative. They're not bending the rules for collective benefit. They're bending the rules for themselves and their friends.

I really don't understand what's hard to grasp about this and I'm astonished at the narcissistic apologism in this thread. The "rule bender" narrative is the one endlessly pushed by exploitative billionaires. It's the shit your read on Forbes or Business Insider. It's nonsense. No one bends the rules and freely shares the profits with everyone. What kind of Robin Hood fantasy is that??

Frankly, I think it's a sign folks need to look inward. If you find yourself saying "we need a balance of these traits," you really, honestly might want to see a therapist.

It reminds me of the question: "maybe the bad guys are the ones who keep promoting religion (and similar morality ideas) because the idea/morality/personal motto of <I'm a good person who doesn't break rules> is great for rule breakers to exploit?". Plus the whole "they'll get what's coming to them in the afterlife" copium gets pushed over and over. At some point you have to question why <deity> lets all the "good" people suffer constantly, but for sure, we'll fix it in the next release (afterlife), pinky-swear!

 

[Random_stranger]

Yep, this is me. I've given up on self-promotion and just pay for professional help finding jobs.

Does it work? Got any links, in case I need them in the future?

 

[Cart_catalog]

Reminds me of all the times I had to take the Meyers-Briggs Personality Test. With all the talk of how this or that type was best for certain types of jobs.

Nobody ever asked which Meyers-Briggs type was most likely to embezzle money from the company? Which type was most likely to become a workplace shooter if they did not get their first promotion when they expected it? Which type would quickly master the art of not being present when dirty jobs were being assigned?

Always the emphasis on the POSITIVE aspects of certain types, while pretending the NEGATIVE aspects did not exist.

 

[chanman819]

I would really prefer if job postings stopped including all the useless filler.

"Innovative", "team player", "fast paced", whatever whatever. Not useful. It's all telling not showing.

What I want to know is like

• company mission (succinctly!)
• company size
• team size
• tech stack
• responsibilities (eg: backend work, frontend work, sales in the tristate area, whatever)

Something like "We’re passionate about empowering people to create beautiful and powerful images, videos, and apps, and transform how companies interact with customers across every screen." isn't really that useful, and has a lot more words than it has meaning.

I'd love to know about team and product history and scope too. Is this a new team taking over an old project? An old team replacing a departure or expanding to take on a new project?

The dynamics are going to be different, whether you'll be the odd one out joining a group with a long history, or working with other recent additions to build something new, or joining a small maintenance team supporting a legacy product where all the SMEs have left. (Personal experience - I've been in all of those situations, and they are dramatically different in every way)

 

[Demosthenes642]

I get what you're saying and my running assumption has been similar. Less outright fabrication and more a lot of massaging.

But...how do we know? Like, are there studies on this? How would the studies tell? Because if not then it seems like hopium. It seems like, "oh well no way THAT could happen!" Just assuming it doesn't happen because it would be so incredulous if real. I really think we have a lot of baked in assumptions about corporate norms and we don't really challenge them enough. We assume it's the way it is for good reasons. That may or may not be the case.

And using words like "good executive"...well, a lot of them are not good at all, so...

Fair question. Honestly, I can just speak to the places I've worked. I'm a fairly senior exec at an IT globomegacorp, I spend a lot of my time looking at other people's work product to inform the direction for the part of the business that I am responsible for. Clearly, I haven't done an industry wide study.

That said, fabricating things out of whole cloth is hard to do and hard to get away with, particularly if you're doing it to influence significant business decisions. Most of the info I end up looking at comes from tens of thousands of data points in the corporate datalake. All that gets turned into reports that are pretty standard which folks add their own synthesis to. But I can go back and trace that data all the way back to the source if I want to. Trying to fabricate that data would be incredibly time consuming and easy to detect.

Also I tend to spend a lot of time digging into the methodology behind the numbers I see, generally to the annoyance of the folks that came up with them. But what I find is that regardless of the output numbers, the methodology tells you a lot about what the author is trying to do and bring across. I also get to see a wider variety of sources and viewpoints than the folks that are bringing reports to me. That allows for a bit of a smell test and helps to know where to dig really deep. It also helps to build a culture of not shooting the messenger so folks don't have the motivation to twist the truth. Over the years I've seen a lot of honest mistakes and a lot of stuff in the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" territory, but only twice have I been outright lied to (that I caught). In both cases they contradicted other sources and it was almost trivial to root out once we looked closer at the data. In both cases the perpetrators were fired for breaching the company code of ethics.

As to good execs... frankly, good leaders are hard to find and hard to build. A lot of middle execs are good if unspectacular folks who just have been assigned different priorities than folks on the front line. You might not agree with their actions but that doesn't mean that they're bad or even that they don't care a lot about the people they manage. The top tiers are a little different. The knives come out and the politics get ruthless. More folks that are out for themselves make it there than selfless ones and they're willing to push harder to get what they want and achieve their goals. Doesn't make them bad or dishonest, but they do play hardball.

 

[Ronin007]

That's why there are so many "entry-level positions" that require 3-7 years of experience.

Entry level does not mean beginner.

 

[Don Reba]

However, they may unknowingly attract and select narcissistic candidates whose goals and ethics might not align with a company’s values or long-term success. Research shows that narcissistic employees are more likely to behave unethically, potentially leading to legal consequences.

The author establishes that certain verbiage attracts narcissistic candidates and that a greater than average number of narcissistic employees behave unethically. But narcissism is not the only factor that influences ethical behaviour, and it does not follow that the verbiage attracts candidates who will behave unethically.

 

[Eli Bishop]

Totally subjective and anecdotal but: based on my long experience working in tech, I suspect that this is less about recruiters "unknowingly" doing anything, and more a symptom of a corporate culture that's heavily weighted toward sales and marketing. In reality most engineers don't have the personalities of salespeople and you wouldn't want them to, but management often feels more comfortable with salespeople and assumes employees in general should be like them. And if that is a factor, then I think it makes studies like this inherently hard to evaluate, because it'd be hard to distinguish between "companies ended up hiring assholes because the language in the ad appealed more to assholes" and "companies ended up hiring assholes because a lot of the people involved in the hiring process really felt like assholes were a better culture fit, and that's also why they wrote the ad that way." (Note, I don't mean that all sales & marketing people are assholes, but the particular type described here as "rule-bending narcissists" definitely has strong incentives to be in that area)

 

[Edgar Allan Esquire]

I finally finished my unemployment period, but I went to quite a few interviews where the writing and wording of the job posting essentially comes from a memo from corporate and the managers trying to bring on team members often had shockingly little say in its contents.

Though, my favorite job posting I saw wanted a manager "skilled at conflict resolution and knowledgeable of methods for preventing sabotage." I didn't apply since that seemed like a red flag.

 

[Fatesrider]

Are people really that specific about what jobs they apply to? I just look at the job title and duties and Google the company. I can't imagine deciding to apply or not apply to a job based on whether or not it said I need to be an innovative self-starting out-of the box team player - that's just packing peanuts in the job listing.

Agreed.

And that suggests that the job descriptions reveal more about the psychopathological state of those who write them (or word them for others to write) than what kind of employee the company really wants.

And if you consider the state of "truth in advertising", where hyperbole and bullshit prevail, and assuming these job descriptions really do draw in psychopaths, it also suggests most advertisers are psychopaths to begin with.

Shit, I just came up with the origins of the techbro syndrome...

 

[Eli Bishop]

Companies write job postings carefully in hopes of attracting the ideal candidate.

Sure.

That's why there are so many "entry-level positions" that require 3-7 years of experience.

I hate the "entry level but requires experience" thing too, but I think that's not a case of the job posting being written differently from what they want. Those companies just don't actually want entry-level employees. In general there's way less willingness to train anyone than there was in the past; I'm guessing that the other commenter who said "entry-level doesn't mean beginner" might honestly not know that it ever did, because so many people now haven't ever lived in a time when it was a meaningful category.

I'm with you though in finding the "job postings are written carefully" idea pretty hilarious. I mean, I'm sure it depends on the field and the company, but if I had a dollar for every listing I've seen where the recruiter clearly had no idea what the relevant skills or technologies were... then I wouldn't need a job.

 

[cyberfunk]

Holy moley--I agree with you on something!

The trick is finding those who can work free of group-think and assumptions, while staying within legitimate boundaries, including those pesky ones like laws, ethics, brand considerations, etc.

It’s almost like civil discourse is still sometimes a thing

 

[H2O Rip]

I would really prefer if job postings stopped including all the useless filler.

"Innovative", "team player", "fast paced", whatever whatever. Not useful. It's all telling not showing.

What I want to know is like

• company mission (succinctly!)
• company size
• team size
• tech stack
• responsibilities (eg: backend work, frontend work, sales in the tristate area, whatever)

Something like "We’re passionate about empowering people to create beautiful and powerful images, videos, and apps, and transform how companies interact with customers across every screen." isn't really that useful, and has a lot more words than it has meaning.

Look, the description probably used AI to add in the flowery language, and you're going to need it to get rid of it for the succinct summary. In the end the billionaires have sold services to both sides to train their systems that will reduce the number of jobs in the first place. Isn't it great!? /s

 

[Ronin007]

I'm not really sure what "tactical" communication is, but I'm pretty sure I don't want it.

Language is predominantly tactical/manipulative - emotion or statistics, etc.

 

[Koga Onutalepo]

I bet you're fun at parties.

"Article" and "comment" are a weird pair of words for them to get confused for each other.

 

[crmarvin42]

I've always said that it feels like the kinds of people most likely to get hired for most jobs aren't the kinds of people you really want working those jobs. Just because you're good at seeming confident and able to powerfully self-promote doesn't mean you'll be either good at the day-to-day responsibilities of your job or good at working well with others.

But our culture seems to value that kind of self-promotional confidence as a virtue in itself, so we end up here.

Totally agree, but having worked for a German company, you can also see the inverse. Had a narcissistic VP who made a big show of false-humility since the company did not overtly reward American-Style arrogant self-promotion. When asked about how he got to his position he said "I just put my head down and did my work, and someone noticed", which was 100% horse-shit and everyone else knew it. He had to have promoted himself to connected people, because the entire company ran on the patronage system, where all promotions beyond a certain point were more political than anything else, and you needed a strong, well-connected advocate to even be in the running.

He was still a narcissist, but like most narcissists, he knew (most of the time) how to mask his more anti-social behaviors when necessary.