From the author: In the 8th issue of the magazine “Human Resource Management” 2010, a perversely cut-down version of an interview with me was published on the topic of quasi-specialists: where do they come from, how to calculate them when hiring, are there any quasi-dilettantes, etc. The topic turned out to be interesting, but the published result greatly disappointed me. Therefore, I am posting the full text of the interview with a strong desire to rehabilitate myself. We spoke with Sergei Sipatov. Good afternoon, Elena! How are you feeling? Hello, Sergey! (smiles) I’m in a spring mood – I want more color and flowers. It’s even awkward to start a conversation with you about work...Why? The soul sings, the hands work. New spring - new thoughts, new ideas, new projects. I will be happy to talk with you about professional topics. Well, good. Then let's immediately take the bull by the horns. Competent personnel policy is the cornerstone of stable functioning and effective business development. At the same time, HR people complain that strong specialists and effective managers cannot be found during the day. What is the reason? There is such a problem. It is based, first of all, on the unconditional prestige of higher education and the distortions associated with the flourishing of educational services of a vague profile. What do you mean? Starting from the postulate: “Higher education is good,” let’s think about why it is good? Apparently, the logic is this: a person with a higher education will have a dust-free job and a high income. He won’t have to bend his back, he will work in a warm, cozy, well-kept office, and get a lot of money without straining too much. An interesting question, by the way, why not strain? Is it really stressful to MANAGE and LEAD? Everyone can DRIVE with their HANDS, being always RIGHT, literally, any cook. And he will only fly abroad on business trips. And the secretary is definitely a top model. And the wife. And children in England will study. Therefore, let’s all get a higher education and work as managers, isn’t it bad? In response to the population’s request for mass higher education, numerous universities are opening, the choice is incredible, our eyes are wide open. Educational opportunities are varied: free, paid, correspondence, distance learning... Higher education is becoming the norm. Which of the applicants will we choose? The competition of formations begins - I beat your highest with two highest! And I’m betting MBA against your two higher ones! And I have two higher degrees, an MBA, and three more certificates from a Canadian University! Well, if you have a request for the number of credits, that’s not a problem. We are starting to bake MBAs under every fence. Do you know what was the climax? What? I entered a bookstore, there was a bright poster above the cash register: “Buy two books from publishing house E* - win an MBA in N*.” That is, education, which by default is expensive due to the invitation to the roles of economics and entrepreneurship stars as teachers, will now be played out in a lottery. Or here’s another find – MBA-1000 for students. Become a Master of Business Administration in one hundred days without interrupting your basic training! One hundred days of ten academic hours - exactly 1000. I read the program: microeconomics - 10 hours, macroeconomics - 10 hours, but in fact, much more? What happens next is not difficult to imagine. Firstly, crowds of specialists enter the market, straining under the weight certificates of all colors and calibers. The result is structural unemployment. There is no need for such an army of managers. Secondly, unsatisfactory employment conditions. Multi-stage interviews, hours-long “survival” tests, kilometer-long queues of candidates invited at the same time, unprincipled questions from assessors - all this squeezes “star” specialists out of the race - why would I work in such hell? - but they allow you to place a not so strong, but quite good specialist on a salary three times lower than the average for this position. And it’s a pity to leave the position won in such battles, especially since the memory of the details and details of the battle is still vivid, on which the simple calculation is based. Thirdly, returning to the givenTo your question, there are no guarantees that a certified specialist is simply professionally suitable. Both due to the lack of natural abilities: exams can be passed both due to perseverance and “by agreement”, and due to the low quality of teaching. Situations are sometimes anecdotal. Will you tell me? Please. From the last one. On one of my recent business trips, the head of a service station offered to show me and my colleague around the city. We gladly agree. On the first street he shows us five universities, on the next three more. I am surprised to note that I did not expect that Stavropol was so vuzified. "What do you! - he exclaims. – I recruited staff last year. Guys come to me to get jobs as electricians, I ask them what technical school they graduated from. And they answer me, they say, we are not a technical school, we graduated from Moscow State University. I’m surprised, something strange, where is Moscow State University, where are the electricians. It turned out that they were talking about a branch of the Moscow Humanitarian Institute, and then through the roof. It’s okay, they remembered electricians from school, they learned to speak in a year, now they work normally.” I agree with you. But, as far as I can imagine, such “specialists” are not even the most venerable HR managers. What can you say about “hidden” quasi-specialists? Have you encountered in your practice quasi-managers who are not devoid of abilities, with a truly good education and work experience, whose activities in the organization after some time can be compared to a program aimed at destruction? And is it possible to somehow identify them at the employment stage? An interesting question, but I probably won’t agree with this definition. If a person has the ability for the activity in which he is engaged, or is truly talented, plus has received a good education and even has work experience, he is a specialist. Or there is no one - two - three components. So you say - capable. Do you think that a student with 90% A's, 8% B's, and 2% C's in just one subject is capable? Yes, of course. This level of grades indicates not only the presence of abilities, but also a high level of self-organization. And a C? Maybe they didn’t agree with the teacher. Maybe, in fact, something is not given, everyone has such areas. Maybe he got sick and wasn’t forgiven. What do you think? I didn't just name the percentages. These are the real assessments of one of the students of the Nizhny Novgorod Linguistic University of our course. A truly capable, bright, interesting, pleasant person to talk to. The only hitch - the C grade was in language - the leading, main, key discipline. And all the years that we studied side by side, I was never left wondering, why foreign language? Anything, Russian, literature, history - why English? And she didn’t transfer to another university? Why? Firstly, she liked foreign languages, which is why she chose this university. Secondly, I didn’t just say capable – really capable. By the fifth year, by hook or by crook - through night cramming, retakes, building relationships - she achieved a B in the language and graduated with honors. Moreover, she is one of the few who works with language in this way - what is given with difficulty is not so easy to give away. At the same time, if something is difficult, it means only one thing - there is someone nearby who finds it easy, which means that he will be more effective, successful, and quick in this area. And there is something that we have not yet found, where we are not just capable, but talented. We don’t force the refrigerator to bake pancakes, or the stove to freeze food. But for some reason we do not attach due importance to career guidance, the selection of a profession taking into account a person’s inclinations. It is more prestigious to be a manager than a cook. But you can be an unhappy manager who could become a happy cook. But this girl from your story, is she happy? Certainly. She achieved what she set out to achieve. Although he is not a “star” in his industry. And she spends much more time and effort than she could have if she had chosen something else. Good. What about education? According to you, the level is low. The same with education. goodEducation shapes and develops Personality. That is, the most important achievement of a graduate is not the accumulated knowledge, but the ability to learn independently. Search for the information you need, filter sources, etc. In every city there are universities and faculties whose graduates have no problems finding employment. Even without work experience. Because they think differently, because they are Personalities. The question is, what is a good education? For example, education abroad, business schools in America, Canada - is this always good? After spending five years abroad, will a person be able to quickly fit into our reality? And have we already grown up to his music? As in the joke, 50/50 - either he can or he can’t. Another topic is what is behind the certificate of a foreign university with a big name. Yesterday I received an invitation to a webinar on coaching. Five three-hour sessions cost $150. A certificate from the Canadian Erikson University is given - worth $50. That is, in 15 hours, without leaving home, you can get an international certificate! And... become an international coach? Maybe. What if suddenly I’m not a genius? What if 15 hours isn’t enough for me? And suddenly I don’t understand this? That is, in any case, a specialist will be a “quasi-specialist” if something is wrong with his abilities (none or lie in another area), with education (dropout or weak university), with work experience (breaking to our monastery with the charter of their previous place of work). And did you also ask about the identification of these specialists at the employment stage? Absolutely right. There are several bells that can later grow into a huge question mark. Which ones, for example? For example, the lack of balance between the desire to provide satisfaction of one’s own interests, including the energy to talk about one’s unsurpassed personality, and interest in the employing organization, its goals and objectives, regulations, and ways to solve emerging problems. The paradigm of giving and taking: what he is ready to take is clear, but is he going to give something in return? Speech filled with foreign words, replete with terms and abbreviations. Not striving to return our country to the age of “the handsome man walking through the park from the lists to the disgrace in wet shoes” (a dandy walking along the boulevard from the square to the theater in galoshes), I don’t understand what the person who, instead of the word “exemplary” says, wants to prove to me “pattern” and is waiting for my admiring reaction. The opposite option is professional jargon or misinterpretation of terms. “Bugs” - a strong emphasis on the troubles that will arise in the organization if cooperation does not take place. Usually made on the basis of a diagnosis or supposedly performed diagnosis and is accompanied by rolling the eyes, coupled with wringing of hands, pulling competitors by the ears, hair and all other parts of the body, or deliberately rapid speech with periodic tapping on one’s own documents. A very “technological” story about one’s own achievements. As a rule, a person does not pay attention to how he achieves results where it is “just easy” for him and is a little embarrassed to talk about it. He is proud of his achievements in areas that are difficult for him, which he mastered using certain technologies. Low interest in his interlocutor. Constantly blowing away specks of dust from an impeccable jacket. And a very important point is the candidate’s external and internal compliance with the internal corporate culture of the organization. It is natural for the body to reject foreign bodies. Tell me, are these unconditional markers? Absolutely not. These are nothing more than bells that give a reason to dig a little deeper. All people are different. What I perceive as “hand-wringing and eye-rolling” is, for some, a low level of emotional expression specifically for a formal setting. And at home, when he talks about the interview, it’s better not to stand close - the windmill is resting. Some people show off with distorted terms because of their youth, while others really treat these concepts with disdain, because they’ve tried these means more than once and they don’t work they are in the region. What for some isachievement, for others it is a routine moment, what can we say about it. Therefore, we consider these points in the general outline of the conversation, taking into account the specifics of our organization. And, in this regard, I would suggest you ask one more question. Which one? I’ll replay your words a little: Have you ever encountered in your practice managers who are not lacking in abilities, with a truly good education and work experience, whose activities in the organization after some time can be compared to a program aimed at destruction? That is, you have in view of real, strong specialists whose actions harm the organization? Could this be possible? Do you mean sabotage? To be honest, I didn’t think about sabotage right now, although I admit that such a phenomenon could exist somewhere. I personally have not met high-level specialists who would deliberately harm the organization. Although, again, you need to understand what it means to harm and what it means intentionally. As a specialist in the field of conflict management, I can imagine a situation where a specialist deliberately plants a “bomb”, for example, in the advertising business, without the knowledge of management, at the last moment he replaces a presentation for a customer . Or, if we take it, the market for training services does not provide the training that is in management’s plan. What he wants to achieve with his actions is another question. Or he considers his concept more correct and goes against the leadership on the principle of “sink or perish,” because, as they say, winners are not judged. Then it is worth thinking about the competence of management. Or he wants to draw attention to the situation - to optimize communications or a business process. But all this, in his opinion, contributes to the development of the organization. Conflict is the engine of progress, because it forces the abscess to break through, and the body, cleansed of pus, receives energy to solve important problems. Then what did you mean? I meant integration, embedding specialists in organizations. No element can perform better than the system in which it is included. And here very interesting processes can be observed. For example, a “star” specialist who is ready to sketch out ideas, but is not ready to bring them into a digestible form and draw out the details. He always feels guilty before the management, because any project is delayed or fails altogether. Is he really a “star”? Indeed. And what to do with this? Competently organize team work. Put him in a team with an analyst who will check the viability of the idea for logic and pick up all the tails, and with a designer who will bring the project to mind and present it in the best possible way with bows and roses. And we’ll send a good speaker to present the project to the management so that they don’t fall asleep while three kilograms of incomprehensible words are muttered to them. Or, for another example, a specialist is clearly talented, but does not fit into the corporate culture of the organization - he smokes like a steam locomotive and smells of fumes, wears faded jeans and sits on a chair with her feet up, shortens her miniskirt to the width of her waist and chooses a neckline that goes down to about the knees, her age is far beyond the pension line, what to do with such shots? Hew? Or, as Zadornov says, format it? It’s unlikely that an adult can be formatted like that. I agree with you. And is it necessary? On the other hand, if you hire such a star, within a day everyone will want to smoke, drink and have cleavage, but our standard is not pulled out of thin air, but a guarantor of decency and professionalism. And it’s a pity to refuse - a “star”, after all. Here, of course, again, many different factors need to be taken into account, but it’s not a sin to remember that we live in an age of universal computerization and some types of work can be done even in the Bahamas, swinging in a rattan hammock. Without irritating anyone with your appearance. But you can take a different position: not immediately take it for non-compliance, or take it and soon create all the conditions for dismissal. And in what cases do “star” specialists or “star” specialists leave? As far as I can see, the main reason is that expectations are not met. The easiest way to get rid of a “star” specialist is to not keep your promises. For anyscheme, for example, replace the functionality. Hire a business coach and “drop” on a distance learning project - draw slides. Hire a strategic development consultant and have business processes described. At first glance, nothing special, only in the first case, instead of developing the skills of a group, a person is engaged in design, albeit in the field of education; in the second, instead of conducting market research and generating ideas, he writes algorithms, albeit in the field of consulting. There are two outcomes: he will leave out of boredom or as having failed to cope with his responsibilities. Or he will extend the working day from eight in the morning to ten in the evening. That is, plan so much different and varied work for yourself and for that guy that it won’t work out any other way. And, of course, never pay overtime and be sure to deduct for morning lateness. Or set the salary as a percentage of income, and pay no more than a certain level - it depends on how much money he suddenly receives! Or set unimaginable deadlines for completing a complex task, when which, no matter what specialist you are, there is no way to do the job efficiently. Have there been such cases in your career? Missing deadlines? Yes. (smiles) There were, of course. Share? I won’t go far - I recently wrote the script for an hour and a half educational film in two days. And how? (laughs) I did it. Moreover, the film was shot over the next two days. It turned out, on the whole, not bad... Managers generally really like it. Although I would not like a repetition of this situation. But you need to distinguish between a one-time, emergency situation with the support of management and a situation of a constant powder keg with a burning fuse of discontent from higher authorities. The task can also be made overwhelming. There are so many ways...And here, by the way, a dilemma arises for a specialist, which may have served as the seed for our discussion: how to leave? With self-esteem and quietly, or to take with you as much as possible? Go through an expensive education at the company's expense? Steal how much? Transfer part of the assets to a separate legal entity “for yourself”? Or dig in and sit through the hours, in fact sabotaging the process - that’s how it came out, by the way - sabotage, until crazy money is paid? But this is hardly connected with the specialist’s qualifications, rather with his life principles. What do you think about the phenomenon when a “specialist” gets a job without initially intending to invest anything in the organization? That is, he, using his previous achievements - education, work experience - “negotiates” a high salary for himself, gives the impression of vigorous activity for some time and leaves for the next position with an even higher salary. In general, this phenomenon is not new - you are describing a typical party functionary of Soviet times, who moves from the post of Komsomol organizer to the post of secretary of the district committee, city committee, then the regional committee, then even higher. Half of the feuilletons of those years were devoted to how successfully those who ruin everything were moving up the career ladder. Although there are probably differences. The main thing is that previously transfers were carried out mainly through cronyism, and salaries were paid from the state budget - “nobody’s” money. And now the salary comes from the owner’s pocket, and the “specialist” himself ensures career growth. And how does he do it? Do you remember how many ways Ostap Bender knew about taking money from the population? It’s the same here - a brand-new appearance with a golden eye, expensive accessories, excellent education, chic manners, competent speech, self-confidence and so on, so on, so on. The main thing is to competently create the impression that he is the messiah, and with his appearance everything will change. Can such “specialists” be somehow identified at the interview stage? In addition to those alarming signals that we have already named, it is important to pay attention to his “election campaigns.” promises." The Messiah, as a rule, is attached “from above”, taking the position “I know how to solve this problem, and now everything will be fine with you..., with me you will be fine...” Salary!