Though this is not the first time I had been into recruitment of resources but this time I am recruiting for my startup. The risk doubles when you recruit for a startup because we lack in remuneration, facilities but only thing that is guaranteed is challenging work. If a person passionate about the work, the project then definitely he would be interested to join. Unfortunately finding such resources is not easy at all and a wrong choice or two will derail the whole project, efforts and noble intention behind startup. And then there is google, which tries to be master of everything, you just need to know how to search intelligently. Here is one answer from a candidate, who has less experience in python but s/he has good confidence
I consider myself as an intermediate in Python knowledge but I am very comfortable with it as long as I can access google.
Look at her confidence, I decided to give her a chance. But this is not the solution to knowledge, experience, capability or learning. Searching google and getting your job done will work as long as you understand the problem and you know how to write programs in any language to solve it. But blindly using search will not yield any result. It will give short term solution to get recruited but in long run, you will be thrown away unless you learn and show your capability.
Its my nature to not to give more importance in face to face interview, rather I give a task and ask the candidate to solve it within stipulated period. I expect honesty on solving, though completion of task is not the priority, rather I look at the approach of the solution. But honesty is very expensive and some time its not available so cheaply. I had such experience where I waited 8 months for two resources to be productive, gave lots of chances to show result. Finally, there is a limit to it. And I had to take tough decision, though it was not easy. In a startup if you are recruiting then please focus on problem solving in front of you and face to face interview. Otherwise you have to suffer a lot.
Though the objective of a leader to lead a team and co-ordinate for a successful execution but the interaction of a leader with team matters most to achieve any goal. The execution of any task successfully depends upon the effectiveness of a leader.
What are the key qualities of effective leaders? The ultimate measure of leader effectiveness is the performance of the leader’s team or organization, particularly vis-à-vis competitors. Leadership is a resource for the group, and effective leaders enable a group to outperform other groups. While the same personality and ability traits described above help leaders become more effective — they are not just advantageous for emergence — the best leaders also show higher levels of integrity, which enables them to create a fair and just culture in their teams and organizations. In addition, effective leaders are generally more emotionally intelligent, which enables them to stay calm under pressure and have better people skills. Conversely, narcissistic leaders are more prone to behaving in unethical ways, which is likely to harm their teams.
Leadership style is largely dependent on personality. Ambitious, thick-skinned leaders tend to be more entrepreneurial, so they are focused on growth and innovation. Curious, sociable, and sensitive leaders tend to be more charismatic, though charisma often reflects dark side traits, such as narcissism and psychopathy. Studies also highlight gender differences in leadership styles, with men being more transactional and women more transformational. However, gender roles are best understood as a psychological and normally distributed variable, as people differ in masculinity and femininity regardless of their biological sex.
Leadership evolved over millions of years, enabling us to function as group-living animals. It is therefore unlikely that the core foundations of leadership will change. That said, the specific skills and qualities that enable leaders and their groups to adapt to the world are certainly somewhat context dependent. For example, just as physical strength mattered more, and intellectual ability less, in the past, it is conceivable that human differentiators such as curiosity, empathy, and creativity will become more important in a world of ever-growing technological dependence and ubiquitous artificial intelligence.
In short, the science of leadership is well established. There is no real need to advance it in order to improve real-world practices. We should focus instead on applying what we already know, and ignoring what we think we know that isn’t true.
Its truly said that the success/failure of any project depends upon the team with a good leader. However if a team got a boss then whole work environment turns into a virtual war zone, the comfort level of team suffers and ultimately the whole project suffers in quality, delivery and timeline. Here is one article I came across about micromanagement and its worth of reading
When a manager delegates a goal to an employee effectively, she bestows ownership of what we call a “brief,” a set of outcomes subject to deadlines and other constraints. The owner’s job becomes figuring out how to deliver on that brief while operating within the specified constraints, which can range from “stay within this budget” to “follow these policies” to “get my approval on this type of decision.”
The manager, who assumes the role of a sponsor, can change the brief, change the owner, or change the context in which the owner does his work. But if she dictates the tasks to be done or directs how to do the work, she ceases to be a sponsor and becomes a micromanager.
Experience and knowledge are rapidly losing their relevance to success in the workplace. Harvard economist David Deming studied workplace tasks from 1980 to the present day and found that those that emphasize social skills grew by a whopping 24%, while tasks requiring technical know-how and intelligence experienced little growth. Deming also found that salaries increased the most for jobs that place extra emphasis on social skills.
With the increasing emphasis on social skills, those who lack them stand out like a zebra in a field of horses. We all know the types: the person who won’t stop talking when you’re trying to meet a deadline, the one who blatantly takes credit for your ideas or the one who callously leaves you to pull an all-nighter to fix their mistake.
“Failure isn’t fatal, but failure to change might be” — John Wooden
He is the list of characters that will never make you success in work https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/279913