Go to Article

Better work, information as desired: We give you the information you really need and are committed to a better and more ecological working environment. When Book Publisher Best of HR – Berufebilder.de® with Unique Book Concept and eCourses we offer over 20 years of experience in Corporate Publishing - with Clients like Samsung, Otto, Governmental Institutions. Publisher Simone Janson also heads the Institute Berufebilder Yourweb, which awards scholarships and belongs to one of the top 10 female German bloggers, referenced in ARD, FAZ, ZEIT, WELT, Wikipedia .

Disclosure & Image Rights:

Here writes for you:

Simone Janson is publisherConsultant and head of the Institute's job pictures Yourweb. Under the registered trademark Best of HR – Berufebilder.de® you operate one Book publishing, an eLearning on Demand platform, a news service and is one of the 10 most important German bloggers loud Blogger Relevance Index and Wikipedia , Loud ZEIT it is one of the most important blogs on career, professional and working life. In addition, that leads Yourweb professional picture institute for cooperative & sustainable education, with which she awards scholarships and promotes sustainable projects. She also advises companies such as Samsung, OTTO and Randstad on HR communication and has worked for various universities and business schools.

The lie of the career factor intelligence: success from stupidity?

People are happy to tell that success includes good ideas and a smart strategy - something that requires a certain level of intelligence. But maybe all nonsense, because often the stupid are particularly successful - because they live according to the motto: “Brazen is is cool”. Best of HR – Berufebilder.de®

Too much intelligence just hurts

Actually, the thesis comes from a good friend, with whom I spoke some time ago about a few old acquaintances - highly intelligent, but was the issue of career is clearly on the wrong track. The reason, so my friend: Intelligent people are more self-critical - and self-criticism is the success in the way!

A tip is therefore: Be as vehemment as possible - whether you're wrong or not. Because the more specific you appear, the more people believe it. I'm afraid there is more to it than you might think at first glance. But: to bring something vehemment over, what is wrong - I think only people who do not question themselves. And think about your own mistakes and claim something to stand out: That can stupider people actually better!

Intelligent people are more critical

Often, intelligent people also disrupt the processes in Company : They are not only very critical with themselves, but with others, questioning work processes, can not adapt well, putting their finger on wounds. As a result, they make the bosses nervous, they could even cheer up the colleagues. So fire better right now!

Or is seditious behavior again just a sign of stupidity - like Corinne Maier in The discovery of laziness attested, because one makes it better beautifully comfortable? Yesterday I read once again in a career counselor that just women would do well to adapt themselves to the rules of the game and always bravely glue the boss. Good people, who keep the good faith, rather than say their opinion: Unfortunately much too often usual and mE innovation killer Nr1.

If you do not work, you have more time to think

With this thesis, I was recently confronted with an event. And she even agrees: If you munch out in your job day by day, you simply do not have to do your own actions.

Tip: Text as PDF (please read the instructions!) or to this text complete eCourse or series Download. Actions or news via Newsletter!

Sometimes that might be just fine - but sometimes (self) criticism would not hurt. In The Art, Less To Do, the authors also describe how work has historically been used as a manipulation factor - very interesting. The mistake in the thesis: Not all Hartz IV recipients are intellectual lights.

Intelligent people see through the games ...

... and just don't feel like it. Maybe not all. But some of them tend to become existentialists. Because why should you turn the whole day in the hamster wheel when there is another way?

At this point you are happy to hear the frustration argument "These are people who did not make it!". Counter question: What does “make it?” Actually mean - because everyone has to make a compromise - right?

This is what science says: German personnel are not very interested in intelligence

This thesis has also recently been underpinned by a psychological study: According to this, German staff are not very interested in the intelligence of their employees. In the United States, however, intelligence tests as a setting criterion have long been recognized practice.

244 studies from Germany were evaluated using the latest methods - and the Bonn psychologist Jochen Kramer found out in a so-called meta-analysis: General intelligence is after all an important prerequisite for high work performance and professional success.

4 Areas of professional success were examined

That means: It does not look so bad in the German personnel departments. Because the study has also examined very specific data on the influence of intelligence on four areas of professional success. These are:

  1. Work performance,
  2. professional learning,
  3. Income
  4. and professional career.

Thus, if an employee is selected with their intelligence in mind, he is likely to achieve a high work and learning performance with a probability of well over 80 percent - compared to 50 percent at random. According to Kramer's investigation, intelligence makes it successful!

Intelligence: Career opportunities are at 70%

Taking the intelligence into account, the chances of the selected applicants for a career and a high income are just under 70 percent. "For different professions, fluctuations can be expected with these values," Kramer puts into perspective, but emphasizes the basic connection: "The more intelligent an employee is, the more likely he is to do good work and to be successful in his job."

Intelligence, i.e. the mental abilities of a person, was taken as broadly as possible in the analysis. “Only studies that took into account at least two of the three areas of mental skills - numbers and arithmetic, language skills and spatial imagination - were included in my study,” explains Kramer.

General Intelligent more important than mental skills

Basic assumption is namely: In the professional life general intelligence is important instead of only specific mental abilities. Since general intelligence is not the only decisive factor, the Bonn scientists are now interested in how much of the share of success, for example, have emotional intelligence or social skills.

However, the question remains whether the formula higher intelligence = more success actually always applies or has its limits. Why, for example, are so many above-average intelligent people relatively unsuccessful?

The creative has ideas, the stupid she steals it and becomes successful

An example that often occurs in history: the first mover is not always the more successful one. Because most people only have to get used to new ideas, good ideas are usually often suspiciously eyed and smiled.

Some good idea is still not quite mature! Bad luck for the first mover, if the second mover simply takes the idea, improves - and thus becomes successful. The creatively successful has the look, the stupid the success!

I now put this consciously as a theses in the room - and look forward to an animated discussion!

Books on the topic

40 responses to "The lie about the career factor intelligence: success out of stupidity?"

  1. Harriet Lemcke says:


    I also observe again and again (sometimes fascinated, sometimes shocked, sometimes angry) that stupid people can go astonishingly far and display an almost provocative-defiant complacency. A few months ago I had a conversation to initiate business - my counterpart was looking for communication specialists for joint consulting projects for medium-sized customers. It quickly turned out that my counterpart was blessed with complete cluelessness about the subject of communication in general and in particular. When asked about this, however, he said with a shrug: "And if I only have 3 percent knowledge of the subject, then I still know 3 percent more than the entrepreneur to whom I am selling this dearly." And in the same context, I saw a real specialist who was constantly questioning everything, wanted to deliver the best possible results, but was not able to place her services on the market on the right terms.

    Transferred to employment relationships, I can also confirm that there are people who have enormous specialist knowledge and who also claim to advance the company for which they work. They work hard and are rarely praised or even promoted for it. Others, however, the “steamy chatterboxes and coffee cup carriers” have little idea of ​​everything, have an opinion on everything, can be with the boss in a very short time by “you”, take care of everything private during working hours (so that they can have their heads free after work) spend more time in the boss's office than at their own workplace, are not interested in the big picture or their own productivity - and are promoted. From the point of view of the organization, that's almost logical. Organizations strive to maintain stable conditions. Lateral thinkers COULD move the company forward. However, they are uncomfortable, threaten to shake the existing system with their way of questioning and are thus perceived as unpleasant. The idlers, on the other hand, are unproductive, but also harmless. Even more - they make those responsible feel good.

    And here the circle closes, because here the laws of the market apply. In the end, no products and services (analogous to intelligence and productivity) are purchased, but solutions and good feelings (analogous to coffee-epidemics and chief mother-mothering).

    • Simone Janson says:

      Dear Mrs. Lemcke,
      that with the feelings, so coffee break philosophies and Chefbemutterung, you said nicely. I also come more and more to the point that man lives much more in the Stone Age than he likes.
      One point, however, I see now a little different from when I wrote 2010 this article: courage is important and courage is rewarded.
      But that is exactly what is lacking in many intelligent beasts who question critically, as they themselves so beautifully call the example, but also shirk decisions and ultimately responsibility. It was precisely because of the lack of self-confidence that your specialist suffered ...

  2. Nele E. says:

    Hello Mrs. Janson and interested,

    The topic was a while ago, but I noticed it here for the first time today. Since I have thought about these phenomena from time to time, here is a little insight: the polarized entry may be an effective means for a feedback round - especially to check positions :-). However, the topic itself is very complex and complex and raises many other questions. Above all, defined terms are necessary: ​​what is intelligence, how can it be recognized and / or fixed? What does “stupidity” mean and then also - in connection with success and / or career ?! Everyone connects different content and goals with it !!!! => and assessments fall accordingly. In addition, there are incalculable factors, such as “at the right time in the right place in the“ right ”company or closing an existing“ gap ”…. etc.
    More generally: I believe that a few factors are part of “success” and “a career”. It takes the “will to power”, targeted “use of power”, competence: hard facts and the application of selected aspects of soft skills such as B. communicative competence => use of effective rhetorical means to achieve goals (verbal and non-verbal) through persuasion and u. Certain circumstances also persuade (“seduce”), or IMPLEMENT this !!! etc.… ... Also - as discussed here - to be convinced of yourself and to be able to put yourself at the center, in other words: to be present, not to hide, to signal, I can do it, I do it, I want that, etc.…. . The ability to make relevant contacts, to be able to “be a mastermind”, to maintain rope groups, which means: I can establish and use alliances. Last but not least, success needs a “narrowing” to a (previously i-like defined) focus. And finally: “The dose makes the poison.” Too much or too little also has a decisive influence on success and career => rise and fall !!! Because to be able to stay “on top” requires power, energy, strategy, etc.… ...
    I would like to add two aspects concerning intelligence (otherwise a “doctoral thesis could result from it :-D): intelligent people need“ food ”for their brain, so they often go on the prowl to find it. On these paths you will encounter all kinds of deer that are not of interest to you. Therefore, they prefer to ignore these antlers or overtake them on the left or right. The hoofers don't like that at all. So these in turn use their own urge to eat and shift to ruminating the tried and tested "eternal" same. Therefore, with the always known porridge, they acquire considerable skills in and with different branches, which, however, prefer similar content such as B. Organization, planning, management, control, etc.…. . The hobees (highly gifted adults or highly gifted bees :-D) are confronted with these prepared purees and find no equivalents for themselves in execution and presentation because they prefer to deal with questions such as: Are we doing the right things? ... as: Are we doing things right? or are able to think, feel and act from both points of view, etc.… .. The competence to see forest AND trees and beyond that, traces in the sand, snow and in the firmament, often creates incomprehension, fear, resentment and envy !! Therefore attacks and fights take place, which the cognitively controlled self-being often answers in such a way that it LEAVES the place and leaves => head held high, but without a “recognizable victory”. :-)) Or sad too !!!!
    The last note: high intelligence is often paired with high sensitivity and / or sensitivity (Andrea Brackmann !!! => completely normally gifted and beyond the norm, sic !!!), This has the consequence that this “being different” communicates in dealing with other people and does not “necessarily” meet with “love” but rather has the opposite connotation. In addition to “not being seen and being recognized”, a rejection occurs because the “other” behavior and interest is perceived as a lack of nest odor. Okay - so far - so good. Smiles allowed - absolutely :-))

    • Simone Janson says:

      Hello Nele,
      I have to admit that the post shot out of the gut very impulsively and I might not write it like that anymore today. Yes, I know these very intelligent people who offend others with their different way of thinking. However, there are two methods of dealing with it: lamenting about it or thinking with the given intelligence about how to communicate in a way that others understand you too. In this respect, the article that I wrote would be a little too “damned” for me today.

  3. The hubris of the stupid: As a Rambo to success? | PROFESSIONAL PICTURES says:

    [...] we recently discussed the success factor stupidity in detail here in the blog, reports ZEIT ONLINE yesterday about a US Congressman who [...]

  4. BERUFEBILDER sets topics in the media: Does intelligence make more successful or not? | PROFESSIONAL PICTURES says:

    [...] shared again on social media through a new comment, an older post. Topic: Are the stupid more successful? A good 3000 views, 34 comments and one article Spiegel Show online: The topic moves the [...]

  5. Manuela Potthast says:

    I almost shared the article - good thinking, after all. Until I get up "The mistake in the thesis: Not all Hartz IV recipients are intellectual lights." bumped ...
    Many ALG II recipients work full-time and have no more time than a well-paid head of department or similar.
    Yes, of course, people who think and think about themselves and are not always the most popular co-workers. But there should nevertheless be companies which attach great importance to this.

    • Simone Janson says:

      Hello Mrs. Potthast,
      However, I admittedly did not fully understand what bothers you about the thesis: With the statement “Not all Hartz IV recipients are intellectual lights” I am questioning the thesis that was set up earlier. As you already say: employees in companies are not generally stupid recipients of orders who no longer have time to think - and vice versa, not all Hartz IV recipients are geniuses in disguise. There are such and such. Now I have examined the topic polemically to stimulate reflection and discussion about the topic.

      Because that is what it is ultimately: for the contribution does not imply any general theses. To generate attention and resonance, polemic is, unfortunately, much better than differentiated consideration.

      It is possible, for example, to make an article from the best comments. Moreover, I am excited about the attention of an old article by 2010, which I myself have been aware of by a recent comment.

      I find it a pity that you do not want to share the article and other people have the opportunity to say your opinion on the subject. But of course this is your decision.

  6. Milena Dagko says:

    RT @SimoneJanson: Join the discussion - The lie of the career factor intelligence: Success out of stupidity? -

  7. Tina Groll says:

    RT @SimoneJanson: Join the discussion - The lie of the career factor intelligence: Success out of stupidity? -

  8. Simone Janson says:

    Hello Mr. Brundold,
    Yes and no - on the one hand, I agree with you, certainly with such an attitude there is also a bit of self-pity and one would like to say “then think of something creative, intelligent”.
    On the other hand, I would like to take my own branch of journalism as an example: What is really going well is not the highly intellectual offers from Feulliton or business, but cat content and cruises in Dubai - an editor's quote.
    Recently I was at the petrol station, because only two regional newspapers and the picture newspaper were sold in daily newspapers. Everything else had not run, they told me.

    Would we now conclude that more intelligent offers are unnecessary and adapt the level of all newspapers accordingly?

    I see that it is also very intelligent person in the job so that they often go for example because they see things differently than the colleagues or the boss and uncomfortable. Of course, one can represent his views more subtly than some do, but is this always good?

    How are your experiences?

  9. Constantin W. says:

    Too much intelligence hurts only: the fools are more successful. there is something on that!

  10. Robin Brunold says:

    "The stupid people are particularly successful - I'm just too smart to be successful"
    For me, this sounds especially after wailing on a high level.
    How better to justify his own failure than by saying, "I am simply too intelligent to be successful."

  11. Fakt_mrs says:

    The problem of the creative is the monetarizing of its idea. Everyone needs this type, but no one wants to pay it.

    • Simone Janson says:

      Hello, the problem is mE more complex: Since creativity is in, there is a very large range of creatives. From this position, the demanders then believe they can afford to push the prices.

  12. My reply to career specialist Svenja Hofert: Why are some people just not successful? | Profession pictures by Simone Janson says:

    [...] For some time I made a blog post on the subject of “Lies with the career factor of intelligence”. And Jochen Mai is also quoted in it, who states: "The more vehemmenter I myself [...]

  13. "Once around the blog (4) - Who is behind the job pictures?" says:

    […] Several entries in your blog that you particularly like to remember? I recently wrote a somewhat satirical post about whether stupid people are more successful. That was a lot of fun, had great [...]

  14. stephan says:

    "The lie about the career factor intelligence" - or why Bollo found a job

  15. Eveline3112 says:

    Exciting thesis and so true :-) Tweetcount Widget

  16. Simone Janson says:

    Strangerli, this is an absolutely brilliant supplement! Thank you, that was really missing!
    PS: If anyone still finds that an item is missing from the list - go ahead!

  17. Strangerli says:

    Point 6 is still missing:

    6. Surround yourself with intelligent people

    With a good, experienced and intelligent troupe you do not need to worry anymore. It is important to get people on board, who can do with their intelligence the tasks that are given or delegated to them. These recognize the mistakes that one overlooks out of stupidity, discuss these with each other in the short term and correct them by themselves. Only in rare cases would they go back to the (stupid) supervisor, otherwise they could eventually be described as dependent. Thus behind the back of the boss or the stupid / n errors is eliminated, improved and possibly brought to a success. The stupid sees himself confirmed in his way of working and believes to do everything right.
    But beware: you should be careful not to recognize this independent work too much. Furthermore, it is important to surround yourself with enough followers who would like to smear honey around your mouth. This one can always tell that you have made all this achievement and achievements and not the intelligent. Thus, the name spreads with success.
    Of course, the intelligent must not be too intelligent, because otherwise they would make themselves independent and become a nasty competition. It is best to overload these people with work, so they do not get to think about their life situation too much and then you can make it look like they are too slow at work.

    "Decisions are made by people with time, not people with talent, because they need to fix the problems that people have created with time."

  18. Frank says:

    Yes, I also noticed that the fools often succeed.
    Maybe because they're just stupid.
    but it does not always have to be the case.

    • Simone Janson says:

      Hello Frank,
      Of course this is not always so .. that was just deliberately expressed provocatively .. :-)

  19. “The week - the top blog topics of the past few days” on karrierebibel.de - more success every day! says:

    […] Job images: Stupidity - Are only the stupid successful? Intelligent people are more self-critical - and self-criticism stands in the way of success! [...]

  20. Simone Janson says:

    Hello Meike,
    thanks for the nice comment. First of all, I'm glad that certain blog posts (and specifically all of you mentioned) have not only scared me a bit :-)
    I have to find the article with the Swiss company again ... I'm actually not a friend of such “women-make-everything-better-theses” because I have had very strange experiences with women and I don't think women generally don't are also interested in power (sometimes it is even more stressful because it expresses itself much more indirectly).
    However, my impression is that men and women often have different goals. Women are often more concerned with work-life balance, while men don't seem to have any problems sitting in the office for 12 hours - probably also because they define themselves more through their work and are willing to sacrifice more time for professional reputation . Apart from the fact that I don't think that more attendance generally means more productivity - another topic ... :-)
    Occasionally I also have the impression that work seems to become an end in itself ... In my opinion, this also applies to the enthusiasm for technical products and social media: I think some gagets are pretty cool - but always because I also love the connection made possible with people and not because I think it's cool in itself.
    What does both of these have to do with the entry thesis? ME are two other factors that prevent more female perspectives such as generalist thinking, professional and private life, etc. from asserting themselves in everyday working life…. And superficial career tips such as “play the game with you” only help for a short time.

  21. Meike Leopold says:

    Hello Simone, that intelligence alone is no guarantee of a steep career at all - I totally agree with you. If this is not accompanied by the necessary instinct for power, it will - professionally - not be of much use. In my opinion, the problem with the blog post “Snakeoil” you quoted is precisely that it leaves open whether it is meant ironically or not. On the blog in question there was also talk of A and B people, if I remember correctly ... Overall, I would say that it might also be about the question of what communication will look like in the (future) knowledge society which form of communication is the most profitable: the “female” or the “male” propagated on the blog in question. Or a good mix of both. In the seminars at: http://www.sheboss.de/, for example, women learn how vehement behavior etc. works and how they can assert themselves in predominantly male-dominated power structures. But maybe in the future there will also be seminars for men in which they learn to communicate in a more team-oriented way, and I'll say “more domestically”? I'm thinking of a nice article in the current issue of Brandeins about a Swiss company in which, for economic reasons (!), Almost only women work.

    Greetings, Meike

  22. Eva Zil says:

    Hello Mrs. Janson,

    I think your theses are right.
    However: Really smart people, who really want to bring something to them, recognize their inner career killer and work on it. This can be done with coach, trainings, behavioral therapies, etc.
    For this worker would continue to remain in this situation (unless he is happy with his professional life in this way), it would be a sign of stupidity.
    So: emotional intelligence is in demand!

    Best regards,

  23. Simone Janson says:

    Dear Ms Zils,
    thank you for your comment. They are, of course, right in principle and that is what women, in particular, are always recommended to us in various advisers: to adapt their own behavior.
    However, with my somewhat striking title, I also wanted to encourage people to think about the fact that the situation will not change as a result of constant adjustment, and that Rick, as Rick said, is in danger of adapting too much.
    Simone Janson

  24. Simone Janson says:

    Hello christina
    i am dacord with you as far as creative work is concerned. But, as you say correctly, it depends on the nature of the work. Not all work requires creativity, even if this is so. Also and not just in so-called creative professions.
    Sometimes it's just a matter of doing some stupid routine work - search engine optimization is a good example of this on a blog. And for this, companies need people who adapt to existing work routines without questioning every work process - that also has to do with the (technical) complexity with which such things happen nowadays: You can't just do something different do it, even if it seems better at first because it involves lengthy changes. I notice that with such simple things as my blog :-)
    I can understand that you prefer to write to me privately, but then, unfortunately, because of time constraints, I can not help you. Sorry, just limited resources.
    Simone Janson

  25. Cristina says:

    Hello Mrs. Janson,

    this time I would like to thank you for your prompt and detailed response (also I would like to go to your offer in the end, but I would like to write you in this regard possibly, if possible, more private).

    You say yes, you would also have an employee who would make things as much as you would like, just to save time ... Your argument I can understand very well, but it is not rather that this would also depend on the nature of the activity? I find it frankly quite problematic (and also risky) to put on old-fashioned creativity or critical (self) reflexive thinking, on reproduction of one's own, unless you have no interest but as much as possible in the current state. Of course, such activities are always necessary and dependent on the area of ​​employment, which is why they can not be formulated in a general manner. I also find that many of the responsible persons are already working on the most efficient work where different personalities come together.
    By the way, I have the impression that it is not really about the dichotomy of stupidity / intelligence ... but rather about the right self-awareness as well as the willingness or ability to deal with itself, about its goals as well as limits, but also Principles and values ​​(you call it courage to go your own way and I see the same way) ... or the deficiency. Because rightly "stupid", those who can not use specific situations or abilities to their professional advantage can not be, or? ... my feeling is that the success already depends very much on the individual strategies with which each one for itself the best , whether through adaptation and compromise, or through good, convincing arguments and performance. Just as I said, depending on the activity profile and area, but also depend on the employer. And in relation to the honesty of the companies you are missing: I guess, the companies themselves are subject to specific requirements and it must be economic rationamente, which is why they propagate something different than they do (honesty to themselves will not always be the profits increase)
    My conclusion is that it may be a long time to find your own way, and then to go ... but it is definitely, for me at least, more promising

  26. humancaps altmann says:

    Interesting - RT @SimoneJanson: Freshly blogged: The lie about the career factor intelligence: Success out of stupidity?

  27. Cristina says:

    Hello Mrs. Janson,

    First of all, a big thank you for what I think is an excellent article! You are expressing exactly what was on my mind today, because I noticed that of all my friends and acquaintances, of all people who, in my opinion, are highly intelligent, are “not doing so well” professionally, in the usual sense of the So the word is not exactly "successful" (I am looking for a job myself and it seems I think too much and analyze and reflect so much that I seem to build hurdles for myself in the job interviews ... because I just can't do that 1: 1 implement what I find in all the application guides (now apart from all the contradictions one finds in so different such “works”); it seems to me that most of you demand exactly this adaptability, which you also mention ... a kind of puppet existence, I think; somehow I miss the fact that authenticity and reflexivity are really not that high on course (but it's my whole personal opinion); An acquaintance of mine, on the other hand, meticulously implemented everything she found in the only guide she leafed through and got a job at the first interview. So much for me on the “questioning” aspect, so I can only agree with you.

    On the other hand, it may also depend on the very personal understanding of success: It may be that intelligent people, in a critical attitude, distance themselves from the conventional concept of success ... so that they place much more value on the meaning of their occupation, on the fact that they actually carry out activities that they personally fulfill and can also be easily reconciled with their goal in life ... even if these are not so well rewarded materially ... so go to work out of intrinsic motivation and not necessarily for the status and the associated reputation.

    But in principle I agree with you ... even if a critic could also reply to point 1 that with a healthy dose of self-esteem and self-confidence, self-criticism can be curbed, which can be an obstacle on the path to success ... I understand quite well what You're talking here.

    • Simone Janson says:

      Hello christina
      thank you for your experience report and for the praise :-)
      Adaptation was also my problem, although thanks to prior experience in my studies I got a job very quickly - it just didn't fit in human terms.
      That's why I don't think much of bending over in an interview, unless you can keep it up in the long run ... I made myself my own business out of experience, but it's not a panacea either. You always have to think about what your goal is and what stress / what compromises you are willing to accept. Adjustment is probably the easier way, to go your own way requires courage, because you should not and cannot orientate yourself to anyone else. Therefore, all advice and givers that some people are so incredibly happy to give should only be understood as hints. Unfortunately, humans like to be gregarious :-)
      As you have already said correctly: It all comes down to self-confidence. On the one hand, so as not to let failures get you down and continue until you have found the right employer (unfortunately I also know a few examples that are increasingly focusing on frustrated pummeling, which is of course counterproductive) and on the other hand, to yourself also for sale. Because with good arguments and appropriate experience / performance you can perhaps score with something. As a career starter, that's where the real crux of the matter lies - besides the fact that it sometimes doesn't fit in human terms.
      I have to confess, if I were looking for an employee now, I would also take someone who would make things as much as I do, to save time alone.

      But what also annoys me is that, on the one hand, companies propagate that they are looking for creative, innovative people - in practice they often fall back on tried-and-tested models, which is also related to the fact that no HR manager wants to make a mistake ... precisely on the subject of fit and authenticity I found an honest post here http://blog.recrutainment.de/ ...
      I would find a little more honesty to yourself and also to the applicants!

      A second problem, however, is what Rick mentioned above. Most of them arrange themselves somehow with the conditions, which may be the best solution for the individual. Only: Adjusting sometimes works faster than you think. And probably nothing will change.

      By the way: Christina, if you like, you can send me a report / profile including a photo, link and job application for publication - like Mr Lenz on beruf-suchen.de - maybe that will bring something ...
      Simone Janson

  28. Simone Janson says:

    Rick: Not a bad attitude. I think taking the last mentioned tip to heart is the most difficult thing ... unfortunately the boundaries blur quickly :-)

  29. Rick says:

    Everyone probably knows such an overpipe that has a lot to say, uses the elbows effectively, is good at delegating (very important!), (...), but can actually only count to 3.

    The question "What are you doing here?" or "What's the nonsense?" Many think so, at least in the beginning in a job.
    But since there is no reasonable answer or solution,
    it is better not to think about it anymore.
    Because pondering brings nothing and spoils the mood.

    Whoever has pondered too much has lost.
    What can go wrong with the project X, oh.
    This is different with the dumb-dreiste;
    if what goes wrong, the others have to blame,
    at least the predominant.
    (woe contradicts one)

    So a bit of a hole will help.
    The art is not to become a big one.

  30. CristinaSeidensticke says:

  31. CristinaSeidensticke says:

    RT @SimoneJanson: Are smart people actually less successful? The lie of the career factor intelligence:

  32. Simone Janson says:

    Frisch reblogged: The lie of the career factor intelligence: success from stupidity?

  33. Competencepartner says:

    The lie about the career factor of intelligence: Success out of stupidity ?: People like to tell, part of success ...

  34. Simone Janson says:

    4 theses for discussion: The lie about the career factor intelligence - success out of stupidity?

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with * .

Ja, I would like to be informed about the latest promotions and offers via Newsletter be informed.

I hereby accept the Debate Rules and the Privacy policy with the possibility to contradict the use of my data at any time.

error: warning The content is protected!