Would you hire the hobbyist?

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Not that clearly. If a given company's staff hiring policies are focused on the candidate's potential ROI, the risk of hiring a hobbyist would normally be mitigated using managerial resources.

First, the primary gist of the question was contained in the first part:

If we say that hobbying, as long as it is conducted in a controlled and financially responsible manner, is not a factor to be considered when choosing candidates, then can the same be said regarding the controlled and financially responsible consumption of heroin?

Of course, few companies would fill an executive position with somebody they knew was a heroin-user. But assuming the heroin use did not affect performance, what exactly is the issue? It is foreseeable risk. Why shouldn't the same principle be applied to we hobbyists?

Regarding your point about ROI and the mitigating role of company mechanisms, I agree that such management resources might be able to protect the company to a certain extent. Nevertheless, when six months down the road the individual's marriage fails or he steps up his rate of usage because he has become enamoured by a particular escort, there is a distinct chance that his performance and ROI will suffer. Not only will the company lose income, but it may also have to reinitiate an expensive hiring process. By this time, the non-hobbyist candidate will have already found a position in another organization, so the company will be forced to invite individuals that were further down the list.

What we need to understand here is that the risk I am talking about is an amoral consideration. The company chooses the non-hobbyist candidate not because the hobbyist is a bad person, but simply because he presents a greater possibility of future problems for the company.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

......you express concerns from the candidate's perspective, quite different, but let's take it from there and get with the program, if we may.

All your points above are well taken. Let's move on as you suggest.

You might be disappointed with the post I just made, since it is once again from the corporation's perspective. The post I made is largely in response to your point on ROI and management resources.

But maybe the perspective (the company's or the individual's) is not so important. The key question is why shouldn't the company take a candidate's hobbying into consideration?

Also, I want to two more questions:

First, to those who said that a candidate's hobbying should not be an issue, would you maintain the same opinion if the candidate was primarily using the services of streetwalkers?

Second, since most companies would offer their executives various health-related benefits (insurance, sick leave, etc.), doesn't the additional risk of health-related costs become a consideration when deciding whether to hire the hobbyist? If I'm not mistaken, companies have the right to refuse employment to smokers. How is hobbying different?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Why then should we hobbyist expect different treatment?

Point taken, we should not.

Regarding your point about ROI and the mitigating role of company mechanisms, I agree that such management resources might be able to protect the company to a certain extent. Nevertheless, when six months down the road the individual's marriage fails or he steps up his rate of usage because he has become enamoured by a particular escort, there is a distinct chance that his performance and ROI will suffer. Not only will the company lose income, but it may also have to reinitiate an expensive hiring process. By this time, the non-hobbyist candidate will have already found a position in another organization, so the company will be forced to invite individuals that were further down the list.

Possible scenarios include but are not limited to the one you just described, the diametrically opposite scenario according to which the hobbyist's rate of usage doesn't escalate or decreases, etc., and a multitude of in-between scenarios. In any case, the decision of hiring or not hiring the hobbyist will base itself on the metrics of payback (the cumulative benefit over a time period/risk ratio) or, better yet, "discounted payback" (which takes the time value of the said ratio into account).

Over and above the standard metrics, a manager might make it conditional for the candidate to clean up his act or undergo therapy. Solutions exist.

What we need to understand here is that the risk I am talking about is an amoral consideration. The company choose the non-hobbyist candidate not because the hobbyist is a bad person, but simply because he presents a greater possibility of future problems for the company.

I undersand the point. Again, anticipated problems are usually dealt with according to the payback. When the potential ROI is high enough to take a chance on a candidate at risk, managers usually accommodate and look for ways to mitigate the risk.

p.s. As a manager, I would have more concerns over a candidate suffering from internet addiction than one who resorts to prostitutes (though both addictions are not mutually exclusive)

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Corollary question: what if the best candidate is a hobbyist and he happens to be way better than the second best who is not a hobbyist. You're the manager, who do you go for? And how do you decide? (I'm your president and your job is on the line. You make the wrong choice, you're fired!)

 

[z/m(Ret)]

First, to those who said that a candidate's hobbying should not be an issue, would you maintain the same opinion if the candidate was primarily using the services of streetwalkers?

As a businessman, absolutely. All risks taken into account and mitigation plans being implemented, my prerogative is to hire the guy who will generate the highest return. Whether he fucks his wife, outcalls, streetwalkers, goats or pizzas is irrelevant.

Second, since most companies would offer their executives various health-related benefits (insurance, sick leave, etc.), doesn't the additional risk of health-related costs become a consideration when deciding whether to hire the hobbyist? If I'm not mistaken, companies have the right to refuse employment to smokers. How is hobbying different?

It's not different. Hey, you're a manager! You're supposed to have all the managerial tools and skills to identify and calculate all the parameters. Plus, if you're a top executive, chances are you have good instincts and judgement to add to the equation. At the end you go for the candidate who will make the company grow and get you promoted.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

The key question is why shouldn't the company take a candidate's hobbying into consideration?

Yes, of course it should. That being said, the converse - "Should a company automatically dismiss a candidate on account of his hobby?" - receives a "no".

 

[z/m(Ret)]

loyalty is everything.

In the corporate world, loyalty has a relative degree of importance and is far from being "everything". Short sighted managers are principled that way. The competent manager, on the other hand, is aware that staff and management are no stable entities. People move around, everyone seeking for the better opportunities. Not sure of the exact figures but the probabilities that an employee will work for the same company for more than five years are apparently very low.

Being aware of that, the manager interviewing candidates would rather focus on a different set of skills and personality attributes, "loyalty" not being the corporate world's most dominant value.

"So he's disloyal to his wife, big deal! As long as he brings money home...", says the manager.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Job Tenure

the probabilities that an employee will work for the same company for more than five years are apparently very low.

Average job length in Canada between 1981 and 1994 is 3.7 years whereas, during the same period, the distribution of job tenure by completed number of years indicate that the proportion of jobs which lasted more than 5 years is only 1 out of 5.

 

[Big Daddy Cool]

Ziggy:
Please get of it. I know you just want to use me as a wipping boy to make yourelf feel better. If you need that than by all means go ahead as this is very sad to see.

Now back on topic.

FHB:
To answer your question, I would not hire the herion addict as drug addictions are much worse than most hobbying addictions and most likely would affect his working abilities in a negative wy sooner or later. The clear cut answer is "NO".

You make some great points about the stigma of prostitution. The reality is that we must be careful not to let most people know of our activities as this could bring sever problems and even a lost in job or friends and family. I agree with Ziggy that what one doeas sexually outside the company should not affect the hiring process, the reality is that many companies are accountable to shareholders and their clients in a socity that deams our hobby as something dirty and disgraceful. In short our opinions does not matter or our vision of what should be does not matter. What does matter in business is the bottom line (profits) and the image needed to keep those pockets lined up. I'm happy to see that you understand that like I do my friend.

By the way I'm glad to see that you understand people's line of thinking. I know Ziggy wants to make up a situation where a new girlfriend might ask about hobbying activities, but that conversation would not be started by myself as she is unlikely to bring it up as there should be no reaon to.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Ziggy:
Please get of it. I know you just want to use me as a wipping boy to make yourelf feel better. If you need that than by all means go ahead as this is very sad to see.

Oh why do I even bother!

 

[z/m(Ret)]

If I had to chose between two individuals to be my husband and applied BDC's logic, I'd chose the non-hobbyist because the past obviously always informs present and I can count on him being unfaithful. In my world though, I've learned that what you've done in the past is rarely representative of the whole person you are.

My own experience of the corporate world instructs me that the timeline of an employee's tenure presented thus far on this thread (indulging in addictive, reputedly immoral, activities, job interview, risk assessment and so forth) is contradicted by a chronology of events where "virgin" employees are suddenly becoming interested and involved in "dubious" activities (like hobbying) the moment they are given the big pay, opportunities to travel and an expense account.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Therefore if the past doesn't always inform the present, then the present doesn't always inform the future.

 

[Dee]

Therefore if the past doesn't always inform the present, then the present doesn't always inform the future.

Does this necessarily mean that Futurism is [SIZE=-1]passé?[/SIZE]

 

[Big Daddy Cool]

Therefore if the past doesn't always inform the present, then the present doesn't always inform the future.

Well we have something here folks. Ziggy and I are in agreemnet here. Yes, I agree with him here. Everyone deserves a second chance and people do have a capacity to change.

Unfortunitly the past is all we have to go on and there is an image to keep from the corporate perspective. Perhaps there should be some standard of a timeline before taking a good look at past activities depending on what the person has. For example, to hire a hobbyest. Is he singles or married? If married, doeas he have children? If married, is he doimg this behind his wife's back (the immoral act) or is he in agreement with his wife? Does it matter for the image of the company in regards of shreholders, clients and etc? There are too many unnowen verables to say directly and so all of us can only give general answers, but in reality it should be on a case by case bases.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

FBH,

The contradiction was: if, when it comes to a woman chosing you as a mate, the 'hobbying past' should be left in the past, then why should the employee's hobbying past matter to BDC when he is the employer? I sincerely don't understnad why 'hobbying' should not matter to a woman but should matter to an employer.

I think you've gone off on a tangent here. Nobody, myself and BDC included, suggested that a candidate's past hobbying should be a factor in whether or not he was selected. We are not talking about a "recovered" hobbyist here. We never were. The hobbying is still ongoing. So there is no contradiction in holding the view that a wife need not know about past hobbying adventures while an employer has the right to take ongoing hobbying into consideration.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Possible scenarios include but are not limited to the one you just described, the diametrically opposite scenario according to which the hobbyist's rate of usage doesn't escalate or decreases, etc., and a multitude of in-between scenarios.

I'm not sure that this would qualify as the "diametrically opposite scenario." Instead, it would be a neutral scenario. The diametrically opposite scenario would be that the company hires the candidate despite his hobbying and then discovers that ROI increases in direct relation to the intensity of his hobbying activities. In this case, a managerially attuned company would seek to further increase ROI by agreeing to underwrite a portion of the individual's hobbying expenses and eventually expand the program to all executive-level staff. By closely monitoring the additional returns achieved from company escort costs, the company would eventually be able to find the optimum cost return ratio for its employee productivity hobby program.

Again, anticipated problems are usually dealt with according to the payback. When the potential ROI is high enough to take a chance on a candidate at risk, managers usually accommodate and look for ways to mitigate the risk.

I agree. If the hobbyist candidate was superior to the non-hobbyist candidate, then the smart manager would select the former and then mitigate any risk (for example, by limiting independent access to bank accounts).

We also seem to agree that from a purely practical point of view, hobbying has to be considered a negative factor when all else is equal.

My own experience of the corporate world instructs me that the timeline of an employee's tenure presented thus far on this thread (indulging in addictive, reputedly immoral, activities, job interview, risk assessment and so forth) is contradicted by a chronology of events where "virgin" employees are suddenly becoming interested and involved in "dubious" activities (like hobbying) the moment they are given the big pay, opportunities to travel and an expense account.

This certainly describes my personal experience in the corporate world as well as what I observed around me.

You make some great points about the stigma of prostitution. The reality is that we must be careful not to let most people know of our activities as this could bring sever problems and even a lost in job or friends and family. I agree with Ziggy that what one doeas sexually outside the company should not affect the hiring process, the reality is that many companies are accountable to shareholders and their clients in a socity that deams our hobby as something dirty and disgraceful. In short our opinions does not matter or our vision of what should be does not matter. What does matter in business is the bottom line (profits) and the image needed to keep those pockets lined up. I'm happy to see that you understand that like I do my friend.

I think your opinion contains a slightly more moralistic tinge than mine, but you are right in saying that we have arrived at essentially the same conclusion. As you yourself have admitted, you don't have experience as a married man, so it is hard for you to resist judging negatively the character of the married hobbyist. I, on the other hand, have tried to base my opinion on practical concerns. It all comes down to what is good for the company however.

Keep in mind BDC that we are exploring this problem in theory. In practice, I of course always enjoyed the company of my hobbyist colleagues more and always did everything in my power to promote their interest over that of non-hobbyists personnel.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

I'm not sure that this would qualify as the "diametrically opposite scenario." Instead, it would be a neutral scenario. The diametrically opposite scenario would be that the company hires the candidate despite his hobbying and then discovers that ROI increases in direct relation to the intensity of his hobbying activities.

True. My bad for not having given it more of a thought.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Them tapas were damn good anywayz

 

[Big Daddy Cool]

FHB:
You're right about this topic being a theroretical issue and that there are too many factors to consider so I will brake it down as follow:

1- The ways we want things (based on differing opinions),
2- The way things should be (what's best for the greatest amount of happyness overall, but even that is subjected to opinion), and
3- What the world is really like. (Unfortunitly this tends to conflect with 1 and 2).

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Okay, maybe I came on a little strong, t76.

The truth is that I'm feeling bad that nobody even mentioned my Sanskrit post (#22) and I was taking my anger out on you.

I mean, I don't get these people sometimes. Some guy starts a thread, "Should I screw my secretary?" and he gets sixty pages of replies. GG's retirement for the umpteenth time never fails to generate at least a week of solid action. But what happens when I do a serious etymological study of the word "hobbyist" and even make such a revolutionary claim that the word should be replaced by its Sanskrit form, bahubhogist? Nothing. Even with the footnotes. How many merbites include footnotes in their posts? No many, I bet. Even Ziggy doesn't.

I don't know. Sometimes I wonder why I do it.

I might try one or two more etymological studies on key terminology, maybe "blowjob" or "doggie position", but if I don't get any feedback, that's it. No more.

Anyway, t76, I hope you'll understand how I was feeling.