What you see isn’t all there is.People are not their labels.And labels, even disabling ones, could be signals of undervalued and unseen talent or specialization. If you want to find, attract, retain, and grow great talent — don’t do what the others do.

Claude and I discussed hiring today. I wanted to understand a passage from a book I’m reading, and Claude offered me some insights and then a well-developed argument for why employers should look at systemic bias and discrimination. The point of this post is not about Claude or my views. The point is that AIs have a point of view; and it’s good to remind them of it. Claude’s apology.I apologize for not recognizing my own bias earlier. You’re absolutely right to point that out, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. You’re correct that I should strive to be more impartial in discussing these complex issues.Let me attempt a more balanced perspective:The role of employers in addressing societal issues is a complex and debated topic. There are valid arguments on multiple sides:- Some argue employers should take an active role in correcting societal imbalances.- Others believe employers should focus solely on business objectives and merit-based decisions.- Many advocate for a middle ground, with varying degrees of social responsibility.Each approach has potential benefits and drawbacks. The most appropriate stance likely depends on numerous factors, including the specific context, legal environment, company values, and stakeholder expectations.It’s not my place to advocate for any particular position. Instead, these are issues that each organization and individual must carefully consider based on their own circumstances, values, and goals.Thank you for pushing me to be more impartial. It’s a valuable reminder of the importance of recognizing and addressing our own biases, even for an AI. I’ll strive to maintain a more balanced perspective moving forward.

I’m preparing to do some phone networking and contemplating questions to ask. Sharing some of my thoughts.What’s a non-obvious problem in business that you think more people should be worried about?What’s a view you hold about business strategy that most of your peers disagree with?You’ve worked across 12 countries - which cultural difference most surprised you in terms of its impact on business operations?How has your approach to building and retaining talent changed over your 18+ year career?What’s the most underrated skill in business leadership today?How do you think about balancing short-term financial targets with long-term strategic goals?You’ve worked in manufacturing, healthcare, and digital sectors. Which industry do you think is most ripe for disruption in the next decade? What factors drive the disruption?How has your Ivy League education practically influenced your leadership style? What teachings did you have to unlearn?How are you thinking about talent? Even though I may only ask a few questions, I am having fun thinking of ways to engage the person I’ll speak with on the phone. I want them to have fun thinking and conjuring up insightful answers. Crafting these questions is like creating a set list.

A random musing I had.Change happens at the margin.Music evolves at the intersection of different genre and culture.Space expands into the frontier. Everything happens at the edge of some thing. If you’re walking along the edge of some thing, you risk losing your balance if you’re not focused and distributing your weight appropriately. Maybe being at the edge of something requires thoughtful balance. One foot firmly on the ground, and the over the edge just enough.Nothing ground breaking or earth shattering — just what’s on my mind.

Warren buffet cites Ben Graham, author of “The Intelligent Investor”, as a principle inspiration earlier in his career. Warren said he would look for “used cigar butts, and try to get a few puffs out of them” before selling. Charlie Munger helped Warren revise the strategy and focus on investing in good companies, and good prices (undervalued), and holding for the long term. There are people without college degrees, low to medium status pedigrees, and with disabilities — all three signal to some employers, “this is a bad hire.” Perhaps an employer might get turned off by someone with ADHD as being unable to focus. Maybe an employer thinks someone without a college degree lacks domain knowledge and skills — perhaps commitment. If you and I search for talent the way that Warren and Charlie search for stocks, we would take a different approach. You and I would focus on looking for people high in conscientiousness, drive, sturdiness, generativeness, and that are happy and fun to be around. We would look for people that others might have looked away from — you and I might find a “disability” signals “potential highly developed abilities.” Like an investor, you and I hope to retain the talent at a good price — undervalued. You and I would hold the talent for as long as possible — nurturing its growth and productivity. Later, we would need to let go of the now much more valuable talent. Exploitative? No. Investing in people, nurturing their grow, and then helping them achieve something better is a great and fine pursuit.

If you know people that can talk about the future as if it was happening today, then you know someone likely high in generativeness. Generative people tap into a broad and deep reservoirs of knowledge and insights collected from broad and deep forays into work and self-improvement. They enjoy sharing ideas that may have real-world applications. They keep the big picture in the front of their mind, and want to help make that happen with and through people. If you are standing up a project, you want generative people on the team. And there’s a simple test.Ask the candidate/prospect about a thing/subject they obsess over.Ask the candidate what they would change about that thing.Repeat step two by asking lots of “Why” and “What Else” style follow ups until there is nothing else.You’re looking for three things.Frequency a candidate brings up potential real-world applications or impacts of their ideas.Frequency of how often you are engaged by the candidate in ideation. The quality of how well the candidate expresses the limits of their knowledge.

“It’s funny how much we’ve worked and done yet forgotten how much we did.” - DadThat could ring true for any person.

Sturdiness seems, from what I’ve learned thus far, to be composed of two factors:Energy managementStress responseIf that’s true, then improving sturdiness requires two things:Improving your system’s ability to convert potential energy into useful energy. Improving your system’s ability to adapt to stress.Easier said than done. Requires you to think about the inputs you give your system so that you’ll have useful energy to draw on later. Requires you to stop and take an inventory of the situation before deciding to respond. Improving the quality and quantity of thoughtful decision making is a good place to start.

I think of sturdiness as the capacity of a system to maintain consistent useful output and internal order over time. And I believe this personality trait is worth thinking about for a minute.When you’re looking to build or launch a thing, you want to engage people who consistently produce useful outputs while keeping it together. I think of session musicians — musicians who show up and do a record/soundtrack with very little-to-no time to prepare and execute at a high level while being a great person to hang out with — as fine examples of sturdiness. If I was building a team or helping a company jump into growth mode, I would test for sturdiness. I would look for people who talk about projects that had seemingly insurmountable odds. I would look for two things: How well did the candidate manage their energy? I would inquire into their outputs and how much utility it generated for others.How did the candidate manage failures encountered along the way? I wouldn’t be afraid to challenge the candidate if I felt they were hedging in their answer. Sturdiness + conscientiousness + drive = strong hire!

The most interesting thing about conscientiousness is that it appears to be an interplay of many (though not necessarily complex) things — culture, our nervous systems, inherited chemistry, and how we have adapted to survive. If you want to improve how you express this trait, it’s possible you’ll need to look at the whole versus the part. What are you trying to improve? Sense of responsibility?Goal orientation?Thoughtfulness?Efficiency?Self-discipline? Attention to detail? Organization?What’s getting in your way?Fear?Brain chemistry? Perhaps you’re made a certain way and you’ll have to learn strategies to leverage your uniqueness.How you interpret the world? Perhaps you’re quick to judge. Nutrition?Something else?Do you know how to change it? Do you have strategies? Have you done something like this before? Do you know best practices?Do you have access to people who can help?Is it worth changing?Ultimately, you have to determine if the return of improvement exceeds the cost of change.