Today I read My 8 Best Techniques for Evaluating Character by Ted Gioia. He presents some ideas that he finds useful in thinking about the character of someone that he meets. They are also good ideas for thinking about one’s own character:
- Forget what they say—instead look at who they marry.
This choice tells you about their own innermost longings, expectations, and needs. It tells you what they think of themselves, and what they think they deserve in life (or will settle for). It is, I believe, the clearest indicator of priorities and values you will ever find.
- See how they treat service workers
People reveal their true natures when they deal with others who have no power and can never return a favor. They feel immune and free of all consequences—so they let it rip. Their true self comes to the forefront.
- Discover what experiences formed their character in early life
[After the CEO interviewer finished asking Ted about his early life experiences,] he explained to me that he lets other people in the organization worry about boring things like credentials. His belief is that people’s character and ability to handle challenges are almost entirely formed during the first two decades of their life. It’s an unusual case, he said, for people to change in any substantive way after that point—not impossible, but very rare. So those early years were always the focal point for his inquiries.
- I agree that early life experiences are deeply formative. It’s why I’m coming to feel that parenting and early childhood education are two of the most important jobs in our society. From reading Attached to Good Inside, so many major issues in adulthood stem from mindsets internalized as a child. BUT neuroplasticity is absolutely a thing. It is never too late to make change. BUT it is hard.
- How do they invest their two most valuable resources?
the two most revealing documents about me are my calendar and monthly budget
- Identify what irritates people the most in others—because this is probably the trait they dislike most in themselves.
This is another instance in which people reveal things about themselves unintentionally. And I’ve seen it so often that it’s uncanny. The flaw people hate most in others is usually their own greatest weakness. This may seem like pure happenstance, but there’s a good reason for it. When we look in a mirror, we dislike seeing all the flaws in our appearance, and the same thing is true when we examine other people. They, too, are like mirrors. So we are far more likely to forgive a weakness we have never experienced than one we struggle with daily.
- Can they listen?
There’s often a bias against listening as part of someone’s skill set—that’s why you will never see it on a resume. I’m sure many of you believe it indicates passivity or laziness or some other character flaw. I think this reaction is a result of mistaking people who do (3) with those who do (2).
Great listeners possess extraordinary skills of awareness and comprehension. They can assess situations with tremendous accuracy, and act in ways that maximize group effectiveness. No organization has enough of them, and if you have one of these great listeners as a friend or colleague, you soon learn that they are an invaluable resource.
- It’s an interesting idea to have “listening” as a skill on a resumé. Public speaking, oral presentations—these are often on resumés, but gosh, listening isn’t!
- If they cheat at small things, they will cheat at big things.
I recently heard a man complaining about a bad business deal. His partner had robbed him, and he should have known better.
When they first met, they had played golf. Afterwards his wife told him: “I saw him move the ball when you weren’t looking—don’t get involved with this guy.” He had laughed at this. Why get worked up over a tiny thing like this? It’s just a few inches on the golf course.
- Watch how they handle unexpected problems
I heard of a peculiar technique used by a company hiring a senior executive. In the final round of interviews, the candidates are taken to lunch, and during the meal something goes wrong—of course, this is all staged as a kind of test.
Maybe someone walks up to the table and creates a scene, or perhaps the food delivered to the table is completely wrong. The purpose is to see how the candidate handles the situation. You fail the test if you over-react (for example, causing a scene yourself) or under-react (e.g., just letting things get out of control with no response).
My jazz musician friends will immediately understand the value of this kind of test. You can’t tell how a person improvises until they are put into a situation where spontaneous decision-making is required. Some people rise to the occasion, and others lose their cool completely.