Latest news with #criticalThinking
Forbes
02-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Managing Employees In The Age Of AI
Jennifer C. Wolfe, Esq., APR is the Founder & Executive Director of Whisper Creek Spa in Hilton Head, SC and Expert in IP and Governance. We are living in an era where truth is becoming increasingly difficult to discern. The phrase 'fake news' has become so common that it no longer surprises us when entire narratives are called into question. Mainstream media, once regarded as a trusted source of information, is now viewed with skepticism by large segments of the population. Social media has created a world where perception often eclipses reality, amplified by filters, edits and algorithms that shape content to suit personal brands and agendas. For many employees, especially younger ones, platforms like TikTok have become news sources, but these sources often lack the rigor or context needed to promote critical thinking. Deepfakes, AI-generated personas and manipulated content have taken misinformation to an entirely new level. These technologies can imitate voices, faces and even emotional expressions with uncanny precision. As they become more accessible, it will only grow harder to discern fact from fabrication. The burden now falls on individuals to actively seek out the truth, compare multiple perspectives and apply discernment and wisdom, skills that may not be universally taught or consistently practiced. For small business leaders, one of the most pressing and often overlooked challenges presented by AI isn't just technological; it's cultural. How do you manage employees who have grown up in an environment where truth is fluid and perspectives are personalized? The New Reality Of Workplace Dynamics At the same time, AI is transforming how businesses recruit, monitor and engage employees. AI-driven resume screeners, productivity trackers and sentiment analysis tools offer new ways to evaluate team performance, but they are not infallible. These tools can be manipulated or produce biased outcomes, making human judgment more critical than ever. Leaders must learn how to integrate these technologies wisely to ensure that automation supports, not replaces, real leadership. In a world where curated content and personal branding dominate digital life, it's easy for employees, especially younger ones, to conflate perception with truth. This isn't always intentional; I believe that many simply haven't been trained to distinguish emotional reasoning from objective analysis. As a result, in today's workplace, employees may operate under the assumption that their perception is truth. Objective facts may become irrelevant if they conflict with personal feelings or what someone wants to believe. When employees feel wronged, they may turn to group chats, social media or gossip circles to share their version of events, often without context, without seeking clarification, and without regard for due process. This erosion of truth-based dialogue makes managing a team of humans significantly more challenging. A single manipulative employee can quickly spread toxicity and division. Team members who lack critical thinking skills or emotional maturity may adopt and amplify these distorted narratives. The Importance Of Vigilance And Swift Action To lead effectively in this environment, managers must become relentless truth-seekers inside their own organizations. They must listen carefully, cross-check stories and look beyond surface-level emotions. Managers must have the courage to address issues head-on and remove employees who repeatedly distort the truth, manipulate others or violate company values. Of course, not every conflict or misunderstanding stems from malice. Sometimes, it's a lack of communication skills, emotional intelligence or exposure to professional expectations. In these cases, early intervention, mentoring and clear feedback can transform a struggling employee into a valuable contributor. The key is discerning between those who are willing to grow and those who choose to sow discord. Tolerating toxic behavior, even for the sake of short-term staffing needs, comes at a high cost. Good employees will quietly exit, team morale will erode and your company culture will suffer lasting damage. Allowing one 'bad apple' to remain sends the message that your values are flexible and your leadership is weak. Small business owners especially felt the labor crunch during and after the pandemic. Many were forced to compromise, hiring whoever was available just to keep the doors open. But as we move forward, survival is no longer enough. To grow and thrive, businesses must return to a higher standard, recruiting carefully, investing in the right people and letting go of those who cannot meet expectations, regardless of staffing pressure. Hiring In A Filtered World There have always been workplace gossips and manipulators. What has changed is the cultural validation of these behaviors and the ease with which reality can be distorted using filters, AI and digital personas. Employees now have the tools to build online identities that mask their behavior in the workplace, making it easier to fool hiring managers and peers alike. This makes the recruitment process more critical than ever. AI tools can streamline candidate selection, but they can also overlook important human signals. Candidates now use AI to generate polished cover letters and even coach themselves on interviews. That's why in-person cues, reference checks and situational interviews that probe integrity and judgment are still essential. Go beyond resumes masked by AI models. Look for signs of emotional intelligence, self-awareness and alignment with your values. Ask questions that reveal character. And once hired, stay close enough to notice when something is off and recognize a hiring mistake quickly before real damage is done. Managing In The Age Of AI As AI transforms business operations, the human element becomes your strongest competitive advantage. Set the tone. Lead with clarity. And build a culture where truth, growth and accountability thrive, even in the most disruptive times. This requires emotional intelligence that can't be masked with AI in actual human interactions, as well as a willingness to lead decisively. It's not enough to react to problems; you must create an environment where truth, respect and collaboration are actively cultivated. All of this means organizational behavior is trickier than ever. Setting the right tone and removing toxic employees becomes mission-critical to managing human employees in an age of AI. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Why it's good to admit when you're wrong – and how to improve
You may be familiar with the feeling. Someone factchecks you mid-conversation or discredits your dishwasher-loading technique. Heat rises to your face; you might feel defensive, embarrassed or angry. Do you insist you're right or can you accept the correction? Admitting to being wrong can be difficult and uncomfortable. But the ability to admit to incorrect ideas or beliefs – what psychologists call 'intellectual humility' – is important. Research shows that people with higher intellectual humility think more critically, and are less biased and less prone to dogmatism. People high in intellectual humility 'are able to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and beliefs', says Tenelle Porter, an assistant professor of psychology at Rowan University. They recognize that we all get things wrong and are willing to admit their own gaps in knowledge. Meanwhile, people low in intellectual humility tend to overconfidently cling to their beliefs, and are not swayed by opposing evidence. People who are more intellectually humble tend to have better relationships. Being unable to acknowledge other people's perspectives can damage the trust in a relationship, says therapist and author Nedra Glover Tawwab. Acknowledging that you're wrong, on the other hand, can be a great opportunity to deepen a relationship. Research suggests that couples who score higher in intellectual humility tend to have healthier conflict management, as well as higher relationship quality and satisfaction. On average, people prefer to befriend or date people who are more humble, says Daryl Van Tongeren, who studies psychology and social values at Hope College. People also tend to be more committed to and satisfied with relationships when they perceive their partners to be more humble, Van Tongeren adds, and having both individuals in a couple rank highly in humility is associated with a healthier, less stressful transition into parenthood. People with low intellectual humility will often react defensively when contradicted, says Leor Zmigrod, a political neuroscientist who recently wrote a book about rigid, ideological thinking. They might feel personally attacked or insulted, and arrogantly double down, she says. But recognizing such qualities in yourself can be easier said than done. When Van Tongeren published his book on humility, people would say things like: 'Humility – that's what my father-in-law needs.' People are terrible at knowing whether they're very flexible or very rigid thinkers Leor Zmigrod, political neuroscientist 'No one starts off by saying: 'Oh, humility, that's what I need,'' he says. Our personalities can be flexible if we put in the work, says Tawwab. So how does someone get better at admitting they're wrong? Studies show that 'people are terrible at knowing whether they're very flexible or very rigid thinkers,' says Zmigrod. But a good way to start is to practice noticing how you respond to being contradicted. Be mindful of when your emotions and ego get in the way of a thoughtful response, she says – and over time you may be able to recognize your patterns. A person's intellectual humility is also linked with how flexible their thinking is in general, Zmigrod says. So if you notice defensiveness or anger when, say, a regular routine is disrupted, that could be a sign that your intellectual humility could use some work. Related: I'm disagreeable – and it's backed by science. Can I change my personality? If self-driven introspection is difficult, Van Tongeren recommends asking trusted people to assess how open they think you are to new perspectives, and whether they think you get defensive of your own ideas. 'Ask people from a variety of areas of your life,' he says, because 'you might be really humble at work, but not super humble at home, or vice versa.' You can glean information about your intellectual humility while also signaling to others that you're trying to work on yourself. Before attempting this, consider whether you're honestly ready to hear this kind of feedback. Learning to be more gracious when contradicted is an important skill, because an inability to recognize when you're wrong diminishes trust in relationships, says Tawwab. The first thing to do is 'reframe what being wrong means', says Tawwab. A lot of people internalize the idea that being wrong means they're stupid, ignorant or worth less as a person, she says. But if we lived in a world where no one was wrong or allowed to be wrong, 'we would live in a world that has never shifted', she says. Seeing it as associated with personal growth, curiosity and other positive values will make being wrong feel less fraught. There are science-backed ways to engender intellectual humility. One is quite simple: listen. People who can admit when they're wrong tend to be better listeners, says Van Tongeren. But more than that, when one person in a conversation is a good, deep listener, 'the act of listening actually cultivates and generates humility' for both parties. If you find yourself resisting admitting being wrong, Porter recommends casting your memory back to a time when you realized you had erred. Research suggests that when you remember your own fallibility, 'that can help recalibrate us and make us more open to listening to what we might be missing,' she says. If you want to encourage someone else in your life to work on their intellectual humility, they first need to feel like they're in an environment where it's safe to make mistakes, says Tawwab. And 'people tend to digest information best when they're seeking it out for themselves,' she says. So rather than lecture them on the importance of acknowledging their errors, it may be best to simply share articles, books or personality quizzes that can help them self-reflect and come to their own conclusions. You can also take the edge off by suggesting that you both work on this issue together, says Van Tongeren. Once you're able to recognize when you're wrong and admit it to yourself without an emotional or ego-driven reaction, being able to verbalize your mistakes will come much more easily. Related: What is metabolic syndrome – and do we really need to worry about it? And when it comes to telling another person that you were wrong, Tawwab says you don't have to do it immediately. After a conversation, it might take you some time to process and accept this assessment. In that case, you can go back to the person a few days later. 'Even if you can't do it in the present moment, you can still recover that conversation and build that trust,' she says. Over time, hopefully you'll get better and faster at it, eventually being able to notice and address errors in the moment. And you'll probably deepen your relationships as a result, she says. There are many headwinds when it comes to intellectual humility, says Porter, especially in contemporary life. Social media creates echo chambers, people constantly express ever more polarized views, and false information proliferates online. All this pushes us away from being willing and able to change our minds or admit we're wrong. But remember that we as people value these traits, she says, regardless of how challenging it is to maintain them.
The Guardian
23-06-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Why it's good to admit when you're wrong – and how to improve
You may be familiar with the feeling. Someone factchecks you mid-conversation or discredits your dishwasher-loading technique. Heat rises to your face; you might feel defensive, embarrassed or angry. Do you insist you're right or can you accept the correction? Admitting to being wrong can be difficult and uncomfortable. But the ability to admit to incorrect ideas or beliefs – what psychologists call 'intellectual humility' – is important. Research shows that people with higher intellectual humility think more critically, and are less biased and less prone to dogmatism. People high in intellectual humility 'are able to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and beliefs', says Tenelle Porter, an assistant professor of psychology at Rowan University. They recognize that we all get things wrong and are willing to admit their own gaps in knowledge. Meanwhile, people low in intellectual humility tend to overconfidently cling to their beliefs, and are not swayed by opposing evidence. People who are more intellectually humble tend to have better relationships. Being unable to acknowledge other people's perspectives can damage the trust in a relationship, says therapist and author Nedra Glover Tawwab. Acknowledging that you're wrong, on the other hand, can be a great opportunity to deepen a relationship. Research suggests that couples who score higher in intellectual humility tend to have healthier conflict management, as well as higher relationship quality and satisfaction. On average, people prefer to befriend or date people who are more humble, says Daryl Van Tongeren, who studies psychology and social values at Hope College. People also tend to be more committed to and satisfied with relationships when they perceive their partners to be more humble, Van Tongeren adds, and having both individuals in a couple rank highly in humility is associated with a healthier, less stressful transition into parenthood. People with low intellectual humility will often react defensively when contradicted, says Leor Zmigrod, a political neuroscientist who recently wrote a book about rigid, ideological thinking. They might feel personally attacked or insulted, and arrogantly double down, she says. But recognizing such qualities in yourself can be easier said than done. When Van Tongeren published his book on humility, people would say things like: 'Humility – that's what my father in law needs.' 'No one starts off by saying: 'Oh, humility, that's what I need,'' he says. Our personalities can be flexible if we put in the work, says Tawwab. So how does someone get better at admitting they're wrong? Studies show that 'people are terrible at knowing whether they're very flexible or very rigid thinkers,' says Zmigrod. But a good way to start is to practice noticing how you respond to being contradicted. Be mindful of when your emotions and ego get in the way of a thoughtful response, she says – and over time you may be able to recognize your patterns. A person's intellectual humility is also linked with how flexible their thinking is in general, Zmigrod says. So if you notice defensiveness or anger when, say, a regular routine is disrupted, that could be a sign that your intellectual humility could use some work. If self-driven introspection is difficult, Van Tongeren recommends asking trusted people to assess how open they think you are to new perspectives, and whether they think you get defensive of your own ideas. 'Ask people from a variety of areas of your life,' he says, because 'you might be really humble at work, but not super humble at home, or vice versa.' You can glean information about your intellectual humility while also signaling to others that you're trying to work on yourself. Before attempting this, consider whether you're honestly ready to hear this kind of feedback. Learning to be more gracious when contradicted is an important skill, because an inability to recognize when you're wrong diminishes trust in relationships, says Tawwab. The first thing to do is 'reframe what being wrong means', says Tawwab. A lot of people internalize the idea that being wrong means they're stupid, ignorant or worth less as a person, she says. But if we lived in a world where no one was wrong or allowed to be wrong, 'we would live in a world that has never shifted', she says. Seeing it as associated with personal growth, curiosity and other positive values will make being wrong feel less fraught. Sign up to Well Actually Practical advice, expert insights and answers to your questions about how to live a good life after newsletter promotion There are science-backed ways to engender intellectual humility. One is quite simple: listen. People who can admit when they're wrong tend to be better listeners, says Van Tongeren. But more than that, when one person in a conversation is a good, deep listener, 'the act of listening actually cultivates and generates humility' for both parties. If you find yourself resisting admitting being wrong, Porter recommends casting your memory back to a time when you realized you had erred. Research suggests that when you remember your own fallibility, 'that can help recalibrate us and make us more open to listening to what we might be missing,' she says. If you want to encourage someone else in your life to work on their intellectual humility, they first need to feel like they're in an environment where it's safe to make mistakes, says Tawwab. And 'people tend to digest information best when they're seeking it out for themselves,' she says. So rather than lecture them on the importance of acknowledging their errors, it may be best to simply share articles, books or personality quizzes that can help them self-reflect and come to their own conclusions. You can also take the edge off by suggesting that you both work on this issue together, says Van Tongeren. Once you're able to recognize when you're wrong and admit it to yourself without an emotional or ego-driven reaction, being able to verbalize your mistakes will come much more easily. And when it comes to telling another person that you were wrong, Tawwab says you don't have to do it immediately. After a conversation, it might take you some time to process and accept this assessment. In that case, you can go back to the person a few days later. 'Even if you can't do it in the present moment, you can still recover that conversation and build that trust,' she says. Over time, hopefully you'll get better and faster at it, eventually being able to notice and address errors in the moment. And you'll likely deepen your relationships as a result, she says. There are many headwinds when it comes to intellectual humility, says Porter, especially in contemporary life. Social media creates echo chambers, people constantly express ever more polarized views, and false information proliferates online. All this pushes us away from being willing and able to change our minds or admit we're wrong. But remember that we as people value these traits, she says, regardless of how challenging it is to maintain them.
Times
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Times
Times letters: Free speech and students seeing both sides
Write to letters@ Sir, You report (Jun 19) Arif Ahmed, the head of free speech at the Office for Students, as saying that students should 'write essays defending viewpoints they find offensive'. I am sure most students would find this a pointless and unpleasant requirement. It would be much more natural to require them to write about a controversial issue in dialogue form, coming to a reasoned judgment as to the merits of the arguments on both sides. Ever since Plato, this has been a common device among western philosophers. Besides, the present fixation with writing essays has the dangerous side-effect of encouraging confirmation bias. This is the intellectual fault of ignoring factors that count against the position that the writer is arguing for, and which underlies a lot of bad scientific reasoning. Still worse is when examiners have a model essay in mind and mark students down for the extent to which they deviate from it. This is indoctrination rather than MacDonald RossLeeds Sir, Your report of Arif Ahmed's call for students to write essays defending viewpoints they oppose is a salient reminder that schools should develop the character strengths of empathy and open-mindedness in young people. Fortunately, such perspective-taking exercises are central to religious studies, philosophy and ethics courses, taught at GCSE and A-level, in which students must craft arguments both for and against social issues such as assisted dying, military intervention and genetic Kerr-ShawBerkhamsted, Herts Sir, There has been a huge increase in people's lack of tolerance towards the viewpoint of others over the past few years ('Academics 'fear being cancelled'', news, Jun 19). One way to tackle this would be for those in education to be exposed to views that are lawful — but which they might find offensive — and to discuss them. I therefore welcome the new guidance from the Office for Students. At the same time I find it remarkable that universities should have to be told to 'amend or terminate any agreement with foreign states or institutions that enabled censorship'. Universities are known to be under financial pressure but surely freedom of speech is one of the qualities that made our universities great in the first SmithWoking, Surrey Sir, The article on my piece in The Critic magazine ('Seldon 'put university on route to catastrophe'', Jun 19) focused on the University of Buckingham's experience. But I was using Buckingham only as an example. The time has come for all universities to remodel their governance on that used by Oxford, Cambridge, the Inns of Court and the medical royal colleges, and to be governed only by their academics. In the words of Michael Shattock, the doyen of university governance: 'Where improprieties and breakdowns have occurred, they have centred on governing bodies and the executive . . . not on the academic community.' Yet university improprieties and breakdowns are more common than is generally KealeyCambridge Sir, The European Space Agency's vision of orbital and lunar habitats is bold and commendable ('Life on Mars? Maybe . . . in 2040', Jun 19). But without enforceable governance and clear rights frameworks, technological ambition risks fuelling geopolitical rivalry and risky orbital militarisation. Space has become a geostrategic, economic and technological frontier, raising urgent questions about governance, equity, safety, security and sustainability in extreme environments. Who will ensure individual rights in space or prevent militarised or corporatised colonies? We must marry technical ambition in space with ethical foresight and multi-stakeholder interests. The ESA's vision, while laudable, must not become merely a technocratic road map. It should be underpinned by laws and norms and a vision for a planetary social contract: one that reconciles national and corporate interests with transcultural and transplanetary interests in a sustainable and peaceful Nayef Al-RodhanHead, Outer Space Security Cluster, Geneva Centre for Security Policy Sir, The assisted dying bill specifies that doctors must undertake 'detailed training' on domestic abuse, including coercive control. The government's impact assessment describes this as 'an advanced, two-day, in-person training package'. For six years I have worked for a domestic abuse charity supporting victim-survivors. We know that some perpetrators of coercive behaviours drive their victims to suicide, either because the victim cannot see a way out of the abuse or because the perpetrator deliberately tells them that they are worthless and should take their own lives. A one-off, two-day domestic abuse course will not provide participants with the skills to adequately detect domestic abuse and coercive control every time. It takes the experience and expertise of qualified domestic abuse practitioners to understand the dynamics and be able to pick them out. Without much stronger engagement with domestic abuse specialists this legislation would place victim-survivors at risk of being coerced into ending their own EllisChief executive, Rising Sun Domestic Violence & Abuse Service Sir, The attorney-general is right to question the legality of Britain participating in US-led military strikes on Iran ('Britain could support US to strike Iran from the air', Jun 19). International law prohibits the use of force, with only two generally accepted exceptions — neither of which apply here. First, there is no UN security council authorisation. This makes the situation even clearer than the 2003 Iraq intervention. Then, the government could argue that it was acting under an earlier resolution that had been 'revived' because of Iraq's misconduct. No such argument is available now. Second, the UK cannot rely on the claim of self-defence. Neither Britain nor Israel have been attacked. Rather, it was Israel's surprise attack that reignited hostilities after months of relative calm. While international lawyers debate whether a state may act against an imminent attack, publicly available information does not indicate that one was about to occur against Israel or any other state. Without credible evidence to the contrary — or further developments, such as Iranian strikes on UK assets — military action against Iran cannot be justified as self-defence. The prime minister should heed the legal advice and avoid dragging the UK into another military adventure without a clear legal MacakProfessor of international law, University of Exeter Sir, No one in the Chilterns will be surprised by the HS2 shambles ('HS2 an 'appalling mess' with no completion date', Jun 19). I was a member of the Chiltern Society sub-group charged with keeping a watching brief on the project. Various transport secretaries and MPs visited on fact-finding trips and in my view treated local protests with bored indifference. We were simply rich nimbys who didn't understand HS2's national significance. The only MP who treated the issue with any zeal was the late Cheryl Gillan, the MP for Chesham & Amersham, and she was dismissed as an overexcitable local politician. The problem with HS2 was that there was no real opposition to it in parliament. Conservatives and Labour both wanted it to happen and consequently no one in charge took alternative viewpoints seriously. If there had been an independent public inquiry before the project began — as in the case of Terminal 5 at Heathrow — strict conditions would have been laid down and the project would not have careened out of control like the proverbial runaway train. Such an inquiry would have delayed the start and possibly added costs — but not to the extent we are enduring with BrownPenn, Bucks Sir, In 1896 Henry Labouchere MP branded a proposed rail link between Kenya and Uganda the 'lunatic line'. The 660-mile line took five years to build and cost between £600 million and £800 million in today's money (as well as the lives of dozens of workers lost to the Tsavo man-eating lions). With HS2 now expected to cost more than £100 billion and take upwards of 20 years to complete, one wonders what Labouchere would have made of this new level of Pearce-HigginsLondon SW15 Sir, Libby Purves's article on the King's birthday honours (Jun 16; letter, Jun 17) brings to attention one of the problems with the honours system. Leaders of small charities and historical and community organisations may be honoured as representatives of the bodies they front but the award is intended for the whole entity, which is usually staffed by volunteers. Is there a case for instituting a new honour for such small-scale bodies? Perhaps an Order of National Service to be appended to the name of the organisation, modelled on the George Cross. It would not need hierarchies (KCBE, CBE, etc) and would recognise the corporate work of the organisation, rather than the temporary figurehead. I write as one whose MBE was obviously intended for the whole Church Monuments Society rather than me as an Jean Wilson MBEHarlton, Cambs Sir, Oxford Street is not one of the most unpleasant places in London because of vehicle traffic (news, Jun 17; letter, Jun 19). Its unpleasantness comes from phone thieves and a preponderance of dubious vape and candy stores. Neighbouring Soho is a far better candidate for pedestrianisation, containing no meaningful thoroughfares and having staged a successful period of pedestrianisation during the pandemic, which transformed dining out in the CaseyLondon W6 Sir, In disparaging the idea of a National Potato Week (notebook, Jun 19), Hilary Rose misunderstands the importance of the October holiday to Scottish schools. It allows pupils to help farms to harvest the potato crop. That young children today know where potatoes come from is doubtful, let alone what season the harvest falls in. I am harvesting my own potatoes (Arran pilot) in August but perhaps schools should encourage pupils to celebrate the potato by visiting a farm this JD MckelvieHelensburgh, Argyll and Bute Sir, As usual, Citroën was way ahead of the needs of modern drivers. As well as power steering and adaptive 'see round the corner' headlights, our 1974 Citroën DS has an air horn. A gentle nudge gives the 'vehicular cough' Sathnam Sanghera asks for (notebook, Jun 16; letters, Jun 17 & 18). A harder tug and it blares out something more akin to a wounded trombone. Effective and RappleOxford Sir, Living on the banks of the River Ribble we four rectory children were called to meals with a handbell over the railings (letter, Jun 19). The whole village knew our VarcoeSt Minver, Cornwall Write to letters@
Entrepreneur
09-06-2025
- Business
- Entrepreneur
The 3 Non-Negotiable Steps in Hiring Regardless of Your Industry
Hiring looks different at every company, but these three things are always non-negotiable. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Different companies have different hiring practices. You can have multiple stages with different-level individuals, or just one comprehensive test and final interview — it just really depends on the organization, priorities, urgency and the kind of role. You might be able to streamline and customize things as much as you want, but after hiring hundreds of people, I've realized that there are three hiring non-negotiables regardless of your approach, industry and the position you're offering. 1. Hire problem solvers, not know-it-alls As much as it's ideal, you are not building a team of perfect employees. You are building a team that can work effectively and adapt when needed. No one can truly know everything — not even AI, at this point anyway. What you need then are people who have enough critical thinking to get the job done and navigate any problems along the way. It's important to have people who are willing to learn and decide for themselves. At the same time, have team members who acknowledge their limits and know when to ask for help. When someone doesn't have a big ego, they're more willing to try a different approach, even if it means getting out of their comfort zone. They're also more inclined to admit when they're wrong. One can have as much knowledge about the job, but problems are still bound to happen. You need employees who have the initiative to think about and find solutions on their own or with their team. Not those who claim to know everything. Related: There's a Growing Demand For This New Type of Professional — Here's Why Your Startup Needs Them, Too. 2. Hire team players who can also work on their own You're not just after people who can do their job right. You're getting people who can work well with the rest of your team. This means looking for people who can handle projects with both autonomy and a strong sense of collaboration. There will be times when they'll need to split their work together with their coworkers, so it's important that they know how to share that sense of responsibility. Hiring someone with this skill assures you that they know how and when to share the credit and give credit when it's due. When you have someone who cares about their own work and their team's work as a whole, without stepping on anyone's toes, the workflow stays steady and disruptions are minimized, whether the task calls for solo effort or group collaboration. They're also all willing to chip in, as well as brainstorm and combine ideas. 3. Hire people for their growth mindset, not their current skill set Hiring for potential doesn't mean you're merely hoping for the best. You need to hire for someone's ability and desire to grow, learn and improve because these are hard to teach. It's good to ask and see where your candidate wants to go in the future to have a good idea about their personal ambitions. This can be in regard to their career in the next five years, whether they see themselves in a leadership role or work-life balance priorities, among others. Always keep in mind that when hiring someone, it's unlikely that their ultimate goal is the job you're offering. When you have someone on your team with clear ambitions, they'll be more responsible, pay more attention to detail and care more about their own work ethic. Related: 3 Things I've Learned About Hiring and Firing After 35 Years in Business Close them with the right communication Knowing the right qualities to spot when hiring is just the first step. Knowing how to get them to say yes is just as important. In my company, OysterLink, for example, we make sure to discuss the following with every member we hire: 1. How this role will guide them along their own path Now that you have a clear idea of where they're going, it's now your job to show them how being in your company will bring them closer to their goals. Focus on how the job and the company will equip them with the right skills to thrive in the industry they would like to grow in. When they gain the right experience, they build a strong foundation — and that foundation not only benefits them but also strengthens your team. 2. How your company will support their growth Once you've shown how the role fits into their long-term goals, the next step is to make it clear that their growth matters to you, too. As a hiring manager, the way you communicate, provide feedback and structure the hiring process reflects your company's values — whether that's clarity, care or a commitment to development. Let candidates know that you're not just filling a position — you're invested in helping them succeed. When people feel genuinely supported, they're more motivated, engaged and very likely to grow with you. When you combine the right opportunity with the right message, you don't just attract great talent — you earn their commitment.
