dispatches from the new world of work

100 Ways to Succeed #71:

Begin the Hunt for Hypomanics!

Reread: "These men were outrageous—arrogant, provocative, unconventional, and unpredictable. They were not 'well adjusted' by normal standards but instead forced the world to adjust to them. ... Without their irrational confidence, ambitious vision, and unstoppable zeal, these outrageous captains would never have sailed into unknown waters, never discovered new worlds, never changed the course of our history."

To survive competitively in the turbulent decades ahead we need to find & cherish such people. What—exactly—is your "Hypomanic Recruitment Plan?" (No kidding. It may be the most serious question you ever try to answer.)

Tom Peters posted this on 03/21/05.

Comments

New models for learning, behaving and acting must be constantly tried and experimented with - associate with those who are leading edge and futuristic.

Posted by John at March 21, 2005 1:40 PM

actually asking yourself the question is easy. answering is easy. But managing a Change /radical agent... is the challenge. Most officers and managers, just don't and can't fathom the process of the radicalization cycle.

Posted by /pd at March 21, 2005 2:22 PM

OK it was an Irishman (GB Shaw) who said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." which is where I think this is coming from...

Wasn't what happened with Enron unreasonable hypomaniac activity... So how do we differentiate between the Stalins of this world (pretty unresaonable and pretty nasty) and the Buddha's of this world (also fairly unreasonable but fairly nice - and also not a hypomaniac) i.e. how do we distinguish between creative destruction and just plain old destruction

Posted by dermot casey at March 21, 2005 2:52 PM

I would like to know how many people do really believe in this. I donÂ´t think there are many.

Posted by felix gerena at March 21, 2005 3:34 PM

In my personal experience, the whole recruiting system is designed to close the doors to all the outsiders, all those people who make it different. In my case, my CV has some peculiariaties few people have. When IÂ´ve had applied for a post, the recruiter always tries to find weak points (based on his experience, not on mine)and always, i repeat, ALWAYS, tries to avoid those special traits I have. The reverse process you are telling. It has happened to me several times that i finnaly canÂ´t help but getting angry because they seem to be stupid with their recruiting system. All they can tell you after all is that they follow a method and cannot get out of it. ItÂ´s very hard to face this reality time and again.

Posted by felix gerena at March 21, 2005 3:44 PM

(slightly off-topic) Felix: avoid corporate recruiters and HR specialists at all costs! They're just a filter.

Use your "special traits" to get your CV seen by the person who actually has the power to make the hiring decision. Chances are, that person has no idea all the great candidates the HR dept/recruiter is rejecting.

From personal experience as a manager, I've found that HR specialists are usually ill-informed as to what managers are actually looking for in employees.

Posted by Danny at March 21, 2005 4:02 PM

Sure, Danny. ThatÂ´s what I try to do.

Posted by felix gerena at March 21, 2005 4:43 PM

felix: Just a clue point. Have you thought of creating a 15 minute VideoResume of yourself and then burn mulitple copies onto CD and post to prospective Employees/ CEO's ?? you know resume in email and paper dont really cut it.

Ok back to the topic !

Dermot : Yes, thats the quote- Now I remember, thanks for the GB Shaw tip.

"only in growth, reform and change, paradoxically enough, is true security to be found" = Anne Morrow Lindbergh

Posted by /pd at March 21, 2005 5:15 PM

Thanks Peter for your ideas. I will try but I donÂ´t really think it depends on the format. I remember great projects I tried to develop in the past and with a very cool design and none of them worked.

Now with the Blog is much easier but still they see it as an iddle activity. Something you do in your leisure time apart from work. And they never tell you: Wow, i see youÂ´ve been working hard on marketing or psychology. No, they just see it as something unusual, an excentricity.
ItÂ´s like saying, iÂ´m not able to do what you are doing but i donÂ´t care. I have felt like that many times.

Posted by felix gerena at March 21, 2005 6:16 PM

I too find recruiters to be filters. My problem as well is that most managers are filters as well because they are often searching more of... themselves. Looking for something different means being ready to make mistakes. Something that most managers do not want to do. Plus other than authors (like Tom) and /pd, very few people want real change. So I, without economic power, continue to fight the system as best I can, one little step at a time. Be an Army of one!!

Posted by Steve Robert at March 21, 2005 9:57 PM

you can't hunt for hypo maniacs... a true hypomaniac has already created significant value or is in the process of doing so in his OWN organization... people that think they have what it takes... well...this concept validates them.. in turn they try and get a job with increased vigor... based on this are just plain nuts... a true "Hypomaniac" (dumb term)doesnt seek a job but creates it... STAY AWAY FRUIT CAKE!!! ... Peters wants orgs to hire all the nut jobs that can't complete a single coherent thought let alone create a re-imagined enterprise.

This is what a hypo maniac does to succeed:
he recognizes... RE-IMAGINES! the opportunity/enterprise... He then recruits all the sane people that have done it before to build his vision/raise capital to build his vision.... then he gets kicked out by the board after he has hopefully made his fuck you money....

Notice i don't mention women here.... Tom is right about women..they are great ants for hypomaniacs BUT they are not hard wired to create great enterprise... recognize it chicks!!!

Posted by McMaster at March 21, 2005 10:25 PM

McMaster: I posted this on the "Nuts" thread, in response to your comment there as well...you say that Tom is right when he says "[women] are not hard wired to create great enterprise... recognize it chicks!!!" I've read a lot of Tom's stuff, but missed that one. And I'm not tracking on how women are "great ants" to hypomaniacs...do you mean "great aunts?" Or that they they are really small and industrious? Or...? I want to understand your point. Thanks.

Posted by Jennifer Warwick at March 22, 2005 2:41 PM

warwick: this is not toms quote... it is my belief.. well actually a reality.... women dont innovate or evolve.. they foster the change and act as muse and mother... NOTHING MORE!!!!

Posted by McMaster at March 22, 2005 11:16 PM

pfizer canada viagra

Why does every new bright and shiny idea that crosses Tom Peter's field of vision become the "most important?" A while back, it was blogging. If you weren't a blogger you were doomed. Then it was boomers and women. Last week it was the book about never eating alone. Now it's this. Geez, no attention span. If you make everything the most important, nothing stands out as truly important. (And if you put an exclamation point at the end of everything, then after all nothing is emphasized.)

Posted by Mike at March 23, 2005 10:53 AM