There’s a well known saying when it comes to career success that it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

It’s true in both urban and rural areas. It’s true in any part of the United States. As far as I know, it’s the case throughout the world.

When I was in my 20s I didn’t think it was fair. It was part of my idealism. I thought it was wrong if the most qualified applicant didn’t get a job, if someone else was chosen because of personal connections.

I felt the merit system in the post office was the fairest way to go. If someone scores best on an exam or has the best high school or college grade point average it seemed to me like they deserved the opportunities.

As I’ve gotten older my opinion has modified. I still don’t think it’s right if a person who’s clearly not the most qualified gets a job, but there’s such a thing as a judgment call. If the applicants are comparable, connections and people skills often matter.

Sometimes an applicant who barely gets an interview can impress the interview committee enough to be hired.

References can prove to be important. Many organizations are reluctant to say much about someone. That could be sued for giving out a mediocre reference, by saying something like “he’s not a detail person” or “she only worked here for a year”.

They might also have problems if they give out a glowing recommendation that leads to hiring and it’s later discovered that the person had prior employment issues.

It’s very difficult to treat employees like family if an organization employs more than 10 people. Often there are competing self interests.

There can be feelings that a manager might pursue short term self interest over the needs of employees. Sometimes rank and file employees are blamed for making counterparts look incompetent. There’s a real lack of trust.

It might involve age difference, gender difference, cultural difference, or just a fact that there are individuals or factions who simply don’t like each other; who don’t like the other side because of personality or work habits.

For all of these reasons, employees have to make an effort to leave a good impression on supervisors and co-workers. They need to be liked and respected. They won’t last long in a job if they don’t have at least one of the two. Having only one puts someone at a long range disadvantage.

It often comes down to people skills. It helps to have an ability to get along with a wide range of people, to show respect for differences, and to try to help in creating a positive work environment.

I think it’s a mistake when a hiring committee, either just the boss or a carefully selected group of managers, values technical skill over people skills.

It seems to be happening more often in the 21st century. When I was scouting around for a career opportunity 20 years ago for when I completed graduate school, I saw plenty of help wanted advertisements that called for “excellent computer skills, good people skills”.

I wasn’t likely to apply for those. The wording flat out said that an applicant needed to learn technical concepts fast. It indicated that they’d probably get very little help if they didn’t catch on right away.

That approach is short sighted. It underestimates the value of communication and human relations.

Organizations are capable of teaching people technical parts of a job. They shouldn’t rely on educational institutions to do that.

People skills are something someone either has or doesn’t have. It’s very difficult to develop when there are obvious shortcomings. People who can basically do the job won’t last if they simply can’t relate well to others.

Even a job that doesn’t involve working with the public usually involves a need to network with a manager and co-workers. It should be a natural instinct. It pays off in the long run. Soon it gets to the point in a career where “who you know” can become an advantage rather than a drawback.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent