How Much Does Being "Likeable"/"Fun To Hang Out With" Matter for Getting Jobs?
Hi,
I was wondering if being a good BSer (and I mean, a really good BSer) or a fun person that can talk intelligently may be all you need sometimes to get internships. The reason I ask is because recently, I was talking to some family friends and discussed how I want to get into banking, but that internships are really hard to get. They then said that they know a couple of people who were very average (3.3 GPA from non-targets with generic ECs, etc.) but are working for good banks because they're very good talkers/very sociable and were smart enough to speak intelligently about finance, why they're interested, etc. I was wondering, since this is very anecdotal experience, if this is somewhat common or if this is a very rare situation. How much does just being fun to work with play into the grand scheme of things?
I wouldn't say it's rare. Social skills definitely play a huge role once you land the interviews, especially during final rounds where there may be a social component (ie going out for dinner, drinks etc). GPA only really matters for landing first round interviews, but after that it's more about selling yourself and being personable. Of course you cant be 100% BS (there has to be some substance and content) but it can help a lot.
I guess I should add that these guys got positions in another country, but still. I was kind of shocked.
If it didn't matter what's the point of an interview? It definitely matters a ton, an interview is basically to show how much you know your stuff and whether or not you would be a good fi
Not rare at all. I think once you get an interview, it doesn't matter your GPA as long as you can do 2 things:
A) Prove that you are likable and will be fun to hang out with at 2am while waiting to make another turn of a pitchbook; and
B) Prove that you have done your homework and know what you are getting into. Know the interview questions cold, both fit and technical.
Honestly, you aren't being hired as a finance guru. They know you know nothing. You just have to prove to them you will work hard and are fun to be with and work with. Definitely can be accomplished if you are a good BSer. I would be much more likely to hire a kid who seems like a hard worker that I could go and grab drinks with and a 3.2 GPA than a number crunching monkey with a 3.9 from Harvard that can't have a social conversation to save his life.
the best bs is proving you can work more then others with a smile on your face while trying to get up to speed(learn)
Likeability is key... Don't underestimate the importance of being able to work well with others... That being said don't think that you won't have to prove your technical competence
I can make people laugh and it has def helped my career
Being likable is not only VERY important for getting a job, but also for succeeding in your job/career and succeeding in life. Exceptions apply (i.e. the person who cures cancer or invents the next Facebook), but 99% of the time it does matter.
great point.. sb for you
Some kids with a 4.0 only have it because they are socially inept and nobody invites them anywhere, so they have all the free time and nothing else to do - the grades are earned by diligence, not necessarily the smarts.
Happened to me. I had a 3.3 when I was interviewing for full-time, no finance internships (just Big 4 audit the summer before), went to a non-target (at least in the fall of 2008, when I was interviewing, it was a non-target), and had a very small alumni base. I ended up at a middle market IB with a decent name at the time, and it clearly had NOTHING to do with my resume. I got four IB offers, none at BB shops (only got an interview at GS, as that was the only alum at a BB in banking), and at the firm I accepted from, I was competing against one kid for a single spot (only hiring one from FT recruiting). When I started, I saw this kid's resumes: 3.7 GPA from Columbia, interned at a comparable MM IB, and had solid finance experience before that. Why did I get the offer? Because I was relaxed and handled the interviews less like interviews and more like conversations, easy to speak with, showed a real interest in finance, and, contrary to what my GPA says, am absolutely brilliant. Just because one has a 3.3 GPA doesn't guarantee he is an idiot my friend. It all shows in an interview, and the job offer will be 95% based on the experience your interviewers have speaking with you and 5% based on miscellaneous factors (resume, connections, looks -- this may bump up to 10-20% if you're a hot chick).
Oh yeah, I'm definitely not saying that everyone that doesn't get a 4.0 is a dumb ass. I definitely don't have a 4.0, but I've had a lot of people tell me that I'm pretty smart despite my 3.5 from a non-target. Part of the reason I made this thread, admittedly, is because I have a lot of insecurities. I haven't been able to get spectacular ECs, and even though I try my best at school (I don't really party, etc.), I've only gotten a 3.5 in a BS major like finance from a non-target. That's why I'm wondering if maybe its time for me to just man up and enjoy life a bit more. Instead of stressing out all the time about not getting a 4.0 from Wharton, maybe its better for me to just relax a bit, continue to try my best even if it doesn't result in straight As, keep active about finance news/concepts and just try and be likeable so that people I interview with won't get turned off by my lack of confidence. That's why I wanted to see what you guys think about this.
Believe it or not, some people prefer learning and understanding new concepts thoroughly to getting shitfaced on the weekends. I guess you would consider me socially inept because I find most of the social activities at college fairly unappealing. I'm doing fine in the interview process so I guess I learned to fake "being social" pretty well.
Re: 3.3 vs 3.7, not that a 3.7 is much to brag about anyway, but unless the 3.7 was completely socially retarded and couldn't carry on a conversation, why would someone pick the 3.3? A 3.3 displays a serious lack of effort (unless you played a sport in college), so how can I be sure that you won't bring that same attitude to formatting pitch books?
Even for mind-numbing, mundane work like banking, give me a 3.9 from Harvard/MIT any day...
i don't know that you learned to fake being social, if your idea of socializing is only getting shitfaced on the weekends.
Moreover, a 4.0 in an easy major still doesn't make you the high achiever you claim to be. Sorry :(
I guess it's fortunate for me that most people running the interview process don't share your sentiments. No offense, but you sound pretty lame. Not because you don't drink -- I couldn't care less -- but because of your condescension towards those who are enjoying the years where being irresponsible is totally acceptable. Why not go nuts while you can? In a couple of years, a lot of things will change and you'll never have those years back.
I already explained why someone would pick a 3.3 over a 3.7, and it's pretty simple: you're working with a person, not a number. GPA is a single component of a candidate's application, and quite frankly, it's more of a screener than anything else. If you can get through the screen with a 3.3, however that may be, the 3.3 isn't going to be the reason you don't get an offer. You might have to field a question or two about it, but if you're prepared, you'll be fine.
I also had a story behind my 3.3, which no one would have heard if they were like you. 3.0 my first two years, and a 3.9 during my junior year to bump the GPA when I began interviewing. I'm not suggesting that's impressive, but I am suggesting that I "modified" my focus between the end of sophomore year and beginning of junior year. And yes, I did play a D1 sport.
Honestly, as far as GPA goes, it is what is is.
Getting a high GPA is usually some combination of: being decently intelligent, working hard, having an easy major, taking easy classes.
Conversely, having a low GPA probably implies at least one of these: had a hard major, took hard classes, didn't work hard, isn't very intelligent.
You just need ONE of those to have a mediocre (say 3.2-3.4) GPA. The first two really shouldn't bother an employer at all, while the last two are a bit concerning.
But even so, most college classes are useless anyway (in terms of helping you in your future career/life), so I don't typically judge people who slack off a bit. Better to get a 3.4 and actually spend some time on useful things than get a 3.9 by spending all your time reading Wittgenstein.
Really, the last one (not being intelligent) is the only one that I'd be concerned about, and interviews/puzzles are a better indicator of that way. Basically, GPA is a pretty crappy indicator that I wouldn't extrapolate too much from, as it doesn't tell you anything in particular...
SATs are a lot more useful, honestly.
i know a lot of people who were just busy in college to keep grades up... i dont care if your gpa is low... just show a reason why your time was thin
Yeah work/ECs are another reason, lump that in with hard major I forgot that one.
I am myself a 3.9 / 4 GPA and I believe this gives me no advantage whatsoever past the 1st round of interviews. I agree with that a good GPA is important to get your foot in the first door (i.e. first round) and after that, it's all about being likeable / able to prove that you're the right person and you've got what it takes to succeed.
I find that being able to adapt is pretty clutch. I know for my current position they had three people I wasn't scheduled to interview with (one of which actually walked in during my interview with two other people) come in and talk to me.
Being friendly, passionate and letting them know you want to learn is huge. I didn't get one question about my GPA once I sat down for the interview.
See, the whole behaving irresponsibly part never appealed to me either. I'm of the firm belief that irresponsible behavior of any kind is generally bad for society (or the community in which you're living). What you're implying by this statement is that you would behave as irresponsibly as you wanted if you were allowed to, that is, if there were no repercussions. Can someone explain how hiring people who yearn to behave irresponsibly (if only they could) is a good thing? (By the way, I don't intend this as a knock against you, it's just that you represent a type of person that I see a lot around here.)
And yeah...the sport thing is why I had my caveat.
I think it is a very case to case.... I finsihed school with a 2.6 and had some good reasons why my grades were so low.... does not look very resp but i tried a lot of shit in college at the cost of my grades... i feel others may be in same boat....i am in trader where you have more luck as banking may be more firm on grades
Isn't there something to be said for a balance? I worked hard during school but I partied my face off as well, probably would've killed myself if I hadn't. Now if partying isn't your thing, then it isn't your thing, but there has to be room for being able to throw on sweatpants and watch football or play Halo or something. Studying is important but I grew a lot as a person and met some bad ass people while having a few beers.
Jesus no offense but "I'm of the firm belief that irresponsible behavior of any kind is generally bad for society"?!?!
Seriously?!
A lot of people will impose responsibilities on you, doesn't mean that those responsibilities benefit anyone. Is the world really a better place if you slave away for a week to write exactly the kind of essay your teacher or course assistant wants to see, so you can get an A in that ancient novels class and keep the 3.9. A person who slacks off and writes a crappy essay is, in fact, being irresponsible, but he isn't hurting anyone. On the contrary, person B might have used the time he saved for better things - maybe learning more about finance or making some friends, ect. You have to look at the opportunity cost of all that time spent.
agree 100%
I would blow off class in college to network... my grades hurt but my network grew... of course I was not at local ML meeting FA's but meeting people in the career I was seeking. when resume drops came.. i sent right to the hiring manager since i met already... even with my lower gpa....
half full half empty.. depends on how you look at it
You are probably a firm believer in your "duty to society" and other things of that nature. Please, carry on :)
There's a lot to be said about stress management, and the "what would a responsible member of society do?" people tend to perform really badly in stressful situations, which for them is any situation that doesn't go according to a plan.
I work at a hedge fund so not in banking but i really dont care much about whether someone working for me is fun to hang out with. I am trying to make money and I already have my own friends so its not a big deal if I dont want to go to happy hour with someone I am hiring.
kind of agree...but I still sit next to them... i spend more time with women that trades next to me then my wife...
I agree, competence and ability to perform is what matters most. But give me a 3.2 EECS major with a 2350 SAT over a 3.9 polisci guy with a 2200 any day.
First of all, define behaving irresponsibly. To me behaving irresponsibly implies smoking pot, blowing some coke, and getting housed. I did it and have no problem admitting it, though I won't go into an interview and be like, "well, this one time me and my buddies blew an 8ball and then...". Generally people who do this type of "irresponsible" behavior are experimenting and living life. Personally, I'd much rather work with somebody who was into trying new things and had a lot of unique experiences, it's a lot more interesting that way. These are also things that don't detract from society as a whole, although if you're an idiot about doing these things you will probably find yourself in jail.
Now, if by behaving irresponsibly you mean going to bars and starting brawls, shooting black tar, or some other ridiculous shit like that, I agree that that's detrimental to society and that's probably not someone I want to work with.
So what you're saying is that if you use a drug that's stereotypically used by upper class white people, it's all fun and games and a plus.
If you use a drug stereotypically used by the poor and minorities, you're a detriment to society and not someone you want to work with?
Really, that's how you're gonna come at this? Blowing a line of coke is a lot different than sticking a heroin-filled needle in your arm. Who are we talking about here? Bankers. Do you know any bankers that shoot heroin? I don't, though I have no doubt there are some. Do you know any bankers that have/do blow coke? Several, and I have no doubt there are many more that have/do.
And I wouldn't necessarily view blowing coke as a plus, but I'd much rather work with a guy who smoked pot in college and can go out and have a couple of beers after work than someone who hasn't/wouldn't.
PS- coke isn't stereotypical "upper class white people", it's stereotypical of upper class people. Just like BTH and crack are stereotypical of the poor, but not just minorities. Way to be a racist twat while trying to call me out on being racist. Keep failing at being PC, it'll get you far in life.
if i have a 3.95 gpa do i round up to 4.0 ?
Social Skills are NOT Interview Skills (Originally Posted: 06/01/2010)
Q: I keep being told that good interview skills are equivalent to good social skills. Isn't preparation basically for people who cannot carry on a normal conversation? I mean, we are just giving a few soundbites and talking about ourselves, right?
Well, I guess that would be equivalent to convincing yourself that you don't need to study for finals, because you "know the material". If you ever talked yourself into this frame of mind, you know how well it turned out. Expect the same level of success if you do not adequately prepare for your interviews.
Interviews are not a normal form of interaction. They are one of the most uncomfortable, nerve-wracking experiences you will ever endure. When caught off-guard with a question one is not prepared to answer, a common response is panic and a spewing of blabber from one's mouth. No social skills or any other innate ability will help you after this, but the confidence of being well-prepared will save you.
Be aware that you have very little time during an interview to present your case for why you should get the job. You have to be ready to articulate your top selling point under all the possible scenarios your interviewer may throw at you. You have to practice answering many iterations of possible questions and be able to deliver your message in a fluid--but not over-rehearsed--way. Like everything else in life, you get better with practice. Interviewing is no different.
all n00bs, you'd better listen to this guy. he's dead on
Thanks!
I've been meaning to ask, why is noob (newbie, presumably?) written with two 0's instead of o's?
I agree with this to some extent, but do feel that those with better social skills in general will interview better and have more confidence as they make their pitch. From my experience, what matters when getting offers is not if you sound like you have a coherent, thirty-second response for over 175 combinations of fit/behavioral questions, but if you have a solid understanding of the role/company/industry/current events, and if you are someone that they want to work with for 10-12 hours a day. This is not saying you don't need to have well thought out answers ready for common questions, but after you've been through a handful of superdays, there isn't much you haven't been asked.
Another reason I don't completely agree with this is that guys with superior social skills can usually pick up women with much greater success rates than their more socially inept brothers. In my view, scoring some chick at a bar requires many of the same skills that you use to nail an interview, in what can sometimes be a much more awkward situation than an interview.
Overall, you can never go wrong with preparing for anything in life, and using the excuse that you have good social skills is just plain dumb. You don't see Phil skipping the driving range before a tournament because he knows he has a good swing. However, as you interview more, the style of preparation certainly changes. When I first started interviewing, I would practice my answers and even go to mock interviews. These days, I don't even look at behavioral/fit questions and focus more on getting a restful 8 hours of sleep and a nice breakfast.
Rooster,
Agreed! After a while, the superdays are your iterations of different questions. If someone does not have the "fortune" of constant interviewing, they had better replicate the practice themselves.
I agree with above poster. I will say this. Just because you can network and talk with people with ease does not give you a free pass for preparing for an interview. That being said, if you can prepare for the interview you will have a much better shot than someone who prepared his ass off, but with no personality.
Good point - an important corollary is that given two identically prepared people, the more 'likeable' one will be chosen.
However, it is very possible to prepare ahead to convey what (you imagine) an interviewer would like and want to see in a hire.
I agree to a very limited extent. I am very comfortable with public speaking and therefore if I am preparing for a presentation or something similar, I don't "rehearse" in quite the same way as someone who does not like presenting. I know my talking points but I don't talk to myself in the mirror and all of that BS. I know my stuff well enough to be able to answer unanticipated questions on the fly. Same goes for an interview. With the exception of technical questions, rehearsals come off...rehearsed.
Someone with your public speaking experience has a huge advantage. Just remember that interviewers are always thinking of creative ways to ask you something new -- and catch you completely off guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet_speak
It's just a way of expressing it in internet language.
i'd say it's an even mix of preparation and social skills, especially when interviewing for an experienced position.
for example - say you're making a lateral move to a different bank. it's equally important to (1) know the deals you've worked on inside out and (2) be able to comfortably speak about them in a non-rehearsed manner. in my experience, the quicker you can convince the interviewer that you are who your resume says you are (i.e. you aren't bs'ing), the smoother the interview will go.
Well said. It is very important to be able to defend everything on your resume.
A favorite question for some interviewers is to look for something like "proficient with Word, Excel, C, Java, Html, and C++" and then ask "tell me, why you are proficient with C++?"
"Uh, i used it once sophomore year... mostly do the others though..." won't cut it.
Excellent post Mr. Morris. Now then, would you like to take turns practicing interviewing skills with me? I can email you my contact information and resume if you like.
Ah, internet.
Seriously though, good post - I find that being "socially adept" is important not because an interview is like a casual conversation but because such a person will be able to remain more relaxed in such a situation. Many socially awkward people will essentially suffer brain hemorrhages their first few interviews and fail to present themselves fairly. But some "social" people think too highly of their skills and the first time a question shuts them down, the interview will plummet.
Great! You described them spot on.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen exactly those two kinds of people while interviewing.
These are both bad, but the second type suggests laziness and a lack of interest in my company (couldn't even prepare?)
Why this obsession with watching an interviewee come to tears? A competence test and casual conversation to test interest and likability are enough in my opinion. It's not like IB knowledge can't be attained on the job.
"Stress Testing", plain and simple. Read what IlliniProgrammer writes about preparing for something out of the ordinary on a trading floor.
It is the same idea.
Attention to detail is extremely important on the trade floor. But you need that same attention to detail in any situation.
Even as an intern you will be put in situations where your boss could be having a bad day and "fat fingered" or "eff'd something up". So he's freaking out, he "screams you fudging intern give me my position now". If your not calm and cool and have attention to detail you may follow his mistake with one of your own, then thats 2 mistakes now hes trading based on 2 mistakes. Now consider this situation happens every 10 minutes for 4months.
There is no such thing as casual converstation in that situation.
In addition, everyone makes mistakes. Even MDs, heck some MDs make more mistakes than anyone else. If you "fudged" something up and do not right away communicate, why you fudged up, what it changed, what needs to be done fix it in a timely and calm manner after you fully investigated. That is when your boss will starting throwing things at your head. Some people think hiding or pro-longing this process makes the heat come off them, that is idiotic.
Excellent post.
One thing I would add in is that one size doesn't fit all- even within finance- and there's a huge range of interviews you can find yourself in at an investment bank. I started off thinking I would be an analytics developer- and started practicing for technical interviews involving programming, math, and finance, but later realized I wanted to go into algorithmic trading. The nature of the interviews totally changed on me and I didn't have a chance to adapt fast enough back in college.
If I had to do everything over again as a college Junior or Senior, I would have taken advantage of every mock interview opportunity available- and not just in the area I wanted to work in. I thought I wanted to be a quant developer and geared up for technical interviews, but sometimes, you learn new things and change your mind about what you want to do.
IB might be less important in many situations- I can at least say that I never ran into one of those interviews for research, technology, and analytics. (In trading, being highly polished and socially astute carries less emphasis in many situations, so it is a two-way street.) On the trading floor, though, some crazy stuff goes down and they want to know how you will respond to stress. You don't have to be totally calm, cool, and collected- I didn't do that well (my hands shook a few times in the interview when I realized they thought they asked an easy question and it took me 45 seconds to boil it down to a simple answer for them.), but if you can get through the interview without giving up on a problem or too many awkward silences, you're probably doing ok.From the looks of it, the OP sounds like a pretty reputable source of advice. I can tell stories about running the pricing and analytics systems during the crash of 2008 and I'm supposedly pretty "experienced" for this forum. This guy can talk about being a risk manager during the crash of 1987 and the DJIA losing 23% of its value in a single day. Given everything he's survived, he might know a thing or two about careers.
Glad to be here. And good job doing the extra research.
Pruf and Walkio,
Got it- didn't realize there was such an extensive background. I appreciate the link.
I think good social skills are much harder to come by than good interviewing skills. Anything that you can prepare for is easy. Yes, you have to spend the time and understand the fundamentals while also showing your personality and fit, but all that you have control over. Good social skills such as effectively mingling, being able to strike up a conversation with anyone, getting people to be attracted to you, require much more on the spot thinking, adapting, manners, grace, etc...
Great topic!
It is also helpful if you can figure out the interviewer's personality in the first few minutes of conversation. Interviewers tend to like the people with similar personality type to themselves'.
Personality/Social Skills (Originally Posted: 06/25/2007)
Feel free to correct me, but the thing that I feel seems to be consistently overlooked on this board is the importance of personality/social aptitude. In addition to the grades/EC's/internships etc, aren't most banks looking for an individual with the "total package?" I am referring, of course, to someone who is not only smart, but adept at dealing with people.
I would love to hear some insight from those in the biz on this subject. How much of a role does this play in the interview process, as well as in determining how successful an individual will ultimately become?
Thanks in advance guys and gals.
No Blastoise, you're an utter failure and don't you dare to try and cover up that fact!
i feel like you can't get an interview without strong credentials, strong resume, etc. but once you are in the door, its majority personality and fit.
a sales/trading desk wont hire some tool that they dont want to sit next to for 12 hours a day. on the s&t desk, you spend a lot of time talking to clients, research guys, other members of the desk, and contacts at other firms, if you cant talk and build relationships, and be a cool person, you are fucked.
during my summer, there were a ton of kids with amazing gpas and credentials from great schools, but half of them didnt get offers becuase no one wanted to talk to them because they were losers.
tekno pretty much nails it right there.
In attending B-school, I was able to observe varying degrees of personalities and achievements. There were those that were very personable with no aspiration to become better and the there were those that were purely smarts and intellect. I do admire both sides for their own God gifted talent. However, I'd rather be in the middle. A person can get to tell his lifelong story more if he/she is more personable than someone who is completely smart and no social intelligence.
It is important to capture an audience to become a success in any environment and it is hard to capture an audience if you are an a-hole. No one will put up with your s***!
That was a great response. In addition, for the interview process, being able to tell a joke or good story helps a lot, cuz it makes you stand out from everyone else who is more formulaic. A tasteful joke can go a long way when the interviewer has had to sit there listening to the same "how i add value" BS all day.
Well as I was told: your academic etc.. need to be excellent for you to get the interview. Once you have the interview your academics don't really matter any more, only your social skills do.
how many people here have actually interned in s/t or IB?? i was actually told point blank in my s/t internship that personality did not play that much of a role in the decision to give FT offers b/c the bank knows that your personality changes (and can be changed to fit a mold) as you get out of college and enter the workforce. i got the impression intelligence is far more impt'nt on that account, especially if you seemed destined for a trading/research role. that said, i think having a good story (in the context of "personality") is key in the interview process, and maintaining good relationships with others helps one rise. personality is acquirable, and fitting a mold can be done, but "personality", if you mean drinking your ass off, talking a lot of shit, and acting aggressive without much substance, seems overrated compared to actual talent and ability.
You don't need to be a smooth-talking dealmaker on your first day. Just be nice to people, have a good attitude and try to fit in at the office.
my comments are based on a summer experience in s&t, and full time experience. also, since working full time and seeing the summer class come in, how hte managers rate and rank the kids.
its very plain and simple, anyone on this board who works full time in s&t will tell you point blank, they do not want to hire or sit and work with some kid who has no personality, interpersonal skills, etc.
people can only change so much
del
once a bitch, always a bitch for 75 percent of people, though some can hide it more than others
Excellent responses so far. While grades and activites get you in the door, once you're in second round territory, it's down to personality and fit. The well-rounded kids get preference here, though we've hired our share of total toolboxes (both of the dorky and BSer varieties). Not saying you have to be winning popularity contests, but if you're a normal, well-adjusted person you'll be fine. Generally speaking, the more people like you and think you'd be cool to spend most of their waking hours working with you, the better shot you have at the job.
tekno --
personality is acquirable. intelligence is not. it seems a bank would rather hire a nerdy kid from MIT or CMU onto a trading desk and fit him to a mold than an idiot lacrosse or football player from wherever. since you mentioned it, to be honest, at the place i summered @, the kids that got cut were not the ones from top schools on the quant desks with no personality; they were the kids from places like Baruch or UToronto on equity sales (this may be obscured by the fact that MDs probably go to bat for kids from their alumni when they meet to go over FT offers, and there are fewer MDs from a place like Baruch, etc). That said, as someone going into trading and knowing many other guys going into it from my school one of the last things I or others I know would care about as a trader would be if the guy next to me was socially awkward. As long as he's nice to work with, and makes money for the desk, then personally id be cool with him.
"Just be nice to people, have a good attitude and try to fit in at the office."
based on my experience, i think this is it. don't be an asshole but don't be too meek either. ppl don't seem to get weeded out for being socially awkward or skipping out on the intern social events (i wouldn't recommend it tho), but i was told by an MD verbatim that personality doesn't play much of a role in the decision to give out FT offers at the top 3 s/t bank i was at. my understanding was that the bank is going to train/cultivate a person not only with product knowledge, but with other skills to perform the job. anyways, if what he said wasn't true, then there wouldn't have been that many assholes and douchebags that got offers in my summer class.
sounds like idkoop is a social retard
i think most of the students here who have never seen a trading floor have a perception of it being a environment (liar's poker-esque) that's over the top. liar's poker was written almost 20 years ago - it's dated because the trading floor has become much more numerate. the workers are more educated now, to the point that certain area seemed almost academic; research, some FI (credit/correlation), FX, rates. plus, there's a lot of indians and asians, who tended to be quieter and more mild-mannered. so the end result is there's a lot more variety. anyone who thinks the prop-trading personalities are like the cash equities personalities has never even stepped foot on a trading floor.
point is; based on what i've been told, and what i've experienced, im compelled to point out personality is overrated by most of the posters in this thread. so long as you're not an asshole or obsequious, you can fit into different roles with different personality types.
at no point did i imply that if you were a dumb jock with a affable personality you were a shoe in. thats not how it works...and i disagree with you whole heartedly on your statement "personality is aquireable. Intelligence is not." If you got a spot in a prestigous summer program, you are intelligent enough to be at that bank (unless you got the spot through extreme nepotism). They don't waste their time interviewing kids that they don't see as potential fits for the firm.
Personality is something that develops at a young age and develops through high school and college. If you were a socially awkard loser in high school and college, guess what, odds are you will be one in the real world too. thats not rocket science, its common sense.
So, if you are smart enough to be there, they mold you to learn the product that you sell or trade. each desk has a specific culture, attitude, and ambiance. If they feel you are a fit on that desk, then they compare you with other candidates and make a educated decision. From my experience, desks will not hire someone if they are not a fit with the desk. of course their are outliers, as with anything in life.
did you end up gettin an offer?
tekno, what desk are you on? Can you describe the cultures of different desks?
I second teknos comments, imho depending on the complexity of the product the culture and personalities on the desk shift with them. Ive found spot fx guys to be pretty hilarious and over the top, whereas guys who trade the illiquid exotic products tend to be quieter and a bit more low key. Then again, that has only been my experience
I doubt that once you past a certain minimum threshold of personality in IB that anyone cares how particularly personable you are when making a hiring decision. They are not hiring you to smooth-talk clients, but rather not embarass them and spend the rest of your time playing with spreadsheets and with powerpoint. You don't need to be a budding deal maven at the analyst level.
I like how all these threads always diverge into some other, usually personal, tangent.
To answer the OP - being likeable is VERY important. It won't completely substitute a terrific academical record (or an NCAA championship, for that matter), but when it complements any of the former, it's very useful.
Personality & Job Function (Originally Posted: 04/12/2017)
Recruiters can sniff out if your personality fits for a job function within a company. They know who fits for a Developer Associate role vs an Asset Manager role vs a CEO role. What are the different personality traits that fit into each of the commercial real estate job functions such as developer associate, acquisitions, broker, and etc? Do you all see characteristic differences between these roles and what are your observations? This might help others out there find a job function fit for themselves.
Yeah, so basically from what I've gleaned from this thread, because I'm NOT an academic superstar or something, its best to chill out a bit about grades (just do the best I can but not freak out about things too much) and work on social skills a bit more?
At some brokerage firms, you best be prepared to transport cocaine across state lines:
https://therealdeal.com/la/2017/04/10/newmark-slapped-with-sexual-haras…
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wow, that definitely paints a new picture on how brokers could be. Thanks for the share!
Being likeable helps, but it's not a game changer/deal breaker. I'm one of the most likeable people on the planet, and I'm still unemployed.
I've also observed that very unlikeable people only hire other very unlikeable people.
Personality or Smarts (Originally Posted: 06/28/2011)
Going to school in the fall, and just wondering: Is the environment in Investment Banking more geared toward the schmoozer, who can talk his way into a job, or the intelligent kid who may not be the smoothest speaker but is nonetheless intelligent.
I.E., are lax-bros who come from Ivies better off than the intelligent student from an Ivy? How dependent on personality/social skills is Investment Banking? Will intellect win out over a smooth-talker, or is sucking up to your boss/co-workers more important than how you actually do?
Analyst classes are comprised of both. What makes good analysts is not whether they are good at speaking or smart but rather having a high tolerance for bitch work. MDs however, are schmoozers.
It's like this in Canada getting in, (At the analyst level, from what i've seeen)
from 1) = to most likely candidate, to 5) = less likeliest but still hirable candidate
Top 1) 140 IQ+ = automatic IN 2) 120 IQ+, very very hard worker, good personality 3) 120 IQ, hard worker, amazing personality 4) 100 IQ, okay worker, amazing personality 5) 100 IQ, slack worker, best personality in the world
id rewrite your list to:
5) 3) 4) 2) 1)
Getting in is about getting through the interview.
and that is only about personality and making a good impression. Its very difficult to tell from an interview if someone is a hardworker or not.
Unless canada has a vastly different interview process o0.
You do not need to be smart to get into investment banking, the work does not require great intellect and neither does the selection process.
You can talk your way into PWM
Depends on what you want to do. There's a place for every personality type within finance.
The nerdiest people tend to be PM's at quant funds. The big schmoozers tend to be MDs in ibanking or PWM or fundraising for HF/PE.
Well who ends up with more money, the personalities or brains...looking like personalities?
In IB as an Analyst you have to have good finance skills and decent enough people skills to get through interviews and get along with your co-workers.
Once you have built your basic financial background, your promotion and deal making will depend probably 90% on your ability to navigate office politics and schmooze with your clients.
All bankers can run a DCF or throw together a pitch book. Clients hire bankers they like, trust and have strong relationships with.
http://i.imgur.com/IM6T1.png
I'd say raw intelligence is least important to be successful, but it is required to break in. The two skills/qualities necessary to be successful in the industry longterm, after breaking in, are the ability to grind out work and the ability to talk.
I got a 150+ IQ and sitll got no job. It's certainly not about IQ.
Must be the dyslexia. :)
I think if you went to an Ivy then you're automatically considered a "smart" person, considering you keep your gpa at the very least above 3.0. Most bankers I know seem to be smart, but seem to have great people skills.
Most people at Ivy's who plan to be in banking early on in college would more than likely make it. From internships to EC's, I think all these things factor in when breaking into the industry.
leveredarb: You are aware I am talking about the analyst level, correct? Also take notice, that I said a very smart person with an average personality, will always almost be taken over a decently smart person with an amazing personality. In TO and MTL, the teams are very tight, so banks are picky. I'm not sure how it is in U.S.A
Try getting Silver Lake based on your personality lol. Almost all Analysts there graduated summa cum laude.
I'm no expert, but from what I've observed it's sort of like 70% smarts, 30% personality. Being smart gives you a much greater advantage over the average guy who just has a great personality.
Seedy Underbelly - Totally agree. Being smart is more important than having a great personality but that equation flips at the VP level and up. Also, remember junior talent is execution focused. They arent looking for you to smooze with Clients.
So where do the smart people without personality go after their analyst stint?
^ The smart guys aren't exactly social retards lol.
Some boost their social skills during their analyst years, some don't. Not everyone's cut out to make it.
you guys dont seem to get it.
getting into IBD is solely a function of
1) getting an interview 2) passing that interview
1) is a function of hard work, a minimum intelligence, and personality. Very path dependent obviously, the smarter and more hard working, the better ugrad school, the less network(personality)
2) is almost solely a function of making a good impression(and thus personality). IB interviews require very little intellect. Remembering a DCF requires hardly any intelligence and the brain teasers used in IB interviews are a joke.
actual on the job performance then is primarily a function of being able to pull 100 hour weeks and be friendly whilst doing so. Being smart helps a bit, but beyond a certain point of a minimum intelligence, it does not help much at all.
Why do bankers always delude themselfs into thinking they must be particularly clever to get into and do banking?
Ill agree tough that bankers tend to be smart, as the undergrad institutions they are selected from, require a decent level of smarts to get into(or hard work).
Very helpful, thanks. Hopefully I have both lol
Leveredarb: I guess it depends on the size of the team then. Where are you working in investment banking? I've worked in Toronto and Montreal. Over here, there are only 20 positions open for a graduating class of 10,000 students.. they will take a 3.98 over a 3.97 because they CAN. lol.
Although, the work we do is not hard-per say, you need to be creative, smart, quick, and hard-working.. It's the nature of the beast, for teams sized 5-15 people.
this was my observations from the uk, altough it depends on culture as well there are some very very very nerdy teams. Altough not all nerds are smart. this maybe due to the fact that uk university grading is a bit of a joke, and incredibly inconsistent making comparison across subjects and universities guess work at best.
again I am not saying that analysts will be super personable uber charming people, just saying what would be needed to get through the interview.
i like how wikileaks is trying to create an impression of his superior intelligence by pre-qualifying that HE has worked in IB, and painting a picture of how hard it is to get into IB in Canada (because even a kid with a 3.97 can get dinged), but then writes "per se" as "per say". BTW if the industry is small enough to only require 20 spots, yet the graduating class is 10,000, chances are the industry is not glamorous enough to attract the top talent, and the majority of those graduates have their sights set elsewhere.
smarts > personality as an analyst, that said I think I have solid social skills and average analytical skills/ ability... sometimes I wonder how I am still here
Heh, I guess not, but it doesn't seem to have hurt me much. I didn't say I have a 4.0 or that my major was easy, just that I like understanding things thoroughly.
You know, this is actually very true. I like planning things out (to the point of obsession) and I work best when not under stress. I'm interested to know how you can extrapolate that from the "what would a responsible member of society do" trait. Pray tell.
SA: If you didn't get an offer, it means you are not likeable (Originally Posted: 08/16/2007)
Here is a thoery I heard today - what do you guys think?
Basically, people who make it into the SA program are all generally smart or competent at least. It's really hard to differentiate yourself, so really who gets the offer in the end really means, who is most likable. True or False?
Some personality traits are highly correlated.
True
TRUE.
I think this might be true
Partially true. You'd be surprised at how many otherwise very smart people turn out to be utterly incompetent.
Very true.
Especially for S&T where noone wants to sit next a tool a during market hours.
Nice logic. The one who gets the offer is the most likeable; therefore, the one who doens't get the offer is LESS likeable.
That doesn't mean that he is "not likeable period."
True
True
I only partially agree with this. Some people lose steam during their internships, or they can't cut it. They might be a great guy, but just can't handle the hours or isn't quick enough to keep up. Also, some internships are granted without any intention of ever granting the person an offer. A bank I interned at took a lot of guys who were kids of the CEO's friends, but none of them were ever given offers.
true
You just really need the following:
1) Resume that will get you in the door
2) Be able to handle all technical interview questions
3) Be able to make everybody like you/have great personality (this does not mean sit on them until they say they like you :-p)
Success Depends on Personality, Not IQ (Originally Posted: 02/20/2017)
According to an analysis conducted in a recent study, intellectual power may not be enough to achieve success in life. As the researchers note, the best driver of success in a person’s life seems to be their personality. Determined after the examination of “four different data sets, which, between them, included IQ scores, standardized test results, grades and personality assessments for thousands of people in the U.K., the U.S. and the Netherlands” the paper, which was highlighted in Bloomberg, concludes that:
andThese conclusions were determined after it was found that:
What do you monkeys think of this? Would you prefer to have coworkers who score high on an IQ test or would you rather work around those with a great personality? I think intelligence is important, of course, but only up to a point. Personally, I’d rather work with a great team that clicks rather than a bunch of mechanical human robots. I feel that the benefits of team and group cohesion far outweigh that of superior individual intelligence. Thoughts?
Definitely would rather look at IQ. It's the best predictor of income and a whole bunch of other things.
Placeat tempora tenetur maiores eaque commodi et. Ipsam rerum voluptatem quis ea libero velit atque. Hic neque est laudantium aut ea quos facere et. Est officiis minima blanditiis ullam fugit unde.
Qui temporibus numquam tenetur maiores amet. Itaque incidunt temporibus voluptatem at et. Dolorem eligendi veniam voluptas.
Doloribus beatae aut commodi dolorem. Dolor iusto ab magni explicabo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ab a voluptates in quo dolor. Ut consequatur quod excepturi et. Placeat distinctio asperiores reprehenderit sit distinctio enim illum cum. Nostrum eius minima sint reprehenderit dolorum corporis. Repellendus officiis amet a nihil dolor quis eaque. Laudantium consequuntur modi aperiam aut.
Dolor est et quisquam error odit dolor modi. At enim est sed nisi soluta adipisci dolor. Autem et sint sint et maiores repudiandae. Aut adipisci ut unde corporis. Ex nihil voluptatem quae nihil. Unde et amet ut sequi nulla dolorem aliquid. Libero non minima doloremque sunt.
Voluptate mollitia minima temporibus in et quae officia. Voluptatem in sit ullam mollitia ut. Quia fugit nemo sed perspiciatis. Maiores molestiae eveniet ratione quasi sit sed nobis. Veniam odit nihil et ut laudantium.
Voluptatibus dolores magni et totam explicabo. Nobis molestiae autem quidem ut maxime. Eum veniam qui ut distinctio consectetur consequatur dolores.
Explicabo id architecto nesciunt tempora ut non ut laboriosam. Minima tenetur error optio aliquid excepturi consequatur id suscipit. Voluptate ut voluptates fugiat maiores est. Suscipit expedita odit qui consequatur id deleniti.
Vel qui ipsum necessitatibus consequuntur. Similique quidem qui eligendi enim aut ipsa. Tenetur ipsam maxime quibusdam sed amet. Temporibus aspernatur ut voluptatibus sunt.
Et qui est dolorem deserunt commodi. Temporibus quidem et sit commodi blanditiis.
Esse quis et et quae eum qui blanditiis. Nisi exercitationem quos ut. Qui tempore non labore harum soluta minima. Officiis cumque sunt labore ut eligendi provident quidem sit. Voluptatem perferendis exercitationem et sunt.
Sit praesentium repellendus quia sit. Distinctio doloremque repellendus ipsum eum nesciunt repellat ut. Quo et et qui illum nobis sunt.
Molestiae id et iusto optio perspiciatis. Beatae repudiandae minima et voluptas debitis consequatur autem consequuntur.
Est nesciunt ut suscipit voluptatibus facere. Voluptatem quis harum eius inventore sit. Consequatur enim sint similique ea ut voluptatem.
Praesentium vitae fugiat illum soluta eos eum. Perspiciatis fugiat voluptas accusamus temporibus tenetur eius voluptas aut. Optio nemo illo animi sequi. Aut non et quidem odit est aperiam.
Rerum magnam cupiditate quasi magni. Ut quia sit nihil quos blanditiis similique. Consequatur nulla porro enim eveniet.
Possimus culpa error libero facilis quae. Vel nostrum explicabo dignissimos eum occaecati.
Quis et ipsa perspiciatis ut quo. Omnis modi veritatis repudiandae dolore necessitatibus non at.