From the ACES jobs list:



-- It also helps if you are breathing and have a working knowledge of how to floss, too. Yes, I have left parts of this ad out. I suppose you can never be too detailed, but still ...

How about this one? You need an editor? I'm shocked.

That one got me with the first line:Manage semiweekly and weekly print and electronic news related newspaper operations.

What exactly is a "news related" newspaper operation?

It's funny, but for all the space and air sucked by that job posting, the Statesman-Journal never bothers to mention that it's a Gannett operation.

The surgical removal of news to make way for a compelling design.

"Motivator-with lots of energy – happy individual."

So it's no longer enough just to have the professional qualifications; you have to have a certain personality type to get a job as well? Yikes. Who's determining whether the candidates are "happy individuals," and how, I wonder?

They tape electrodes to you, see which parts of your brain light up.

What I think they mean:

Hiring goes way beyond resumes. People with good personalities are easier to train, more likely to share what they know with co-workers and more likely to get results. For instance, if a copy editor can develop rapport with reporters and assignment editors, they are more likely to cooperate. And people who like their co-workers are more likely to stay at a job, which reduces hiring, relocation and training costs.

That's why we have job candidates talk with copy editors, reporters and assignment editors. That way, candidates ask whatever they want and we get different perspectives. We look for red flags, and so should a candidate. If it's not a good fit, then it's better for everyone to know upfront.

Recently, we made a job offer to someone inexperienced, based mostly on how trainable we think that person is. I know the person's work ethic and work experience, but the rest is a calculated risk. Because of the person's personality and energy, we offered a signing bonus and thousands more than we would typically pay for that experience level.

I don't think any of our hiring managers would ever say we're looking for "happy" people, but that must be a qualification in everyone's minds, because I look around the newsroom and see many happy people. That's not happenstance. And it makes for a very pleasant place to work.

What you say makes perfect sense, but I still have to wonder about putting something as subjective as "happy individual" in a job ad. A candidate's fit with the organizational culture is one of the things you screen for in an interview, but I don't know that I'd want someone self-selecting themselves out of even letting me know they're looking for a job because they don't think of themselves as a "happy" person. In fact, I read of a study fairly recently that showed that happy workers are actually not the most productive, presumably because time spent socializing is time not spent actually accomplishing anything. The upshot was that mild depression or introvertedness achieved the most results as long as the person wasn't actively disgruntled to the point that their complaining, etc., was interfering w/their productivity.

Funny, so job ads could say, "We're looking for job candidates with mild depression or introvertedness."

By the way, do you have a link to that study you read about? Along those lines, I found this interesting:

Click here.

It is an interesting link, but it strikes me as a fatally flawed premise (or perhaps it's just a no-shit study). The study assumes three types of worker: two negative types and one positive. And whaddya know, the positive type tends to be the more productive worker.

I've known my share of happy-go-lucky people-persons who are curses on the newsroom. They chat incessantly, encourage others to do so and they get little work done; though on the other hand, they tend to be lousy editors, so the less done the better.

I wish I could remember where I saw that "happy people make unproductive employees" study. I have a feeling it was probably a link I clicked from something else and not in a publication I was actively reading. Still, perhaps because I've never been the happy-go-lucky type myself, I tend to agree w/jjmoney that esp. in our line of work, happiness is probably not going to be your most helpful personality trait on the job. You want a copy editor whose attitude is "the mistakes are there and I'm going to find them," not "Oh, I'm sure the writer did his best and everything's fine."

I think you've got to separate personality and work ethic. All introverts aren't hard workers, any more than all extroverts are lazy, chattering bums. If someone is socializing too much and not producing enough, I tell the person directly. But I do the same with an introvert who spends time surfing the Internet instead of working. I've done both with copy editors I inherited.

Productivity is an easy thing to check when hiring. References don't typically hesitate to tell you such, because it's quantifiable. The people qualities are subjective, so people have a harder time expressing such or hold back.

It's not a matter of happiness being the best trait for any job; in any setting that involves more than one person doing a job, you need someone who knows how to get along with people. The hard thing about being a copy editor isn't finding something wrong. The hard part often is getting someone to acknowledge there is something wrong with his work and fixing it. In some cases, that means getting someone to hold or kill a story. No one wants to hear that. But people are more likely to take unpleasant news better from someone they have rapport with.

As far as good editors who are introverts: I would hire them in limited situations -- maybe if I really needed a workhorse who didn't aspire to slot. Even then, I'd rather have a good rimmer who shares knowledge. I typically look for people who are good copy editors and might want to do other jobs later. That way, I have people who can step up as slots, people who will end up in other jobs in the newsroom and will have copy editing in their backgrounds, so they will better cooperate with the copy desk.

At one paper, I inherited a top-notch slot. He was very nice, but introverted. He oversaw people for years, but they didn't improve under him because he would just redo their work as needed. (He was comfortable sending out endless notes about style, but he didn't have it in him to tell someone why his headlines didn't work and how to improve them.) When time came for layoffs, several of his copy editors ended up on the list. In the bigger scheme of things, he didn't serve the paper well, and he shortchanged everyone he managed. If it had been up to me, I would have never hired that slot. He would've been a great rimmer, at best.

At a previous midsized shop, we had a talented rimmer who had been a slot at one of the majors. We kept nudging him toward joining the slot rotation, but he had a very quiet personality and just wanted to read stories. One night, we had two people call in sick and needed him to slot. He did but said he would quit before he was asked to do it again.

On a previous desk, we had a conscientious rimmer who was a good headline writer and could explain the thinking that went into his headlines really well, but he would do it only when asked one on one. He could've taught greener or weaker editors a lot. With prodding, he eventually agreed to slot from time to time. He made progress, but it was slow going trying to get him to teach. In that situation, we made the best use of the people we had. But if I'm choosing between two job candidates for a slotting job -- an A-quality editor who is introverted versus a B+ who is extroverted -- I will hire the B+. Not that I wouldn't love to add an A-quality editor, but in the long run the other editor is more likely to add more to the desk by teaching, and a B+ can learn to be an A-quality editor as long as he's open to constructive criticism. (Slots can learn from rimmers and other slots.)

From my experience, I much prefer working for extroverts. You can learn a lot from looking at slotted type, especially early in your career. But having someone who gives you regular feedback makes a huge difference, especially when it comes to editing nuances and the thinking behind headlines. Also, a manager with good rapport with higher-ups can get more hires; more money for salaries, raises and training; and more recognition for copy editors' work. (Attaboys are nice, but we need good advocates to keep copy editors from being overworked or from being shortchanged if cuts happen.)

I've had introverted managers whom I'm still very friendly with. But I would not work for them again, no matter how nice they are. It doesn't pay. You can be a good worker and be overlooked or shortchanged because you have a manager who doesn't help develop your skills, who doesn't get you raises (the real kind, not cost-of-living) or who doesn't fight for you. I'm not saying you should go to work for someone who's a crappy editor but is good at schmoozing. But personality counts a lot. When job hunting, candidates should interview their prospective managers as well. Good managers teach, advocate and deflect when needed. On balance, give me an extrovert.

Great. Now I'm going to have "Shiny Happy People" running through my head all day ...

Nothing wrong with that. A much bigger problem is the talented rim editor who starts slotting long before he or she is ready.

That's why coaching is important. Otherwise, your paper is vulnerable when a good slot leaves, takes vacation or falls ill. Many experienced slots are leaving (buyouts, layoffs and general flight from the industry). Because money is tight, you can't count on hiring when people leave. If you've got a desk of many introverts, that limits your flexibility in training people who can be good coaches/slots. Even if your paper lets you fill a vacancy, it can take months to hire someone and get him moved. Meanwhile, you need people who can step up.