How to get people skills (Wall Street personality)?

[WushiX]

I feel like this is the main obstacle standing in my way from getting a job on wall street. I'm a junior math major at a non-target, but one of the bulge-bracket firms is interviewing on my campus for a quant trading and analysis summer internship and looking for math majors. I don't have any finance background or relevant work experience but I'm taking a mathematical finance course (stochastic calc, black scholes, etc and we're working through Bjork's "Arbitrage Theory in Continuous Time") right now and I had a 4.0 last year. My point is that there's a decent chance I'll land an interview. The problem is, I feel that I don't have the people skills and highly extroverted nature to be deemed as the best fit for the company. It's not that I can't talk to people, it's that it doesn't come naturally to me and I'm not better at it than most people. This internship is extremely competitive, so being average isn't sufficient. Also, personality-wise I'm very laid-back, which isn't what wall-street recruiters want.

Most people reading this are probably thinking "well do something else then because you don't belong on wall street". You're probably right, but I'm not going to give up that easily. Does anybody have any advice for developing that wall-street personality? I can learn all the brainteasers in the world, improve my quant skills, and strengthen my knowledge of finance, but it doesn't mean jack shit if they don't deem me as a good fit for the company.

For the record: I'm not like a complete loner or anything. I have friends and party on weekends. I'm just naturally laid-back and introverted.

Oh and how important is "fit" to full-time quant positions at bulge-brackets? For the past couple of months I've been dead set on becoming a quant, but now I'm starting to question whether or not I've got what it takes. I had always assumed that quant positions are the type of positions where if you're smart enough, then you'll get hired even if you can't give an eloquent answer to behaviorial questions like "tell me about a time when you demonstrated leadership skills". Now I'm not so sure.

(my life would be so much easier if I had been born an extrovert)

 

[bigbadwolf]

I'm not sure this is a serious post. People involved in math and computer programming tend to be loners, mavericks, introverts. If HR people expect you as a quant to be an extrovert, something is wrong. The ability to work in a team is something else, however. And evidence or arguments for this they may ask you to demonstrate. "People skills" are ill-defined and over-rated, and ofttimes claimed by people who don't have much else by way of skills to sell. Come to think of it, even top-notch salesmen can be introverted: the fact that they're skilled communicators and persuaders doesn't necessarily indicate they're extroverted or socialise for the sake of socialising.

 

[atreides]

What exactly do you mean by extrovert? Do you mean having a "frat boy" type personality or the ability "to work " a room full of people or not been afraid to talk to strangers?

I was in your shoes a few years ago, and short stint in consulting did wonders for me.

My point is that there's a decent chance I'll land an interview. The problem is, I feel that I don't have the people skills and highly extroverted nature to be deemed as the best fit for the company

This can be very subjective depending on who interviews you. Being able to communicate your ideas across clearly would probably serve you well.

my life would be so much easier if I had been born an extrovert)

As far as I know, I don't think anyone is born an extrovert...your life experiences make you who you are.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

How to Win Friends Influence - Dale Carnegie


Problem solved.


Try and work on being friendly. It will greatly improve your quality of life.

 

[WushiX]

Ok I take back what I said about being extroverted. What I really meant was the ability to communicate well and be nuanced in the social norms. Nobody I know who's worked on wall street is socially awkward. I'm kinda socially awkward. Maybe I should take a public speaking class...

I'll check out that book. Thanks.

 

[Ken Abbott]

Communication is everything. If you can't communicate clearly, you're just a quant commodity, just like the hundreds of other quants graduating from BS, MS, and MQF programs. Quants that succeed can express themselves clearly to their managers, who often have fewer quantitative skills than they do.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Ok I take back what I said about being extroverted. What I really meant was the ability to communicate well and be nuanced in the social norms. Nobody I know who's worked on wall street is socially awkward. I'm kinda socially awkward. Maybe I should take a public speaking class...

I'll check out that book. Thanks.

Some Indian co-workers of my wife have joined an organisation called "Toastmasters":

www.toastmasters.org

Maybe something like this will work for you. I have doubts about it. As I see it, the speakers have nothing to say and just encourage one another by wildly applauding at every banal uttering. This is not communication.

As I see it, you first have to have something to say -- some idea, some point of view. Then the problem arises of appropriate verbal garb, of effective presentation. The effectiveness is partly a function of enthusiasm and commitment, partly a function of how clear your ideas and opinions are in your own mind, and partly a function of developed skill with words -- both in speaking and in writing. The latter takes experience coupled with broad reading.

If I had to suggest something, perhaps consider subscribing to something like the New York Review of Books, or the London Review of Books. From publications like this you will (gradually) acquire sophistication with words, with the communication of complex ideas and perspectives. Don't just read them -- sit with a dictionary, and once you've read them, try to write summaries of your own, paraphrasing what you've read. This is work.

I've read Carnegie's book. Some people have a low opinion of it. I'm one of them. The book could as well be titled, "How to Suck up to People and Thus Hope to Get Something Out of Them." It's an exercise in cynicism, in using people. Strangely enough, Carnegie didn't have many friends of his own. Or perhaps it's not so strange. The fakeness can be spotted a mile away -- like the smile on the face of a used-car salesman. The book was written at a time when the US was becoming an urban nation, and strangers were having to deal with one another in towns and cities, often with ulterior motives. Consider it a sales manual.

If, however, you are looking for a sales manual, I might suggest the out-of-print How to Win Customers, by Heinz Goldman. This is to-the-point and doesn't engage in the cant of "making friends." This YouTube video might also be useful.

 

[Stuart Truax]

I've read Carnegie's book. Some people have a low opinion of it. I'm one of them. The book could as well be titled, "How to Suck up to People and Thus Hope to Get Something Out of Them." It's an exercise in cynicism, in using people. Strangely enough, Carnegie didn't have many friends of his own. Or perhaps it's not so strange. The fakeness can be spotted a mile away -- like the smile on the face of a used-car salesman. The book was written at a time when the US was becoming an urban nation, and strangers were having to deal with one another in towns and cities, often with ulterior motives. Consider it a sales manual.

I mostly agree with your evaluation of Carnegie. For naturally intelligent people, Carnegie's recommendations appear cynical. However, that is because naturally intelligent people have a difficult time "getting into the groove" of social interaction, because they perceive it as diluting their intelligence. One could eventually hypnotize oneself into a "Carnegie mode", but most people wouldn't bother. Generalized theories such as his are good for selling books.

Carnegie does have some good points, however. E.g. that one should smile as much as possible. This goes into the greater issue of body language. I have found body language to be the most powerful tool in building rapport with people. Supposedly 85% of interpersonal communication is non-verbal (I don't know how the psychologists derive this number, hooray for pseudoscience).

Being a good communicator is like being good at a musical instrument. There is an underlying grammar to it, and the same neural pathways are involved. Practice is a key element. "Introverts" can become good communicators with the proper practice. Start random conversations. Watch how people move (independently or in response to yourself). Read monologues aloud. Record yourself.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

"Good communicator" is the operating word here. Each one of us here would benefit from being a better communicator. It's an acquired skill.
The definition of a "good fit" would depend on the people interviewing you, and in this case HR people.
I was once working on a trading desk sandwiched between two other desks. One is a bond trading desk populated with mostly MBA guys. The second desk is option arbitrage desk with 3 quiet geek guys. The people on the first desk make jokes all days. It's like being in an episode of "Friends". In fact, one of the guy there was nicknamed Ross because he talks and looks like Ross.

And the people on the second desk rarely open their mouths.

My example is to say that you can't stereotype the personality of a "quant" or "trader" position. First and foremost, you have to work well with your co-workers and be able to communicate. Being social is always a plus because you will have to sit next to them 10+ hours a day under stress. Being hard to talk to or get along is never a good thing in any industry, more so this one.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I have found body language to be the most powerful tool in building rapport with people. Supposedly 85% of interpersonal communication is non-verbal (I don't know how the psychologists derive this number, hooray for pseudoscience).

It is an apt point. Body language -- including non-verbal signals -- is almost a science. But the meaning of the language varies from culture to culture. Not understanding the meaning is one of the big hurdles for those who jump across cultures. The complex system of non-verbal signals that works in Japan has no meaning in the USA, for example. The body distance that is maintained in the Middle East might not work elsewhere. Coming back to language, even if one understands the words, one may not understand their significance in a particular culture. An American hearing something praised while in England may understand it literally and not know it is really "damning with faint praise." In England if I'm asked how things are going I might reply, "Oh, can't complain," or "Fair to middling."; in the USA it's more usual to reply, "Great!". The point, I suppose, is there are no universal rules to being a "great communicator" -- it's all very specific to particular cultures.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

And don't forget, in some culture, people will nod their head to mean "no" and shake their head from side to side to mean "yes".
(Bulgaria and Sri Lanka). I've seen it in person and was prepared so I wasn't surprised.
Why do we nod our head to say yes and shake our head side to side to say NO? - Yahoo! UK Ireland Answers

 

[Stuart Truax]

It is an apt point. Body language -- including non-verbal signals -- is almost a science. But the meaning of the language varies from culture to culture. Not understanding the meaning is one of the big hurdles for those who jump across cultures. The complex system of non-verbal signals that works in Japan has no meaning in the USA, for example. The body distance that is maintained in the Middle East might not work elsewhere. Coming back to language, even if one understands the words, one may not understand their significance in a particular culture. An American hearing something praised while in England may understand it literally and not know it is really "damning with faint praise." In England if I'm asked how things are going I might reply, "Oh, can't complain," or "Fair to middling."; in the USA it's more usual to reply, "Great!". The point, I suppose, is there are no universal rules to being a "great communicator" -- it's all very specific to particular cultures.

Point taken. That's why people who have had the opportunity to be raised or educated in several different cultures have a great asset. Once cultural norms have been hardwired into you (~age 10), it becomes difficult to cross those boundaries. But hey, I still try.

 

[shobhitthapar]

And don't forget, in some culture, people will nod their head to mean "no" and shake their head from side to side to mean "yes".
(Bulgaria and Sri Lanka). I've seen it in person and was prepared so I wasn't surprised.
Why do we nod our head to say yes and shake our head side to side to say NO? - Yahoo! UK Ireland Answers

Or much like the Indian bobble head which is a sign of agreement.....

 

[Daniel Duffy]

"Good communicator" is the operating word here. Each one of us here would benefit from being a better communicator. It's an acquired skill.
The definition of a "good fit" would depend on the people interviewing you, and in this case HR people.
I was once working on a trading desk sandwiched between two other desks. One is a bond trading desk populated with mostly MBA guys. The second desk is option arbitrage desk with 3 quiet geek guys. The people on the first desk make jokes all days. It's like being in an episode of "Friends". In fact, one of the guy there was nicknamed Ross because he talks and looks like Ross.

And the people on the second desk rarely open their mouths.

My example is to say that you can't stereotype the personality of a "quant" or "trader" position. First and foremost, you have to work well with your co-workers and be able to communicate. Being social is always a plus because you will have to sit next to them 10+ hours a day under stress. Being hard to talk to or get along is never a good thing in any industry, more so this one.

Which group was more productive? The guys who babbled all day or the quiet ones?

Maybe 'Ross' is in the wrong business. he should be in 'Friends'.

Of course, it depends on what the goals are

 

[DominiConnor]

The first goal is to be a good version of yourself, not a crap imitation of someone else. In practical terms it means identifying what sort of person you want to be at a detailed level.

I get to talk with very successful people in mutliple domains, though of course centred around finance and technology. The single most common characteristic amongst the people who've "done well" is that they are polite, nearly all the time to nearly everyone.

Amongst the most successful this is a more common characteristic than being smart, a white male, or having been educated at the 'right' place, or any other attribute I can spot, except maybe being lucky.

The joy of that being you can make yourself more polite a lot more easily than getting smarter or changing your skin colour. That starts with 'please', 'thankyou', active listening showing that you find others positions worth your attention et al.

You need to develop this to a point where you can go up to strangers and talk to them, without feeling that you are pissing them off.

If I were running a finance course, I'd adopt some charity and get my students to stand on street corners trying to get people to give you money.
In most martial arts there is a part of your training where people run at you, and you must strike them down one after another, to help make your moves more reflexive.

Rattling a collecting tin is the people skills equivalent of that.
You get quick and objective feedback on how your approaches work, you learn to spot people who can be approached, and if you are smart you will learn something that I learned which is that my prejudices about who would give my charity money by looking at them were pretty crap.

 

[goldski]

You want wall street personality? Goto a bar and see how many numbers you can get. If you fail, learn from your mistakes and try again. When you can effectively get a number 51% of the time, you have attained Wall Street Personality.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Many quant programs do realize that communication skill is critical for their students, many of them are coming directly from oversea.
Some have built it into their curriculum, some have workshop, mock interviews. Some just don't do anything.
I know CMU incoming students take Presentation course in their first mini-term where they have to stand up and make presentation in front of the class.

 

[latency]

and more importantly, being able to simplify complex concepts and explain them in a manner which can be understood by all. traders hate quants for this reason...

Many quant programs do realize that communication skill is critical for their students, many of them are coming directly from oversea.
Some have built it into their curriculum, some have workshop, mock interviews. Some just don't do anything.
I know CMU incoming students take Presentation course in their first mini-term where they have to stand up and make presentation in front of the class.

 

[DominiConnor]

Exams are a Victorian invention (as I recall Trinity College, Cambridge).

Before that you had to convince the masters by a mix of presentation and conversation that you had grasped the subject. We still see echoes of this in the PhD process.

Something was lost when we moved to the industrial, objectified model. In conversation one quickly builds up an idea of who 'gets it' in a subject, and the correlation with their paper exam results is not always as good as it should be.

So, although doing a presentation is useful, the better way would be to randomly pick some part of the syllabus and get them to explain what they think it means. The reason for that is because with any MFE level stuff you can look it up on the web or from textbooks. Parroting that is not the same as presentation skills. What you have instead often more resembles the actors in a SciFi movie, for whom the words are either technical ones the luvvies can't understand, or simply made up. Given a week, I could make an evangelical at a Bible school sound like a well educated person on pretty much any subject, just so long as you didn't ask him any questions.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Exams are a Victorian invention (as I recall Trinity College, Cambridge).

Before that you had to convince the masters by a mix of presentation and conversation that you had grasped the subject. We still see echoes of this in the PhD process.

Something was lost when we moved to the industrial, objectified model. In conversation one quickly builds up an idea of who 'gets it' in a subject, and the correlation with their paper exam results is not always as good as it should be.

So, although doing a presentation is useful, the better way would be to randomly pick some part of the syllabus and get them to explain what they think it means. The reason for that is because with any MFE level stuff you can look it up on the web or from textbooks. Parroting that is not the same as presentation skills. What you have instead often more resembles the actors in a SciFi movie, for whom the words are either technical ones the luvvies can't understand, or simply made up. Given a week, I could make an evangelical at a Bible school sound like a well educated person on pretty much any subject, just so long as you didn't ask him any questions.

Well-written and couldn't agree more but I've seen so-called instructors and professors who would fail this test, who don't have the foggiest understanding of what they're talking about, who dress up their ignorance in empty verbiage, and who respond to requests for clarification with more obscurantist and vacuous nonsense.

and more importantly, being able to simplify complex concepts and explain them in a manner which can be understood by all. traders hate quants for this reason...

I concur. Being able to translate technical ideas and results into layman's language, and hence being able to explain its significance as well as its limitations and caveats, is of crucial importance. Other key skills are being able to argue or defend a case, being able to understand an opposing line of thinking and coming up with objections and ripostes. And being able to summarise a piece of technical work, and to provide the perspective that lends it meaning. Some of these skills are taught to philosophy and law students, and to students on debating teams. Technical people tend not to have them. And foreigners simply don't have sufficient command of the language that's the sine qua non for these vital skills.