News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • December 14, 2017, 12:59:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 3774455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pierrotlunaire0

  • Member
  • Posts: 4578
  • I'm the cat's aunt!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5625 on: April 23, 2014, 04:05:04 PM »
^^^^^^^ I know!  That's the part that got me.  "And, could you fax over your fingerprints while I still have you on the phone?"
I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three cars across a sizeable desert.  Which makes me officially...Three Cars Crazy

Amara

  • Member
  • Posts: 2134
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5626 on: April 23, 2014, 04:31:00 PM »
Quote
It's also possible she was annoyed at something else and hadn't put on a "game face".

Probably the best piece of interview advice I ever got was to check everything you are going to check--shirt in place, hair good, etc.--out of sight of the building you are headed to. Not just in the parking lot but down a block, around the corner, anywhere you can't be seen by anyone from any window, in any location. Once you have done that, then drive into the lot, acting as if you can be seen by everyone from that moment on. Don't fuss with anything, don't look annoyed, don't do anything that is less than how you want to be seen by the interviewer.

artk2002

  • Member
  • Posts: 13835
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5627 on: April 23, 2014, 04:57:56 PM »
Quote
It's also possible she was annoyed at something else and hadn't put on a "game face".

Probably the best piece of interview advice I ever got was to check everything you are going to check--shirt in place, hair good, etc.--out of sight of the building you are headed to. Not just in the parking lot but down a block, around the corner, anywhere you can't be seen by anyone from any window, in any location. Once you have done that, then drive into the lot, acting as if you can be seen by everyone from that moment on. Don't fuss with anything, don't look annoyed, don't do anything that is less than how you want to be seen by the interviewer.

Right. The time to put on the "game face" is before you walk in the door. This candidate ignored potential colleagues walking by, plus the receptionist. It's not just enough to be "on" for the interviewer, but you have to be "on" for anyone you might meet. How would the candidate know that the colleague walking by wasn't the CEO?

I've mentioned this before: I do admissions tours for my sons' private school. We docents don't usually get involved in the admissions process beyond that, but there have been occasions where I've spoken to the admissions director about a family. Sometimes very positively but sometimes because the family was out-and-out rude (cell phone use, mostly or just extreme disinterest.) The families don't know whether we have any input or not, but it behooves them to be on their best behavior with us, not just with their interviewers. (As an aside, we do encourage them to ask candid questions, which we won't relate to the admissions office, and we're very clear about that.)
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

VorFemme

  • Member
  • Posts: 13820
  • It's too darned hot! (song from Kiss Me, Kate)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5628 on: April 23, 2014, 07:39:51 PM »
Yeah - you're not just "on stage" from the moment you walk into the interview room - you could be lucky enough to be "on stage" even before you walk into the building.

I've heard more than one story about someone cutting off another car in traffic only to find out that that was the person they were interviewing with...or being snippy to the person manning the reception desk only to have the owner stand up when the real receptionist came back from picking up something (or the bathroom). 

Saw this story the other day - http://notalwaysright.com/had-it-up-to-their-neck-with-bad-customers/36642 - I spent years in small West Texas towns with some similar interactions between families who'd been in the are for three generations...even though this one was in Norway...the bad customer stopped to run an errand on the way to a job interview & blew his chance by picking on the employee at the gas station where he stopped to get a new cylinder of gas (not sure what kind - around here it would be for an outdoor cooker or possibly a recreation vehicle with a gas stove in it).  But he had to be "right" instead of "polite" and it did NOT work out the way he'd expected...
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 08:59:38 PM by VorFemme »
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I explain?

hermanne

  • Member
  • Posts: 1419
  • Visualize whorled peas...
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5629 on: April 23, 2014, 08:48:12 PM »
^^ My favorite line from that story: "if you hire him I'm not giving you grandchildren!" ;D
Bad spellers of the world, UNTIE!




VorFemme

  • Member
  • Posts: 13820
  • It's too darned hot! (song from Kiss Me, Kate)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5630 on: April 23, 2014, 08:59:00 PM »
I had to terminate a man with 16 years with the company this morning due to an inappropriate relationship between him and a female employee he supervised.  Even worse, both employees are married.  It wasn't just the inappropriate relationship, he lied repeatedly when we started investigating.  She eventually admitted it, but even knowing that, he continued to lie and say there wasn't anything going on.  He finally admitted it when confronted with pages and pages of emails between them that left absolutely nothing to the imagination.  Emails that they sent on company computers on company time.  The female employee had told me that he thought he had a way to permantly delete the emails.  He was wrong.

Back in the late 90's, our church at the time was looking for new ministers. We needed both a senior and an associate pastor, since both had left. We hired a clergy couple who were looking for new opportunities. Why exactly they were looking became very clear about 5 years later.

In February of that year, the wife announced that she was accepting an associate pastorship at a church in Texas. We all wondered what the husband would do, and about a month later he announced that he was going to retire. They set their last work Sundays for that May. The church organized a huge banquet to thank them for their service, with many gifts and heartfelt displays of appreciation.

About 2 weeks after their last Sundays, my husband ran into a friend who went to a different church in our same denomination. As it turns out, this friend had just served on a trial board for the senior pastor, at which his preaching credentials were revoked. To use an old term, he was defrocked.

And just what ecclesiastical crime had he commited? Well, let's say that the church frowns on ministers marrying people and talking to them about being faithful and upholding wedding vows when you start an affair with a married member of your congregation. Then refuse to break it off, and just move on with your wife (who knows about your affairs) to a new church. Do this a few times and eventually you'll run into a husband of your new lover who won't just let it drop if you choose to move on to a new church.


Umm...defrocking should be the least of HIS worries.  His wife is a pastor, too?  And she's forgiving him when he's showing no remorse and no change of heart (or at least a change of behavior)?

Dad was a preacher - I do tend to hold clergy to a higher standard, as they need to be presenting a GOOD example to their flocks...not a bad example.

++++

Reading about the business clothing issues - I'm so glad that my first few jobs involved a uniform (fast food or a smock at a store) or even a choice of uniforms (military - depending on weather and activity of the day).  By the time I was doing a job where I was responsible for how I dressed (substitute teacher, insurance adjuster, or volunteer at a thrift shop) I had a handle on wearing "classic" clothing instead of trendy clothing (MIL was helping subsidize my wardrobe as a substitute teacher - as this was during the last "recession" in the 1980s - by giving me things that she "didn't like" or that "no longer fit" - they were pretty much classic skirts & tops or sweaters for cooler weather - kind of a "preppy" look).
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 09:01:09 PM by VorFemme »
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I explain?

WolfWay

  • They burnt down my house... They ate my tailor!
  • Member
  • Posts: 2799
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5631 on: April 24, 2014, 05:59:25 AM »
One manager has in a single 10 minute stretch:

Told me we need widget1 NOW NOW NOW! ASAP! I told him he could probably have it first thing tomorrow morning since I have a clear schedule to do it now, which would give it to him still a good week ahead of schedule. He then told me in response to that fast turn around option that actually the client doesn't need it for another two week and the client "isn't getting it a day sooner". Um, so why the insistence on the rush in the first place?

Then he finished his 10 minutes of indecision by throwing a curse-filled temper tantrum in front of senior person about a totally unrelated issue, that he caused himself by not listening to coworker telling him not to start the widget2 painting machine before they'd done a sample check to make sure the alignment was fine. Instead he started the entire production run, realised it was wrong and promptly threw the entire batch on the floor and accused the coworker and senior person of messing with him (I'm politely paraphrasing his actual words).

<head desk>

I'm not sure what's worse, his passive agression, his indecision or his temper.
<3

o_gal

  • Member
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5632 on: April 24, 2014, 06:39:32 AM »
Back in the late 90's, our church at the time was looking for new ministers. We needed both a senior and an associate pastor, since both had left. We hired a clergy couple who were looking for new opportunities. Why exactly they were looking became very clear about 5 years later.

In February of that year, the wife announced that she was accepting an associate pastorship at a church in Texas. We all wondered what the husband would do, and about a month later he announced that he was going to retire. They set their last work Sundays for that May. The church organized a huge banquet to thank them for their service, with many gifts and heartfelt displays of appreciation.

About 2 weeks after their last Sundays, my husband ran into a friend who went to a different church in our same denomination. As it turns out, this friend had just served on a trial board for the senior pastor, at which his preaching credentials were revoked. To use an old term, he was defrocked.

And just what ecclesiastical crime had he commited? Well, let's say that the church frowns on ministers marrying people and talking to them about being faithful and upholding wedding vows when you start an affair with a married member of your congregation. Then refuse to break it off, and just move on with your wife (who knows about your affairs) to a new church. Do this a few times and eventually you'll run into a husband of your new lover who won't just let it drop if you choose to move on to a new church.


Umm...defrocking should be the least of HIS worries.  His wife is a pastor, too?  And she's forgiving him when he's showing no remorse and no change of heart (or at least a change of behavior)?

Dad was a preacher - I do tend to hold clergy to a higher standard, as they need to be presenting a GOOD example to their flocks...not a bad example.

Yep, his wife was well aware of his multiple affairs, and for some reason unknown to anyone else, continued to stay married to him and serve as a pastor with him. What I've heard is that this last affair was the final straw, although it took a few years before she divorced him.

And in the "it's too bizarre to be something you just made up"  :o: Husband pastor's new lover was the woman who organized a 3 day conference featuring a nationally known speaker. The conference was focusing on marriage and how to strengthen it. Wife pastor oversaw a new program called "8 Great Dates to Improve Your Marriage" that went of for a number or years.

Outdoor Girl

  • Member
  • Posts: 16455
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5633 on: April 24, 2014, 07:53:16 AM »
Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.
After cleaning out my Dad's house, I have this advice:  If you haven't used it in a year, throw it out!!!!.
Ontario

bloo

  • Member
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5634 on: April 24, 2014, 09:10:43 AM »
Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

knitwicca

  • Member
  • Posts: 620
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5635 on: April 24, 2014, 09:35:24 AM »
Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

VorFemme

  • Member
  • Posts: 13820
  • It's too darned hot! (song from Kiss Me, Kate)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5636 on: April 24, 2014, 09:50:27 AM »
Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

And their table manners - if someone is going to be entertaining clients - can they handle the utensils and a conversation without a disaster...if there is a disaster, now do they handle THAT?  There are so many things that you can learn about someone in a restaurant!
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I explain?

bloo

  • Member
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5637 on: April 24, 2014, 09:52:00 AM »
Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

And their table manners - if someone is going to be entertaining clients - can they handle the utensils and a conversation without a disaster...if there is a disaster, now do they handle THAT?  There are so many things that you can learn about someone in a restaurant!

Off topic but true for the dating world as well!  ;D

Margo

  • Member
  • Posts: 2159
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5638 on: April 24, 2014, 10:00:34 AM »
Quote
Quote
In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

This part seems a bit off to me - I think that someone seasoning their food before tasting it would say to me that they a nervous about the job interview, not necessarily anything more. Or possibly that they have learned from experience that they like their food hotter / saltier than average so always need extra pepper or salt in restaurants! 

I'm sure that there are lot s of things one could pick up on in a restaurant setting which might not come over in a more conventional interview, but that particular one seems a bit of a stretch to me!


nutraxfornerves

  • Member
  • Posts: 1688
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5639 on: April 24, 2014, 10:20:03 AM »
We had an applicant complain about being interviewed too soon. She arrived early and the interviewee ahead of her was a no-show. The receptionist gave her a choice "would you like to interview now or would you prefer your original appointment?" She chose "now." I'm omitting details, but it was clear to the applicant that her declining to interview early would never be communicated to the people doing the hiring, so there was no pressure to be "cooperative."

Other applicants were better qualified and she was not chosen. Since this was a government job, she filed a formal complaint with the civil service commission, saying that employment counselors always suggest arriving early so you can take time to get yourself in the proper frame of mind before the interview. By interviewing her early, we didn't allow her to compose herself.

The complaint was denied.

Nutrax
The plural of anecdote is not data