News: IMPORTANT UPDATE REGARDING SITE IN FORUM ANNOUNCEMENT FOLDER.

  • May 25, 2018, 02:07:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 4292091 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Outdoor Girl

  • Member
  • Posts: 16770
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5550 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: 1251
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5551 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: 635
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5552 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: 14036
  • It's too darned hot! (song from Kiss Me, Kate)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5553 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: 1251
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5554 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: 2187
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5555 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: 1785
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5556 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

katiescarlett

  • Member
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5557 on: April 24, 2014, 11:43:50 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!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

Yvaine

  • Member
  • Posts: 10051
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5558 on: April 24, 2014, 12:08:03 PM »
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!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

This is just one of those legends that's been attached to lots of different businesspeople over the decades:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/salted.asp

There is an etiquette rule about it, technically (and we had a heated thread about it a few years ago), but I don't think anyone is actually using it in their interviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if someone heard the legend and copied it, thus making it true. ;)

2littlemonkeys

  • Member
  • Posts: 2888
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5559 on: April 24, 2014, 01:24:27 PM »
I don't know if this will go down as PD but this person is certainly showing their backside and people are not impressed.

I work for someone who is very difficult. 

Travel arrangements are never good enough (the hotels we are supposed to use are inferior and he always has to book a suite of rooms he found through a friend or something and it's just a general pain in the patootie to get everything arranged.  But management approves it so I have to.)

Expense reports are littered with inaccuracies and non-expensable items and when you flag them, he'll argue to the death about why he needs to expense those items.  I usually refer him to our finance department and they will back me up but generally leave me to police his reports.  It's exhausting. 

His favorite trick is to take his girlfriend on business trips and pretends she wasn't there yet tries to expense all of her incidentals.  Then he acts shocked and outraged when I call him on it.  Sorry.  It just looks weird when he constantly expenses $$ meals for 2 when he's the only one listed on the receipt.  But it was the drug store receipt for tampons that gave him away.  We can't expense that stuff anyway.  I digress.

Due to increased workload, someone else did his expenses for me a couple of days ago.  And boy howdy was he up to tricks.  My coworker did not just fall off the turnip truck and called him on every bit of it.  When he tried to argue with her, she went right to his boss to make sure that account would pay for these bogus expenses before she turned it into the head of finance to approve.  (She has a long working relationship with boss so she could get away with this and it didn't look like tattling.)

Boss is not a happy man.  And Pain just found himself under a microscope.


Amara

  • Member
  • Posts: 2134
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5560 on: April 24, 2014, 02:52:50 PM »
Wow, what a dunce. I've got one brewing here that's different but a huge eye roller.

We have a union. This woman's job is a union one. However, she is taking so much advantage of her front office mate who meekly accepts her actions that others are taking major notice and are not happy. I printed out an email from one of our regular (and best) temps about some of her tricks, most of which seem to revolve around being at her job and doing work about two hours out of every eight. A little while ago she showed up here at this office with nothing as far as I know. This was about an hour after her shift starts. Two of our best temps are in rebellion; they are refusing to work with her. My director, and her supervisor as well, told me this morning that things are being handled but I don't yet have details.

I am only waiting for my director get back from lunch before I go in with her again. Whatever is going on in this woman's head is serious PD. I can't believe she's going to throw away a decent position with the most fabulous benefits ever ... on very childish behaviors. I swear my eyeballs are going to reach New York in the not too distant future with the amount of rolling they are doing.

greencat

  • Member
  • Posts: 3899
  • Trap...Neuter...What was that third thing again?
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5561 on: April 24, 2014, 04:33:22 PM »
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!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

This is just one of those legends that's been attached to lots of different businesspeople over the decades:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/salted.asp

There is an etiquette rule about it, technically (and we had a heated thread about it a few years ago), but I don't think anyone is actually using it in their interviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if someone heard the legend and copied it, thus making it true. ;)

I believe it's rude to salt or pepper food at a dinner party before tasting it, as then you are insulting the host by implying that the food is unseasoned, rather than simply not seasoned to your personal taste.  In a restaurant, unless you've eaten there before, it is simply unwise.

Snooks

  • Member
  • Posts: 2563
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5562 on: April 24, 2014, 04:42:55 PM »
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.

Maybe they were both looking for some tips...

EMuir

  • Member
  • Posts: 1430
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5563 on: April 24, 2014, 04:43:55 PM »
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!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

This is just one of those legends that's been attached to lots of different businesspeople over the decades:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/salted.asp

There is an etiquette rule about it, technically (and we had a heated thread about it a few years ago), but I don't think anyone is actually using it in their interviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if someone heard the legend and copied it, thus making it true. ;)

There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert was arguing with him about whether you should salt your food before you taste it.  Dogbert's argument was that if the food wasn't salty enough, then he would have had one less bite of perfect food if he didn't salt it first. :P

Mediancat

  • Shibboleth of Shadowland
  • Member
  • Posts: 136
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5564 on: April 25, 2014, 07:37:08 AM »
Naah, that seems silly. If someone serves me a baked potato, or plain peas, I'm always going to pepper them, no matter how good the chef is. Now, if it's mixed vegetables in a marinade, of course I'll try a bite first, but a plain baked potato is a plain baked potato.

And if someone judges me, in a business or personal setting, for putting pepper on my potato, then that's on them, honestly.

Rob
"In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by someone who 'thought they were doing the right thing'." -- Lucy, Peanuts