Five Tips for Dealing with Uncomfortable Office Talk

I would like to welcome Holly McCarthy as our first guest writer. The following article comes from her blog at www.careeroverview.com/blog. As you can tell, she writes interesting articles on careers and job searches and this article focuses on office culture.

By Holly McCarthy

One of the unwritten rules of social conduct is that you should never engage people in conversations related to the topics of politics or religion. Some people, however, fail to realize just why we don’t bring these topics up with others, especially in the workplace. These topics can be particularly divisive and can create many problems within an office culture.

Other uncomfortable topics of discussion have to do with finances and business ventures. Oftentimes a co-worker will attempt to engage you in a conversation related to his or her home business. None of these topics are appropriate for the workplace, end of story. What follows is a list of a few tips for dealing with uncomfortable office talk.

Avoid those trying to initiate the discussion.

If at all possible, avoid the people who are trying to discuss divisive issues such as politics or religion. Perhaps these people congregate in a certain part of the office or have lunch together. Do your best to avoid these people when they are discussing these matters, and maintain a professional demeanor around them, avoiding rudeness or confrontation.

Don’t get involved.

If you absolutely cannot avoid being around these people, make sure you don’t encourage their behavior. As the saying goes, silence is golden. After a while, they may begin to get the message loud and clear without you having said anything at all.

Politely excuse yourself.

Again, if you happen to find yourself in a situation where being in contact with these people is unavoidable and you are uncomfortable, politely excuse yourself. If someone wishes to confront you or questions why you are leaving, explain why in a neutral manner. Letting them know that you don’t think it’s appropriate, whether you agree or not, is the main reason for not engaging in the conversation.

Change the subject.

Maybe you really do like the people, but don’t like discussing these sorts of matters at work. Make a joke or try and change the subject. Doing this a few times will let them know that you certainly want to be part of a conversation with them, but on another, less controversial topic.

Notify a supervisor.

If you feel that the conversations are inappropriate and are beginning to feel alienated or harassed, it is time to let someone else know. Many offices and companies forbid discussions related to politics and religion, and trying to drum up business at work is certainly a conflict of interest.

Note from Dale. Again, I want to thank Holly for finding my blog and contacting me. If you would like info on my Workplace Attitudes Test and possibly avoid problems like those Holly discusses please visit www.workplaceattitudes.com

Are Jerks Disruptors or Are Disruptors Jerks?

This blog has talked about jerks in the workplace and I was discussing this with a friend the other day. He made a point that I found interesting. He said that jerks are everywhere and they earn their status in a variety of ways, but jerks in the workplace are simply disruptive.

In the search to be ever more precise in using language, it appears to me that the “jerk in the workplace” description should be replaced by the word “disruptor.” To put it simply, if an individual yells at his spouse, kicks his dog and flips the bird to various people on the way to work, that person is a jerk. But once at work, if that person does a good job and treats others with a modicum of respect, that person may be a jerk but he is not a disruptor.

The Workplace Attitudes Test does a great job at identifying disruptors because it focuses upon the workplace. All the questions are related to workplace attitudes. Yeah, I know all you fathers with teenage daughters are probably saying, “You mean to tell me that I can’t use the Workplace Attitudes Test to weed out all those dweebs who are trying to date my daughter?” No, sorry, dweeb alerts are outside my field of expertise.

I think dweeb might be a little like a jerk, a little too general, and maybe a bit too imprecise. See www.workplaceattitudes.com to learn more about disruptors who may also be jerks or dweebs.

The Trickle-Down Theory

This morning on iGoogle I noticed an article referring to WikiHow entitled “9 ways to get by while living in your car.” This is depressingly relevant to more and more people. The situation stems from an abuse of trust and lack of regulation. I fear it was those at the top who proved James Madison’s admonition, “If men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary.” Anderson Cooper on CNN has a feature called “10 despicable bastards considered responsible to for our present economic situation.” (I paraphrased that.) Even Anderson thinks that 10 are not enough. I am reminded of a comment by Barnie Frank, Congressman from Massachusetts, in response to the statement, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” He said, “yeah, but what if you don’t have a boat?”

I must admit that I feel a little guilty testing people at the lower levels for “good workplace attitudes.” How many people with good attitudes worked for Enron and Merrill Lynch? I bet it was plenty, in fact the vast majority. It only took those at the top to bring the others down. Sure there are jerks everywhere, but I’m not so sure that the crème rises to the top. What rises to the top seems to be more a matter of what a skimmer removes at a sewage treatment facility.

I know, in times such as these it is easy to be cynical. I wish it was as easy as the scenario in the movie “Network” where Peter Finch encourages us to go to the window and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” What then? The movie doesn’t say.

The Workplace Attitudes Test suggests that about one in twenty workers is a jerk. But there is another phenomna going on here. Jerks tend to congregate together and at all levels there is a tendency to ignore the rules. A lower-level jerk can be a pain in the butt to those around them, and jerks at the highest levels can cause untold damage, but the lesson is to ferret out jerks at all levels and don’t hire them. Hey, corporate boards don’t tolerate them. Government regulators, regulate them. Legislators, remember what Madison said about men (and women) not being angels and pass the appropriate legislation. Rules and consideration for one’s fellow man should apply to everyone. Maybe, the Workplace Attitudes Test should be considered a candle in the darkness. See, www.workplaceattitudes.com.

So What’s the Problem With Self-Help Books?

Alright I admit it, I like self-help books. They might be a bit self-delusional but I think that they do a lot of good. What’s wrong with someone deciding that they need improvement and to seek out the inspiration to go about the task? Hell, even Ben Franklin made a list of things to improve on. At the very least, self-help efforts are good antidotes to such smug assertions as “We’re all screwed” or “Life is like a chicken ladder covered with shit from top to bottom.”

Sure Einstein probably didn’t read self-help books, but he had the intellectual tools to begin with. The rest of us probably could use the boost. Now, you have probably noticed that I have ended several sentences with a preposition. That reminds me of the old joke about the tourist who visits Harvard and asks “Excuse me sir, but could you please tell me where the library is at?” The Harvard man replies, “We at Harvard do not end a sentence with a preposition.” The tourist says, “Oh, I’m sorry, could you tell me where the library is at, asshole?” Why do I think that people who don’t end sentences with a preposition tend not to read self-help books? For more on attitude see: www.workplaceattitudes.com

Some Thoughts on Entitlement

One of the values tested in the Workplace Attitudes Test is a sense of entitlement. Of course some people feel very entitled, others not at all. I believe that a strong sense of entitlement makes a person more difficult to work with. In the workplace, problems arise because the highly entitled may assume that they are not being sufficiently rewarded, they tend to see work as an obligation rather than an opportunity, and they often feel put upon if they are asked to do anything extra.

Entitlement is an interesting value and it has, on occasion, been a source of humor. I am reminded of Woody Allen’s lament, “Oh Lord if you could only give me a sign—like putting 10 million dollars in a Swiss bank account in my name.” Or the story of a man named Joseph who prayed every day for thirty years to win the lottery. One day on a hilltop he beseeched God “God, why have you not honored my prayer? I attend church every week, I tithe, I am good to my family and my fellow man and yet you don’t honor my prayer.” And God spoke to Joseph, “So Joseph, buy a ticket.”

Why do we find this so funny? I think that it is because we all feel entitled to some degree. But like the other values measured in the Workplace Attitudes Test, values that are extreme and inflexible cause problems.

Recently there has been a lot of buzz about generational differences concerning entitlement. It has been argued that when you raise children where everyone gets a trophy, you area fostering entitlement. A recent generation has been labeled the “Me Generation.” The proportion of people from different generations may differ on a variety of values, but I caution you to remember that entitlement is an individual characteristic. We hire individuals not generations. This is where skilled interviewing and a good pre-employment test will help. See: http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

Why Does the Workplace Attitude Test (WAT) Work?

I think that the WAT test works for some very simple reasons: it has a limited objective; it is based on understanding values from the right cohort; people are fairly open about their beliefs and values and extreme or disruptive behavior results from holding certain values in the extreme. Let’s look at each point.

WAT’s limited objective. When I set out to develop the WAT I sought to answer a simple question. Do disruptive workers share certain identifiable attitudes? I made the assumption that the workplace is almost always a social environment and I wanted to understand individuals who do not get along well with others. This is much easier than trying to understand personality or trying to match people to a certain type of job. Personality has many components and jobs can be done in a variety of ways but there appears to be a limited number of ways to be disruptive in the workplace.

The right cohort. A cohort is simply a group of people that share some characteristic. I refer to them as turkeys or jerks. Fortunately they’re not hard to find and they tend not to be bashful. Part of my research included going to supervisors in various types of organizations and asking if it would be possible to interview some present or past employees about their work-related beliefs and attitudes. I didn’t say I was looking for jerks and I interviewed all kinds of employees but, in truth, it was a turkey hunt. I correlated problem employees with many variables such as job-hopping, negative work experiences, dislike of work in general, involvement in law suits, etc. As you may appreciate, it is not hard to find problem employees.

Beliefs and Values. Short of saying, “Yes I am a jerk,” turkeys or jerks are quite willing to talk about their beliefs and values. Often this is to amplify their low opinion of others. You’ve heard of the term “a people person,” well these are “anti-people persons.” Where Will Rogers said he never met a person he didn’t like, these individuals almost never met people that they do like. I am reminded of the pundit who said, “I love humanity, it’s people I don’t like,”

Now to understand values one must ask open-ended questions. This is much like the jury-consultant approach. They ask questions like, “What do you think of the justice system?” This is followed up with such questions as “Why do you think that?” or “Why do you feel that way?” Now, I’m not going to go into the exhaustive set of questions that I asked jerks and non-jerks but I am going to tell you about some of their answers and attitudes.

Here are some of the scintillating insights found in their answers. “Most people are stupid.” “You can’t trust anybody.” “My boss is so stupid, he couldn’t find his ass with both hands.” “I spend my nights lying awake thinking of ways to get even.” “Work sucks but you have to do it.” “I never get a break.” “I should be making more money.” And one of my favorites, “Step on my toes and forget to apologize and I’ll kick your ass—I don’t care who you are.” I was wise enough not to suggest steel-toed shoes for the last one. I could go on, but you get the idea. Next let’s look at some of the attitudes that underlie these sentiments. To name a few, the problem attitudes include judgmental, vindictive, adversarial, egocentric and entitled.

Extreme values. I found a strong correlation between disruptive behavior and holding the above mentioned values in the extreme. For each value, five test questions were developed. Each question had three options, one weak, one moderate and one strong. For example, for the judgmental attitude the following question is an example:

When I feel I have been treated unjustly …

* I will do whatever is necessary to defend my rights.
* I seldom feel I have been treated unfairly.
* I probably should do more but oftentimes just let it go.

It is only when the respondent answers four of five questions like this it is deemed that they hold that attitude in the extreme.

Respondents have strong (belief-related) rationales for their extreme answers and these extremes are strongly related to disruptive behavior. This test works because people tend to be proud of their values and they use those values to justify their behavior. Although job candidates may not reveal this information in a job interview, they are willing to express themselves in the test.

There you have it. The WAT works because it doesn’t try to do too much, it is based upon understanding the right people, they are willing to reveal their beliefs if given the chance, and strongly held disruptive values are related to disruptive behavior in the workplace See: www.workplaceattitudes.com.

The Best is the Enemy of the Good

Recently, I’ve been thinking about the expression, “The best is the enemy of the good.” Just exactly what does it mean? I think it describes the tendency of some jerks to criticize any new or innovative idea that is not perfect. It is like saying, “Sure we are dealing with a crappy situation but your solution isn’t perfect and I don’t think we should settle for anything less than perfect.”

This allows the critic to take a position of moral superiority and yet not offer anything of value. I am often amazed how often people put up with this sort of jerkdom. Someone offers a good solution and our jerk takes the opportunity to raise their eyebrow, dip their chin and say, “It’s not perfect and I can’t agree.” Most often we as an audience say “Gee, I guess you could be right.”

This is a subtle form of jerkiness, and I think it may hide an inferiority complex. I suppose I should be more sympathetic but I choose a tranquil workplace over psychological tolerance. I am reminded of an episode of “MASH” where psychiatrist Sidney Freedman described Frank Burns and his problems by saying, “He is such a walking sack of fertilizer that it is hard to care.” Now I’m not totally unsympathetic. For example I would probably chastise the wag who said of someone with an inferiority complex, “It’s not a complex.”

Each of us must decide to what extent jerk behavior should be tolerated, but all of it has its cost. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

A Fork in the Road

There is a parable about an old gent who lived near a fork in the road. Let’s give him a long white beard and assume that he was very wise. I’ll call him Oscar. Oscar would sit near the road smoking his meerschaum pipe filled with happy-go-lucky brand tobacco and passers-by would ask him about what it was like in the next town. Well, granting that Oscar sat near a fork in the road, there were two towns ahead but it didn’t really matter because the conversation was always pretty much the same. When someone would ask, “What are the people like in the next town?” Oscar would ask them “What were the people like in the last town?” They would say, “They were mean and unpleasant, that’s why I am moving on,” or they would say, “I loved those people and I hated to move.” Oscar would reply, often in a cloud of smoke, “Well, I think you’ll find the folks in the next town pretty much the same.”

I called Oscar wise because he was always right. I think it had something to do with understanding the importance of attitude. See: www.workplaceattitudes.com

Why Jerks Kill Creativity

I suppose there are some jerks or turkeys working by themselves who are creative. But most endeavors, including creative endeavors, involve working with other people. As noted in earlier blog entries, jerks tend to demean other people, especially those working under them, and they generally pollute the work environment with caustic remarks.

Creativity may involve confrontation and the challenge of ideas but it cannot tolerate personal attack. Let’s look at the process of creativity to see why this is so. Some years ago I wrote a paper on creativity and group dynamics and I noted that there is a difference between renovation and innovation. Renovation involves the modification or improvement of something that already exists, whereas innovation involves the development of something new. I suggest that renovation can be strangled by jerks but innovation is stopped dead in its tracks.

Renovation is hampered by jerks because they tend to personalize critiques and this discourages suggestions. Innovation is stifled because this type of creativity requires some very special conditions that are antithetical to jerk behavior.

What are the conditions of creativity? I suggest the creativity requires: 1) persistent determination to solve the problem; 2) willingness to expand the boundaries of the problem; 3) willingness to consider multiple possibilities; and 4) respect for something I call the “gestalt.”

The persistent determination to solve the problem is somewhat self-explanatory. It involves a willingness to think about a problem and to learn as much as possible about things related to the problem. In short, it is strong curiosity. It is also lack of certitude, and jerks tend to be blessed by certitude. I am reminded of the quote by Bertrand Russell, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts.”

A willingness to expand the boundaries of the problem is another form of
open-mindedness. If the problem is faster communication, then breeding faster horses for the pony express is not as good as working on the telegraph. In fact, sometimes creative innovation finds a solution to a problem that you didn’t know existed. The Walkman and the Ipod come to mind. Again jerks get in the way. Steve Jobs appears to be an exception because some people think he is a jerk ( “The No Asshole Rule” book written by Robert Sutton, Ph.D.), but a creative one. I contend that he is a genius first and a jerk second. He would probably do even better if he were less of a jerk.

Willingness to consider multiple possibilities is a process where ideas need to be evaluated without regard to status or personality. I recall a story of a group of executives trying to solve the problem of long wait times at elevators at a busy hotel. There were many complaints. They finally decided it was necessary to tear out several hotel rooms to make way for more elevators. The lady cleaning the room and emptying the ashtrays muttered that she thought that this was silly. One of the executives was smart enough to ask her why she thought it was silly. She said, “Well at the last place I worked they had the same problem. They installed mirrors on each side of the elevators and people were so busy looking at themselves that they forgot about the wait time. The complaints stopped.” If the executive was a jerk, I suspect that he would not have asked the advice of a mere “cleaning lady.”

Finally, respect for the gestalt. This is a little more difficult to explain but many scientists suggest that oftentimes their pre-occupation with a problem is rewarded with a sudden solution to their problem. It springs full-blown into their mind. Oftentimes in the shower or at night. These insights must be respected and they seem to be the result of patient
open-mindedness. Again, jerks seem to be excluded from this process. Maybe you want to make your workplace more creative, see www.workplaceattitudes.com.

Being a Jerk Once in a While Doesn’t Make You a Jerk

The Workplace Attitudes Test is designed to identify enduring jerks or turkeys, not people having a bad day or those people with lesser people skills. It is sort of like the difference between “mean stupid” and “benign stupid.”

Mean stupid is where, upon hearing that a kid was hit by a car in the street, someone says “Well if he didn’t want to be hit, he shouldn’t have been playing in the street.” Benign stupid is where, upon learning that Lou Gehrig died of Lou Gehrig’s disease, someone says “Wow, what are the chances of that?”

This is similar to the distinction between “states” and “traits” drawn by Dr. Robert Sutton in his book, “The Asshole Rule.” He notes that psychologists indicate that “states” are fleeting feelings, thoughts, and actions whereas “traits” are enduring personality characteristics. States are often related to circumstances, and traits are related to beliefs and attitudes.

Beliefs and attitudes are the lenses through which a person sees and interprets their world. The Workplace Attitudes Test is based upon research linking identifiable beliefs and attitudes with the consistent behavior of jerks and turkeys in the workplace.

In short, jerks and turkeys act the way that they do because they have certain beliefs and attitudes that determine their behavior. They tend to see the world in a way that justifies their actions. We all have subjective lenses (beliefs and attitudes) through which we see our world -- as Bertrand Russell, British author, mathematician and philosopher, is reputed to have said “There is not one world, but as many worlds as there are people in it.”

My research related to the Workplace Attitudes Test shows that jerks and turkeys see their world as a place of hostility, a place of winners and losers, and a place where courtesy and consideration have little value. Jerks and turkeys are often able to “play-act” their way through a job interview but once they have the job their negative beliefs and attitudes usually direct their behavior.

Fortunately, the Workplace Attitudes Test lets us see the lens through which they see their world. See www.workplaceattitudes.com

Are Ya Feeling Lucky Punk, Well Are Ya?

These immortal words were uttered in the “Dirty Harry” movie played by a gun-wielding Clint Eastwood whose gun may or may not have been out of ammunition. Eastwood also uttered the words “Make my day” in a similar situation. Such is the work of cinematic policemen administering quick and final justice to what David Brooks of the New York Times called “The mad, bad and dangerous to know.”

Truth be told, some police spend their entire careers without firing their guns outside of the firing range. Most like it that way. Police work is difficult, and oftentimes dangerous. They go where there are problems and they often see the seamier side of life. It is a challenging career and I am happy to say that the Workplace Attitudes Test has been utilized to help screen people for this profession.

The Test assesses nine work-related attitudes and I’d like to discuss a few of them here. These include judgmental versus accepting, vindictive versus forgiving, adversarial versus accommodating, and egocentric versus people oriented.

In most professions one does not want a person who is judgmental, vindictive, adversarial and egocentric. But when looking at work-related attitudes it is important to understand your own work environment, and some organizations may prefer a certain combination of attitudes. For example, law enforcement may want high judgmental which is defined as a strong sense of right and wrong yet it should be coupled with moderate or low egocentric. We want police to enforce rules and regulations. That is their job. We also want police who have people skills, a sense of forgiveness, and the ability for accommodation.

This is expecting a lot, but thousands of law enforcement people do just that every day.
For more information see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com.

What if Hillary and Barack Took A Pre-Employment Attitudes Test?

After all they are applying for the Ultimate Job. Specifically, if they took the Workplace Attitudes Test (WAT) that focuses on bad attitudes or warning signals related to disruption in the workplace how would they do?

Unfortunately, they haven't taken the test and probably won't. They have, however, given a lot of speeches, written a lot, and participated in many debates. I think we can treat these like job interviews and we can draw some attitude-conclusions.

On some WAT attitudes there is no problem. For example, both are very self-disciplined and hard working. And we don’t have to worry about insubordinate because the President doesn’t have supervisors. Also, to be fair, let’s assume that anyone running for President has a strong ego.

But how about some of the other attitudes on the list?

Judgmental versus accepting
Vindictive versus forgiving
Adversarial versus accommodating
Entitled versus unassuming
Risk-Inclined versus cautious
Non-Traditional versus traditional

A look at some of these might prove critical and might reveal how well they would get along with others in the workplace or as one might say in the political world.

Let’s start with Hillary. I think it is fair to say that she believes that she has paid her dues and is entitled to be president. Slogans like “Ready on Day One” and “When I am President” suggest a modicum of entitlement. When commenting on the recent, heated debate in South Carolina she said that it was Obama (not her) who came ready for a fight. A bit of adversarial projection? During the debate she used a jutted jaw, finger-pointing, and aggressive statements. The “Washington Post” newspaper on January 23, 2008 has a column entitled “The Fact Checker” which rated some of her statements and gave them “Two Pinocchio’s” meaning “significant omissions or exaggerations.”

A look at Obama suggests a person who may be somewhat risk-inclined and non-traditional and both of these may be a good thing at this time and place in our history. He is not afraid to talk about change. He is not afraid to use boldness in his oratory. This can suggest leadership if the public is ready. Obama’s speech patterns tend to be reflective and non-assertive. He appears to be uncomfortable when attacked and appears to be reluctant to go on the offensive. This suggests that he tends not to be very judgmental or vindictive.


Why is this important? A President cannot know everything. He or she must depend on advisors and must work with Congress to be effective. At times those advisors or representatives are going to say things that are unwelcome. The voter needs to ask if they want a President who has attitudes that are accepting rather than judgmental, forgiving rather than vindictive, accommodating versus adversarial, unassuming versus entitled, cautious and traditional versus somewhat risk-inclined and non-traditional. For more information on workplace attitudes see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/

Why Look for Bad Attitudes in the Workplace Rather Than Good Attitudes?

After all, if you are looking for good employees why not look for people with good attitudes? The simple answer is--it tends not to work. Looking for good attitudes does not identify individuals with bad attitudes.

I am reminded of a speech given by the president of a gold-mining corporation who stated “Our company must process two tons of dirt to find one once of gold.” An audience member then asked, “How is that possible?” The executive replied, “Well, you look for the gold, not the dirt.”

This is not as obvious as it first appears. For example, the goal of mental therapy is and was to develop well-adjusted happy individuals. Since Sigmund Freud, psychologists and psychiatrists tended to assume that the simple absence of mental illness equated to happiness.

It was Professor Martin E. P. Goldman of the University of Pennsylvania who did empirical research and turned this upside down. He developed a system that showed that happiness is not simply the absence of mental illness, rather it is a proactive phenomena based upon an individual’s beliefs and actions. He did not believe that happiness was the absence of mental illness and he began to look for the factors related to happiness, and a new branch of psychology was born called Positive Psychology. There is more info in his book “Learned Optimism” that was published in 1992.

I suppose it is possible to use Dr. Goldman’s system to identify individuals who score high on the happiness scale and this would likely produce happier workplaces. In fact, this may a good idea but there can be a few legal issues because pre-employment tests must be related to the workplace.

The Workplace Attitude Test focuses on identifying individuals who possess bad attitudes or warning signals that are related to disruption in the workplace and the test looks at a total of nine attitudes.

Without going into great detail, here are three attitudes that I found can be critical problems in the workplace. These include “judgmental” which involves a strong sense of right and wrong; “vindictiveness” which involves a zero-sum approach to relations with customers, fellow employees or supervisors; and “entitlement” which is somewhat self-explanatory. During our research to develop the Workplace Attitudes Test, when problem employees were interviewed it was discovered that these attitudes were almost always present in the extreme. Therefore, these attitudes - judgmental, vindictiveness, and entitlement – are included (among others) when we look for warning signals.

It would be wonderful if we could hire happy well-adjusted individuals every time but a more reasonable goal is to find people who don’t have a chip on their shoulders. For more details on Dr. Goldman’s research, see http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx. For more details about our Workplace Attitudes Test please see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

Job Interviews: Do Ask, Don't Tell

What is the purpose of the job interview? The interviewer wants to know if the prospect is right for the job. The employer gives money and benefits for time and devotion; while the prospect wants the money and benefits. The interviewer hopes to ask the right questions; the prospect hopes to give the right answers.

This reminds me of a great Saturday Night Live routine called Subliminal Man. Subliminal Man spoke in undertones. In a clear stentorian voice he stated what was expected, then in a quiet staccato voice he said what he really thought. Would it be nice if this is the way job interviews worked?

Let’s see how Subliminal Man does in a typical interview. First assume that the job interview is being conducted by a twenty-something svelte attractive former cheerleader, possibly an imported-wine drinker.

Our optimistic job candidate, with beer gut, has been somewhat happily unemployed for the past two years. His presence at this interview can best be explained by the insistence of his full-time working wife and his recurring back ache from sleeping on the couch. Our Bud man has a decided preference for hunting, fishing and watching football.

The Interview:

Good morning Mr. Johnson.
It’s Johnston.
Oh, sorry, Mr. Johnston.
Oh no problem, it happens all the time. (Subliminal Man kicks in—“What a twit”)
What attracted you to our company, Mr. Johnston?
I saw your ad in the newspaper. (“Actually my wife cut out your ad and put it on my tackle box”)
How much experience have you had driving a semi with a triplex transmission?
Five years, yeah was five years. Now that I think about it, it could have been six. (“None whatsoever, what the hell is a triplex?”)
Did you enjoy over-the-road driving?
You bet, ten-four back at you.
You obviously know your way around trucking.
Thanks (“Yeah, my kid has a little red one, what a dork”)
What are your salary requirements?
I understand that this type of job pays around 45 thousand per year. (“Three paychecks and I got that bass boat sweetie”)
Do you see this as a long term commitment?
Absolutely (“At least until duck season”)
Do you have any questions for me?
When would I start if I got the job? (“What are you doing Saturday night, my wife will be working”)
We should be making a decision within two weeks.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you. (“Great, two more weeks on the couch, take your time you wine-sipping twit”)
As you may have guessed, I tend to consider the job interview a somewhat inexact science. That’s why I recommend the Workplace Attitude Test in addition to the interview plus a background check. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

How to Hire Really Bad Employees!

If you wanted, for some unknown reason, to hire the worst possible employee how would you proceed? I'm talking the worst, the absolute worst. The type of person with their own agenda, impossible to supervise, petty, quick to take offense, and on their best days hinting that they have a great lawyer and that they know their rights.

But how do you know that you've found a really bad employee? Much like jury consultants who ask prospective jurors about their attitudes related to our legal system, you should ask prospective employees about their work-related attitudes.

Some problematic work-related attitudes include the following: an over-developed sense of importance; a sense that they are special; and a belief that they don't have to do anything extra because they are already there. We see this in the former beauty queen who refuses to give up her tiara. It's called deservedness or a sense of entitlement.

As we continue our search for the bad employee, we look for a lack of empathy. The inability or disinclination to see things from the other person's perspective. Rhett Butler's famous comment, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" is humorous in movies but not so good on the job. "Do you have this in a size five?" "Frankly, my dear . . ."

We also need some pettiness and a good memory for remembering slights. If you can't hold a grudge, you don't qualify here. "Tower, this is Aardvark 551, requesting permission to proceed to runway one eight." "Aardvark 551, do you remember what you said to me the last time you were at this airport?"

There you have it, some contextual attitudes that identify bad employees. Remember, just because Ben Franklin wanted to make the turkey the national bird doesn't mean you have to hire one! Visit www.WorkplaceAttitudes.com to learn more.