CEOs vouch for Waiter Rule: Watch how people treat staff(protocoladvisors.com)
protocoladvisors.com
CEOs vouch for Waiter Rule: Watch how people treat staff
http://www.protocoladvisors.com/wp/news/articles/ceos-vouch-for-waiter-rule-watch-how-people-treat-staff
100 comments
A corollary to this, always speak in private as you would in public. Never say anything about someone else you would not say to them directly (even if you're talking to your spouse about work issues whatever). Sometimes you think you need to, but looking back it's always better to keep your own voice strong and true. It's like playing a violin. The more wrong notes you hit when you practice in private, the more wrong notes you hit when you perform in public. Eventually the bad notes resonate so much they start affecting the voice of the instrument and it starts to develop poor tone in and of itself. The wood particles start to re-align themselves. That's what separates the great instruments from the cheap instruments. Sure the great instruments were made well to start, but they were also played well throughout their lives. Always speak in private as you would in public.
As a general rule of thumb, you should always take a person's actions as a whole when you can. Unfortunately, you don't always have the luxury of getting to know someone well before making a major decision of some kind (for example, hiring someone). Sometimes you have to rely on these kinds of techniques. Not because they're foolproof (lord knows they aren't), but because they're all you've got.
Corroborating data point: A few jobs back, a contractor bragged over lunch about smuggling large amounts of spirits through Norvegian customs on his holidays. A week later he was found out lying about the hours he billed and promptly fired.
The purple sorbet in cut glass he was serving tumbled onto the expensive white gown of an obviously rich and important woman... Thirty years have passed, but Odland can’t get the stain out of his mind, nor the woman’s kind reaction. She was startled, regained composure and, in a reassuring voice, told the teenage Odland, “It’s OK. It wasn’t your fault.”
That woman had admirable self-control. It's difficult to retain your composure when you're inconvenienced by the incompetence of your social inferiors, but it's usually worthwhile.
The trick, I find as I get older, is to make the move from asserting status to assuming it. Instead of the mindset "I'm so fucking awesome, why won't these goddamn idiots stop inconveniencing me", you move to the mindset "I'm so fucking awesome, which means I have a responsibility to set a good example for these people". As soon as you start seeing your role at the top of the pyramid as being all about setting a good example for those below you, rather than being served by those below you, dealing with them gets a whole lot easier.
(Then again, maybe that's just me, and I've just over-shared enough to mark myself out as a supremely arrogant prat.)
Another story I like of noblesse oblige is about casino magnate Steve Wynn, who shortly after purchasing a $139 million Picasso accidentally ripped a hole in it at a cocktail party. "Oh shit", he said, "Thank goodness it was me". If anyone else had ripped Steve Wynn's $139 million Picasso it would have ruined their life, but if Steve Wynn accidentally rips Steve Wynn's Picasso then the painting is just as ripped but nobody's life is ruined.
That woman had admirable self-control. It's difficult to retain your composure when you're inconvenienced by the incompetence of your social inferiors, but it's usually worthwhile.
The trick, I find as I get older, is to make the move from asserting status to assuming it. Instead of the mindset "I'm so fucking awesome, why won't these goddamn idiots stop inconveniencing me", you move to the mindset "I'm so fucking awesome, which means I have a responsibility to set a good example for these people". As soon as you start seeing your role at the top of the pyramid as being all about setting a good example for those below you, rather than being served by those below you, dealing with them gets a whole lot easier.
(Then again, maybe that's just me, and I've just over-shared enough to mark myself out as a supremely arrogant prat.)
Another story I like of noblesse oblige is about casino magnate Steve Wynn, who shortly after purchasing a $139 million Picasso accidentally ripped a hole in it at a cocktail party. "Oh shit", he said, "Thank goodness it was me". If anyone else had ripped Steve Wynn's $139 million Picasso it would have ruined their life, but if Steve Wynn accidentally rips Steve Wynn's Picasso then the painting is just as ripped but nobody's life is ruined.
Sorry, but I really do hate your attitude. It takes a very big person to never think of yourself as better than anyone else (I'm definitely not that person), but a few points:
- Why does the fact that it is people who are less important than you screwing up annoy you more than anyone else? I get just as pissed when I'm screwed around by a CEO as when I get screwed around by a taxi driver.
- Some people find it difficult not to get angry at stuff, I don't know if that's just because they've learned to be that way or if it's unavoidable. But for lots of us it's possible to, for example, have a drink spilt on you and think "fuck that's annoying" without getting mad at, or even blaming, the person whose fault it was. Even if for some reason it does make you angry, you shouldn't need any motive for hiding that anger rather than being a jerk about it, assuming they didn't do it on purpose (again, no-one's perfect, few people manage to never act like a jerk, and, again, I'm not trying to preach, I'm a long way from perfect when it comes to being a dick to others.)
- The fact that people have done less well in life (and/or were less lucky) means you can think "I've done better than them", you can't think "I am better than them". They're not "inferiors", and you're not at the "top of the pyramid", at least not in society, just (I assume) in your wealth. Being rich doesn't mean you're good for or important to society.
And for all your comments about having come across badly in your comments, that really hits at the heart of the problem so many people have with this rule. The last time the "waiter rule" came up on HN it was talked about in comments as a "yes, you should always be nice to waiters or you will appear like a jerk". No, that's missing the point; you should be nice to waiters because otherwise you are a jerk. And the fact that normally these views are kept in your head rather than spoken outloud doesn't change the fact that they are your views, your problem isn't that you told us, your problem is that you have them.
I know I've been pretty negative to you, but I do feel like you were asking for it.
- Why does the fact that it is people who are less important than you screwing up annoy you more than anyone else? I get just as pissed when I'm screwed around by a CEO as when I get screwed around by a taxi driver.
- Some people find it difficult not to get angry at stuff, I don't know if that's just because they've learned to be that way or if it's unavoidable. But for lots of us it's possible to, for example, have a drink spilt on you and think "fuck that's annoying" without getting mad at, or even blaming, the person whose fault it was. Even if for some reason it does make you angry, you shouldn't need any motive for hiding that anger rather than being a jerk about it, assuming they didn't do it on purpose (again, no-one's perfect, few people manage to never act like a jerk, and, again, I'm not trying to preach, I'm a long way from perfect when it comes to being a dick to others.)
- The fact that people have done less well in life (and/or were less lucky) means you can think "I've done better than them", you can't think "I am better than them". They're not "inferiors", and you're not at the "top of the pyramid", at least not in society, just (I assume) in your wealth. Being rich doesn't mean you're good for or important to society.
And for all your comments about having come across badly in your comments, that really hits at the heart of the problem so many people have with this rule. The last time the "waiter rule" came up on HN it was talked about in comments as a "yes, you should always be nice to waiters or you will appear like a jerk". No, that's missing the point; you should be nice to waiters because otherwise you are a jerk. And the fact that normally these views are kept in your head rather than spoken outloud doesn't change the fact that they are your views, your problem isn't that you told us, your problem is that you have them.
I know I've been pretty negative to you, but I do feel like you were asking for it.
"I've done better than them" vs. "I am better than them" is such an important distinction, it really is those subtle differences in attitude that make all the difference in how we view the world and what we get out of the world.
Somewhat off-topic example: my mom told me later in life that, when I was younger and I did something stupid and my parents scolded me they always phrased it as "that was a stupid thing to do" instead of "you are stupid for doing that thing."
It's a minor difference in phrasing and attitude, but it's a major difference in impact. The former makes you feel bad, you understand that you screwed up, and you don't want to do it again. With the latter, you either A) accept subtly that you're stupid, which has all kinds of negative consequences, or B) you reject the notion that you're stupid, so you don't feel the need to change the behavior and your anger can then be directed at your parents for calling you stupid.
Somewhat off-topic example: my mom told me later in life that, when I was younger and I did something stupid and my parents scolded me they always phrased it as "that was a stupid thing to do" instead of "you are stupid for doing that thing."
It's a minor difference in phrasing and attitude, but it's a major difference in impact. The former makes you feel bad, you understand that you screwed up, and you don't want to do it again. With the latter, you either A) accept subtly that you're stupid, which has all kinds of negative consequences, or B) you reject the notion that you're stupid, so you don't feel the need to change the behavior and your anger can then be directed at your parents for calling you stupid.
Exactly!
I was reading this book " How We Decide" (must read by the way) and one of the examples was this distinction between two groups of students who scored well in an easy test.
One group was told, "Wow you must be smart" and the other "Wow, you must have worked really hard at this". The first group showed deteriorating performance with increasing level of difficulty of test and gradually accepting maybe they were not as smart as they were told.
While the other group kept trying even in higher test and score far better. Of course both the groups were divided equally in terms of intelligence and attitude.
Very important perspective for every walk of life.
I was reading this book " How We Decide" (must read by the way) and one of the examples was this distinction between two groups of students who scored well in an easy test.
One group was told, "Wow you must be smart" and the other "Wow, you must have worked really hard at this". The first group showed deteriorating performance with increasing level of difficulty of test and gradually accepting maybe they were not as smart as they were told.
While the other group kept trying even in higher test and score far better. Of course both the groups were divided equally in terms of intelligence and attitude.
Very important perspective for every walk of life.
> you should be nice to waiters because otherwise you are a jerk.
It is interesting how this is a good analysis story for HNers. It is sort of a nice open-ended parable and it seems how it is interpreted tells something about the person interpreting it.
Some identify with the waiter -- they imagine making a mistake and someone yelling at them and them thinking "what a pompous ass".
Others identify with the CEO -- they imagine how they would have pity on the waiter (assuming they are somehow superior because they have $X more money in the account or that many employees they control), or how they are leading by example and not showing their anger (yet still are cursing the hell of out of the person in their head), some are worried about _looking_ bad so they imagine acting well if someone is watching ...
It is interesting how this is a good analysis story for HNers. It is sort of a nice open-ended parable and it seems how it is interpreted tells something about the person interpreting it.
Some identify with the waiter -- they imagine making a mistake and someone yelling at them and them thinking "what a pompous ass".
Others identify with the CEO -- they imagine how they would have pity on the waiter (assuming they are somehow superior because they have $X more money in the account or that many employees they control), or how they are leading by example and not showing their anger (yet still are cursing the hell of out of the person in their head), some are worried about _looking_ bad so they imagine acting well if someone is watching ...
I identify with the CEO. Not because I am superior or because I have money in my account, but just because I seem to make fewer mistakes and be less clumsy than people around me.
I don't get mad at the waiter for making a mistake, because I don't know him, and this might have really been a one in a million thing for him, in which case, it just happens. I do get mad at my girlfriend, though, for example, who always seems to bump into things, or who doesn't think very far ahead to anticipate things, or notice things, or remember things as well as I do, etc.
I guess that she can't help it any more than she can help a random occurrence, but I can't help but think that the situation would be greatly improved if only she just paid more attention to things around her.
Anyway, it irks me when people have difficulty doing things that seem trivial to me. It irks me precisely because I don't think I'm better than them, and thus am confounded as to why they seem to have more difficulty. If I thought "I'm just smarter than them", it wouldn't irk me any more because it's an innate difference that can't change, but I don't believe that...
I don't get mad at the waiter for making a mistake, because I don't know him, and this might have really been a one in a million thing for him, in which case, it just happens. I do get mad at my girlfriend, though, for example, who always seems to bump into things, or who doesn't think very far ahead to anticipate things, or notice things, or remember things as well as I do, etc.
I guess that she can't help it any more than she can help a random occurrence, but I can't help but think that the situation would be greatly improved if only she just paid more attention to things around her.
Anyway, it irks me when people have difficulty doing things that seem trivial to me. It irks me precisely because I don't think I'm better than them, and thus am confounded as to why they seem to have more difficulty. If I thought "I'm just smarter than them", it wouldn't irk me any more because it's an innate difference that can't change, but I don't believe that...
"Anyway, it irks me when people have difficulty doing things that seem trivial to me. It irks me precisely because I don't think I'm better than them, and thus am confounded as to why they seem to have more difficulty." - You sound like my husband.
I keep dropping things and I keep forgetting stuff. But, he getting irked only makes things worse for me; I get super-conscious and nervous and end up blundering more. I manage everything smooth when I can tell myself that how he feels doesn't matter.
I keep dropping things and I keep forgetting stuff. But, he getting irked only makes things worse for me; I get super-conscious and nervous and end up blundering more. I manage everything smooth when I can tell myself that how he feels doesn't matter.
I never said I'm right to be irked, I just do... I wish I weren't.
I find this really ironic. Being easily annoyed isn't an innate difference you can't change, you know. It's hard to change, but not any harder than becoming less clumsy. Most of the people you're getting annoyed at probably have the same mindset about their flaws as you do yours.
Well, that's a relief. If I can't change any more easily than they can, I'm justified!
You should really say something to your husband about how that makes you feel. If he's a good person and loves you, which I'm sure he is/does, he certainly would not want to make you feel that way.
I've acted terribly towards women I loved, and regretted it deeply later. I truly wish they had said something, as I never want to make someone feel that way again.
</unwarranted advice from a stranger>
I've acted terribly towards women I loved, and regretted it deeply later. I truly wish they had said something, as I never want to make someone feel that way again.
</unwarranted advice from a stranger>
@qeorge I have conveyed it to him. But I guess, it's his first natural reaction. I am sure he's trying his best...I didn't mind the advice!
I can't tell you how helpful your comment was for me. I believe I have ruined every relationship I've ever been in for acting the way you describe your husband does.
I had a mother that would always focus on shortcomings in any given situation (i.e learning to read/ ski/ cook), and, as a result, I've developed an internal voice that is obsessively focused on what I've done wrong (I don't ignore the good, but I simply note it quickly and move on to the shortcomings). I've found that I respond better to this criticism, and it is imperative to my "learning flow". Just the same, when dealing with people I care deeply about I operate in the exact same fashion.
It helps to be reminded of the fact that it is not helpful, and even hurtful, to treat others this way, but it is difficult for me to switch between various methods of assessing a situation/ event.
I had a mother that would always focus on shortcomings in any given situation (i.e learning to read/ ski/ cook), and, as a result, I've developed an internal voice that is obsessively focused on what I've done wrong (I don't ignore the good, but I simply note it quickly and move on to the shortcomings). I've found that I respond better to this criticism, and it is imperative to my "learning flow". Just the same, when dealing with people I care deeply about I operate in the exact same fashion.
It helps to be reminded of the fact that it is not helpful, and even hurtful, to treat others this way, but it is difficult for me to switch between various methods of assessing a situation/ event.
Yeah, what works for one doesn't work for another. I hate people dwelling on my mistakes. It is not like I can't see those, and need to be told every time I make one. I would want my partner to believe that I am as aware and I am working towards being better. Nobody wants to remain clumsy!
As someone with the same reactions, i think I can safely assume he can't help it any more than you can. Sometimes it helps to think that these small annoyances don't matter in the long run, but I get annoyed at the thoughtlessness rather than the actual results...
> find as I get older, is to make the move from asserting status to assuming it.
When I took Improv classes, I always struggled with Status Games. I eventually got better. Improv is/was hard for me because you have to accept the situation, even if it is patently absurd.
> A construct of great importance to improv and of considerable value to therapists is "status." Status here does not mean "social standing" or "occupational prestige." As used by Johnstone (1979), status refers to what people do, or play, akin to dominance and submission. Thus, a waitress may play high status (condescension) while her customer, a physician, may play low status (awkwardness) despite their opposite social standing.
Seen in this way, human interaction is never "status-neutral"; we are all constantly adjusting status in relation to our surroundings and to others. Further, status transactions are territorial, involving the use of space, gesture, posture, vocal inflection as well as verbal content. In our experience, shifts in status regularly accompany significant changes in interaction and that such shifts are always noticed, even when not being acknowledged.
[1] Status game training:
http://www.rehearsalsforgrowth.com/improv1.html
http://improv.ca/training/exercises/status-ab-walk/
And one of the most interesting things about power is that if you let someone play the expert and you the pupil, you will become the powerful one...
When I took Improv classes, I always struggled with Status Games. I eventually got better. Improv is/was hard for me because you have to accept the situation, even if it is patently absurd.
> A construct of great importance to improv and of considerable value to therapists is "status." Status here does not mean "social standing" or "occupational prestige." As used by Johnstone (1979), status refers to what people do, or play, akin to dominance and submission. Thus, a waitress may play high status (condescension) while her customer, a physician, may play low status (awkwardness) despite their opposite social standing.
Seen in this way, human interaction is never "status-neutral"; we are all constantly adjusting status in relation to our surroundings and to others. Further, status transactions are territorial, involving the use of space, gesture, posture, vocal inflection as well as verbal content. In our experience, shifts in status regularly accompany significant changes in interaction and that such shifts are always noticed, even when not being acknowledged.
[1] Status game training:
http://www.rehearsalsforgrowth.com/improv1.html
http://improv.ca/training/exercises/status-ab-walk/
And one of the most interesting things about power is that if you let someone play the expert and you the pupil, you will become the powerful one...
"And one of the most interesting things about power is that if you let someone play the expert and you the pupil, you will become the powerful one..."
Interesting.
Could you be so kind as to elaborate on this?
Interesting.
Could you be so kind as to elaborate on this?
Teenage girls have known this basic principle for ages:
"Can you come over later and help me study for the test?"
There are two sides to this. The Ben Franklin Effect[1] and, the theory, that in general, if someone feels like you are attentive and receptive to them (e.g. expert being listened to do by a student, teenage boy helping a classmate (girl) with their homework) that they will like you. Obviously, depending on the situation, we can vacillate between honestly liking someone and faking liking someone. As the old chestnut goes, a great conversationalist is someone who tells you who you are.
However, in the field of NLP, they venture a few steps further and attempt to build rapport via various subtle mechanisms, the most commonly of which is mirroring. People do this naturally, too. Go to a coffee shop and observe couples. Couples that are in sync will sometimes drink at the very same moment or if one partner crosses their legs, they may cross their arms (though this is not an steadfast indication of rapport/relationship quality - because nothing is).
Observe parents and kids. Especially those having a public meltdown. The kids are reversing the power by hitting a weakness of the parent - that the parent could feel they are being judged incompetent (or at the best, having a bad parenting day) in the public eye. That is understandably stressful. Very, very rarely will the parent with the kid having a meltdown be calm. They will likely become more and more agitated, feeding the child's meltdown. Trained CSR (Customer Service Representatives) know that you never ever raise your voice with an angry customer - let them vent (if necessary), be calm.
The best waitresses, hairdressers, etc. don't just flirt (though that may be involved) but make you feel special. They may even, ahem, ask for your help/opinion on something.
The problem I see with geeks (and I observe this myself) is that in social situations we tend to try to 'win' arguments - e.g. yes, I'm the expert. You don't 'win' conversations, but you may 'lose' friends this way. And not just geeks - I was with a bunch of well-traveled friends the other day and the conversation devolved into who had been to such-and-such exotic place - 'You went went to Belize? Well let me tell you about Patagonia...'
And I leave you with this... true confidence is vulnerability.
And, yes, I know that it was possible that the poster wasn't interested in what I had to expound on this topic.
The interesting thing about all this - is that, even if you know what is going on, you can still be susceptible to manipulation. Whether on Hacker News or in the office.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_effect
"Can you come over later and help me study for the test?"
There are two sides to this. The Ben Franklin Effect[1] and, the theory, that in general, if someone feels like you are attentive and receptive to them (e.g. expert being listened to do by a student, teenage boy helping a classmate (girl) with their homework) that they will like you. Obviously, depending on the situation, we can vacillate between honestly liking someone and faking liking someone. As the old chestnut goes, a great conversationalist is someone who tells you who you are.
However, in the field of NLP, they venture a few steps further and attempt to build rapport via various subtle mechanisms, the most commonly of which is mirroring. People do this naturally, too. Go to a coffee shop and observe couples. Couples that are in sync will sometimes drink at the very same moment or if one partner crosses their legs, they may cross their arms (though this is not an steadfast indication of rapport/relationship quality - because nothing is).
Observe parents and kids. Especially those having a public meltdown. The kids are reversing the power by hitting a weakness of the parent - that the parent could feel they are being judged incompetent (or at the best, having a bad parenting day) in the public eye. That is understandably stressful. Very, very rarely will the parent with the kid having a meltdown be calm. They will likely become more and more agitated, feeding the child's meltdown. Trained CSR (Customer Service Representatives) know that you never ever raise your voice with an angry customer - let them vent (if necessary), be calm.
The best waitresses, hairdressers, etc. don't just flirt (though that may be involved) but make you feel special. They may even, ahem, ask for your help/opinion on something.
The problem I see with geeks (and I observe this myself) is that in social situations we tend to try to 'win' arguments - e.g. yes, I'm the expert. You don't 'win' conversations, but you may 'lose' friends this way. And not just geeks - I was with a bunch of well-traveled friends the other day and the conversation devolved into who had been to such-and-such exotic place - 'You went went to Belize? Well let me tell you about Patagonia...'
And I leave you with this... true confidence is vulnerability.
And, yes, I know that it was possible that the poster wasn't interested in what I had to expound on this topic.
The interesting thing about all this - is that, even if you know what is going on, you can still be susceptible to manipulation. Whether on Hacker News or in the office.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_effect
You do realise that galaggus just got one over on you there, right?
The funny thing about this is that it's almost completely sidestepping the "win the conversation" game anyway. Frequently, asking questions in feigned ignorance is genuinely educational, not just an effective ploy for shutting down opposition. In fact, you can gain lots of "cred" by not deigning to play stupid zero-sum conversational status games and instead trying to make everyone involved look good.
A real master figures out how to win without making someone else lose.
A real master figures out how to win without making someone else lose.
aka the Socratic Method. It's one of my favorite teaching methods, but damn hard to use in practice.
Well, I, for one, was educated.
If you're being a reddit punthreader, please kindly leave HN alone and die in a fire.
If you're honestly asking for more information: http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith-John... <=Excellent part on status improv
If you're honestly asking for more information: http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith-John... <=Excellent part on status improv
You're relatively new here, so you might not know that it's very much not OK to talk to someone like that here.
> It's difficult to retain your composure when you're inconvenienced by the incompetence of your social inferiors, but it's usually worthwhile.
Wow. I'm not sure that's the point of the article.
Who do you see as your "social inferiors" and why?
I'll judge people based on their actions. I'm unconvinced it's fair to do it based on something else.
[Edit: formatting]
Wow. I'm not sure that's the point of the article.
Who do you see as your "social inferiors" and why?
I'll judge people based on their actions. I'm unconvinced it's fair to do it based on something else.
[Edit: formatting]
Who do you see as your "social inferiors" and why?
Y'see, this is why I'm worried that I'm over-sharing and making myself sound like a dick. But it's something we all do, subconsciously, because it's something our brain is programmed to do. It's not that one consciously sits there and thinks "Man, that two hundred pound woman pouring my coffee sure is my social inferior", it's just something of which one is unavoidably aware.
Or am I just a dick?
Y'see, this is why I'm worried that I'm over-sharing and making myself sound like a dick. But it's something we all do, subconsciously, because it's something our brain is programmed to do. It's not that one consciously sits there and thinks "Man, that two hundred pound woman pouring my coffee sure is my social inferior", it's just something of which one is unavoidably aware.
Or am I just a dick?
I don't think you're a dick any more than I think I'm a dick, but I'll warn you, occasionally I think I'm a dick. ;-)
It is possible to construct a mental world for yourself where hierarchy and status don't matter, and several people do. I've lived in both worlds. I've always been pretty inquisitive, and when I was in middle school and high school, I got big into philosophy - questions like "What makes something good? What makes something better? Why do we value the things that we do?"
I had a vested interest in the answer to these questions, because in the dimension that matters in high school - standardized test scores - I was way, way out in front of everyone. As in, four or five standard deviations ahead of everyone, enough that my SATs from 7th grade could've gotten me into an elite college.
And yet I was miserable, because being such an outlier made me alone and isolated. I also found it very problematic morally, because I had arrived at the conclusion that to be morally good, an action must've been taken on your own free will: there're no "points" for things you have to do anyway. My smarts - the one quality that I most defined myself by - came about by chance meeting of sperm and egg, and I didn't do a damn thing for them.
So starting at age 13, I rebelled. I just completely rejected that value system. I figured that the one thing I could control was whether I was a good person or not, so I resolved to be nice to people, whether I thought they were stupid or not, and whether being nice to them could do many any good or not. I hung out with the freaks, and goths, and stoners, because as fellow outsiders, I felt the most kinship with them. Some of them had combined SAT scores lower than my SAT-M; a bunch ended up dropping out of school. I heard that one (my best friend from early high school) was later convicted of dealing meth.
But y'know what? I was a whole lot happier during that time in my life.
I ended up figuring I'd give the "let's work really hard and climb to the top of the pyramid" idea another go when I was 23, in my senior year of college. Mostly because I wanted to be able to tell people they were doing it wrong, and look, there're successful people that think it's not all about success! When someone unsuccessful says "Hey man, just because you make more than me doesn't make you better than me", there is an impulse to say "Of course you'd say that, if you got off your lazy ass and got a job you could be successful too, but damnit, I worked for what I got!" When someone successful says it, maybe you take notice.
But unfortunately it's very hard to live in a culture without absorbing its value system, and I worry that as I climb the corporate ladder and rack up accomplishments, I'm losing the core values that made me happy. I had a sudden realization lately that I don't really like myself anymore, because so much of my life now revolves around being awesome in my chosen field, and it's shut out what life's really about, being with awesome people and being able to take delight in their awesomeness even if nobody else does. I looked at my OKCupid profile lately and thought "I wouldn't date myself, I wonder why the hell anyone else would, it's no wonder that 75% of girls take a look at it and then ignore my message."
So there's my overshare for the day. I dunno what to tell you, because I haven't really figured it out for myself. I suspect that the answer lies in going through all the motions that successful people use to become successful, but not internalizing that as part of your value system. If I saw that two hundred pound woman pouring my coffee, I'm guessing two different parts of my brain would light up. One would say, "What a fat slob, can't she go to the gym and get a real job?" And the other would say, "Y'know, she probably has a couple kids at home, and she works hard to provide for them, and she has a nice smile and makes friendly conversation even though she probably knows that I'm thinking my assholish thoughts."
And then the parts of my brain would fight, and it wouldn't be pleasant, and I'd go home feeling like a douchebag and then go write about it on the Internet.
It is possible to construct a mental world for yourself where hierarchy and status don't matter, and several people do. I've lived in both worlds. I've always been pretty inquisitive, and when I was in middle school and high school, I got big into philosophy - questions like "What makes something good? What makes something better? Why do we value the things that we do?"
I had a vested interest in the answer to these questions, because in the dimension that matters in high school - standardized test scores - I was way, way out in front of everyone. As in, four or five standard deviations ahead of everyone, enough that my SATs from 7th grade could've gotten me into an elite college.
And yet I was miserable, because being such an outlier made me alone and isolated. I also found it very problematic morally, because I had arrived at the conclusion that to be morally good, an action must've been taken on your own free will: there're no "points" for things you have to do anyway. My smarts - the one quality that I most defined myself by - came about by chance meeting of sperm and egg, and I didn't do a damn thing for them.
So starting at age 13, I rebelled. I just completely rejected that value system. I figured that the one thing I could control was whether I was a good person or not, so I resolved to be nice to people, whether I thought they were stupid or not, and whether being nice to them could do many any good or not. I hung out with the freaks, and goths, and stoners, because as fellow outsiders, I felt the most kinship with them. Some of them had combined SAT scores lower than my SAT-M; a bunch ended up dropping out of school. I heard that one (my best friend from early high school) was later convicted of dealing meth.
But y'know what? I was a whole lot happier during that time in my life.
I ended up figuring I'd give the "let's work really hard and climb to the top of the pyramid" idea another go when I was 23, in my senior year of college. Mostly because I wanted to be able to tell people they were doing it wrong, and look, there're successful people that think it's not all about success! When someone unsuccessful says "Hey man, just because you make more than me doesn't make you better than me", there is an impulse to say "Of course you'd say that, if you got off your lazy ass and got a job you could be successful too, but damnit, I worked for what I got!" When someone successful says it, maybe you take notice.
But unfortunately it's very hard to live in a culture without absorbing its value system, and I worry that as I climb the corporate ladder and rack up accomplishments, I'm losing the core values that made me happy. I had a sudden realization lately that I don't really like myself anymore, because so much of my life now revolves around being awesome in my chosen field, and it's shut out what life's really about, being with awesome people and being able to take delight in their awesomeness even if nobody else does. I looked at my OKCupid profile lately and thought "I wouldn't date myself, I wonder why the hell anyone else would, it's no wonder that 75% of girls take a look at it and then ignore my message."
So there's my overshare for the day. I dunno what to tell you, because I haven't really figured it out for myself. I suspect that the answer lies in going through all the motions that successful people use to become successful, but not internalizing that as part of your value system. If I saw that two hundred pound woman pouring my coffee, I'm guessing two different parts of my brain would light up. One would say, "What a fat slob, can't she go to the gym and get a real job?" And the other would say, "Y'know, she probably has a couple kids at home, and she works hard to provide for them, and she has a nice smile and makes friendly conversation even though she probably knows that I'm thinking my assholish thoughts."
And then the parts of my brain would fight, and it wouldn't be pleasant, and I'd go home feeling like a douchebag and then go write about it on the Internet.
I was touched by your comment, especially regarding the cognitive dissonance and meta-emotions.
You need to investigate alternative value systems that don't make a person's worth contingent upon the power they have. I think you will find the freedom you're looking for there. But, it isn't easy, as the ideal of power is nearly hardwired into our brains from many years of evolution. And, if you're successful, you need to realize that you are consciously rejecting much of society's sacrosanct value system, and it will bite you in the ass in unpredictable ways for quite awhile. You may find yourself less successful in areas where power is the lingua franca: business, dating, hell, even friendships.
At the end of the day, however, you can only be true to yourself. Success doesn't mean shit if you're not happy. Best of luck to you, you know enough to really set yourself free, but it only gets harder if you go down that route.
You need to investigate alternative value systems that don't make a person's worth contingent upon the power they have. I think you will find the freedom you're looking for there. But, it isn't easy, as the ideal of power is nearly hardwired into our brains from many years of evolution. And, if you're successful, you need to realize that you are consciously rejecting much of society's sacrosanct value system, and it will bite you in the ass in unpredictable ways for quite awhile. You may find yourself less successful in areas where power is the lingua franca: business, dating, hell, even friendships.
At the end of the day, however, you can only be true to yourself. Success doesn't mean shit if you're not happy. Best of luck to you, you know enough to really set yourself free, but it only gets harder if you go down that route.
Rejecting a value system doesn't mean you won't recognise it or even abide by it, it just means that you think it's flawed/unjust/false.
Good point.
You have to constantly remind yourself that others may play by totally different rules from you, and you cannot call them on it without pissing them off. The trick is more to find some kindred spirits so you don't feel too strange.
You have to constantly remind yourself that others may play by totally different rules from you, and you cannot call them on it without pissing them off. The trick is more to find some kindred spirits so you don't feel too strange.
But that's so much better than the GP. If the GP smiles at the waitress, he can only manage a real smile at her as her superior or a fake smile as a fellow human being. You at least have the option of a real smile as a fellow person.
[deleted]
Not exactly a dick: you're intensely conscious of the social hierarchy. I've noticed that some people just are, and some people just aren't.
What you do with it is what makes you a dick or doesn't. And a lot of that is under your conscious control. The people who don't care about the social hierarchy are just lucky because they don't have to worry about it.
Now, using words like "social inferior" is probably a bad idea if you want to not make people aware that you're aware of the social hierarchy :)
On the other hand, I'm much more concerned about your use of the word "incompetence" above than about your use of the word "social inferior." Sometimes spilling a drink is just an accident, not a sign of incompetence. We've all spilled drinks in our lives; people who serve them for a living have surely spilled more. You can get into a lot of trouble if you can't tell the difference between incompetence and bad luck.
What you do with it is what makes you a dick or doesn't. And a lot of that is under your conscious control. The people who don't care about the social hierarchy are just lucky because they don't have to worry about it.
Now, using words like "social inferior" is probably a bad idea if you want to not make people aware that you're aware of the social hierarchy :)
On the other hand, I'm much more concerned about your use of the word "incompetence" above than about your use of the word "social inferior." Sometimes spilling a drink is just an accident, not a sign of incompetence. We've all spilled drinks in our lives; people who serve them for a living have surely spilled more. You can get into a lot of trouble if you can't tell the difference between incompetence and bad luck.
Nope, you're fine. The only thing more ubiquitous than people judging each other is people proclaiming how bad that is.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing over whether people should or shouldn't judge each other, but rather arguing over the metrics used. I'm not for PC in conduct, and I offend people in person quite often. Most people I interact with these days have known me for more than 10 years. It seems hugh3 is from the UK, while I am from the US (4th gen UK immigrant; just inherited 2 portraits of immigrant ancestors from the 1850s); there seems to be quite a few nuanced differences that turn out to be significantly determinate in our ultimate conclusions in a variety of situations. I'm guessing you, too. are from the UK because it is difficult for me to empathize with hugh3 the way you appear to do so.
The thing is, we relegate these kinds of ideas to the subconscious for a reason: it's incredibly condescending to let them out. It's good to be aware of them, but it's a bad idea to embrace them (whether rationalized or not).
Granted, sometimes you have to let them out. Sometimes you run into a situation where someone is doing something wrong and you have no choice but to "pull a rank". But aside from that, it's generally a bad idea to give these thoughts too much weight.
Granted, sometimes you have to let them out. Sometimes you run into a situation where someone is doing something wrong and you have no choice but to "pull a rank". But aside from that, it's generally a bad idea to give these thoughts too much weight.
It's not that we don't consider ourselves superior to others, it's that we don't speak publicly about having social inferiors, because that is the mark of an inferior person. I have heard trailer-dwellers speaking loudly about "low-class people" (relative to themselves, in their opinion, heh), and how they are better than group x or y, but rarely in the company of higher-caliber people do I ever hear such talk. This is because superior people simply have bigger, better, and more important things to discuss. It's also a matter of class. It's very low-brow to speak of others as being beneath you.
Generally, when I hear people speak of others as beneath them, I pity them for their lack of higher thoughts. I imagine a Klan member on television, talking about how others are beneath him, because his worth is not generated through action or societal contribution, his supposed worth is innate, he is better than group N because he was not born a member of group N; he will never contribute anything to society that improves the social rank he imagines himself to have been born with.
tl;dr: Everyone thinks unbecoming thoughts; only the low-class voice them.
Generally, when I hear people speak of others as beneath them, I pity them for their lack of higher thoughts. I imagine a Klan member on television, talking about how others are beneath him, because his worth is not generated through action or societal contribution, his supposed worth is innate, he is better than group N because he was not born a member of group N; he will never contribute anything to society that improves the social rank he imagines himself to have been born with.
tl;dr: Everyone thinks unbecoming thoughts; only the low-class voice them.
for me, the most important part of the story is left to the very end:
"“But for some twist of fate in life, they’re the waiter and you’re the one being waited on,” Barnes says."
And there you have it: the reason why one should be humane, polite and respectful to all - not because it goes with the dominant territory, or that others are watching, or because it makes you feel like Jesus himself, but simply because all that you are is a different face of the dice.
Sadly, if you're like some people I know that don't realise this, you don't realise that you could still be happy working as a colleague of the person you just graciously opted not to expectorate on. That means that (again, if you're like these people I have the mixed fortune of knowing), you'll only be happy when the score is rising in the only game you think you want to play (career, wealth and "status", probably with a pretty narrowly-adopted definition of all three). That means there's no way for you to escape the snakes amongst the ladders in such a 2D world. Wisdom is seeing the world in 3D, realising that you can change the board game; but that means challenging your assumptions about who is of value and who is not, and what the pyramid is, and who's above and who's below. Because how else do you expect to get along with the players of other board games if you don't.
And there you have it: the reason why one should be humane, polite and respectful to all - not because it goes with the dominant territory, or that others are watching, or because it makes you feel like Jesus himself, but simply because all that you are is a different face of the dice.
Sadly, if you're like some people I know that don't realise this, you don't realise that you could still be happy working as a colleague of the person you just graciously opted not to expectorate on. That means that (again, if you're like these people I have the mixed fortune of knowing), you'll only be happy when the score is rising in the only game you think you want to play (career, wealth and "status", probably with a pretty narrowly-adopted definition of all three). That means there's no way for you to escape the snakes amongst the ladders in such a 2D world. Wisdom is seeing the world in 3D, realising that you can change the board game; but that means challenging your assumptions about who is of value and who is not, and what the pyramid is, and who's above and who's below. Because how else do you expect to get along with the players of other board games if you don't.
What would make you think the people who are waiting on you have any less an idea of social graces? They probably participate in many more social interactions per day than you do.
Having said that I do think this is business advice is a bit of a meme, it fits nicely with our value systems and has such a fairytale type character to it. I wouldn't doubt that there are many people out there who are polite to all and sundry who would screw you the second they get a chance.
Having said that I do think this is business advice is a bit of a meme, it fits nicely with our value systems and has such a fairytale type character to it. I wouldn't doubt that there are many people out there who are polite to all and sundry who would screw you the second they get a chance.
What would make you think the people who are waiting on you have any less an idea of social graces? They probably participate in many more social interactions per day than you do.
Oh, I'm not trying to teach them social graces. I'm trying to teach them to be rich, brilliant and awesome like me.
(Again, I must make an obligatory apology for the fact that this thread is making me sound like a dick, by pulling out stuff that I usually only think subconsciously and putting it into words.)
Oh, I'm not trying to teach them social graces. I'm trying to teach them to be rich, brilliant and awesome like me.
(Again, I must make an obligatory apology for the fact that this thread is making me sound like a dick, by pulling out stuff that I usually only think subconsciously and putting it into words.)
I've read enough of your comments to know you aren't a dick, it just seemed like an odd motivation. I know there as a part of my brain that's getting a kick out of being polite to serving staff because it's thinking how awesomely benevolent I am. It's just that there is also a cynical part of brain laughing at me for doing it, thinking the serving staff must have seen every variation of person a million times and not really give a shit.
Well it's not really about serving staff, it's more a general heuristic which I think improves all aspects of my life. Live your life as if there's a bunch of impressionable young kids watching and learning from your every move.
Are you slouching? Stop that! You'll set a bad example for the rest of the world!
Of course this kind of thing probably comes naturally to those who are parents and actually do have impressionable kids watching 'em.
I've read enough of your comments to know you aren't a dick
Well that's gratifying, because I'm pretty sure I'm much more of a dick on the internet than I am in real life.
Are you slouching? Stop that! You'll set a bad example for the rest of the world!
Of course this kind of thing probably comes naturally to those who are parents and actually do have impressionable kids watching 'em.
I've read enough of your comments to know you aren't a dick
Well that's gratifying, because I'm pretty sure I'm much more of a dick on the internet than I am in real life.
Of course this kind of thing probably comes naturally to those who are parents and actually do have impressionable kids watching 'em.
No, it doesn't. You just become far more cognizant of the things you should be doing differently to set that good example...and aren't. :/
I'm pretty sure I'm much more of a dick on the internet than I am in real life.
I thing that's pretty much a truism for all. People require body language to really be understood and, without it, tend to be read negatively. Perhaps something to do with trusting other villagers and fearing strangers?
No, it doesn't. You just become far more cognizant of the things you should be doing differently to set that good example...and aren't. :/
I'm pretty sure I'm much more of a dick on the internet than I am in real life.
I thing that's pretty much a truism for all. People require body language to really be understood and, without it, tend to be read negatively. Perhaps something to do with trusting other villagers and fearing strangers?
My way of thinking towards serving staff is mostly the same as to everyone else: "Here's a person, I will be polite to them".
On a semi-unrelated note, I feel really really badly when people pour my water/drink, probably because it's servile and I am really averse to it (I don't like thinking of people as inferior). Perhaps surprisingly, I don't mind waiters bringing me what I ordered, I guess it's because that's expected and accepted, thus it's not something that shows (or forces) inferiority.
On a semi-unrelated note, I feel really really badly when people pour my water/drink, probably because it's servile and I am really averse to it (I don't like thinking of people as inferior). Perhaps surprisingly, I don't mind waiters bringing me what I ordered, I guess it's because that's expected and accepted, thus it's not something that shows (or forces) inferiority.
Hey, if judging people makes you a dick, it'd make me a dick to judge you.
While we're on the subject of fairytale type characters, "people out there who are polite to all and sundry who would screw you the second they get a chance" is actually a literary archetype.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_John_Silver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_John_Silver
What a discusting comment. If those are the thoughts going through your mind, then yes, you're a dick no matter how well you may hide it.
I think you're getting a lot criticism because thinking in terms of "social inferiors" is foreign to many Americans, but quite common in the rest of the world in my experience. I don't really know anything about you, but I'd be surprised if you were raised in the US.
It could be that she had admirable self-control.
It could also be that she didn't think it was that big of a deal, or that she didn't have an overinflated sense of self, or that she herself had done something embarrassing recently and saw a comparison, or that she herself was a waitress at one point and had done something similar.
We do tend to put our preconceptions in others' situations when left this vague, don't we?
I have experienced, you could maybe even say I've had the social experience, of all of the above.
It could also be that she didn't think it was that big of a deal, or that she didn't have an overinflated sense of self, or that she herself had done something embarrassing recently and saw a comparison, or that she herself was a waitress at one point and had done something similar.
We do tend to put our preconceptions in others' situations when left this vague, don't we?
I have experienced, you could maybe even say I've had the social experience, of all of the above.
Yes. Yes you have marked yourself.
Status is illusory.
I don't know the difference between reality and illusion, but I do know that status is the key to most human interactions (and now come to think of it, mammals in general. Many birds too. Not too sure about other vertebrates.).
Perhaps you're correct about status but I militate against the idea that any one human being is more valuable than another. Money, fame, glory or whatever else, you're just the same as every other human on the planet. Blood, bones and your shit stinks just like everyone else.
Interesting.
Are humans also worth the same as, say, pigs?
If not, is it the fact that humans are more intelligent than pigs that makes humans worth more than pigs?
If so, does it not follow that more intelligent humans are worth more than less intelligent humans?
(Yes yes, I'm a dick)
Are humans also worth the same as, say, pigs?
If not, is it the fact that humans are more intelligent than pigs that makes humans worth more than pigs?
If so, does it not follow that more intelligent humans are worth more than less intelligent humans?
(Yes yes, I'm a dick)
SOME PIG!
Charlotte's Web aside, the key point isn't whether one being is "worth more" than another, it's whether you can empathize with the other. So while you may not ultimately decide that pigs are worth more than bacon, you can at least imagine what it feels like to be the pig.
(Actually, when I put it that way, it makes me really feel sorry for the cow that I'm about to eat. Unfortunately, I don't feel sorry enough to give up meat.)
Similarly, your actions are just if you can imagine yourself in the shoes of the less intelligent person and still say "I am okay with the world as it is." Many times, people are fine with that - I've never gotten grief for working for Google and having free food, because people know how hard it is to get into Google and understand that if they put as many hours into computer programming as I have, they probably could get in too. But sometimes, if you really put yourself in someone else's shoes, you realize that the world is egregiously unfair, and you can't in good conscience support certain actions.
Questions about character and morals almost always reveal more about the person answering them than about the world. Are more intelligent humans worth more than less intelligent humans? Worth more to whom? God? Judeo-Christian tradition holds that God loves all his children (except maybe the Philistines). You? Then this is a subjective moral question, and says a lot about you but not so much about humans. Each other? They probably have a wide variety of opinions on that.
Charlotte's Web aside, the key point isn't whether one being is "worth more" than another, it's whether you can empathize with the other. So while you may not ultimately decide that pigs are worth more than bacon, you can at least imagine what it feels like to be the pig.
(Actually, when I put it that way, it makes me really feel sorry for the cow that I'm about to eat. Unfortunately, I don't feel sorry enough to give up meat.)
Similarly, your actions are just if you can imagine yourself in the shoes of the less intelligent person and still say "I am okay with the world as it is." Many times, people are fine with that - I've never gotten grief for working for Google and having free food, because people know how hard it is to get into Google and understand that if they put as many hours into computer programming as I have, they probably could get in too. But sometimes, if you really put yourself in someone else's shoes, you realize that the world is egregiously unfair, and you can't in good conscience support certain actions.
Questions about character and morals almost always reveal more about the person answering them than about the world. Are more intelligent humans worth more than less intelligent humans? Worth more to whom? God? Judeo-Christian tradition holds that God loves all his children (except maybe the Philistines). You? Then this is a subjective moral question, and says a lot about you but not so much about humans. Each other? They probably have a wide variety of opinions on that.
does it not follow that more intelligent humans are worth more than less intelligent humans?
I've come across a similar line of thinking before (possibly in an ethics class). That time we ended up at something like 'your pet dog is more intelligent/useful than a newborn human. So is it more valuable?' After that, we ended up in a discussion about 'potential' e.g human newborn has more 'potential' than the fully grown dog and so on.
I basically learned that the really interesting thing about such discussions is what it tells you about yourself and the other people.
I've come across a similar line of thinking before (possibly in an ethics class). That time we ended up at something like 'your pet dog is more intelligent/useful than a newborn human. So is it more valuable?' After that, we ended up in a discussion about 'potential' e.g human newborn has more 'potential' than the fully grown dog and so on.
I basically learned that the really interesting thing about such discussions is what it tells you about yourself and the other people.
Perhaps, but its effects are most certainly not. There are only three ways to change the world in a major way; violence, technology, and mass persuasion. Understanding status is a key part of the third...
[deleted]
I was a bit surprised to see an entire article devoted to this, as it's a very common in the theatrical world. Because of the short turn around time, directors are constantly having to work with new people. As well as calling people they know on the resumes, they will often ask the people collecting headshots and herding cattle outside the audition room if anything notable occurred. It can make or break an actors chances.
This is easy to apply to business. If you have a secretary greeting interview candidates, just get a quick opinion. Nobody wants to work with an asshole, and everyone remembers them.
This is easy to apply to business. If you have a secretary greeting interview candidates, just get a quick opinion. Nobody wants to work with an asshole, and everyone remembers them.
If this is the case how come so many assholes got through the screening process? The arrogance of very successful actors is legendary (though very successful singers may surpass it).
They pretended to be nicer people before they were very successful.
That's why the waiter rule is so weak -- it has a lot of false negatives.
That's why the waiter rule is so weak -- it has a lot of false negatives.
And yet, somehow, we continue to see psychopaths promoted up the corporate ladder while decent folks - who pass the 'waiter test' with flying colors and are otherwise qualified for the positions - are passed over.
And they keep promoting them! I can't stand them or anything they stand for. We should do something about this, like we would have in the good old days!
I'm always amazed at how nice people are when they want something from you. If you want to see their true colors, you have to watch how they treat people they don't want something from.
Interesting, a friend of mine used to own a chain of restaurants in Chicago, recently he went out to dinner at a nice restaurant with family, he said that his sister-in-law's boyfriend had some habits that indicated a similar to the personality that's described here, but that aren't as obviously obnoxious. For example if a waiter didn't introduce themselves by name he'd ask theirs, apparently waiters hate stuff like this because it's such an unequal relationship.
[deleted]
It's kinda sad that we need the waiter rule...is it too much to ask for people to treat others nicely?
Unfortunately, yes. Some people don’t see the point of treating others nicely, especially when there are no consequences to mistreating others.
Given that people don't treat others nicely I'm glad that we do have the rule. Easy way to identify the assholes.
Bill Swanson may not have invented the Waiter Rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Swanson#Swanson.27s_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Swanson#Swanson.27s_...
I've skimmed the comments and haven't noticed these two thoughts, so will add them:
1) Opening line of the article: Office Depot CEO Steve Odland remembers like it was yesterday working in an upscale French restaurant in Denver. Waiters won't necessarily remain waiters. We are all human beings, regardless of our current role at the moment. There are also cases where someone may be more important than they appear to be -- for example, managers run cash registers during busy times at my local grocery store. I have long liked collecting true life anecdotes about such things: Charlie Chaplin entered a Charlie Chaplin look alike contest and came in third; a bank turned down some long-haired, jeans-wearing young person for an account and then they were given the account when one of the younger employees recognized them as a wealthy rock star; someone in a bank was an utter ass to a guy in overalls covered in paint who threatened to move his accounts. She said something like "feel free". He was the owner of a construction company worth millions and did, in fact, move his accounts.
Treating people badly who appear to be your "social inferiors" at the moment is simply stupid. That person may not really be the "social inferior" they appear to be. And even if they are at this moment, they may not remain so. If you are an ass to them, they will remember it when the table has turned. It is shocking how often you run into people later, sometimes many years later.
2) Even if they truly are your social inferiors and will always remain so, it is still stupid to mistreat them. That waiter carries your food from the kitchen to your table. Do you really want to give him reason to do something to your food? If you think he won't, then you think he's a nicer guy than you are. Don't be so sure. People with power may be assholes to your face. People without power are very likely to reciprocate but in a way that covers their ass, so it is more likely to be done behind your back.
So aside from my hippie-tree-hugger, give-the-world-a-hug, we-are-all-first-and-foremost-souls-on-a-spiritual-journey idealism for trying to be decent to people I meet, I think folks who mistreat others in this manner are simply stupid. Last, I will note that my observation has been that folks who try to lord it over others in this manner are also usually insecure and hiding behind their degrees, titles, big paycheck etc. I'm not impressed by such behavior, at least not favorably so.
1) Opening line of the article: Office Depot CEO Steve Odland remembers like it was yesterday working in an upscale French restaurant in Denver. Waiters won't necessarily remain waiters. We are all human beings, regardless of our current role at the moment. There are also cases where someone may be more important than they appear to be -- for example, managers run cash registers during busy times at my local grocery store. I have long liked collecting true life anecdotes about such things: Charlie Chaplin entered a Charlie Chaplin look alike contest and came in third; a bank turned down some long-haired, jeans-wearing young person for an account and then they were given the account when one of the younger employees recognized them as a wealthy rock star; someone in a bank was an utter ass to a guy in overalls covered in paint who threatened to move his accounts. She said something like "feel free". He was the owner of a construction company worth millions and did, in fact, move his accounts.
Treating people badly who appear to be your "social inferiors" at the moment is simply stupid. That person may not really be the "social inferior" they appear to be. And even if they are at this moment, they may not remain so. If you are an ass to them, they will remember it when the table has turned. It is shocking how often you run into people later, sometimes many years later.
2) Even if they truly are your social inferiors and will always remain so, it is still stupid to mistreat them. That waiter carries your food from the kitchen to your table. Do you really want to give him reason to do something to your food? If you think he won't, then you think he's a nicer guy than you are. Don't be so sure. People with power may be assholes to your face. People without power are very likely to reciprocate but in a way that covers their ass, so it is more likely to be done behind your back.
So aside from my hippie-tree-hugger, give-the-world-a-hug, we-are-all-first-and-foremost-souls-on-a-spiritual-journey idealism for trying to be decent to people I meet, I think folks who mistreat others in this manner are simply stupid. Last, I will note that my observation has been that folks who try to lord it over others in this manner are also usually insecure and hiding behind their degrees, titles, big paycheck etc. I'm not impressed by such behavior, at least not favorably so.
I like the idea of the Waiter Rule ; but here in France it would be quite difficult for a client to be more rude than the waiter. :)
2 anecdotes: An American friend of mine wants to become a waitress when she's back to US, just to give people the experience she didn't have here in France. Last time I was shocked to find such a soft-speaking waiter, and I though for a few seconds he was just joking.
2 anecdotes: An American friend of mine wants to become a waitress when she's back to US, just to give people the experience she didn't have here in France. Last time I was shocked to find such a soft-speaking waiter, and I though for a few seconds he was just joking.
I could see this. During my senior year in high school I worked as a waiter at a four-star restaurant on Park Ave in Manhattan. The clientele included a lot of business execs working nearby and they often met for meetings. Some of the regulars were casual, friendly, and very cool, but then there were always a few who had a snobby and obnoxious air about them.
I like this as a psychological indicator, not just because of the employer-employee dynamic, but because I think it shows how one perceives their own self-worth, as well as that of others. If you're elitist and too self-absorbed in your own status, you're probably not well-suited for a lean merit-based culture and you're probably also going to be blind to spotting hidden talent in others as well.
I like this as a psychological indicator, not just because of the employer-employee dynamic, but because I think it shows how one perceives their own self-worth, as well as that of others. If you're elitist and too self-absorbed in your own status, you're probably not well-suited for a lean merit-based culture and you're probably also going to be blind to spotting hidden talent in others as well.
Four star restaurant? The only internationally recognized star system for restaurants is the Michelin guide, which has a maximum of 3 stars. It really grates me that Americans go on about 4 star and 5 star restaurants
There's also an difference between the michelin system, where most restaurants get 0 stars and getting even one star is a biggish deal, and rating all restaurants from one to five, which is what the system used in the us seems to do.
Like the rating system on the web, it's useful for rating all things, not just the highest ranks.
The Michelin guide is also not particularly useful as a global system because it's heavily weighted towards french cuisine -- http://www.urbanspoon.com/blog/14/Fixing-Michelins-French-bi... -- and only serves major tourist destinations outside of europe -- six cities in the US for example.
The Michelin green guide, which is more the equivalent of other rating systems, does use a 1-5 scale.
Like the rating system on the web, it's useful for rating all things, not just the highest ranks.
The Michelin guide is also not particularly useful as a global system because it's heavily weighted towards french cuisine -- http://www.urbanspoon.com/blog/14/Fixing-Michelins-French-bi... -- and only serves major tourist destinations outside of europe -- six cities in the US for example.
The Michelin green guide, which is more the equivalent of other rating systems, does use a 1-5 scale.
AAA (American Automobile Association) is a Big Deal (TM) in the USA, and they have a 5-star rating system. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Restaurant_ra...
Speaking of snobby and obnoxious airs..
That is why when you are interviewing at a company, you treat everybody you meet politely and cordially - even the cranky secretary. :)
I always ask the receptionist about how the candidate acted. You don't have to be all warm and fuzzy (heaven knows I'm not!), but you do have to be courteous.
Rather ironic that it's the CEO of a weapon manufacturing company that's moralizing about how to treat others.
Perhaps not as ironic as you think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/business/03cnd-raytheon.ht...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/business/03cnd-raytheon.ht...
"You can get more with a nice word and a gun than you can with a nice word." -- Al Capone
+1!
Here is a simpler version:
"Would you be OK with someone talking like that to you?"
If the answer is no, then you know what to do. If the answer is Yes, then the other person probably did cross the line or whatever. If the answer is Yes, but ________"Insert any statement of the contrary nature or how infallible you are here"____________, then you are a jerk.
It is not just about waiters, but any human being be it higher in whatever illusionary status system you believe in or lower than you.
Treat others how you would want to be treated.
If the answer is no, then you know what to do. If the answer is Yes, then the other person probably did cross the line or whatever. If the answer is Yes, but ________"Insert any statement of the contrary nature or how infallible you are here"____________, then you are a jerk.
It is not just about waiters, but any human being be it higher in whatever illusionary status system you believe in or lower than you.
Treat others how you would want to be treated.
I'd worry about someone who mistreats waiters for the simple reason that it is a sign that person is a complete idiot. Unless all that's left is for the waiter to bring the check, you are pissing off someone who is going to be handling your food. Mistreating the waiter is just asking for the next dish to be seasoned with spit or worse.
Depends on the country. There are still places where being a waiter can be a career but if you get caught doing something insane like that (I personally think spitting in someone's food should be a crime on the level of assault at least) your career is over.
[deleted]
I didn't know that this was a management rule! I loved this article.
However, just because someone is nice to a waiter doesn't mean they have good social skills or don't treat inferiors badly. It turns out there's an even better variant of the waiter rule: listen to all a person's interactions with other people. Listen, for example, to how that person talks about other people behind their back. As the aphorism says, what people will say to you about other people, they would say to other people about you.
In my real-life example of this lesson, there was a person who always gloated about how they had screwed or were about to screw other competitors, negotiators, etc, but of course always made sure to point out how much he was helping me. I foolishly believed it, when of course all the evidence was that I shouldn't. Eventually, the situation changed, he didn't need me anymore, and sure enough, he took advantage of me too.
Knowing how people treat others is supremely important as a defense mechanism.