From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: >>>> What is essence of SUCCESS
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:56:05 GMT

In article <ARA.92Dec30111152@camelot.ai.mit.edu>, ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:

>Steve Simmons feels that the meaningless question is a good question and
>suggests the "right" answers for certain jobs. I submit that the meaningless
>question is meaningless and that the existence of conventional answers
>that the interviewer expects to hear is incompatible with the answers conveying
>any useful information. Very simply, when a person says what they
>have to say, what they say conveys no information. On the other hand,
>if a person does not give the "right" answer, all that indicates is
>that no one has told them yet what the "right" answer is. Either way,
>no information is communicated about their mind set. 

The question "What is the essence of SUCCESS?" is a very meaningful one to me,
if asked as a "philosophical" question.  Not in a job interview, though.
Allan's comments about the amount of information that can be obtained by asking
this question reminds me of the "Snafu Principle" attributed to Hagbard Celine. 
As I recall, something to the effect that accurate (more bluntly, honest)
communication is possible only between equals.

Now on the other hand, Steve correctly points out the need for an organization
to have goals, and for compatibility between organizational goals and members'
goals.  I submit that the effective way to accomplish this is to build a less
hierarchical organization; the employees should set the organization's goals at
least as much as vice versa.

I have been told in conversation, and read in various books on management
philosophy/technique that running a business as a democracy simply don't work. 
I can see some truth in this view, but it should be realized that one can't
have it both ways...as long as employer and employee are introduced to each
other on an unequal footing (the typical job interview), the candidates (even
the more "compatible" ones) WILL feel under pressure to "fake" their way
through parts of the process, and misleading impressions WILL be made.

>I suppose that if you pay the interviewer enoughto ask it, he/she will believe 
>that this is a good question that serves a useful purpose. I'm sure that many
>totalitarian regimes that routinely ask for ritualized displays of
>loyalty would agree with this practice.
>
>Personally, I don't see how these people can live with themselves.

I suspect mostly they just rationalize it.  I do to some extent.  I fake my way
through job interviews more often than not.  Telling personnel types how I
_really_ feel about business ethics, labor relations, the importance of a
business' "image", William Whyte's proverbial Organization Man, or a host of
other topics, is something I simply do not see as an option.  I'd have to say I
rationalize my participation in this charade by reasoning that economic
survival overrides any need I may have to be true to myself or others.

>Allan Adler
>ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Abstaining is favorable both to the head and to the pocket.
                                -- Horace Greeley
Xref: sparky misc.jobs.misc:8452 misc.jobs.offered:15267 misc.jobs.resumes:7205 misc.jobs.contract:4711