

On valuing people - bscofield
http://benscofield.com/on-valuing-people/

======
grimtrigger

         It is wrong to treat other people simply as a means to some end or goal.
    

I'm not sure what exactly this means. How do you interact with someone besides
as a means towards an end (even if the "end" is just a fun conversation, or
perhaps your own sense of altruism).

~~~
delluminatus
This reminds me of Kant.

Typically the argument is that social interaction is naturally engaged upon by
both sides for a purpose -- that is, as means to an end. However, it can be
said to be immoral to treat other humans in the same way you would treat, say,
a tool.

Basically, you can engage in mutually beneficial interactions, but once you
begin to interact with people in a way that neglects them (i.e. is _only
beneficial to you_ ), you cross the line into immoral behavior.

For example: a typical job is a mutually beneficial arrangement. One party
agrees to work and the other party agrees to pay. In this sense both parties
are respecting the others' decision-making capacity. Neither is using the
other in a one-sided way. However, in the case of slavery, we see a one-sided
relationship in which the slave does not benefit at all, and into which he
would never rationally enter. This is a case of treating someone as purely a
means to an end.

~~~
bscofield
It should: I referenced the second formulation of the categorical imperative
in the post.

------
brd
I don't want to by accusatory but could it have something to do with your
interviewing ability? I've interviewed a pretty extensive amount and EVERY
interview I've ever had has been a conversation. In fact, I'd feel I failed as
a candidate if it didn't feel like a conversation. I want to hear what you
think I'll be doing, I want to know how much autonomy I'll have, tell me about
my room for growth, tell me about whats in your pipeline, etc.

Interviews go both ways, its your responsibility to ensure that's the case.
While I think the interviewer should try to hear your perspective, if you
don't speak up or ask questions I can only hold the interviewer so
accountable.

~~~
bscofield
I ... suppose? I like to think that I've interviewed and been interviewed
enough to know when the other side has any interest at all in having an actual
conversation, though.

~~~
jonnathanson
Some people are really smart, kick ass on the job, and would be an asset to
any company they join -- but they happen to be terrible interviewees. Maybe
they're shy. Maybe they've had a rough flight out to BigCo the previous day.
Maybe they've got bitchy resting face. Etc. Traditional interviews are unfair
to these people.

But it goes the other way, too. Some really smart, hard working, great hiring
managers are really bad at interviewing people. Maybe they're distracted by
work. Maybe they don't have a lot of time to be doing interviews, and a giant
stack of candidates to go through. Maybe _they_ dislike the script they're
being asked to follow as much as the person they're interviewing dislikes it.
Etc. Traditional interviews are unfair to these people, too.

This is why turning the interview into a conversation, to whatever extent
possible, is an imperative. As the interviewee, you have to jump through the
necessary hoops to establish your qualifications. You have to check the boxes
the HRbots demand. But once you've done that, you should steer the dialogue
off-script (in a friendly and polite way, of course).

Once you and your interviewer are ad libbing, shooting the shit, being honest
with each other, you do each other a favor. You're allowing one another to get
a real sense for the role and the fit. In that phase of the conversation,
someone on the other side with "[no] interest in having an actual
conversation" will very quickly reveal as much. But just maybe, he or she will
surprise you.

------
bonemachine
True on some abstract ethical level I guess, but under the modern corporate
mindset also plainly irrelevant. They don't make a point of referring to us as
"resources", after all, for a lack of a reason.

 _It is wrong to treat other people simply as a means to some end or goal._

------
enry_straker
@bscofield

What would your impression of the experience have been if your flights had
been on time, and you had a smooth travel? or conversely how did the travel
experience affect your impression of the process used by BigCo?

~~~
bscofield
Had the flights been issue-free, I would have started out neutral. Had BigCo
had someone watching out for me and fixing problems proactively, I would have
started out with a hugely positive impression of the company. Either way, the
in-person part would have done a good bit to reduce those feelings, as it was
formulaic and role- rather than person-focused.

I should also mention that BigCo gave me one of the worst phone screens I've
ever experienced (bad for the same lack of regard for me, personally), so I
thought seriously about declining the in-person visit.

------
mathattack
Very few firms actually just want a body. Sometimes HR acts that way, but very
few hiring managers truly feel that way. If they did, they would just hire a
contractor.

~~~
ignostic
I liked the author pointing out that the process itself is often geared to
disregard what the potential employee wants. The people hiring for the firm
might care what the potential employee wants, but it's easy to forget or fail
to fully investigate in the course of the standard process.

------
3327
I started reading it excitedly but you discuss your trip experience almost
more than the subject line. Started nice, but it could have had more depth.

~~~
bscofield
Sorry you didn't enjoy it! In all honesty, the travel is what stuck with me
more than anything else about that entire process, though, and it's what
started solidifying my thoughts about all of this. Hiring has a user
experience like everything else, and in a lot of cases travel will take up
more time than you ever spend talking to someone.

