On valuing people

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

by bscofield • 13 years ago

19 17 13 years ago

     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).

bscofield5• 13 years ago

It's usually interpreted to mean that you need to respect that other people have ends of their own; they aren't just there for your benefit. I mentioned dating as a context where this sometimes happens, and I was thinking specifically of the pickup artist community.

pgsandstrom• 13 years ago

I think I agree with you. Really, companies should care about the employee if for no other reason then because caring is the best way to extract value from them. A happy employee is a good employee, and there is a large hidden cost of hiring a new developer when the old one quits.

ignostic2• 13 years ago

You're right - even my relationship with my fiance is based on us wanting something from each other. We want to love and be loved - to care and be cared about. Are we "using" each other? Maybe, but there's no manipulation involved. We wouldn't want any part of it if the other wasn't enjoying the relationship.

I believe what's intended is that it's wrong to use people with disregard for their feelings and desires. We have a lot to gain by treating each other as willing partners (as with my fiance) rather than as tools.

circlefavshape• 13 years ago

The interaction is an end in itself.

delluminatus• 13 years ago

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.

bscofield5• 13 years ago

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

mathattack• 13 years ago

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.

ignostic2• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

bscofield5• 13 years ago

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.

brd• 13 years ago

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.

bscofield5• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

enry_straker• 13 years ago

@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?

bscofield5• 13 years ago

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.

bonemachine• 13 years ago

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.

On valuing people

Related Stories