Copyright
© 1996-2005 by Ethan A. Winning
Two items recently in the newspaper caught my eye. First, the Grammys just took place and the paper noted, "Digable Planets, the acceptable hip-hop face of rap in comparison to fellow rap nominees such as Snoop Doggy Dog, did a sharp run through 'Rebirth of Slick (Cool Like Dat).'"
The second item concerned the fact that the University of California at Davis and Sacramento State University are offering (for three units of credit, yet) courses in interviewing etiquette. The manners being taught are for the interviewees, not the HR and other business folk who may be conducting the interrogations.
I didn't call Davis or Sac to see if they're just instructing the soon-to-be-employed which fork to use or, in lieu of that, requesting that they be taken to lunch where there is no silverware, but I am wondering if they're instructing the students in the fine art of business conversation. After all, if the applicant is speaking to an HR pro in his or her fifties, however unlikely that may be, he or she shouldn't talk about music. I would think that mentioning Snoop Doggy Dog to many interviewers would elicit the same response as, "I just saw Elvis walking into your lobby."
Troubling to me is the fact that both my daughters are twenty-something, and know all about Toni Tony Tone and Digable Planets and Kleine Schwester and other such musicologists. (Whatever happened to Dion and the Belmonts orthe Chantelles? Or, for George Tansill's sake, Jelly Roll Morton, Scott Joplin, or the Marine Corps Band?) If I were interviewing, I would imagine that it would be the twenty- and thirty-something crowd who would be the most likely to come through my door.
As we all know, interviews do not solely revolve around experience and education. There always has been some idle banter during such sessions. "How about those Giants?" "What do you think of Bosnia?" It is disconcerting to think that the response may well be, "I'm not crazy about them; I much prefer Doggy Snoopy Snoop and the Led Dead."
A couple of weeks ago, a young woman I know was writing a letter to a potential employer. I read the letter, and made some corrections, mildly admonishing her that she shouldn't write the ways she talks. She replied that that's the way the guy she was writing to talks and that "he wouldn't appreciate the formal approach." "But," says I, "to use the word 'fun' as in 'Sounds fun' is ludicrous." And, she said, "No one uses the word 'ludicrous' where I work now, and no one will use it where I'm going." To which I replied, "That's ludicrous."
It doesn't matter that there were other grammatical "errors" in the letter. What matters is that she got the job. What matters is that I'm not sure I've learned anything from this experience. What matters is that I'm a little worried about what the spoken and written word will look like in another ten years.
A little self-analysis is in order. Am I old-fashioned? A little, perhaps. Am I behind the times? I don't think so: I know how to use e-mail and program a VCR. Am I supposed to be the guidon bearer of the English language? Not on your Funk and Wagnalls!
It does not matter that an interviewee uses his fingers to eat his salad, uses the butter knife to shape his mashed potatoes, or plays with the bread crumbs on the table. It doesn't matter that he's wearing a sports coat that has no shape (I understand that's the fashion), or that his socks don't match. (He's got socks, and that's a plus.) But, when I ask him why he wants to work for my client and he says, "Sounds fun," that does it! It's my idiosyncrasies, not his, that rule the day.
If you're about to write a letter to the editor, hold on just a sec. I designed a new combined exempt/nonexempt performance appraisal form. One criteria, "Communications Skills", was added which was not previously on the nonexempt review. More than a dozen HR managers called or wrote to me to say, "You can't rate a nonexempt employee on the ability to communicate. That's not what we hired them for." And, one Director of Human Resources called with this: "We have a number of Hispanics in our insurance department whose English is a second language. We can't hold them to the same criteria as others."
Horse...feathers! (And, now I know why my claims are often sent to Terra Del Fuego before they're paid.) While there are certainly jobs which do not rely heavily on communication skills, the ability to communicate beyond Neanderthal grunts is indeed part of every job.
I am truly troubled by the fact that there are managers as well as some secretaries who can't write a coherent letter. I am troubled by the fact that legalese has infiltrated some personnel policies to the extent that they are unintelligible to the managers who must implement them, let alone to the employees who must follow them. And, I am troubled by reports which look good enough to be used by Ross Perot for charts, but which mean nothing without description.
If U.C. Davis and Sac State want to do something beneficial for the students who are applying for jobs, they should forget about basic etiquette, and concentrate more on conversational and written language. Almost every student knows you don't put your feet up on the interviewer's desk and ask,"How much vacation time do I get in the first year?" Almost every student knows to watch the interviewer if you want to see what implement to use or not to use in the Sushi bar. But, can the same student communicate orally or in writing why the company or the job is the one for him or her -- without using the word"challenge"? (That's like taking away the word "unison" from Scotty Hamilton or "predictable" from Siskel and Ebert.)
There are probably murmurings of, "Winning, you're a snob." You're right, but I'm a nice snob, and a veritable pussycat, too. Ask any one of the thousands I've hired. By the way, I just got through listening to a cut of Snoopy Slop Slop. I think we've found the dips in the communication highway.