CEOs vouch for Waiter Rule: Watch how people treat staff
protocoladvisors.com
protocoladvisors.com
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.
Nothing online is private. Nothing.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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'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 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.
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...
Interesting.
Could you be so kind as to elaborate on this?
"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.
A real master figures out how to win without making someone else lose.
If you're honestly asking for more information: http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith-John... <=Excellent part on status improv
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]
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Oh well.
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.
That's why the waiter rule is so weak -- it has a lot of false negatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Swanson#Swanson.27s_...
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.
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 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.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/business/03cnd-raytheon.ht...
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.