| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. 00:08 - Jun 14 with 6483 views | bluelagos |
Wondering if the twtd collective would extend that courtesy to members to the monarchy?
In the unlikely event of my ever meeting the Queen would it be disrepectful to refuse to refer to her as "Your majesty" and instead call her "Lizzy"?
Edited for sh1t grammar
[Post edited 14 Jun 2022 15:21]
|  |
| |  |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 15:53 - Jun 15 with 950 views | EddyJ |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 15:32 - Jun 15 by Ryorry |
Nobody's said they do, & I believe the same respect should be equally applied to people of all ages, all races, all beliefs, all "classes" & all genders.
Hence the thread is about respecting others' wishes to be addressed as they choose, not as you choose. It's just common courtesy. If it's quite rightly applied to all re their gender-fluidity, then why would you choose not to apply it to older people? (or "Royalty" come to that - I've already said calling the Queen "Mrs Windsor" might be acceptable for strong anti-monarchists). |
We are going in circles here and all of this has already been covered. For brevity:
When there is no cost associated with calling someone what they want to be called, I fully support addressing people as they choose. Various gendered pronouns fit into this category. When there is a cost associated with it, I reserve the right to call someone by another name title. I would not call someone "Your Majesty" because it implies a level of respect, deference and even servitude that I find morally objectionable. Likewise, I wouldn't call someone "Mein Fuhrer" or "Grand Wizard" due to associations with fascism and I wouldn't call anyone other than my wife "Darling" despite how much they want me to.
The hypothetical scenario that was presented was that we have never met the elderly person in question, so we have no knowledge about how they choose to be addressed. Therefore, one must use a default, as dictated by a social norm. This is analogous to not knowing someone's gender, and reverting to the social norm of using "them/they" pronouns. I was arguing that the social norm to address them should not include a title. |  | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 15:57 - Jun 15 with 937 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 15:53 - Jun 15 by EddyJ |
We are going in circles here and all of this has already been covered. For brevity:
When there is no cost associated with calling someone what they want to be called, I fully support addressing people as they choose. Various gendered pronouns fit into this category. When there is a cost associated with it, I reserve the right to call someone by another name title. I would not call someone "Your Majesty" because it implies a level of respect, deference and even servitude that I find morally objectionable. Likewise, I wouldn't call someone "Mein Fuhrer" or "Grand Wizard" due to associations with fascism and I wouldn't call anyone other than my wife "Darling" despite how much they want me to.
The hypothetical scenario that was presented was that we have never met the elderly person in question, so we have no knowledge about how they choose to be addressed. Therefore, one must use a default, as dictated by a social norm. This is analogous to not knowing someone's gender, and reverting to the social norm of using "them/they" pronouns. I was arguing that the social norm to address them should not include a title. |
I generally find addressing people as "Comrade" works in most settings.... |  |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 16:30 - Jun 15 with 915 views | Churchman |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 15:30 - Jun 15 by EddyJ |
You may have just missed out on an excellent candidate because of them using your name.
Surely it is you who narrowed your own options. |
Nope. If somebody could not be bothered to address me properly on first meeting me at interview or rocked in with their shirt undone with their gut exposed (both these actually happened), then they’d be outed. Interviews were governed by strict process and rules, but there was always ways round that.
Same with sifts and things like spelling mistakes. If you cannot be bothered to check your application why would I want you working here? So I’d ensure the marking fell the right way if necessary. |  | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:16 - Jun 15 with 893 views | J2BLUE |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 16:30 - Jun 15 by Churchman |
Nope. If somebody could not be bothered to address me properly on first meeting me at interview or rocked in with their shirt undone with their gut exposed (both these actually happened), then they’d be outed. Interviews were governed by strict process and rules, but there was always ways round that.
Same with sifts and things like spelling mistakes. If you cannot be bothered to check your application why would I want you working here? So I’d ensure the marking fell the right way if necessary. |
What if someone said "hi, nice to meet you" and didn't use any name?
Also, do you sign off emails with interview invites 'Mr Surname?'
Quite frankly you sound incredibly petty and clearly enjoy lording your little bit of power over people. Bullet dodged for many of them. |  |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:56 - Jun 15 with 862 views | Churchman |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:16 - Jun 15 by J2BLUE |
What if someone said "hi, nice to meet you" and didn't use any name?
Also, do you sign off emails with interview invites 'Mr Surname?'
Quite frankly you sound incredibly petty and clearly enjoy lording your little bit of power over people. Bullet dodged for many of them. |
You choose to judge me and arrive at a conclusion about the kind of person I am over what I consider basic protocols says plenty about you. I will not apply the same level of rudeness to you.
If somebody walked in and had shook my hand, looked me in the eyes and said ‘hi, it’s nice to meet you’, that would be absolutely fine. A good confident start. If they did that, it was far easier to put them at their ease. Lateness without a phenomenally good reason, unkempt appearance, shoes not cleaned, no socks, sitting right back in the chair - not good. Details matter in my view.
It’s a long time since I have sent out interview invites. In later years, when I was involved it was usually on interview panels and sometimes did sifting. Protocol around communications - name, font, titles and all that stuff was laid down and while I tailored it a little, it was pretty much set. In electronic communication, it’d be my first name with full name underneath. Pre electronic era, it’d be Dear whoever and ended Yours sincerely with my terrible signature and full name underneath. Faithfully was for Dear sir. | | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 19:31 - Jun 15 with 821 views | unbelievablue |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:16 - Jun 15 by J2BLUE |
What if someone said "hi, nice to meet you" and didn't use any name?
Also, do you sign off emails with interview invites 'Mr Surname?'
Quite frankly you sound incredibly petty and clearly enjoy lording your little bit of power over people. Bullet dodged for many of them. |
The shirt thing makes sense. If you can't be bothered to make an effort for an interview, it hardly reflects well. |  |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 21:30 - Jun 15 with 790 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:56 - Jun 15 by Churchman |
You choose to judge me and arrive at a conclusion about the kind of person I am over what I consider basic protocols says plenty about you. I will not apply the same level of rudeness to you.
If somebody walked in and had shook my hand, looked me in the eyes and said ‘hi, it’s nice to meet you’, that would be absolutely fine. A good confident start. If they did that, it was far easier to put them at their ease. Lateness without a phenomenally good reason, unkempt appearance, shoes not cleaned, no socks, sitting right back in the chair - not good. Details matter in my view.
It’s a long time since I have sent out interview invites. In later years, when I was involved it was usually on interview panels and sometimes did sifting. Protocol around communications - name, font, titles and all that stuff was laid down and while I tailored it a little, it was pretty much set. In electronic communication, it’d be my first name with full name underneath. Pre electronic era, it’d be Dear whoever and ended Yours sincerely with my terrible signature and full name underneath. Faithfully was for Dear sir. |
*Candidate walks in*
Interviewer one: [shakes hand] Good morning, thank you for joining us. My name is Paul Jones and this is my colleague, John Smith."
Candidate: [shakes interviewer 2's hand] Good morning John, nice to meet you.
Interviewers' thoughts: you what?! What a rude, arrogant person. How dare they call me John - us 70 year olds don't deserve this disrespect. Well, I don't think they'll be getting the job.
Yep, seems reasonable. |  | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 21:57 - Jun 15 with 751 views | Ryorry |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 21:30 - Jun 15 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
*Candidate walks in*
Interviewer one: [shakes hand] Good morning, thank you for joining us. My name is Paul Jones and this is my colleague, John Smith."
Candidate: [shakes interviewer 2's hand] Good morning John, nice to meet you.
Interviewers' thoughts: you what?! What a rude, arrogant person. How dare they call me John - us 70 year olds don't deserve this disrespect. Well, I don't think they'll be getting the job.
Yep, seems reasonable. |
That would be about the candidate reading the room (and possibly age difference if the interviewer were say 60-something & candidate 20-something). A top candidate would be shrewd enough to know convention, so would use "Mr" initially, & that already displays a level of awareness & interpersonal skills that most decent businesses are looking for (unless the job were say in the creative arts, eg the candidate was a young actor & the job was in a theatre company of other young actors, which would be v. different. Context is all etc.).
Anyway, I don't get why some people wouldn't want to make others feel as comfortable as possible (within reason of course). We can't do anything on a major level about the world being so full of misery & conflict these days, but helping other people feel less stressed & a wee bit happier by respecting their wishes about what they want to be called, instead of more stressed & less happy, can help our local bit of the world run more smoothly. Why wouldn't anyone want to do that? What's not to like? [Post edited 15 Jun 2022 22:00]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:18 - Jun 15 with 747 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 21:30 - Jun 15 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
*Candidate walks in*
Interviewer one: [shakes hand] Good morning, thank you for joining us. My name is Paul Jones and this is my colleague, John Smith."
Candidate: [shakes interviewer 2's hand] Good morning John, nice to meet you.
Interviewers' thoughts: you what?! What a rude, arrogant person. How dare they call me John - us 70 year olds don't deserve this disrespect. Well, I don't think they'll be getting the job.
Yep, seems reasonable. |
Ok, little tip for you all you Edgelords/ladies/fluids out there...
If Interviewer 1 had referred to their colleague as "John", then the candidate would be fine saying, "Nice to meet you John"
But the fact that Interviewer 1 had also used their colleague's surname when introducing them, then the polite thing to do would be to say, "Nice to meet you Mr Smith"
If the the job being advertised was one where good interpersonal skills were critical to the job, those subtle differences do still matter... | |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:22 - Jun 15 with 741 views | jeera |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:16 - Jun 15 by J2BLUE |
What if someone said "hi, nice to meet you" and didn't use any name?
Also, do you sign off emails with interview invites 'Mr Surname?'
Quite frankly you sound incredibly petty and clearly enjoy lording your little bit of power over people. Bullet dodged for many of them. |
What about the reverse 'sup nod? |  |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:28 - Jun 15 with 732 views | jeera |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:18 - Jun 15 by Ewan_Oozami |
Ok, little tip for you all you Edgelords/ladies/fluids out there...
If Interviewer 1 had referred to their colleague as "John", then the candidate would be fine saying, "Nice to meet you John"
But the fact that Interviewer 1 had also used their colleague's surname when introducing them, then the polite thing to do would be to say, "Nice to meet you Mr Smith"
If the the job being advertised was one where good interpersonal skills were critical to the job, those subtle differences do still matter... |
Must admit I lean to this angle myself.
Not the same thing I know but I once advertised a room for rent and of the handful of responses the only one I considered was the most polite sounding.
It seems obvious I know as that was over the phone but it's still the first meeting gives the most lasting impression concept.
One thought it appropriate to call me mate and that just doesn't work for me on a few levels. | |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:36 - Jun 15 with 722 views | Churchman |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 21:30 - Jun 15 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
*Candidate walks in*
Interviewer one: [shakes hand] Good morning, thank you for joining us. My name is Paul Jones and this is my colleague, John Smith."
Candidate: [shakes interviewer 2's hand] Good morning John, nice to meet you.
Interviewers' thoughts: you what?! What a rude, arrogant person. How dare they call me John - us 70 year olds don't deserve this disrespect. Well, I don't think they'll be getting the job.
Yep, seems reasonable. |
As an interviewee, I never used a first name and even if invited to I avoided doing so if at all possible.
It’s not about age, it’s about first impressions and perceptions. If you start an interview right and I mean by that how you dress in the morning, food, timekeeping, prep etc, it does no harm.
Being interviewed is hard enough, but some of the basics like how you greet somebody, how you sit, where you put your notes, if allowed, whether you take the offer of some water, eye contact are easy to do. With nerves, pausing before answering, understanding the job vacancy advert, understanding your own application, using key words, anticipating questions and working out if it’s a panel whose who is harder but all part of it.
Interviewing for a job is a game, but if you want that job, it’s one you have to play and you have to play it by the interviewers’ rules. If you don’t like the look of them and their rules, it’s probably not the job for you. Job interviews kind of work both ways in that sense.
The processes and requirements over my career of course were very different, but the basics were always the same. This is just my view based on having experienced both sides of it more times than I care to remember and in my last years, doing a little mentoring. | | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 02:12 - Jun 16 with 678 views | EddyJ |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:36 - Jun 15 by Churchman |
As an interviewee, I never used a first name and even if invited to I avoided doing so if at all possible.
It’s not about age, it’s about first impressions and perceptions. If you start an interview right and I mean by that how you dress in the morning, food, timekeeping, prep etc, it does no harm.
Being interviewed is hard enough, but some of the basics like how you greet somebody, how you sit, where you put your notes, if allowed, whether you take the offer of some water, eye contact are easy to do. With nerves, pausing before answering, understanding the job vacancy advert, understanding your own application, using key words, anticipating questions and working out if it’s a panel whose who is harder but all part of it.
Interviewing for a job is a game, but if you want that job, it’s one you have to play and you have to play it by the interviewers’ rules. If you don’t like the look of them and their rules, it’s probably not the job for you. Job interviews kind of work both ways in that sense.
The processes and requirements over my career of course were very different, but the basics were always the same. This is just my view based on having experienced both sides of it more times than I care to remember and in my last years, doing a little mentoring. |
As someone who does a lot of interviewing and taken several courses in interviewing, I think there has been a shift in mindset in recent years.
Whilst first impressions and appearance naturally play a big role in your perception of a candidate, a good interviewer should try suppress this temptation because it means we often give into unconscious bias which might unfairly penalise good candidates. Unconsious bias might, for example, lead us to have a different perception of a candidate because of their gender or because they have a foreign-sounding name.
An unconscious bias relevant to earlier in the thread might occur when you are interviewing a woman. If she was introduced to you as "Miss Smith", she sounds less experienced than if she was "Mrs Smith". You might not consciously penalise her, but I guarantee "Miss Smith" would do less well in interviews over a period of time due to unconscious bias. If she was introduced to you as "Jane Smith", there is no bias about her experience based on her marital state (something irrelevant to her ability to perform the job).
The other big change is that interviews should be a two-way conversation. The interviewer does not hold all the power and should be selling their company to the candidate as much as the candidate is selling themselves to the company. People change jobs/companies a lot more these days and recruitment is expensive. Finding the right person is about finding someone who will be happy working for you.
Creating an informal atmosphere can often help to make the candidate more relaxed and get a better impression of who they are and what they would be like on the job. After all, you are looking for candidates who can do the job well, not candidates who are good at interviewing.
I would expect a candidate to dress no more formally than they would be expected to on the job. If they are interviewing to be a consultant, a suit seems appropriate. I work in software development where jeans and a tee-shirt are the norm. I have never penalised a candidate for dressing that way in an interview. If I did, I'd miss out on lots of good candidates in a very competitive field.
A candidate has never referred to me by my title and surname and I would think it particularly odd if they did, although it wouldn't factor into my decision as to whether to hire them or not. Titles are just not the done thing in modern workplaces unless you are a butler or work in high end service industries (e.g. receptionist in a posh hotel), where archaic customs tend to persist for longer.
Its also important to recognise that our system of family names and titles is not used everywhere in the world. Given names are generally understood more universally and do not lead to any uncomfortable situations around mis-gendering. | | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 11:30 - Jun 16 with 596 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:18 - Jun 15 by Ewan_Oozami |
Ok, little tip for you all you Edgelords/ladies/fluids out there...
If Interviewer 1 had referred to their colleague as "John", then the candidate would be fine saying, "Nice to meet you John"
But the fact that Interviewer 1 had also used their colleague's surname when introducing them, then the polite thing to do would be to say, "Nice to meet you Mr Smith"
If the the job being advertised was one where good interpersonal skills were critical to the job, those subtle differences do still matter... |
What if the job was for a porn star? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 11:38 - Jun 16 with 591 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 22:36 - Jun 15 by Churchman |
As an interviewee, I never used a first name and even if invited to I avoided doing so if at all possible.
It’s not about age, it’s about first impressions and perceptions. If you start an interview right and I mean by that how you dress in the morning, food, timekeeping, prep etc, it does no harm.
Being interviewed is hard enough, but some of the basics like how you greet somebody, how you sit, where you put your notes, if allowed, whether you take the offer of some water, eye contact are easy to do. With nerves, pausing before answering, understanding the job vacancy advert, understanding your own application, using key words, anticipating questions and working out if it’s a panel whose who is harder but all part of it.
Interviewing for a job is a game, but if you want that job, it’s one you have to play and you have to play it by the interviewers’ rules. If you don’t like the look of them and their rules, it’s probably not the job for you. Job interviews kind of work both ways in that sense.
The processes and requirements over my career of course were very different, but the basics were always the same. This is just my view based on having experienced both sides of it more times than I care to remember and in my last years, doing a little mentoring. |
I understand lateness, shirt not tucked in etc. But to discount someone for calling you by your name (particularly some who most likely is nervous) seems unnecessarily petty, and could rob you of a candidate who is excellent at actually doing the job.
I don't know if the advertising industry is different to everywhere else but I've always addressed Creative Directors (the equivalent of the interviewer) by their first name... and they have me as well. Never had a problem because of it. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 11:41 - Jun 16 with 588 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 02:12 - Jun 16 by EddyJ |
As someone who does a lot of interviewing and taken several courses in interviewing, I think there has been a shift in mindset in recent years.
Whilst first impressions and appearance naturally play a big role in your perception of a candidate, a good interviewer should try suppress this temptation because it means we often give into unconscious bias which might unfairly penalise good candidates. Unconsious bias might, for example, lead us to have a different perception of a candidate because of their gender or because they have a foreign-sounding name.
An unconscious bias relevant to earlier in the thread might occur when you are interviewing a woman. If she was introduced to you as "Miss Smith", she sounds less experienced than if she was "Mrs Smith". You might not consciously penalise her, but I guarantee "Miss Smith" would do less well in interviews over a period of time due to unconscious bias. If she was introduced to you as "Jane Smith", there is no bias about her experience based on her marital state (something irrelevant to her ability to perform the job).
The other big change is that interviews should be a two-way conversation. The interviewer does not hold all the power and should be selling their company to the candidate as much as the candidate is selling themselves to the company. People change jobs/companies a lot more these days and recruitment is expensive. Finding the right person is about finding someone who will be happy working for you.
Creating an informal atmosphere can often help to make the candidate more relaxed and get a better impression of who they are and what they would be like on the job. After all, you are looking for candidates who can do the job well, not candidates who are good at interviewing.
I would expect a candidate to dress no more formally than they would be expected to on the job. If they are interviewing to be a consultant, a suit seems appropriate. I work in software development where jeans and a tee-shirt are the norm. I have never penalised a candidate for dressing that way in an interview. If I did, I'd miss out on lots of good candidates in a very competitive field.
A candidate has never referred to me by my title and surname and I would think it particularly odd if they did, although it wouldn't factor into my decision as to whether to hire them or not. Titles are just not the done thing in modern workplaces unless you are a butler or work in high end service industries (e.g. receptionist in a posh hotel), where archaic customs tend to persist for longer.
Its also important to recognise that our system of family names and titles is not used everywhere in the world. Given names are generally understood more universally and do not lead to any uncomfortable situations around mis-gendering. |
Agree with all this. Churchman's more formal way seems very old fashioned. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 12:28 - Jun 16 with 570 views | Churchman |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 11:38 - Jun 16 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I understand lateness, shirt not tucked in etc. But to discount someone for calling you by your name (particularly some who most likely is nervous) seems unnecessarily petty, and could rob you of a candidate who is excellent at actually doing the job.
I don't know if the advertising industry is different to everywhere else but I've always addressed Creative Directors (the equivalent of the interviewer) by their first name... and they have me as well. Never had a problem because of it. |
The bottom line is that how somebody presents them self is important. How you address somebody is important. Of course an interviewee is nervous. You won’t do much of an interview if you are not keyed up for it. As an interviewee (largely unsuccessful!), I made sure how I addressed somebody at the beginning of an interview was right, because that’s the easy bit.
An interview is all about selling yourself. You are ‘on parade’ playing the game. You are there because you want something. So is the interviewer. Details do matter. In football the cliche is ‘marginal gains’.
Details also matter for the interviewer. They need to be in the right environment with the right support, papers organised, water available, chair in the right place. If I was chairing a panel of say three of us I’d decide who sat which side and what role I’d want them to play, interview order, check people were available to look after the candidates, photocopy etc.
Interviews in the last few years where I was were competency based, scripted and scored. This was designed for fairness and possible future auditing, but was restrictive (I’m glad they’ve broadened it now), because I always wanted time to find out about them as people. Would they fit with the team, their work ethic, do they want it, can they deliver under pressure, their aspirations, what made them tick.
I did have my own methods and style of interviewing borne from experience of both side of the fence. I was viewed as a ‘thorough’ interviewer, but from feedback a fair one. I used to get asked a lot to sit on interview panels as an ‘independent’ (we always had one of those) and if the ‘day job’ allowed me the time, I’d always do it. It was interesting, challenging and a damn good way of making new contacts too.
Different jobs have different ways of doing this because requirements are not the same. For example, I worked for a small IT co years ago and only took part in one recruitment as ‘shotgun’. It took the form of a casual chat. The role was specialist and the company took the view that if the mush couldn’t do it, they’d kick him out. Wasteful? Yep but that’s how they did it.
When alls said and done, people are people and certain things cross over all forms of work - in my opinion.. [Post edited 16 Jun 2022 12:28]
| | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 13:15 - Jun 16 with 542 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 12:28 - Jun 16 by Churchman |
The bottom line is that how somebody presents them self is important. How you address somebody is important. Of course an interviewee is nervous. You won’t do much of an interview if you are not keyed up for it. As an interviewee (largely unsuccessful!), I made sure how I addressed somebody at the beginning of an interview was right, because that’s the easy bit.
An interview is all about selling yourself. You are ‘on parade’ playing the game. You are there because you want something. So is the interviewer. Details do matter. In football the cliche is ‘marginal gains’.
Details also matter for the interviewer. They need to be in the right environment with the right support, papers organised, water available, chair in the right place. If I was chairing a panel of say three of us I’d decide who sat which side and what role I’d want them to play, interview order, check people were available to look after the candidates, photocopy etc.
Interviews in the last few years where I was were competency based, scripted and scored. This was designed for fairness and possible future auditing, but was restrictive (I’m glad they’ve broadened it now), because I always wanted time to find out about them as people. Would they fit with the team, their work ethic, do they want it, can they deliver under pressure, their aspirations, what made them tick.
I did have my own methods and style of interviewing borne from experience of both side of the fence. I was viewed as a ‘thorough’ interviewer, but from feedback a fair one. I used to get asked a lot to sit on interview panels as an ‘independent’ (we always had one of those) and if the ‘day job’ allowed me the time, I’d always do it. It was interesting, challenging and a damn good way of making new contacts too.
Different jobs have different ways of doing this because requirements are not the same. For example, I worked for a small IT co years ago and only took part in one recruitment as ‘shotgun’. It took the form of a casual chat. The role was specialist and the company took the view that if the mush couldn’t do it, they’d kick him out. Wasteful? Yep but that’s how they did it.
When alls said and done, people are people and certain things cross over all forms of work - in my opinion.. [Post edited 16 Jun 2022 12:28]
|
Yeah I get all that, I just think the name thing is a step too far. I don't personally find it rude to call me by my first name... in fact I find it weird/insincere and think someone is after something if they address me as Mr. Surname. It's like they're trying too hard IMO. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 13:20 - Jun 16 with 537 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 11:30 - Jun 16 by The_Flashing_Smile |
What if the job was for a porn star? |
"Hello there, pleased to meet you, Mr Pumpaction, my name's Arthur Bloggs "and this is my collea..oh my god that's massive...." | |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 13:22 - Jun 16 with 533 views | Sarge |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 14:08 - Jun 15 by Churchman |
My personal take is that I do not like a total stranger addressing me by my first name first time of meeting. I find it intrusive and rude. It’s the sort of thing greasy cold calling salesmen do.
If I am introduced by my first name to somebody then that’s ok. If I meet them a second time or ask them to use my first name, fine. In work because of the number of people I was interacting with it often happened and whether it annoyed or otherwise depended on who and the circumstance.
In terms of my using somebody else’s first name see above. There’s nothing wrong with a little caution with this sort of thing.
Addressing the Queen? I’d adhere to whatever the protocol was.
Edit: yes social conventions do change over time, just as language, working practices and god knows what else does. I just happen to think the first time you meet somebody is s or bust. You have one chance at it and my approach has never got me into any bother. [Post edited 15 Jun 2022 14:25]
|
I detest people calling me Mr [Surname]. I find it so impersonal and cold. If you know my surname you likely know my first name and I’d prefer people use that, regardless of how many times you’ve met me. | | | |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 14:05 - Jun 16 with 510 views | unbelievablue |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 13:22 - Jun 16 by Sarge |
I detest people calling me Mr [Surname]. I find it so impersonal and cold. If you know my surname you likely know my first name and I’d prefer people use that, regardless of how many times you’ve met me. |
I do it but in the voice and tone of Agent Smith from The Matrix.
Mrrrrrr Anderson. | |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 15:34 - Jun 16 with 477 views | jeera |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 13:22 - Jun 16 by Sarge |
I detest people calling me Mr [Surname]. I find it so impersonal and cold. If you know my surname you likely know my first name and I’d prefer people use that, regardless of how many times you’ve met me. |
I've always preferred people to call me by my first name but still appreciate them to wait for the invitation.
I genuinely think it's the polite thing to do.
"Hello mister [whomever]"
"Oh, please, it's [name]"
It's just respectful and gets you off on the right foot. | |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:04 - Jun 16 with 437 views | Ryorry |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 13:22 - Jun 16 by Sarge |
I detest people calling me Mr [Surname]. I find it so impersonal and cold. If you know my surname you likely know my first name and I’d prefer people use that, regardless of how many times you’ve met me. |
That's absolutely fine, why wouldn't it be? It's your choice & I'd respect your wishes, just as I hope you & others would respect mine - ie call me Ms (surname) when first meeting, & I'd then say "it's fine to call me (my first name).
In informal contexts anyway. If I were a customer making a complaint to a retailer eg, I'd expect them to stay formal with my surname for at least the first 2 or 3 exchanges. | |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:04 - Jun 16 with 442 views | J2BLUE |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 15:34 - Jun 16 by jeera |
I've always preferred people to call me by my first name but still appreciate them to wait for the invitation.
I genuinely think it's the polite thing to do.
"Hello mister [whomever]"
"Oh, please, it's [name]"
It's just respectful and gets you off on the right foot. |
No wonder humanity can't solve the big problems if there's this much debate about people using your actual name. Not really aimed at you.
I wonder if Church gets the person arranging interviews to call him Mr X rather than his first name?
Does he tell the interviewee they've lost the job as soon as they don't call him Mr X? Does he tell them the real reason if they ask for feedback? | |
| |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:25 - Jun 16 with 433 views | jeera |
| A person's right to choose their own pronouns etc. on 17:04 - Jun 16 by J2BLUE |
No wonder humanity can't solve the big problems if there's this much debate about people using your actual name. Not really aimed at you.
I wonder if Church gets the person arranging interviews to call him Mr X rather than his first name?
Does he tell the interviewee they've lost the job as soon as they don't call him Mr X? Does he tell them the real reason if they ask for feedback? |
I don't think you're allowing for the age gap here.
If you look at the threads regarding giving up seats on public transport the majority of us agree we'd readily offer our spot for someone much older so that respect in ingrained in us.
It's not a bad thing and also surely goes with flow of people choosing how they like to be addressed and others respecting that.
If you demand to be called King when you rule the world then the least some of us could hope for is the odd 'mister'.
I admit to sometimes struggling how to address a woman I don't know though. If she's young then it was always miss, if not there could be a panicked whispered "is she married, does she prefer Ms?" So no doubt it can be argued using first names as the norm does away with some old stereotypes.
If I receive an unwanted sales call and they refer to me by first name I'm affronted on two levels, although admittedly one is triggered by the other. You know, how dare you effing call me at all let alone pretend to know me, kind of thing.
Sure, what's wrong with showing a little respect to people you don't know? It is something we used to pride ourselves on and others used to respect about us.
If you visit Japan, or India or many other places these will also be the accepted norms. It would be considered extremely rude to make assumptions on how to address strangers without invitation. I think that initial ritual can be a solid start to meeting someone that's all.
And maybe some of the world's problems would be easier to solves if we all remembered to be more respectful.
It's how relationships work and friendships are formed. I've never liked the ridiculous line that some people use thinking they're being sage-like: "Respect is earned".
No it isn't. Friendship is earned. Respect should be shown in the first place.
Edit: Just to add, I am assuming that context here would be included by default.
[Post edited 16 Jun 2022 17:44]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
