It's not always about gender

In my stream last night, I saw that Gay Kawasaki had reposted a listicle from Cristina Cordova about how to attract more women to startups. I agree with most of the post in that you need to clean up bro culture in the workplace, for civility and for clarity in job titles and postings, but I'm not sure you need to do it on account of my fragile lady parts.

First of all, suggesting that Team Lady is the only group of people who would be upset by bro culture overlooks a significant group of people who dislike aspects of that culture and don't think it is good for business.

1. We love your cultural symbols--especially when I don't have to think about what they mean. Oh, god, the ninja thing. This is a bit like talking about how your Jedi mind tricks worked and meaning it. This is about what we believe an icon is and not what it actually represents--and how little it has common with the job you have to do. These job titles don't make sense on your resume, so if your startup fails and you need to look for a paying job with another company everybody in their HR thinks you ran an anime club for three years.
   
   And while we are misappropriating cultural icons, why can't we use [code] slinger, gangster, naut or crusader? Because they sound silly and childish and only the Japan of our imagination is cool enough to rate a job title. Cordova does point out that some startups use rockstar and hacker, but again, we use them because we don't have to think about what the term really represents, and she doesn't mention how those titles undermine the credibility of your employees when they are engaged in the work of growing, marketing, representing or selling your startup.


2. Alcohol makes the money come round. Recently, I toured a startup facility with a friend of mine who abstains from drinking alcohol for religious reasons. As the guide spent five minutes expressing how much business got done in the tavern below the startup space, my friend just put her hand over her eyes and tried to block him out. His argument was that if you don't drink, there was no reason for the other people in the space to talk to you and give you advice and assistance. And the space was awesome. I wanted to bring my sleeping bag to work and fuel my enterprise with the coffee from the excellent coffee shop below that he failed to mention on his tour, except as another tenant in the building. The insistence that alcohol lubricates business persists in many industries, not just in coding, and that the cool and knowledgeable drink beer and lots of it, is a myth that we perpetuate, as in the Hipper Crowd of Shushers.
   
   Reliance on alcohol to facilitate business cuts out a whole group of people who don't want to mix alcohol with work and who might make stupid decisions if they did mix alcohol with work. It's like we're back in high school, all being pressured by the cool kids to drink. And if you did give in to their pressure, let's remember how that turned out. Now imagine it posted to YouTube while you are trying to get VC funding.


3. Lets have a discussion about how jerks are replaceable. At one of my interviews, I had a grilling from the IT team leader who used a common programming term incorrectly. I corrected her, but SHE quickly established that her usage was correct. I let it go and got the job, but she continued to bring it into the conversation for two weeks after my hire until our supervisor told her to let it go. My point is, jerk is genderless and not limited to coders. Maybe we should talk about how these people strain the workplace, as well as misrepresent us to clients. Hire well is good advice for all hires, regardless of gender, and maybe your college roommate who joined the startup in its first week is not as good at their job as you think.


4. She doesn't talk about the roles that women will be hired for. This is one issue where there appears to be a workplace gender divide. I have suggested that the post focuses on hiring women coders, but women do play other roles that a startup needs to thrive and they are not treated as if they understand the arcane mysteries of technology, as in this ad from Samsung.
   
   
   
   Ah, the ladies, bringing down the code bros with their insistence on not spending money on two kegerators. And not being smart enough to recognize the redundancy reducing technology the bros are using to mock them with. 

Though they could have trotted out the silverback stereotype, the middle aged, suited dude who refers to all of the code bros in the diminutive, as in Danny or Jimmy, and who hasn't updated his technological know how since teletype. But there are no old people in startups anyway.

So yes, I admit that gender does play a role; however, there are some areas, such as alcohol and protecting crappy employees, that should be discussed without gender, since some arguments that use gender fairness as their rationale put women in the position of being the angel in the workplace.

What do you value most in a team mate?

When we think of a team, we think of different players on the field, all with different strengths or roles to play in the service of the team. If you have ever played on a team, there are also some team members who urge us to play harder, to try again--and not to spit in our hands when we go to shake the hands of the opposing team members at the end of the game.

Think about how your co-workers or project partners have made you better: did they realize what your strengths were and try to give you projects that accommodated those strengths? Did they try to push you to try something new or help you over an obstacle? Did they give you something personal--like suggest you be kinder, more forgiving, or efficient. Think about it.

Do you have a person in mind who may have improved one of your hard skills and one softer skill? You can treat this question as a BDI question and give an example of your best team mates and what you learned from them. Try not to use names.

Now, one of the ways people falter with this question is that they confess how their team mates keep their bad habits in check. You stay stuff like, he always made sure my work was handed in on time and helped me with my punctuality problem. Uh-oh, you look like a wayward calf that he had to rope--so you're the weak link. You're someone the excellent team mate, who didn't apply, had to coddle.

Candidates also drop the ball on this question when they need something that the organization can't--or is unwilling--to provide. For example, if you talk about how your team mates mentored you as the newest librarian on staff and the interviewer does not think that mentorship is necessary, strike one. This is why a long list of team qualities is bad: you could unknowingly hit some of their pressure points.

Try not to confess to personal weaknesses as part of the team--especially if you're sometimes a poor sportsman. Don't give a litany of great qualities and no examples. Limit your response to one or two examples, explain and shut up.

Your attitude sucks

Inspired by 21 Keys to Magnetic Likability by Marc and Angel Hack Life

Now, we can't always be Pollyanna, but there are some people who definitely act like someone urinated in their cornflakes every morning. And they're just no fun to work with. They are also a difficult hire because they look combative or stubborn.

You know who you are: you answered a question about using the catalog and answered by redesigning it with tags and a mashup, or you told your interviewers that since story time numbers are down, they should do reader's advisory for manga, or you helpfully explained why undergrads are incapable of understanding RefWorks--and here's how you would fix undergrads. Your beliefs--and maybe you're right about tags, manga and undergrads--are not the tools you need to answer the question. A concrete example, with some proof please, is what they are looking for (#13 and #14).

When people are smart, they can be likable, but they often struggle with #13 and #18 because they are so damn smart--and so sure they are right. Try to adopt a more moderate style, not giving in, but making the delivery better with kindness and evidence.

Maybe it's you

We sometimes think we are surrounded by jerks and lunatics, but then we realize we should go look in the mirror because we get what we give.

Anyway, just to check and make sure you don't need to do some shallow, pop introspection in front of your mirror before you exfoliate, take the Asshole Rating Self-Exam (ARSE) adapted from Bob Sutton's book, No Asshole Rule.

Now, though light and amusing--if you don't score higher than 10--it's not a real test. Just in case you didn't notice, asking questions with compound structures where only one part may be true is a way to cut down on questions, though not to get any results of substance.

Just score a one so you don't seem like a total stanley.

And just so you know: I love Capt. Kirk but when I saw the poster on JibberJobber, I just could not resist. More Star Trek inspirational goodness.

Tomorrow is a day off in the land where we do a lot of guarding and standing, so no posts tomorrow.

Applying a little persuasion

In the past, how have you persuaded people to try your ideas?

Persuading people--whether it is patrons, other colleagues, supervisors or other community members--is an important part of any librarian's job. Picking books for a book discussion group, convincing your boss to run a class for professors who want to use social networking or asking the library board to increase salaries: you better know how to persuade.

What example should you use? The best is another work-related example, preferably one that involved more than one person or transaction and which had a measurable outcome. You should focus on the evidence that you gathered to persuade the person to accept your case, if there was more than one person (a client) or a hierarchy involved (boss to manager to library board to public). Try to tell the story in chronological order with a positive and "they accepted it!" outcome.

The initial sale is also the big question: don't spend 15 minutes talking about outcomes and how you would have done things differently this time around. You should also avoid sounding glib or use an example that is too simple, the teenager believed me when I said that this was the best book on potato cannons! Avoid bullying examples, such as: I convinced the book club to read a translated, 1,300 page stream of consciousness novel and it just made them all better people! You should show how you persuaded for the greater good, not your own ego.

The ability to persuade, as selling, marketing or convincing, is one of the most useful soft skills a librarian can possess.

Should you share the wealth?

You realize that one of your colleagues in the library is working many over-time hours to offer programming for patrons and that he has had to take from his collections budget to offer some additional services. This colleague is quite humble and has asked other members to downplay his extra hours in front of the director. Another colleague with a different program is much louder at staff meetings--citing her carefully accrued statistics and satisfaction reports from clients--and she is always good at securing additional funding for her programs, above what other departments receive. You have done a head-count and your modest colleague has a higher attendance at his programs, whereas your documented colleague has a lower attendance, and she has cancelled a few sessions, due to few or no attendees, and spent time on other projects.

Budget time is here: do you point out to the director that your quiet colleague could use some extra cash, even though you know your calculating colleague is counting on that money for her programming?

Do you stand up for the quiet man, who may go after you like John Wayne if you decide to help him, or do you stay silent and let the scrivener keep her scribblings? I would reason my way through this problem, stressing that I would like to see an equal distribution of the budget, especially in a case where the public--and the library--is benefiting from higher attendance.

Here are the points to touch on:

• You can't punish one librarian for getting her work done on time by taking her money away.
• However, the public is benefiting from another staff member's programs, so we need to support them with more funds, a refreshed librarian and stats that we can use to get some more money.
  
• You will have to decide: talk with your colleagues, stressing the benefits to the public, or straight to the director, if you believe that a direct order is the only recourse. (The latter is the least favoured in the interview, but really the most likely in an actual workplace.)
• There may be an HR shuffle that you feel you can give a (temporary) assist with. Taking on too many extra hours means that you will feel the burn-out and will only seem like brown-nosing to an interviewer: I'm so keen, I may never go home. Turn it into a temporary benefit, part of your professional education: gathering stats for the quiet one and marketing for the collector.
  

Your quiet colleague should be prompted to keep his stats--though he doesn't seem to have enough time to meet his programming requirements--so you may have to volunteer for an assist. After all, some of his overtime will have to be caught up by someone: try to package it as a learning experience for you, the rookie.

I hope an interviewer will indicate that you will have a mentor who can assist you with these problems, and will accept your rationale that you can't rob Peter to pay Paul. If you have encountered this problem in the past and you felt the situation was successfully resolved, tell the story and point out what you would replicate in a future situation to have the appropriate happy ending.

What if a patron doesn't like a colleague?

What if a patron doesn't like a colleague and prefers to have you help him/her, every time, even when you are not on your shift?

You have two options to answer this question:

1. This is a hypothetical question, so you can make a guess as to what you would do. You can ask about policies in effect in the library in regards to dealing with "difficult" patrons.
2. You can treat this question as a BDI question. As a BDI question, you must use a true, past experience and explain what happened in that situation and highlight your role. It is best that the experience had a positive outcome, but if it does not, you can finish your answer, hypothetically, stating what you would do differently in the future based on what you learned from the experience.
   

Don't shy away from these questions since they are asking about how you would deal with sticky situations. The interviewers want to know: do you always go running for help? and do you know when to call for help? When it comes to ethics and conflict, you have to strike a balance between the two. You also have to show that you are fair-minded.

Some interview questions are multi-layered and they may have more than one step to solve. An interviewer could take this question into several different directions:

• Collegiality and conflict: what if you don't like your colleague and find them to be abrasive and abrupt, but you know that you have to address the issue? This becomes a behavior descriptive question if the interviewer asks, have you experienced this situation in the past?
• What if your colleague is a person of color or a person who wears a prominent religious symbol and the patron always waits until you--who appears to be of the same ethic group/religious affiliation as the patron--are free? You can also change this if the interviewee is a person of color and say that this patron always waits until you are free, ignoring your colleagues that do not appear to be of the same ethnic group of the patron. This becomes an ethical question: do you say something to your colleagues, to the patron or to your supervisor?

However, I don't think that interviewers should ask this question invoking race or religion if they have not created a policy for their own library staff when dealing with these issues. I have a peeve about these questions, especially in regards to personal conflicts: why do organizations persist in asking these questions when they have no clear internal policy? Some supervisors think they are going to get a silver bullet answer when they haven't bothered to form one themselves.