8 ms·

This reminds me of the litmus test my father had in his small business years ago. Every new employee, no matter where they worked, had the same first task: cle

by edw519 16y ago

This reminds me of the litmus test my father had in his small business years ago. Every new employee, no matter where they worked, had the same first task: clean the bathroom. Lots of people never made it through the first day. I guess he figured that the best way to have employees who would "wash the dishes when nobody else will" is to only hire those who would.

arctangent 16y ago
I assume he wasn't hiring software developers...
jarek 16y ago
Maybe it's just my millenial entitlement, but that strikes me as a bad strategy. Unless the business was a cleaning or maintenance company, cleaning the bathroom seems far removed from anything relevant to my work and is in essence busywork. Questions that immediately spring into mind: is this some weird attempt at saving money by having employees do both their job and cleaning? Is this supposed to be some hazing ritual? Will this be representative of my time at the company? Pitching in when it needs to be cleaned? Sure. Boss paying attention to who voluntarily cleans it? Sure. Making employees clean it on their first day? Not so much. - millenial who cleans up after himself in the company kitchen
- edw519 16y ago
  Did you understand the grandparent? This had nothing to do with relevance, busywork, hazing, saving money, or evaluating talent. It had a single purpose: to determine willingness to do an undesirable job. That's it. Which, interestingly, is just as important in a software start-up as it was in my father's business so many years ago.
  - jarek 16y ago
    I'm much more willing to do an undesirable job related to my position than cleaning. If you make it clear during interviewing that it's a small company and the employee will be expected to help with cleaning, then there's no problem. (For the sake of argument; I actually don't mind cleaning all that much but nevertheless it's not high on my list of things to do at work. I'd prefer fixing hairy old VBScript code.)
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      Relevance is besides the point, you're paid to work. Your job title isn't some kind of license to refuse work you don't want to do. You keep trying to frame this as being an issue of relevancy when really it's that you're simply not eager enough to get dirty like edw's father wanted out of his people. You tell me to clean the bathroom on my first day, I'll ask where the scrub and bottle of 409 are. Now if we're talking months down the line, the dishes need done, and you want me to do them, I'll wonder how my value diminished enough that it wouldn't be more cost effective to hire a cleaner.
      - jarek 16y ago
        I am not eager to clean bathrooms on my first day as a software developer. Relevance to my job title, which is important to me for both self-fulfillment and career management reasons, is a big part of why. I am eager to create software, and I understand this includes the mentally dirty parts. If I was eager to get physically dirty I'd go and make more money for an easier job at the tar sands. You want someone who will do whatever you pay them to do, hire a cocker spaniel. [1] [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hire+a+cocker+spaniel%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hire+a+cocker+spaniel%22
        scott_s 16y ago
        It's Friday evening. You and your team will be at the office through the weekend to finish a release. The toilet backed up, spilling onto the bathroom floor. The building's cleaning staff will not be around until Monday, and there is no protocol for emergencies. Will you clean the bathroom? What I have done is contrive a plausible scenario where cleaning the bathroom is something that just has to get done in order for you to fulfill your stated role as a software developer. I agree with edw519's point and that of the article author's: leaders get done what has to get done regardless of what it is. Sometimes that means crawling around on your hands and knees stringing along ethernet cords. Sometimes that means implementing boring but necessary infrastructure code. Sometimes that means cleaning the bathroom.
        16y ago
  - Supermighty 16y ago
    I don't want any employees doing jobs they find undesirable. I want employees that enjoy their work. And if they ever find that they don't I want employees that ask for a different internal job, or quite to find a new external job.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    It had a single purpose: to determine willingness to do an undesirable job. Yes but consider that the undesirable job in your example is assigned arbitrarily by the boss. This might conceivably test a person's willingness to "do what's necessary" - to keep going when the going gets rough. But it just as well might test a willingness to mindlessly labor through whatever BS the boss throws at them. If someone aims to hire people with latter attitude, that someone shouldn't be surprised if those people display a lack of initiative.
  - Deestan 16y ago
    In this case the cleaning is clearly an initiation ritual/test. The psychological traits needed to submit to arbitrary unnecessary labour (brownnosers good, independent thinkers bad) are entirely different from the psychological traits needed to spot problem areas and deviate from assigned tasks to fix them (independent thinkers good, bronnosers bad). I hate litmus tests with a passion.
    - PakG1 16y ago
      I think the purpose of these kinds of litmus tests (to find people who are willing to get the job done, even if it looks stupid, boring, or detestable) is more important than filtering for independent thinkers. Quite frankly, a good manager would be able to determine whether someone's a brownnoser or an independent thinker through other means. Heck, just talking with people will be sufficient for managers who are experienced and talented. But a litmus test like this reveals a lot about the nature of a person that can't come out in a conversation. You see them talk the talk, now see them walk the walk; not in terms of their professional skills, but in terms of their human nature/personality/potential for leadership. Because the thing is, this kind of litmus test has one other very positive goal. See how someone responds to stupid orders. It's a huge sign for how well they'd be able to handle conflict and politics, which exist in any organization, even startups. It's the unfortunate nature of the beast, but good conflict management also does much to foster amazing outcomes, productivity, and creativity. You want that kind of independent thinker over a guy who's a prima donna, even if he is an undisputed talent. To think that litmus tests cause organizations to hire only brownnosers would say more about the quality of the managers than litmus tests themselves. Don't hate the litmus test, hate the managers who don't have higher purposes. We shouldn't be petty about that kind of stuff, it says a lot about our ability (or lack thereof) to handle human interaction well.
  - bootload 16y ago
    @edw519, Joel talks about "willingness" in a similar example, this time reversed ~ http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081201/how-hard-could-it-be-my-style-of-servant-leadership.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081201/how-hard-could-it-be-my...
  - Retric 16y ago
    The problem is I would both clean the bathroom and continue looking for a job. Smile, pitch in, and quietly get the fuck out of there. Net cost me not much. Net cost to the company 10-30+k depending on how long I stay. PS: Turnover at the 3-6 month period is the most expensive for a SW company. You just lost all that hiring momentum, wasted all that time getting someone up to speed, damage moral, and they leave before you get any real work out of them all at the same time.
    - blueben 16y ago
      You would screw over a company just because they made you do an undesirable job for exactly one day? Obviously the test works.
      - jarek 16y ago
        That's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it? "Wow, you hate our company. I'm glad we made you hate us so we could find out." Note: an unnecessary undesirable job. Not to mention he's not screwing a company, he's leaving a contract under established terms after discovering an incompatibility. When you screw up and get fired, you don't really get to say "I'm glad I screwed up before you had the chance to fire me."
      - rimantas 16y ago
        The company with such "tests" deserves it. I'd say it must be more of some creepy pleasure for the boss to ask that more than any test.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  Sounds to me like the point is to actually test for "Pitching in when it needs to be cleaned?" rather than taking a brand new employee at their word.
- muhfuhkuh 16y ago
  So, you wouldn't work out at a place like Zappos, where everyone had to hit the phones and do customer support their first two weeks, from application developers to executives. "Making employees clean it on their first day? Not so much." What will you do your first day as a business owner (that is, if that's the end goal for you)? That's just one of the many things you'll do yourself for awhile, just FYI.
  - jarek 16y ago
    No, I personally wouldn't work at Zappos. But their reason to hit the phones is to understand the business and its customers. Unless edw519's father's company was in cleaning or maintenance, cleaning bathrooms won't help you understand its business. While I currently have no concrete plans for my own business, I imagine that on the first day, I will be working from my home, which I currently clean myself. When it gets big enough to need an office, it'll be big enough to pay for cleaning (likely through the facilities' central management).
    - muhfuhkuh 16y ago
      "But their reason to hit the phones is to understand the business and its customers." No it's not. If I'm a DB admin, I sure as _hell_ wouldn't be caught dead reading through a sizing chart for some chatty gal in Texas. No way. At least that's the so-called "millenial" mentality, right? Cleaning bathrooms is a task. You're hired by your employer to do a job, which involves many tasks I'm sure. You're not just a title holder or a problem domain solver. And, as long as you "have no concrete plans" to be your own boss, you'll _always_ be looked upon as an employee. I think you conflate your titles with "I do no other thing than that with which I am programmed". That's what we layfolk call a machine, not an employee. But, if you prefer abject reductionism of the employee definition, you're a unit of work. That includes whatever the employer wants. Request in, results out; regardless of what the request is. I don't need you to understand my business; that's _my_ business. I just need you to work for me.
      - jarek 16y ago
        While I appreciate being judged without being known as much as the next guy, no, you're wrong. (How's that for a millenial thing to say!) I'm not sure where "I won't clean bathrooms on my first day as a software developer" turns into "I do no other thing than that with which I am programmed" (emphasis added). If you were a DB admin, would you think walking the owners' dog is beneficial for your career? Will you do everything an employer asks of you? If not, where do you draw the line, and why? These actions have results. By making everyone hit the phones, you select against those not comfortable with talking to people they don't know on the phone. (Do I need to point out that you have no idea if they're socially incompetent, spoiled, or they don't like talking on the phone because of a hearing impediment?) By making people clean the bathrooms on their first day, you select against those who aren't interested in proving their willingness to get their hands dirty with busywork absolutely unrelated to their careers. That might be your intended goal. That is fine. Just realize what you're doing. I heard good employees are hard to find these days. An employer is absolutely free to treat me as a machine to perform units of whatever work happens to be necessary. And I am absolutely free to not work for employers like that. What I call a machine is someone who does whatever the management asks of them with no personal thoughts, concerns, or plans to speak of. Someone will have to understand your business, and unless you have no concrete plans to grow beyond a five-person shop, that will have to include someone other than the big boss.
- jasonlynes 16y ago
  thought this too, when he said the kitchen kept getting messy. why didnt those slobs pick up after themselves? "oh the ceo's got it"..
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > Maybe it's just my millenial entitlement, but that strikes me as a bad strategy. I don't know if has anything to do with your "millenial" (seriously, you use this word to describe yourself?) entitlement, but it's not a bad strategy for both you or the company. You don't want to work for a company like that, and they don't want employees like you. Extrapolate that into numerous other "First Day/First Week/First Month" tasks other companies use, and it serves it's purpose. Do not for a moment confuse cleaning the bathroom as the strategy. It's not. The strategy is sound. Your comment, if anything, is proof of this. Which again, is a good thing. =)
  - jarek 16y ago
    > seriously, you use this word to describe yourself? No. That was tongue in cheek. Does anyone refer to their entitlement seriously?
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      I was referring your use of the word 'millenial', not the entitlement part. As for anyone referring to their entitlement seriously: yes. I see it happen all the time. I guess, however, they just don't realize it's their 'entitlement' they are talking about.
      - jarek 16y ago
        The entire "maybe it's just my millenial entitlement" was tongue in cheek. I've never seen anyone seriously refer to their own entitlement using the word "entitlement" in a positive content.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    Strategy is sound in what? In hiring people willing to clean bathrooms?
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      Zappos employs the same strategy by offering up money for someone to leave. People who take the money aren't the type of person they want at Zappos. They won't fit in. The military does this as well. Basic training is more than just training. If you can't get through basic training, you aren't the type of person that will work out in the military. As for cleaning the bathroom: It's not cleaning the bathroom. It's shared ownership in the upkeep, presentation, and workings of the company. It's a small company, so everyone knows everyone I imagine. Someone not willing to clean the bathroom would probably not fit into the company. You seem stuck on the fact that it's cleaning a bathroom. What about committing code the first day you're on the job? Being forced to take ownership. What about being handed a computer and being told to put it together? Lots of companies have rituals their first day. Things the new guy does that essentially boils down to the final test to see if they'll belong. If they'll fit in. Don't make the assumption that the strategy is only cleaning a bathroom. Don't assume you have to clean a bathroom.
presidentender 16y ago
I washed dishes at a restaurant during high school. One day, someone defecated in the employee restroom and missed, leaving their waste on the floor behind them. The first waitress to enter the room thereafter shrieked, then began laughing, and called the rest of us in to go look at it. I assume she used the customer restroom. We all looked at the offending object in question, and laughed among ourselves. I grabbed a few paper towels, and went to go deal with the situation prejudicially. After depositing the doodoo in the dumpster out back - you can't flush paper towels - I came back in, washed my hands, and resumed my proper duties as dishwasher. Minutes later, the boss came into the kitchen, beaming contentedly. He made his way to the employee restroom, opened the door, and asked "Uh, where's the turd?" As it turned out, the previously mentioned poop had been plastic, and I'd just discarded a five-dollar novelty gag. Laughs were had once again. One of the waitresses and the boss both mentioned to me that I was "like, the best employee ever" because I was willing to take the initiative to deal with a nasty situation. I'd like to say that this has been borne out by my professional performance since then, particularly as it stands relative to that of my coworkers from that period. The best part was that the boss had borrowed the plastic fecal matter from a friend of his and had to go fish it out of the dumpster to avoid buying a new one.
- sudont 16y ago
  You couldn't tell it was plastic? Must have been really good quality. I've known quite a few people who worked in gas stations and other places where they had to clean the rest rooms. If there was shit, it was generally either sprayed everywhere or rubbed on the walls. I'm pretty sure they'd appreciate the politeness of a single fecal clump. As this was after the advent of cell phone cameras, I've seen the evidence. One single-person bathroom's floor was almost half-covered in feces.
  - presidentender 16y ago
    One treats shit rather gingerly when one holds it through paper towels, I daresay. Its appearance was in line with my expectations of that category of objects. I do not debate the nastiness of a shit-encrusted public bathroom stall.
ukaszg 16y ago
I think this is a bad example. If a company hires a person to do X (where X is not 'cleaning the bathroom'), than that person should do X. If one does not do what he/she is hired to do than that person just wastes time and is not earning money for the company. Who would you prefer to hire? Someone that 'cleans the bathroom' when it needs to be cleaned or someone that just ignores this and earns money so you could hire a cleaner?
laurasbadideas 16y ago
I'm curious about whether the business owner mentioned this during the hiring process. I also wonder whether this affected the demographics of the company. If someone were to spring this on me on my first day of work, I'd probably wonder whether this was a hazing ritual or a test (and whether the desired behavior was to clean the bathroom myself or get it clean some other way). If, in addition to that, I happened to be the first female employee or the first employee with an ethnicity different from the owner's, I'd also wonder whether this was really something they did to everyone or whether it was some kind of racist/sexist stunt -- especially since this would be happening on my first day of work, before I had a chance to get to know anyone reasonably well. Regardless of the actual motivation behind the request, I think it might have the effect of disproportionately driving away people who are in a different demographic than the majority of people at the company.

by edw519 16y ago

arctangent 16y ago

I assume he wasn't hiring software developers...

jarek 16y ago

Maybe it's just my millenial entitlement, but that strikes me as a bad strategy. Unless the business was a cleaning or maintenance company, cleaning the bathroom seems far removed from anything relevant to my work and is in essence busywork. Questions that immediately spring into mind: is this some weird attempt at saving money by having employees do both their job and cleaning? Is this supposed to be some hazing ritual? Will this be representative of my time at the company? Pitching in when it needs to be cleaned? Sure. Boss paying attention to who voluntarily cleans it? Sure. Making employees clean it on their first day? Not so much. - millenial who cleans up after himself in the company kitchen

edw519 16y ago
Did you understand the grandparent? This had nothing to do with relevance, busywork, hazing, saving money, or evaluating talent. It had a single purpose: to determine willingness to do an undesirable job. That's it. Which, interestingly, is just as important in a software start-up as it was in my father's business so many years ago.
- jarek 16y ago
  I'm much more willing to do an undesirable job related to my position than cleaning. If you make it clear during interviewing that it's a small company and the employee will be expected to help with cleaning, then there's no problem. (For the sake of argument; I actually don't mind cleaning all that much but nevertheless it's not high on my list of things to do at work. I'd prefer fixing hairy old VBScript code.)
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    Relevance is besides the point, you're paid to work. Your job title isn't some kind of license to refuse work you don't want to do. You keep trying to frame this as being an issue of relevancy when really it's that you're simply not eager enough to get dirty like edw's father wanted out of his people. You tell me to clean the bathroom on my first day, I'll ask where the scrub and bottle of 409 are. Now if we're talking months down the line, the dishes need done, and you want me to do them, I'll wonder how my value diminished enough that it wouldn't be more cost effective to hire a cleaner.
    - jarek 16y ago
      I am not eager to clean bathrooms on my first day as a software developer. Relevance to my job title, which is important to me for both self-fulfillment and career management reasons, is a big part of why. I am eager to create software, and I understand this includes the mentally dirty parts. If I was eager to get physically dirty I'd go and make more money for an easier job at the tar sands. You want someone who will do whatever you pay them to do, hire a cocker spaniel. [1] [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hire+a+cocker+spaniel%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hire+a+cocker+spaniel%22
      - scott_s 16y ago
        It's Friday evening. You and your team will be at the office through the weekend to finish a release. The toilet backed up, spilling onto the bathroom floor. The building's cleaning staff will not be around until Monday, and there is no protocol for emergencies. Will you clean the bathroom? What I have done is contrive a plausible scenario where cleaning the bathroom is something that just has to get done in order for you to fulfill your stated role as a software developer. I agree with edw519's point and that of the article author's: leaders get done what has to get done regardless of what it is. Sometimes that means crawling around on your hands and knees stringing along ethernet cords. Sometimes that means implementing boring but necessary infrastructure code. Sometimes that means cleaning the bathroom.
        16y ago
- Supermighty 16y ago
  I don't want any employees doing jobs they find undesirable. I want employees that enjoy their work. And if they ever find that they don't I want employees that ask for a different internal job, or quite to find a new external job.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  It had a single purpose: to determine willingness to do an undesirable job. Yes but consider that the undesirable job in your example is assigned arbitrarily by the boss. This might conceivably test a person's willingness to "do what's necessary" - to keep going when the going gets rough. But it just as well might test a willingness to mindlessly labor through whatever BS the boss throws at them. If someone aims to hire people with latter attitude, that someone shouldn't be surprised if those people display a lack of initiative.
- Deestan 16y ago
  In this case the cleaning is clearly an initiation ritual/test. The psychological traits needed to submit to arbitrary unnecessary labour (brownnosers good, independent thinkers bad) are entirely different from the psychological traits needed to spot problem areas and deviate from assigned tasks to fix them (independent thinkers good, bronnosers bad). I hate litmus tests with a passion.
  - PakG1 16y ago
    I think the purpose of these kinds of litmus tests (to find people who are willing to get the job done, even if it looks stupid, boring, or detestable) is more important than filtering for independent thinkers. Quite frankly, a good manager would be able to determine whether someone's a brownnoser or an independent thinker through other means. Heck, just talking with people will be sufficient for managers who are experienced and talented. But a litmus test like this reveals a lot about the nature of a person that can't come out in a conversation. You see them talk the talk, now see them walk the walk; not in terms of their professional skills, but in terms of their human nature/personality/potential for leadership. Because the thing is, this kind of litmus test has one other very positive goal. See how someone responds to stupid orders. It's a huge sign for how well they'd be able to handle conflict and politics, which exist in any organization, even startups. It's the unfortunate nature of the beast, but good conflict management also does much to foster amazing outcomes, productivity, and creativity. You want that kind of independent thinker over a guy who's a prima donna, even if he is an undisputed talent. To think that litmus tests cause organizations to hire only brownnosers would say more about the quality of the managers than litmus tests themselves. Don't hate the litmus test, hate the managers who don't have higher purposes. We shouldn't be petty about that kind of stuff, it says a lot about our ability (or lack thereof) to handle human interaction well.
- bootload 16y ago
  @edw519, Joel talks about "willingness" in a similar example, this time reversed ~ http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081201/how-hard-could-it-be-my-style-of-servant-leadership.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081201/how-hard-could-it-be-my...
- Retric 16y ago
  The problem is I would both clean the bathroom and continue looking for a job. Smile, pitch in, and quietly get the fuck out of there. Net cost me not much. Net cost to the company 10-30+k depending on how long I stay. PS: Turnover at the 3-6 month period is the most expensive for a SW company. You just lost all that hiring momentum, wasted all that time getting someone up to speed, damage moral, and they leave before you get any real work out of them all at the same time.
  - blueben 16y ago
    You would screw over a company just because they made you do an undesirable job for exactly one day? Obviously the test works.
    - jarek 16y ago
      That's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it? "Wow, you hate our company. I'm glad we made you hate us so we could find out." Note: an unnecessary undesirable job. Not to mention he's not screwing a company, he's leaving a contract under established terms after discovering an incompatibility. When you screw up and get fired, you don't really get to say "I'm glad I screwed up before you had the chance to fire me."
    - rimantas 16y ago
      The company with such "tests" deserves it. I'd say it must be more of some creepy pleasure for the boss to ask that more than any test.
brown9-2 16y ago
Sounds to me like the point is to actually test for "Pitching in when it needs to be cleaned?" rather than taking a brand new employee at their word.
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
So, you wouldn't work out at a place like Zappos, where everyone had to hit the phones and do customer support their first two weeks, from application developers to executives. "Making employees clean it on their first day? Not so much." What will you do your first day as a business owner (that is, if that's the end goal for you)? That's just one of the many things you'll do yourself for awhile, just FYI.
- jarek 16y ago
  No, I personally wouldn't work at Zappos. But their reason to hit the phones is to understand the business and its customers. Unless edw519's father's company was in cleaning or maintenance, cleaning bathrooms won't help you understand its business. While I currently have no concrete plans for my own business, I imagine that on the first day, I will be working from my home, which I currently clean myself. When it gets big enough to need an office, it'll be big enough to pay for cleaning (likely through the facilities' central management).
  - muhfuhkuh 16y ago
    "But their reason to hit the phones is to understand the business and its customers." No it's not. If I'm a DB admin, I sure as _hell_ wouldn't be caught dead reading through a sizing chart for some chatty gal in Texas. No way. At least that's the so-called "millenial" mentality, right? Cleaning bathrooms is a task. You're hired by your employer to do a job, which involves many tasks I'm sure. You're not just a title holder or a problem domain solver. And, as long as you "have no concrete plans" to be your own boss, you'll _always_ be looked upon as an employee. I think you conflate your titles with "I do no other thing than that with which I am programmed". That's what we layfolk call a machine, not an employee. But, if you prefer abject reductionism of the employee definition, you're a unit of work. That includes whatever the employer wants. Request in, results out; regardless of what the request is. I don't need you to understand my business; that's _my_ business. I just need you to work for me.
    - jarek 16y ago
      While I appreciate being judged without being known as much as the next guy, no, you're wrong. (How's that for a millenial thing to say!) I'm not sure where "I won't clean bathrooms on my first day as a software developer" turns into "I do no other thing than that with which I am programmed" (emphasis added). If you were a DB admin, would you think walking the owners' dog is beneficial for your career? Will you do everything an employer asks of you? If not, where do you draw the line, and why? These actions have results. By making everyone hit the phones, you select against those not comfortable with talking to people they don't know on the phone. (Do I need to point out that you have no idea if they're socially incompetent, spoiled, or they don't like talking on the phone because of a hearing impediment?) By making people clean the bathrooms on their first day, you select against those who aren't interested in proving their willingness to get their hands dirty with busywork absolutely unrelated to their careers. That might be your intended goal. That is fine. Just realize what you're doing. I heard good employees are hard to find these days. An employer is absolutely free to treat me as a machine to perform units of whatever work happens to be necessary. And I am absolutely free to not work for employers like that. What I call a machine is someone who does whatever the management asks of them with no personal thoughts, concerns, or plans to speak of. Someone will have to understand your business, and unless you have no concrete plans to grow beyond a five-person shop, that will have to include someone other than the big boss.
jasonlynes 16y ago
thought this too, when he said the kitchen kept getting messy. why didnt those slobs pick up after themselves? "oh the ceo's got it"..
jasonlotito 16y ago
> Maybe it's just my millenial entitlement, but that strikes me as a bad strategy. I don't know if has anything to do with your "millenial" (seriously, you use this word to describe yourself?) entitlement, but it's not a bad strategy for both you or the company. You don't want to work for a company like that, and they don't want employees like you. Extrapolate that into numerous other "First Day/First Week/First Month" tasks other companies use, and it serves it's purpose. Do not for a moment confuse cleaning the bathroom as the strategy. It's not. The strategy is sound. Your comment, if anything, is proof of this. Which again, is a good thing. =)
- jarek 16y ago
  > seriously, you use this word to describe yourself? No. That was tongue in cheek. Does anyone refer to their entitlement seriously?
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    I was referring your use of the word 'millenial', not the entitlement part. As for anyone referring to their entitlement seriously: yes. I see it happen all the time. I guess, however, they just don't realize it's their 'entitlement' they are talking about.
    - jarek 16y ago
      The entire "maybe it's just my millenial entitlement" was tongue in cheek. I've never seen anyone seriously refer to their own entitlement using the word "entitlement" in a positive content.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Strategy is sound in what? In hiring people willing to clean bathrooms?
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    Zappos employs the same strategy by offering up money for someone to leave. People who take the money aren't the type of person they want at Zappos. They won't fit in. The military does this as well. Basic training is more than just training. If you can't get through basic training, you aren't the type of person that will work out in the military. As for cleaning the bathroom: It's not cleaning the bathroom. It's shared ownership in the upkeep, presentation, and workings of the company. It's a small company, so everyone knows everyone I imagine. Someone not willing to clean the bathroom would probably not fit into the company. You seem stuck on the fact that it's cleaning a bathroom. What about committing code the first day you're on the job? Being forced to take ownership. What about being handed a computer and being told to put it together? Lots of companies have rituals their first day. Things the new guy does that essentially boils down to the final test to see if they'll belong. If they'll fit in. Don't make the assumption that the strategy is only cleaning a bathroom. Don't assume you have to clean a bathroom.

presidentender 16y ago

I washed dishes at a restaurant during high school. One day, someone defecated in the employee restroom and missed, leaving their waste on the floor behind them. The first waitress to enter the room thereafter shrieked, then began laughing, and called the rest of us in to go look at it. I assume she used the customer restroom. We all looked at the offending object in question, and laughed among ourselves. I grabbed a few paper towels, and went to go deal with the situation prejudicially. After depositing the doodoo in the dumpster out back - you can't flush paper towels - I came back in, washed my hands, and resumed my proper duties as dishwasher. Minutes later, the boss came into the kitchen, beaming contentedly. He made his way to the employee restroom, opened the door, and asked "Uh, where's the turd?" As it turned out, the previously mentioned poop had been plastic, and I'd just discarded a five-dollar novelty gag. Laughs were had once again. One of the waitresses and the boss both mentioned to me that I was "like, the best employee ever" because I was willing to take the initiative to deal with a nasty situation. I'd like to say that this has been borne out by my professional performance since then, particularly as it stands relative to that of my coworkers from that period. The best part was that the boss had borrowed the plastic fecal matter from a friend of his and had to go fish it out of the dumpster to avoid buying a new one.

sudont 16y ago
You couldn't tell it was plastic? Must have been really good quality. I've known quite a few people who worked in gas stations and other places where they had to clean the rest rooms. If there was shit, it was generally either sprayed everywhere or rubbed on the walls. I'm pretty sure they'd appreciate the politeness of a single fecal clump. As this was after the advent of cell phone cameras, I've seen the evidence. One single-person bathroom's floor was almost half-covered in feces.
- presidentender 16y ago
  One treats shit rather gingerly when one holds it through paper towels, I daresay. Its appearance was in line with my expectations of that category of objects. I do not debate the nastiness of a shit-encrusted public bathroom stall.

ukaszg 16y ago

I think this is a bad example. If a company hires a person to do X (where X is not 'cleaning the bathroom'), than that person should do X. If one does not do what he/she is hired to do than that person just wastes time and is not earning money for the company. Who would you prefer to hire? Someone that 'cleans the bathroom' when it needs to be cleaned or someone that just ignores this and earns money so you could hire a cleaner?

laurasbadideas 16y ago

I'm curious about whether the business owner mentioned this during the hiring process. I also wonder whether this affected the demographics of the company. If someone were to spring this on me on my first day of work, I'd probably wonder whether this was a hazing ritual or a test (and whether the desired behavior was to clean the bathroom myself or get it clean some other way). If, in addition to that, I happened to be the first female employee or the first employee with an ethnicity different from the owner's, I'd also wonder whether this was really something they did to everyone or whether it was some kind of racist/sexist stunt -- especially since this would be happening on my first day of work, before I had a chance to get to know anyone reasonably well. Regardless of the actual motivation behind the request, I think it might have the effect of disproportionately driving away people who are in a different demographic than the majority of people at the company.