You reacted better than I did, then. I was positively repulsed. The hypothetical dialogue he provided between the candidate at employer suggests what he is rea

You reacted better than I did, then. I was positively repulsed. The hypothetical dialogue he provided between the candidate at employer suggests what he is really looking for here: people who are honorable. But it has to be his definition of honor, which is entirely image-based and self-sacrificial. You make a spectacle of the duration of your presence at the office, and you make eloquent speeches about the spectacle you will make of yourself. Keeping up the spectacle requires long hours, tangible evidence of disciplined behavior, and political maneuvering. The spectacle doesn't matter, what you accomplish does. And what you accomplish is not linear with the number of hours you put in. In fact, figuring out a correlation is damn near impossible, because of variables like the type of work, which hours were worked, what distractions were present, and how much subconscious thought entered into all of this while not actively working. I'm probably missing several other variables, but the idea is there. This article amuses me, because outside of possible questions in interviews, there is absolutely no indication of what the potentially employee does outside of posturing and preening. The entire article seems like an exercise in the very same sort of posturing he would like to see his ideal candidate do during the interview, along with enough handwavey, fearmongering bullshit to panic people into doing what he says. If we want to know why more people are becoming entrepreneurial, this gentleman's ideals are one of the catalysts.