Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
Who the hell am I kidding? This blogosphere, where we send our Posts to be read and enjoyed by all Readers, virtual and otherwise? It’s like walking into Manny’s1 in the late 60’s and thinking that if I took a Strat off the wall and played real loud, everyone in the store would be impressed! This internet is like the biggest: bookstore/music store/sit-around-with-strangers-discussing-politics ‘n philosophy … place in the whole damn…world. lol
But you know what we are required by the Doctrine to say, right?
- “hey, either get back on topic or step away from the keyboard, we don’t appreciate you wasting our time.”
- “fuck ’em! yeah!”
- “(you really think, you can turn this around?)” “er… I agree with whatever the loud fellow there just said!”
- “…yeah!! he meant me! yeah!! …er, fuck!!”
Well, at this moment I have a ‘Title’, so by the secret rules that govern my efforts here, I have to come up with a complete Post. Alright, here’s the thing that started the process today. We have Part II of the First Interview Scenario (Corporate Environment) yet to write and in it our Job Applicant will finally get out of the Waiting Room and go into the interview with Mr. Andrews. Now: we know that Mr. Andrews is going to be a roger and we know that our Interviewee is a clark. So, what else is there to say? And, by inference, why write another Post? Both good questions. The answers are:
a) In this second Post, we can describe the physical/emotional environment that is the rogerian Interviewer’s office, the furnishings the decorations and the atmosphere that he has managed to create. Why is this important? What value does it hold? (answers a little later)
b) (and) we can present a number of options for our Interviewee to take in a couple of typical job interview situations, predicated on his personality type.
All of this begs the question, Why go to all this effort?
- Because the quality of the Wakefield Doctrine that is unique and fun and different from virtually all the other personality type guys, is that when we ‘apply’ the Doctrine, we are actually trying to see from the other person’s eyes, to experience the world as they do. We do this by observing behavior and then inferring what kind of world they are responding to…the world of a clark or the reality of a scott or the environment of a roger.
The Wakefield Doctrine is so not the typical, “hmmm let’s see you are showing Traits A and B1 and you like asparaguses so you must be this personality type!!” Instead we say, “(fill in the Blank) and we infer (the following optional choices)”2 - ..and besides, the content of these ‘Interview’ Posts will be going into the book, so that Readers who have never heard of this blog, but are curious as to what the Wakefield Doctrine might offer as a useful tool in their practice can ‘play’ with the three types in different settings. They can have fun and practice the Doctrine at the same time. Which, now that I write that, is really not that different from what we all have been doing the last couple of years, here at the Wakefield Doctrine blog.
So the Test:3
- the Interviewers room will decorated with a lot of Diplomas and trophies and awards and such: True or False
- the Interviewee, thinking that he is establishing a common interest, mentions having gone to the same school, this is a total mistake: True or False?
- the Interviewer will ask the Interviewee to tell why he thinks he should get the job and (the Interviewee) thinks this calls for an honest answer and gives (an honest answer) Big Mistake: True or False?
- at the Conclusion of the Interview, the Interviewee thinks that appearing not desperate for the job is the best approach and so does not try to establish a follow-up Biggest Mistake: True or False?
Next in the series: Molly a rogerian female applies to be a waitress at a struggling restaurant, run by a scottian cook (and his clarklike Mom). Don’t miss it!
1) ask the Progenitor roger, our resident music-culture curator
2) the worldviews of clarks, scotts and rogers, well duh!
3) who the hell said anything about a Test??! A little ‘setup’ in the story would help….
About clarkscottroger
Does anyone else use Google Reader to subscribe to this blog? It doesn’t seem to be working. The most recent post I can pull up through it is two weeks old.
Damn… I will check (do you think that google is the subscribe widget of choice for most Readers?)
Hey! Yeah you reading this!
Obviously you’ve been reading the Doctrine enough to answer the true or false questions above. So don’t just answer them in your damn head. Share your answers with us. Or are you too afraid that you’ll be wrong?
I know you’ve got it in you. So come on for Christ’s sake.
lol (You have best comply…our Ms. AKH, she not kidding…)
QUESTIONS:
1. True
2. Probably makes no difference…
3. Depends on the interviewees outlook…
If we are going off of the last post, then I’m guessing this guy is going to talk himself out of a job, whether or not he is qualified.
4. True
Hallo there Clark and friends!
Since my head is filled with quite a lot of saw dust today, I am taking a big risk in answering the questions ^_^
1 – False (not at all to contradict Molly though)
2 – Won’t matter if the rest of the interview goes bad, but won’t matter much either if it goes well. All depends on how good the memories of the employer at that particular school… then when it is time to chose among the different applicants, that might be a plus (for another interview)… however, it won’t make a difference if it is to get the job right after that particular interview. So big mistake? Not necessarily…
3 – Honesty is always good, but out of experience, sometimes no matter how honest you want to be, there are things that aren’t good to say… example (you can laugh all you want afterwards… true personal event) Some years back, I applied for a job as assistant and almost at the end of the interview said I was not comfortable talking on the phone… how do you think that went? (yes, I am quite ashamed of myself looking back… but hey, not gonna dwell on the past on top of everything else right ^_^) So, honesty yes, but toned down is always smarter…
4 – True… big time!
Hope that helps the book move forward/onward/ahead…
yow! gots to keep up with the Commentation
@Claire liked the honesty of (your own story in your Comment) this being a clark (in our example), do you think that is something that we would advise another clark to be careful of?
@Molly I totally agree that this clark will run a good chance of talking himself out of a job!
but…(now here’s the hard part)… why?
‘Why’ in the sense of where is ‘the source’ of these two negative outcomes? Clearly the people in the story are free to act…but I sense that (for the clark) the danger lies in his trying to decide the best course of action on the basis of (his) interpretation of what the roger was saying/expecting… as opposed to what he is inclined to do naturally…. in a sense this is the difference between both Claire and Molly’s response.
Going back to the example from the previous post, the clark didn’t really think he had a chance at the job, no matter if he was qualified. I think he wanted the job, but all the thoughts he was projecting spoke of his fears.
One’s beliefs about themselves is one of the biggest determining factors about where one will end up in life.
When I ran a daycare, I had a hard time ‘selling’ myself.
I realize now that I could have had a lot more customers if my belief had been, ‘Of course I am the right person to care for your child!’ But it was not. I knew different parents were looking for different environments, so would only lay out the facts.
But then again, maybe I did fine. My turn over rate was extremely low.
you know… Claire and Molly, you have both illuminated a very key aspect of the Doctrine in (a portion) of your respective Comments:
“…sometimes no matter how honest you want to be, there are things that aren’t good to say… example (you can laugh all you want afterwards… true personal event) Some years back, I applied for a job as assistant and almost at the end of the interview said I was not comfortable talking on the phone… how do you think that went?…”
“...When I ran a daycare, I had a hard time ‘selling’ myself.
I realize now that I could have had a lot more customers if my belief had been, ‘Of course I am the right person to care for your child!’ But it was not. I knew different parents were looking for different environments, so would only lay out the facts”…
In terms of the Wakefield Doctrine, both of these statements speak to a key to self-improvement. To be effective in our efforts (at self-improvement), we need to look to what we are, what we believe and what we think we know about ourselves. Now this is not as daunting and convoluted as it may sound, because we already know that by virtue of our personal realities, certain actions and outcomes are available to us and a whole range of action and outcomes simply does not exist…. in our realities as clarks.
However, as Molly will attest to, if she ‘steps into the world of her rogerian aspect’, then a range of behavior is available, that was not available in her ‘normal’ worldview.
And Claire says it as well, (in her worldview as a clark) what is perceived as ‘honesty’ needs to be toned down or moderated in term of the effect on a specific situation…
…cool
STILL WAITING FOR YOU, the reader, to give it a shot. Hell, you can cheat if you want seeing as there are already 2 readers who have answered.
1. True
2. True
3. True
4. True
As it is 1:30 am I shall be brief. The most efficacious thing a clark can do, being interviewed by a roger, is to genuinely access her/his rogerian aspect, to channel if you will the same emotional content as is experienced by the roger. If a clark shows up wearing her/his rogerian suit to the interview, the interview should go well. The clark may or may not get the job but the odds will have gone up by NOT having been a total clark during the interview.
I don’t mean to muddy the waters or anything but gender may play a role in the outcome. But that is best left for my “daytime” self. LOL
And, as I re-read the comments here, it is afterall what the Wakefield Doctrine is all about…..knowing about someone else’s “reality” and being able to relate to it as if it were your own. If only to get the job…
The other thing I find fascinating is the “similarity” of experience(s) while reading comments by Molly and Claire:)
Here’s mine.
1- True, if it’s in someone’s office.
False, if it’s held in a conference room. Either way- if you believe yourself to be actually quailified, it could be in the parking lot.
2- True. But not why you would think. The -er has already scanned your resume, and knows that. The -ee should allow the -er to make mention. Appearing to want to control the interview would be the critical mistake.
3- If the -ee thinks he has a firm grasp on what the job really entails, then answer honestly. If it is not clear, then ask for clarification. Then answer honestly. There is certainly nothing to be gained by being evasive.
4- Huge mistake. An -ee who appears distant and remote will probably lose out.
the roger’s answers are very helpful in showing the strength of the Doctrine! As we know, it is all about inferring the reality of the other person, seeing through their eyes…that gives us the improved perspective.
(Up til roger’s Comment) we were able to witness the view of a clark (of) another clark and a roger… through Claire’s and Molly’s Comments ( …and oddly enough, through AKH’s Comments)…and they were there to show how (we all) perceive a reality, interpret and then act with this information informing our decision.
the roger’s Comment lets us see how different the scene appears to (a roger)…the thing is everyone is right ( or to be more exact, everyone’s perception is accurate)… and roger confirms this by offering the advice on how (the clark) should behave in order to increase his chances of sucess… once again, the value of this is simply to demonstrate how two people with two distinct worldviews can interact in a common reality and see different paths.
Huge benefit this Wakefield Doctrine offers! to know what the Interviewer is seeing, despite what you (the ee) may think is useful…even more so, if I need to co-mingle with a roger, then I need only look to my own rogerian aspect…no imitations, the real damn thing.
I didn’t realize that True or False questions could be “maybe, if, probably, depends…” But then again this is the Doctrine. But still….