Month: May 2012 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Month: May 2012 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

in the Week to come: Suspicions are confirmed, Inferences are drawn and Conclusions are arrived at! the Wakefield Doctrine ‘a simple way to a better life’

May 14, 2012 By

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( ‘a simple tool for a better life‘)

In the week ahead we will:

  • conclude our Series of Scenaria ( yes, I just love to use the word, ‘scenaria)
  • explore the question of ‘language and presentation’ of the Doctrine in this blog, with an eye towards the cost/benefit equation involve in appealing to the weak-minded Reader
  • listen to music vids ( of course!)
  • check in with all of the DownSprings and Friends-of-the-Doctrine, in a new Feature: “what are those rascals writing now?”
  • provide an update on the book Project ( there are some fascinating things coming from this process)
  • a Contest (with a Wakefield Doctrine Tee Shirt as the grandest of Prizes!)

(Experienced Readers of the Doctrine will detect a certain note of…’stem winding’* in today’s Post. This is because we are busy on the book, but it is Monday and we always like to remind people that content (good and ‘so so’) turns up on these Pages most every day.)

The hell with waiting for the week to begin! One of the genuinely cool things to come from last week’s series on job interviews was the insight we got from rogers on one of the ‘choices of action’ presented in Scenario B. In this Scenario, the rogerian Applicant is waiting and waiting for her interview, and is beginning to get impatient. We provided our Applicant 3 actions to take, one of them being: to begin to clear some of the tables to help out the Owner of the restaurant. The reaction of rogers (to this suggestion) was very, very informative! To a ‘man’, they said, “No way! You can’t do that!! They will call the cops, you will be ejected from the building!! etc!!! etc!!!!”

That is so not the response from our clarklike DownSprings! clarks were all, “of course you would do that! Why the hell not?”

Discussion (of the difference between the two followed), the explanation from the rogers: “you would never presume the authority to take such action in the person’s restaurant. No matter how well meaning, you are a stranger to them, you cannot impose your will or take independent actions like this, it can be interpreted only as a hostile action by the Owner.”

A totally different (situation-based) worldview from that of the clarks, who were all, “hey, why not? Someone should help those people out, not asking for pay or even thanks, but what the hell…you are applying to be a waitress! Demonstrate your skills and willingness to work!”

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we all have personal realities, individual worldviews. While the common reality is same for us all, from the perspective of the individual, the world is of one of three characteristic types: the clark’s world in which they are the perennial outsider, the scottian world of life as a predator and the rogerian world living in an ordered, structured and predictable reality.
With the two markedly different responses cited above we clearly see the respective worldviews of the clark and the roger! Same restaurant, same people, same situation  but!…. the outcome of a certain action would be totally different. If the roger did try and clear tables, the Owner would be offended and upset. If the clark cleared the tables, the Owner would laugh and smile.  Tell me I’m lying.

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

“I saw Lon Chaney Jr., walking with the Queen” the Wakefield Doctrine it’s a quiet Sunday morning ( dit dit dit )

May 13, 2012 By

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )

Interesting Drive last night, we had Progenitor roger show up, in person, at the starting place!
What followed was a total ‘Time Travel Saturday’*  In any event, we hit the Wakefield Saturday Night Trail on time.
Began at the AKH Mall, passed Starbucks and the place Carvels used to be and into Narragansett, stopping at the Towers (to open the call-in lines) and then south down Ocean Rd. After passing the place ‘that Cesar’s Nightclub used to be’ we drove  past the Spain restaurant, continued on to Aunt Carries and drove past 2 college girls in ski pants standing in front of a yellow school bus next to the Bon Vue nightclub.
From there we proceeded to the Galilee Escape Road over to Galilee to Georges restaurant and the breach-way parking lot.

(So, look at the links in the above Post and tell me, is there anything in the everyday world that does not have it’s own website? Not to mention a damn FaceBook page ( “Suffering from Arthritis? Aleve might help. Warning Side Effects may include: changes in appetites, vivid dreams, extensive personal conversations with household pets and Death. LIKE us on FaceBook!!) (…”and what the hell is a ‘proton pump inhibitor’? it is on the label for Aleve…cool name, whatever it is!”)

So all in all, quiet Sunday after a quiet Saturday.

Rest up, the week begins in 21 hours (EDT)

 

Hey!  I was just drinking some coffee reading a random Post and I came across this Post…the First Saturday Night Drive! How cool was that first call… btw the first group call was done with multi-line cell phones, this is before we had the Call in Conference Line number that we have now. Damn, wish I had recorded it!  (before our Video Fridays, so we did not have the technology).

* the Progenitor lived in the Wakefield area a couple of decades ago…there were people on the streets, shouting ‘Howdy neighbor!”

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

OK! lets take a look at our three Applicants and try to sort the Winners from the Losers! the Wakefield Doctrine (it can help you get the job you want!)

May 12, 2012 By

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine

A really productive week! A lot of (new) insights and understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine and its practical uses ( “what the hell is this guy talkin about!!?? hey  where are the pitchas!!  fuck!!” ) and, therefore forming a solid foundation for us going forward. (” …not one to interrupt, but that little scottian fellow has a point, as opposed to you, apparently!“ ). With the three scenaria imagined, we can see the characteristic worldviews, in a very high-relief context. ( “…high-relief?  scenaria??! he actually used the latin pural!! jeez loueez my eyes are startin to bleed!!“  ). All of which makes more involved applications all the easier. ( …”gotta go with the little fella again,  scenari ‘a’?  we know what the word means and we know that you are thinking about three different situations… don’t you think ‘a’ is a little on the…overkill side? )  (…just a teensy bit? ” )

In any event, lets look at whatever conclusions can be drawn from what we have done (“…what, was the ‘simple declarative sentence’ store closed??! GET to THE POINT!!”)  ( “...fuck!!“ ) with the three personality type Job Applicants:

Scenario A:  a clark interviewing with a roger, (reminder: in the setup it was stated that the Applicant knew someone on the Board of Directors at the Corporation). Real simple. The clark should try to get the Interviewer talking about himself for as long as possible. Nothing the clark can say about himself is going to get him the job. However! If the clark can get the conversation over to the matter of references and he (the clark) can get the Interviewer to acknowledge that one of his references sits on the Board of Directors of the Corporation, the job is his, …that simple. The fear of repercussions from above is the only reason that this rogerian Interviewer will hire this clarklike Applicant.

Scenario B: a rogerian woman interviewing with a scottian restaurant owner. The insights that came out of the first scenario of this situation are the most interesting! The question was asked, “if kept waiting an excessive length of time to meet with the owner, what should the Applicant do”? (One of the choices) was to start clearing tables. There was a totally consistent (and vehement) outcry from rogers on this choice ( “…I wouldn’t go so far as to call it vehement! it’s just that it seems like a near criminal action to take!  That was all we were trying to suggest.” ) Consistently, the opinion of rogers was that, to assume the ‘authority’ to help out and clear some tables would be an affront to the Owner of the business and would be viewed negatively. The interesting aspect of this view (from inside the rogerian worldview) was that they (a roger) would not assume they had the right or the permission to get that involved  in the business of the restaurant. While clarks, on the other hand, would simply assume that, not only did they have the right, but that it would be viewed positively by the Owner! Tell us there are not separate realities at work here! In any event, The consensus was that the rogerian approach was to try to engage (totally on a verbal level) the owner of the restaurant, indicate that she understood what it was like to be so very busy, was the best approach to getting hired by the scottian business Owner. ( “...even though you kind of missed most of the more subtle points of the rogerian viewpoint, I would find that an acceptable analysis” )   ( “...yeah!! and she shoulda worn like tight clothes and stuff  Hey is this a fuckin PG blog?? it is??! screw it…she shoulda been like real friendly…ya know what I mean?” )

Scenario 2: a scottian Applicant interviews to get his old job back. The interview is with his old boss( a roger), but to make it more interesting there is a second Interviewer, a clarklike female that the Applicant has never met. ( “Hey!! I got this one…. easy, I’d talk to the girl and kinda ignore the guy…until I had her listenin to me. Make some jokes and and soon as she laughs at one of my jokes, I’d turn to my old boss and make him part of my little group…fricken easy!!” ) (“... if I might interject...) (“…Interject!!? I got yer interject….” ) ( “…see? where is my bag of kibble? In any event, it would be great risk that this Applicant ignore his former boss, because the clarklike female appears (in your scenario) to be interested in her iPad, which implies that she is looking at his work record….which the rogerian Interviewer will have much to say about, after the Interview so the scottian Applicant had better win the roger over first.” )  ( “??!! yeah?!  I got yer ‘win over’ right here!!” )
Of the three Interview Situation, this is the most difficult to ‘game’, the key to a winning strategy, (as you will see in the upcoming Wakefield Doctrine book), is to identify the Decision Maker. And this situation did not give us enough information to determine the true Decision Maker. My suggestion would be (for) the scottian Applicant to enlist the  support of the rogerian former boss, and ‘close’ the clarklike female on the decision to hire.

OK! We’re good for now! Tonight is Saturday Night and you know what that means!  Find the secret number and call us! (no, you won’t always have AKH here to spoon-feed you the information that will change your life! Find the number your own damnselfs!)

 

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

Video Friday “a Post by any other name would sound as good”…the Wakefield Doctrine gets back to basics 21Century-style!

May 11, 2012 By

Welcome the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Friend of the Doctrine, Mel1 over at Mostly Teachable has very recently started doing ‘podcasts’2 and ever since he put us on the blogroll at ‘Spatula in the Wilderness’3 we have always looked to Mel and them, for things to copy…imitate  to also try our hands at.  So when we saw the recent podcast at ‘Teachable’ (which, btw, is sporting a new and tres cool ‘little black blog’ look), we totally thought, “Shit! Now we got to learn some new technology”
Fortunately for us,  we have DS#1 and Ms AKH on the scene everyday, and their reaction to my concern was, “What the hell!  Just do a Video Friday and we’ll duct tape some fins on it, a little aluminum foil and…”Podcast”!

 

1)  you know, I believe he uses his real name now, but for a lot of us here, he’ll  always be ‘Mel’

2) Wikipedia!!  yo!  podcasts are?

‘A podcast is a type of digital media consisting of an episodic series of audio files subscribed to and downloaded through web syndication or streamed online to a computer or mobile device. The word is a neologism derived from “broadcast” and “pod” from the success of the iPod, as podcasts are often listened to on portable media players.

A list of all the audio or video files currently associated with a given series is maintained centrally on the distributor’s server as a web feed, and the listener or viewer employs special client application software, known as a podcatcher, that can access this web feed, check it for updates, and download any new files in the series. This process can be automated so that new files are downloaded automatically. Files are stored locally on the user’s computer or other device ready for offline use, giving simple and convenient access to episodic content. In this way it is contrasted to webcasting (Internet streaming).’  
(courtesy Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast )

3) ‘Spatula in the Wilderness’ is where we ‘met’ Mel (it may or may not have been his first blog…we suspect not…but provided a source of encouragement to our fledgling efforts, way back in ‘aught 9)

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

Let’s do this thing: the Interviews, the Wakefield Doctrine …”please choose the answer that you *Most* agree with: I am a clark, I am a scott, I am a roger

May 10, 2012 By

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine

Breaks over, people! Lets get back to work!

Here’s the Premise: we are ‘looking over the shoulder’ of the Interviewee that we met in the previous 3 scenaria, as they go into the Interview. There will be three choices of actions for each, hopefully characteristic of the three personality types, pick the one that you think will increase the Interviewee’s chances for success. If you feel there are better, more appropriate-to-personality-type actions, let us know right away and we will alter the Post (you will, of course, need to present sound reasoning to justify the change).

Interview Room A: Framed diplomas on the wall behind the overly ornate wood desk, semi-leather upholstered chair with a high back, photos of family looking adoringly towards the camera and one of those tricky kinetic motion desk toys…and on the wall opposite the desk two Inspirational Posters ( ‘Soar with the Beagles’ and the one of the cat looking in a mirror and seeing a lion). The Office of a roger.

Interview Room B: A poster (in a cheap frame) of Neuschwanstein Castle, a child’s crayon drawing showing the outside of the restaurant and 4 stick figure people hang on the wall behind ‘the desk’,  which, in actuality, is a folding banquet table. Covered with papers and a box of fresh aprons, there is among the catalogs and invoices pads a computer, a cordless phone recharger base and  one of those stacked  ‘In Box/ Out Box’ . The chair behind the desk has duct tape on the back and on the wall opposite the desk, hangs a calendar (from a wholesale food supplier) with big Xs through each day past. The Office of a scott.

Interview Room 2: The wall behind the rectangular conference table is, in fact, a picture window that looks out over the factory floor, specifically  the welding section. To the right of the conference table, (which has 2 chairs on one side and one chair opposite), there is a low coffee table with a couch and two chairs. There is nothing on the wall, which is a faded brown panelling that was once meant to look like mahogany, except a framed poster that says “Plant Safety is No Accident” ( it shows 2 cartoon factory workers wearing hardhats and ear protection, but the faces are featureless ovals). The Office of no one, being used by a roger and a clark.

*****

You (a clark) walk into Room A: The Interviewer is already seated behind his desk. You:

  1. walk to the chair in front of the desk and sit down and only then look at the Interviewer and say, “Hello, glad you could meet with me”
  2. once through the doorway, but without walking further into the room, you stand and you wait for acknowledgement and an invitation to sit
  3. walk up to the chair, but do not sit immediately, instead you look around the room in a appraising manner
You (a roger) walk into Room B: The Interviewer shouts from the kitchen area of the restaurant, “Make yourself at home will be right with ya” You:
  1. stand outside the Office, smiling and making sure that you appear to prefer to wait for the Owner to go into the Office first
  2. walk into the office and begin to straighten things up, (just a little)…clear off your chair, re-stack a pile of papers that are about to spill on the floor
  3. walk in, sit down and begin to text your friend (who you promised that you would tell all about the Interview)

You (a scott) walk into Room 2: On one side of the conference table is a man ( who was your boss the last time you worked here) and a young woman, who you don’t know. The man is simply looking at you, the woman is busy with the iPad on the table in front of her and doesn’t even look up. You:

  1. Walk up to the table and address the young woman, “I worked here a couple of years ago, but I don’t know you! I’m…”
  2. Walk in and sit down, nod to your former boss and simply wait…
  3. Walk in sit down and say, “Alright! Lets talk about my job!”
*****

 

The First Question from the Interviewer in Room A: “So, why do you believe that you will be an asset to our Company?”

  1. “…I believe that my qualifications speak for speaks for itself, the depth of my education is enhanced by the variety of my previous work experiences.”
  2. “You tell me. You saw my resume along with the application and you offered me this Interview, from what I’ve seen so far, I’m kinda of asking myself the same question.”
  3. “Well everything I have seen so far today makes me believe that this is just the kind of company I have been looking for and because of that I will be only an asset to your Team.”

The First Question from the Interviewer in Room B: “So, why the hell do you want to work in a restaurant?”

  1. (laugh) …”that question is exactly why I would like working here!”
  2. (frown) …”I am beginning to wonder that myself.”
  3. (smile) …”is that your only question? Come on, lets get to work, some customers just walked in, it’s getting busy again.”

The First Question from the Interviewer in Room 2: “So, why should we believe that you will not be more trouble than you are worth?”

  1. “I’ve had time to thank and my ex-girl friend says that I have matured a lot in the last 6 months.”
  2. “No reason, do I have the job, or what?”
  3. “It was only since I left here that I have come to realize that this is where I feel most at home, and while I may have made some bad judgements in the past, I promise that I will be the best welder you have ever had.”
That concludes Part 1 of the Interviews.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89-BxTA7JQo

 

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »