How Much Do You Want It to Be? 612.5
The founder of a company needed to choose his successor. He studied resumes and talked to references, but he decided to ask only one question during the final interview: “How much is 2 + 2?”
Ann, the first candidate, worried that there was a trick, but she answered straightforwardly. “There’s only one correct answer: four.”
Terry, who had an engineering background, was more creative. “Depending on whether you’re dealing with positive or negative numbers,” he said, “the answer could be plus four, zero, or minus four.”
Chuck, the last candidate, looked the founder in the eye and whispered, “How much do you want it to be?”
While Ann and Terry took different approaches, their intention was to give an honest answer. Chuck, on the other hand, wanted the founder to know he was willing to say or do whatever it takes to succeed. Some employers may find this combination of creativity and moral flexibility highly attractive.
I’d show him the door.
You see, Chuck is a manipulator and rationalizer, and they don’t make good employees. They search for excuses rather than solutions. They’re more concerned with looking good than doing it right.
People like Chuck, who are adept at inventing justifications that sound good but aren’t true, are simply clever liars. Eventually they'll be found out. Remember, an employee who will lie for you will lie to you.
Without conscience there’s no credibility, without credibility there’s no trust, and without trust there’s no future.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Subscribe
Comments
This commentary has "literally saved my professional life." Thanks so much for sharing with everyone.
Posted by: Linda Slayton | April 3, 2009 5:28 AM
I like to play golf. It is supposed to be a game of character, but more often than not, I meet people who will find a way to get around the rules to improve their score by justifying the way they count their strokes.
You can learn much about a person by playing a simple round of golf.
Posted by: Richard S. | April 3, 2009 7:08 AM
And who was it who said there was no connection between character and the current economic meltdown?
Posted by: James | April 3, 2009 8:47 AM
Thank you for putting the correct finishing comments on an old management story that is virtually always used to represent a positive attribute of flexibility and company loyalty rather than deception and lack of character.
Posted by: Lee Schegg | April 3, 2009 8:56 AM
I know a lot of people in my organization like Chuck. In reading this story, I thought for sure he was going to get the job because he had vision or was a company man. I have always felt uncomfortable playing company politics and was pleasantly surprised by the moral of your story. I hope some of our executive management read it and start considering their promotional decisions more carefully.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2009 10:02 AM
I worked for years with a person like Chuck. We (my co-workers and myself) kept thinking that surely one day the top management would realize what a manipulator this person was and get rid of the individual. Now, I and other good workers have been laid off and that person is still there. Maybe eventually the individual will be found out, but it may not be in this lifetime.
Posted by: Ron | April 3, 2009 2:58 PM
The responses to this commentary that cite examples of this type of employee say a lot about the corporate culture of those companies. Each employee should consider whether they are making compromises in working for that type of company.
Posted by: Lee Schegg | April 6, 2009 8:45 AM
Ron:
The person who did not get laid off has already been found out. That's why s/he was promoted. Take another look at your top management team.
Posted by: John | April 7, 2009 11:33 AM
There really is only one answer to the question “How much is 2 + 2?” If the interviewer was interested in negative numbers, he would have said so. Terry, while being creative, is just a milder, sneakier form of Chuck. He attempted to manipulate the data to suit possible outcomes. Since the question did not say anything about negative numbers, the only possible answer is 4. Any other answer is an attempt to be dishonest. I’d show Terry the same door as Chuck.
Posted by: James | April 7, 2009 11:44 AM
"2+2 = 5" is a Radiohead song.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2009 7:42 PM
I encounter this everyday: the other coworkers in my group spend the entire day gossiping, socializing, pandering, sleeping at their desks, playing online games including casino and baseball, inappropriate physical contact with others outside the group including kissing and body-part squeezing. Work doesn't get done, behaviors are ignored by management, which turns the other way. Shocked and dismayed, I continue employment here because of the salary, benefits and commute. Employment here is is a "golden handcuff." With mortgage and insurances to pay, I'm stuck.
Posted by: RE | April 9, 2009 8:06 AM
To RE:
In other words, you prostitute yourself and your morals for "the salary, benefits and commute"? Seems like you should be seeking other employment or go higher up the management chain to effect change. Claiming the golden handcuff is a cop-out.
Posted by: Kimo | April 17, 2009 10:06 AM