Leadership Pitfalls: Don't eat/take your subordinate's treats/food/etc

Do you have people at the office that have bowls of snacks or candies to share for the office?

It's a trap

This is not an intentional trap. This is not the intentions of the givers (unless it's me). But you will have people like me who witness those who take things.

The trap is not a single incident infraction. The problem is when you abuse the (unspoken) system... the peer judgment of others. The main problem starts when you take a larger portion of the goods.

Lack of Compassion

The goods are not free. Out of the goodness of the giver, they are sharing to help those around them. But when the taker starts to feel entitled, this just hits the wrong nerve in me.

For example, there is a lady who always keep a variety of sweets in her area. Several people enjoy the treats. But each day after she's gone, a group of people takes a noticeable amount of sweets from her desk. Because I am usually one of the last people out of the office, I notice this group.

Although she does not mind, this action by that group is just wrong to me. I have also heard the same from others. Some of them have also started to use more racial biases because of this.

So not only does this make it appear poorly for those who take too much, but it also also reflects poorly on whatever prejudicial group the observer makes.

Unfairness

I am one that occasionally leave sweets/snacks on my desk to share. As a person who has bought food to share and even though I am not poor, these foods are not cheap. 

Because I am further back in the office, I do not get as many visitors. I do regularly get a director who is very friendly with a colleague who sits next to me.

Although I am ok with those who take a treat each time they visit, his visits started to irk me when he said (somewhat playfully) that I need to restock my treats (when I haven't restocked for a while). Not only restock but a specific request of candy that I brought in once. I don't mind when someone at least at the same corporate level as me does this because they never do. Yes, that sounds odd but there is an unspoken understanding that these are treats, not entitlements.

I also know this director eats other's treats. And there are similar complaints from those people as I have in my mind. We are the bottom of the hierarchy. A director is 2-3 levels above us, so easily makes twice as much as us (which means he has the potential to save way more than double). Over 5 years, he has never given anything back... not even a thank you. 

If it were just me, I would just chalk it up to my bad luck. But for others, the very least he can do is do something nice (and something unselfish) in return. Even if we have poor directors (I work for a fortune 10 company so extremely unlikely), he could at the very least "promote" them in some ways. I do not even mean a professional promotion. A simple this is a great person, kind person, or if I even have to drudge the bottom of the barrel.... a very simple thank you. Or even, even lower.... at least do not criticize (like not enough plates, utensils, etc). 

Optics

Ultimately, there is nothing technically wrong with taking or even accepting treats. But because the visual is very subjective, this is just not worth the optics that this behavior projects for a manager or executive.

If anything, I even give back to those that share their kindness even if I do not take any or much. This does not have to be food or materials. I have assisted or aided in other ways, although food is the simplest way. 

People see, people judge, but they won't share their thoughts especially if you are in a leadership position. In my opinion, those who cannot even balance simple human compassion do not deserve my respect for there position. And if his peers cannot at least recognize this, I also have lowered respect for all of leadership.

Reference

Personal experience

My Thoughts: "...people used to be called pirates. Now they're open source enthusiasts."

I found it quite entertaining reading the comments to a blog by Jeff Atwood (https://blog.codinghorror.com/we-dont-use-software-that-costs-money-here/). A large amount of them were dedicated to a single paragraph: "It's tempting to ascribe this to the 'cult of no-pay', programmers and users who simply won't pay for software no matter how good it is, or how inexpensive it may be. These people used to be called pirates. Now they're open source enthusiasts."

Why I find this so fascinating was how at-arms people were defending themselves as if the paragraph was a personal attack on them as software users. At first, I just thought it was the one or two people who always make a big deal about a small thing (the paragraph was not even the point of the blog). But as I continued to read, you see comments (paraphrasing): "long time reading, but not anymore." All over few statements (did I mention that it was not even the point of the blog?).

Still and in a more serious tone, the commenters even appeared to have missed the whole point of the paragraph. First to address the logical problem that keeps irking me. A lot of commenters were basically saying "pirates != open source enthusiasts" but the paragraph reads more like "pirates then open source enthusiasts".

Besides the logical discrepancy, the definition of "pirate" isn't the typical use of the actual people who "steals" software. From the usage, I took the scope of the meaning of pirate to be the group of people who used paid-software for free by downloading hacked or opened software or obtaining keys illegally. Common things that I saw back in college: MS Windows, MS Office, Starcraft, etc.

To me it was felt so ironic that those defending to never have been a pirate probably has used pirated products (I am clumping in MP3 and movies here)... with or without their knowledge. At least back in the day, that was the sign of a good technical engineer... so it is very hard for me to imagine an IT/SW person to not have used pirated products.

Perhaps the confusion is due to the use of the term "open source" instead of "free" or "cost-free" software. Because some commenters were saying "free" being open-source instead of closed-source software. But the article is about costs, so I am not sure why the confusion exists.

Basically, I read the paragraph of people who were users of pirated software are now users of open source software. I have the same sentiments. With more readily available no-cost software, most people have steered more away from pirated software.

Disclaimer

I am pretty sure I've posted a blog about this (blame my fault memory). The periods outside of the quotes are intentional... it just bugs me to use periods within quotes when it is not related to the quote.

Also, I am not sure why I am easily amused by these things.

Reference

https://blog.codinghorror.com/we-dont-use-software-that-costs-money-here/
https://perlbuzz.com/2008/04/10/open_source_is_not_piracy/

My Thoughts (on results as asker): Interview question: 9 balls, find one odd with a balance scale

Disclaimer: This post does not contain the answer the question, although this may contain small hints.

I have posed this question to several people, and found it interesting the common logical point people get stuck on. The most common answer I get is three. Out of 20 or so people (rough estimate), only 1 person (math teacher) figured this out on their own.

Majority of the responses is that they put four on each side. If equal, then the one on the table. If not, take the group that is heavier. Put two on each side, then one on each side.

After they have exhausted their thoughts, I would clue them by asking why they choose four. Why not one, or two, or three?

What I found most interesting is that majority of the people still cannot come up with the answer of two. The reason I find this very interesting is because they use similar logic when they put four balls on each side. The other interesting oddity is even if they brute force the answer (by trying one on each side, then two on each side, then three on each side), some still cannot come up with the answer.

As an Interviewer

Although I enjoy asking this more like a party game, I do not think this is a very effective question for an interview. The question does not effectively get the interviewee to talk out loud, even after I tell them that they should think out loud.

Perhaps they do not want to appear unintelligent by going through wrong assumptions even though everyone does it as part of the process. Or perhaps they don't want to appear to be using brute force.

Maybe a more reasonable assumption is that it is much faster to go through it in your head than talking out loud since the samples are simple enough. Unlike more out-of-the-box questions like how many golf balls fit in a Boeing 747 or monkey with a sombrero, where the question naturally gets interviewees to talk out loud.

Since the interview already is time limited, my personal opinion is that there are better questions to ask if I am trying to test someone's ability to think through a problem. Although

Reference

Search for "interview 9 balls"