Who do you hire for a position in middle-management at the office?

File: 1416439732975.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

>>51986191
>Hiring women for middle-management positions

4, she's focused

>>51986191
Far right or tits McGee. Tits doesn't have the foggiest grasp of office appropriate attire but has balls of steel to come wearing that and look, if that shit is actual armor we clearly are in a jRPG or anime inspired universe and it might be good to have a trained magic warrior on staff. Far right at least has the will to pretend to ignore her. Everyone else might be fine depending on what's in the resume, but they are letting Tits get under their skin in a more obvious way.

>>51986191
The second one since she have the biggest pair of breasts among the properly dressed women, especially when I have no idea of their actual qualifications so thereby, I assume all of them have the same level of qualifications.

>>51986273

This guy gets it.

5>2>1>3>4

>>51986232
guess you think we can't handle it?

>>51986273
I hate this fucking meme. Far right is clearly, CLEARLY, looking in the direction of the woman in armor.

>>51986191
>Who do you hire for a position in middle-management at the office?

Well, we need someone who can perform the same boring task day after day without getting paid for it, so I think OP is perfect for the job.

CVs or gtfo

Obviously the one that's half a foot taller than the rest. we can't have any womanlets around here.

File: oh i get it now.jpg (86KB, 749x1010px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 749x1010px

>>51986191
>armour
>confident posture
>direct eye contact
>focused and intense
>physically fit (mens sana in corpore sano, after all)
>naturally tall
>the unusual hair and eye colours are most likely natural
>no visible tattoos or piercings
>shows no embarrassment or concern for how the other candidates view her
3 would be my pick for sure.

>>51986191
I'd hire 2 or 3. The former because she's the only one actually wearing pants, the latter because she seems the most confident, and assuming she can reign in her eccentricities would be the best pick for management.

>>51986855
>I'd hire 2 or 3. The former because she's the only one actually wearing pants
Good point.

4 is fucking hilarious now that I'm looking at it that way.
>I wear the shortest skirt I can find to make sure I show enough skin to get this job.
>......and then THIS bitch shows up.

>>51986232
women are proven to be far better at multitasking and social interaction then men, so yes middle management is the perfect position for a woman to use her biological pros while still being subservient to upper management (assumed male) thus enforcing her presumed subservience and ensuring that the people she manages still respect her or at least the people she represents.

also I'd hire #5 dresses professionally, shows that she recognizes improper work etiquette like #1 and #2 but isn't distracted by it, and doesn't have a bitch attitude like #4

>>51986936
>women are proven to be far better

I was going to say something, but then I looked at girl #3 again and remembered that this is a high fantasy setting.

Carry on.

>>51986356
That's some really funny perspective going on if that's true.
She can't be looking more than 30 degrees to the right.

>>51986191
I know that it's the style (both artistic and fashion-wise), but the fact that #1,#2,#4 and #5 are wearing neither stockings nor socks annoys me for some reason. #1, if you look closely enough, wearing shoes that are too small for her feet. #2's feet look like the merge at the heel, with how they're angled and her collar button is undone. #4 is obviously slouching and has shit posture, not to mention the fact that she either doesn't really give a damn or was in a hurry because she's wearing a plain long-sleaved shirt instead of a collared button-up like #1, #2 and #5 and just grabbed the shortest skirt in her dresser. #5 looks way too stiff and is obviously trying to avoid looking at #3, her posture is okay but is a tad too rigid for my taste. She'd probably make a good secretary, and I'd keep her resume on hand if I needed a new one.

But still, the lack of socks or stockings on #1, #2, #4, and #5 bothers me for some reason. So I'm slightly biased toward #3 just on that alone.

>>51987246
>ut the fact that #1,#2,#4 and #5 are wearing neither stockings nor socks annoys me for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantyhose

>>51986191
Not 3, because 3 will overthrow you to become higher management.

>>51987342
And yet, due to the art style, there's no way to tell because the skin-tone of the legs are the same as the hands, face, and neck. Which means it'll still bother me every time I see this image.

>>51986191
I haven't seen their respective resumes, I haven't interviewed them, I don't even know what kind of job I'm trying to fill. What exactly do you expect me to do?

>>51986356
No, she's the one most capable of looking the least wierded out amongst the four, making her the most capable of dealing with and entertaining the Mucus Men of the Aeleothine Slugmines during trade and business negotiations. The other three are just much more unable to mask their discomfort.

This is all discounting Tits McGee herself of course.

>>51987246
FYI, #4 is wearing a bit of cloth over her front, in what is called a draped bodice, if I remember correctly. It's rather common.

>>51987386
>not picking strong subordinates to sharpen your skills

I bet you even attend your children's birthday parties too.

The weak are doomed to mediocrity

>>51986191
Number 1 and number 5 are the only ones appropriately dressed and thus deserve to advance to secondary interviews

File: middle management.jpg (56KB, 215x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 215x500px

>>51986191
>>51986232
>>51986936
The thing is. Competent base employees can meet their goals even with useless middle management. Competent middle manager can't do shit when the base employees are useless. It's basically the work position of least potential harm.
Unless they are actually signing deals with customer and write down unrealistic promises. But then if your company doesn't have dedicated sales people, you probably have worse problems than quality of middle managers.

File: 046[1].png (425KB, 800x1270px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 800x1270px

>>51988617
>It's a ShindoL doujin with a happy end
Office Ladies truly are magical.

File: IMG_0721.jpg (44KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 399x385px

I love how women always interview like they're asking for the job or qualifying themselves to teacher. Curveballs make them spaghetti everywhere.

File: 010[1].png (1MB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1200px

>>51988752
Job interviews are already stressful enough without the curveballs.

>>51986191
Whichever killed a dragon or other large monster.

I want blood on the floor in the boardroom meetings and dead bodies piling up as quickly as possible.

>>51988582

Whats wrong with how 2 and 4 are dressed?

File: IMG_0301.jpg (33KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x480px

>>51988787
I asked this one girl about the last movie she saw just to fuck with her

This other kid was nervous af so I asked him what he imagined he'd be doing now back when he was 10

>>51988846
#2's collar isn't properly tucked in and her collar button isn't done up. #4's skirt is a Sexual Harassment Lawsuit waiting to happen.

>>51988752
>>51988787
Making interviews ain't much easier than doing them. But if I'm throwing a curveball, I either already decided candidate is good enough and just want to double check how far they can be pushed or already decided they are not worth it but need to drag the interview on for a while longer.
No answer save for complete mental breakdown or revolutionary breakthrough idea worth of patenting will change my mind at that point.

>>51986191
Number 3 has no respect for the workplace decorum. Number 4 appears to be a raging lesbian that can't control her sexual urges in a professional setting.
Numbers 1 and 2 are close, but number 5 really looks to be company material.

>>51988855
>This other kid was nervous af so I asked him what he imagined he'd be doing now back when he was 10
Кocмoнaвт!

>>51988930
>or already decided they are not worth it but need to drag the interview on for a while longer.
I'd honestly prefer it if at that point I was just told "sorry, you're not what they're looking for" (and preferably why I'm not what they're looking for). No offense, but asking questions just to stall feels pretty rude to me. I get that the entire job interview thing is bullshit with its own weird code of etiquette and codewords, but I just like a bit of honesty from time to time.

File: IMG_0628.jpg (128KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1280x720px

>>51988930
I throw them to test how quick thinking they are, how cool they are under pressure, and how they handle banter.

That and I just like making people spaghetti.

>>51988992
I'd prefer that as well, but there's procedures that need to be followed and if you cut it too short candidate might try to dispute the interview for "not giving them a real chance". Happened before.

>>51986191
Number 4 looks most likely to give me a blowjob out of desperation, so her.

File: IMG_0197.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>51988992
I used to tell people.

But apparently it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. And my colleague said you could be interviewing the person 1 more rejection away from going Columbine on your ass.

File: 1487197309064.jpg (38KB, 424x323px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 424x323px

>>51989035
>That and I just like making people spaghetti.

File: 1372360292255.jpg (104KB, 1096x720px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1096x720px

>>51989035
>That and I just like making people spaghetti.
On company time?

>>51986763
>no visible tattoos or piercings
Personal pet peeve
why is that part of your hiring criteria? Why has this hiring meme persisted?

>>51988899
Remember folks, if a man sexually harasses a woman, it's because how could he possibly control himself at the sight of slightly more skin than might be anticipated!

>>51986232
>>51986936
>>51988617
But men are the only ones capable of leading effectively. Women are too hormonal or something!

>>51988899
Whereas men have the convinction and strength of will to lead but not to avoid groping someone the instant their willy feels hard.

>>51986273

I understand the logic of the Far Right, I really do, but have you instead considered full communism now?

File: IMG_0691.jpg (21KB, 305x249px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 305x249px

>that guy who unironically put his IQ on the resume

Not that I hate autists, but they're a huge pain

>>51989127
Because office photos.We want people looking as wonderbread as possible.

>>51989035
eric?

>>51989084
>And my colleague said you could be interviewing the person 1 more rejection away from going Columbine on your ass.
me getting complete radio silence for 2 weeks after interviewing at 4 places makes me consider columbining their business. How fucking hard is it to send a "sorry but we have chosen a more qualified candidate". At least give me the closure of a yes or no

Anyone have the screencap of the guy who throws half of the resumes in the trash because he doesn't want unlucky people working for him?

>>51986191
the youngest one with the biggest tits.

>>51989164
>Anon, you put a 45 here, but there's only two pages

>>51989127
it exclusively exists on 4chan. 40-year-olds have tattoos now, discriminating against it makes you look like a retard

>>51989164
Holy shit do people do this? Like, real people, not teenagers.

>>51989127
Because if you're working with customers in person, you will be facing people that grew up on those standards and still firmly believing in them.
Unless you're office drone that's never seeing people from the outside or working segmented targeted specifically at millennials tattoo is a hindrance.

>>51989146
>too hormonal or something!
Case-to-case thing. I've met women that keep stable and reliable behavior all month long. And I've run into some that I would rather share office with a werewolf. Chances are the stench would be more tolerable too.

>>51989168
But Wonder bread tastes like shit.

and I'd hire #5. She's the only one who kept her shit together. #3 makes me nervous. She might take my job through a combat trial, and I'm just not ready for that sort of competition.

File: 1425161979114.png (197KB, 681x728px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 681x728px

>>51989151
>The girls are arranged according to their political stance

>#1 wants to smash capitalism and introduce a worker's paradise
>As a middle manager she expects that all do to their abilities, but she also hands out salaries to all according to their needs

>#2 is a moderate leftist who kind of wants to smash the patriarchy but not really
>She gives everyone the same pay so nobody feels discriminated against

>#3 doesn't really care for politics, she's probably more of an anarchist or a primitivist
>She only believes in paying those who manage to survive their first month under her

>#4 is a patriotic nationalist
>She's upset because she can't stand the obvious foreigner trying to steal her jerb while her countrymen struggle with unemployment
>It's not like she hates those pink haired knights, it's just that a country should look after its own citizens first and foremost

>#5 unironically posts on /pol/
>She appears so giddy because she can't wait to underpay all the niggers

Does this influence who you want to hire?

>>51989101
When I can get away with it

>>51989239
>anarchist
>doesn't care for politics

>>51989239
My pick, number 5, remains unchanged.

>>51989234
Anon

Do you really have to ask how autistic the world is?

>>51989238
If you're not able or willing to defend your post through any means, be it corporate competitors, ambitious youngbloods or trained warrioresses wanting you to prove your worth, then you're not worthy of that post.

>>51989096
Kek

File: 1488400003872.jpg (12KB, 213x214px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 213x214px

>>51989234
>>51989329
I might get banned for trying to post it, but I remember an entire MLP themed resumé for something like electrical engineering or something.

If I ever reach the point where I simply stop running out of fucks to give, I'll apply for some really prestigious position with a resumé that includes my favorite anime as well as my biggest fetishes, and exactly how the two overlap.

>>51989235
I don't think you understand what I was doing there.

>>51989376
Yup, vaguely recall that one as well. The kid was pretty impressive otherwise - prestigious education facilities and multiple internships at reputable companies. But yeah, if you're calling yourself "a colt" on your resume, it sets couple warning signs.

>>51989361
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct2AWh-nKSk

>>51989239
Yes. 5 was a given, nothing has changed, but 4 has been made more appealing. 3 is bumped down to a maybe.

>>51989127
Because people with tattoos TEND to be impulsive, stupid, and reckless

>>51989376
There was also a gamer girl one - something with a Zelda theme, I think?

>>51989652
Please do post it.

1, 3 is actually a plant I set up to see how they would react.
1 is only mildly annoyed/confused. 2's reaction is too naive and shows the interpersonal skills of a teenager. 4 has a "fucking really?" face, no longer secure in her slutty approach for the job thanks to cosplayer showing a lot of skin. 5 is so obviously trying to ignore 3 and smiling regardless than I don't think she'd confront problems that might arise in her position.

>>51989127
you must not work a real job, or a job at all. tattoos and piercings are a sign of someone who doesn't take their life seriously, and is often rash and impulsive. not someone you want to work with.

>>51990301
If someone told me this as their criteria for new hires I would assume they had autism

>>51990420
living off other people's work doesn't qualify you to publish an opinion on whether or not someone else has autism, good sir.

>>51989239
>>51989260
>>51989262
>>51989475
That anon was clearly misusing the word "anarchist" to mean apolitical. In which case my inclination to hire 3 is very much supported, and I hire 3 immediately.

>>51986191
rightmost
She looks desperate enough to give under the desk blowjobs

>>51986191
Number 4 because she has DFC and is cutely envious.

>>51986191

warrior girl, hands down

the only think I hope is that she knows reading and writing

>>51990301
That's funny, last time we ran interviews we discussed how someone without a tattoo or a piercing seemed insufficiently creative and seemed too flat for our work environment.

What people decide to put on their skin has very little to do with their personality.

>>51990301
So you have never actually met anyone with a tattoo, have you?

>>51986273
I bet #3 is a plant.

>>51991642
>in order to be seen as creative and interesting you must have X feature
>What people decide to put on their skin has very little to do with their personality.
Please read before you post

>>51992002
This. Everyone knows tattoos are signs of pretentiousness. 90% of all tattoos are of a skull, a wolf or an angel, unless it's one of those "deep, meaningful" tattoos they show on tattoo shows on TV.

>>51989235
Here's how I see it shake out in my workplace, serving general population (I work at a spa).
>torso is fine
>decolletage should be covered up by uniform shirts anyway but we shouldn't be seeing your tittoos
>arms are fine if it's not a sleeve
Neck was a weird area. I've worked there for nearly a year, have had 2 people with neck tats. One's was rather ornate in that trashy way that makes you think of a tramp stamp trying to be artsy, the other was Kokopelli. Neither work here anymore, but the first did complain that she was told to cover up.

>>51988855
Shit I need to interview some people down the line, might be a good idea

>>51988752
>I love how women always interview like they're asking for the job or qualifying themselves to teacher.
What do you mean?

>>51986936
>proven to be far better
In the same sense that bumblebees have been proven not to be able to fly. That is to say, it was in one paper and was sensationalized to the point that it's aped by retards across the globe, despite being obviously false.

I bet you think women have higher pain tolerance than men, too.

>>51987246
Your name doesn't match your writing, namefag.

>>51989035
As someone who has been in countless fruitless job interviews in the past few years, how do you pressure someone in one?

>>51989101
Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime
I make them spaghetti on company time

>>51989127
Tattooed freak detected

>>51989201
This, although at this point I put about as much effort into my applications as the companies do in their ads. Who cares anymore.

>>51988752
Okay, on a hunch, I'm willing to bet at some point someone tried to explain to you how male privilege worked, and how you were acting in a way that showed you were completely oblivious to it and how it worked, and you balked at them because of how ridiculous it sounded to you.

Am I close?

>>51992074
>doesn't know what the most common types of tattoos are
>forcefully insists that they are things they are not
>"tattoos are signs of pretentiousness"

>>51989127
if I see someone with a face tattoo I know they don't think in terms of consequences and that scares me.

>>51992739
I don't believe in the faked moon landing either

>>51992823
Couple things.
1. That's a grammatical mess. It's ambiguous whether you mean "I don't believe that the moon landing was faked" or "I don't believe in the moon landing, which was faked". Consider working on that in the future!
2. So you're saying I was spot on.

File: IMG_0728.jpg (24KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 258x245px

>>51992739
I'm betting that someone tried to explain original sin to you but you pretended not to see it

>>51992841
I mean I don't believe in conspiracy theories

>>51992841
>Reddit is THIS bad at reading

>>51992865
Nor proofreading, clearly.

>>51986191
Far right - has enough confidence in herself to ignore the slut in the middle.

>>51992901
Proofreading is for people who have no confidence in their own words. Try saying what you meant the first time, and you'll never need to self-edit.

2
The fact that she's wearing pants shows that she's confident in her abilities and doesn't need to rely on sex appeal to get the position. 1 also qualifies, but judging by her posture and expression I get the feeling that she is introverted and shy. If I'm going to hire you as a middle-manager, I'll need you to be outgoing and people-oriented.

I appreciate that 5 is attempting to smile and appear confident, but it is actually just accentuating how uncomfortable she is. The business world is unpredictable, and oddly dressed women are the least of your concerns. I'd rather my employees react unexpected circumstances than just smile and try to ignore it.

3 would have to have a lot of relevant experience for me to hire her. She's dressed like an adventurer, and as we all know adventuring is a boom-bust industry. It's the same reason I don't hire oil workers. They get laid off from the rigs, swear up and down that they're here to stay, then the second the rig picks up again your left with a hole in your staff to fill.

>>51992958
You're doing it again, son.
"PEOPLE WILL TAKE WHAT I SAY SERIOUSLY NO MATTER HOW I SAY IT! WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE THAT FOR OTHER PEOPLE?"
"IT'S NOT PRIVILEGE, I'M JUST CONFIDENT!"

>>51992980
Anon, if people aren't taking you seriously, maybe it's because you don't know what you're talking about and need it explained to you.

>>51992991
People take what I say seriously if and only if I phrase it just right. Something that has happened repeatedly to me (and to just about every woman you've ever met) is when a man repeats something I've already said to the same people to whom I said it, and gets credit for it.

But I suppose that's "confidence".

>>51993054
There seems to be a disconnect here. You really don't seem to get it. It's simple.

Real talk: nobody's out to get you.

Oh, I know what you're thinking: "How could this Straight White Male™ possibly know what he's talking about?" But it's true.

Lady, just take a step back and do a quick exercise.

Let the cares of the world slip away as you realize that nobody cares about anyone, man or woman.

Enlighten yourself by the virtue of your own intelligence, and you will find yourself more self-assured.

Do it and know peace.

Then read the first letter of each line.

>>51993129
>TROLLEDT
See, this is another one of those cases where you should have proofread. You're doing a great job convincing me you're much dumber than you think you are.

Oh great, this thread is devolving into shitty arguments. We had fun, but it's time to abandon thread.

>>51993149
I'm doing an even better job of convincing you to take me seriously, even though I am clearly insincere. That's confidence.

>>51989376
Dump it on imgur, and link it in an otherwise "contributing to the thread" post.

>>51993247
No, I mean I'm including your attempted "LOL I TROLL U". I'm not referring merely to the posts where you were being serious, but to the meta-narrative you're now attempting to construct in which you're above it all. I'm counting all of it when I tell you you're much, much dumber than the enlightened image of yourself you've painted on the inside of your skull.

>>51993307
No need to get nasty! Also,
>implying I'm even the same person

>>51992857
> being a religiousfag in twenty seventeen
> constanza.gif

>>51992823
That's something to think about.

>>51993129
> "Trolledt"

What did he possibly mean with this?

>>51993247
In all seriousness though, confidence is a meme, it's been so for a good while now.

>>51986936

multitasking = being painfully mediocre simultaneously at multiple things instead of excelling at least in one thing

Also

word diarrhea =/= good at social interactions

File: male privelage.png (314KB, 1320x3500px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1320x3500px

>>51992739
>yur privuhlege

Go back to tumblr. The statement you're replying to genuinely reflects part of the cause for why there's muh gender gap you types love to talk about. Men are 7% more likely to negotiate for higher pay. When women wind up in lower positions it's usually because women weren't assertive or clear about the job they were going for. Actually being privileged by gender died a long time ago but the revolution must be eternal because without it how'd acedemics get people to go for worthless gender studies degrees? You can't control 60% of American wealth and pretend to be a victim.

>>51993263
Not a bad idea actually.
http://i.imgur.com/UwD72zQ.jpg