Whole lot a shakin' going on

As with the canned interview answers, I was also recently taken aback by self-conscious handshakes encountered during our recent round of interviews. I guess when you're young, you may think about such things before you develop your own comfortable handshake, which may be a good idea considering it does communicate a lot of information. Some bad handshakes:

- The limp fish. Sorry ladies, but this one is most often a female handshake. Usually it's not too much of a sin since it is half expected, but the regal quarter-turn (palm down in the kiss-my-hand position) is a bad one. The male limp fish is an especially unpleasant experience.

-The bone crusher. A surprising number of females go for the extra-firm, which comes across as over-compensating. The crusher is usually a male macho thing, though, which reads as though yes you are very strong, a very strong knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.

-The clammyhand. Easily the most disgusting of handshakes, as who wants to grip a sweaty hand? If you are susceptible to wet palms, wash beforehand, keep your hand open and exposed, and a surreptitious wipe before the clasp is advised. The sweathog is the kiss of death of first impressions.

-The iconoclasp. This is anything other than the traditional handshake and there are a lot of subcategories. I've never encountered this in an interview, but it does come up a lot in social situations. Unlike the choreographed hand-dances and gleeful fist-bangers that you sometimes see, or even the thankfully passe handslaps (where one pleads for the geeky high-five, gimme-five, down-low or whatever, and the other mercifully cooperates to minimize the embarrassment), there is occasionally some confusion between the traditional and the I-love-you-man-clasp (interlocking thumbs, palms on back of hands like a wristwrestling grip). Usually this is avoided by carefully observing the position of the offered hand. Straighthand at 90 degrees, you've got yourself a traditional; slightly cupped hand at somewhere between 90 and 45 degrees, an I-love-you-man is on the way. But occasionally the angle is too close to horizontal or the up-angle not perceived, or worse yet the straighthand is offered but grabbed with the I-love-you-man (or vice-versa) and the awkwardness ensues. It's kind of like that first kiss situation. You're expecting the right tilt lip kiss, from which you can adjust to the situation as needed, but the initial left tilt, cheek peck, or open-mouth can throw you off.

-The two hander. Usually a topper hand, sometimes a forearm touch, and rarely a shoulder slap, the left hand is intended to convey warmth, but it is risky. When pulled off successfully, it can be genius, but the attempt is fraught with peril and easily overplayed.

-The pumper (or the rare variation, the pull and pump). A common rookie mistake in which the handshake is too vigorous and often prolonged to the point of awkwardness. It's possible to pull this off if engaged in hearty banter, but better to pull out before it's too late.

-The offhander. If there isn't a medical reason for using the left handed shake, you ain't gettin' the job.

-The fourfinger. This could refer to all off-grips, but except for the rare overgrip, you never really see any other off-centers except for the fourfinger, which is all too common. This occurs when the grabber comes up short of the proper thumb lock position, often due to a premature squeeze, and is left with only a hand full of fingers. I really hate this truncated shake, and while most people will go through with the shortshake, I will generally call for a reshake, which is acceptable under these circumstances.

I just deleted a couple of paragraphs on the "proper" handshake, as they were pretty boring and you can read that stuff elsewhere. Instead:

"In a new study, scientists put 98 students through mock job interviews with businesspeople. The students also met with trained handshake raters who, unbeknownst to the students, rated their grips. Separately, the businesspeople graded each student's overall performance and hireability. The two group's scores were then compared.

Students who got high handshake marks were also rated most hireable.

'We've always heard that interviewers make up their mind about a person in the first two or three minutes of an interview, no matter how long the interview lasts,' said study leader Greg Stewart, associate professor of management and organizations at the University of Iowa. 'We found that the first impression begins with a handshake that sets the tone for the rest of the interview.'

The study [was] detailed in September in the Journal of Applied Psychology. " (http://www.livescience.com/health/080507-firm-handshake.html)

I see your lips flappin', but you ain't sayin' nothin'

I've had occasion to interview several people in the last couple of weeks, and while the process becomes tiresome rapidly, it is always interesting to see how people conduct themselves, particularly as reflections of their preparation. One thing I noticed in interviewing for new faculty was how scripted the ones just coming out of Ph.D. programs seem to be. I like to ask applicants a question I'm pretty sure they've prepared, and one I'm pretty sure they haven't, and have found boilerplate answers to both, though the latter tends to be unrelated to the question as they attempt to fit in a prepared answer to an unexpected question.

For the expected question ("Why this college?" a variation of the "Why do you want this job" type of question that you'll encounter on most interviews), the rookies tend to give the generic "Miss America" answers. They seem to either not know what they want, or, perhaps, are afraid to specify their values and thoughts for fear of saying something wrong. Specifically, they seem to be guessing what the interviewer is looking for, usually asserting that this college/business is a place where they can perform admirably on dimensions that the interviewer presumably values, bolstered with generic statements of opportunity and resources. However, no specifics are typically forwarded (Which faculty have similar interests, how so, specific areas for collaboration, etc., for instance), and their answers could apply to almost any interview. Yes, they hit the areas that interviewers typically care about, and deliver the response without pause or hesitation; a "roll tape" answer. One applicant actually gave an answer that was practically, if not entirely, a verbatim rendition of a paragraph in her cover letter.

Anticipating interview questions is not that hard, and you are bound to encounter some that you've prepared. However, you need to not only be prepared for variations on the anticipated questions, but to inject some of yourself into the answer. Give an opinion if called for, make a conclusion and back it up if asked, stand out from the cardboard cutouts that are playing it safe with the vanilla ice cream answers. I'm not saying you should go crazy, but you should at least be you. Ironically, the attempt to not create a negative impression may well create one.

St. Valentine's Day Massacre

I heard on the radio that over 80% of couples prefer to stay in on Valentine's Day. That is refreshing. You might say that it's the economy (and I will avoid the obvious stimulus package double-entendre), but I like to think that people are just coming to their senses. Just as people have come to realize that the once-obligatory New Year's Eve drunkfest is expensive, dangerous, and not all that much fun, really, so too have people had it with obligatory romance at inflated prices and are realizing that going out is more trouble than it's worth. While men have obviously hated this least romantic day of the year, even women are becoming disenchanting with the sullen shotgun requirements of the day, I think. Yet Valentine's Day does still serve a critical purpose: the two-fer.

Women may want to move along at this point; nothing to see here. Also, there is some danger that I am violating The Code. But it is important that the young men know. When that day comes that you are contemplating asking that lovely young woman to be your forever after (and let me simplify by using the most common boy asks girl situation; the other permutations probably work too), there are three days that you should consider to pop the question. Those three days are Christmas, her birthday, and Valentine's Day. On each of those days the ring serves double-duty, yielding a superior version of the gift required for the holiday/occasion as well as the requisite engagement symbol: the coveted double supergift. Why would you get engaged on any other day? That would be like breaking up after Christmas instead of before.

Valentine's Day is probably the best of the Big Three gift days for the engagement as it most effectively allows the playing of the romance card. Now if you really want to push it, you can shoot for getting married on Valentine's Day, but that's a long shot. But wouldn't it be great to have the double available for your anniversary (What becomes the fourth of the the Big Four gift days) as well as the built-in mnemonic device to remember the day? If you can pull it off, great, but don't get greedy. Suggest it, but when she wants June or whenever, that's the way it's going to be. Besides, that will get you a few extra months of engagement time, and that's a good thing. The coming summer is too soon, so you have to go the extra year to hit the next summer wedding cycle, and that puts the engagement over a year. She can deal with that, and obviously the longer the better for you. A year and a half is the sweet spot for engagements, and a Valentine's engagement positions you nicely for that. It's unlikely that you can pull off two years or more, as "up or out" is what got you engaged in the first place.

Romance in the Non-Fiction Section

There used to be something called the "senior panic" many years ago. Back then, as students, especially women, came to their senior year, there was much pressure to get engaged, the thinking being that marriage after college (or high school, for some) was a much dicier proposition. Thankfully, times have changed, and people get married later, but has that made the choices wiser?

You've seen the stats, where marriage is basically a coin flip regarding the odds of staying together. For a second marriage, you've either learned from your mistakes, or repeat them. But how will marriage happen for you, likely a few years out of college? In high school and college, dating for you (unlike previous generations) often begins as a group activity, where friends in the group become more and then are cut from the herd. But after college, things change; groups become smaller and disappear, and meeting people becomes more problematic as you are no longer surrounded by single people in your age range. Perhaps it is a chance meeting, perhaps it is the somewhat sad club ritual, and perhaps it is "electronically facilitated." More likely, though, you will meet people through the traditional means: work and friends.

Before I leave the topic, I can't resist tossing in my hard-earned two cents on why young folks marry and why so many of those marriages do not endure. Marriage is hard and will not be the fantasy you imagine. The "honeymoon" will end at some point. You read that disputes over financial matters are the big driver of divorce, or that "communication" is the problem. I have my doubts. There is an old saying that a man marries hoping the woman will not change, and a woman marries hoping the man will. This translates, stereotypically, to a woman seeing "potential" in the man to provide "security." For the man, it is too often about looks, i.e., sex. Both may be disappointed in time. I'd like to think that these pitiful cliches are changing, and to help that along, let me offer this advice: women, let him be himself, and men, marriage is what you do out of bed.