Reddit mentions of Thank You for Arguing, Third Edition: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion

I replied to this when it was cross-posted in r/careerguidance, and it looks like it was helpful, so here is that same reply for r/jobs:

TL;DR: Structure an argument on values, not on blame, when stating why you are looking for a new job.

There is no way to 100% accurately describe an employer and have the interviewer "get it"... maybe in extreme situations. Like, "Why did you leave Heaven's Gate?" "They were a cult!" "Ah, right!"... but in most situations the company's internal reputation NEVER leaves the walls. This is especially true for people who patronize the business or are colleagues. The impression they get from colleagues at conferences, the impression they get as customers, etc., is never the same as the impression the people working inside the building get. Think ESPN- seems like a great place to work! Those commercials are fun! But for a while it was hell to work there.

As an interviewee you could NEVER accurately paint that picture without them possibly doubting you and thinking you are being sensitive, or worse, someone who "always has problems". You know? The person with their car always on the fritz and they are feuding with an uncle, and they never get the benefit of the doubt. Too many people are just damaged goods and it makes recruiters/hiring managers standoffish. Hearing blame makes them think "uh oh. someone with complaints!"

So, what is left to talk about? Focus on you. What are your professional goals? How do you work? Where were these things misaligned in your job? Some examples (and the subtitles)

>"I found I had very little metrics, which made it difficult for me to determine where to prioritize work. I like to plan my workflow with purpose and have goals in mind." (SUBTITLE: I never know what my manager wants until they come screaming in to my office).
"When I manage projects, I am best at [area 1, area 2]. However, I found myself needing to build the infrastructure within [area 3] to be successful and it was spreading me too thin. I want to find a job where I can excel in my areas of expertise by coordinating with other departments" (SUBTITLE: I had to do my job AND 9 other peoples jobs)

Obviously you'll word them according to the right situations, but basically, use "I" statements to focus on what you had control over and how you worked. Then, focus on why seeking a new position is the right solution. If you do it right, the interviewer draws the conclusion you wanted them to draw without you saying a word. I did this once and the exchange went like this:

>INTERVIEWER: "Sounds like management wasn't supportive of your efforts? That must have been frustrating"
ME: "Oh. Perhaps. I just know that I prefer to have clear objectives to measure progress on. Once I have that, I can run independently on a project with a team. But periodically, having a way to check in on progress keeps things moving in the right direction".

It is no longer an argument about blame. It is an argument about values. How do your values differ from your past employers? Make sure you state this truly... and not cloak blame inside value

>i.e., "Well, their values are they are a terrible place to work and don't know how to treat employees" vs. "I'm looking for a place where I know I can progress in my work, achieve great things and be able to share that with a team".

Reading between the lines, I can get the sense that your old employer did NOT give you that. If they press, "And did you not get that in your past job?" Then you can stay diplomatic with a wink, "It has certainly been a motivating factor in finding a new job".

ALSO: I replied to a comment in there breaking down argument tense a little more.

>politicians do this best because they know their rhetorical devices. arguments fall in to three tenses:
>
>(1) Forensic, past-tense, aka 'blame' - who's fault is it? let's review the history...
>
>(2) Demonstrative, present-tense, aka 'value' - this is a politicians world because it gathers a sense of community and tribe. Convince someone on a values-based argument and they will vote for you or hire you
>
>(3) Deliberative, future-tense, aka 'choice' - this is an argument about making a decision. it is something you'll utilize in the workplace as it weighs options against each other. in an interview, you can't do that very well because you don't know what you are weighing yourself against. So, choose an argument (argument meaning position) that centers on values
>
>Source | I highly recommend this book for people entering management or environments where critical thinking, decision making and "office politics" will have a big presence

​

If you're happy bringing the WID stuff yourself, Thank You For Arguing, a mass-market paperback, has been a knock-out book ever since I adopted it. It's cheap, fun, really smart, and my students actually read the damn thing. You absolutely can't beat it for $12 MSRP.

As a contrarian note, Thank You for Arguing is a good book on persuasion that calls logical fallacies "tools of rhetoric." Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, but it's also a way for a cultural framework to maintain itself.