I forgot Madam too !

I’m a middle-aged middle-management civil servant who works closely with the military, so know a thing or two about traditionally stuffy organisations. I cannot think of a single situation when I would ever expect to be called ‘Mr’. It just doesn’t happen in normal working life nowadays. So, given Ms Mountford’s (as many posters on here think I must call her, having not been formally introduced and not knowing her married status) previous profile on the programme I think that this was a perfectly natural thing for Stuart (sorry to those of you who are offended by this but I just cannot call him Mr Baggs) to say and to be fair he did apologise immediately.
In fact, when interviewing, I consider it one of my prime functions to set the candidate at ease to enable them to perform at their best. As others have said, it is for me to set the tone and atmosphere of the interview, and for me to set one which is confrontational and aggressive is not acceptable in any part of the workplace. Deep and probing questioning is actually quite a difficult skill, so I always get annoyed when interviewers think that resorting to rudeness (i.e. refusing to shake hands) is the same thing. It isn’t. It just makes better telly.

I don't think Margaret specifically wanted him to call her 'Ms Mountford'. She was just taken aback by the extreme familiarity.

But, as others have said, I think he was just surprised.

And Margaret, being a class act, had the good grace to thank him when he 'corrected' himself.

I see nothing wrong with new employee's being expected to call him by his title. It would, however, be very pretentious if he expected those he already knew to change the way they addressed him.

New employee's or business aquaintances should use a title until invited to do otherwise. After all what is the point of having a title if it isnt used?

Yes, once you're working there you call people by what they like to be called but the point was that you wouldn't walk into an interview and call the person interviewing you by their first name, unless they'd introduced themselves to you by their first name or said "Call me (insert first name)".

Stuart walked in and greeted Margaret as if she were an old friend simply because he knew her from seeing her on television.

I cannot stand Margaret, so happy she left, Karen is much better

So true. If you put someone at ease, they're far, far more likely to reveal their true self than by being aggressive and rude towards them.

In a non-business context, it's like those people that are so non-judgmental and friendly, that within 5 minutes of meeting them, you want to tell them all your secrets. You learn a lot more about a person by creating rapport than by not.

Blimey, I'd love to know what branch of the military you work with since I have never addressed any serving officer in a professional capacity other then by their rank, nor have I ever heard it done by other member of the armed forces. Neither do they address me in a professional capacity other than as Ma'am. The civil service is less formal but in formal meetings and interviews i have never heard first names being used other than by Ministers to other participants.

I agree. It's not about whether you call someone by their first name or not (and I have never called anyone by their surname or title as long as I've been working!). It was about the lack of appropriacy in the level of familiarity Stuart showed in that particular situation, it came across as OTT

Personally, I cringed when he did that, likewise when he asked Bordan his name. . So inappropriate!

Someone with a little more maturity would perhaps still have registered their surprise if they weren't expecting to see Margaret sitting there, but would have known to keep a lid on it and let the interviewer 'lead' the situation. Just saying 'hello' when he came in the door would have sufficed, and I'm sure that's what the others probably did - they would have been just as surprised to see her, after all.

I'm presuming therefore that you are a member of the services, in which case your circumstances and culture are different from mine. I address my line manager (a serving officer) by his first name, as he does me. It would be bizarre for him to call me 'Mr Mountford', just as it would be for me not to use first names with serving officers with whom I share an office. When I refer to military personnel in the third person I may well use their rank (i.e. 'Colonel Margaret'), particularly when talking to other military personnel, but I do not apply that convention to their civilian equivalents, and nor do they suddenly switch to refer to me (in the third person) as 'Mr'. They use my first name, possibly with my surname if required.
But that all said, my point was that I would not expect anyone to ever call me 'Mr' in the workplace. Whether I'll stick by this if made a Lord, only time will tell...

No, no one would expect to call a colleague Mr or Mrs, but at a first interview, until told otherwise you should say Mr/Mrs/Ms whatever.

Surely it would depend on how they introduced themself?

If someone shakes your hand and say's 'hello, I'm Mr Taylor' then, yes, you would be expected to call them 'Mr'. However, if they said 'hello, I'm David Taylor', I would then call them David.

I frequently interview staff and never once have I expected anyone to call me anything other than my first name, which is how I would introduce myself.

Actually, I'm a lawyer - so same culture as Margaret, although somewhat younger. While in the office with familiar colleagues, I can understand first names being used I'm still surprised that you would first names in an equivalent situation to the Margaret/Stuart one. For example, if you and a military colleague were interviewing prospective employees surely you would introduce yourself as Mr X and this is Captain/Colonel Y rather than I'm Alex and this is Pete, and expect to be called that for the duration of the interview.

This is the whole point, you have told them how you wished to be addressed, which is fine and normal, however, Margaret did not give him permission to call her margaret in that situation.

If he hadn't been quite so cocky/flustered/relieved to see a familiar face and had given her chance to introduce herself properly, then she may well have done what you do whilst interviewing people, but Stuart being Stuart just rushed right in without thinking

It depends on the occasion surely? Purely social, I would use first names after introduction unless to a very much older person (who might be offended) or a titled person. But professionally, I would always wait to be asked to use first names unless the client is very much younger. Even then I generally ask what they prefer to be called.

I agree! Having worked in the MOD (both on bases and in Whitehall) as a middle aged middle management civil servant for more years than I care to remember.....

The general rule of thumb for the military is that you can address those of equal or junior rank to you by their first names unless its a very formal situation (depends on what the situation is) Those senior to you are always "Sir" or "Ma'am", and most of the miltary will apply the same rules to civilian colleagues. Civilians aren't subject to the same rules - but most would fall in with uniformed colleagues in formal meetings (I did have one rather Stuart -ish member of staff who committed the faux pas of addressing our Admiral by his first name in a VERY formal meeting where we were all being addressed by our titles (even I was Mrs CaroUK!) - he didn't last too long!)

That said - I know that in interview situations, my colleagues and I never really called the interviewers by name.... its wasn't always easy to catch their names in the introductions on a board interview - so its better not to call them anything rather than get the names wrong!

Interestingly - things are far more formal on the bases than they are in the corridors of power.

Not really a difference for me. If someone introduces themself as John Smith, I would call them John, regardless of the situation. I do meet people in extremely senior positions on a daily basis and it's never been an issue yet.
Tbh, I've never been in a work situation where someone has introduced themslef as Mr Smith and then expect to be addressed as such.

The only thing that work irk me when I interview is if someone shortens my name, which has happened. That's just too familiar

A certain someone sent round a memo to employees that he expected to be addressed as Sir xxxx from now on. Last year that changed again Friends, etc (inc all those interviewing) call him Alan I believe.

Perspective people. It was a minor mistake, not worth mentioning in the context of a 12 week process for a $100 000 job.

Do you think those corporations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, HP, Oracle, Yahoo - all those that have left Amstrad in the dust and make Viglen look like a yo-yo dealership - employ anyone who gives a flying flippancy about greeting strangers by their first names? Nope, and that's why they got where they're at. Never let an irrelevant formality get in the way of adding value to the company (in this case, a talented job candidate).

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and people like that are renowned for not giving a crap about formal politeness. If those are the sort of people Sugar wants to find in the next generation, he can't afford to employ stuffy interviewers. Of course, we know that;'s not really what Sugar wants so the whole thing is hypocritical nonsense.

In business it pays to be polite.

There is usually a hierarchy and the interviewer is higher than the interviewee. It was a mistake to call Margaret by her first name, as if Baggs were her friend or even on the same level.

Showed arrogance on his part, or ignorance.

He is not on that level and shouldn't presume he is and can be overly familiar.

It's still a tiny tiny mistake in the grand scheme of things.

To turn this around, imagine the candidates pulled out of a deal with the german crisp distributors because a manager looked at them funny in the meeting.

Imagine you found out your HR adviser turned down the chance to hire Mark Zuckerberg because he called them by their first name, or worse (which he probably would). Fail.

Is it a business, or a finishing school?!

In an interview situation I would always call someone by their surname. If they prefer to be less formal it's their perogative to ask you to call them by their first name. They won't generally get upset that you were formal but if you call someone by their first name and they're a stickler for formalities, they might not appreciate it.

hear hear.

Stuart was very bad mannered and I am glad Margaret put him down. Prat.

Good Lord, no. I cannot imagine the words "My name is Mr Reginald" ever coming out of my lips. I would say "My name is Alex Reginald". This is also what my name-plate would say. I wouldn't then go on to explicitly state how I would want to be addressed; that would sound incredibly pompous - but it would be a reasonable assumption that I would be happy to be addressed as Alex. As I said in my original post, I see one of my key roles as an interviewer in putting the interviewee at ease; over-formality is not conducive to this. I would, of course, confirm how my colleague wanted to be addressed prior to the interview.

The candidate is not being asked to bow and scrape, but to use the words Mr/Mrs for potentially one occasion only, not that hard to do is it? Anyone who is going to get stressed out over that has a problem.