[Archived] Interviews

[ABBEY]

You know you might be right. My memory must be playing tricks with me. 2001 is a good 12 years. Could be right. Apologies.

Interview FAIL

[Al]

Interview FAIL

If you were the interviewer Abbs. I would probably walk out anyway.

[ABBEY]

Why? I would be ruthless

[Al]

Why? I would be ruthless

No you would ask what my weaknesses are and I always turn off when an interviewer asks that. At that point they can stuff their job if they have to ask smart arse questions. And I've never been out of work for more than a week.

[onlyonejackwalker]

No you would ask what my weaknesses are and I always turn off when an interviewer asks that. At that point they can stuff their job if they have to ask smart arse questions. And I've never been out of work for more than a week.

If your weaknesses are honesty, punctuality, reliability and a lasting work ethic maybe the question has some meaning...

[broadsword]

My weaknesses are surprise and fear. And a ruthless dedication to the Pope.

[broadsword]

Well, I didn't expect that.

[Al]

If your weaknesses are honesty, punctuality, reliability and a lasting work ethic maybe the question has some meaning...

It's just a stupid question that interviewers appear to think is smart. Who the hell is going to admit to a weakness that may stop him from getting the job and it just irritates me like all other "technique" inspired methods of interview. A good interviewer can assess a prospective employee within the first minute.

[Glenn]

It may have been that 20 years ago and I agree it's an obvious clique but I've asked it as a way of judging if people can be bothered doing very very obvious prep work. If they don't have a decent preprepared answer then they plainly haven't given any real thought to the interview process, the answer is unimportant, being able to answer it is (it also relaxes candidates as they suddenly feel happy they've given a good answer as they had it ready).

Then again, I have been evil at interviews, we used to set people programming puzzles on a PC intentionally set up in a way that made it nearly impossible to do, then we'd leave the room. The real test was whether they'd come and let us know the set up was screwed, whether they'd fix the set up themselves or whether they'd sit there and panic as they'd got inappropriate tools.

One of the best interview questions I ever got was "design a program to simulate the classic fox/chicken/corn across a river puzzle" which was pretty trivial. Once we'd finished they asked us to modify the code to simulate a mutant fox-eating chicken. The point being if you'd designed the simulation properly and assumed you didn't know the outcome it would be a trivial change, but if you taken short cuts because you new the original puzzle and the solution, then you'd probably have to start over.

Hum, maybe we can get an ICBINF thread out of "evil interview questions and test"?

[perthblue02]

If BRFCS bring in an interview will there also be a medical? two concerns 1) who will do the cough test and 2) will they warm their hands first?

[Al]

It may have been that 20 years ago and I agree it's an obvious clique but I've asked it as a way of judging if people can be bothered doing very very obvious prep work. If they don't have a decent preprepared answer then they plainly haven't given any real thought to the interview process, the answer is unimportant, being able to answer it is (it also relaxes candidates as they suddenly feel happy they've given a good answer as they had it ready).

Then again, I have been evil at interviews, we used to set people programming puzzles on a PC intentionally set up in a way that made it nearly impossible to do, then we'd leave the room. The real test was whether they'd come and let us know the set up was screwed, whether they'd fix the set up themselves or whether they'd sit there and panic as they'd got inappropriate tools.

One of the best interview questions I ever got was "design a program to simulate the classic fox/chicken/corn across a river puzzle" which was pretty trivial. Once we'd finished they asked us to modify the code to simulate a mutant fox-eating chicken. The point being if you'd designed the simulation properly and assumed you didn't know the outcome it would be a trivial change, but if you taken short cuts because you new the original puzzle and the solution, then you'd probably have to start over.

Hum, maybe we can get an ICBINF thread out of "evil interview questions and test"?

Afraid you would have been told to stuff your job. I have no intention to work for people who interview like that.

[Leonard Venkhater]

My weaknesses are surprise and fear. And a ruthless dedication to the Pope.

Are you Ratzinger in disguise?

Oh for a Blackburn End equivalent of The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith! Bring back the Spanish Inquisition for Messrs Anderson, Agnew and Kean...

[Mike E]

Are you Ratzinger in disguise?

Oh for a Blackburn End equivalent of The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith! Bring back the Spanish Inquisition for Messrs Anderson, Agnew and Kean...

And give them 30days notice? No chance!

[broadsword]

I'd give Steve Kean more than just a comfy chair, believe me.

[Leonard Venkhater]

Afraid you would have been told to stuff your job. I have no intention to work for people who interview like that.

Absolutely. It says plenty about the culture of a company, if their managers are allowed to get away with self indulgent games like that in an interview process, when all the cards are stacked.

[bellamy11]

Absolutely. It says plenty about the culture of a company, if their managers are allowed to get away with self indulgent games like that in an interview process, when all the cards are stacked.

Apologies for taking this way off topic, but I disagree entirely.

As an interviewer, you have an extremely limited amount of time to make an assessment of an individual. The investment in hiring somebody, training them up etc etc etc is huge, and not something that many companies can afford to get wrong repeatedly.

Asking people generic questions about experiences of working as part of a team and so on do little to help. We live in a world where there are so many resources that job-hunters can use that many know the "correct" thing to say in almost all situations. In my time, I've interviewed some complete robots.

Putting people in situations that take them out of their comfort zone give you a much better indication of their "true" mindsets and values. It's perfectly legitimate to give people rope to hang themselves with because some will and some won't. You want those who do things properly to work for your organisation. It's extremely difficult to get that by asking them, or even by going with your "gut feel".

At my old place we had group exercises, comprehension tests, one-on-one interviews etc. At the end, we'd ask people how many tires there are in the UK. You learn so much more in the next five minutes than in the previous three hours. Yes it's a left-field question and I guess it comes across as self-indulgent (especially if you've been on the bad end of a horrible interview) but there are few better ways of finding out about a real person in an environment that is completely synthetic.

[yoda]

Apologies for taking this way off topic, but I disagree entirely.

As an interviewer, you have an extremely limited amount of time to make an assessment of an individual. The investment in hiring somebody, training them up etc etc etc is huge, and not something that many companies can afford to get wrong repeatedly.

Asking people generic questions about experiences of working as part of a team and so on do little to help. We live in a world where there are so many resources that job-hunters can use that many know the "correct" thing to say in almost all situations. In my time, I've interviewed some complete robots.

Putting people in situations that take them out of their comfort zone give you a much better indication of their "true" mindsets and values. It's perfectly legitimate to give people rope to hang themselves with because some will and some won't. You want those who do things properly to work for your organisation. It's extremely difficult to get that by asking them, or even by going with your "gut feel".

At my old place we had group exercises, comprehension tests, one-on-one interviews etc. At the end, we'd ask people how many tires there are in the UK. You learn so much more in the next five minutes than in the previous three hours. Yes it's a left-field question and I guess it comes across as self-indulgent (especially if you've been on the bad end of a horrible interview) but there are few better ways of finding out about a real person in an environment that is completely synthetic.

A better way would be to be a good interviewer instead of winging it

[Al]

Apologies for taking this way off topic, but I disagree entirely.

As an interviewer, you have an extremely limited amount of time to make an assessment of an individual. The investment in hiring somebody, training them up etc etc etc is huge, and not something that many companies can afford to get wrong repeatedly.

Asking people generic questions about experiences of working as part of a team and so on do little to help. We live in a world where there are so many resources that job-hunters can use that many know the "correct" thing to say in almost all situations. In my time, I've interviewed some complete robots.

Putting people in situations that take them out of their comfort zone give you a much better indication of their "true" mindsets and values. It's perfectly legitimate to give people rope to hang themselves with because some will and some won't. You want those who do things properly to work for your organisation. It's extremely difficult to get that by asking them, or even by going with your "gut feel".

At my old place we had group exercises, comprehension tests, one-on-one interviews etc. At the end, we'd ask people how many tires there are in the UK. You learn so much more in the next five minutes than in the previous three hours. Yes it's a left-field question and I guess it comes across as self-indulgent (especially if you've been on the bad end of a horrible interview) but there are few better ways of finding out about a real person in an environment that is completely synthetic.

Interviews are a two way street. You make the mistake of believing that the interviewee is desperate for the job. Often not the case. You often need to sell the company.

[bellamy11]

Interviews are a two way street. You make the mistake of believing that the interviewee is desperate for the job. Often not the case. You often need to sell the company.

As a current interviewee, I am well aware of this. I go into some interviews needing to be convinced about the company. However, the situation of previous years, where the skilled applicants hold most of the cards, simply isn't the case any more. In almost every job under a salary of £100k, you'll be sifting through the applications of not dozens, but hundreds of applications. "Sink or swim" interview scenarios are a very valid means of finding the best applicants, and I don't see why this reflects badly on the interviewer or the company itself. None of what Glenn described offended me - they seem like very reasonable ways of determining the best fits for the company. Very few companies sit you down with a cup of tea and a packet of biscuits "for a chat".

Anyway, this is massively off topic. I think I found BRFCS on a search engine round about 2002. Incredible to think that I've been on here more than a decade. Time flies...

[Andy]

Interviews are a two way street. You make the mistake of believing that the interviewee is desperate for the job. Often not the case. You often need to sell the company.

Completely right.

I've been fortunate enough to go into a couple of interviews where I've not needed, or particularly wanted the job (due to already being in a good position) - so the company has had to sell their company to me and convince me why I should take the job as much as I had to sell myself.

And having interviewed similarly-minded people, you tend to get a much better interview from them.

The lack of pressure opens people up a lot and they allow themselves to come across as themselves more.

[ABBEY]

Interviews here interviews there interviews every where

[LDRover]

As a current interviewee, I am well aware of this. I go into some interviews needing to be convinced about the company. However, the situation of previous years, where the skilled applicants hold most of the cards, simply isn't the case any more. In almost every job under a salary of £100k, you'll be sifting through the applications of not dozens, but hundreds of applications. "Sink or swim" interview scenarios are a very valid means of finding the best applicants, and I don't see why this reflects badly on the interviewer or the company itself. None of what Glenn described offended me - they seem like very reasonable ways of determining the best fits for the company. Very few companies sit you down with a cup of tea and a packet of biscuits "for a chat".

Anyway, this is massively off topic. I think I found BRFCS on a search engine round about 2002. Incredible to think that I've been on here more than a decade. Time flies...

Competency based questions on the job specified where the applicant also gives clear examples of where he/she has displayed that competency in the past. If they haven't you then invite them to tell you what they would do in that scenario.

Nothing leftfield or unfair there and it's never failed me yet.

Sorry, dragging off topic again!!!

[Al]

Competency based questions on the job specified where the applicant also gives clear examples of where he/she has displayed that competency in the past. If they haven't you then invite them to tell you what they would do in that scenario.

Nothing leftfield or unfair there and it's never failed me yet.

Sorry, dragging off topic again!!!

"Competency based" interviews are the absolute pits for interviewers who do not know how to interview. Guaranteed to see me disappear whilst trying not let the door hit me on the way out.

[Glenn]

In my defence, I've mainly hired for technical positions, often support related so an ability to problem solve, think on your feet and use deductive reasoning are key skills (I've always held I can teach almost anyone technical skills, but proper technical problem solving is much more of a talent).

Candidates lacking the technical skills to do the job wouldn't have made it past the CV, but what you can't get from a traditional Q&A interview is how good they are at problem solving and thinking on their feet. Sure, I could go for dappy questions like "what are your problem solving skills like" and "tell me of a time when you used your problem solving skills" but as before anyone half interested (but not necessarily competent) will have a pre-prepared answer up their sleeve. I've also worked mainly for small companies where making a mistake and hiring a talent liar but lousy worker would be catastrophic.

I actually think it's much fairer to give them an actual challenge and see how they react than ask them an assume their answer is honest.

... a question for Al, what DO you like to be asked at interviews? What types of thing do you things are productive lines of questioning?

[broadsword]

There's no such thing as "pre-prepared".

You're thinking of "prepared", I do believe.