Slashdot Mirror
Blowing Up a Pointless Job Interview
Nemo the Magnificent writes "Ever been asked a question in a job interview that's just so abysmally stupid, you're tempted to give in to the snark and blow the whole thing up? Here are suggested interview-ending answers to 16 of the stupidest questions candidates actually got asked in interviews at tech companies in 2013, according to employment site Glassdoor. Oil to pour on the burning bridges."
How to successfully end an interview.
Spud's interview [NSFW]
None of the ones in the article even come close.
When you are young, desperate, and eager to please, they ask you all the stupid questions. Their apparent motive is just to fuck with you and assert dominance.
When you are older and have a resume, they don't bother with the stupid questions. They just ask you about code and projects.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
If you're that certain you do not wish the job, don't make peoples day any more difficult by being a dickhat. Just politely end the interview saying you are no longer interested in the position.
That kind of response sends the message loud and clear that it was their interview that drove you away and may push them to explain why they were asking such shitty questions. If nothing else it avoids creating an instant adversarial position where your indignation is written off as "you being a dickhat" not that there might be something wrong with their interview process.
We're adults, grow the hell up and stop assuming anyone gives a crap if you act like a smartypants.
My response was never, stress gets no work done, I budget for it after the issue resolution.
My response did not change inspite of the question being asked 3 more times, the interviewer got stressed and ended the interview. Interviews are crappy, if the manager does not know what the deliverable is
I think whining constitutes "talking to another human" and certanly seems to constitute 98% of most "professional" communications.
so, if job interviews were based on reality rather than some infantile fantasy world whining and snarking would actually good things to do in a job interview as it would show you fitted in to the corporate culture
You want to be snarky? Go ahead - enjoy it and feel good about yourself. But remember that the professional world in which you play is a VERY small one, and word gets around.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
I think Leon in "Blade Runner" nailed the proper response to those
The best way to light the path to your future is by burning the bridges of your past.
Remember that a job interview is a 2-way transaction - you should be checking out the company and staff as carefully as they are checking you out. Put them on the ropes, ask them questions that make *them* uncomfortable, see how they handle it. "How has the company stock been doing?" Whatever the answer (Good/Poor), ask "Why?". Maintain eye contact and look for shifty glances. Keep your bullshit detector on high sensitivity. "What things does your competitor do better than your organization, and what is your plan to change them?"
It's one thing to be new to the profession and just want to steer your way to a first job. But later, after you've worked through a couple crappy companies, you'll see that it is important to be on the offensive during the interviews. Walk in like a boss and probe their weaknesses. Any organization worth their salt should be impressed at your command of the situation. And if they really were looking for a meek wallflower that would spout the most PC response - do you really want to work there? And if the responses from the interviewer are stilted and confused, do you really want them as a co-worker?
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
If it was an interview for a marketing position, then "I'm a liar" should have been listed under "strengths", and "honesty" under "weaknesses".
I agree. If a job candidate doesn't like the questions, I would expect them to react in a way that I could tolerate if I had to work with them. It is actually a good thing to pull a Kobayashi Maru in most cases as long as it seems like something that would be feasible. It is okay in the real-world to have a critical opinion as long as it is polite and constructive in the long-run.
I've been on the asking side of these questions several times now. (Not questions quite as silly as the examples in the article, but nonetheless...) HR said "pick 4 questions from this book and score according to this answer key." Obviously, the whole thing is highly subjective and the scoring is more about how a person reacts. Some of the questions are way too vague to be useful, but usually they allow you to gauge the behavior of a person. You basically want to find out how a person handles typical adverse situations that arise in a work environment. i.e. professional disagreements, impossible goals, annoying customers, etc.
I've seen many different reactions. It's okay if a person declines to answer maybe 1 out of the 4, but in some cases, people have claimed they never had an adverse situation. Not a good answer. Most people just try to answer the questions in a bland way with the 'expected' answer. So I need to hear something that tells me a person really cares, either by re-engineering the question, or having a really specific answer that would be hard to fabricate on the spot.
So you can be critical of these questions, but consider being in the shoes of an employer. You try writing questions for an interview that are not too vague, and can cut through peoples' BS'ing.
That's a shame if it's true. Hiring based on cultural bias is roughly equivalent to nepotism. I hope you're wrong, and it was more based on skill or talent displayed.
"Fit with group" is a completely reasonable hiring criterion.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I haven't had to interview too many people at my current job (boo, federal budget cuts), but when I did, on 80% or so of people, I asked the question:
"Star Wars or Star Trek?"
The thing is, I didn't really care which one you picked, so long as you could explain why. And if you picked something else (Firefly, Battlestar Glactica, Dr. Who, Red Dwarf, etc.) and could give a passionate answer, that's even better. The only wrong answer is the 'I'm not going to pick one or the other because I don't want to offend anyone' unless you could really impress me some creativity in the process.
And for anyone who complains that there might be people who haven't seen any of 'em (I still know some people who are almost 30 and qualify) ... I work at a NASA center ... if you haven't seen any of the TV shows I've listed, there's a *really* high probability that you wouldn't fit in.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Especially when "the group" has a particular existing racial and gender makeup...
My stock answer to that is:
Assuming there is no pressing issues sooner, like a micro manager, then every five years or so I evaluate if I want to stay where I am or if there is more interesting and rewarding work to be done elsewhere.
So, what kind of company is this? One where I stay because the work is interesting and rewarding, or one where I decide it is time to examine my option?
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
The word "culture" in this context is in reference to corporate culture.
Corporate culture is an amorphous mixture of personality, motivation, lifestyle, methods, and work ethic. Work somewhere that matches yours, and you do very well. Work somewhere that does not, and you will either gain ulcers, ruin your career, and eventually get fired, laid-off, or worse.
Each company has a different approach to how they work. Part of it is due to the industry they're in, part of it is due to the job type, some of it by ideology, and all of it is driven by the leadership.
Take for instance Nike. They're headquartered in nearby Beaverton, OR. They have a work-hard/play-hard culture, and expect their employees to be the same. It is a very Type-A organization. I went after an opening they had, but the interview told me that I would be expected to dump any thought of a home life, quit smoking, and essentially compete with my co-workers for everything. Oh, and did I mention that the prevailing political ideology is strongly promulgated, and it is a diametric opposite of my own? Long-term prospects there would require me to essentially abandon what I am and who I am - unless I'm otherwise facing homelessness, no dice.
I've worked at such organizations before... they suck, and I don't fit into them, so I turned it down.
*That* is what I mean by culture.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
At least they didn't swipe your work for themselves and stiff you on consulting fees.
... of the interview; e.g. to test the candidates reaction to stupid questions. Depending on the job, he might have to face those on a regular basis and certain response patterns may not be considered adequate.
"If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."
Depressingly true in the current climate too.
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
Welcome to America, where the beatings will continue until morale improves. What you describe is "being competitive".
Employers have no incentive to treat their people like human beings. The next guy treats his employees just as badly, and if you find yourself someplace where they treat you like a human being, you're getting ripped off in terms of pay/benefits. Seriously, employers are like car salesmen here; they know they can treat you like shit because the next guy is just as bad. Oh, and medical insurance, you have none if you quit.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.