Companies are doing job interviews all wrong

[ksen]

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/9/5594194/were-doing-job-interviews-all-wrong

For many American job-seekers, the basic steps of applying for work look roughly the same: you find the posting, write the cover letter, tweak the resume, email the .pdfs (not .docs — good heavens, never .docs — because you weren't born in a barn), and if you're lucky, you get a phone interview.

And then maybe you interview in person, and then maybe again. And maybe it's three or four interviews in a row, possibly with a panel of interviewers, and you start to get facial nerve damage from maintaining a pleasant smile through the whole ordeal.

It's exhausting, and it also might be exactly the wrong way for firms to screen job candidates, for a host of reasons.

From ridiculously narrow skill requirements to idiotic interview questions . . . I'm surprised anyone still gets hired.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed. These days I think it's more about not hiring the wrong one than about hiring the right one.

 

[Garnet]

If someone asked me in a job interview if I believed in Bigfoot, my answer would be something along the lines of, "Yes, I do. I also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and job interviews in which I will not be asked stupid, irrelevant questions." Then I'd get up and walk out the door. I have yet to reach the state of being desperate enough to put up with bullshit like that.

And yes, I've walked out of interviews before. I have no desire to work in a place where they play mind-games or dabble in pseudoscience in an interview. I am judging a potential employer just as much as they are judging me.

 

[Elixir]

If someone asked me in a job interview if I believed in Bigfoot, my answer would be something along the lines of, "Yes, I do. I also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and job interviews in which I will not be asked stupid, irrelevant questions." Then I'd get up and walk out the door. I have yet to reach the state of being desperate enough to put up with bullshit like that.

Heh... we have a roster of stupid questions, and make it a point to ask every serious applicant (the ones we are truly considering) at least one of them, just to get their reaction. I like to ask why manhole covers are round. The "right" answer of course, is that manholes are round. But the people I hire usually have an answer like "If manholes and their covers were rectangular, the cover could fall through the hole", or "they're really heavy and it helps to be able to roll them". Mostly, it's about watching the applicant's thought process rather than evaluating the merits of any answers. By the time I hit someone with the stupid question, they have already made a short list on the strength of experience and qualifications. And no, they don't generally believe in bigfoot. Those "stupid" questions are not deal makers or deal breakers. no matter what the response. But you'd be surprised how many interviewees reveal aspects of their personalities and mental processes that don't come to light in conventional interviews. Some have come right out and laughed - and I have subsequently hired them...

 

[Nexus]

I like to ask why manhole covers are round. The "right" answer of course, is that manholes are round. But the people I hire usually have an answer like "If manholes and their covers were rectangular, the cover could fall through the hole", or "they're really heavy and it helps to be able to roll them".

A quick wiki search reveals.

1. A round manhole cover cannot fall through its circular opening, whereas a square manhole cover may fall in if it were inserted diagonally in the hole. The existence of a "lip" holding up the lid means that the underlying hole is smaller than the cover, so that other shapes might suffice. (A Reuleaux triangle or other curve of constant width would also serve this purpose, but round covers are much easier to manufacture.)

2. Round tubes are the strongest and most material-efficient shape against the compression of the earth around them, and so it is natural that the cover of a round tube assume a circular shape.

3. A round manhole cover has a smaller surface than a square one, thus less material is needed to cast the manhole cover, meaning lower cost.

4. The bearing surfaces of manhole frames and covers are machined to assure flatness and prevent them from becoming dislodged by traffic. Round castings are much easier to machine using a lathe.

5. Circular covers do not need to be rotated to align with the manhole.

6. A round manhole cover can be more easily moved by being rolled.

7. A round manhole cover can be easily locked in place with a quarter turn (as is done in countries like France). They are then hard to open without a special tool. Also then they do not have to be made so heavy, because traffic passing over them cannot lift them up by suction.

All far better explanations than your "right" answer.

 

[rousseau]

I've had about 30 interviews in the last year and a half due to a co-op program. I didn't receive job offers for all kinds of reasons: being over qualified, being under qualified, being too mechanical, giving wrong answers.. etc and so on.

As far as I can tell the two main requirements for receiving a job offer are being properly qualified for the job, and being able to prove that you're the most socially competent candidate. At the end of the day, most people want to hire other people who don't make them feel funny, and who they know can do the job. If you fail either of those pre-requisites, you're in trouble, everything else is secondary.

 

[Elixir]

A quick wiki search reveals.

All far better explanations than your "right" answer.

"Sure, so is "so you can roll them". "Because manholes are round" was just my favorite response given, by a guy wanting to oversee a12 person production team. Perfect. The point is that there aren't any answers that are inherently right or wrong for the purpose of the question. If someone listed all those "right" answers I'd probably be a little freaked out, since we don't advertise for engineers.

 

[Nexus]

"Because manholes are round" was just my favorite response given, by a guy wanting to oversee a12 person production team. Perfect.

I thought by "right" answer that was the preferred response of the company's. It just seems like the least right answer unless one is being intentionally dismissive of such a bizarre interview question or the person has Forest Gump or Slingblade level intelligence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

... since we don't advertise for engineers.

And that's the reason that your engineering company is losing so much money. You're going to want to target your hiring procedures a bit better.

 

[Derec]

It could always be worse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Heh... we have a roster of stupid questions, and make it a point to ask every serious applicant (the ones we are truly considering) at least one of them, just to get their reaction. I like to ask why manhole covers are round. The "right" answer of course, is that manholes are round. But the people I hire usually have an answer like "If manholes and their covers were rectangular, the cover could fall through the hole", or "they're really heavy and it helps to be able to roll them". Mostly, it's about watching the applicant's thought process rather than evaluating the merits of any answers. By the time I hit someone with the stupid question, they have already made a short list on the strength of experience and qualifications. And no, they don't generally believe in bigfoot. Those "stupid" questions are not deal makers or deal breakers. no matter what the response. But you'd be surprised how many interviewees reveal aspects of their personalities and mental processes that don't come to light in conventional interviews. Some have come right out and laughed - and I have subsequently hired them...

Sorry, but "because manholes are round" isn't a good answer here.

*WHY* are manholes and manhole covers round?? Out in the sidewalk there are three panels covering things, all of which are rectangular.

Falling through the hole is a very real issue--it wouldn't easy to retrieve and it could do damage when it hits. Few shapes can't fall through their hole and round is the simplest such shape. Round also means you don't have to get the orientation right when you're putting it back on.

 

[Elixir]

Sorry, but "because manholes are round" isn't a good answer here.

If you come to interview with my company I'll be the judge of that! (And no, it would nt be a good answer for a person applying for an admin position!)

*WHY* are manholes and manhole covers round?? Out in the sidewalk there are three panels covering things, all of which are rectangular.

Falling through the hole is a very real issue--it wouldn't easy to retrieve and it could do damage when it hits. Few shapes can't fall through their hole and round is the simplest such shape. Round also means you don't have to get the orientation right when you're putting it back on.

Again Loren, the point of the question is not to determine how well the applicant can divine the reason that manhole covers are round. (If it was, then "because the mold from which they are cast is round" would be an excellent response.) It's about seeing what kind of associations a person makes, how they interpret what is being asked etc.

And that's the reason that your engineering company is losing so much money. You're going to want to target your hiring procedures a bit better.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever start an engineering company, thanks.
Probably should think about learning something about engineering first though....

 

[pegasus8]

Our Time Is Our Most Precious Resource, So We Ask The Best Questions To Weed Out The B.S'ers.

IMO It Takes About 10 minutes to see who is the "real deal," in the interview. Since we were a some retail outfit I was able to practice these techniques in hiring. For those of you who have owned and ran your own gig you are constantly hiring and firing. Unfortunately most of the big business, corporations, etc., seem to be out of touch with getting to the meat and potatoes of the prospective candidate. These companies have oodles and oodles of interviewing techniques that IMO suck. They actually want you to ask every person the same type or the same lame ass interview questions. You know like; "what is your biggest weakness?" Or " what is your strongest trait?" Gee how original. Or "why did you quit your last job?" Because my boss was a jerk? Wow how original.

I ask people if you get this job what would you do if you seen your boss or department head steal? What would you do if you seen someone give a discount to someone at the register? Have you ever "took" anything from work?

Or if they wanted a meat cutter position I ask them could you go to the shelf and pick out a "cross rib." Or could you cut up a chicken and bone out the breast. And sure enough most meat cutters could not do these simple task.

What is interesting is most companies today filter a lot of applicants online with these electronic test. And again these test are a one size fits all applicant. Like the thread states you are lucky if you get a phone interview. And you are even luckier to get a face to face interview after this.

Man. What happen to the good ole sit down interview of days gone by? When a local WalMart put in a grocery store in town they had a stack of 2000 applications for 80-90 positions. So the HR people really did not give a "F" about the applicants. There were just too many people to interview after scanning all those applications to get to the phone interview and then the face to face.

So people what is the best answer when someone ask you if you ever took anything from work and did not pay for it?
And for me the best answer was and is the most honest answer. Of course didn't you?

As an extra added bonus, has anyone here ever had to take a lie detector test in the job interview process? They say some people can but there was no way in hell for someone like myself to try to lie on a lie detector test. I am a lame ass liar! When ever there are large amounts of cash involved people will lie, cheat and steal. It is a good thing that someone with experience should be able to weed out these kinds of people in the interview. If not you will be sorry.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[Garnet]

Heh... we have a roster of stupid questions, and make it a point to ask every serious applicant (the ones we are truly considering) at least one of them, just to get their reaction. I like to ask why manhole covers are round. The "right" answer of course, is that manholes are round. But the people I hire usually have an answer like "If manholes and their covers were rectangular, the cover could fall through the hole", or "they're really heavy and it helps to be able to roll them". Mostly, it's about watching the applicant's thought process rather than evaluating the merits of any answers. By the time I hit someone with the stupid question, they have already made a short list on the strength of experience and qualifications. And no, they don't generally believe in bigfoot. Those "stupid" questions are not deal makers or deal breakers. no matter what the response. But you'd be surprised how many interviewees reveal aspects of their personalities and mental processes that don't come to light in conventional interviews. Some have come right out and laughed - and I have subsequently hired them...

My response to that would be along the lines of, "I don't know and I don't care." Then, I'd gather my stuff and get the fuck out. Interviewers who ask me questions like that lose me as a potential candidate. If those kinds of games are played in an interview, it leads me to believe that similar nonsense would go on in the workplace. Frankly, I've had a belly full of mind games like that and I'm no longer playing them.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Yep, the best applicant probably isn't desperate and you risk losing her with daft mind game questions.



Worse than daft questions, IMO, are sensible ones you answer fully and sensibly, then they just look at you, like ...yes, go on...

So you make some more up, starting to flounder. Then they just look at you, like ...yes, go on...


I've asked stupid question from the other side of the table just to break that silence. Not psychological probing so much as everyone waiting for everyone else to ask a decent question.

 

[travc]

Or if they wanted a meat cutter position I ask them could you go to the shelf and pick out a "cross rib."

These sorts of 'practical' questions can get rediculous though. I've heard of people being asked insanely specific technical questions for programming jobs, where anyone in the real-world would just pull up the reference instead of relying on memory.

I'm no meat cutter, so I have no idea how basic your "cross rib" question is. How would you feel if an interviewee answered by saying "If you show me once, I'll remember"?

PS: My best trait is 'educatability'... I'm a bit of an oddball in that I am a scientist who hasn't super-specialized (I'm a biologist working mainly as the lab programmer). If I actually had to apply for a new job, I'd have to go in saying "I don't know, but I can learn it" to a whole lot of stuff. That means I have 0% chance getting a job through the normal process.

 

[Garnet]

travc's post reminds of an interview I had. Interviewers do need to be thoughtful about practical questions and make sure that they are proper in the context of the job and the experience of the person. I'm a business analyst with a boatload of experience in various kinds of state government. My work has often been held up as the gold standard. In fact, some of the documents that I developed are now the state standard and are used in all state IT projects. To toot my own horn, I'm one of the best business analysts in this small pond and there are several employers here who have been trying to hire or rehire me for quite a while now. A few years ago, I was heavily recruited by a particular company here. The position was Practice Manager. I would have supervised a team of business analysts and I would have been responsible for developing repeatable processes, creating document templates that would be used across all projects and performing quality assurance on any deliverable before it went to the client. The man who recruited me had a family emergency the day of the interview. He delegated the interview to two other people. Instead of following the interview questions that he had laid out, they chose to interview me as if I was an entry level business analyst. About 5 minutes into the interview, one of them asked me to name the parts of a use case. For those who have never been exposed to use cases, that is a trick question. About the only standard part of a use case is the title, everything else varies from project to project depending on the stage in system development life cycle and project needs. Anyway, my response to that question was a rather snotty, detailed lecture about use cases followed up with another snotty lecture about the inappropriateness of that question for a person with my experience interviewing for a management position. The two interviewers were stunned and slack jawed by the time I finished. I then gathered my things and left.

On the way out the door, I called another company that had extended a job offer to me the day before and accepted the offer.

That evening, the man who had tried so hard to recruit me called to apologize and ask for another chance. I accepted his sincere apology but I let him know that I had accepted another position. To say that he was angry at the two people who interviewed me and disappointed that I had already accepted another job would be an understatement. I doubt seriously that he ever delegated another interview again.

 

[dockeen]

My first job out of grad school, I ended up being a backup interviewer. It took me a time or two of doing this to realize that if I was interviewing someone, they had no chance, the bosses simply were in a hurry to get down to the bar. Damn, that sucked big time.

I tend to ask general questions about what the needs are for the position, and I try to get them to comfortably talk about themselves, what they know, and what they like to do.

 

[Garnet]

Prior to changing careers to being a business analyst, I was a supervisor for a state agency in Arizona. I supervised a unit of 7 legal assistants, 3 clerks and a tech. I've been on so many hiring panels that I've lost track. I've probably interviewed over 100 people. It's not something that I enjoyed, particularly when people were nervous. I always tried to cut people slack. Some of the best people I worked with really sucked at interviewing.

 

[dockeen]

Most folks would rather be doing their work than going through a process like that, particularly when it is worthless, like the interviews I started out doing.