I still get surprised by how bad some people are at interviewing

[AdamK47]

Question: What do you think you would like least about this job?

Answer: While being cognizant to the sensitivity surrounding the paradigm shift of synergies, the alignment of diversified calaborative task expectations would limit the full empowerment of resources within the facilitating groups.

 

[z1ggy]

If I'm interested in how a person answers a question when they're under pressure, or squirming in their seat, those types of questions are important. They're stupid questions if you're hiring someone to work at McD's. A candidate's answer to such questions indicates either how well they prepared for an interview = how seriously they're taking the interview. Is this someone who really wants this job? Or is this someone just testing the waters, who'll jump on the job if given the opportunity and better pay. Else, it shows how well they're able to express an answer under pressure of being asked an unexpected question. Usually you can tell which of the two types of responses you're given. But, a shitty response = "didn't prepare for this interview; didn't spend time thinking about answers to fairly common interview questions, AND has difficulty with such answers under pressure. What's an employee like that going to say to a client on the phone when posed a stressful type of question that they're unprepared for?

It's a BS line though. There's the typical cliché questions that all asshat interviewers ask. You can probably just Google some answers. I mean, do you honestly think any person is going to answer with what their actual worst qualities are or what they think they'd like least about the job?

"Glad you asked Dr. Pizza. Well as a matter of fact, I am an abbbbbbsooluttteee asshole. I mean, I am loud and obnoxious, and I really hate working with others. I'm stubborn and throw a fit when I don't get my way. Oh... And I like to fart. A lot. And yes, they smell bad."

Dr. Pizza--> 0_o

How about, if you had a job where you need to think under pressure, you ask a candidate to tell you times where he/she demonstrated this ability, etc. I mean, anybody with enough practice can BS you.

 

[glenn1]

? I added that. Its not monumental because its some big glorious project but monumental because its a huge mess and no one knows who to contact for what issue. Or its so damn convoluted. For example - there are different desktop support groups and any of them can image your computer. But the different groups have different passwords and don't share them so I hope you remember which group re-imaged your computer the last time because they are the only ones who can work on it from now on

Lots of things to fix...so little time...

So the proper answer to the interview question would be "That I'll be working for people who have no fucking idea how to address the 'core job function' they're asking me about, and I'm being expected to fix their mess or take the blame for them if I can't."

 

[Exterous]

It's a BS line though. There's the typical cliché questions that all asshat interviewers ask. You can probably just Google some answers. I mean, do you honestly think any person is going to answer with what their actual worst qualities are or what they think they'd like least about the job?

Uh...Isn't that exactly what this thread is about?

 

[z1ggy]

Uh...Isn't that exactly what this thread is about?

I suppose? I mean, it was highlighted that the question was asked, and a (stupid, but) honest answer was given.

While that is great, that rarely ever happens. That person was clearly just too dense to BS an answer. I mean, who applies to a job where the main thing you do is X, then when asked what the worst part would be, they reply with X. That's just lunacy.

So all in all, negatively posed questions I think are a waste. There are better ways of finding out of a person isn't fit for the position then backing them into a corner, of which they escape by BS'ing you.

 

[inachu]

Some people are gifted still with the inherit ability to get one job and stay with it for the rest of their lives.

Then you have the rest of the world who must TEMP or use part time and you do so many job interview that you become a professional job interviewee. Nobody should ever have to become a professional job interviewee.

Yes sure it give you one up against the competition. Use that unemployment money to have people give critical reviews VS building the resume for computers that just look at keywords.

I was unemployed 13 years ago and did not get a job until I designed my resume using the same software the HR dept. uses.

Yeah it felt like cheating but hey I did not lie on my resume at all and I am happy for that.

 

[vi edit]

Question: What do you think you would like least about this job?

Answer: While being cognizant to the sensitivity surrounding the paradigm shift of synergies, the alignment of diversified calaborative task expectations would limit the full empowerment of resources within the facilitating groups.

We'll put a pin in that and circle back later.

 

[Vdubchaos]

This one was particularly surprising because it was an internal candidate who should have been very aware of what we were looking for. Anyway - our group has the monumental task of trying to organize very disparate and isolated groups into a more cohesive and responsive whole. This job would require a lot of inter-personal skills and project management related skills along with, very obviously, working with a wide range of groups. The job description even stated how often and closely they would be working with other groups.

So to sum it up:

Your group is unskilled, unorganized and not willing to be team players and do whatever it takes to get the job done..

And you think that "hiring someone" will fix this issue.

Good luck to you and your company.

 

[Vdubchaos]

So the proper answer to the interview question would be "That I'll be working for people who have no fucking idea how to address the 'core job function' they're asking me about, and I'm being expected to fix their mess or take the blame for them if I can't."

Pretty much

OP is asking a question for which NO answer will EVER satisfy him.

Read : he is in denial and also hiring someone for "mission impossible" type of a job.

I guess one can say "community service"......our corporate world is FILLED with those.

 

[pauldun170]

did he drop the mic and walk away?

Holy crap that cracked me up.

 

[vi edit]

I think I hate being on an interview panel more than I hate interviewing. I was on a panel last week and someone on the panel just started grilling the candidate. Poor girl was almost crying. She took about 30 seconds to pause, collect herself and squeek out a timid reply.

*queue awkward seal meme*

 

[Exterous]

So to sum it up:

Your group is unskilled, unorganized and not willing to be team players and do whatever it takes to get the job done..

And you think that "hiring someone" will fix this issue.

Yeah - not the case at all. Well, at least not yet. We are a new group (<2 months) put together because the organization realized everything was fractured. We are tasked with unfracking the situation. We are interviewing because the team has not yet been fully staffed.

Pretty much

OP is asking a question for which NO answer will EVER satisfy him.

Read : he is in denial and also hiring someone for "mission impossible" type of a job.

I'll type this out again because you seem to have difficulty reading: I did not ask the question.

FWIW - my understanding is that everyone was asked this question. I know I was when I was hired in December so apparently there are some answers that satisfied them.

If I thought this was a "Mission impossible" job I wouldn't be here since I was hired to do the same thing just with more responsibility, expectations and pay.

Any more idiotic assumptions you would like addressed?

 

[rudeguy]

Yeah - not the case at all. Well, at least not yet. We are a new group (<2 months) put together because the organization realized everything was fractured. We are tasked with unfracking the situation. We are interviewing because the team has not yet been fully staffed.



I'll type this out again because you seem to have difficulty reading: I did not ask the question.

FWIW - my understanding is that everyone was asked this question. I know I was when I was hired in December so apparently there are some answers that satisfied them.

If I thought this was a "Mission impossible" job I wouldn't be here since I was hired to do the same thing just with more responsibility, expectations and pay.

Any more idiotic assumptions you would like addressed?

Everyone from the east side is a moron who can't drive.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah - not the case at all. Well, at least not yet. We are a new group (<2 months) put together because the organization realized everything was fractured. We are tasked with unfracking the situation. We are interviewing because the team has not yet been fully staffed.

Ah yes, because you have poor organizational controls and undefined process ownership, of course the solution is to add yet another level of unaccountability into the mix. That'll fix it. Because adding one more silo to the organization is exactly what you need. I'm sure your team will put together a very slick looking RACI chart that will get promptly ignored by the other stakeholders.

 

[vi edit]

Ah yes, because you have poor organizational controls and undefined process ownership, of course the solution is to add yet another level of unaccountability into the mix. That'll fix it. Because adding one more silo to the organization is exactly what you need. I'm sure your team will put together a very slick looking RACI chart that will get promptly ignored by the other stakeholders.

RACI chart. Vomit.

Taking accountability to deflect accountability. Go go corporate politics!

 

[Ns1]

this is why I don't post job/interview threads on ATOT.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Question: What do you think you would like least about this job?

Answer: While being cognizant to the sensitivity surrounding the paradigm shift of synergies, the alignment of diversified calaborative task expectations would limit the full empowerment of resources within the facilitating groups.

God damn you, that actually made sense to me.

 

[Exterous]

Ah yes, because you have poor organizational controls and undefined process ownership, of course the solution is to add yet another level of unaccountability into the mix. That'll fix it. Because adding one more silo to the organization is exactly what you need. I'm sure your team will put together a very slick looking RACI chart that will get promptly ignored by the other stakeholders.

Understandable pessimism. However the level of buy in from the stakeholders is already impressive as the access and control abilities are flowing in - likely because those at the top have realized that money, prestige and competition ability are at risk over this (really about the only surefire motivators). Our budget allows for hiring a lot more people that we are allowed to use if the other departments don't play ball. We already have access so if they don't play nice we bypass them and do it ourselves. Worst case scenario though is I transfer to one of the silos and make a fair bit of money to not play nice with others :awe:

 

[disappoint]

God damn you, that actually made sense to me.

Well that can't be good. Are you having a stroke? I'm 100% + or - 100% sure that was intended not to make sense. You need to seek medical treatment for this malady at once.

 

[clamum]

Everyone from the east side is a moron who can't drive.

fk u sir

 

[Spungo]

I find those questions dumb because all people just spin it off into something positive, thus... why not just ask them something positive?

Instead of "What's your biggest fault?" to which somebody says, "well, I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I comb through the data so many times to find any mistakes. But I guess because of that, I produce superior work that only needs minimal review cycles.", why not just ask them what they view their best personality traits as, since that BS question just turns into that anyway.

The same reason my okcupid profile explicitly states that any messages sent to me should include a certain keyword. It tests if guys actually read my profile. If a message doesn't include the keyword, it's obviously because the person didn't read my profile and is sending out a cookie cutter message to me and dozens of other people.

Given the number of bullshit messages I get on okcupid, I'm guessing job applications are terrible as well.

 

[OverVolt]

Sounds like a bad HR department. They should just replace you guys with temps. Oh the irony.

 

[Ruptga]

I also hate that question, to the point that if I already have doubts about a place I will write them off after getting that stupid question. It reflects a lack of original thinking and a desire to see employees humiliate themselves, and it rewards bullshitters while punishing those that can't or won't bullshit. I'm the kind of employee bosses love, too. I get shit done, I don't play politics, I don't gossip, I don't avoid my duties, and I don't need my hand held. I go to work to accomplish something, not to play games with people.

 

[Ns1]

It reflects a lack of original thinking and a desire to see employees humiliate themselves, and it rewards bullshitters while punishing those that can't or won't bullshit.

this is the corporate; bullshitting is a valuable skill.

 

[AdamK47]

Well that can't be good. Are you having a stroke? I'm 100% + or - 100% sure that was intended not to make sense. You need to seek medical treatment for this malady at once.

The effectual realization for intent towards a broader consensus relies greatly on the inherent impetus for a satisfactory agreement.