8 ms·

This is the reason (at least, I think this is the reason) why I bombed my first serious job interview, with United Launch Alliance. Things were going great unt

This is the reason (at least, I think this is the reason) why I bombed my first serious job interview, with United Launch Alliance. Things were going great until they asked me if I preferred working alone or in teams. From memory (it's been a long while) this is how the conversation went: Interviewer: "Do you like working in teams?" "If the people I'm working with are smart and motivated, I'm fine working in teams. Otherwise I'd like to mostly work alone." Interviewer: "You mean you don't like working with other people?" "No, that's not what I said. What I mean is that my experiences in working with teams have been mostly negative because other people don't pull their weight. The few times I have been in a good team I've really enjoyed it." Interviewer: "Okay, moving on..." And a rejection email was waiting in my inbox before I even got off the plane that night. I learned after that to just say, "I love working in teams, especially when I'm working with people more experienced and knowledgeable than me. I'm also a great self-starter and I'm self-motivated, so I'm also comfortable working solo if you need me to do that." Which is much the same sentiment, but phrased in a way that people seem to take better.

LordKano 11y ago
I absolutely hate that we have to play the game but I suppose that there's some benefit in weeding out the people who can't. "Yes, I enjoy leveraging the different experience that each member brings to the team. When we combine a group of highly motivated and knowledgeable individuals, we can achieve a high degree of success...synergy...paradigm...core competencies"
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Yeah. Reflecting back on that interview process was very informative for me. I am glad I went on that interview because this was a very valuable lesson.
hugh4 11y ago
You know the expression "if you meet jerks all day then you're the jerk?" That's what would go through my mind if someone complained about their previous team members in a job interview.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  That assumption depends on how many teams the person has been in. When I was in Uni we literally had just one project in 5 years where we were working in a team with more than two people.
- mafribe 11y ago
  Well by that logic ... if you meet short people all day, then you're short?
  - adrusi 11y ago
    Reasonable people end up acting like jerks toward real jerks because they have no reason to be kind. Therefore if you notice that everyone is being a jerk to you, it's likely because you're giving them a reason to be. Tall people don't go around being short around short people, namely because they can't.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  This is why I stopped phrasing things in the way I did in that interview. EDIT: realized my phrasing wasn't great
- Asbostos 11y ago
  This rule assumes that the most popular behavior is not being a jerk. What if you're the only black in a city full of racists whites? Are you a jerk because other people treat you badly? A less extreme example - what if you're the only person who doesn't easily understand the complex social structures that exist in workplaces? People will treat you badly because you were too nice to the low-ranking guy and not sucking-up enough to the high-ranking guy. That doesn't mean you're a jerk either.
jimbokun 11y ago
Well, clearly, when the interviewer heard "smart and motivated" it was immediately clear you weren't going to fit in there. So probably worked out best for everyone involved.
- panzagl 11y ago
  Rocket science really doesn't have a lot of room for primadonnas. It's all process and accountability.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    You can be a creative and independent individual in such an environment. A prima-donna? No. But self-directing? Absolutely. Saying that it is all "process and accountability" glosses over a lot of the reality of how the work is actually done on a day-to-day basis.
sirmarksalot 11y ago
I think your answer is worded in a way that shows distrust and lack of enthusiasm. Everyone has experienced dysfunctional teams, but by saying things like "mostly negative," you're showing them a bias against teamwork. You can express the same thing by saying, "it's great working with teams of smart, motivated people, although it does depend on the people involved." Of course any interviewer worth their salt will follow up on that, because any kind of negativity is a yellow flag, and needs clarification. Your second answer could be better phrased as, "well, we've all had the experience of working with people who don't pull their own weight, which can be a challenge to say the least, but that said, that kind of thing should be more the exception." The conventional wisdom is that if you have five good group projects and one bad project, the problem is the group. If you have five bad projects and one good one, the problem is you. You don't want to tell them that you're the problem.
- taneq 11y ago
  The 'conventional wisdom' you quote sounds valid in a professional environment. If your only experience of teamwork is with group projects in university then worrying that 'teamwork' equates to 'being saddled with a bunch of slackers' is entirely reasonable. I think their answer was a very honest answer, which was a classic rookie mistake (although totally excusable since it was their first 'real' job interview). After being round the block a couple of times, we learn to add some spin to the answer, the way you did, and the interviewer sees that we can play the game, and we get hired.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Yup, classic rookie mistake. My revised answer is still honest. I do enjoy working with other people. Also, I need to work with other people to improve my skills. But I am also comfortable going off on my own for a while and working on something. My current job (flight test instrumentation) is an even mixture of both solo work and team work. The older, more experienced me knows now that I need both types of work.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  You're absolutely right on all of this. Your comment summarizes what I learned after this experience. I was much younger then, and didn't understand that last point in particular. Was I stuck in groups where we had outright slugs? Of course I was, and that happens in a non-professional environment like school. There were some things I could have done then that I understand now. I did everything I knew to do at the time.
marincounty 11y ago
I can't believe companies are still asking questions like this. The clever slacker will know exactly how to answer the Psyc. 101 questions? Maybe that's why we have so many people who shouldn't have got that middle/upper management on their unseen talents? I really don't understand this problem in hiring. Yea--go off that, usually padded resume, padded Likedin, etc., but just test the candidate. You can test them on the job, or a supervised written/computer test? You can then keep them, or fire them? Of course tell the employee this position is provisional. Hiring shouldn't be a popularity contest? And some of the best minds I have been around, really didn't like working in big groups. I've never seen an organization that didn't split into small groups of people after all the big promises of team playing. These small groups are sometimes a popularity contest though--So, what do I know? As to HR personnel, why are they seemly always irritating/hubristic people? I can't figure out if it's the job that turns them into people I don't want to be around, or certain personality types are drawn to that position? While I'm at it, enough with requiring a picture? I understand if the job requires a security clearance, but even then I think it's an invasion of privacy, and used for the wrong reasons. The better jobs I had required a test as 1/2 of the hiring process. The other 1/2 was the oral interview. The interview had at Least five people overhearing my answers. I really thought this was a fair way to hire. (On another note, I had a detective put a note on my table, in my yard, with a number to call. Yea, some slimy PI was in my yard? I think I have a neighbor who's applying to some government security position? I didn't call the number, but I think I know the neighbor. He just moved in, and I don't know where he got his money, nor care to. He has a lot of disposable income, and doesn't something doesn't add up. He, and his friends smoke a lot of weed, and he seems paranoid. Personally, I thought he was a drug dealer, and I don't care, as long as he stays away from me. Would I hire this guy--no, but I don't know him. It's all speculation on my part? I would never call that number, unless I saw him building a "you know what". I have a bunch of nosey neighbors, who seem to live to point out neighborhood infractions, or eye sores. I hate that eye sore phrase. I always want to tell the person spewing that observation; look in the mirror? Well, I imagine most of my neighbors gleefully called this number and gave their 2 cents to this PI, and I imagine everything was speculated? If this is how security clearances are performed --it's sad. The main reason I like where I live is because I don't want to know my neighbors? They all seem to have too much money, and complain about stuff I don't think is important. I have nothing in common with them, and don't want to know them. Is that wrong?) Again off track, but I would like to see a simplified/fair way of hiring.

LordKano 11y ago

I absolutely hate that we have to play the game but I suppose that there's some benefit in weeding out the people who can't. "Yes, I enjoy leveraging the different experience that each member brings to the team. When we combine a group of highly motivated and knowledgeable individuals, we can achieve a high degree of success...synergy...paradigm...core competencies"

engi_nerd 11y ago
Yeah. Reflecting back on that interview process was very informative for me. I am glad I went on that interview because this was a very valuable lesson.

hugh4 11y ago

You know the expression "if you meet jerks all day then you're the jerk?" That's what would go through my mind if someone complained about their previous team members in a job interview.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
That assumption depends on how many teams the person has been in. When I was in Uni we literally had just one project in 5 years where we were working in a team with more than two people.
mafribe 11y ago
Well by that logic ... if you meet short people all day, then you're short?
- adrusi 11y ago
  Reasonable people end up acting like jerks toward real jerks because they have no reason to be kind. Therefore if you notice that everyone is being a jerk to you, it's likely because you're giving them a reason to be. Tall people don't go around being short around short people, namely because they can't.
engi_nerd 11y ago
This is why I stopped phrasing things in the way I did in that interview. EDIT: realized my phrasing wasn't great
Asbostos 11y ago
This rule assumes that the most popular behavior is not being a jerk. What if you're the only black in a city full of racists whites? Are you a jerk because other people treat you badly? A less extreme example - what if you're the only person who doesn't easily understand the complex social structures that exist in workplaces? People will treat you badly because you were too nice to the low-ranking guy and not sucking-up enough to the high-ranking guy. That doesn't mean you're a jerk either.

jimbokun 11y ago

Well, clearly, when the interviewer heard "smart and motivated" it was immediately clear you weren't going to fit in there. So probably worked out best for everyone involved.

panzagl 11y ago
Rocket science really doesn't have a lot of room for primadonnas. It's all process and accountability.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  You can be a creative and independent individual in such an environment. A prima-donna? No. But self-directing? Absolutely. Saying that it is all "process and accountability" glosses over a lot of the reality of how the work is actually done on a day-to-day basis.

sirmarksalot 11y ago

I think your answer is worded in a way that shows distrust and lack of enthusiasm. Everyone has experienced dysfunctional teams, but by saying things like "mostly negative," you're showing them a bias against teamwork. You can express the same thing by saying, "it's great working with teams of smart, motivated people, although it does depend on the people involved." Of course any interviewer worth their salt will follow up on that, because any kind of negativity is a yellow flag, and needs clarification. Your second answer could be better phrased as, "well, we've all had the experience of working with people who don't pull their own weight, which can be a challenge to say the least, but that said, that kind of thing should be more the exception." The conventional wisdom is that if you have five good group projects and one bad project, the problem is the group. If you have five bad projects and one good one, the problem is you. You don't want to tell them that you're the problem.

taneq 11y ago
The 'conventional wisdom' you quote sounds valid in a professional environment. If your only experience of teamwork is with group projects in university then worrying that 'teamwork' equates to 'being saddled with a bunch of slackers' is entirely reasonable. I think their answer was a very honest answer, which was a classic rookie mistake (although totally excusable since it was their first 'real' job interview). After being round the block a couple of times, we learn to add some spin to the answer, the way you did, and the interviewer sees that we can play the game, and we get hired.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Yup, classic rookie mistake. My revised answer is still honest. I do enjoy working with other people. Also, I need to work with other people to improve my skills. But I am also comfortable going off on my own for a while and working on something. My current job (flight test instrumentation) is an even mixture of both solo work and team work. The older, more experienced me knows now that I need both types of work.
engi_nerd 11y ago
You're absolutely right on all of this. Your comment summarizes what I learned after this experience. I was much younger then, and didn't understand that last point in particular. Was I stuck in groups where we had outright slugs? Of course I was, and that happens in a non-professional environment like school. There were some things I could have done then that I understand now. I did everything I knew to do at the time.

marincounty 11y ago

I can't believe companies are still asking questions like this. The clever slacker will know exactly how to answer the Psyc. 101 questions? Maybe that's why we have so many people who shouldn't have got that middle/upper management on their unseen talents? I really don't understand this problem in hiring. Yea--go off that, usually padded resume, padded Likedin, etc., but just test the candidate. You can test them on the job, or a supervised written/computer test? You can then keep them, or fire them? Of course tell the employee this position is provisional. Hiring shouldn't be a popularity contest? And some of the best minds I have been around, really didn't like working in big groups. I've never seen an organization that didn't split into small groups of people after all the big promises of team playing. These small groups are sometimes a popularity contest though--So, what do I know? As to HR personnel, why are they seemly always irritating/hubristic people? I can't figure out if it's the job that turns them into people I don't want to be around, or certain personality types are drawn to that position? While I'm at it, enough with requiring a picture? I understand if the job requires a security clearance, but even then I think it's an invasion of privacy, and used for the wrong reasons. The better jobs I had required a test as 1/2 of the hiring process. The other 1/2 was the oral interview. The interview had at Least five people overhearing my answers. I really thought this was a fair way to hire. (On another note, I had a detective put a note on my table, in my yard, with a number to call. Yea, some slimy PI was in my yard? I think I have a neighbor who's applying to some government security position? I didn't call the number, but I think I know the neighbor. He just moved in, and I don't know where he got his money, nor care to. He has a lot of disposable income, and doesn't something doesn't add up. He, and his friends smoke a lot of weed, and he seems paranoid. Personally, I thought he was a drug dealer, and I don't care, as long as he stays away from me. Would I hire this guy--no, but I don't know him. It's all speculation on my part? I would never call that number, unless I saw him building a "you know what". I have a bunch of nosey neighbors, who seem to live to point out neighborhood infractions, or eye sores. I hate that eye sore phrase. I always want to tell the person spewing that observation; look in the mirror? Well, I imagine most of my neighbors gleefully called this number and gave their 2 cents to this PI, and I imagine everything was speculated? If this is how security clearances are performed --it's sad. The main reason I like where I live is because I don't want to know my neighbors? They all seem to have too much money, and complain about stuff I don't think is important. I have nothing in common with them, and don't want to know them. Is that wrong?) Again off track, but I would like to see a simplified/fair way of hiring.