4 ms·

I've never had any luck getting a serious answer to that question. It's always hand-wavy fluff. It's the employer's equivalent of "what is your biggest weaknes

I've never had any luck getting a serious answer to that question. It's always hand-wavy fluff. It's the employer's equivalent of "what is your biggest weakness". It just tests their ability to BS.

icey 17y ago
You can keep asking the question in other ways: "How long was the person before me here?" "What's the average length of time someone stays here?" "How long have *you* been here?" If you really want to know the answer, you just have to keep asking. Turnover rate is the first real question I ask. (Also: the lack of an answer is an answer on its own.)
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Mentioning a "person before me" in an interview is a bad idea, because it brings forth associations you might not want. Also, there might not be such a person. The second and third questions are good, but short tenures could also signify a rapidly growing company (which is something to be wary of, but not for the same reason) like Google in 2006.
  - mendriacus 17y ago
    "short tenures could also signify a rapidly growing company" Sure, but if everyone interviewing you are less than a year in, where are all the people who worked here before? And why are you being interviewed mostly or exclusively by junior team members who haven't proved themselves yet? Is the company entrusting the selection of successful employees to newbies who haven't yet proved they can be such? An interviewer for a company in the middle of a growth spurt should be able to explain that, quote some enticing growth figures, and mention that "almost all of the original team members are now project leaders and executives... in fact, if this goes well, you'll meet some of them shortly".
- mendriacus 17y ago
  The beauty of that last one is how there's absolutely no way to fluff it away. You're asking for a number. Your interviewer either gives it to you, or he evades. Another brilliant one is "how long are you planning to stay?". This can lead to some of the most revealing and unstructured discussions you'll engage in during your interview process. Not for the feint of heart.
- jparise 17y ago
  Just be careful to interpret the answers to those questions in context. If a small company is growing or expanding into new areas or technologies, I wouldn't necessarily consider it a bad thing if the answers to the second two questions were short periods of time. For example, if you join a small company to lead, say, their first Android application's development, and one of your first tasks involves hiring another developer or two to round out your team, there's not going to be a lot of tenure there. That certainly represents a risk, but it doesn't indicate something wrong with the company. When I encounter situations like this, I often ask about the team members' prior experience. They're not obliged to share those details, of course, but most people are eager to tell you about their past achievements and how they hope to outdo themselves in their new roles.
eru 17y ago
I guess you could get a decent answer at places that take pride in their (high) turnover rate.
stretchwithme 17y ago
my biggest weakness is my inability to acknowledge how truly great I am. :-)
- goodmitton 17y ago
  Although that's most likely true, unfortunately, based on my research, I haven't seen anywhere that says that is an acceptable answer. I know. Sad isn't it?
  - stretchwithme 17y ago
    ha, ha, of course, since by making the claim that one is great means you don't really have a problem acknowledging that you're great. Maybe the best answer is that one's greatest weakness is being OCD about fixing one's weaknesses :-) And for a serious answer: I spend too much time worrying about weaknesses when I should be delegating affected tasks to others while I focus on tasks that play to my strengths. Or: If I don't do something well, I delegate it to someone who can and get back to doing what I do best.
wheels 17y ago
Not so. Turnover rate is something you can measure. They can either choose to lie about it or not. Biggest weakness is subjective.
- dschobel 17y ago
  Certainly the number would be objective, the subjective part would be establishing an industry standard against which to compare it. Without context, the number alone can't tell you all that much. Honestly, the most surefire litmus test I've found is ex-employees who still speak positively about the employer.
  - jjs 17y ago
    Honestly, the most surefire litmus test I've found is ex-employees who still speak positively about the employer. Conversely, a very vague non-answer, like "I couldn't really say" may hint at a non-disparagement clause in exchange for a severance package (with an NDA covering the existence of the agreement itself).
- albemuth 17y ago
  It would also be expected for the interviewer to explain that number.
btilly 17y ago
You just have to ask the question in a surprising way to get surprising honesty. "Tell me why the last three people to leave your team left?" "How long ago was this?" Then at a different point in time, "How big is your team?" You are likely to get accurate answers. You can do the math. And the way they talk about the departed will tell you volumes about their environment.

I've never had any luck getting a serious answer to that question. It's always hand-wavy fluff. It's the employer's equivalent of "what is your biggest weakness". It just tests their ability to BS.

icey 17y ago

You can keep asking the question in other ways: "How long was the person before me here?" "What's the average length of time someone stays here?" "How long have *you* been here?" If you really want to know the answer, you just have to keep asking. Turnover rate is the first real question I ask. (Also: the lack of an answer is an answer on its own.)

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Mentioning a "person before me" in an interview is a bad idea, because it brings forth associations you might not want. Also, there might not be such a person. The second and third questions are good, but short tenures could also signify a rapidly growing company (which is something to be wary of, but not for the same reason) like Google in 2006.
- mendriacus 17y ago
  "short tenures could also signify a rapidly growing company" Sure, but if everyone interviewing you are less than a year in, where are all the people who worked here before? And why are you being interviewed mostly or exclusively by junior team members who haven't proved themselves yet? Is the company entrusting the selection of successful employees to newbies who haven't yet proved they can be such? An interviewer for a company in the middle of a growth spurt should be able to explain that, quote some enticing growth figures, and mention that "almost all of the original team members are now project leaders and executives... in fact, if this goes well, you'll meet some of them shortly".
mendriacus 17y ago
The beauty of that last one is how there's absolutely no way to fluff it away. You're asking for a number. Your interviewer either gives it to you, or he evades. Another brilliant one is "how long are you planning to stay?". This can lead to some of the most revealing and unstructured discussions you'll engage in during your interview process. Not for the feint of heart.
jparise 17y ago
Just be careful to interpret the answers to those questions in context. If a small company is growing or expanding into new areas or technologies, I wouldn't necessarily consider it a bad thing if the answers to the second two questions were short periods of time. For example, if you join a small company to lead, say, their first Android application's development, and one of your first tasks involves hiring another developer or two to round out your team, there's not going to be a lot of tenure there. That certainly represents a risk, but it doesn't indicate something wrong with the company. When I encounter situations like this, I often ask about the team members' prior experience. They're not obliged to share those details, of course, but most people are eager to tell you about their past achievements and how they hope to outdo themselves in their new roles.

eru 17y ago

I guess you could get a decent answer at places that take pride in their (high) turnover rate.

stretchwithme 17y ago

my biggest weakness is my inability to acknowledge how truly great I am. :-)

goodmitton 17y ago
Although that's most likely true, unfortunately, based on my research, I haven't seen anywhere that says that is an acceptable answer. I know. Sad isn't it?
- stretchwithme 17y ago
  ha, ha, of course, since by making the claim that one is great means you don't really have a problem acknowledging that you're great. Maybe the best answer is that one's greatest weakness is being OCD about fixing one's weaknesses :-) And for a serious answer: I spend too much time worrying about weaknesses when I should be delegating affected tasks to others while I focus on tasks that play to my strengths. Or: If I don't do something well, I delegate it to someone who can and get back to doing what I do best.

wheels 17y ago

Not so. Turnover rate is something you can measure. They can either choose to lie about it or not. Biggest weakness is subjective.

dschobel 17y ago
Certainly the number would be objective, the subjective part would be establishing an industry standard against which to compare it. Without context, the number alone can't tell you all that much. Honestly, the most surefire litmus test I've found is ex-employees who still speak positively about the employer.
- jjs 17y ago
  Honestly, the most surefire litmus test I've found is ex-employees who still speak positively about the employer. Conversely, a very vague non-answer, like "I couldn't really say" may hint at a non-disparagement clause in exchange for a severance package (with an NDA covering the existence of the agreement itself).
albemuth 17y ago
It would also be expected for the interviewer to explain that number.

btilly 17y ago

You just have to ask the question in a surprising way to get surprising honesty. "Tell me why the last three people to leave your team left?" "How long ago was this?" Then at a different point in time, "How big is your team?" You are likely to get accurate answers. You can do the math. And the way they talk about the departed will tell you volumes about their environment.