4 ms·

On the other hand, I find questions such as "how responsive are people to emails/Slack over the weekends and after 6pm?" utterly loathsome. It is immediately o

by nishs 9y ago

On the other hand, I find questions such as "how responsive are people to emails/Slack over the weekends and after 6pm?" utterly loathsome. It is immediately obvious that the question is just a veiled attempt at asking about the work-life balance. From the perspective of both the interviewee and the interviewer, I much rather prefer the more straightforward question "how's the work life balance here?", with the expectation that the interviewer is honest enough to engage in an healthy, open discussion on the topic.

ohitsdom 9y ago
Interesting, why do you loathe that question? I don't view it as a veiled attempt to get info or a way to trick the interviewer. To me, it's a specific way to measure work life balance. Most HR departments love to preach work life balance, but if the entire team is expected to be responsive during off hours then you have a problem. When asked "how's your work life balance?" it's easy to answer "good" without much reflection. Asking specifics helps get to the reality quicker and is more likely to get specific details.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
opportune 9y ago
"Loathsome", really? It may be obvious to you, but it demands a level of specificity that the interviewer is much less likely to lie about. Every company will tell you that they have a good work life balance because that's a completely nebulous claim. If you ask about after-hours communication they're more likely to give you an accurate answer. It's like if I ask you "do you think you're a good person" where you have a financial incentive to justify why you're a good person and a disincentive to just why you aren't. You're going to emphasize the good points and neglect the bad points to make yourself look the best. Company recruiters are evaluated on equivalent metrics (at least indirectly) so of course they'll give you the sunshine-and-rainbows view of the business. The more direct your question, the more egregious any lie becomes, so the more likely you are to hear the truth. I worked at a company known for over-working employees (mostly technical, non-devs, though) where the HR recruiters would always go on and on about only ever having to work 45 hours a week max during release pushes... then in orientation the (9-10 figures net worth) CEO told you that they "didn't believe in a work-life balance", and they favored a "work-life integration" instead. Those are obviously complete opposites, and a more direct question to the recruiters could have revealed that discrepancy. In fact that disgusting lie of omission turned me off from the company so much that I found a job elsewhere pretty soon thereafter. The goal as an interviewer is not to trigger the "HR alarms" that require you to lie or spread the truth thin. If you ask a quantifiable question like "how often do people work over 40 hours?" you're more likely to get a truly revealing answer.
keyboardhitter 9y ago
Erm, i would wager a question like that is intentionally transparent. and it is not as if these questions have to be said without elaboration. in my opinion it can be helpful to start conversations on subjective topics with an example, to suggest what one is looking for (or looking to avoid), or otherwise provide context on what may violate the work life balance for the particular individual. For less experienced interviewees it may be vital to provide an example or boundary. Maybe the interviewee doesn't know how to respond to a reply of, "Yes, we have good work life balance." Even if the interviewee asked for elaboration on why it's good, that can give a perfect stage for the interviewer to say what wants to be heard instead of providing specific examples (i don't mean to say this is always malicious behavior, though sadly I'm sure that happens too).

by nishs 9y ago

ohitsdom 9y ago

Interesting, why do you loathe that question? I don't view it as a veiled attempt to get info or a way to trick the interviewer. To me, it's a specific way to measure work life balance. Most HR departments love to preach work life balance, but if the entire team is expected to be responsive during off hours then you have a problem. When asked "how's your work life balance?" it's easy to answer "good" without much reflection. Asking specifics helps get to the reality quicker and is more likely to get specific details.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

opportune 9y ago

"Loathsome", really? It may be obvious to you, but it demands a level of specificity that the interviewer is much less likely to lie about. Every company will tell you that they have a good work life balance because that's a completely nebulous claim. If you ask about after-hours communication they're more likely to give you an accurate answer. It's like if I ask you "do you think you're a good person" where you have a financial incentive to justify why you're a good person and a disincentive to just why you aren't. You're going to emphasize the good points and neglect the bad points to make yourself look the best. Company recruiters are evaluated on equivalent metrics (at least indirectly) so of course they'll give you the sunshine-and-rainbows view of the business. The more direct your question, the more egregious any lie becomes, so the more likely you are to hear the truth. I worked at a company known for over-working employees (mostly technical, non-devs, though) where the HR recruiters would always go on and on about only ever having to work 45 hours a week max during release pushes... then in orientation the (9-10 figures net worth) CEO told you that they "didn't believe in a work-life balance", and they favored a "work-life integration" instead. Those are obviously complete opposites, and a more direct question to the recruiters could have revealed that discrepancy. In fact that disgusting lie of omission turned me off from the company so much that I found a job elsewhere pretty soon thereafter. The goal as an interviewer is not to trigger the "HR alarms" that require you to lie or spread the truth thin. If you ask a quantifiable question like "how often do people work over 40 hours?" you're more likely to get a truly revealing answer.

keyboardhitter 9y ago

Erm, i would wager a question like that is intentionally transparent. and it is not as if these questions have to be said without elaboration. in my opinion it can be helpful to start conversations on subjective topics with an example, to suggest what one is looking for (or looking to avoid), or otherwise provide context on what may violate the work life balance for the particular individual. For less experienced interviewees it may be vital to provide an example or boundary. Maybe the interviewee doesn't know how to respond to a reply of, "Yes, we have good work life balance." Even if the interviewee asked for elaboration on why it's good, that can give a perfect stage for the interviewer to say what wants to be heard instead of providing specific examples (i don't mean to say this is always malicious behavior, though sadly I'm sure that happens too).