3 ms·

>they can't really talk about their role in a big success - they didn't have much of a role, usually. I would wager that at least half of candidates are just g

>they can't really talk about their role in a big success - they didn't have much of a role, usually. I would wager that at least half of candidates are just good humble team players. Your approach optimises for egotistical braggarts at the expense of normal people.

pmiller2 8y ago
That raises a question: how can “good humble teammates” answer these types of questions in a way that makes them look good without lying?
- beat 8y ago
  Assuming they did good, valuable work, then telling the truth is an excellent way to answer in a way that looks good without lying.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    But, then, how do you show "leadership" and "ownership" and all those other wonderful things interviewers are supposedly looking for? And it's not just "good, valuable work" they're looking for. Fixing bugs is "good, valuable work," but I get the feeling interviewers don't want to hear about how many bugs you've fixed. I often have a hard time putting my accomplishments into context (indeed, even seeing them as "accomplishments," because they're simply what I'm supposed to do). (Incidentally, I hate the word "ownership" in this context. You don't own anything you can't take with you. Try taking work you did for a company with you when you leave.)
beat 8y ago
Egotistical bragging is pretty easy to spot. Good team players are easy to spot, too - they're the ones giving credit to leadership and co-workers even for work they take personal pride in. When I see a candidate's eyes light up talking about the manager who led them through a challenge into success, I know they respect others, and that matters. It's hard for a lot of people to speak well of themselves, which makes the whole interviewing process difficult much of the time. We're trained to a beat-down that gets called humility, but it's not. Asking about successes is a way past that - it's giving them permission to say something good about themselves. But to be fair, a lot of what I'm after is inflated claims on a resume, which are common as dirt, because people are much more comfortable deceptively bragging on paper than they are in person.

pmiller2 8y ago

That raises a question: how can “good humble teammates” answer these types of questions in a way that makes them look good without lying?

beat 8y ago
Assuming they did good, valuable work, then telling the truth is an excellent way to answer in a way that looks good without lying.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  But, then, how do you show "leadership" and "ownership" and all those other wonderful things interviewers are supposedly looking for? And it's not just "good, valuable work" they're looking for. Fixing bugs is "good, valuable work," but I get the feeling interviewers don't want to hear about how many bugs you've fixed. I often have a hard time putting my accomplishments into context (indeed, even seeing them as "accomplishments," because they're simply what I'm supposed to do). (Incidentally, I hate the word "ownership" in this context. You don't own anything you can't take with you. Try taking work you did for a company with you when you leave.)

beat 8y ago

Egotistical bragging is pretty easy to spot. Good team players are easy to spot, too - they're the ones giving credit to leadership and co-workers even for work they take personal pride in. When I see a candidate's eyes light up talking about the manager who led them through a challenge into success, I know they respect others, and that matters. It's hard for a lot of people to speak well of themselves, which makes the whole interviewing process difficult much of the time. We're trained to a beat-down that gets called humility, but it's not. Asking about successes is a way past that - it's giving them permission to say something good about themselves. But to be fair, a lot of what I'm after is inflated claims on a resume, which are common as dirt, because people are much more comfortable deceptively bragging on paper than they are in person.