4 ms·
I think that's a great questionnaire, but not for the intended purpose. Seeing that early in the interview speaks volumes and makes it so easy to just say nope
by delgaudm 5y ago
I think that's a great questionnaire, but not for the intended purpose. Seeing that early in the interview speaks volumes and makes it so easy to just say nope and move on.
That questionnaire says two things. Either:
1) This is the hurdle you need to clear just for us to deign to speak to you in person, maybe. If you're lucky. You mean that little to us as a candidate.
2) We're completely oblivious of the lack of respect for you time that this shows. You mean that little to us as an colleague.
3) This is what "management / HR" says we have to do for new hires. You mean that little to us as an employee.
I'd love for that to be a false dichotomoy (trichotomy?), but I can't think of an option where this is interpreted as respectful to the candidate.
Anyone have any ideas?
- kadoban 5y agoYou're going to be asked many of those questions anyway, at least in this format it's a no-time-pressure, no-public-performance way. That's the best silver lining I can find. It's just plain too many questions though. Maybe they intend for you to only answer some of them, the ones you have interesting answers for? Or maybe they _should_ intend that if they don't.
- jasonladuke0311 5y ago> You're going to be asked many of those questions anyway, at least in this format it's a no-time-pressure, no-public-performance way. The problem is that Canonical has no skin in the game.
- kadoban 5y agoYeah. This should happen at a later point, or spread out more over time.
- hackerfromthefu 5y agoThe only thing I can imagine is that its filtering for people desperate enough to lick cool aid and drink ass.