12 ms·

The question is simple: Imagine if you are extended multiple job offers from different companies, and you are trying to decide which one you will accept. Imagin

• ctide 15y ago
  I think it's totally cool to ask that question, but if you're going to ask that instead of answering mine, I'm going to assume you're an argumentative dick and probably wrap up the interview pretty quickly. The "I know you are, but what am I?" line of responses doesn't really fly well for me when I'm interviewing people.
  • edw519 15y ago
    That strategy pretty much guarantees that you will eliminate both argumentative dicks and A-players. Good luck with that.
    • ctide 15y ago
      Perhaps. But I'd much rather pass on someone who might have been exceptional than hire someone who has already proven themselves to be a bit of an asshole.
      • pbz 15y ago
        Or someone who's willing to call out your bullshit.
        • Gnolfo 15y ago
          If they think a question that gets at "What are your main priorities in looking for new employment?" is bullshit, I hope they do walk out of the interview so I don't waste anymore time on them.
      • jordhy 15y ago
        Agreed, but this is also a shame. So many exceptional people don't have a chance to get hired because we're fitting the process towards the median of the distribution. Isn't there a system to recruit and develop truly great people?
    • dkl 15y ago
      I disagree. The only people that would pull this trick (answering the question with a question) have a lack of judgement and social skills. Having said that, I'm against gimmicks in interviews.
    • jaimzob 15y ago
      Augmentative dicks always think they are A-players. That's very rarely the case, but they'll never rise far enough to find that out.
  • run4yourlives 15y ago
    Argumentative dicks are often your key employees. If they aren't talking, you know the idea is good. In fact, I'd argue that yes men and the under-confident but easy to get along with are the absolute worst kind of employees - They won't tell you that the car is headed off a cliff until it's already three feet off the edge.
    • ctide 15y ago
      There's a pretty wide range of employees between the dude who is mocking his interviewer because he disagrees with a question, and an under-confident yes man who just goes along with everything. Arguing for the sake of improving things is different than arguing for the sake of arguing. Argumentative dicks, in my experience, do the latter more often than the former.
      • run4yourlives 15y ago
        Be clear here however that our "argumentative dick" has simply asked the same question of the employer that was asked of him. Sometimes, forcing someone to answer the very question they have posed is a great way of pointing out any flaws. The taking of offense here is the bigger enemy to progress than anything else in this exchange, and that didn't come from the interviewee. I'm all for people being cordial and polite, and many programmers could learn a thing or two about human interaction, but the idea that asking a question in response during an evaluation of capability (on both sides) is an insult is a little bit of a stretch.
      • freshfunk 15y ago
        Right on. You've clearly got your head on straight. Others here seem more interested in giving snarky half-truths.
      • horsehead 15y ago
        I agree. At my work, disagreeing with the upper management gets you fired. Sometimes you just shut up if you want a paycheck. Then you get where you can actually discuss why something is a bad idea (like with my DIRECT supervisor). You don't have to be an argumentative dick to express doubt in something. Nor are you necessarily an underconfident yes man if you dont speak up. Circumstances dictates a lot of behavior.
  • funkah 15y ago
    I like argumentative dicks. The important thing is that the arguments are good, not that precious feelings are protected. Though I would prefer if we could refrain from being dicks about it, if at all possible.
• DevX101 15y ago
  I'd be fine if a candidate asked me this question as employer at the end of the interview. I'd answer honestly. But if this was your stock response -- to immediately mirror question, it'd be a big turn off and tell me that you're gonna be a pain in the ass to work with.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >tell me that you're gonna be a pain in the ass to work with. // It does the reverse too surely. It tells a prospective employee that the employer is all about jumping through needless hoops - that they're going to be a pain in the ass and require things that are rather unrelated to actual productive work. Personally I think I'd find it a turn off from either side. Is it a useful question? I can see how it could give a good indication about ability to think on the fly to provide a politic answer. If that's part of the job then it seems not completely unreasonable.
    • prof_hobart 15y ago
      Are you saying that trying to better understand a prospective employee's motivations for coming to work is "needless hoops"?
      • drostie 15y ago
        It might be. Suppose that you're hiring service staff - a waiter or waitress is a good example. It is often better to show a professional respect for their abstraction layers than to invite them to talk about the fact that they're aspiring to become an actor or actress. Asking such a person "what are your priorities?" is first off the invitation, "bullshit me, I want to see how well you do." So they might answer "well, my first priorities are making people happy and cleaning tables." That's a hoop -- needless or not I'll leave you to judge, but demanding that they jump through that hoop to work with you could make you a pretty sucky person to work with, if that's the attitude you take towards all of your employee interactions. Even if you sincerely care about your waiters and waitresses and want to encourage their acting careers on the side, it still stretches a bit into the unprofessional, no? You're asking them to imaginatively mix their contexts around in ways that they might not be intending to do when they work for you. The fact that you've asked me to simultaneously be frank with you about my external life, and that you also expect me to censor things which might be deemed 'irrelevant' like "well, I need a software company that I can leave after six months because I want to go and build schools in India once I get enough money," or to confess them even though they might make it much less likely for you to hire me, is potentially a needless hoop.
• ibagrak 15y ago
  I admit it's a hack. Or rather, it's just a tool, like many other that helps me learn something about the candidate. So yeah, all those caveats definitely apply.
• pmjordan 15y ago
  Do you think the subject matter of the question is off-limits, or do you object to the way it's being asked?
  • edw519 15y ago
    No, I think that the subject matter is perfectly appropriate and that OP is either pretty clever or quite experienced to come up with it. In fact, I would even hope to have a such a discussion to know that the prospective employer is serious and has put as much thought into the process as I have. I have always believed the the interview process must be a 2 way street; we are equals interviewing each other for mutually beneficial long term possibilities. The way OP presented this seemed way too manipulative for my taste; it destroyed that "equal plane" I covet. So yes, my problem was not with the subject material, but the way it's being asked. (Which is also why I added the little ASIDE; I wanted to demonstrate that without just looking like a snarky response.)
    • ibagrak 15y ago
      Noted. I didn't mean to come off as adversarial or manipulative. This is really a conversation starter, and I rarely just write down the answer and move on. But I do feel like it helps me learn a whole lot about the candidate without compromising that trust or condescending to them with "what's your biggest weakness?" or some such.
• mmaunder 15y ago
  I'm on the other side of the table (employer, not employee) and totally agree. This obsession with interview questions is complete egomaniacal bullshit. Get the person in and start working with them. Either get them on a project for even a few hours or hire them on a temporary basis. And please don't respond by saying "some-big-company" does it by asking why manhole covers are round. The interview process in most companies is broken, especially the big ones. It seems to forget that you're hiring someone to get a job done and instead provides an inflation mechanism for already large egos by saying "We have a gate. And we're smart. Fuck you if you want to work here."
  • tptacek 15y ago
    Actually, I think "hire them on a temporary basis" is more egomaniacal than obsessing over job interview questions. For someone to work for you as a temp, they have to leave their current full time job and put their benefits in jeopardy. When you hire someone, you should be ready to commit. I actually don't see what's so manipulative about asking a candidate what their decision drivers are. Every consultant who's spent a few years in the business knows to ask potential clients what their "key metrics" for success are. It's good to get everyone speaking the same language. It's a strange kind of humility that demands that other people put their whole life on hold to see if it'll work out to join your team, isn't it?
    • run4yourlives 15y ago
      I somewhat agree with you in a sense that it's not on in my books to ask someone to put their aspirations on hold while I figure out if "they are the right fit". Man up and make the call about what you feel for a candidate. What most employers don't do - either by system or personally - is man up and admit they hired the wrong person, replace them with severance and move on. Very few people actually do this. Why not?
      • horsehead 15y ago
        Well, the reason is probably that some people are just dipshits when it comes to hiring. Or managing.
• InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Ding! It's so hard for companies to find good talent, it's silly to dick around with mind games and petty power plays. Find good folks. Realize that on average you're going to have them around for maybe three years, five if you are super lucky, ten if you win the lottery, one if you rub them the wrong way. Treat them with respect, ask yourself how the HELL you can bend over backwards to try to make their experience working at your company good enough to keep them around for a while. Don't talk down to them. Don't imagine that they are beholden to you for anything. If you are unlucky enough to end up in a situation where you as an employer are holding all of the cards in a hiring situation then I have some bad news for you. You aren't hiring the best candidate possible, you're hiring a mediocre candidate.
  • run4yourlives 15y ago
    Not to play an "argumentative dick" or anything :), but... Sometimes mediocre is good enough. Not every employee needs to be a superstar. Personally, I don't care that the receptionist is the best receptionist in the world; I care that he/she is polite and competent enough that I don't need to worry about reception. Also, be careful in deluding yourself that there aren't surprisingly good candidates out there that don't have such a high opinion of themselves. Some of the best people I've ever worked with didn't get the best wages and deals. In fact, the people with the "best" packages were often 2-3 rungs lower than the best employees.
    • vlisivka 15y ago
      Mediocre is always good enough for employer. But mediocre employee will put additional burden on your top employees, so they will wear off quickly and jump off the board.
      • run4yourlives 15y ago
        A receptionist that does her job well enough to be a problem is much less of a headache than a receptionist that has aspirations and talent to be a programmer.
• samstave 15y ago
  I think this can be more diplomatically put. E.G. One could respond to the question, saying that this is an important process that they would go through - even if there was only ONE offer letter to decide upon, but still provide your answer. Then ask, in a more respectful manner, something along the lines of: "Based on this question, what are the top three things you/your company values in an employee and further, what are the top three things the company values about itself." You can also ask the interviewer what the top 3 things he values about working for that company. --- One of the toughest questions I have had to answer in an interview was from Twitter, where the manager asked me "What would be the one thing, should we work together, that could cause problems for us?" This was a pain to answer because, frankly I know nothing of this guy, so I replied "Poor communication. If we can't communicate well with each other, it will make both our jobs hard." He said "Great thanks, when are you available to start?" I told him, the interview was over, and I never heard back.
  • devs1010 15y ago
    "He said "Great thanks, when are you available to start?" I told him, the interview was over, and I never heard back." Is there something I'm missing? I don't quite get how him asking that question led to you turning down the job so abruptly
    • SatvikBeri 15y ago
      samstave didn't turn down the job-he told the interviewer his start date. That was the end of the interview. Afterwards, samstave never heard back from twitter.
      • samstave 15y ago
        Yep. But the way it was stated after the multi round interviews appeared to imply that they were interested in me. After a few weeks of nothing, I emailed the recruiter and got a terse "we've decided to go another direction" email. I thought it was ironic that I had said poor communication would be a bad thing for us, and then there was poor communication in telling me they weren't interested. :) It all worked out great for both of us though, because the job I have now is such a better fit for me than twitter would have been.
• kissuidotnet 15y ago
  Edw519 - very good point.. the interview question comes off adverserial. I'm sure that is not the intent.. but the tone definitely makes it seem that way. Then again.. its their company. :/ I noticed many companies forget that the employer/employee relationship is symbiotic.
• winternett 15y ago
  I wish employers would ask both of these questions during interviews. They often focus on what I currently know, and not the overall work experience component. As a Web/Mobile developer and hiring Project Manager, I've switched jobs often, never working more than 1 year in each job until recently, for the past 10 years. My answers at this point are: I'd like to work as close as possible to home. I live in DC, commutes add to stress, and you end up having little personal/family time working further away from home. This is worth even sacrificing a income because time matters more to me now than $10k. It doesn't hurt that it saves on gas with rising prices. Secondly, working in an environment of people that pull their weight. This is a paramount to me. If there are a bunch of unqualified employees that don't work hard to improve their English speaking and writing skills, communication becomes a major issue in meeting objectives, and I often end up with a ton of proofreading assignments. Having people around me that know answers, and that also put in the work, rather than just a bunch of blind "decision makers" or "oversight managers" is paramount to a good working space. Personal attitudes are also paramount, people don't need to be overjoyed and silly, but I can't tell you how many interviews I've said no to when they ask me about how I get along with difficult people. Its a company's responsibility to breed a mutually respectful, productive, and cordial business culture. Too many companies allow negative and difficult people to climb their ranks, I'll never work for them long if that's the case. Lastly, I expect a company to offer a good work/life balance. I want to work for a company that clearly defines objectives, and when they're met, I don't want to be "nickeled" and "dimed" over my hours... If my work is high quality, and all goals are met, don't squeeze me. i realize that its even good to pull extra hours on projects, but a company that doesn't realize that they should "ease up" on employees in quiet times is a company that faces high turnover, they're throwing away all the intellectual capital they build by pressing employees (that eventually leave or get burnt out) too hard. This issue is usually fixed by careful attention to contract terms during bidding. If there's a requirement for a performance based contract, if you want to be happy, avoid the trend. Your oversight managers should be the ones responsible for maintaining quality and upholding employee conduct through reasonable oversight. Don't turn your company into a metric-driven juggernaut by giving in to strict SLAs/Contract terms, or you'll suffer crippling turnovers and you'll eventually lose your contract holding through (continually) rising expectations, or through liability for errors.
• bicknergseng 15y ago
  I think the OP's explanation and reasoning demonstrate why it isn't a "hack" or at least why that word conveys the wrong meaning. The thing is that all preconceived, non-knowledge based interview questions are hacky... they're asked to get a certain response. In my opinion, a poor interviewer will expect a right or wrong or specific answer in those responses. A good interviewer will genuinely try to get to know the candidate through those questions. He says something to that effect here: "Mind you there isn’t a right answer. It just helps to place the candidate in a coordinate system that I can understand and interpret." It's all about coming to understand the person, rather than evaluating them on a set of criteria. The difference is critical.