6 ms·

I'm not sure why people are so offended by this question. While I've never asked this question as the interviewer, I've been asked similar questions whilst int

by ctide 15y ago

I'm not sure why people are so offended by this question. While I've never asked this question as the interviewer, I've been asked similar questions whilst interviewing and felt they always lead down a path that was helpful to both sides. If the things I care about in a job don't jive with the things your company cares about, why would I even want an offer from you? In my specific case, when interviewing in the past, things I've cared strongly about are things like test-driven development, a culture that values code quality as well as shipping products, and having a meaningful stake in the success of the company. If you aren't going to provide these things, or they don't matter to you, I sure as fuck don't want to work for you. If people are strictly upset about the word 'imagine', then that's one thing. Thinking this question is 'overly revealing' or something seems bizarre to me. Don't you want to work somewhere where the things you care about are valued?

henryclay 15y ago
That's a reasonable question, and I think the strong reaction stems from two things. First, the question seems designed to discover either personal attributes that are irrelevant to work or contractual preferences that can be used to hardball you during negotiations. Something like the Joel test is relevant to the questions you mention above. But the OP doesn't seem interested in Joel-test like answers, he says he wants something deeper and more revealing. Secondly, virtually everyone is going to answer questions like this with trying to guess what the interviewer wants to hear. So it becomes a stupid waste-of-time mind game. As someone mentioned below, it's a lot like the "what are your weaknesses" question. The biggest danger in interviewing is the tendency to hire clones of oneself. Questions like this are a huge contributor to that. It would be easy to re-word this question to make it more work-related and fit the kind of thing you're talking about, but the OP doesn't seem interested in that.
- dagw 15y ago
  Secondly, virtually everyone is going to answer questions like this with trying to guess what the interviewer wants to hear. Personally I'd take the opportunity to answer that question by telling the interviewer about things that I genuinely care about, and try to gauge his reaction. If he balks and any of them it's nice to know that up front and not a few month down the road.
moonchrome 15y ago
>I'm not sure why people are so offended by this question. Here's why : >In my specific case, when interviewing in the past, things I've cared strongly about are things like test-driven development, a culture that values code quality as well as shipping products, and having a meaningful stake in the success of the company. Platitudes like "a culture that values code quality as well as shipping products" and "meaningful stake" are useless, unless you're expecting the interviewer to say that his company values low quality code and not shipping products and that you're going to be a low paid code grunt down in the salt mines. As for testing, even if they don't use it nothing prevents them from lying - and if you think lying about it is stupid - not using testing is also stupid - so it's likely a pattern in decision making. It works the other way as well, it's really easy to fake what the interviewer wants to hear with this sort of generic questions that don't touch on the things that actually matter to the job (and I would say that the only reason to resort to these kind of questions is because you can't ask insightful technical questions, ie. talking about a previous project and the persons involvement/duties will allow you to collect actual information about the person, but you need to be able to understand what he was doing to evaluate it). Questions and evaluations like these are things that HR people sell to management to make themselves appear useful without actually having skill to meaningfully evaluate the candidate, "corporate culture", "team player", "company values", etc. are all vague buzzwords with no quantifiable metrics behind them, but they are simple to pound on with simplistic intuition and anecdotal evidence. Even if the supposed attributes were somehow meaningful from my experience companies that focus on that sort of talk when interviewing end up with exactly the kind of people you would want to avoid - bullshiters with nothing to back their talk, that usually end up hijacking some part of the system by introducing random bullshit that only they can wade trough - to ensure job security. So even if the metrics are right the interviewers suck at measuring them. When I hear questions like these it's usually a red flag.
- ChristianMarks 15y ago
  Yes, although I believe there is a component of conversational implicature in these phrases. Mention of "corporate culture" implies the speaker is interested in control--and probably more interested in the control of behavior than technical subjects. The emphasis on corporate culture, team playing and company values indicates the extent to which management values will be imposed top down. The preference for platitudes over definitional clarity indicates a lack of candor and the intention to conceal motives. Talk of silo busting is, in my experience, uttered by individuals inhabiting impenetrable management silos.
barrkel 15y ago
Do you know what buzzword bingo is? It's when HR looks at your CV / experience / whatever, and tries to match up what you wrote up beforehand to what they need. Do you know why it doesn't work well? It's because the items listed in the CV / etc. are not necessarily comprehensive, and the matching process is one-sided and based from a position of limited data. This question is an attempt at psychological buzzword bingo. When I'm looking for a job, I'm always trading multiple things off with one another. There is no single ranking. I'll consider what's on the table based on a fairly complex preference function. But this question is attempting to pigeonhole me a priori, before I know where which pigeonhole the company itself thinks it's looking for. I might be a great fit but have bad luck in my random choice of pigeonhole - random because my preference function isn't a ranked list of attributes, no more than my abilities are a list of technologies I've worked with.
freshfunk 15y ago
I agree with you. I think people are overreacting. With that said, I don't find the question any better than how it's currently done. I think companies would be a lot better if they administered the a Myers-Briggs personality test (or something along those lines). Having people choose and prioritize options that have no clear right or wrong answer speak better to their value system. For example, a question could ask: What do you value when it comes to coding (priorize)? a) Quickness of delivery b) Stability, solid code c) Building for the future d) Efficiency (code execution) There is no right or wrong answer. Some may say, "well it depends on the situation!" But picking a priority order will speak to the default way in which people think.
- gammarator 15y ago
  Myers-Briggs is not really a reliable instrument [e.g., 1, 2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers-Briggs#Validity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers-Briggs#Validity [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Cult-Personality-Testing-Misunderstand/dp/B001PO68KQ/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Cult-Personality-Testing-Misunders...
- philwelch 15y ago
  If you're going to do personality tests to hire people, do it right.[1] And unless you're hiring me to keep state secrets, carry weapons, or join a moon colony, it's probably not necessary to do that. I'm certainly not going to fill out some amateur-hour multiple-choice quiz so that some HR flack or hiring manager with no training or experience in psychological screening can get an insight into my "value system". If you want to know my value system, talk to me like a human being. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personali...

by ctide 15y ago

henryclay 15y ago

That's a reasonable question, and I think the strong reaction stems from two things. First, the question seems designed to discover either personal attributes that are irrelevant to work or contractual preferences that can be used to hardball you during negotiations. Something like the Joel test is relevant to the questions you mention above. But the OP doesn't seem interested in Joel-test like answers, he says he wants something deeper and more revealing. Secondly, virtually everyone is going to answer questions like this with trying to guess what the interviewer wants to hear. So it becomes a stupid waste-of-time mind game. As someone mentioned below, it's a lot like the "what are your weaknesses" question. The biggest danger in interviewing is the tendency to hire clones of oneself. Questions like this are a huge contributor to that. It would be easy to re-word this question to make it more work-related and fit the kind of thing you're talking about, but the OP doesn't seem interested in that.

dagw 15y ago
Secondly, virtually everyone is going to answer questions like this with trying to guess what the interviewer wants to hear. Personally I'd take the opportunity to answer that question by telling the interviewer about things that I genuinely care about, and try to gauge his reaction. If he balks and any of them it's nice to know that up front and not a few month down the road.

moonchrome 15y ago

>I'm not sure why people are so offended by this question. Here's why : >In my specific case, when interviewing in the past, things I've cared strongly about are things like test-driven development, a culture that values code quality as well as shipping products, and having a meaningful stake in the success of the company. Platitudes like "a culture that values code quality as well as shipping products" and "meaningful stake" are useless, unless you're expecting the interviewer to say that his company values low quality code and not shipping products and that you're going to be a low paid code grunt down in the salt mines. As for testing, even if they don't use it nothing prevents them from lying - and if you think lying about it is stupid - not using testing is also stupid - so it's likely a pattern in decision making. It works the other way as well, it's really easy to fake what the interviewer wants to hear with this sort of generic questions that don't touch on the things that actually matter to the job (and I would say that the only reason to resort to these kind of questions is because you can't ask insightful technical questions, ie. talking about a previous project and the persons involvement/duties will allow you to collect actual information about the person, but you need to be able to understand what he was doing to evaluate it). Questions and evaluations like these are things that HR people sell to management to make themselves appear useful without actually having skill to meaningfully evaluate the candidate, "corporate culture", "team player", "company values", etc. are all vague buzzwords with no quantifiable metrics behind them, but they are simple to pound on with simplistic intuition and anecdotal evidence. Even if the supposed attributes were somehow meaningful from my experience companies that focus on that sort of talk when interviewing end up with exactly the kind of people you would want to avoid - bullshiters with nothing to back their talk, that usually end up hijacking some part of the system by introducing random bullshit that only they can wade trough - to ensure job security. So even if the metrics are right the interviewers suck at measuring them. When I hear questions like these it's usually a red flag.

ChristianMarks 15y ago
Yes, although I believe there is a component of conversational implicature in these phrases. Mention of "corporate culture" implies the speaker is interested in control--and probably more interested in the control of behavior than technical subjects. The emphasis on corporate culture, team playing and company values indicates the extent to which management values will be imposed top down. The preference for platitudes over definitional clarity indicates a lack of candor and the intention to conceal motives. Talk of silo busting is, in my experience, uttered by individuals inhabiting impenetrable management silos.

barrkel 15y ago

Do you know what buzzword bingo is? It's when HR looks at your CV / experience / whatever, and tries to match up what you wrote up beforehand to what they need. Do you know why it doesn't work well? It's because the items listed in the CV / etc. are not necessarily comprehensive, and the matching process is one-sided and based from a position of limited data. This question is an attempt at psychological buzzword bingo. When I'm looking for a job, I'm always trading multiple things off with one another. There is no single ranking. I'll consider what's on the table based on a fairly complex preference function. But this question is attempting to pigeonhole me a priori, before I know where which pigeonhole the company itself thinks it's looking for. I might be a great fit but have bad luck in my random choice of pigeonhole - random because my preference function isn't a ranked list of attributes, no more than my abilities are a list of technologies I've worked with.

freshfunk 15y ago

I agree with you. I think people are overreacting. With that said, I don't find the question any better than how it's currently done. I think companies would be a lot better if they administered the a Myers-Briggs personality test (or something along those lines). Having people choose and prioritize options that have no clear right or wrong answer speak better to their value system. For example, a question could ask: What do you value when it comes to coding (priorize)? a) Quickness of delivery b) Stability, solid code c) Building for the future d) Efficiency (code execution) There is no right or wrong answer. Some may say, "well it depends on the situation!" But picking a priority order will speak to the default way in which people think.

gammarator 15y ago
Myers-Briggs is not really a reliable instrument [e.g., 1, 2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers-Briggs#Validity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers-Briggs#Validity [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Cult-Personality-Testing-Misunderstand/dp/B001PO68KQ/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Cult-Personality-Testing-Misunders...
philwelch 15y ago
If you're going to do personality tests to hire people, do it right.[1] And unless you're hiring me to keep state secrets, carry weapons, or join a moon colony, it's probably not necessary to do that. I'm certainly not going to fill out some amateur-hour multiple-choice quiz so that some HR flack or hiring manager with no training or experience in psychological screening can get an insight into my "value system". If you want to know my value system, talk to me like a human being. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personali...