Wrong, It would be “I’d use our monopolistic muscle to drive the competition out of business through illegal means and then sell an overpriced low-quality boat compatible with only my company’s accessories to the masses calling design errors ‘innovations’ and hoping the DOJ doesn’t get on my ass before I can make my first 10 billion.”
Well, here’s a little answer that I have used before, and have told others to use, and so far I’m 6 offers of employment out of 6 tries. The answer:
“I have none.”
EVERYONE gives smoke up the ass answers- be different! Walk into an interview knowing that you are a good employee who’s confident, on time, works hard, etc. This is a stock question that they ask and I find it pointless. If everyone is told to blow smoke, what use is it? I believe in turning the interview around, asking just as many questions as are asked of me, and never ever playing the game of a typical interview. If you aren’t confident enough to boldly make that statement as is, then try this modified one:
“I have none. I’m on time, I work hard, I communicate well with others. If there is something I don’t understand, I’m going to ask questions and find the answer for myself. If there is a problem, I will actively approach it and find the best possible way to fix it.” Add your strengths to this list with examples.
FUCK the “I had a problem, then I made it better” approach- it will get you nowhere. Plus, the look on the interviewers face when you say that is awesome! Wakes them up faster than an alarm clock. They might interview 10 people that day and 50 people for that job, but YOU are going to be the one remembered.
another of my favorite interview tricks that my high school psychology teacher told me about involved a boss taking you out to dinner. Besides the aforementioned salt trick, at the end of the dinner the boss would pull out a cigarette and ask for a light. If the interviewee happened to be carrying a light, he would be judged on whether s/he instantly knew which pocket it was in, or whether s/he fumbled around several pockets before finding it.
i certainly would fail this, too.
Yeah, it seems like riddles and problem-solving are all the rage lately, especially in consulting. Consultants are usually all pretty homogenized – who knows what and for how long – so these kinds of things can make you stand out. Here’s a fun one: You’re in a room with three light switches. On the other side of a closed door are the three light bulbs they power. Once you open the door, you can’t flip the switches any more. How do you figure out which switch powers which bulb?
How about turning on two of the light switches (say center and right) for a minute, then turn off the center one and go through the door. The light that’s on is powered by the right switch, the off light bulb that’s warm is powered by the center switch, and the off bulb that’s cool is powered by the left switch.
Assuming a one switch to one bulb relationship, you turn on 2 switches and wait a minute, then turn one off. Walk into the room. The lit bulb is the ‘on’ switch, the warm unlit bulb is the switch that you turned on then off, and the cool unlit bulb is the switch that was not turned on at all. This is only an answer if you can actually reach the bulbs though.
The last time I had an interview question of this caliber, I immediately stood up, gathered my things and explained to the interviewer that I felt that this question had absolutely no bearing on whether I would be able to perform the job at hand. I then walked to the office of the VP, whom I had already met, explained that I would be leaving because the questioning was so asinine.
End of story: I got the job, the interviewer got a new job, provided he knew how to answer questions like, “Tell me about a time when you didn’t know what you were doing, and you had to make up what you were doing as you went along.”
Having been in a position to interview people for jobs, I have used ‘thinking’ questions before. The idea is to get to know the person beyond just what their resume says.
Anyone can write a great resume- all it takes is a boosting of your accomplishments and leaving out all of your failures. And a great resume doesn’t mean a person who will fit in well with the job or the people they would work with.
Having said that, I think the ‘light bulb’ question asked previously is a terrible question. It has a single answer that the interviewer is looking for (and the ‘check to see which is warm’ is it), which means that maybe a quarter of the people who answer it correctly have already heard the answer. And what does it tell you? Not much at all.
My favorite question to ask as an interviewer was, “Tell me about the biggest mistake you’ve ever made.” Admittedly, this wasn’t a question designed to set the candidate at ease, but I tried to be as supportive as possible with the candidate (never accusing or shocked), and occasionally would preface it with my story of the worst mistake I had ever made (quitting college).
Again, there wasn’t a “correct” answer, although there was a “wrong” answer (‘I can’t really think of any mistakes I’ve made’: Uh-huh. Sure, Mr. Perfect. Glad to see you’re honest with me). Rather, the idea was to get the candidate to open up, talk about him/herself in a way not strictly ‘qualification-related’, so as to get a better feel for that candidate and his/her communcations skills. Working in retail meant that communications skills were absolutely necessary, and this question helped me find people who may not have had retail experience, but who had great communications skills. And I can teach people how to work a register; it’s a lot harder to teach people how to talk to a customer.
I think, by that token, the “deserted island” riddle was to see what process you go about when faced with a problem. I can see that being a useful thing to know when interviewing for a testing position (hey, your job isn’t to play the game and have fun- it’s to test everything in the game and see what goes bad. Where do you start? How do you proceed?)
Bilehunt, you say “the question could’ve been just as easily: We are thinking of building a new game. What’s the first step?” Not only could it be something along those lines, it should be. It’s both possible and preferable to assess someone’s problem solving skills in the context they’ll be using them rather than some nonsense about rubber rafts. As for the “outside the box” stuff, that’s the biggest load of crap in the business. There are pretty rigid protocols for all phases of game development (and most all product development, I would imagine), and people who ‘think outside’ of these parameters are generally considered not team players or not in tune with the fiscal realities of the industry. Management doesn’t really want people that think outside the box. They say they do, and they may even believe it, but in practice it’s not true.
You also say: “I would much prefer hiring somebody who is smart, hard-working and friendly than somebody who has relative experience. Any day.” I think a lot of managers would agree. But some of the best testers I’ve worked with have very stunted social lives, and they’ve channeled their energy into computer games with a single mindedness that probably isn’t healthy. They often aren’t friendly and on the surface they don’t seem that smart because their focus is so narrow, but they make remarkable testers. These are exactly the kind of guys that get washed out by questions about peanut butter sandwiches and inflatable rafts.
This is exactly the kind of excellent-question-but-with-no-definite-answer for which we created the forum In My Humble Opinion. I’ll move it over there now.
Dumbguy wrote
I’m sure you’re right in some industries and some parts of all industries. All I can tell you is about what I’ve seen.
I’m a manager in the software business. My last three companies have been startups with explosive growth, where I’ve hired (and led) the Engineering, Test, (and in two cases) Support and Manufacturing teams. I have hired almost 300 people in the last four years (do the math, that’s a crap-load of interviews every week).
I have personally turned down many people with relevant experience who didn’t come across as good planners, organizers or out-of-the-box thinkers. I have personally hired many people without relevant experience because I believed they would be quick studies and would aggressively figure out what needed to be done without being told.
People are everything in a business. People who make things happen are prized above all others. People who know what they’re doing and do what they’re told are useful, but they’re not the jewels that managers look for.
The type of question we’re talking about is designed to filter out those jewels.
A slight hijack into MSPISMS land:
I just interviewed for a very technical position at a company that is absolutely dependent upon its technologial infrastructure. I spoke to 5 different people over 4 hours of interviews and was asked not one technical question. It was almost surreal.
I was also, thankfully, spared the kind of ridiculous “outside the box” questions discussed in the OP. Whenever I encounter them, I have a deep suspicion that the interviewer wouldn’t know what to do with a truly original idea if I put it back inside the box and handed it to him.
During the recent expansion of my company I would interviewing people about once a week. I never asked any of the stupid thinking out side the box questions. I think these got started by people who write buisness books. You won’t sell a book by saying what the last one did so you have to come up with something new.
I usually ask people about stuff they say they know on their resume. I find a lot of people that puff up their resume that way. This always sort of amazes me. I mean what else did I think I was going to ask him? Maby this works for people who ask about the rubber raft. BS an outside the box question and pad the resume viloa you have a job.
Bilehunt wrote:
People are everything in a business. People who make things happen are prized above all others. People who know what they’re doing and do what they’re told are useful, but they’re not the jewels that managers look for.
The type of question we’re talking about is designed to filter out those jewels.
I agree with you about people that make things happen, but I still think that the rubber raft questions are more likely to get someone who talks a good game than someone who plays a good game. The truly talented people I’ve worked with like to think problems through, look for possible pitfalls, do some background research, things of that nature, and wouldn’t try to a solve a problem with a cursory response, which is all an interview allows. The people who can can answer smoothly and efficiently under pressure are often just good salesmen.
It seems to me that the best indicator that a person can get things done is evidence they have actually done things.
(not so)Dumbguy wrote
Absolutely. This thread has concentrated on one type of interview question, but of course there are many. What you say is right on the money: people recurs. If someone stole before, they’re likely to again. If people made the company millions before, they’re likely to again.
One of the best interview techniques is to pick a desirable trait (let’s say ‘taking ownership of a problem’) and asking for examples of where they’ve done that in the past.
I also like logic problems, although I don’t care for the one about light bulbs above because you either get it or you don’t. (In all honesty, I should confess that I’m biased, since I didn’t get it.) For an interview, you want questions that allow you to see if the interviewee is thinking along the right lines. Even a bad answer may be good, if there’s lots of good thought put into the problem.
It goes without saying that a good interview will ask plenty of deep questions about the areas of expertise required.
So, Bill - since we’re out of GQ and in a dandy new forum - just for laughs, who here would you hire based on our responses to this thread? I think you should hire me because I will call you Bill E. and not Billie.
aseymayo, why you of course!
Actually, anyone who knows XML, is in Silicon Valley, and is (as above) Smart, Hard-working and Friendly should look me up. (Please.)
Oh, I thought your handle was Bile-hunt (as you can see in my previous post), which struck me as odd and gross. Sorry.
I’m lazy, simple-minded, surly, and I’ve never heard of XML. Of course, those kind of qualifications don’t come cheap, so it’ll cost you. I’ve already got some feelers out to Microsoft.
Dumbguy wrote
Don’t worry about it; I’m starting to get used to it now. I’m even thinking of changing my real-world name from Bill to Bile.
Hmmm. Maybe Wile would be better, as in that guy who buys everything at Acme and never catches the bird.
…about interviews.
Most interviewers will ask you if you have any questions for them. This is not only an opportunity to find out if the place in question is a good fit for you, it is also an additional opportunity for you to tell them more about yourself. The types of questions you ask can help you every bit as much as well thought out response to one of their questions.
By way of example, when I was first interviewing at my present firm for the paralegal position I now hold, I was an entry level candidate. I wanted to demonstrate that I had at least some knowledge of how the “legal game” is played, so I tried to at least come up with a few “technically sophisticated questions”, such as asking about the firm’s legal software, billable hour requirements, etc.
One of my favorite questions I like to use as an interviewee is “Suppose I were to come to work for you. What advice would you give me to help me avoid mistakes that other new employees have made?”
This (hopefully) portrays me as someone who is meticulous, who wants to avoid making common mistakes by accepting the advice of more experienced co-workers, and also (subtly) causes the interviewer to imagine me, for a moment, as already occupying the position (a helpful image, I’m sure you’ll agree).
I stole that idea out of a job interview book, and I’d recommend the book here, but frankly, I don’t remember which one it was.
I used to be TERRIFIED of interviews–it’s only a slight exagerration to say I considered it a victory if I avoided wetting myself. But with a little preparation and a bit more confidence, they aren’t so frightening. I admit I still get a bit nervous, though. That’ll probably never go away for me.