February 6, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Stupid Interviewer Tricks
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
February 6, 2008 at 9:23 pm
If during an interview I were asked a question, gave an answer that I knew to be 100% correct, and was told I was wrong, well... during a job interview it's not entirely politic to tell the interviewer that they're wrong, is it? I'd probably beg off with something like "I'm pretty sure I read somewhere, probably in BOL, that it may not work that way", but I wouldn't get particularly adversarial about it. (Employed and to a co-worker, I'd take a similar tack and try to follow up with a proof--test or book reference.)
If during the interview they got adversarial about my not agreeing with them, I'd probably back down (without actually admitting they're right) and wait for the next question.
In either case, I would think long and hard about working there. Interviewers want skilled and capable workers, but so do interviewees--and uninformed or unpleasant interviewers send a pretty poor message about the company.
Philip
February 6, 2008 at 11:31 pm
For me the biggest question isn't so much "could this be a technique to see how you respond?", but rather do I want to work for/with people who think it's a good idea to (a) put out bad information as fact, or (b) try to screw with applicants. Most people already have a heightened sense of nervousness just going to an interview. I think taking advantage of that to perform some sort of amateur ad hoc psychological testing on job applicants is a really bad idea.
And let's not forget the folks who are a little easier to intimidate. The applicant who's pretty sure about something, but could easily be led astray with bad information from someone with an authoritative manner. The interviewer may have just ruined that applicant's chances at the next 3 or 4 job interviews if he repeats the bad information to people who know better. I suppose it is a good way to "Jedi-mind trick" applicants into failing interviews with your competitors if you decide not to hire them.
One of these days I'll have to write up some really fun job interview experiences I've been through 🙂 I've had some very interesting interviews that would make HR folks take cover under the desks of their corporate lawyers.
February 7, 2008 at 1:53 am
I think one of the most important points here is in the word interview itself. From the latin words Inter (between) and Videre (to see).
An interview is not for a company to see if they like you, it's for both parties to evaluate each other. Within legal bounds, all tactics are, in my opinion, valid, but the rub is that everything you do to try to gain a better insight also says something about you. It's no different from starting any other kind of relationship; after all, think of all the questions you'd like to ask on a first date, but won't because you know how the act of asking would come across.
From my point of view, as long as an interviewer knows (s)he's under the microscope just as much as me, then let the discussion commence.
Semper in excretia, sumus solum profundum variat
February 7, 2008 at 2:25 am
I have to say, if as a manager my interviewing questions avoided someone with Michael Coles' attitude (from the referenced blog entry) joining my team, I'd regard that as a success.
If I'm hiring a skilled technician in a given area, I want them to be able to hold their own in their area of expertise - I dont want them failing to speak up if someone is misinformed about some vital fact (e.g. "there's no need to upgrade to SQL2005, we can still use the XML functionality in 2000). I also dont want them throwing a tantrum if someone dares question their knowledge or decisions - I expect a mature and reasoned debate.
If I thought (due to a perception of the interviewee's character or that of the existing team dynamic) that there was a risk of either of the above scenarios, I hope I'd have the presence of mind to try some of these tricks - in a pleasant and cordial manner of course. I'd also understand if the interviewee chose to be non confrontational and left it as "well I'm pretty sure you'll find it's like this". I might even press to see how they would confirm that was the case or how they woudl handle confirming that I was wrong.
It's hard to see how someone functions in real life in an interview, and sometimes little tricks can help a lot. This works both ways, and absolutely yes both sides are/should be selling their benefits to the other.
G
February 7, 2008 at 3:44 am
Really?
I've been working in IT for 20 years now. I've encountered belligerent people in interviews and it has influenced my perception of the organization, and my decision to pursue the opportunity. If an organization has access to droves of skilled IT candidates then I guess it would be good for them to put the interviewee through the paces. Perhaps they can even ask if they would take a 50% pay cut if things got rough in the organization. I’ve also been the hiring manager for IT, and I know that if you want to get skilled qualified candidates you need to convince them that you are the kind of organization they would want to work for. Go ahead and play games, but I know that most qualified candidates have at least two or three opportunities lined up before they accept any one position.
February 7, 2008 at 4:07 am
wow, there's some real attitude here. I'm not talking about being an @rse or trying to screw people up, just challenging someone's answer, or seeing if they will have the confidence in their knowledge to pick up on someone else's mistake.
Asking "was XML functionality available in Sql2000" is very different from saying "of course, xml functionality was available in Sql2000 as well, wasnt it?". One might guess the right answer to the first question, but you've got to be pretty sure of your knowledge to deny the second statement.
Neither should be taken as confrontational. If it is, thank you for your time, come back in a few years when you've learned to tolerate other people.
G
February 7, 2008 at 4:29 am
Applicant: Do you really understand SQL Server or are you just reading questions someone else has set?
February 7, 2008 at 4:35 am
P Jones (2/7/2008)
Applicant: Do you really understand SQL Server or are you just reading questions someone else has set?
Well? It's no less valid a question to ask than any of the trick questions suggested here? And as I said, asking the question will both get you an answer and tell the interviewer something about you. If that's the way you want yourself portrayed, go for it. Likewise, any interviewer wanting to use trick questions.
Semper in excretia, sumus solum profundum variat
February 7, 2008 at 6:48 am
I have worked for technical managers who were clueless on the technology we were using, but they thought they were experts (how do they get these jobs?). Then we would end up going down a road that lead to an eventual project failure, or at least a mountain of unnecessary and avoidable problems. No matter what case we presented in support of doing what we knew would be the right way, Mr. Big Boss got his way because: he was the boss.
So if I am confronted by someone in an interview who won't back down from what I know is a false after I state my case, then I will look elsewhere for a position because more often than not, that one will be a losing proposition.
To be fair, I will always listen and consider what other people have to say because I sure don't know everything and have all the answers.
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
February 7, 2008 at 6:54 am
If the interviewer doesnt back down on his incorrect statement when challenged, then he is either not playing the game (ie he really is an idiot) or he's playing the game too hard (you really cant expect any sensible interviewee to hold an extended argument contrary to the interviewer).
G
February 7, 2008 at 6:57 am
I think my response would be in terms of "I'm pretty sure that XML wasn't a data type in SQL 2000" (or whatever was being asserted). Then, hopefully, the interviewer would say something like, "good, I was just testing you".
If it was an interview with, say, the IT manager, I wouldn't necessarily challenge it at all, on the assumption that he's a manager, not a DBA, and him having a few details wrong about server versions (or whatever) probably doesn't have any importance.
If it was an interview with the lead DBA, I'd challenge it politely. If he insisted he was right, or even just sneered or otherwise indicated that he didn't care what I thought, I'd close the interview at that point, politely inform them exactly why, and leave. A lot of it would depend on tone of voice, body language, and facial expression, of course.
On the other hand, if I were in the other chair, doing the interview, I could see throwing a couple of curveballs at the applicant to see how he deals with them. "We don't use SQL 2005 because SQL 2000 is more secure", "We like the single-table model for storing everything as XML", "Using Simple Recovery model is better for production servers because it doesn't log anything so everything is much faster", etc. Wait for the change in facial expression, or the eyebrow tick, or even the, "thank you, I don't actually want this job", or even better yet, a solid laugh and "you have got to be kidding me!" Then fess up to what we were looking for. If, on the other hand, I got, "Yep!", or "I do the same thing", or "That makes a lot of sense", I would quickly refer that person to all of my competitors. 🙂
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 7, 2008 at 7:00 am
The point of the interview is to find a qualified person, not play mind games.
There may be good reason to call somone's bluff at times, but flatout playing the Python game is not constructive. Research has shown that people most confident of their answers are often people with less knowledge, people who really have a lot of knowledge are precisely the kind to continually question their own perceptions, less likely to make dogmatic statements (additionally, people who are more socially skilled might be very cautious about outrightly contradicting an interviewer).
You may rule people out, but may likely rule out the wrong ones.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
February 7, 2008 at 7:07 am
When I interview DBAs, database developers, or VB.NET developers, I include tasks such as writing scripts, writing functions, etc. I will look over the script or function and then ask the applicant where the error is. I ask this whether or not I see an error to see how the applicant reacts. In the past 6 years of interviews, I have basically experienced the following two responses:
1. Looking at the script or function again and stating that there is no error and why they believe this. Sometimes they checked using X test data and it had the correct results every time. If pressed, they stand firm, but ask for examples of incorrect results or why I believe there's an error.
2. Looking at the script or function again and admitting they don't see the error. Whether or not there was an error, we discuss how they'd go about finding an error if they had more time. If there was an error, I show it to the applicant and we discuss why they didn't find it.
I have never had an applicant get confrontational about these discussions. I think it all has to do with how the interview is structured and how the question is posed.
Is it a "trick"? I don't know. Is it a valid way to find out how an applicant will handle situations that might be brought up by a coworker, client, or supervisor? I absolutely believe it is. It also helps me see how open to other ideas the applicant is and how eager they are to learn and improve their skills.
If I were to end up with an applicant who were adamant that everything were correct and was not willing to discuss the possibility that there were an error, I wouldn't hire that applicant. Part of business (where I've worked) is being willing to work with others of all levels, discuss problems and solutions, give and take constructive criticism, etc. I need someone who not only has the knowledge level I'm looking for but also the skills to work with those around him/her. How many times have you had a client tell you that the application isn't running as quickly as it used to? Do you want an employee who's going to argue with the client or who's going to look at the situation, find out why the client thinks things are slower, and is willing to look into it? I want the latter.
I'm a believer in the realistic job preview during an interview. I don't sugarcoat things, I'm honest about how the business is doing, I make sure the applicant knows clearly what types of tasks he/she will be working on as some are fun and exciting and some are mundane. I want the applicant to accept the position knowing how things are instead of accepting the position with an unrealistic view of the job and the company as this usually means the applicant doesn't stick around very long.
As many others, I would not accept a position if the interviewer were not willing to discuss the options and wasn't willing to listen to reason. Once again, I believe it comes down to how the interview is structured and how the question is posed.
February 7, 2008 at 7:12 am
jay holovacs (2/7/2008)
The point of the interview is to find a qualified person.....
'Fraid I disagree, Jay. I believe the point of the interview is to find the right person. That means not just ascertaining that they're qualified, but also that they'll fit in. And, as I said, it's for the interviewee to find the right employer in terms of remuneration, opportunities and attitude.
In the past, I've had to deal with people (not necessarily within my management chain, but also people who're my "customers") who get things done by playing all sorts of tricks. Should I have had a chance to find that out at the interview? Perhaps so. Mind games are sometimes an accurate reflection of the culture within the company, so have a valid place in the interview, for better or worse. And yes, I dislike them being used on me, which is why I'd prefer them to happen in the interview rather than after I've started work.
Semper in excretia, sumus solum profundum variat
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply