Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 43 replies
  • Subscribers 17 subscribers
  • Views 4941 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Impossible Interviews

James Shaw
Have you ever been faced with an interview question that seemed impossible to answer?


Mine was delivered on the premises of a 'world class' engineering company. "How would you ensure that a project is completed on time?"


My mind raced from the general to the particular - If I knew the answer to that I would be a billionaire! - Strikes, bad weather, supplier failure, poor specifications etc. Probably no words came out as the interviewer started to drop hints, "It begins with a 'P', it ends in 'N', it has four letters." "Plan?" I say. "Exactly!" says he. 'Idiot' thinks I.


In retrospect perhaps it was a test to see if I was suitable to develop for senior management - the 'big picture' people. "We will deliver better value, we will be smarter!" But how? Engineers, small-minded, always bothered about the details!


Needless to say, I didn't get that job. Perhaps just as well.
Parents
  • 0
    Supposedly organisations like Google pose 'smart' questions in their interviews, presumably to reveal if the candidate is capable of 'thinking outside the box', (or inside the box as it now seems!). That would only work if the candidate shares the same culture as the interviewer, I'm thinking here of the way a Times crossword clue can be obvious to an enthusiast but absolutely obscure to those not used to forming acronyms from the names of Greek gods, say. They aren't even a test of intelligence for the same reason.


    Possibly the only virtue of an interview is to determine if the manager and candidate subordinate can work with each other. That can only work if the interview is carried out by the manager; Sometimes the manager just gets employees selected by the HR process. Indeed following current dogma to its logical conclusion the manager shouldn't interview or even see the candidate precisely because they might, horror of horrors, be influenced by human factors rather than achieving the 'equality and diversity' target. But that is topic in its own right.
Reply
  • 0
    Supposedly organisations like Google pose 'smart' questions in their interviews, presumably to reveal if the candidate is capable of 'thinking outside the box', (or inside the box as it now seems!). That would only work if the candidate shares the same culture as the interviewer, I'm thinking here of the way a Times crossword clue can be obvious to an enthusiast but absolutely obscure to those not used to forming acronyms from the names of Greek gods, say. They aren't even a test of intelligence for the same reason.


    Possibly the only virtue of an interview is to determine if the manager and candidate subordinate can work with each other. That can only work if the interview is carried out by the manager; Sometimes the manager just gets employees selected by the HR process. Indeed following current dogma to its logical conclusion the manager shouldn't interview or even see the candidate precisely because they might, horror of horrors, be influenced by human factors rather than achieving the 'equality and diversity' target. But that is topic in its own right.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines