Got Any Insightful Interview Questions? Personality and aptitude

[Rachel]

In Reply to Parent Post by jmp4429

What do you guys think about this interview tactic?

Never come across it - thankfully. Interrupting people is horribly rude, and really gets to me. No worse way to kill a meeting - because interruptions are a great way to start off sidebar conversations. Happens a lot here.

[Wes Bucey]

I'm the kind of super-assertive guy who would interrupt right back and say, with a real big grin (to offset the possibility the guy IS just a jerk), "Are you interrupting me because you are not interested in my answer or because someone told you it is a technique to test a candidate?"

Of course, I have heard of these "mind game" techniques. It takes a specially trained interviewer to work this method correctly. It is designed to be used only for candidates trying for very high stress situations. Part of the exercise is to see whether the candidate "works" the interviewer back, meekly submits, or gets flustered or angry. Odds are that the average interviewer using this technique picked it up in some "how to" book and considers himself an "instant expert." I would pretty much put him in the semi-jerk category if I caught a glint of recognition when I asked the above question, but I would "work" him back by changing the subject to his interview technique. If the guy is just a rude jerk, with no clue of a "technique," then the candidate has a judgement call to decide whether the jerk is an isolated instance or is truly representative of the organization. If the interviewer is a potential boss rather than a HR drone, I would think twice about working for a jerk.

If the interviewer is really expert, he won't beat one technique into the ground, but will use a variety of techniques to test the personality of the candidate if that is the goal of the interview.

Most interviewers are primarily interested in two things:

1. Can the candidate help the organization (and me?)
2. Can the candidate get along with the rest of us here?

Way down the line are technical aspects of the job because most interviewers dealing with specialized candidates like CQE, Six Sigma, CQM don't have enough specialized knowledge to cross-examine the candidate. (Think about all the companies we hear about where no one, sometimes even including the guy who posts to us, has a clue about the nitty gritty tools of Quality.)

[little__cee]

I was handed a piece of notebook paper and a pen during an interview with the instructions, "Please write a short letter to a customer explaining our error - don't worry about technical details just invent a 'mistake' and write a brief note on how we will handle it."

I'd recommend creating a similar exercise pertinent to your company and just making sure that the person can create a sentence. I'm not sure if spelling was counted or not, but I just didn't write any words that I couldn't spell! If I remember right, I think they even gave me a few small pieces of "scratch pad" paper to collect my thoughts and then write the finished draft on the notebook paper. I was told that neat penmanship wasn't critical as long as they could read what I wrote.

I enjoyed that part of the interview. I didn't create a fancy piece of literature, just what they asked for, and got the job. I think that would meet the criteria as a Bona Fide Qualification for the job, provided you can show that the person will be doing a great deal of writing.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by little__cee

I was handed a piece of notebook paper and a pen during an interview with the instructions, "Please write a short letter to a customer explaining our error - don't worry about technical details just invent a 'mistake' and write a brief note on how we will handle it."

I'd recommend creating a similar exercise pertinent to your company and just making sure that the person can create a sentence. I'm not sure if spelling was counted or not, but I just didn't write any words that I couldn't spell! If I remember right, I think they even gave me a few small pieces of "scratch pad" paper to collect my thoughts and then write the finished draft on the notebook paper. I was told that neat penmanship wasn't critical as long as they could read what I wrote.

I enjoyed that part of the interview. I didn't create a fancy piece of literature, just what they asked for, and got the job. I think that would meet the criteria as a Bona Fide Qualification for the job, provided you can show that the person will be doing a great deal of writing.

This is a great technique, especially for folks who have to deal with outside customers or suppliers. Maybe not even writing, but just phone contact. The point is how does one think in a short time and compose thoughts that make the point well. Thanks for sharing, little__cee.

[oldtimer - 2006]

I didn't mean to start a firestorm. Although this is a lively discussion.
I am not a HR drone, I am a supervisor/QE.

The Lego test is not the entire interview but it is used to ensure that inspection department applicants are able to read, understand and follow simple instructions. As I work in an FDA regulated field, these skills are absolutely necessary.

[Rob Nix]

Hey, oldtimer, I don't think you raised a "firestorm". In fact, I don't think the preceding comments had your question in mind whatsoever. Rachel quoted a Ron Rompen post from Feb. 11, 2005 and it took off (in some different directions) from there.

As far as your technique goes, I think it is interesting. But it also points up a failure on the part of management as well. Being handed written instructions alone - without training - is inadequate. Some might do fairly well at that exercise, others might not. In any event though, they will have questions they can't ask because their supervisor left the room.

Any more comments on oldtimer's idea?

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Rob Nix

...they will have questions they can't ask because their supervisor left the room.

...or the building, or the country, which is exactly the position they will find themselves in on the job sooner or later. I think that the Lego thing is a good idea in principle; having an applicant actually do something other than verbal performance is potentially useful. In line with Wes's observation, I think we need to be careful about amateur psychology, and stick to practical matters as much as possible. The waters of abstract reasoning--especially under pressure--are very deep and murky, so those sorts of questions and exercises are best left to those who have expertise in administering and interpreting them.

[Rob Nix]

Slightly

Do any of you remember a test (I think it was in elementary school) for following instructions that began with:

"Please read all of this document first before answering the questions", and was followed by several pages of multiple choice and essay questions, with the last statement being:

"Do not complete the questions. Simply put your name at the top of the first page and turn it in".

By and large, the students spend copious time completing the questions, followed by the inevitable "DOH!" upon reading the last statement.