February 7, 2008 at 7:22 am
gordon_griffin (2/7/2008)
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
The point was - From Mike's perspective - the interviewer WAS being an @rse as you so eloquently put it. The XML data type (notice the emphasis) WAS only introduced in 2005. 2000 allowed for outputting XML with the FOR XML clause.
Interviews are just like any other form of communication: if you're going to create false pretenses, be prepared to get bad outcomes. Meaning - it's perfectly okay to play any number of "stupid pet tricks" during an interview if you so desire, but like most things - there's a right way and a wrong way to do that. In this case, if you are looking for strength of character, you (as the interviewer) might care to "prime the pump" - like start out the interview with something like "We at Acme Widgets Corp value openness among our staff. Constructive criticism is key...". And - after pulling your trick - perhaps find out why they responded the way they did.
The point is - you're just as likely to piss off good candidates, so your plan might just blow up in your face.Like it or not - the interviewer has a lot of advantages on his side, so slanting the interview format can come through as unfair. Of course - a lot of things are unfair, so you can just get inured to it all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 7, 2008 at 7:55 am
If I am in an interview and asked to respond to a question that I know is false, my immediate response would be "Is this a trick question?". Then I would start to think as many other people have already stated - do I really want to work for a company that likes to mess with people's heads?
It seems a better approach is to do some role playing. Tell the interviewee "we're going to do some role playing", state what the scenario is (whether true or false) and see how the person responds. Debate the issue until resolution is achieved (or maybe not, which then a skilled interviewer would have to know when to stop). That way, the interviewer can learn how much the interviewee knows and how he/she responds to confrontation.
February 7, 2008 at 8:10 am
I used to work for a few technical managers. Some listened to people's suggestions but there was one who thought he was a guru and he refused to listen to anyone. He told people how to run the project and I pointed him out the way he did it would cause a problem, I even showed him the white papers from some of the web sites. He told me not to go those web sites anymore. Sure enough the project was having all kind of problems. The worst thing was he told the team that he was welcomed any idea and suggestion, but you had to do his way or no way. He was very jealous of any good technical programmers. I left the company and so were other good programmers. Who wants to work for someone liked that?
I recently interviewed for a job and the manager asked me a lot of technical questions. I answered them correctly except one - Can you build an index on a computed column. I never did it before so I said I did not think so. He told me indeed it could and told me how to do it. He hired me anyway. I was happy because I like to work for someone who is on top of the technology and is willing to teach people and work with people.
However I found out sometimes technical skills were important but the candidate's attitude and personality was important too. That person needed to fit in the team and also able to work with other people in company. There was one guy who was very good technically but he was so arrogant, it ended up the manager had to let him go because no one in the group wanted to work with him.
February 7, 2008 at 8:13 am
gordon_griffin (2/7/2008)
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
The flip side of that coin is this: if my refusal to work for people who play mind games and/or go into denial mode when presented with correct and accurate information kept me from working for such a manager, I would chalk that up as a victory. I'd much rather see a hiring manager hire someone more in line with their beliefs, and more willing to accept any old statements (said with authority, of course) at face value, than sit there and debate well-documented technical trivia all afternoon. Unless of course I was interviewing to join a professional SQL Server debate team.
By way of reference to the blog entry, the question was not "is XML functionality available in SQL 2000". Rather, the interviewer in question asserted under no uncertain terms that "the XML *data type* was available in SQL 2000". The XML data type has been very well documented over the past 3 or so years, and I find it a little hard to believe that this interviewer (who happened to be the manager for this company's "SQL Server standards, best practices, and optimizations" team) would choose to debate this particular issue.
By the way, the interviewee in this situation told me that he was being interviewed "round robin" style, in a room with this technical manager and 4 or 5 developers and DBAs from the team. None of these team members spoke up to inform the manager that he'd made a mistake either. Of course they have no reason to stick their necks out and disagree with their boss for a stranger they've never met before. But by the same token either the manager's whole team was as ignorant of the facts as he was or they simply denied him the pleasure of the "mature and reasoned debate". This particular manager filled his ranks with the types of personalities he was actively seeking, and it paid off for him handsomely: his team is too scared to debate or disagree even when he's blindingly wrong.
February 7, 2008 at 8:41 am
I see nothing wrong with an interviewer asking a trick question as long as he later tells me later it was a trick. But if it's done in a belligerent matter I would not want to work there. An interview is a two way process. The candidate is also interviewing his perspective employer. Early in my career I had an interview where my potential manager was belligerent and condescending the whole time. I vividly remember holding out my hand at the end to thank him for the opportunity and he acted surprised by my politeness and grudgingly responded. I was very surprised to get a call from the recruiter that he wanted to hire me and immediately turned it down without even waiting to hear the offer. When asked why I told him I already work for an a****** and I'm not changing jobs to work for another!
February 7, 2008 at 8:45 am
Maybe all the rest of the team were in on the same game? Maybe they were all interested to see if the interviewee spotted the deliberate mistake? Maybe they would all rather work alongside someone who they could rely on to watch their back, to speak up if he saw them going wrong?
Yes, maybe they were all d1cks, but why make that the first assumption?
G
February 7, 2008 at 9:03 am
Actually my first assumption when hit with that many problems is that a. I am sitting across from someone not qualified, b. they're reading from a script and don't have any knowledge, and c. whoever came up with the script is a moron.
Of course - I'm not gunshy, so I'd argue each and every one of those, although I doubt we would have made it that far into the interview without me excusing myself. I understand knowing what is right, but I will not put myself into a spot where I will have to fight to get my opints across every day.
The ambush theory comes later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 7, 2008 at 10:25 am
gordon_griffin (2/7/2008)
Maybe all the rest of the team were in on the same game?
That insight is exactly my point. Personally I'm not a big fan of "games" and I don't go out of my way to work for people who are "game players". Especially an entire team, or organization, of "game players".
Maybe they were all interested to see if the interviewee spotted the deliberate mistake?
In this case the interviewee did, pointed it out, and was shut down by the interviewer. The team continued playing their "game".
Maybe they would all rather work alongside someone who they could rely on to watch their back, to speak up if he saw them going wrong?
Considering this is exactly the opposite of what actually happened, how possible do you consider this scenario really?
Yes, maybe they were all d1cks, but why make that the first assumption?
The fact that they lack knowledge which they should have, considering their positions and titles, is one thing. The fact that they not only put out bad information during a technical job interview, but *insisted* on it, puts the interviewer and his team members on a sliding scale between "ignorant" and "jerk".
So does the question boil down to whether you would rather work for the ignorant or the jerks?
February 7, 2008 at 12:18 pm
One thing I've learned as an employee over the many years I've been working (that I didn't really believe when I was told it as a child) is that lying does hurt and is a really bad idea.
I've seen this especially from watching managers lie to other staff members. You see both sides of the lie that way.
These interviewer 'tricks' are lies and I'd want to avoid working for someone who would lie to me.
I also don't think you'll get a true reaction to an adversarial statement in an interview. I had an interview once where the manager wanted to see if I would stand up to him. I did, was offered the job and turned it down. Interviewing is a two-way street - I'd rather work with someone I can discuss issues with.
February 7, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Great debate and good to see everyone fired up. Wasn't sure if anyone would like this one 🙂
We all have our own perspective and I'm sure some people conjure up images of the interviewer yelling or being snide and others think of someone just glossing over the answer. I think this could be a valuable technique if done properly, or it could be the stupidest way to lose good candidates.
I think the problem with any role playing or acting and informing the candidate is that you don't get too much of a real feel for how the person would react. Of course, blind-siding them with too much argumentative or belligerent behavior would backfire as well. Mike's a strong candidate and if made him walk of an interview, you'd be losing out.
I didn't want to point out that Mike would be wrong in walking out, but to raise the awareness that this could be a game (done poorly), meaning it was a stupid trick, or perhaps there is some value.
It reminded me of my first CS class in high school. The teacher gave us a few long, impossibly long, tests in the first semester. We struggled and stressed, and no one, even our valedictorian that went to MIT, could finish. Near the end of the semester we realized that we weren't supposed to finish the tests. No one could. They were just a way of seeing how far we could go.
As much as it annoyed me, someone used to finishing every test in quick times, it also motivated me to work harder and try to beat everyone else. Never did that, but I was #2 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 7:03 am
On the republish (7 Aug 12), the link is broken, but from the editorial and discussion make it clear enough what it was about originally.
If an interviewer tried the "you're wrong" approach, and didn't follow-up with, "that was a test", I think it would be a good way to lose good candidates. If they did follow-up with "sorry about the confrontational bit there, that was a test to see how you'd do", I think I'd be fine with it.
- 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
August 7, 2012 at 7:55 am
An interesting discussion - it seems to raise a little heat!
I would agree that a gentle test (without belligerence, and on a point which you would absolutely reasonably expect the interviewee to be fairly sure of their ground) would be a fairly acceptable technique. I agree that in that case if the interviewee nods along this could be seen as a significant failure, goodnight Vienna.
Beyond that I think you get into shaky ground.
August 7, 2012 at 8:25 am
Mike C (2/6/2008)
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.
Exactly Mike, this should be read as a big "Red Flag" for the applicant. If they pull this kind of 'nonsense" in the interview you can bet your bottom dollar they will be throwing you under the bus at every opportunity once your are employed there. Run, don't walk, out of that parking lot. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
August 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm
I think it is important that employers/interviewers act with integrity. Mind games and tricks may or may not be effective at finding the right/best person for a job but they also set a benchmark for the types of behaviour that are acceptable in the workplace. Most employers want and need people to trust each other, and how can you trust when you know the managers and HR staff are playing mind games right from the get go?
The other big issue is whether or not these types of tricks are actually effective at sorting the wheat from the chaff. I doubt there is any evidence at all that suggests they are.
August 7, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Mike C (2/6/2008)
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.
+1
I can understand a bit trying to see the candidate sweat a bit, but don't do it with wrong information.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply