Posted by brian jones 11 on 12/07/2021 18:10:25:
Well SOD you come up with a question to test thinking on your feet
a) applicants are nervous dont frighten
b) dont be a smartarse question much be general
c) let the question show why you are asking
BTW do you think I would have employed you? If its your own business BTW, its that much more pointed "will I profit from employing this person?"
Classic Steve Jobs – Hire people smarter than me – he did that
…
Well let me put a different slant on it. As a job interview only has about 30 minutes to assess the capabilities of an individual, the onus is on the interviewer to ask questions carefully tuned to get information out of the candidate. Therefore don't waste time testing Year 9 arithmetic, when paper qualifications give a much broader idea of the candidates mathematical attainments.
Furthermore, such questions risk unbalancing the clever candidate who thinks it's so off-beat it must be a trick question, and they appear to 'fail' when they start searching for hidden meanings. This might lead the interviewer to reject a candidate with the high-value skill of being able to think outside the box.
Being good at mental arithmetic under interview pressure is rarely a job requirement. People skills are usually more important, and far more difficult to establish.
We agree it's not the interviewer's job to put candidates in their place! Yet that's exactly how fast ball questions are likely to be perceived. Interviews are a two way process and good candidates often reject prospective employers, or use the interview to gauge just how easy the interviewer can be manipulated if they get the job. Ill-considered questions put the interviewer at a disadvantage!
Nervous employees are not necessarily bad employees. In the right position, they perform as well as anyone else. Interviewers often make the mistake of recruiting people like themselves, or people they can bully. Neither are good choices.
Andrew Johnston says in a later post 'in the early 1970s, when it looked like my school career was going to end in a major car crash…'. Been there, done that! Old chaps often make the mistake of assuming youngsters must know more than they do. They forget their own foolish hormone fuelled youth, and expect boys and girls to arrive fresh from education with a lifetime's experience. They may be unlucky enough to meet an old f*rt with a chip on his shoulder, determined to 'prove' the young are useless because they can't wire a plug, or work a tape measure. This is daft because on-the-job skills of that sort can be taught in 20 minutes. Recruiting graduates because they happen to be able to change a fuse is foolish if you need mechanical engineers to drive a CAD package and do stress calculations! But even at the hands-on end of engineering, good employers understand the need to train and develop staff. Best to ask questions that flush out interests, aptitudes, and enthusiasms.
Asking well-aimed questions is even more true if the immediate goal is profit; in the age of calculators, spreadsheets, and the internet, exactly how much value is there asking an arithmetic question that most of us could solve with paper and pencil in a few minutes? In my opinion Brian's weight of air question fails the 'so what?' test.
Another objection to mental arithmetic questions is they are closed, that is Yes/No/Right/Wrong answers. Much better for interviewers to ask open questions that encourage the candidate to develop a line of thought, whether it's faulty or brilliant.
In my experience there few good reasons for asking adversarial questions. Deciding between otherwise equal and well-qualified individuals; pursuing a fruitful argument; and – of course – lie detecting!
Even done well, interviews aren't particularly good at selecting the best people. Beware ladies and gents who are good at interview. Assessment Centres do rather better. At these candidates are put together through a series of joint exercises (with actors and surprises); paper exercises testing data handling, problem solving, reasoning and decision making; plus a series of interviews (both ways) over three or four days. Being residential, candidate behaviours are also observed during meals and breaks. The process flushes out good and bad behaviours relative to other people, intellectual ability, core competences, and how well one deals with superiors, subordinates, and solves difficult problems of all sorts. Slight problem – assessment centres don't guarantee success and are eye-watering expensive.
Dave
Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 13/07/2021 12:01:57