When was the last time you got into a car accident?

[uuu]

"When was the last time you got into a car accident?" the interviewer asked.

"Funny you should ask... actually, I just got into an accident a week ago," said the applicant.

"Huh, so according to the maximum-likelihood estimate, on average you get into a car accident every two weeks," said the interviewer.

"Well—"

"We can't handle that kind of liability on our team. I hope you have better luck in your job search elsewhere."

------

So obviously, the interviewer in this scenario is committing a logical fallacy, right? But the same fallacy, namely unreasonable extrapolation from a small sample size, arises easily and often in normal job interviews, where you ask the interviewee 2–3 open-ended questions to test their competence.

I think this is very Fuck.

 

[Matty]

I've always had a dislike for rhetoric and sophistry, but the realisation that the majority of people are primarily illogical, and mostly emotional in their judgement, had lead me to adopt a pragmatic form of communication (only in circumstances where it actually matters).

I think of it as telling people the truth, but essentially also guiding them to the conclusion I want them to make . So, if asked when my last car accident was, I'd answer: in my five years of driving, I've only been hit once by a distracted driver, but I have never caused an accident. When asked again, how long it's been, I'd then answer the question: about two weeks ago.

 

[John K]

So obviously, the interviewer in this scenario is committing a logical fallacy, right?

Not necessarily, though the example you give is an exaggerated example. When you are interviewing you are faced with two types of possible error - missing someone ideal or hiring someone who is useless. The second of these is far more costly to you so if there is a good choice of candidates you will happily bias the selection filtering process in favour of the first type of error because it’s quicker and lest costly on your selection resources.

It isn’t fair, but it’s life. A canny candidate will be wise to the filtering tricks used and navigate around them - like @Sometimes Yeah described for example. It’s even more important you are aware of this at the stage you submit your application and resume, because the filtering can be brutal at that initial part of the process.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

A canny candidate will be wise to the filtering tricks used and navigate around them

When I was a hiring manager (and this story may be mentioned somewhere else here), I did a basic interview to satisfy the paperwork requirements, and then asked candidates to run with me down to a store, and then back to our store. It wasn't a race, just 'running together'. If they did this with me, I'd buy them any drink they wanted when we reached the store.
How they performed on this race told me a lot about who they were, and also (I hope) informed them about who they'd be working with.
It wasn't a requirement, and I still debated hiring people who declined, depending on how they declined it. Likewise there were others who knew immediately after, they didn't want to work with me.

 

[John K]

When I was a hiring manager (and this story may be mentioned somewhere else here), I did a basic interview to satisfy the paperwork requirements, and then asked candidates to run with me down to a store, and then back to our store. It wasn't a race, just 'running together'. If they did this with me, I'd buy them any drink they wanted when we reached the store.
How they performed on this race told me a lot about who they were, and also (I hope) informed them about who they'd be working with.
It wasn't a requirement, and I still debated hiring people who declined, depending on how they declined it. Likewise there were others who knew immediately after, they didn't want to work with me.

I love this. We always looked for people who would fit in socially as well as for competence - we were running teams building specialised computer systems and it needed a good social cohesion. You can learn a lot about each other from a lunch in a local country pub with a candidate. It was as much for them to get to know us as the other way round - we were on interview with the candidates too.

 

[MoonFlier]

When I was a hiring manager (and this story may be mentioned somewhere else here), I did a basic interview to satisfy the paperwork requirements, and then asked candidates to run with me down to a store, and then back to our store. It wasn't a race, just 'running together'. If they did this with me, I'd buy them any drink they wanted when we reached the store.
How they performed on this race told me a lot about who they were, and also (I hope) informed them about who they'd be working with.
It wasn't a requirement, and I still debated hiring people who declined, depending on how they declined it. Likewise there were others who knew immediately after, they didn't want to work with me.

I'm so glad none of my interviewers popped anything like this on me. I've been taught not to share my otherwise invisible medical issues, but if asked I'd have to either explain, which is against the law for an interviewer to ask about and would make me question the company, or I'd have to attempt to do something I knew I'd fail at and embarrass both myself and the interviewer as well as screwing up my day/week with a possible visit to the doctor to get it back under control.

 

[uuu]

You can learn a lot about each other from a lunch in a local country pub with a candidate.

Even this seems somewhat fraught to me. Depending on the venue, this could force the candidate to reveal that they don't drink alcohol or don't drink meat, which in turn could reveal information about their religion or health condition depending on the cultural environment ... I know, I know, it's an overanalysis, but I think there is a kernel of truth to the idea that hiring managers who favor candidates who are a "good fit for our office culture" can produce a homogeneous workforce. Before we even get to diversity/inclusion buzzwords, I wonder how effectively a company whose workforce is lopsided toward a certain kind of personality can compete in a diverse, dynamic economy.

 

[John K]

Even this seems somewhat fraught to me. Depending on the venue, this could force the candidate to reveal that they don't drink alcohol or don't drink meat, which in turn could reveal information about their religion or health condition depending on the cultural environment ... I know, I know, it's an overanalysis, but I think there is a kernel of truth to the idea that hiring managers who favor candidates who are a "good fit for our office culture" can produce a homogeneous workforce. Before we even get to diversity/inclusion buzzwords, I wonder how effectively a company whose workforce is lopsided toward a certain kind of personality can compete in a diverse, dynamic economy.

It’s a balance. If you take on someone socially divisive, you’ll hamstring your team. If you don’t expand its social spectrum you’ll hamstring your team.

I doubt many recruiting managers have the skill to balance this out well.

 

[Asa]

and then asked candidates to run with me down to a store

my otherwise invisible medical issues

As soon as I read this, @Winterflowers, I was wondering if you ever had candidates that couldn't run because of conditions beyond their control?
It's a really fun concept to see how willing people are to move out of their comfort zones for a job, how they work with teams, possibly how competitive and rewards-focused they are, etc, but there are a lot of people with medical conditions.

or don't drink meat

This made my day.

I am a non-meat drinker and it is very important to me, but one of the last things I reveal about myself to new friends and at job interviews, unless I'm working for a company where it is relevant.

It’s a balance. If you take on someone socially divisive, you’ll hamstring your team. If you don’t expand its social spectrum you’ll hamstring your team.

I doubt many recruiting managers have the skill to balance this out well.

All your answers in this thread were interesting.

This thread and @John K's comment about recruiting manager skills reminded me of how many hiring managers at companies I've worked for fell for the charismatic candidate who was useless or a con artist. Once, I got into an argument with the other hiring manager because we disagreed about a candidate that wanted the special privilege of working hours when nobody else was in the building and acted like he was in a cult. It was a long process, but we did not hire him.


Whenever I took a cab to an interview, I was offered the job. The rides gave me time to mentally prepare and I stayed calm. The cabbies knew how to get to the locations, so I didn't get stressed trying to navigate. I once got a ride with someone to the last in a string of interviews with a big company. They blasted music, tried to give me (bad) advice, and yelled at someone blocking an intersection. I arrived flustered and botched the interview. After that, I always took a cab. I don't interview well, so I need this time to prepare.

 

[aeon]

As soon as I read this, @Winterflowers, I was wondering if you ever had candidates that couldn't run because of conditions beyond their control?
It's a really fun concept to see how willing people are to move out of their comfort zones for a job, how they work with teams, possibly how competitive and rewards-focused they are, etc, but there are a lot of people with medical conditions.

I thought about this for a while, and decided I’d likely agree to it if it wasn’t too far. I would do my best and try and keep a straight face, and likely end up totally disabled and in severe pain later that day and for the next 72 hours.

If that sounds stupid, it’s because I’ve been known to do stupid things when my people-pleaser gland gets tickled. Plus, I often do physical things these days to see what I am capable of, and later pay a serious price, so I can see me agreeing to something, enjoying it, and then later deciding I am a fool, justifying it all with “get busy trying, or start to be dying.”

Cheers,
Ian

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

As soon as I read this, @Winterflowers, I was wondering if you ever had candidates that couldn't run because of conditions beyond their control?
It's a really fun concept to see how willing people are to move out of their comfort zones for a job, how they work with teams, possibly how competitive and rewards-focused they are, etc, but there are a lot of people with medical conditions.

I might've? it was a couple years back and I don't remember all who interviewed. If it was it wasn't many though; it was for the food industry and that may have served as a self-screening for some.

I remember two people in particular.One was laughing the whole way and we chatted while at the store. He felt enthusiastic and though it wasn't a race he sure didn't seem to want to 'lose' to me haha.
The other declined and had seemed mildly interested up till then, and not at all afterwards. She seemed unsure if she wanted to and after being reminded that it wasn't mandatory said that she would really rather not. If she had medical issues, she didn't mention them.

I thought about this for a while, and decided I’d likely agree to it if it wasn’t too far. I would do my best and try and keep a straight face, and likely end up totally disabled and in severe pain later that day and for the next 72 hours.
Ian

Awww
It was ummm let me seee
Maybe 110 meters? or 375ish feet?
something like that. Like I would've been fine with a light jog or a walk, it was really more about how people responded to it than the physical activity itself. The work could be physically demanding at times but it was less about that and more about consistency & teamwork. But if you didn't (hypothetically) mention your health problems I'd be none-the-wiser.

 

[John K]

it was really more about how people responded to it than the physical activity itself.

Like you, we'd have been more interested in how someone responded rather than whether they agreed to have a go or not. Not that we used that kind of interview approach though

I am a non-meat drinker and it is very important to me, but one of the last things I reveal about myself to new friends and at job interviews, unless I'm working for a company where it is relevant.

I think this would be more difficult if a candidate wanted to keep that part of their lives to themselves. Our teams worked closely together, socialised and went to lunch together, travelled overseas to other parts of the team in the US and Europe and stayed in the same hotels with each other. It's inevitable that such things would be obvious to everyone they worked with if they joined us. It didn't matter at all to us of course, but candidates wouldn't know that in advance at an interview.

Quite honestly though, our recruitment processes in my later years with the company could last for two or three days in a local hotel, and we'd put the candidates up in the hotel for a night or two. It would be difficult to avoid these sort of things there. Mind you, I'm not a great fan of these interview marathons - I think they favour extroverts, even where introverts could be a better fit for the job.

 

[Asa]

Mind you, I'm not a great fan of these interview marathons - I think they favour extroverts, even where introverts could be a better fit for the job.

Interesting. I agree. My brother used to work for a financial firm where one CEO was an introvert. The CEO held "Introvert Seminars". It was rare for such a company to embrace introverts.

I don't mind revealing being vegan to coworkers or my boss, but an interview is a poor place to mention it. It triggers people.
Hiring marathons sound intense, though I understand the purpose. The description reminds me of work retreats one typically attends after being hired.

 

[John K]

The CEO held "Introvert Seminars". It was rare for such a company to embrace introverts.

What a marvellous idea!

Our research scientists were mainly INTPs with a scattering of INTJs and ISTJs, and so was the computer group I worked for, so it was very introvert friendly, which was unusual and pretty great. Mind you, as a rare INFJ in the middle of that lot .....