Leadership

Interviewers: Don't be afraid to go negative

As an interviewer, you sometimes have to get tough to circumvent the pat answers of job candidates. One blogger says that you shouldn't be afraid to go negative. Here are his tips.

As an interviewer, you sometimes have to get tough to circumvent the pat answers of job candidates. One blogger says that you shouldn't be afraid to go negative. Here are his tips.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a host of interviewing advice out there for job candidates. Much of the advice concerns how to circumvent interview questions that might require the job candidate to give out information he or she doesn't want to. Of course, this means that interviewers will have to step up their game to circumvent the circumventers.

In the blog hrcapitalist.com, there was this advice regarding what interviewers can do to get the information they need from a candidate: Get negative.

This is what getting negative looks like in the behavioral interviewing scene:

--"That's good (referring to an answer), but it doesn't really answer my question. Tell me...."

--"I need more detail about what you did in the situation. What you're giving me is very high level, I need to dig into the details with you."

--"That happened a long time ago. Do you have a similar experience that's happened in the last year?"

--"Most of the examples you are giving me are team oriented. We value teams here, but for purposes of you being a candidate, I need to know what you did, not what the team did. Focus me on what you did."

--"That's a great example with a good outcome. Now tell me about a situation where you used a similar strategy but it didn't work out for you."

--"Tell me about a time where you've been fired or taken off a project due to your performance."

--"I'm struggling to understand the details of what you've done in these situations. Once you tell me about a scenario, start giving me deep, deep details of what you did, not what the team did, not what you usually would do in that situation, but what you actually did."

--"You keep telling me what you usually do in situations. I'm not interested in hypotheticals, I'm interested in what you have actually done."

Some of these sound a little harsh to me -- I'm picturing the job candidate in a blindfold with a cigarette dangling from his lips -- but managers might find a varation of these suggestions useful.

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

144 comments
bratwizard
bratwizard

*That's* negative !?!?! Hoo boy-- you folks got some readin' up to do about interviewing. Where I come from those are the typical interview methods. What I'd like to know, for example, is why the hell they put down knowledge of something they can't spell? Or how they happen to have five years of experience in a product that's only been out for two? Or since you're so damned competent in low-level OS's, how come you can't explain the difference between "user space" and "kernel space"??? Now THATS what I call going negative! (smirk)

riotsquirrl
riotsquirrl

But unless her questions were spoken with undue harshness, they just strike me as probing, not really negative. Sometimes people aren't trying to be evasive; they're just so morbidly concerned about the impression they're making -- I'm probably guilty of this, too -- that they don't give the kinds of details an interviewer wants. I've also had interviewees so anxious to show that they're not going to pretend to any knowledge they don't really have that they won't venture a guess or show me their thinking processes on problems they could probably tackle in real life. Go figure.

btljooz
btljooz

with honey than you do with vinegar if you would simply do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Get my drift? I can remember a day when I could simply walk in to a company who had an opening I could fill and [b]GO TO WORK[/b] with[u]OUT[/u] having to play stupid guessing games with or suffer abuse such as this from fools possessing a fancy title and a bit of [i]power[/i]. I have never passed a "personality profile" test nor a "behavioral interview". Not only has this cost me my livelihood, but it cost the offending company a damned good employee! It's about time business and society in general went back to basics! If it has nothing to do with the performance of a particular duty within the position I'm applying for, then I will NOT answer because it is irrelevant to said position and none of anyone's bees wax! BTW: NO, I am NOT enjoying my imposed/enforced "[i]retirement[/i]!

AV .
AV .

After an interview like that, I wouldn't want to work there. I would be insulted by the tone of the interview. I don't agree that being negative is the best way to get a feel for the candidate. This reminds me of the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin. Katie was very negative and Sarah Palin reacted by not opening up. Instead, she went on the defense and held back. I think there are more positive ways to interview someone that yields better results. If you make someone feel at ease, they're more likely to be less guarded with their answers. AV

NetCop42
NetCop42

Interviewers are like the proverbial 5 year-old. You can't debate with them, and you can't avoid them. But you can pretty much always stay in control. "Regrettably, due to the confidential/proprietary nature of the work involved, I am contractually prohibited from providing any more details about my work experience on that project/subject. Perhaps there's a different topic that might provide you with the information you're looking for?" "Generally, my previous compensation was in keeping with the market trend for my skill set. However, I'm afraid the details of my compensation packages with prior employers is confidential." And when someone tells you that they're used to applicants divulging some specific you're not inclined to discuss, or that you'll have to do so or you won't be considered further, a simple, "Then I shouldn't take up anymore of your valuable time", and excuse yourself, with your dignity and privacy in tact.

brokndodge
brokndodge

due to a lack of fine memory. i failed an interview as a linux admin because the interviewer asked just such questions. details, i'm sorry but i just don't remember. yes i used sendmail. no i don't remember how to configure it. but i have a great reference bookmarked in my yahoo bookmarks. i'm more used to bash than tsh, no sir it's been a few years - but i do have a good reference for tsh. well, sir, perl hash is very powerful - i've got a good reference for it. i'd have to check my reference for that. yes sir, i've set up more than a few enterprise linux servers. well, sir, i've got a pretty good reference for it. you get the idea. i mean come on, does anyone remember exactly how they set up sendmail the last time they had too? the config file is atrocious.

chaz15
chaz15

"Tell me some more ....about your individual contribution to the team is not being negative or bullying!" KEEP POSITIVE, ALWAYS!

chaz15
chaz15

If anyone remotely started bullying me for information in a job Interview I'd walk straight out AND tell the interviewer why, and exactly where to put his/her job! An interviewer can be assertive by being as reasonable as possible with candidates, the Alan Sugar techniques, of battering candidates are COMPLETELY unacceptable both in terms of Human Rights, and acceptable standards of Respect and Care for others. HR please sit up and take notice. We are dealing with HUMAN BEINGS WITH feelings. There are ways to ask, and negative is NOT one of them. Far more reasonbale to say at the start of the interview that the interviewer needs information about the candidate themself as well as possibly any team situation. Its all about wording and attitude!! Unfortunately, a reasonable interviewer may not always be a reasonable employer. An unreasonable interviewer is NEVER a good employer. !!!!!!

mikifinaz1
mikifinaz1

I have and I immediately excuse myself and then leave the company. I have done this without even speaking to the other person in the middle of the interview. I did this once at Microsoft. I once even had the company HR manager call me back after an incident like this, because they really wanted to hire me. I told them what happened and that I don't wish to work for or associate with a company that treats people in that manner. Past performance is a good indicator of future performance. Now think about it; would you want to go to through this every day? I wouldn't want to work in such a hostile environment, and refuse to because I am confident in myself and my skills. I don't let anyone run games on me, power games or any other type. I went to work for myself to avoid all the small minded politics, games etc. that swirl around business offices.

markros
markros

I guess I have to wonder what is the point of this approach? It seems to be assuming that the candidate is concealing things that would help him get the job. If an otherwise well-qualified candidate has poor interview skills, a skilled interviewer can get the information he needs in a respectful manner by re-framing questions, and coming back around to situations from different angles. An unskilled, unqualified interviewer, though, could get frustrated and let that show through.

MytonLopez
MytonLopez

I would never answer these types of questions. They are never good and these types of questions should not be answered. If they don't like my vauge answer then screw them....hahahaha

dbecker
dbecker

And in today's world, what we would really want in all our relationships -- including those in the work environment -- is trust. We want people we can absolutely rely on to keep their promises and commitments on time each time without exception [baring exceptional circumstances]. We really don't want either excuses or deceptions. If you really accept the above as true, I would have to ask just how such practices in an interview are going to build toward that goal? I'm less than impressed. And it's no wonder it costs so much to find and keep employees as the workplace degenerates into outright fraud and deception, necessitating ever escalating security measures. Trust no one. At least from interviews like those which have questions such as given in the post.

jimmyreed4tech
jimmyreed4tech

I'm with most here. Both the interviewer and the candidate are getting a feel for each other during the interview. If the company wants to push to get some sort of response to gauge the worthiness of a candidate the candidate can do the same with the company?s actions. You may end up turning away a good fit.

kld0068
kld0068

What some interviewers fail to understand is that they need to sell the candidate on the company in the same way that the candidate is trying to sell themself to the company. I certainly wouldn't have a problem telling an interviewer that this might not be the right fit, and thanking them for their time. If they resort to bullying tactics during the interview you can probably bet on them being no fun to work for either.

steven
steven

Seldom if ever does an interviewer have to be harsh (except to find out how a candidate might deal with a harsh customer). sbsingleton wrote some good words and I want to add to them. If interviewers really understand how to build a quick "relationship" with the candidate, the candidate will tell them whatever they want to know with a simple question. I have spent years interviewing candidates at various levels building my technical teams and I very, very seldom have any difficulty getting all the information I want. In fact, I usually get more information than I need or want from candidates. Many people have no idea how close interviewing is to interrogation. Build the relationship, the truth and honesty and answers will come. Be well Steven Cerri "Imagine engineers and engineering managers as good with people as with technology" www.stevencerri.com

dbecker
dbecker

I've lost count of how many interviews I've conducted and how many interview questions I've asked over the years. The positions for which I was hiring were technological in nature. Here's the deal: There's a psychological study some decades back on the nature of the President of the United States. The conclusion was [based on objective data] that generally speaking, if someone has the ideal skills to actually get the position, they have less than ideal skills to fulfill the position. Conversely, if someone has the ideal skills for a position and would administrate it subperbly, they probably don't have have the political skills and charisma to actually get there. Not only do I firmly believe this to be true from my own experience, but the current President of the United States is a prime example of the truth of it. Many candidates I have seen could fly right through the interview just fine and handle even the [insulting] "negative" questions listed (and many other more besides, like, "What do you want to do when you grow up?"!), but were absolutely terrible on a tech type job. Many tech jobs are solitary and people need to work on their own without a lot of people interaction. The more pronounced the need for someone working independently, the higher concern and the higher the risk is that you might hire some smarmy "people persons" who waste their time seeking out human interaction. HR departments absolutely do not understand this and so they tend to want you to hire the objective outgoing "sales" type person, rather than the person you actually need to do the "heads down" work. Hiring easily bored "team players" for critical positions requiring focused concentration is not just asking for trouble, but is just the sort of situation which has been burgeoning lately, what with the mad rush to hire Generation Whine, incompetents hiring incompetents. The Einsteins won't make it into nuclear research because they just aren't the kind of attractive people person team players HR wants. To be clear, many really competent technologists would be devastated by such questions as posed -- and, in fact, I've seen perfectly good fit professionals truly abused by such things, leaving the interview in near tears. Of course, there are situations where the "people person" "team player" types are really what are called for, so go ahead and insult them. Myself, after such an interview, or maybe perhaps much earlier in the interview, I might just tell the interviewers that I hope that when they return home to their kennel that their mother would bite them.

tbmay
tbmay

Guys, the thing to remember is you can't take this stuff personally. I don't have a problem with most of those questions. Some of them would stump me. "Tell me about a time you were fired......" What if it really never happened? That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no only." Interviews let both parties know whether it will be a good match. An employer needs to know whether or not you'll be competent in the job they hire you to do so you need to be able to speak in specifics. By the same token, if a little voice is going off in the back of the candidate's head that something isn't right, it probably isn't. Be professional. Understand every job isn't right for you. And keep moving forward.

jhoward
jhoward

If people are turned off by an employer wanting to know what a potential hire has actually done then they probably shouldn't be applying for the position in question. How many co workers do you know that couldn't get hired for their job right now if they were to re-apply? How many of them do you think slipped past HR with slick answers or because they knew someone? How many do you think would have made it past HR if they had to answer the types of interview questions brought up here?

mark.silvia
mark.silvia

The interview should be balanced with both positive and negative questions. Most important, the questions need to be RELEVANT TO THE JOB. HR should ask the department who is hiring to give a list of qualities and attributes necessary for the position. The want ads should also reflect this instead of the usual generically dry overly inflated list of requirements that are never utilized in the position. For example if a position does not require any programming, then don't list VB, Java, Pearl, C++, etc as a requirement! Questions such as past salaries are should never be asked. (1) My past salaries is, frankly, nobody's damn business. (2) Different jobs have different requirements, responsibilities, tasks and hours. Besides, HR already has a salary range. (3) Education and skill sets do change.

esalkin
esalkin

Questions like those will not get the best candidate they will only get you a slick liar. There is nothing wrong with asking probing questions but you cross the line once you start attacking.

Meesha
Meesha

I think it's unfortunate that the article lead with the word "negative". I don't believe any of the questions to be negative at all. They are probative and often necessary. I would much rather have someone show deeper interest in the experiences and activities I claim rather than having a glossy HR Q&A that only attempts to sell the company. I really want to know what the prospective employer is about, what they're doing and how I would bring value to them. This is a two way street after all - don't you want to know whether you will want to further a relationship with the prospective company? Interviews should be honest and not secretive, manipulative or confusing. Obfuscation serves neither the company/interviewer or the prospective candidates. In any interview exercise, using the word negative holds a great deal of weight as witnessed by it's use in this article and the responses to it. Being probative has far more value to both the interviewer and the interviewee and is not negative at all.

kitico
kitico

Some of the questions in your article are harsh. I would walk out of any interview where the interviewer took such an aggressive stance and I would contact the CEO to tell him/her how their company is being represented by the interviewer. You don't have to take crap from interviewers just because you are looking for work. On one interview, I was talking with a team of junior people at Citigroup who, between all four of them, maybe had half my experience. I was vastly overqualified for the position and I knew I would never accept an offer, given the junior level of the position. One of the children asked me, "Why should we hire you?". How silly is that? I responded, "Maybe you shouldn't." I could have walked out right then, but I decided that would be unduly harsh. What did the child/interviewer know? He was just some stooge working for Citigroup doing sensitivity analysis on credit card data.

Anita Y. Mathis
Anita Y. Mathis

I have only interviewed for three jobs in my life. I didn't do well on any of them although I was hired for two. They were regular interviews, not behavioral. I have also taken "behavior assessments" which I didn't do well on either. From what I've read, behavioral interviews can vary significantly based on the position in question. Regarding the above scenario, if the position required experience in specific areas, it's reasonable to explore the question more deeply. I don't agree with the idea of going negative, rather exploring the topic further. In addition, I would expect this line of questioning to be used with EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE THAT INTERVIEWED because otherwise the entire interviewing process is skewed, which may be intentional. Also, I believe questions asked at this level should be posed by the hiring manager and not an HR person who is more a generalist.

win-data
win-data

For me - the first round interview - I expect canned responses from a candidate. It's mainly a get-a-feel-for-candidate situation (kind of like two dogs circling and sniffing - nobody growls or wags their tail yet). By the time you get to a second or third tier interview, if the candidate is still spouting rehearsed answers, either my interview skills are bad or the candidate shouldn't have made it this far through the interview process. IF, in the course of the process, an interviewee's answers migrate from rehearsed/canned to sneaky and evasive I don't want to hire him/her anyway. By this point in the interview, we had better be able to converse honestly and fairly comfortably.

casey
casey

sbsingleton was "spot on" with this comment: "You want a real solution to the "pat" answers to typical HR questions? Get rid of the "pat" questions." I'd go one step further and encourage the candidate to ask: How long has this position been open and what's the turn-over rate at your company? How would you describe the current financial condition of your company? Do you (HR person) have any actual experience in the IT field, if so, describe. Why do you feel I need to come back "X" number of times before you make a decision? If I take this job, what can I expect in terms of stability and longevity with your company? What's the average tenure of your employees?

Excelmann
Excelmann

Hey guys, I think you are missing the big picture. As much as you are trying to find that next great employee, you should also be ensuring you are not acquiring the next big boat anchor or individual which gets you fired. Five minutes of a modestly uncomfortable situation may preclude months or years of aggravation, disappointment, frustration, stress, and sleep-deprived nights.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Management? HR? The interviewer? The candidate? Your message exists, yet provides nothing meaningful. This one hopes your scripting skills exceed your writing skills.

kama410
kama410

You want flies, what you need is a big pile of bullcrap. Which is why our economy is going straight to... Because everyone is catering to the flies, as it were. And naturally so. There's more flies in the world than intelligent human beings so you cater to the idiots, if you get my point. The reason all of these nonsense methods of hiring have become popular is that some time ago someone put their idiot son-in-law in charge of their business and dropped dead. Leaving the idiot to run the business. Naturally, he hired other idiots to run things. Somehow the business survived (probably due to the increasingly hard work of the people who actually produce something) and the idiots who were hired by the first idiot hired more idiots. This trend has continued in american business to the present day and there are now more idiots in any given business than there are people who are actually producing valuable goods and services. Anyone who hasn't already realized this is probably either just entering the work force, or is an idiot, or both. From the perspective of the potential employee, this causes a problem if you are not another idiot. Even the idiots know that they have to at least be able to provide plausible deniability when it becomes evident that the idiot they have hired turns out to be a REALLY bad choice. Since the hiring idiot has no idea how to recognize actual skill and drive (as he has neither of these qualities himself) he reads articles like this one that will supposedly help him to identify people with more skill than he has. Of course, these people (naturally) frighten the idiot and leave him with a bad feeling of inferiority after the interview so, really, the people best able to do the job are least likely to be hired. Welcome to the modern workplace.

herlizness
herlizness

> she didn't hold back at all .. she simply demonstrated a profound lack of preparedness for the job of Vice President of the United States ... which, happily, she did not get and she wasn't any better with Charlie Rose either ...

tuomo
tuomo

Experience is a way to find answers and solutions, not to be able to memorize (often old and obsolete) book information. Unfortunately many, even experienced(??) IT persons interviewing ask those questions AND often even then get them wrong because they know / have seen one system only? Now, of course this depends on the job function, you want a Cisco operator it is preferable to find a person who has the course / certificate on that specific model you are using. You want a network architect, it doesn't matter which network equipment you are using but they better know a little more of protocols than just bits and bytes which anyone can read in papers / books. And a real architect doesn't care what firewall, security software or hardware but knows what the requirements have to be for business continuity and recovery, including requirements for personnel, environment, legal, etc - not memorized, impossible even for lawyers with $2K / hour but how to find the answers! It really can get hilarious - I once (not a long ago!) was asked the names of SNMP MIB files, not the MIB names but the file names, in a huge telco when interviewing for a capacity planning contract to create infrastructure capacity plans for 1,3 and 5 years? Even more funny when I asked their way to make capacity planning was the answer - Excel, no methods, no strategy, no ... - just Excel?

tbmay
tbmay

I was once asked how many years of Apache I had. ????? Uhm...well....the first apache server I set up was 1.x series but I sure couldn't tell you what year it was. I know brok. I don't remember every detail 5 minutes after I'm finished. People don't understand I.T. That is definitely a challenge but we can't "will" the challenge away. If I could I would.

brokndodge
brokndodge

should bring my reference library. do you want to know why i chose one software set over another, well the overwhelming consensus says it's more stable. or maybe it's more scalable. i don't remember, but i got some notes on it somewhere. no it doesn't have a pretty little graphical setup tool, you've got to break down to the command line and get your hands dirty. hey, microsoft makes some decent products and ITT grads are a dime a dozen. i'm pretty sure you've got fifty to choose from, i've got years of experience at the command line. while i'm going to hack something together that just works, don't expect your ITT grads to be able to figure it out.

cpmgfp0409
cpmgfp0409

Almost all the really, really brilliant IT folks I know - the people I wanted on all my projects - the people who could sit down and churn out an application to pilot the space shuttle in 20 minutes (figuratively speaking, of course) - are TREMENDOUSLY introverted. Asking those kinds of questions, in that manner? They'd be upset, gone, AND, perhaps worse for the hiring manager, angry enough to tell all their other brilliant friends not to touch a job with that company. I believe these kinds of questions, and that attitude, stems from having made poor quality hiring decisions in the past (either from arrogance or inexperience), or on a basic level, just being a pretty crappy manager.

XT John
XT John

"Many tech jobs are solitary and people need to work on their own without a lot of people interaction"... I've yet to see a 'tech position' that requires working alone and without any interaction. Any tech person worth hiring needs to see the big picture of what they're doing, and how it relates to the rest of the organization. Last type of person I want to be working alongside is the 'glass room' type. The 'put me in the glass room and leave me alone' co-worker. From a progamming position, to a data storage worker, to a network engineer, helpdesk, system administrator... having an understanding of what your end users ARE doing, SHOULD be doing, and YOUR own impact upon all these areas is crucial.

Lwood
Lwood

Of course you want to see how they react when things get tough - because things are always tough in IT. I like this line of questioning - get over the touchy feely crap because your going to have to live with this person through tough times and they could easily be carrying spare knifes just for your back when things go bad. I like and have done hands on job interviews too. Once hired a bench technician who we left in a room with a motherboard, a screw driver, a power supply a mouse, keyboard, monitor a cdrom,a default gateway and subnet mask, harddrive and cables and bartspe on a disk, but no computer case. Told him we would be back in three hours and wanted to see a ghost image on the harddrive when we returned. He had to use the screw driver to start the motherboard,then boot up the network to see the images and download. He was done when we got back sitting with his feet proped up on the desk and was hired the next day.

btljooz
btljooz

All you did was discursively expound upon my point in a more incisive modus operandi facilitating the elucidation of that point. ;\ >"The reason all of these nonsense methods of hiring have become popular is that some time ago someone put their idiot son-in-law in charge of their business and dropped dead. Leaving the idiot to run the business. Naturally, he hired other idiots to run things. Somehow the business survived (probably due to the increasingly hard work of the people who actually produce something) and the idiots who were hired by the first idiot hired more idiots.""the modern workplace""point"

AV .
AV .

No, she wasn't prepared for the intense scrutiny of the media or to be VP, but Katie Couric's tone in the interview was condescending and hostile. It was too negative - more like an interrogation. AV

tbmay
tbmay

Happens all the time. If you're as old as I am you've learned life isn't fair. Incompetent people are often hired and good talent often is not. Sometime arbitrary hiring practices are to blame for that. I agree that slick salesmen often are hired for positions they aren't capable of fulfilling and negative questions, etc could cause a company not to hire someone who would really help their business. Having said all that, there's nothing we can do to change it. It's far better for technical professionals...or any professionals for that matter...to accept it and learn how to deal with it.

dbecker
dbecker

I'm not saying absolutely NO interaction, just "without a lot of people interaction". After all, I was the sole support of a z/OS System on an IBM Mainframe AND the System Manager on an HP3000 with MPE i/X for five years. Ah, the long hours, the holidays, the weekends. But then, I also have my "People Person Mode" along with my "Manager Objectify Mode" as well as the alone Tech. I prefer the alone Tech mode, because unless either people screwed it up or components failed, I've never had technology lie to me nor have had the Universe lie to me. Several years back, when I was a Manager at Weyerhaeuser, I would often lunch with people I did not know. My favorite was lunching with the electricians downstairs in one of the coves facing the lake at Corporate Headquarters. Making friends in low places got me priority when I needed some electrical work done in the computer room. They had told other people it would take them over six weeks to get to it. They got it done for me in three days. One noontide, I had lunch in the lunchroom at the Tech Center while we were doing our annual disaster recovery test for Containerboard Packaging [now gone because... because... oh, just forget it!]. I sat with one of the engineers for wood products. He told me that they were starting to move to self-directed work groups. He was very unhappy, because the six of them had always worked alone before, and he not only did not see how it could be an advantage to work as a team, he didn't even have a way to conceive as to how it was possible, since each one of them had always worked alone. I'm sorry that, even though I had training and experience with self-directed work groups [which, incidently, many of which had gone entirely bad, including the one doing the $112 million software project for the Company], I had neither an answer for him, nor did I perceive that it could end any way but badly for the lot of them: Another example of unworkable high concept in the Corporate Model. As an aside, I hearken back to the "Team Building" exercise which left everyone in Containerboard Packaging IT utterly frustrated. It was some weeks afterward that I met the HR person who had conducted it and asked him if the exercise would actually cause people to become rebellious and insubbordinate and he answered "Yes" to the question.

btljooz
btljooz

"It is so good to find someone who is not frightened of the truth." Actually, I've never been frightened of the truth. A Spade is [u]not[/u] a Heart or Diamond ...or even a Club...a Spade is a [b][u]Spade[/b][/u]. However, as you've guessed, I [u]am[/u] completely and totally (redundancy intended) "Disgust[ed] with the modern American workplace and society in general" as I feel a tiny bit [i]'victimized'?[/i] by it? I guess that is what is coming through to you as an "argumentative tone". Please accept my self-effacing apologies. :8} After all, it [i]can[/i] be much easier to come across the 'wrong way' on an impersonal discussion board in cyberspace than in person. I assure you that it was not directed [b][u]at[/u][/b] you, kama410, but instead in complete concordance [b][u]_with_[/u][/b] you! ;) "Actually, I when I referred to 'flies' I was not really thinking of any specific portion of an organization (Human Refuse, Micro-Management. I [i]love[/i] those. I'll be using them in the future). What I had in mind was a type of person who has become more prevalent in the workplace: The Looter (Vis-a-vis Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand). Those people who obtain their position by disingenuous, cowardly methods rather than by hard work and skill." OK, now I understand [u]your[/u] connotation of 'files' much better. I fully and unequivocally concur! "It is the rest of us who will pay the price of their guile." I can relate since I've been there and done that, myself, as did my late spouse. Hence, my "argumentative tone"/animosities towards those 'flies' [in certain ways] have been foisted upon me rather than being intrinsic. Ah, "The Lobotomizer": "This, I am certain, is the primary cause of the majority of the problems our nation faces." Actually, The Lobotomizer is not the cause. Rather, it is but one of the major vehicles that is used by the 'Destroyers' to brainwash the masses. ;) No, I haven't read the book -- yet! -- but I did find it in Wikipedia of all places. :0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged ). I must investigate further! It sounds quite interesting, to say the least. ;\ Ninety-nine point ninety-nine percent of the television watching I do is to imbibe in documentaries the on subjects of various interests I have such as [i][b]We Shall Remain[/b][/i] ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/the_films/index ), the 'News' (as told by the Lame Sc[re]am Me-D-uh ...so as to 'be forewarned' ;) ) and/or to enjoy the cerebral folly contained in Two & A Half Men and Frasier. That encompasses about two and a half to three hours a night, unless there's something else I want or need to do. That's all. I've never been swayed to run out and buy something in particular simply because it was 'advertised' on the 'Bube Toob' (aka The Lobotomizer) - or anywhere else for that matter. I find most television interruptions -OOPS- "advertising" to be quite inane, although on rare occasion a "TV Commercial" does educe quite a hearty chortle. "I think it is not because you have an education that you are excluded from consideration by the modern workplace. I expect it is because you project an air of pride and self-assuredness that these looters find inimical to their own counterfeit pride." [b]Thank you![/b] That was, in deed, an extremely refreshing gust of non-polluted breeze!!!

kama410
kama410

...is exactly the same as yours: Disgust with the modern American workplace and society in general. "All you did was discursively expound upon my point in a more incisive modus operandi facilitating the elucidation of that point." Thank you. It is so good to find someone who is not frightened of the truth. Even if you express your agreement with me in an argumentative tone. Actually, I when I referred to 'flies' I was not really thinking of any specific portion of an organization (Human Refuse, Micro-Management. I love those. I'll be using them in the future). What I had in mind was a type of person who has become more prevalent in the workplace: The Looter (Vis-a-vis Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand). Those people who obtain their position by disingenuous, cowardly methods rather than by hard work and skill. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." No, I don't think that is applicable in relation to this discussion. The people who are sowing the treachery and mendacity are profiting from it in great measure. At least in the short term. The more successful of them will profit in the long term, as well. It is the rest of us who will pay the price of their guile. If you watch television (hereinafter; The Lobotomizer) you will notice that absolutely nothing is sold on its merits. Everything is sold on an appeal to some base instinct. It is this clever fakery that has been inculcated into the minds of the young from the beginning of their lives and is reinforced daily by the observation of unrealistically depicted relationships portrayed by The Lobotomizer. This, I am certain, is the primary cause of the majority of the problems our nation faces. I think it is not because you have an education that you are excluded from consideration by the modern workplace. I expect it is because you project an air of pride and self-assuredness that these looters find inimical to their own counterfeit pride.

AV .
AV .

The interview was about making her look stupid when it should have been about what Sarah Palin is all about. AV

brokndodge
brokndodge

some poorly setup ubuntu box's. today we encountered a small glitch. i quickly dropped to the command line and brought the network back online. my sales manager was looking over my shoulder. after he picked his jaw up from the floor and reinserted it. he asked me 'why aren't you doing that for a living'. the only thing i could come up with was 'they won't hire me. please don't tell IT i know how to do that, they'll get scared and i'll lose my job.'

tbmay
tbmay

Most of us agree with you. Unfortunately it's not up to us.

brokndodge
brokndodge

selling used cars for a living. i simply can't pass the interviews. if you want a good admin, don't ask him questions. you probably wouldn't understand teh answers he gives and he probably needs a few reference manuals to give the quality answer he thinks you need. instead, hand him a troubled machine and tell him "it won't go, can u fix it?" that i can do, in a breeze.

Editor's Picks