Discussion on:

Questions you should never ask in an interview

( Don't say doing your wife, Don't say doing your wife, Don't say doing your wife, Don't say doing your wife, )

"Doing your son?"

*Classic*

"when do I start?"

"Does the company have a drug policy?"

I've noticed that some recruitment agents say "never discuss pay on the first interview" - generally from experience I have found that these almost always means that the agent has lied to you about the salary/rate of the role. It is ALWAYS within your rights and sensible to verify any information given to you about a role, especially if that information persuaded you to attend the interview.
Explicitly take notice if a recruitment agent tells you which questions not to ask at an interview - it can be an exceptionally good indicator of what they have lied to you about.

Surely details like vacation time don't need to be asked, that information should have been supplied as part of either the job description or at the interview? Although that's really a U.S specific view, as most other countries have statutory holiday entitlement that applies to everyone. Yes, it's true, the U.S.A. lags sadly behind on the vacation time front.
I'd ask for a job description if one is available, that's always useful.

... I get 5 - 6 weeks a year, as part of my entitlement. Which I can take all at one go. I'd be flat-out taking 2 weeks back in Calif (working as an RN in a hospital) - more than that, I'd have to apply for a sabbatical.
Ridiculous.

An applicant is supposed to have asked in the first (and last) interview "What about company loans?"
Answer: We leave loans to the bank.
End of interview

Ms Halll seems to think that only the recruiter should appear to have a choice, in an interview situation. While it's true that (usually) emloyees must work to make a living, it's also true that employers must hire in order to produce... A employment contract should definitely be a win-win situation, and I've always felt that, as much as "Why should we hire you?" is a legitimate question from the recruiter, I'm equally entitled to ask "Why should I work for you?" and get a convincing answer... "Because we are going to pay you a minimal wage for as much workhours as we can get" is definitely not convincing...

While I agree, I think that type of approach is for later in the process when you have made the short list or an offer has been put on the table. My frustration is that most employers think the only thing in an offer is a dollar amount, we all know there is much more to consider. Just look at employee surveys.

when you wait too long into the interview process to ask the money questions, you might be surprised to find that the salary is NOT what you were looking for, the company has no benefits to speak of and you've wasted a lot of your valuable time in the process.

I wonder sometimes if the authors at sites like this one don't deliberately give bad advice just to get people to post a reply showing that the author is doing their job and increasing the viewing of the ads on the page.

...and I thought I was cynical LOL

Couldn't agree more. If you have a good resum you're calling the shots. I also think it's in everyone's interest to have a crystal clear idea of the job (the duties and the privileges involved). There's no use in a shady interview if people are gonna leave after 2 months because of things left out in the interview.

What you've said is true enough, but the interview isn't the place for it. The questions are things that a bit of research will generally tell you. And, if not, they are things to talk about during the offer. They hold the job -- you have to convince first that they want to hire you. Once you're at that point, it is time to talk terms.

Having said that, I would never ask "What is a typical work week like" or "What do you like about working here" or similar. These silly questions don't impress me as someone who is prepared for an interview. Interview should be some kind of conversation about the company, the job and the candidate, but I would hope you could come up with specific questions based on the interview.

I think that: "Ms. Hall says, Bottom line: An interview should be about what you can give to a company, not what you can get from a company." is a bit backward. It is actually two things going on during an interview, first the applicant that is trying to market him/herself as a good employee, second the company trying to market itself as a good employer.

I would find it stupid to sign the contract in case the company have not convinced me that they are a good employer. A very one-way interview is a strong sign that this employer is probably not a good choice.

And yes I might go to an interview not being that convinced about the quality of the employer just to find out, just as they may call people on interviews just to find out.

Companies with that attitude don't deserve the best and I doubt that they will get them. Still you should probably not ask the questions above, but if the employers dont tell you about these things, the silence will indicate their answer.

I absolutely agree with Anders on this ... no question should be off limits if you are just trying to find out what the deal is about the job, the conditions, and your remuneration ... in fact I think it is a joke to say otherwise

When I go for a job, yes I am trying to sell myself, but I am also asking myself the whole time "are these guys worthy of employing me", and way more than once I have walked out on an interview, either because they would not reveal such information, or because they were misleading or deceptive in the way it was presented (and if I had know the truth I would never have come to the interview in the first place), or some other similar reason.

There are plenty of dodgy employers out there, and if you DON'T ask these kinds of questions, then you are really taking a huge risk with your career.

The main point of this article was that it was O.K. to ask questions, just dont ask stupid questions. From your response I gather you are either a C.E.O. or unemployed.

I like your comments and I am totally agree what you said about these guys

The company is interviewing the candidate as a potential employee.
The candidate is interviewing the company and a potential employer.

It's a negotiation of equals - both parties should be able to get legitimate concerns aired and addressed so that they can each make an informed decision. With the possible exception of the 'bring you dog to work' question, I don't see why these shouldn't be legitimate enquiries. Better to get them on the table up front, than to have these become issues down the road. Ms Hall needs to realize that 'at will' works in both directions.

actually, I personally think (having met a company who have a pet friendly work-place), that even the dog thing is a perfectly legitimate question ... if someone is looking for an animal friendly workplace, and if they will actually consider turning down the job on that basis, then why not ask the question early in the piece & save everyone the time of taking the interview process further if there is no point doing so?

But it is not a negotiation of equals, at least in the first interview. They have something that you need. That puts them in the driver's seat initially. Once they are ready to make you an offer, then you are on more of an equal footing. The time for pay, benefits, etc. is during that offer phase. This almost never comes during the first interview when they are interviewing several people to decide who they want to hire.

If they are advertising to fill the position and you meet the qualifications, then it's quite obvious you have something they need, which brings us back to a negotiation of equals.

I did not miss that, I personally believe that you should get as many questions out of the way as early in the process as possible ... after all, why waste your time (or theirs) continuing through a process, if you can discover reasons why you are going to step out of it? ...it makes no sense NOT to ask these questions as early as possible ... both parties should be looking for the "deal-breakers" from their own perspective, and it is not up to one party to determine what someone else's deal-breakers are or should be.

the company that hired the recruiter wouldn't be doing so hot-to-trot either...

Funny how you play into the supply side paradigm so one-sidedly...

Only if you consider "competetive salary" and "excellent benefits" as a 'listing'.

great point Nick, the details provided in many job adverts is really lacking any depth of detail ... the two quotes you gave there ("competitive salary" & "excellent benefits") really don't mean anything.

I automatically assume salary descriptions of "competitive", "market", or "based on experience" to mean the prospective employer is going to try to low-ball whoever gets hired.

So far, I've not been disabused of that assumption.

yes there are a lot of techniques people seem willing to use to mislead candidates to come for job interviews & consider things that you wouldn't otherwise consider ... and so I guess in a way, what they are looking for, is that person who is still as naive as we used to be before we learned the lesson ... the person who has no idea what they are getting themselves into.

Never say never: If the job ad said "we may allow you to occasionally work from home" OF COURSE you can ask "how often". If you already have a vacation booked in 6 weeks time that cost more than you're going to earn in the next 6 weeks OF COURSE you should ask how quickly you accrue vacation time, and as a prospective employer I want to know that before I make you ANY sort of offer.

And if you walk in to an office for and interview and see cats, dogs and guneas pigs under every desk of course you can ask "CAN i BRING MY DOG TO WORK ...TOO". I allow my staff to bring dogs (and small kids) to work provided they are friendly and well behaved and socialised... I'd sooner they ask the question up front that just assume and us have a problem day1.

I think Vitamin T are slightly up their own.... to slap the NEVER word in front of these

It should be can I bring my kids to work, when I get screwed over by wife/sitter/circumstances - LOL.

They have iPad/DS's so won;t run around. My 9 year old say work was boring when I was in a bind and had to bring her for the day.

Then I think it'll be much clear. You work very hard and build a company. You need new employees to improve the operations or extend the company. You need some members to work with you, to support you. Then candidate asks about vacations, working from home policies etc. While you work very hard to build the company from scratch, do you employ some selfish people just to give them your money and increase their comfort level? Of course there will be rules and borders but the essence is always the same.

Your goal as the owner of the company is ultimately to pad your wallet. Is it any wonder employees are EXACTLY THE SAME?

Employees are trading their time and talents in exchange for your capital. Just as your customers expect a good product or service in exchange for their money, employees expect you to compensate them fairly for their time/services. The idea here is that BOTH the employer and the employee get something they want. The thing is: no two employees value the same things. You should actually welcome these types of questions as part of the interview process because it exposes the corporate culture the potential employee is looking for. This is a big deal. Instead of looking at these questions as a burden on you, look at them as a window into them: their motivations, their concerns, etc. If you find that they want things that don't match well with your company this way, you've just saved yourself from hiring someone who isn't going to perform well at your company. Isn't that worth a little Q&A?

Yes, we work hard to build our companies.

We know that it takes customers to buy.

We know they are workers.

They can only spend if they get good pay in return for their work.

I like giving merit-based pay, as appreciation for what my workers do. I don't demand more out of them, for the same pay and/or after pay cuts.

I only give out pay cuts if I have to take them.

And my company runs on software built by others, uses automobiles others built, on roads other people paved...

So spare us the cant on who should be thinking of the other's POV. I, and others, already do.

Are the young job seekers today really so stupid they need this advice? Are they really so dumbed-down?! My generation would not have entertained such stupid questions. I guess the American youth of today are no-brainers to use one of Dick Chaney's favorite phrases.

Young job seekers may be looking for more than a paycheck. You spend 1/3 or more of your life working. If you don't enjoy the work a little then the other 2/3's is going to not be as enjoyable. Sure, if you really need a job and will take anything than don't ask the questions. If you have a job and are looking for a good move then make sure it is a good move by asking questions that are important to you.

Bill

One time I interviewed a woman (not so young) for a position who couldn't wait to get through the job description part of the session, seemed pretty confident and sure of herself. Then when I asked if she had questions, oh boy, did she have questions: how many breaks a day, how long were they, was the lunch a whole hour or half hour, what about paid vacations, how long did she have to work before getting a vacation, what about leaving early, etc. I know that benefits are important, but it appeared to me she was more interested in HER time than ours. I did not hire her.

1. Liability issues.
2. Distracts other employees.
3. Your performance is subpar.
4. If there is a way for something to break, or get screwed up, a kid will find it.
5. If there is no way for something to break, or get screwed up, a kid will invent it.

Ms Hall didnt say not to ask those questions, but to wait till you get to the offer stage!

Well i disagree with some of what the article is talking about. First off a hiring company can ask you about almost anything they want, give you quizes ask you obscure questions to see how you react and think, but when it comes to basic questions about your pay and work environment you cannot ask. Please take a reality pill. these types of conversations are not in reality. first off. you can ask what you want . if you prove you have a good head on your shoulders and qualified you will most likely ask lots of questions throughout the process the politically incorrect ones will be forgotten about. The process should be a give and take with you engaged in the process. if you save up for the end you will not most likely be hired. Remember once you are hired you are stuck so you better find out all those dumb questions ahead of time, you do not want to be working for a company and be suprised on your first day.

My last employer was a real stickler about prosecuting.

1) What is the time line for bringing a person on board?

2) What are the process steps for bringing a person on board?

3) In case there is a delay in this timeline, would it be appropriate for me to follow up and if ok, with whom?

Questions about the dog etc can come later when the offer is made: May I have a copy of the HR policies for this position?

Especially in Sales where travel is required, the HR policies - which define many expense entitlements like Business Class travel for longer distances - can become a deal breaker.

Good luck with your job searches!

Any questions about pay and compensation should be asked even before the first interview - after all why would you invest time and effort preparing for an interview for a job that plays much less than what you really are worth?

And to that all important follow up question, "Is it negotiable?" My answer is "Yes. But you will need to talk to my official negotiator on this."

And any recruiter who shies from revealing the compensation, you should avoid completely.

As a job seeker you should know what you want and research the company before even wasting time in applying. Depending on the position, the interviewer, and the level of interviewing it may require different prospective. If you are being interview by the HR person those questions are valid at any time, if you are being interview by your future peers the second set of questions would be valid at any time. There are no fast or set rules, you must know what the outcome of the interview is before you get into and know your interviewers goals for the interview, if you do not know simple ask them. A simple question on the start of the interview will give you what you need and gain their respect; ask something like ??? I like to provide you with the best information that will help you make the best decision to fill your position; can you tell me what is important to you in the candidate and what is your outcome for today meting or interview?
My bottom line advice, technical people and engineers need to spend some time learning some basic people and sales skills, after all in an interview you are selling yourself and the interviewer is selling you the company.

Sorry, I disagree with most in this article. While I'd never ask if I can bring my dog to work unless I needed him as a seeing-eye dog, I think it is viable to #1 get the salary ranges and vacation/holiday expectations established before any interview takes place. The "experts" claim that we shouldn't be working for money but working because we LOVE working for this particular employer...BullHOCKEY b/c I'm sure 90% of the people in this world only work because they like to eat, wear clothes, and not live in a cardboard box in January in Chicago. If the company isn't going to even deal me with something reasonable, then it's not worth the effort b/c most of us will be spending 70% of our lives at work and want to be compensated fairly; #2; why not ask if WFH is allowed? Again, if the said company wants a dedicated, hard-working individual like me and isn't going to allow me to give me flexibility so that I can maintain some sort of work-life balance so I can at least take my kids to the doctor or see a soccer game, then it pushes me to move on to find someone who will. Eventually companies do wise-up and realize that by being sticklers, they are losing good talent, which in the end becomes more expensive than trying to work together.

I agree with Anders Eriksson comment first the applicant that is trying to market him/herself as a good employee, second the company trying to market itself as a good employer.
You have to find out if the company is a good employer; a lesson I learned for not asking "How long did the person in this position work for the company" and/or "How many people have held this position in the past 10 years"
I found out the hard way in the past 10 years 5 people have held this position. That meant that the average person only lasted 2 years before they were replaced. All due to the director and manager made their life horrible.
If I would have asked that question in the beginning I would have found out before hand there was an issue with management and/or leadership for there to be such a high turnover in one position. Point is, don't feel like your in a desperate position that you will accept anything, interview the leadership because you are going to spending allot of time with them in the future.

An interview is a tryout for you and the company. Some like to use the first date analogy. How an employee gets paid is very important and should be asked. How much one would be compensated is a no-no until you are asked by the person interviewing you.

The interview is as much about what you can do for the company as it is about what they will do for you.

never wait. ask the questions you want answered. jobs are NOT just about the employer. if you have any skills and you're qualified for the job, ask. if asking an important question (to you) keeps you from getting the job, is it really the job for you? are you a good fit for them? important... yes. is the job a good fit for you? probably more important in the long run if you're looking at a career position as opposed to a job to pay the bills. employers should be happy that you're asking questions. to me it should say, "i'm looking long-term at this job." of course, today's work environment tends to look at people as disposable, but that also lends itself to a culture of failure, low goals, low expectations and shoddy output. it's takes quality to produce quality. companies cannot succeed in the long term with such an environment. in the end, what do you think you're worth?

There are many comments here about the interview process being between equals and such. When you live in an area where real unemployment is about 20% and over 400 applicants for most professional jobs, there is no equality in the interview process. The hiring company holds all the cards.

If you're hard up for a job, I would agree with this advice. If you are an experienced professional who wants to have a balanced and enjoyable career I think it's important to set expectations up front.

Obviously there is a tactful way to gain the same information besides blundering your way through rapid-fire self-absorbent questions and I think that's what the author was really getting at.

Why did the last person leave? What if they were caught embezzling? I really, as someone who interviews, would not be comfortable with that particular question. It stands the chance of putting the interviewer in a defensive position, especially if there were bad blood with the previous individual in that position. All you should expect to get, at the most, would be "they decided to explore other opportunities". Not, in my opinion, a question that accomplishes anything positive.

I agree with phlcidrolin

you are not attending a lecture, it is two way conversation where you must determine if the company fits you, just as much as they want to know if you fit the company

I got a bite on my application to a very large aerospace company in the Pacific Northwest I won't mention and I will fill out the electronic paperwork.

My question is this: I don't really want to work for them, but given the circumstances I wouldn't be able to turn down an interview. I am horrified at the prospect of coming out of retirement, but would like to leave my options open.

I'm pretty sure with my age alone, they wouldn't consider hiring me, but just in case -- please give me some really subtle questions that aren't really obvious (like the excellent ones in the blog entry) that I can use to have them drop me like a hot rock.

Many spring to mind like: Will I be able to discuss my work outside (company name here)? Is a past bankruptcy a problem? Do you actually hire people from (my last place of work)? (My past employer) doesn't allow anyone working for them currently to give references: Can I use people they've fired for my references? (My last job) was so stressful because management lied to me that my psychiatrist gave me 7 weeks off to recover from them (true story) -- would that be a problem here?

I would appreciate any other suggestions, since you folks here are really smart and creative.

I know, I know -- I shouldn't borrow trouble and it's probably a non issue since they may not give me an interview, but I like to be prepared just in case.

Thanks.

As one who has been on both sides of the hiring table, I totally agree with Ms Bowers. I want to hire a person (and be a person) that has a vested interest in the company. If the first thing out of my mouth says, "What's in it for me? What are my perks?" that hardly communicates an interest in the welfare of the business. Note that she doesn't say such questions should go unspoken, she just says they should wait for a second interview, or the "negotiation" phase of the hiring process. To try to get such details "out of the way" on a first interview sends the wrong message; to think you're "saving time" by asking about perks in a first interview almost guarantees you'll save time--you won't get called back! Patience in such matters is indeed a virtue.

This little paragraph is a great example of what is wrong with corporate America:

Ms. Hall says, Bottom line: An interview should be about what you can give to a company, not what you can get from a company. Save those questions for the offer stage, after your prospective employer has determined youre the right person for the role. Selfish is not on the shortlist of any desired skills list Ive ever seen!

I will not work for a company who see me as a commodity (again)
Ms. Hall and Ms. Bowers should be ashamed of reinforcing the notion that our innate desire for self-preservation and happiness should be a demerit condition for unemployment. Once the Tech Sector gets hot again, talk like this will be laughable and 'The Talent' will be treated as such, so until then; a heads-up is good, but a rap across the knuckles is oppressive.

In the interview I have at my new job, I did ask about a realistic salary ceiling, to compare with what I would have if I had stayed with my old company. I agree with phlcidrolin, sometimes you also have to put the pressure on the employer to sell the company to me as well.

... I probably don't want to work for them anyway.

Any halfway decent interviewer should have, at least, brought up and answered the first question; and the second question, if appropriate to the position.
As for the second set of questions, question seven has to be answered; with questions four and five answered if appropriate to the position.
Interviewers giving only partial information do the company a big disservice.

I've interviewed many people for both low-level and high-level positions and I've been interviewed. I've never been an interviewer nor have I been interviewed by someone, in which interviewing a person who knew what they wanted and was willing to respectfully ask for it wasn't greatly appreciated. The timidity represented in the article above does no one any good. There is a wide gap between appearing selfish and wanting to know the environment you might be stepping into. Unless one is extremely arrogant, it is easy to stay off the "selfish side". I once walked into an interview with five pages of questions I wanted answered. The interviewer was so impressed I was hired two days later. The key is to match the interviewer and then ask your questions within the context of the communication relationship that you have established. Whoever does this controls the interview and it works every time.

It looks two me like there are two different ways of looking at this: the 'upfront' exchange between equals, and the 'hold your cards close' get what you want and worry about the other guy later.

Myself I'm more of the 'upfront' type. I'm going to ask the questions I feel I need to know and want to work for a company that feels the same way. Others are definitely the 'whatever it takes to get in the door' type. Holding back questions that until you feel you've 'got them where you want them' and where they've made an investment in time and effort towards wanting to hire you -- to me that sounds like your trying to take advantage of them. I don't want to work where I'm worried about them taking advantage of me, or I'm constantly trying to take advantage of them (either in my eyes or theirs). I want to work someplace where both sides are looking to mutually benefit each other, not who can get the best of the deal, but each to their own. There are people who are out there only looking out for themselves, but each to their own.

As for me, I'll be upfront and trying to be an asset anyplace I go -- as long as they do right by me they'll have the benefit of a good employee. If they don't, well I've never had a hard time finding a company that does want one...

Shame on you...Only an idiot woud ask those questions!

Hah, that's so topical. Did the author spend a whole 5 minutes writing this? I've seen columns with better stereo instructions. Top recommendation: USE YOUR BRAIN DURING INTERVIEW.

I never ask about pay in the first interview unless it comes up by the interviewer. Benefits, though, is different.

This was apparently lost on some of you in your rush to criticize. The hiring manager is usually the person you'll be working under. It is not necessarily the person who holds the purse strings or defines the compensation package. For questions about compensation, you ask HR. You ask the hiring manager about what the day-to-day experience is like. If you've only worked in very small operations, maybe you can be forgiven for not knowing the difference.

However:
"Ms. Hall says, Bottom line: An interview should be about what you can give to a company, not what you can get from a company.""

Sound byte garbage. A prospective employee is entitled to ask questions about what they stand to gain professionally and personally from any employment arrangement. They want to know how their current skills will be used and valued and what opportunities there are for learning new skills and growing their career. Again, employment is a mutual arrangement. We shouldn't forget that recruiters are paid by employers, so it's not surprising they tend to over-represent the employer's agenda and minimize the candidate's. Wouldn't it be refreshing if employers and candidates approached one another from positions of mutual respect? I've seen both ends of the spectrum. People in general are just so stupid a lot of the time.

Chew gum.
Dress like a slob.
Ask for a drink.
Display your aborigine tats and piercings.

Should be completely unnecessary. Why is it necessary? Is this behavior part of the MEllenial culture?

I once asked the exact question "Will there be overtime" and the answer was "No". However, the question should have been "Will overtime be paid ?" because the answer was "No, overtime is not paid".

Lesson learned.

This might be good advice in USA, but here in Sweden the given advice is always that you should inquire not only as to what you can do for the hiring company, but also what the company can do for you.

The articles here at techrepublic point only in one direction: techrepublic endorses corporate fascism. But hey, who's surprised? Not me.

Working from home may not be a taboo question since many IT staffers are usually on call and equipped to work remotely. Framing the question about after hours support and remote access may be a better approach. Asking if the company reimburses for Home Internet Usage may be fair too. If the company expects "A,B and C" and you are willing to provide that value, then paying,using and reimbursing for "A, B and C" is fair game.

I'm not sure about asking, "If not, why did the previous employee leave?"

Reason being if the previous employee left because of the working conditions (excessive hours, relationships with boss's and/or other employers), the interviewer is likely to evade the truth.

The answer was "You get loans from the bank". End of interview

If it's the hiring manager etc, these are probably okay. If it's HR, how else are you supposed to know these things? Wait until you've wasted everybody's time and multiple interviews when any one of the questions you're not supposed to ask could be a deal breaker? Not everybody needs the first offer.

I have been wondering if the answers in the interview are the most important aspect to hire a person. Usually, people would give you the answers they think you like. The ones who can provide the best answers may not the best fit.

Employers have trampled workers' rights for too long. It's about time someone slapped them down for it.

Me doing your grocery shopping for you without a detailed list. If I buy milk maybe I didn't know you prefer 1% over fat free, chicken products over turkey products.
Companies have gotten lazy in the hiring process.

I've never been a big fan of asking lots of questions at interview (or as interviewer, being asked lots of questions at interview). While I acknowledge it demonstrates an interest in the position, I tend to be of the view that a good candidate should do a fair bit of homework before the interview. I absolutely agree that discussing pay at the first interview is not the way to go.

. . . at an interview to be a Solicitor:
"Do you always prosecute in cases of staff pilfering?"

Could not help myself...

Some of them should be asked. Depending on the salary scale. You don't want to start searching for a new job after a few months because of the extra $200 a week you pay for parking/tolls/fees to get there. My son travels a lot and he need to ask who pays for the parking at the airport for 4 days. He gets an allowance for meals, but it doesn't fully cover them, so some of that comes out of his pocket. I worked for a Catholic University (1990's).. got paid once a month !