Discussion on:

Questions you should never ask in an interview

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 !