Discussion on:

Seven warning signs to look for when interviewing candidates

> She wants to work because she has bills to pay

Really, how/why do people waste their time writing crap like this. Granted, I enjoy my work but would much rather be on a beach somewhere - I and 100% of people out there don't go to work for our mental well being.

D.

This comment and the other about "informing your current employer that you're looking for another job" are right on. I have the sneaky suspicion, that the article writer, is probably fresh out of college, read a few snippets from a couple of texts and old notes from a "career prep" class.

If the author is reading this. Just for the fun of it, next monday, walk into your bosses office and tell him/her that you wanted to just be considerate and let them know that you are looking for a new job, one that pays quite a bit less, than you are making now. But will allow you some "beach" time off. And see what the reaction will be. Good luck....

I'm sure your boss is a considerate person and will ensure that you have that "beach time" as soon as he can arrange for your replacement. Your "consideration" as a team player will be highly valued by your machevalian boss who is trying to create a"win, win" situation. (i.e., He will win if he finds your replacement before you leave and will feel like he has won for the second time when he finds the reason to let you go because your plans to leave did not work out soon enough.)

Welcome to the real world!!

My wife had to relocate due to a death in the family, to provide caregiver services. I waited behind over 6 months because we were in the middle of a big project rollout.

During this time I softened my client up by mentioning my marital separation. At first in generalizations they were supportive and stated their wish to keep me working on a remote basis.

But as soon as I finally decided on a date to relocate (I had to, to maintain marital stability) the client and job shop wasted no time in finding an onsite replacement and making me obsolete, practically pushing me out the door at the same time demanding a complete turnover to the replacement.

Then after I moved, they kept finding excuses not to honor their previous committment.

It was a lesson learned for me - from now on I will be much more circumspect about my plans.

It's really dog eat dog out there. Watch your back.

I pity anyone subjected to this nonsense, for it will surely screen out decent individuals who don't perform the "HR shuck and jive" properly.

Discussing candidates' weaknesses is ridiculous. Everyone knows how to field those questions, so making sure they answer by HR standards will only screen out the very stupid ones. Bravo.

You advise against hiring people who tell you what you want to hear, but in suggestion #4 you recommend the person who recites the impressive phrase of buzzwordsyou described. That makes them a human tape recorder, not necessarily a good worker.

You state that those seeking raises are somehow undesirable or greedy. As a new father whose wife is now a stay-at-home Mom, I understand the rationale for seeking more pay. I work to support my family, not for the sheer pleasure of serving others.

You feel employees must demonstrate why they want to work for THAT particular company. Interviewees want a job, not membership in a "exclusive clique" or country club. IT workers want to be network administrators, programmers, etc. This question will force a candidate to make up an elaborate fairy tale. Saying a candidate who does not memorize details about the company and its competitors merely "wants to work because she has bills to pay. She might be able to learn the ropes and perform well, but she?ll never be a superstar" is nonsense. I knew nothing about the company I work for when I was hired, but knew quite a bit about the JOB. I've been here two years and I strive to be a 'superstar' every day.

FYI, some companies can't describe former employees other than verifying dates of employment or salary. This is due to fear of lawsuits. Candidates shouldn't be discarded because their former manager can't quickly whisper a few compliments into the phone.

I'm glad to work in the world of IT, which deals in substance, not imagery.

"She wants to work because she has bills to pay."

What a load of crap! Isn't that why we all work? If companies are looking for superstars then maybe they should do their hiring in Hollywood. I give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and am honest with my employer. I guess that just isn't good enough anymore.

I am also contemptuous of the attitude by employers that potential candidates must not be interested in a job but rather in playing the role of an obsequious serf in a fiefdom, pledging body and soul to the hiring master. Employment is a two-way relationship and hiring managers would do well to keep in mind that while you're screening candidates they're also screening the company in return.

There is an unfortunate phenomena easily identified in any newspaper's employment ads. I call it the"We want Jesus to work for minimum wage" syndrome. You know, the ads where the candidate must possess, this, that and the other thing, must have 15 years experience, must know how to program in C++ and Visual Basic, to work with hardware, install directory services, write scripts, design network infrastructures, build mainframes, know SQL code, troubleshoot routers, configure WAN links, and maintain AIX systems. Oh, and the pay is half what the position would reasonably entail. I don't believe the companies running the ads actually expect to find someone who fits all these qualifications, but the goal is to find a "close enough" match and then have the advantage in terms of negotiating salary and benefits since "You have some of what we're looking for."

If employers truly want to attract the best candidates and inspire dedication in them right from the start, I suggest not forcing applicants to jump through hoops or run through a "gauntlet" intended to demean or belittle them and give the upper hand to the company.

I have actually seen an advertisement where a company wanted a project manager with 7 years experience in a technology when it was only 2 years old.

I wonder what kind of a genius put that up!

I remember when XP first came out and very soon afterwards job descriptions required an administrator or support tech with "5 or more years experience with Windows NT 4.0, 2000, and XP."

NT 4.0 Release date: 1996 Jul 29 - 5 yrs 3 mos
Win2k Release date: 2000 Feb 17 - 1 yr 8 mos
WinXP Release date: 2001 Oct 25 - duh...

Makes you wonder who is actually writing the requirements; I HOPE someone from the IT department didn't send the wording to HR.....


Traveling Expat
Egypt

Preach the truth brother. Tell us about the almighty candidate. So true, though pathetic.

Amen couldent agree more!

Maybe this is why I keep getting passed over for a job. I was laid off 15 months ago when a company let go of 20% of its workforce. That company no longer exists today. So much for references.

I have 4 children - that means LOTS of bills to pay. This article seems to make that a reason to not hire me. And I though a good company knew that family comes first. Hmmm...

I have an MBA and 13 years experience with some top-notch companies. I've got really strong technical and business leadership skills too. I've achieved in every position I've ever had. If this is the "HR dance" I now have to do to be back in a position where I am using my skills in my chosen field, no wonder an honest, professional answer won't get you the job anymore.The sad part is there are some HR people and hiring managers who will read this article and think it's great! Then they will turn around and use it as a basis for why I'm not a desirable person when it comes to hiring.

Truly sad...

The economy is in a downturn, layoffs are rampant, and people really need work. Companies KNOW this, and that's why they're back to these silly scripted fishing expeditions. Someone like you who has been out of a job for a while goes to an interview, and this article advises against hiring you for being honest. When asked "Why do you want to work here?" you aren't supposed to tell the truth and say "I know I can do the work because I have the skills indicated for the position. I have mortgage payments to make, car repair bills to pay, and most importantly my kids need to eat and to have clothes on their backs. That's why I want to work." No, you're expected to concoct a silly story like "Once upon a time there was a magical happy land called [insert company name]. All the people at [company name] were productive and dedicated to the art of making widgets. Through their efforts it became clear to the rest of humanity that making widgets at [company name] was the way to achieve enlightenment and fulfilment, because they had the opportunity to devote their best talents to [company name]. I would like to work for [company name] so that I can also offer my devotion, abilities, and life to further the endeavors and maximize the profits of [company name]."

This article indicates that an employee who doesn't play this game and give the "right" answers is not company material. Well, I think it's the other way around. I think any company that would put a saddle on an employee like this and make them giddyup on command is beneath consideration.

I was laid off as a result of a merger and all the people at the company who would have been able to give me a good reference were also laid off.

However, that didn't stop me from using them as references up until I got a job nine months later. Perhaps I was just lucky to be interviewing with people who recognized the importance of what the fellow layoffees had to say.

Did everyone see the writer's name? I think the Republic knew this was gonna blow some collars up so they just threw it out to see how much we'd burn it down.

Like they say in court. The printed media is triple hearsay. Don't believe the hype!

...with this quote from the article:

"Do you really want to hire someone who might someday leave you in the lurch?"

Sure. Why not? Almost everyone leaves this way, shopping around without alerting the boss first. Leaving in the lurch (i.e. unfairly) is generally defined as leaving without giving appropriate notice (from two weeks to one month or so, depending on the field.) or before a reasonable amount of time on the job (two years is a common guideline in most fields, less for some IT fields.)

If a candidate doesn't want to give references from a current job, it's typically because they fear reprisals from a bad boss, or they just feel weird about it.

However, it is perfectly reasonable to demand a current supervisor once the candidate has made the short list. The candidate is often willing once there is an interview scheduled and the prospect of a good offer is more likely. Or they may not. In other words, both sides can negotiate this point without it reflecting badly on either, and both sides can make their decisions. It doesn't "mean" anything.

A far more important issues is a candidate's failure to submit a direct former or current supervisor as a reference. If the references are a combination of friends, coworkers and buddy administrators who were not direct supervisors, then there is indeed a problem that the candidate must explain. You should also directly question each supervisor reference to confirm this. Sometimes candidates use the term "supervisor" loosely. If there's any question, have the candidate verbally describe or actually draw a departmental organizational chart, and confirm it with the reference.

In short, worry about references' supervisory relevance more than their currency.

Your answer is why I'd never hire you for an important job in our company. People who are in it just for the money are a waste of our time.

Enjoy the beach.

You had said that 100% of the people don't go to work for their mental health.... i for one have to disagree with that....

I go to work because I enjoy it. I find my work relaxing yet challenging.....

Sure some of you would like to sit on the beach somewhere but I for one like to work or else I would be really bored...

Basically, speak for yourself unless you know the complete facts of everybody in this world.

For the very same reasons the article warns about...They just want a paycheck...

The author of the article REALLY needs to start eating their own dogfood!

Most of the comments appear to be from people thinking about being hired, not about doing the hiring. I made two REALLY bad hires (several good ones). I had to live with the consequences and eventually fire these two people. I learned some lessons, and I think this article makes a lot of good points.
The only one I don't agree with is the last -- not being able to talk to the CURRENT employer. Want to get fired fast? Let them know you're loooking! Exception -- sometimes the really valuable employee gets offered a retention incentive but more often than not it is not advisable to let your employer know you're looking.

I agree w/D. The one job I had (IT Mgr/Web/Ofc Mgr) that I totally LOVED..I worked 18 hours a day/6 or 7 days a week downsized. Then it was over year before I found a job as a admin assistant working for the State...Do I like my job? It is ok--the people are nice. Is it what I want for a career? Not really. Does it pay well? no--not even close...BUT I NEED TO PAY MY BILLS and after a year I had no choice and I was desperate--and I WANT TO WORK. What a stupid thing to say regarding not hiring someone because they really dont want to work because they arent ga-ga over you, your company or the job. Who knows...maybe that candidate, with the right coach/mentor, training, and support may be your BIGGEST and BEST employee EVER... You treat your employees decent, for the most part you will keep decent employees. Right on "D"..

You know I have had several careers before I landed one in IT, over time I have found that it is much better to test someone?s skills rather than chatting about irreverent and generic HR topics, if a person is going to be considered for a programming position or a Network Administrator position a good test of there skills is far more productive than all the bureaucratic dribble listed by the author of this column. If the company lets this HR person delegate the hire process with these kinds of assessments that it is probably not the right company to work for! Thus the company will be discouraging a quality IT professional from working for them. I know if it was me I would politely let the interviewer know that this is obviously not the right company for me to work for and explain why! I have a close friend that was once asked during an interview if they would rather be a butterfly or an earth worm! When I heard this I was beside myself, I couldn?t believe that an IT professional should be subjected to this kind of thing. I think the author of this column probably should go out and ascertain some real life IT expertise.

Heres my 2 cents..

when an interviewee tells you that she "has bills to pay", it is not wrong.

but why do people generally don't like such answers?

I guess the main reason is the interviewee does not put in effort to impress the interviewer, and does not think about how she can contribute more than what the company pays her.

I think the fault lies with the lacking of effort to impress (which shows that your genuine interest) and effort to think how you can contribute (Why would a company pay someone for less than what they contribute?)

This was a great article. As many have alluded, it clearly made some obvious, albeit overlooked, points when interviewing candidates to bring on your team.

Asking probing questions that require detailed answers not only gets at the heart of a candidates skills / experience but also tells you whether they can communicate clearly and succintly.

Remember, at the end of the day, that candidate, if hired, is a direct reflection of you and your team.

From the article -
"If you can?t talk to anyone at the candidate?s current employer, it?s probably because they don?t know he?s shopping around. "

I'm sorry, but in an otherwise reasonably good article, that just doesn't make sense.

I'm sure in the ivory towers of human resources it would be great if employees notified their employers that they wish to become ex-employees and are actively seeking employment elsewhere.

However, in the real world thats not how it works. One of the surest ways to find yourself becoming an ex-employee before you'd planned is to actually let a superior know you were thinking of moving on.

Amen!

I have other comments but I will start another thread.

As Shantalla indicated, technical staff would be less than intelligent to give any indication that they are shopping around. And I recognize that this is as general a statement as the original premise. Under certain circumstances it could be appropriate. However, when cutbacks are imminent how many managers or HR departments go to employees to say "Hey, sorry but in two months we'll be laying you off. Thought you might like to know."

The situation determines what is appropriate. And every candidate will not be a SUPERSTAR nor does every position require one. Now if the article had been titled "Seven ways to hire a SUPERSTAR" maybe this would fly.

The author certainly makes some good points. Just stop for a brief reality check every nopw and again, it might be worthwhile!

A company can not work if it is all Superstars. Teams and departments need a balance of agressive, energetic people, and quiet solid workers. If a team or department is made up of all superstars, then there is usually intra-departmental fighting andnothing gets done; it's usually due to the strong personalities and conflicts. A company that is made up of a mix of personalities and skills will accomplish more through the synergy of the team in place. See book "Teams in the Workplace" for more information.

I think that if you notice you superior that you want to move, he will have 2 options: to know why you want to leave and make some negociations to keep you or fire you on the fly. It's a double dare. I'm in this situation now and gave some advice tomy boss to let him know that, now, I need more challenge in my current job. I'm waiting for a MCSA course paid by my employer but if nothing come close within one month, I'll be seeking for another job.

YanoS

"I'm waiting for a MCSA course paid by my employer but if nothing come close within one month, I'll be seeking for another job. "

If you can't study and pass Microsoft tests on your own initiative, I'd say you'll be hard pressed to find another job.

My company ***does not*** have a tuition reimbursement program. I decided to go back to school anyway and I've been accepted, and enrolled into the BSIT program, at the University of Phoenix Online. I'm doing this on my initiative; no one else, at work at least, insisted that I attend classes anywhere, and I have to pay for it myself.

I too have informed my employer I am seeking other employment if something that uses my skills does not open at the company. I have been here over a year now. At my one year review, I indicated that my personal goals of were I wanted to be had notbeen met. I indicated that when I asked what I needed to do to move up, I was told to take some classes. I took them and still have not been moved up. When I asked again, what do I need to do, how can I improve, I was told I did everything I was asked and I just have to wait. I let them know I did not see any advancement potential and would look elsewhere if something did not open. I gave them a year as they asked but they cannot give me the consideration indicated when I was hired. I know sit in a corner, waiting to get "the box". They will fire me as soon as they can. I hope to find something before I get "the box"

If a superior knows you are looking for a new job you are a good employee; the superior will either start looking to replace you or superior will give a bad reference to keep you from leaving.

If I was getting a positive reference from an applicant's superior then I would wonder if the applicant is a bad employee he/she is trying to unload without having to fire and/or pay unemployement for.

When was the last time you told your current employer that you are thinking of moving on for better challenges,etc....
If one of my staff indicated they were shopping and would appreciate it if I could be a reference, that would pretty much be the end of my efforts to advance them in their current position. I would take it as indicating I should keep there responsibilities more tactical rather than strategic since I don't really know how much longer they will be part of the team.

Good insights. Good advice.

Granted you should earn the raise and have the drive, motivation, maturity, and SKILLS to back it up.

And please... The job hopping of the dot com days bordered fraud with people moving into a higher job just long enough to get new cards printed.

Now it is morning and the hangover has begun.. I figure the hangover will end in the second half of 2003.

I figure a 10% gap in the market is acceptable because it is better to have the devil you know than the devil you don't.

But when the margin exceeds 10% and there isn't a reasonable chance of that gap narrowing then it is time to move up!

My company's HR Director actually asked at what percentage would I move. I answered 7.5. She put me at 8% so I will be here for another four years.

Now an excellent company would pay higher than average so that no one would want to leave for money.

The article starts out by being under the gun with too much work, not enough time, and an open position and then says of one appropriate candidate, "She might be able to learn the ropes and perform well, but she’ll never be a superstar." Wellif you're going to hold out for a superstar, then don't hold your breath. By definition, those folks are few and far between. If you're under the gun, hire someone who can do the job; otherwise if you have some other superstar, he may get burned out and leave (and I doubt he'll inform you that he's looking).

These suggestions are enrichment of the interviewing skills for most IT managers. IT managers are obviously long on the management of systems and the like but, it appears, short on the management of persons. And, management of persons begins with hiring the correct one and doing it properly as suggested by the author.

I snickered and sneared through this article. Too much, nay all fantacy and no reality. As most replies here point to, this just is not the real world, just Utopia.

Here's the scary part: These questions have been asked by some of the companies that I worked for... This very same format and wording I have heard used several times by managers and HR. People that I know who excel in their positions and who excel in leadership roles get turned down because they don't know how to show their experience in an interview like this.

I personally don't like the "logic" behind it at all. I think it's degrading and tries to build you into a robot for the company (I'm helping the bottom line by working hard, nevermind my starving kids!). Unfortunately, lots of companies use these "techniques" to weed out what they think are the worst candidates for jobs. Well, when the economy gets better (or when everyone realizes it's just companies cutting employees to hit their profit hungry CEO standards), that's when these type of companies see turnover rates much higher than standard.

My favorite moment the last couple of weeks has been seeing Rigas from Adelphia in handcuffs. I wonder if the feds asked him what his greatest weakness was?

We all know what their weaknesses were!

I interviewed for a job that had alot of the same crap in it that was written in this article. In the middle of some questions that had a hundred different answers I stopped myself and explained to the guywhy I wasn't good for their company. Interview Over. I got outta there with great relief. I found out the other day the the guy who interviewed me was gone. This interview was only a year ago so I guess he didn't like it either. Sweet Justice!

At first I want to thank the writer for an interesting article. Secondly I want to thank fellow-readers for the insight into the issue(s) this article covers.

However, concluding from the sentiment arisen from this article: Could it be that thearticle has touched some sensitive points?

The evitable question that non-constructive criticism causes regarding most readers of that criticism, is - "Why do you tell me this?" Unless the person rating the article can give a straight forward answer to this question, the reason for the so called criticism is just pouring lamentations in others eyes.

If you have a real point to make and your goal is constructive criticism ? that's good. But why not give valuable examples of how to approachthe subject and how to deal with the issue.

It a rough underestimate of fellow readers' intellect to just bellyache how useless or "wrong" points the Author has made, if nothing is given instead.

What we look for is desire, pure and simple. Desire to succeed in difficult circumstances (isn't that the very nature of software development?), desire to make more money, desire to do your very best, desire to be part of a winning team. And that iswhat we interview for.

As others have stated so well, parrots I can buy at the pet store...

What the suggestions described in this article instruct an interviewer to look for is a person who can quickly and cleverly toss out the most creative, spell-binding answers to questions. This has absolutely nothing to do with finding a technical wizard who can keep the company's systems running, thereby ensuring the bottom line and justifying their employment.

I'll admit that a sharp thinker is an asset to a company, but Ted Bundy was very sharp as well, so tests like these aren't a properjudge of quality personnel. They don't focus on legitimate ability but merely reward those who can "talk the talk." Job seeking IS based on selling oneself, but IT depends on proven performance, not the glib recital of "approved" answers.

Look at what these seven suggestions entail. "Backing up" one's adjectives. Giving confident responses. Smoothly addressing "weak areas" in a manner that makes them look like assets instead. Providing catch phrases harping on hot buttons like customerservice. Not admitting that the job search is based on improving one's life, but "wanting to serve the company," Rattling off a couple of canned facts regarding the company in proper genuflection to the awe-inspiring existence of the would-be employer. Stacking the deck with quality references. None of this is going to net you the best fish for the job. You'll simply wind up with the one that can talk the most jive.

I suggest focusing these interviews instead on one's IT background, experience, and accomplishments, demonstrating exactly what one can bring to the role through their knowledge and wisdom. The company I work for followed that path and after hiring me earned my complete devotion. The companies I worked for in the past, all of which slavishly followed these procedures, inspired absolutely no loyalty on my part.