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.