2. Did you agree or disagree with the criticisms and why?
KE: If he agreed with some, you’ve identified an area of weakness; if he disagreed with all—an inflexible candidate, hard to manage.
HM: Agreeing with some of the criticisms seems to me to be a lot better answer than agreeing with none of them or all of them. Only a megalomaniac thinks he or she is always right and only a schnook thinks he or she is always wrong.
3. Where would you like to be in three to five years?
KE: Observe whether the candidate plans ahead and sets goals.
HM: Bag this answer: “I’d like your job.” It’s been overworked more than “Officer, I didn’t know I was speeding.”
3a. And how do you expect to get there?
KE: This will indicate whether the previous answer was truthful or programmed. Ask the candidate to explain in detail.
HM: Get beyond the obvious—e.g., “hard work” or “I plan to take lots of courses.” Be clear and specific as to how to meet the requirements and responsibilities and obtain the skills to execute your career plan. You should describe how you set goals, stay focused, and adjust your plan to meet changing conditions.
4. What would you like to change in this job to make it ideal?
KE: Why would he want to change it?
HM: “I don’t think it should be changed. I do think it has to be mastered, and that’s an exciting and challenging opportunity. Obviously, at some point in my career, I’d hope to be able to handle even more responsibility.”
4a. How would you describe the most and least ideal boss you could choose?
KE: Indicates personality preferences. Indicates “would he or she fit with future boss?”
HM: Cute, isn’t it? Particularly since you probably don’t have a clue at this time what your potential boss is like. You should finesse this one a bit: “I’ve worked with hard-driving, demanding bosses, and I’ve worked with bosses who’ve had such a light touch on the throttle, I’ve barely had any real supervision or direction. I can adapt to any style.” And then, move in for the kill: “But if you really pinned me down, I’d say it would be someone who gave me enough direction so I had a specific idea of what was expected of me and had enough restraint to let me do my thing without hovering over me every step of the way.”
5. What activities in your position do you enjoy most?
KE: Indirect way of ascertaining areas of weakness.
HM: If you have strong feelings about what you like best, you’re also revealing the opposite—what you like least. What are good things to like least? Well, for one, “bad morale.” So, you might say, “Being part of a winning team.” Who wants to be part of a losing one?
6. How would you describe yourself with three adjectives?
KE: Delve for three negative adjectives.
HM: Here’s another loaded gun. Obviously, no negative adjectives need apply, but even positive ones can have negative implications if they’re grouped in a way that suggests a weakness. For instance, “intelligent, efficient, reliable.” All great attributes, but when grouped together suggest an absence of human qualities. Is this person arrogant and aloof? Does he or she get along with people? The grouping “friendly, cooperative, a team player” suggests fine personal qualities but a possibly weak performer. Best to combine a few virtues to suggest strengths in both ability and personality, such as “goal-oriented, likeable, successful.”
6a. How would your subordinates describe you with three adjectives?
KE: What are the differences? Is the candidate sensitive to how other people see him or her?
HM: In my opinion, the correct response is to give the same answer you gave for number 6, and then smile sweetly and wait for the next question.
7. Do you think you praise enough?
KE: Secure people have fewer problems giving praise than insecure people. Psychological attitude toward praise indicates interest and ability to motivate. Development of self-esteem.
HM: “I love to get it, so I love to give it.”
8. What would you do if you detected a peer falsifying expense records?
KE: Indicates passive or active approach. Common answers: a. It’s not my business, b. Report it, c. Give warning. Gives indication as to morality, honesty, and ethics.
HM: In my opinion, the first answer is so bad I’d be tempted to stop the interview right there, if I were the interviewer, and send the candidate home. If you can’t even be trusted to protect the company’s interests against dishonesty, why should the company hire you? This isn’t swiping cookies out of your third grade classmate’s lunch pail. This is the real world. So get real. The third answer is acceptable, barely. It finesses the conflict between being a squealer and letting someone rip off your employer. Understandable, but still weak. Two is best. There’s a fourth approach, another finesse, which has the virtue of being a bit more proactive than the third answer: Confront culprits point-blank and try to persuade them to change the erroneous report without issuing a specific threat as to what your conduct will be if they don’t.
9. What would you do if the company you just joined gave you three thousand dollars to spend during the first year in any way you felt appropriate?
KE: May reveal areas of weakness if job related, or poor attitude if not job related. Important question is WHY?
HM: The obvious answer is the right one: a job-related use, such as taking courses. But you must be prepared for the inevitable follow-up question “Why?” because it is intended to probe for evidence of weakness, such as your lack of adequate experience or training for the position you’re seeking. Be sure if you answer “education,” the course work you describe is more advanced than that required for the immediate job.
10. If you had a choice, would you rather draw up plans or implement them?
KE: Draw up: Has tendency to think, innovate, conceptualize, theorize, risk taker. Implement: Has tendency to be a doer, follower (can be positive or negative).
HM: In a booming economy, don’t choose “implement” unless the major piece of equipment used in the job you are applying for is a broom. In a down economy, companies want action-oriented players who get results fast. Being an implementer in tough times can be seen as a positive.
11. State three situations in which you did not succeed. Why?
KE: Does he or she admit to any? Blame others? Is the candidate self-assured? Has he or she learned from it, and if so, what?
HM: Kurt’s notes are the elements of a winning answer. First, admit to having failed at some things. One example is too few: It suggests rigidity, a willingness to make only the barest, most grudging admission of the possibility of error. Three examples are too many. That response suggests that had the questioner asked for more than three, hey, no problem, you would have been able to come up with whatever number of additional failures were needed. Pick two—e.g., an attempt to get an A+ that netted only an A. Or a second-place finish in whatever. Hardly “real” failures, but admitting to having caused several total disasters is not in your best interests. Next, obviously, you don’t “blame others” for your own failures. And, of course, you are “self-assured.” Finally, what “you’ve learned” is to try harder next time, be better prepared, not to let defeat get you down or become a habit, and that succeeding is a lot better than failing.
12. When you fire somebody, what would be your key objective? Why?
KE: Look for: “It was deserved.” “It’s beyond my control.” “Protect myself legally.” “Keep company image clean.” “Get inside scoop/grapevine.” Or: Considers employee’s feelings, shows sympathy.
HM: “I felt I was acting in the best interests of both the company and the employee in question.” Follow-up question: “Why?” Follow-up answer: “From the company’s point of view, the employee’s performance did not meet our standards and expectations. Despite repeated attempts to help the employee improve, performance remained inadequate.”
13. What personal need do you expect to satisfy by accepting this position?
KE: This gives candidates the chance to identify their most important career needs.
HM: Your needs better track the company’s needs pretty closely, or what you’re still going to be needing is a job. I would lean toward answers that stress the satisfaction of setting goals, achieving them, and setting new goals. Companies see employees the way track-and-field fans see high jumpers. Every time the athlete clears the bar, they want to set it a little higher for the next jump.
14. What would you like to change in this job to make it ideal?
KE: How does the candidate respond when an authority figure makes an error?
HM: Here’s the all-time trick question: Question 4 is repeated here as question 14. Did you notice? If so, now what? Is this some kind of weird psychological test? A memory game? Do you pretend it didn’t happen? Is the interviewer trying to see if you change your answer? Do you correct him or her? Are you made noticeably nervous by the interviewer’s “error”? Kurt doesn’t give us a clue as to what the “right” response is, but my guess is that the only really wrong one is to overreact and make a big deal out of it. I’d answer in totally deadpan fashion, “I think this may have come up earlier, and as I recall, I said I felt no need to change the job itself; the need was to master the job as it is and then, if the opportunity arose, to assume even greater responsibilities at some later point.”
15. We all fib occasionally. Would you say something that is not entirely true? Give me three examples when you did.
KE: Discuss: Significant, insignificant, borderline lies.
HM: A tougher version of question 1. Again, this is to test your ability to walk the line between the answer that is too revealing and the answer that is too concealing. But there’s really a lot more happening here than meets the eye. Like question 14, this one is designed to measure how forthright and honest you are in your reactions to an authority figure. This time, the authority figure has not just made an inadvertent “error.” He or she has issued a
pronunciamento, a
moral judgment set forth as a statement of fact. The interviewer is saying that everyone lies, and everyone includes you, so the premise on which the question is based is: you lie. All beautifully contained and concealed in this perfectly innocent-sounding, perfectly conventional, perfectly legal, plain vanilla interview question. What’s happening here is you’re being tested not only on whether you fib but whether you will allow a perfect stranger to say that you do, when the person saying it can have a considerable impact on your future. Am I reading too much into this? Perhaps. Most of us do, in fact, fib. But remember, this test isn’t designed to provide employment for candidates who most nearly correspond to the norm. It’s designed to weed out average applicants and locate exceptional ones. I don’t see anything the matter with challenging the we-all-lie premise. I’d answer as follows: “Oh, I don’t think everyone lies, or, as you say, fibs. In my life, I’ve known people I believe never to have lied. So I have to tell you, I don’t think your premise is correct. I cannot say I have met that standard myself and have never lied. I know I have. I will say, though, that when I have lied, I’ve tried to confine it to social situations. I’m afraid not every baby I’ve seen is movie star material, and not every meal where I’ve been a guest has been worth four stars in the Michelin Guide.”
16. What benefits can be expected from threatening an employee to do better?
KE: If answer is other than “none,” probe further for candidate management and motivation style.
HM: Threatening employees is usually not an attempt to improve performance. It’s a calculated prelude to discharge. The threat is used in hopes of thwarting subsequent legal action—“We warned him or her, so the firing shouldn’t have come as a surprise.” No one is fooled. The hope is that the employee will get the message and move on before the discharge takes place. And
that
is the only benefit of threatening.
16a. When would you threaten an employee in order to improve his or her performance?
KE: Ask for examples.
HM: Threats are as common in business as coffee breaks. Employers threaten employees. Unions threaten management. Management threatens unions. A customer threatens a supplier with replacement if punctuality doesn’t improve. By threatening, the customer is looking for an easy way out. Thus, a threat is very often a sign of weakness rather than of strength. The same is true for an employer dealing with an employee. Threats only make real sense when they are part of a disciplinary process that might end in firing the employee.
17. If you encountered serious difficulties on the job for which you are now interviewing, what would they be?
KE: Reveals candidate’s area of weakness or fear.
HM: By now you should be able to ace this kind of probe. What you’re concerned about, of course, is not failure but success. You anticipate no difficulties but would hope to work in an environment that values teamwork, rewards initiative, provides opportunities for advancement, achieves its goals, and is a congenial place to work.
18. What are three things you are afraid to find in this job?
KE: Explores candidate’s fears (realistic or not).
HM: Another attempt to get you to spout negatives and reveal yourself as a bundle of psychoses. Since you fear nothing, you give the time-honored positive response. Your only concerns are that you have the opportunity to excel, and since your research has led you to believe this is the kind of place you can do it in, well, it’s not a concern at all.
19. We all have negative areas we would like to improve. Do you agree? If you do, could you give me three areas in which you would like to improve?