|
On April 04 2012 01:21 AUGcodon wrote: err, the op is asking for advice, not what you think about the interview system.
Anyways, the interview is a game for the most parts. The interviewer is gonna be basically smiling at you throughout the whole thing(make sure you smile back). Ask you a series of questions, in the back of their mind they have a checklist for what is "right". of course every interviewer is going to differ from each other, but the generic questions remains the same.
Take the classic "Tell me about yourself question". Its the first question and it basically tell the interviewer if you actually know how to do an interview. I gave advice for how such as question can be answered.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=325902¤tpage=4#66
Also, hate to break it to you but you are going to have to play nice with people in most of your jobs. In this day and age, don't like working with other people is a pretty big breaker for jobs. I'd have an impossibly hard time to find an example of a person who hates persons.
One question they might ask you is show me a time where you resolved interpersonal problems in a group project. This question is usually revelant for managers but its something to keep in the back of your mind. When this question comes up, you are suppose to give a specfic example of how you dealt with a problem in a workplace before.
My analytical chemistry professor worked in industry before, he was a group leader. when companies hired, he had to go under a 3 hour- pyscoanalysis. Most serious companies go out of their way to hire people who are not assholes I've honestly never a had or seen an interpersonal problem in a group project. Ever. This includes almost 1.5 years of work and many years at uni.
|
-what's your weakness? -cryptonite
|
Must be hard to live in a world where everything is white or black...(i.e. with no shades of grey)
You dont have to be a dickhead to "not" fit in with the rest of the employees. Can be personnal ambitions or philosophy that goes in contradiction with the company. Can be your preference to act as team lead or in some sort of leadership position while the only position available or most of your tasks is/are supervised.
There's workaround HR people, if you know someone inside the company. Until then, you gotta rely on a decent curriculum and a well written presentation letter, not to mention "perform" well in the actual interview.
|
I wonder what the interviewer would think if one answered the question with: "I have very strong political views."
|
On April 04 2012 01:31 Lonyo wrote: "My biggest weakness is thinking about this question too much, because I always wonder whether the interviewer is asking it as a serious question, and expecting to use my answer as an actual insight into my character at face value, or whether he/she knows it's a horribly clichéd and meaningless question, and is using it to gain insight into how I deal with questions that offer insight purely based on the way in which a person responds, rather than the actual content of their reply".
Part of this has to do with the culture of the company conducting the interview. Company A might be looking for a response that indicates you have devoted a significant amount of time to your interview preparation and expects a polished "corporate" type response. A different company, perhaps a small software development company, might look for some personality in the response, something witty, on the spot, whatever.
|
On April 04 2012 01:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:18 AeroGear wrote:On April 04 2012 01:07 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 04 2012 01:00 sharky246 wrote:On April 04 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 04 2012 00:22 Keitzer wrote: Wait... are you asking for a lie to tell?
Or are you asking for advice on how to cover for you flaws?
Because obviously it's a plus to be able to work in a team, but if you can't do it, and really want the job, then I guess the only thing left to do is lie about it.
Edit: er... maybe LIE isn't the right word... maybe... extend the truth .. like... say you PREFER to work alone, although you are able to work in a team (implying you can do both, but you've also stated your preferences) You speak as if "working in a team" is impossible for someone who works alone. Or that "working in a team" is a hard thing to do, and a rare quality amongst the general population. A buffoon can work in a team. I've never met or known anyone who cannot work in a team. when people ask about being able to work in a team, they are usually asking can you be able to work WELL in a team, as in having good teamwork with others, you know, the guy who blends in nicely with his co-workers. And for course, that isn't suited for everyone, just the extroverted people. And when people say 'im the type who works alone but can work in a team', it usually means he: a) can work DECENTLY in a team b) can't work in a team, but doesn't want the guy to know Can you give an explicit criteria and definition in plain English (not corporatespeak) for this? Really...? Teamwork in a workplace is as much about efficiency as it about having healthy professionnal relationships with your coworkers. In school it does'nt matter as much, since you switch teamates pretty much on a semester basis, and they are only with you for specific classes. In a workplace environment they are with you 35-40+ hours a week, there's no room for hostility or resentment, it pollutes the workplace and makes everyone's work harder. Not targetting anyone in particular, but if you know nothing about professionnal interviews (as in career and not some meat patties flipper summer job), dont come in here with horrible advices. So basically working efficiently, which is what everyone is (ideally) always required to do, and not being an dickhead to other people. It must be so hard to find nondickheads who can work efficiently (nothing to do with teamwork, but just work in general).
Look, even though its required to work efficiently, not everyone is capable of that. Employers need confidence. And the gpa of a person provides (or doesnt provide) that confidence. And also, being a dickhead and not blending in are not the same thing. Believe it or not, you can be a kind person and still not blend in.
|
On April 04 2012 01:39 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:31 Lonyo wrote: "My biggest weakness is thinking about this question too much, because I always wonder whether the interviewer is asking it as a serious question, and expecting to use my answer as an actual insight into my character at face value, or whether he/she knows it's a horribly clichéd and meaningless question, and is using it to gain insight into how I deal with questions that offer insight purely based on the way in which a person responds, rather than the actual content of their reply". Part of this has to do with the culture of the company conducting the interview. Company A might be looking for a response that indicates you have devoted a significant amount of time to your interview preparation and expects a polished "corporate" type response. A different company, perhaps a small software development company, might look for some personality in the response, something witty, on the spot, whatever. I cannot fathom why any company would want this.
There are thousand better ways to measure preparedness.
|
On April 04 2012 01:34 paralleluniverse wrote: I've honestly never a had or seen an interpersonal problem in a group project. Ever. This includes almost 1.5 years of work and many years at uni.
So we can conclude, based on your extensive 1.5 years of work experience, interpersonal problems are a thing of the past and nothing to be considered in hiring interviews.
/thread
|
That I can't care for the job more than the money necessitates.
|
I had that recently, and I said "I'm fine with stress, I'm fine with nerves, I'm fine with pressure, I'm fine with a cmobination of any 2, but when all 3 come together, just like most people, I don't do too well. However, after only a few days on the job, nerves will go away, and I'll be fine"
|
On April 04 2012 01:39 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 04 2012 01:18 AeroGear wrote:On April 04 2012 01:07 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 04 2012 01:00 sharky246 wrote:On April 04 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 04 2012 00:22 Keitzer wrote: Wait... are you asking for a lie to tell?
Or are you asking for advice on how to cover for you flaws?
Because obviously it's a plus to be able to work in a team, but if you can't do it, and really want the job, then I guess the only thing left to do is lie about it.
Edit: er... maybe LIE isn't the right word... maybe... extend the truth .. like... say you PREFER to work alone, although you are able to work in a team (implying you can do both, but you've also stated your preferences) You speak as if "working in a team" is impossible for someone who works alone. Or that "working in a team" is a hard thing to do, and a rare quality amongst the general population. A buffoon can work in a team. I've never met or known anyone who cannot work in a team. when people ask about being able to work in a team, they are usually asking can you be able to work WELL in a team, as in having good teamwork with others, you know, the guy who blends in nicely with his co-workers. And for course, that isn't suited for everyone, just the extroverted people. And when people say 'im the type who works alone but can work in a team', it usually means he: a) can work DECENTLY in a team b) can't work in a team, but doesn't want the guy to know Can you give an explicit criteria and definition in plain English (not corporatespeak) for this? Really...? Teamwork in a workplace is as much about efficiency as it about having healthy professionnal relationships with your coworkers. In school it does'nt matter as much, since you switch teamates pretty much on a semester basis, and they are only with you for specific classes. In a workplace environment they are with you 35-40+ hours a week, there's no room for hostility or resentment, it pollutes the workplace and makes everyone's work harder. Not targetting anyone in particular, but if you know nothing about professionnal interviews (as in career and not some meat patties flipper summer job), dont come in here with horrible advices. So basically working efficiently, which is what everyone is (ideally) always required to do, and not being an dickhead to other people. It must be so hard to find nondickheads who can work efficiently (nothing to do with teamwork, but just work in general). Look, even though its required to work efficiently, not everyone is capable of that. Employers need confidence. And the gpa of a person provides (or doesnt provide) that confidence. And also, being a dickhead and not blending in are not the same thing. Believe it or not, you can be a kind person and still not blend in. Working efficiently is about working in general, it's got nothing to do with teamwork. It's a quality that is mostly determined by what you know and how smart you are.
So teamwork is now defined as not being an awkward loner or not being a loser with no friends? How well you can start a conversation at lunchtime or entertain a crowd at the Christmas party?
|
On April 04 2012 00:27 AeroGear wrote: There's no bad interview, every interview you do, makes you (or should) better for the next one.
A bad quality can be anything really, what is important is to show them that you've identified it and are working/have worked on improving it, and ideally provide examples of it. Doesnt have to be professionnal experience, can be linked to school or even non-curricular like managing a local sports team, a fundraiser or other social outlet.
I'm usually upfront about these things, you dont want to appear overconfident, but you want to show them that you're always striving on improving yourself, even in areas where you perform well.
If I take back your example about not being a team player. You could explain that during your studies, you got used to relying on yourself and thus dont have as much experience working with a team. At which point you concede that bigger projects needs the involvement of multiple specialists and that you strive to be a part of these large scale projects.
My personal example was the following: I was'nt organized or didnt keep track of my train of thoughts when I worked on design projects or basicly any science projects. I would just scribble things left and right and come up with the answer. As important as it is in school, it is even more so in a company. I've learned to work with agendas, design logs, keep my files and folders up to date, annoted, etc. There's room for improvement still, but I'm aware of it and working on it.
This, almost have a similar story.
In my experience it is good that you recognize a flaw (of course not tooo major, but can definitely something that you realized during your study or internship) but also to mention that you are improving it or at least thought about how you want to improve it.
|
On April 04 2012 01:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:39 Kaitlin wrote:On April 04 2012 01:31 Lonyo wrote: "My biggest weakness is thinking about this question too much, because I always wonder whether the interviewer is asking it as a serious question, and expecting to use my answer as an actual insight into my character at face value, or whether he/she knows it's a horribly clichéd and meaningless question, and is using it to gain insight into how I deal with questions that offer insight purely based on the way in which a person responds, rather than the actual content of their reply". Part of this has to do with the culture of the company conducting the interview. Company A might be looking for a response that indicates you have devoted a significant amount of time to your interview preparation and expects a polished "corporate" type response. A different company, perhaps a small software development company, might look for some personality in the response, something witty, on the spot, whatever. I cannot fathom why any company would want this. There are thousand better ways to measure preparedness.
As an employee of a business, you are a representative of that business. At some point, you may come in contact with clients or potential clients. At some point, those clients or potential clients might ask you a question. A company might want their representative to be prepared so handle questions. If someone hasn't bothered to prepare themselves for questions likely to be encountered in a job interview, which determines their own success, why would such a person prepare when in a position representing the company ?
I'm getting the impression that you're "that guy".
|
On April 04 2012 01:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:34 paralleluniverse wrote: I've honestly never a had or seen an interpersonal problem in a group project. Ever. This includes almost 1.5 years of work and many years at uni. So we can conclude, based on your extensive 1.5 years of work experience, interpersonal problems are a thing of the past and nothing to be considered in hiring interviews. /thread Interpersonal problems are almost mythical. I've never experienced it. I've never seen it. I never heard of anyone who has seen it. I do not know a single person who knows of a single person who has seen or experienced it or heard of it.
Surely, they must exist somewhere, but it's probably as rare as bird flu.
|
The best question I ever got asked in an interview was "Why are manholes round and not square?"
To the OP's question I usually answer "I work more effectively alone than in a group."
|
On April 04 2012 01:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 04 2012 01:39 Kaitlin wrote:On April 04 2012 01:31 Lonyo wrote: "My biggest weakness is thinking about this question too much, because I always wonder whether the interviewer is asking it as a serious question, and expecting to use my answer as an actual insight into my character at face value, or whether he/she knows it's a horribly clichéd and meaningless question, and is using it to gain insight into how I deal with questions that offer insight purely based on the way in which a person responds, rather than the actual content of their reply". Part of this has to do with the culture of the company conducting the interview. Company A might be looking for a response that indicates you have devoted a significant amount of time to your interview preparation and expects a polished "corporate" type response. A different company, perhaps a small software development company, might look for some personality in the response, something witty, on the spot, whatever. I cannot fathom why any company would want this. There are thousand better ways to measure preparedness. As an employee of a business, you are a representative of that business. At some point, you may come in contact with clients or potential clients. At some point, those clients or potential clients might ask you a question. A company might want their representative to be prepared so handle questions. If someone hasn't bothered to prepare themselves for questions likely to be encountered in a job interview, which determines their own success, why would such a person prepare when in a position representing the company ? I'm getting the impression that you're "that guy". Because it's your job...
You sound like a HR representative attempting to justify your relevance.
|
On April 04 2012 01:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:39 Kaitlin wrote:On April 04 2012 01:31 Lonyo wrote: "My biggest weakness is thinking about this question too much, because I always wonder whether the interviewer is asking it as a serious question, and expecting to use my answer as an actual insight into my character at face value, or whether he/she knows it's a horribly clichéd and meaningless question, and is using it to gain insight into how I deal with questions that offer insight purely based on the way in which a person responds, rather than the actual content of their reply". Part of this has to do with the culture of the company conducting the interview. Company A might be looking for a response that indicates you have devoted a significant amount of time to your interview preparation and expects a polished "corporate" type response. A different company, perhaps a small software development company, might look for some personality in the response, something witty, on the spot, whatever. I cannot fathom why any company would want this. There are thousand better ways to measure preparedness.
It shows you care and are really interested in the job. Showing you've done research about the company, what they do, their philosophy and goals is a pretty sound investment in getting the job.
Last interview I had, I put in roughly 40 hours of work into it. Reviewing typical interview questions and answers, reading about the company profile, their accomplishments and awards. It helps in making you much more convincing and confident during the interview. It also confirms to you that you do want the job. The last thing an employer wants is someone who fails the probation period...they lose time and money.
|
On April 04 2012 00:15 urbanleg wrote: Hey guys, I just graduated in computer science, i started to look for a cool place to work at,
been so far in 2 interviews, and i got the feeling i blew them at the HR part when i answered this question:
1) i prefer to study alone (failed - not a team player)
2) im stressed out easily (failed - that might be a problem)
any ideas of good "bad" qualities for the next interview i got tomorrow?
p.s - perfectionist won't do since its too obvious these days.
thanks
"I sometimes write a little bit too much documentation for my code."
Or you could rephrase the existing ones into more positive things. Working alone when you aren't performing tasks that directly depend on divergent thinking should benefit from you not attempting to perform them whilst trying to socialise.
|
I always go with disorganized.
edit: read more of the thread. Thank god I've never had to do this.
I usually just meet the people hiring me and talk random stuff with them, try to come across as a nice reasonable human being and it always seems to work...
No idea how you Americans hire people, but that just seems weird
|
On April 04 2012 01:43 paralleluniverse wrote: So teamwork is now defined as not being an awkward loner or not being a loser with no friends? How well you can start a conversation at lunchtime or entertain a crowd at the Christmas party?
This is exactly how many HR people judge potential candidates. I mean hell, in America we voted for the president "we'd rather have a beer with"
Thats just how it goes and you have to play the game if you want to be a corporate drone.
|
|
|
|