Funny job interview stories.
'When I asked an applicant to tell me some of her positive traits she paused and then said, “The only time that I get drunk is on the weekends!”'
More here and here.
Even retail has standards. More than once I have seen women come in who were not even wearing a bra. No thanks!
Posted By Jolene, Hendersonville, NC : October 11, 2007 9:51 pm
Huh? sounds good to me.
Asked a candidate how his trip was on the Ferry, he replied: “Well the bar wasn’t open on the ferry so I couldn’t get drunk before I came here”. It was 9:00am.
Posted By Anne, Chapel Hill, NC : October 11, 2007 9:42 pm
Surely tongue-in-cheek?
Wore a sophisticated tie with a T-SHIRT . How can anyone make a ridiculous mistake such as that? I was feeling bitter by just watching him.
Posted By Sean, New York : October 11, 2007 9:10 pm
Wow.
Sounds like a humorous dresser.
F. I. added:
I think this story demonstrates two true-isms about typical office-based work situations.
The first is, that many of the competitors for job positions are genuinely underqualified, or at least underinformed, idiots. (This does not mean, by the way, that other competitors are not phenomenally competent.)
The second is, that many of the interviewers and decision-makers are equally unperceptive. Many of these supposed "mistakes" are really just sensible people trying to become remembered or noteworthy in the minds of the interviewers, but missing the mark because the candidate turned out to be so much more capable and intelligent than the interviewers were. The hard part, for bright people, is dumbing it down enough that even an average person can readily figure out what's going on.
I recall a similar situation which took place on some discussion boards for Monster.com. I was mentioning my frustration with the fact that, often, when I interviewed, the questions addressed base levels of certification (which I tend to lack). I complained that I had no certification in word-processor training, and that it seemed to me that such a certification might actually be to my detriment. Someone who has ONLY a cert in word-processing, to me, is someone under-educated for the many types of jobs (Publicist, reporter, advertising manager) which I was applying for at the time.
Many respondents, however, did not concur. Their answer was, "Well, if you can't word-process, why do you think you could go on to learn to be a reporter?" I had not said I COULD NOT word-process; only that I had not been CERTIFIED to do so, because my undergraduate and graduate institutions of higher learning were rather more intellectual and did not offer such mundane training, although I am perfectly adept and capable at most modern word-processors and can learn any new program, to full utility, in perhaps an hour or two.
Yet the board's respondents were not convinced -- to many of them, the absence of word-processing certification implied an absence of work skills. I was stunned that they could be so ... what's the word ... stupid. They even went so far as to suggest, that my failure to readily identify key-stroke combinations for certain main activities in certain word-processing programs meant my WRITING would be slower, less efficient. Do people really think that the only act of writing is, rapidly operating a word-processing program? The half a moment required to point-click the mouse for a cut-and-paste operation is, to me, immaterial when one considers the many minutes expended on choosing the right word, or standing up to get the dictionary, or stopping by the library to look up something in the encyclopedia. To them, however, a writer is someone who sits down and, as in a factory, would type as fast as humanly possible. If he can type eighty words a minute (as I can) he must be twice as fast a writer as someone who can type only forty words a minute.
Amazing, how little understanding of the job skills there was, in the minds of those discussing the matter. I was almost unable to "dumb down" my discussion sufficiently to convince the board's participants that they really misunderstood, when they thought my lack of a childishly simple certification implied lack of skills. What was worse, was that about half the respondents in that thread who had listened in and written statements (probably because they were interested in the subject) were actually people actively engaged in hiring writers! So, it's nice that they kind of said, "Oh, I see, well maybe I'll reconsider for certain educated candidates." But it's horrifying that, up to the time they had read that thread, they had NOT reconsidered, and had instead assumed that a word-processing certificate alone indicated all necessary job skills for the person they would hire to be a professional writer.
Somebody wrote:
Rewrite Your Resume
Resume not getting the job offers you were hoping for? Perhaps it's time to rewrite it. For best results, here's a list of 50 words we recommend you not include on your resume:
Abandoned * Absconded * Angered * Arrested * Bankrupted * Blundered * Botched * Bungled * Busted * Canceled * Compromised * Defrauded * Derailed * Destabilized * Discouraged * Disrupted * Distorted * Erred * Exaggerated * Failed * Flustered * Fouled * Goofed up * Help up * Indicted * Jailed * Klutzy * Lollygagged * Misguided * Misbehaved * Miscalculated * Misidentified * Muffed * Neglected * Overestimated * Overlooked * Robbed * Ruined * Screwed up * Sidelined * Stalled * Stole * Subverted * Underestimated * Undermined * Vilified * Waffled * Wavered * Withheld * Wrecked
Now you have an advantage over all the other job seekers. Good luck!
See, about 8 years ago I was looking to move on, and I floated my resume on Monster. I got several calls from head hunters who didn't seem to understand the industry.
ReplyDeleteSo one call I got I sat on for a few days, then read their website. It was a direct hire, and a cool sounding gig. I ended up with a Saturday AM phone screen, this led to an immediate on-site interview.
I was in ripped jeans and t-shirt in my office in the East Bay at the time, and headed straight to Silicon Valley. The interview went well, and I got a full on-site interview later that week, and the job offer within a week of that.
Dress code only counts where it counts, other times it's very much what you know and how you respond.
I think this story demonstrates two true-isms about typical office-based work situations.
ReplyDeleteThe first is, that many of the competitors for job positions are genuinely underqualified, or at least underinformed, idiots. (This does not mean, by the way, that other competitors are not phenomenally competent.)
The second is, that many of the interviewers and decision-makers are equally unperceptive. Many of these supposed "mistakes" are really just sensible people trying to become remembered or noteworthy in the minds of the interviewers, but missing the mark because the candidate turned out to be so much more capable and intelligent than the interviewers were. The hard part, for bright people, is dumbing it down enough that even an average person can readily figure out what's going on.
I recall a similar situation which took place on some discussion boards for Monster.com. I was mentioning my frustration with the fact that, often, when I interviewed, the questions addressed base levels of certification (which I tend to lack). I complained that I had no certification in word-processor training, and that it seemed to me that such a certification might actually be to my detriment. Someone who has ONLY a cert in word-processing, to me, is someone under-educated for the many types of jobs (Publicist, reporter, advertising manager) which I was applying for at the time.
Many respondents, however, did not concur. Their answer was, "Well, if you can't word-process, why do you think you could go on to learn to be a reporter?" I had not said I COULD NOT word-process; only that I had not been CERTIFIED to do so, because my undergraduate and graduate institutions of higher learning were rather more intellectual and did not offer such mundane training, although I am perfectly adept and capable at most modern word-processors and can learn any new program, to full utility, in perhaps an hour or two.
Yet the board's respondents were not convinced -- to many of them, the absence of word-processing certification implied an absence of work skills. I was stunned that they could be so ... what's the word ... stupid. They even went so far as to suggest, that my failure to readily identify key-stroke combinations for certain main activities in certain word-processing programs meant my WRITING would be slower, less efficient. Do people really think that the only act of writing is, rapidly operating a word-processing program? The half a moment required to point-click the mouse for a cut-and-paste operation is, to me, immaterial when one considers the many minutes expended on choosing the right word, or standing up to get the dictionary, or stopping by the library to look up something in the encyclopedia. To them, however, a writer is someone who sits down and, as in a factory, would type as fast as humanly possible. If he can type eighty words a minute (as I can) he must be twice as fast a writer as someone who can type only forty words a minute.
Amazing, how little understanding of the job skills there was, in the minds of those discussing the matter. I was almost unable to "dumb down" my discussion sufficiently to convince the board's participants that they really misunderstood, when they thought my lack of a childishly simple certification implied lack of skills. What was worse, was that about half the respondents in that thread who had listened in and written statements (probably because they were interested in the subject) were actually people actively engaged in hiring writers! So, it's nice that they kind of said, "Oh, I see, well maybe I'll reconsider for certain educated candidates." But it's horrifying that, up to the time they had read that thread, they had NOT reconsidered, and had instead assumed that a word-processing certificate alone indicated all necessary job skills for the person they would hire to be a professional writer.
How DOES one explain? And, better, having explained, then get the job? Usually, being stupid works better than being smart. I just can't hide my smarts enough to get along.
..."many of the competitors for job positions are genuinely underqualified, or at least underinformed, idiots."
ReplyDeleteOh, shucks! I wanted to say precisely that about you, but this is something that can't be spotted from the inside.
Never mind, I'll think of some other clever insult some time soon. Because it's my job, and I'm qualified for it. I'll be right back.
.
.
.
Please hold, thank you for your patience.
.
.
.
A-HA! Got it!
"If he can type eighty words a minute (as I can) he must be twice as fast a writer as someone who can type only forty words a minute."
This would explain the size of your posts...
(I like that one. Very nasty, innit?)
Wait-wait-wait, I have another one:
Final, you seem to attract dumb interviewers.
(Thank you, thank you. It's not mandatory, but you may applause.)
"I just can't hide my smarts enough to get along."
Too smart to be able to play stupid? Isn't that something of a paradox?
BA-DOOM-PAH!
I bet R.A.F.'s job interview was with a regular genius HR person... :-)
ReplyDeleteI should be so lucky. My last job interview went perfectly, but after 6 months, I was fired practically for being too competent. "You give your patients too much time", I quote; and I was criticized for answering their questions.
Guess I made the fancy Professors look bad by comparison. :-P