Irritating Habits of HR People

[Psionicist]

5. (My favorite ) You've got four items in the helpdesk queue -- A VP can't print an email, an admin assistant is having trouble printing, the mail room guy says IE crashes when he brings up the shipping web page, and the web developer is having trouble because a recent patch broke something. What order do you do these in? (The individual problems change depending on the position and work site). (The correct answer, for those interested, is 3,2,1,4 -- know why?). Bonus points if you ask pointed questions before deciding.

Ehh, why are not 3 and 4 of almost equal importance? I dislike Internet Explorer, but it's very mature and if it crashes now for whatever reason it's caused by something, a recent new security patch perhaps. I'd first check if 3 and 4 are related before fixing 3 that can potentially affects lots of people (even if the page is internal).

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Ehh, why are not 3 and 4 of almost equal importance? I dislike Internet Explorer, but it's very mature and if it crashes now for whatever reason it's caused by something, a recent new security patch perhaps. I'd first check if 3 and 4 are related before fixing 3 that can potentially affects lots of people (even if the page is internal).

3 first because the guy in the mail room actually does work, and has no recourse. If he can't get the mail out, he gets yelled at whether it's his fault or not.

4 last because the damned web developer has a test system that was patched a week in advance of the live system first and once again he didn't test his stuff like he was supposed to. Plus, the web developer is ostensibly an IT professional and can fend for himself better than the guy in the mail room.

Now, these questions are subjective, and dependent on the environment. Someone asking those the kind of question you did is showing that he's capable of analyzing the situation and making rational decisions. Someone that says 'I help the VP first' is a suck-up that doesn't know how to prioritize based on how critical the situation is. And I wouldn't necessarily dock someone points just because they don't know I hate my web developer

 

[DaveMage]

Rodrigo speaks wisely.

When I interview, I use a resume to tell me who's qualified. Once past that point, the resume is much less relevant.

If you got to the interview process, I'm looking for who is the best fit for my office. It's not always the one with the best resume. It's the one with the type of personality I'm looking for. If you meet minimum qualifications, I can teach you the rest of what you need to know. What I cannot do, is change your personality. THAT'S why a resume is only useful to a point.

 

[ssampier]

2. What are your strong points and weak points? (This is kind of a red-herring -- I'm more interested in the latter part of the question. Someone that says 'I don't really have any weak points' is lying. Someone that says 'I sometimes have a problem with remembering things, so I'm extra careful to write things down' is golden. It's not the weakness, its demonstrating that you are aware of places where you need work and that you are taking steps to counteract them).

You just described me to a T. At work I have lots of sticky notes with "To Do" lists on them so I don't forget anything. I didn't realize that was a good thing to mention in a interview (of course I'd leave off that I write them on sticky notes).

5. (My favorite ) You've got four items in the helpdesk queue -- A VP can't print an email, an admin assistant is having trouble printing, the mail room guy says IE crashes when he brings up the shipping web page, and the web developer is having trouble because a recent patch broke something. What order do you do these in? (The individual problems change depending on the position and work site). (The correct answer, for those interested, is 3,2,1,4 -- know why?). Bonus points if you ask pointed questions before deciding.

I think it depends on the company. Anything to do with actual production should be a priority. On the drop of a hat, I'd say VP first simply as a Internet tech support person I cater to our company board and managers whims all the time.

Secondly, I'd consider how many people are affected by the system, one or thirty.

In any case, I appreciate the advice!

 

[IronWolf]

Someone that says 'I help the VP first' is a suck-up that doesn't know how to prioritize based on how critical the situation is. And I wouldn't necessarily dock someone points just because they don't know I hate my web developer

Hhhhmmm, I must have worked at all the wrong places. Given the scenarios you described the VP would have been given preferential treatment in just about every case. Short of a server issue that has stopped multiple people from working, the upper management staff has usually always been cause to bump them to the top of the queue and fix their issue, no matter how trivial their issue. Not trying to suck up, its just how things worked. Again, maybe I just have worked at the wrong places.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Hhhhmmm, I must have worked at all the wrong places. Given the scenarios you described the VP would have been given preferential treatment in just about every case. Short of a server issue that has stopped multiple people from working, the upper management staff has usually always been cause to bump them to the top of the queue and fix their issue, no matter how trivial their issue. Not trying to suck up, its just how things worked. Again, maybe I just have worked at the wrong places.

Oh, I've worked at places that would be the same way. I get in trouble sometimes because I don't play that way. But, in my experience, *most* people are reasonable. If you zapped the VP an email and said 'I'm working with Dave right now. We're having a problem that's keeping the product from going out and the UPS guy is gonna be here any minute. I'll get to you as soon as I can.' they're usually understanding. The key part, and the hard part, is learning when their seemingly trivial problem really is critical, and helping them learn how to communicate that. "I'm having a problem with Powerpoint" is low priority. "I'm having a problem with PowerPoint and the investors from Japan are going to be here in a half-hour" is another matter entirely.

With the ones that aren't understanding, I just wait till something comes up that's really trivial and then let them raise a stink. Making them explain to the President or another VP that you should get in trouble because you were removing a virus from a PC instead of helping them understand why they couldn't get to their online broker is priceless.

But, this is an interview, remember? So, say something like "Well, it should be 3,2,1,4, because of xyz, but in my experience the VPs get priority". Score points by demonstrating your triage skills *and* that you understand that the world isn't a perfect place

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

You just described me to a T. At work I have lots of sticky notes with "To Do" lists on them so I don't forget anything. I didn't realize that was a good thing to mention in a interview (of course I'd leave off that I write them on sticky notes).

It's all in how you pitch it. This is a question that's come up in every interview I've or anyone I know has been on, and yet a lot of people seem to put no thought into it. What you are trying to do is subtly turn a disadvantage (I forget things) into an advantage (I always write things down). Similarly, another one that works well IME is 'I have a hard time delegating, but I've really been working at it and I've learned how to break things down so that projects are managed more easily and everyone on the team is contributing.' Disadvantage: tries to do everything -> Advantage: has developed good team leadership skills.

I once worked for a former Admiral that had been a fighter jock back in the day. This guy lived for checklists. I sat in with him while he conducted an interview one day and when the candidate mentioned that he always made a checklist, I almost laughed out loud cause I knew he'd just said the magic words.

 

[ssampier]

It's all in how you pitch it. This is a question that's come up in every interview I've or anyone I know has been on, and yet a lot of people seem to put no thought into it. What you are trying to do is subtly turn a disadvantage (I forget things) into an advantage (I always write things down). Similarly, another one that works well IME is 'I have a hard time delegating, but I've really been working at it and I've learned how to break things down so that projects are managed more easily and everyone on the team is contributing.' Disadvantage: tries to do everything -> Advantage: has developed good team leadership skills.

I once worked for a former Admiral that had been a fighter jock back in the day. This guy lived for checklists. I sat in with him while he conducted an interview one day and when the candidate mentioned that he always made a checklist, I almost laughed out loud cause I knew he'd just said the magic words.

I think I need more basic skills, I am always umm, errr, in interviews. I think I've only had one confident interview in my life (and I was in high school at the time). I'm fairly young and a recent college grad, though

 

[Zander]

All the hardest projects I've worked on involved a whole bunch of dealing with other people. Sometimes, that's exactly where the hard part was. The projects I do alone are the easy, small ones, or those where I happen to have a good, detailed and reliable specification (never happens). For all the rest, I have to deal with people.

I'm not saying that the prevalence of personality over technical skill is justified, but at least some social skill is in fact very helpful in many IT jobs. And lack of it can be a problem.

The trouble is that an interview is not going to tell you anything useful about a person's social skills except how good they are at interviews. That's not just my opinion; there's a mountain of evidence that interviewing is not an effective method of selecting employees and even produces sub-optimal outcomes for the employer. Given that interviewing is no more useful than tossing a coin and possibly less so, you might as well opt for the candidate that's the best qualified.

 

[Bront]

An interview is a way to read you. If you become easily irritated by questions, it's a bad sign.

1) Many interviewers will say they haven't read your resume when they in fact have, not only to see if you get upset at the question, but to make sure that your story matches your resume when you tell it (a way to make sure you're not lying). Also, some interviewers skim the resume, and prefer face to face to be the first impression, and then use the resume after that. Resume's are easy to embelish or falsify, so face to face contact or even phone contact has more merrit. As for the not on your resume question, your resume shouldn't be extremely long, so some people cut out certifications they think aren't as important, and that's why they ask.

2) It's basicly the same question as "Why should I hire you?" but it reminds you that there are others competing. By your answers, they can tell you confidence level, as well as potentialy any other personality oddities (Large ego, conceted, unsure, self depricating, ect). It is a competition in most jobs, over internal and external candidates, so let them know what they want.

3) Because they don't know if you're realy the best candidate. Important positions get 2-3 opinions for a job minemum, and people disagree. Pluss, occasionaly people don't work out because of background checks or other reasons. You don't buy the first car you like when you go car shoping, you look around for the best deal and the best car. An employee is a significant investment (I heard an estimate that it costs about your salary equivilent for the company to keep you employed beyond your salary, depending on the your take home pay and position of course), so you can't expect them to jump at the first thing that looks good.