Re: Inappropriate interview....(Long but I'm venting so it's ok)

["Nina L. Panzica" <panin -at- MINDSPRING -dot- COM>]

At 02:52 PM 7/23/97 -0500, Michael Wing  wrote:

>I'll throw a curve to this discussion.  Suppose the intent of the
>questions was not to evaluate the respondent on her past experiences or
>handling thereof, but to gauge her reactions to the questions.  Maybe
>the job is in a pressured environment and deals with many irascible
>people.  By catching the applicant off guard with a series of negative
>and probing questions, the interviewer may catch her in her natural
>state rather than a prepared performance.  Thus, the real test is in her
>handling of the questions and not the answers or the amount/severity of
>past incidents.

While I see the plausibility of this line of thought,  I kind of wonder
about anyone who would think that such negative questions would catch any
interviewee in anything resembling a "natural" state. Many people go into
an interview situation already very nervous and anxious to perform well.
Expanding that nervousness or worry, making them feel on the defensive or
perhaps even shocked into silence at the rudeness of such questions, would
hardly seem to be evoking conditions in which a person acts the least bit
naturally, or like his or her usual self. I just can't believe that the way
already tense and trying-to-please interviewees would respond on the spot
to these negatively worded questions would have the least bit of
correspondence to how they would respond to a nasty co-worker once they
were hired and secure in their jobs. These are two very different
situations, and the artifical tenseness and sense of need that a job
interview brings out in many people would not be present in the second
situation, where earning one's living is not at stake.

>Maybe it's just me, but I bristle at people's quick and simple advice to
>run away as fast as you can.  It's so easy to give that opinion when the
>giver is removed from the situation.  It could only be the attitude of
>just the interviewer rather than the general atmosphere of the company.
>This advice is also given so readily without asking whether the
>interviewee is currently working, has immediate financial needs, has
>looked for a long time, is rooted to a small geographical area, and so
>forth.  Not everyone interviewing for jobs has more than one to select
>from and thus can tell the interviewer to kiss off at the first
>provocation.  If the job's worth having (or keeping), have some
>backbone.  Answer honestly and ask some probing questions back.

I agree with all of the above. What any one person should do in response to
such interview questions is dependent upon what their current situation is,
particularly their need for immediate employment. It can be easy, if you
are established in your field or even sought-after, to blow an annoying
experience or preson like that off, because there are often many more
attractive work opportunities to explore.  This may not be so, however, for
other people in other situations.

I especially like your last piece of advice: "Answer honestly and ask some
probing questions back." If placed in such a situation, assuming, of
course, I could hold back the angry sarcasm  that such questions might
automatically evoke, I would make one of my honest probling questions the
following: "Why are you asking me about so many negative aspects of my work
performance? Is there a difficult work environment involved with this
position that I should be aware of in order to make an intelligent decision
about whether I should accept it or not?"

Nina P.

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html