Timeline for How can one interview somebody for a job requiring work under severe stress?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2020 at 9:06 | history | edited | Mithical | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add image description for accessibility
|
| Apr 1, 2014 at 9:39 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ian | ||
| Oct 5, 2012 at 16:28 | comment | added | Briguy37 | Thanks for all the comments. I see that the original test left/would leave a bad taste in many people's mouths, so I've updated my answer to give the candidate a better feel for the purpose of the test before starting, give them a chance to opt out of it, and to lessen/remove the sense that the company/interviewer is a killjoy. | |
| Oct 5, 2012 at 16:04 | history | edited | Briguy37 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated answer to better replicate the environment, give a better explanation to the employee before starting of what is expected, and to give them a chance to opt out of the stress test portion of the interview.
|
| Oct 5, 2012 at 13:14 | comment | added | Briguy37 | @EricReppen: Is the above really treating them like they are lucky to be there? That's one take on it, and obviously the down-voters' take, but it is far from the real purpose of determining whether or not they are up for the job's challenges as soon as possible. Honestly, this shows much more respect to a candidate than several other approaches here with more votes, as it is honest, forthright, and does not waste a candidate's time or hide important facts about what the job environment will be like. | |
| Oct 5, 2012 at 0:16 | comment | added | Erik Reppen | I make a lot of decisions about what the job is going to be like based on how they interview. People acting like you're lucky to be there and treating the interview like a one-way phenomenon is always a bad sign. I don't care if it's NASA, Google, or Pixar. | |
| Oct 4, 2012 at 20:34 | comment | added | Briguy37 | The position itself should attract employees, not the interview process. Thus, if there is a sufficiently high demand for the position (and that is the big if), including this as a "stress-test" portion of the interview process will not wean out many good candidates. For example, if NASA wanted to hire a top-level-on-call-guru to handle all "mission-critical" software problems, you can bet that most/all applicants who passed would stick around and probably even understand why it was given. However, if Mom-And-Pop Software did the same thing, the smart ones would run for the door. | |
| Oct 4, 2012 at 16:42 | comment | added | Anthony Miller | Your approach is logical, but it is not practical. Yes, you want to find the right candidate. However, showing them how much they can screw up is an easy way to deter good people who do <any profession here>. The only people that you will attract are those who are OVERLY confident. That's another type of animal you don't want employed. | |
| Oct 4, 2012 at 16:30 | comment | added | pdr | Sorry, deleted that comment just as yours came in, it was not well phrased. My point is that you are sending me a message that you prioritise firefighting over not having open flames near gas. That is a bad message to send. Don't scare off good programmers and you'll end up with a quality product that rarely goes down, rather than a bunch of people who can fix it under pressure and have to, often. | |
| Oct 4, 2012 at 16:27 | comment | added | Briguy37 | @pdr: Is it a waste of times to ask good programming questions? No! Why, then, is it a waste of time if you ask those same questions in this format? As I said in my answer, those who answer foolishly will be penalized, so it finds people who are both quick and accurate under pressure. Also, the simulated situation is losing money, the developer is minimizing that loss, so maybe there should be a goal time for each problem and a savings/loss if you finish before/after that time. Also, the interviewer's setup could be more thorough to explain the background of why before starting the test. | |
| Oct 4, 2012 at 16:02 | comment | added | Briguy37 | @pdr: As an adult professional, I want to know what to expect from a work environment for any job I consider. The above is a realistic simulation of that work environment. Thus, I would be in a better position to know whether that position would be a good fit for me after going through the above interview process. The right candidates will thrive under that stress and will accept the position if they deem the compensation appropriate, and the wrong ones will hopefully be weeded out either by their choice or the interviewer's. | |
| Oct 4, 2012 at 15:25 | comment | added | pdr | And now let's pretend for a moment that the candidate is an adult professional who is good enough to have other options. Interviews are a two-way street and you're giving me a very strong message about the people I would be working with. I'm not sure it's the message you intend. | |
| Oct 4, 2012 at 15:08 | history | edited | Briguy37 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2012 at 14:57 | history | edited | Briguy37 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2012 at 14:49 | history | answered | Briguy37 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |