96

I'm a junior tech consultant at a tech consulting firm. I just recently joined the interviewing group and I learned that they analyze everything about candidates and plenty of interactions are a psychological mind game.

  1. When I interviewed, there was a guy struggling with a large box outside the front door. That was part of the assessment. You failed that test if you didn't hold the door and only got 50% if you merely held the door for him rather than helping with the box. They still do that to judge "situational awareness and ability to help." The actual trick here varies, but it is some version of expecting the candidate to help.

  2. The secretary at the front desk (Whichever one signs them in) gets asked her opinion of every candidate.

  3. For senior level positions, they will have one of the custodians or chefs bump into them and check their reaction. People fail if they get angry and calling them stupid is an automatically disqualifies type of thing.

  4. Sometimes the interview will start a bit late. Candidates are judged on how they react to this.

More than half the assessment document is stuff not in the interview itself. None of these things are relevant to the job so I think they are unfair to be assessed especially since the candidates would be stressed and not on top of their social game. None of the candidates would know any of those are tests rather than just random interactions.

Is this ethical? Is there someone I should report this to? I live in Canada.

  • 10
    How large is this company? Is HR aware of or involved in these tests? While you can debate the value of these tests all day, the fact that one of them includes what technically amounts to assault under Canadian law would make me bring this to HR. Is that an option? – Lilienthal Apr 27 at 7:18
  • 3
    Any indication on what type of role these interviews are for? I have known Accountancy firms that did something similar to "test 2", but only for certain Client Facing roles. (Specifically, the interview process would be split in a morning and afternoon session, and the candidates would be taken to lunch - paid for by the company - by one of the secretaries in between them) You may not think it is relevant to the job, but that there might be something you're overlooking (e.g. "Test 3": "Is this someone we want to risk putting in a position of power over our valued employees?") – Chronocidal Apr 27 at 9:22
  • 1
    @MaxBarraclough That is a good question. The other question I have is "Is the company liable if you break your back helping out with that box." I suspect the guy struggling with the box works for someone and would get workers comp to cover injuries, but who would cover an applicant. – emory Apr 27 at 11:40
  • 6
    @guest, the company in question is a consulting firm. That usually means they send people to client sites and it's very important that consultants present as a polished and courteous professionals from the time they arrive at a client site to the time the leave. If someone were to arrive at an interview and act like a jerk, or even a cold-fish, to the receptionist, yes, it should be a strong "do not hire" signal. It doesn't take much imagination to foresee how such a person would behave under duress at a client site. – teego1967 Apr 27 at 14:04
  • 1
    #3 is out of line. The rest are simply scheduled observation of behavior and attitude. – Joel Etherton Apr 27 at 17:12

12 Answers 12

125

None of these things are relevant to the job

They are all relevant to evaluating cultural fit. Test #3 especially seems to be looking for people who are jerks. #1 and #2 fall into this as well and potentially #4, although you don't give many details and might fall into professional skills.

would be stressed and not on top of their social game.

Firstly, if you fall apart and are rude under stress, a consulting gig is probably not suitable for you.

Second, not yelling is not a "social game" element. I generally view visible anger as unprofessional, but others might allow for that. It is only in certain industries where yelling at someone for a mistake is considered acceptable (and usually because it is a highly paid profession like law, so nobody feels much sympathy or a relatively low-status profession nobody gives a thought about).

Consider what you would want in co-workers or your managers.

Would you really want to work with a person who did not pass all these tests?

| improve this answer | |
  • 16
    I think if you work as a Chef, yelling is generally considered an important soft-skill. ;) – Daniel Apr 25 at 17:57
  • 117
    So you're saying you don't see any problem with an IT consultant with a herniated disk (a medical condition the interviewers would not be aware of and which is not obvious) only getting 50% for the first test? No I agree, it's easy to forget these kind of things. While I agree with the overall sentiment, always remember that things aren't as easy to judge as they may appear on first glance, particularly with these kind of implicit tests. – Voo Apr 26 at 11:48
  • 31
    @Voo an important edge case I didn't think of. – Matthew Gaiser Apr 26 at 15:46
  • 45
    @Kat My point isn't so much about that one particular situation, but a reminder how easily one can unintentionally discriminate against some people with these kind of tests. It's very hard to come up with completely fair tests of this kind and you don't give the candidates a chance to explain themselves. Just something to keep in mind when designing such a test. I definitely like the idea of taking soft skills into consideration. – Voo Apr 26 at 17:29
  • 47
    "Would you really want to work with a person who did not pass all these tests?" In most places I've worked, letting strangers into the building just because they happened to be carrying a box would be a ticking off from whoever was in charge of security, and in some cases would have resulted in prosecution under the official secrets act, so I'd definitely fail one of them as I'd have apologised that I was not authorised to open the door for them. – Pete Kirkham Apr 26 at 21:45
87

I think a couple of these have problems, but not for the reason stated in the question.

I would argue that unless the position actually requires being able to bend over and lift heavy objects, intentionally screening out candidates with bad backs, knees, joints, etc. could be seen as discriminatory. I think it's worth pointing out that it won't be obvious that someone can't help with the box and that you shouldn't be penalizing someone for having an invisible impairment. (Of course, that may actually be the point.)

It's been pointed out in the comments that there are potential insurance (who is responsible if the candidate is injured lifting the box) and security issues (should the candidate assume the stranger should have access to the building) with this test as well.

There's a couple of problems with number 3:

  • An interview shouldn't involve pain or injury, period. It only being a "light" bump isn't an excuse: you don't know if the candidate bruises easily, already has an existing injury where they got bumped, etc.

  • Someone bumping into you on purpose is not the same thing as someone bumping into you on accident. While the candidate still shouldn't blow their top, it's not reasonable to expect someone to not even be mildly upset that someone clearly bumped into them on purpose. (And it's going to be obvious if the candidate tried to avoid the collision.)

There are better ways of finding out how someone deals with a low-level employee making a mistake that don't require potentially hurting someone or the candidate realizing it was deliberate.

I think the other two are OK.

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of tests you don't know you're taking or a test where the rules aren't clear but "Be polite to reception" isn't one. Being polite to everyone is a reasonable expectation, not a test. From what I've read, asking receptionists/secretaries their opinion is pretty common. Unfortunately, some people to feel like they can get away with being rude to folks who work at the front desk and many companies don't want to hire people like that.

They do risk having a good candidate think they aren't being respectful of their time by being late but as long as it's not more than 15 minutes and it only happens once, they should be OK. Of course, if things generally run late in your workplace then it's good for the candidate to know that.

| improve this answer | |
  • 31
    1 is an issue as well. You should not do lifting of heavy objects unless you are trained and also the company's insurance won't cover injuries to you. Holding t he door should get 100% helping should get a markdown – mmmmmm Apr 26 at 11:13
  • 11
    An issue with the box scenario is that until you are hired, you don't have any responsibility to do any work. Moving a box is work. I know this is minor and I'd hold the door, but expecting candidates to offer to help carry the box (assuming they are not asked) seems a bit extreme to me. Sometimes "helping" to carry something can make it more difficult. – Jeffrey Ede Apr 26 at 16:42
  • 23
    In addition to this, I think the candidate should be given a chance to explain their actions after the fact. (Which may be the case, but OP suggests it is not). As with most interview questions, how you came up with the answer is just as important as the answer. 'I did not lift that box because I'd be liable if it fell and I am not insured' would prove they consider all outcomes not just social niceties. Still it is not unethical, just a suboptimal interview strategy. – jmathew Apr 26 at 16:47
  • 13
    I have arthritic knees and while I can walk reasonably well on flat office floors, there's certainly not much scope for me helping with box carrying and I can fall over very easily from being bumped into, so your points are very significant. Checking for cultural fit and being a decent person is fine, checking without thinking about the possibility you're pushing someone outside their practical abilities is a problem. – StephenG Apr 26 at 20:44
  • 16
    "Someone bumping into you on purpose is not the same thing as someone bumping into you on accident." - It might also technically count as battery. Which is a crime, albeit unlikely to be charged as one in this case. – Ian D. Scott Apr 26 at 21:52
46

From my perspective that sounds like a wonderful company to work in. If the rest of the business practices are as well thought out at least.

In my experience, a lot of companies fail to do proper evaluation of their candidates early on, and that creates a lot of problems down the road. That is one of the reasons why the Joel Test has the question "Do new candidates write code during their interview?" in it. Apart from making the business run better, it will probably also make the workplace much nicer for you as you will have collages who fit the company culture better.

Also, all the things you listed are directly relevant to almost any job. More so to a job in a consulting firm!

When I interviewed, there was a guy struggling with a large box outside the front door. That was part of the assessment.

If you are looking for people that do not have the "that´s not my responsibility" kind of attitude and help where needed, probably a good idea. Edit: I also don´t think this is necessarily a discrimination of people with disabilities. OP does not state you have to carry the box yourself. You can still show awareness for example ask if they need help and if you should try am get someone, as you cant do heavy lifting yourself etc.

The secretary at the front desk (Whichever one signs them in) gets asked her opinion of every candidate.

That is great in my eyes. First, you will probably encounter a lot of front desk secretaries as a consultant, as your first impression with the client. It better be a good one. Second, this is a hint to me that the company values its employees opinions and not just regard them as worker bees. *Edit because of comments: I do not get where y

For senior level positions, they will have one of the custodians or chefs bump into them and check their reaction. People fail if they get angry and calling them stupid is an automatically disqualifies type of thing.

Also great. Ever had a superior shouting at you? Not great leadership. You don´t want to hire those! Edit: Depending how it is performed, maybe a bit risky though. You should not risk hurting someone!

Sometimes the interview will start a bit late. Candidates are judged on how they react to this.

This will also be a pretty common experience when you are at a customer as a consultant. Makes sense to test if you can behave in a situation that will be fairly regular in your future!

More than half the assessment document is stuff not in the interview itself. None of these things are relevant to the job so I think they are unfair to be assessed especially since the candidates would be stressed and not on top of their social game. None of the candidates would know any of those are tests rather than just random interactions.

Is this ethical? Is there someone I should report this to? I live in Canada.

In my eyes it´s fine. It should be normal and expected in an interview to be judged on a lot more than your actual technical skills and it should be no secret to anyone that soft skills are just as important technical excellence to form a good and productive team. Nothing in your example shows any discrimination, nothing seems creepy like in some other questions where the employer seems to try to peek into the private life of the candidate.

To me all you listed speaks of a boss who knows exactly what he is looking for in his company and who thought of some clever ways to find it out early on. Saves the company and the candidate the hassle of discovering a bad fit later!

| improve this answer | |
  • 17
    "From my perspective that sounds like a wonderful company to work in." You think discrimination against people with invisible disabilities is a good thing? – nick012000 Apr 27 at 6:52
  • 7
    Usually, the difference between "can't help" and "I don't care" can be spotted. Nearly all people who can open a door can held it for somebody else, even among the invisibly disabled. – Pere Apr 27 at 11:57
  • 2
    @nick012000 Where do you get the Discrimination from? There is a difference between Ignoring a problem and not being able to help but but recognizing it and for example get someone who can. OP dos not state anywhere that you physically have to carry the box or that is is always a heay box. – Daniel Apr 27 at 12:54
  • 2
    @Daniel Someone who doesn't help with the box is put at a disadvantage compared to someone who does, but someone with a disability might not help as a result of their disability, and this wouldn't be obvious to the person who's testing them. Therefore, a policy of performing such a test during a job interview would be discriminatory against people with disabilities. – nick012000 Apr 28 at 2:20
  • 2
    @Daniel "If you can´t hold the door that pretty obvious" Except that it's not. That's why they're called "invisible disabilities", and unless you're a medical doctor, I don't think that you're qualified to make any statements. Heck, after I had some surgery, I was forbidden by my doctor from lifting more than 5 kg, and that fact wouldn't have been obvious at all. – nick012000 Apr 28 at 11:08
17

TL;DR: I don’t think what you’re describing is unethical,* but it’s deeply, deeply misguided. (Moreover, if the people doing it understood how misguided it was and kept doing it, then we might reasonably say they are behaving unethically.)

*Edit: I won’t address the issue of discrimination based on disabilities discussed in other answers. That issue is of course ethically problematic, but this answer covers a different angle.

Long answer:

The issue is that the signal being sampled under such “secret test” conditions is so random and noisy that it is effectively useless. The people at your firm are operating on the premise that there is a strong statistical correlation between whether a job candidate helps a guy carry a box and the general workplace attitude of that candidate later on if they ended up being hired. But that premise is not just wrong but completely, laughably wrong. There are simply too many confounding factors that will end up completey drowning this weak signal in random noise. E.g., suppose the candidate is in a hurry because they have to go to the bathroom and/or want to have time to meditate a bit to calm their nerves before their interview? Suppose they just remembered that they need to text their wife/husband to remind them about an errand involving their child? Suppose they were looking at their phone to check the room number for the interview while entering the building and were too absent minded to notice the person with the box? Suppose a million other things that will completey overwhelm your ability to deduce any meaningful thing from this trivial non-event. “Situational awareness”? Give me a break. Unless you’re recruiting an airplane pilot or a Navy Seal, the term does not apply.

The other secret tests you’re describing are similarly flawed. Asking the secretaries what they thought based on a momentary interaction might be reasonable, but to give that a large weight in a hiring decision is utter madness.

To conclude, I think it’s worth considering that as a general rule, hiring decisions based on a short job interview are already based on very superficial information that is subject to the same statistical noise I described above, except that in a normal interview one is at least trying to collect information in a reasoned, systematic way, which significantly increases the signal-to-noise ratio. Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman has written a lot about the “illusion of validity” (a term he and Amos Tversky coined) that leads people to form very vivid, strongly-held opinions based on essentially random noise. In an article that should be required reading for anyone who interviews job candidates, he describes experiencing this himself, and how even knowing that this was the case after being confronted with the inefficacy of his past predictions did nothing to dispel the illusion:

The dismal truth about the quality of our predictions had no effect whatsoever on how we evaluated new candidates and very little effect on the confidence we had in our judgments and predictions.

I thought that what was happening to us was remarkable. The statistical evidence of our failure should have shaken our confidence in our judgments of particular candidates, but it did not. It should also have caused us to moderate our predictions, but it did not. We knew as a general fact that our predictions were little better than random guesses, but we continued to feel and act as if each particular prediction was valid.

If this is the result of someone observing a group of people for an entire day (as Kahneman describes doing in the article I quoted from), imagine just how much more random would be the conclusions drawn from the ridiculously small number of observations in the secret test described in your question.

Bottom line: the people at your firm are essentially hiring people based on a coin toss. You can draw your own conclusions about whether that’s unethical.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    This puts too much emphasis in the belief that there is a "true objective outcome". Getting the right person for a job is such a multifaceted objective that the "objective" outcome, in my opinion, does not exist. – Captain Emacs Apr 27 at 12:35
  • 1
    @CaptainEmacs this is not about objective versus subjective. I actually agree with you there is no objective notion of what makes someone a great hire. But my point is that, whatever completely subjective measure each person in the hiring firm imagines they would like to be testing for, the secret test is not helping them test for it, because it’s measuring random noise. – Dan Romik Apr 27 at 12:50
  • 3
    Only sane answer in my opinion. – user11153 Apr 27 at 13:29
  • 3
    @DanRomik It's worse than a coin toss, because coin tosses aren't discriminatory against people with disabilities. – nick012000 Apr 27 at 16:11
  • 2
    @user11153 I second that. This is the best answer. – dan-klasson May 2 at 17:12
15

The truth comes out in the unexpected, the unrehearsed, the unlucky event.

Maybe some political board detached from reality may think it is unethical to test people on their reaction to unannounced tests, but these are the most honest answers the candidate can give.

If you are only at your best when you know you are being tested/interviewed, the right company to get good work out of you is one that puts you under constant surveillance. I'd rather work at a company that knows that people are at their best (performance as well as manner-wise) even when they are not under surveillance.

| improve this answer | |
  • 9
    I agree, but definitely test 1 & 3 are inappropriate because they discriminate against people with certain medical conditions that would not affect their ability to do the job. The receptionist test and late test are fine. – WetlabStudent Apr 27 at 7:45
  • Upvoted, but with a word of caution popping in my mind: the test is fair is also the interviewers have not failed the same tests. @WetlabStudent above also pointed out a potential limitation (which is of general applicability for all kind of tests). – XavierStuvw Apr 27 at 9:04
  • 2
    @WetlabStudent Good point. I would say that a polite form of handling this is to apologise of not helping with the box for <Reason X>. It's anyway good manners. I agree 3. should not endanger the candidate, but calling someone stupid is inappropriate in any case. – Captain Emacs Apr 27 at 10:50
  • #2 is completely dependent on the receptionist to provide an accurate interpretation of the candidate's behavior. Why should they be entrusted with an important decision like this. If the candidate is outright rude or disparaging naturally that is an objective situation that would disqualify. But how often does that happen? More likely this gives the receptionist an opportunity to say whether they simply like / dislike the candidate. On what basis Is that decision made ? This is a biased signal. – javadba Apr 27 at 20:09
  • 1
    We do the receptionist test, and it's quite a good indicator of how the person will turn out. In our case our receptionist mostly check if they're friendly, dismissive, inpatient when there's a delay, if their go to response is to start playing with their phones and ignore everything or even if they show interest in the company and ask questions. it's a non-bidding opinion, but it's taken into consideration – KiraraVS May 29 at 15:23
11

I'll restrict my answer to what has not been mentioned:

Test 1.a might be discriminatory, and test 1.b definitely is. If someone has any kind of invisible disability, they may fail to hold the door and almost certainly will not help lift the box. Yes, you do want a candidate that will help someone in need, but for a non-physical job, I don't think you want to filter out a guy that has back pain or broke his hand a month ago. It may be illegal if that filtering correlates with any protected group (and it may correlate with age, sex, or disability).

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    Bumping into someone like that could also lead to some serious situation escalation, depending on the people. I don't know much about autism, but I have known someone who had quite a reaction from someone touching them. It doesn't mean they're nervous or have behaviour issues, but that test will outright discriminate them. – Clockwork Apr 27 at 6:48
  • 3
    If you can enter through a door, then you can certainly hold it for a coworker. Or you can get help. Or you can at least make an effort to help, e.g. ask what you can do (if you're unable to ask then you're not fit as a consultant). – toolforger Apr 27 at 8:00
  • 4
    @toolforger Maybe it hurts a certain amount to enter, but it hurts twice as much to hold it for someone else. For a healthy person I would agree with your assumption, but we are specifically not allowed to consider a bunch of health-related traits. – piojo Apr 27 at 10:25
  • 1
    @piojo Well, that kind of condition can't be hidden anymore. Pain will show in your body language, either through reactions or through general stiffness if you try to hide it. Plus, if the candidate looks for a different way to help that is compatible with his condition then it should be okay, too. Or you redefine the quality not to "be helpful" but "never leave an impression of being unhelpful", and then the test makes perfect sense - people who cannot even leave an impression of being helpful simply aren't fit for a consultant role anyway. – toolforger Apr 27 at 11:35
  • 2
    This is the most important answer. They are going to get hit with a discrimination lawsuit sooner or later. – user Apr 28 at 12:05
8

The intent of these psychological tests may be fair but I would be concerned about the interpretation of the candidates' reactions by the interviewers. The interpretation will be quite culturally based. Most of us will be surprised when bumped. Does that mean we are angry? Mostly not. But will we be interpreted as having become angry? Quite possibly - and that's not an equitable approach to evaluating candidates.

| improve this answer | |
  • Can you elaborate on this answer? I think you might be on to something here such as cultural biases wherein white people tend to perceive black people as being angry more readily, or how some cultures often have a louder standard volume. As such, those biases could screen out potential candidates. Do you have an idea to reform the situation while maintaining the intended goal? – Pyrotechnical Apr 27 at 23:45
6

Report this to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Some of the other answers have explained why some of these tests would be discriminatory against individuals with disabilities. I'm going to answer the second part of your question: who to report this to, and how to do so.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission describes the process for the resolution of discrimination complaints on its website; it says that the first step occurs when an individual files a discrimination complaint. In order to do so, their How to file a complaint page details the information that they require for a complaint to be heard:

What We Need to Know

  • The specific ground(s) of discrimination (race, sex, disability, religion, etc.)
  • A detailed description of what happened (how were you discriminated against)
  • The negative effect this act or treatment has had on you.

What You Need to Know

  • You should file a complaint within 12 months of the act or treatment that you are complaining about. The Commission does make exceptions.
  • You can file a complaint on behalf of others as long as you have their consent.
  • You don’t need to pay a fee to file a complaint.
  • You don't need to hire a lawyer or get other legal assistance. However, if you decide to hire legal help, you are responsible for paying the associated costs.
  • You can call the Commission and ask for help.
  • The Commission is impartial and it does not take your side or the respondent's.

The page for actually filing a discrimination complaint can be found here.

| improve this answer | |
  • 7
    Since the OP is not the one discriminated against, it is probably best that they just mention it to whoever is in charge of interviews or HR before filing a complaint to the CHRC. This could potentially be faster and prevent discrimination more quickly. If the company doesn't modify its hiring process, then one could file the complaint. But most of the language in the complaint form assumes you are the one who was discriminated against, which isn't the case here. – WetlabStudent Apr 27 at 7:42
  • @WetlabStudent Oh, certainly. I think that the CHRC is still the government body that these sorts of issues would be reported to, though. – nick012000 Apr 27 at 11:42
  • This is an over-dramatizing, massively out of line overshoot of any sensible action anyone should take. A more correct answer to the second part of OPs question would be ... "No" – Stian Yttervik May 29 at 13:09
  • 1
    @StianYttervik It’s not overly dramatising it. Some of the practices described in the OP are discriminatory and thus illegal, and the links in this post show you how to report it to the proper authorities. – nick012000 May 30 at 0:41
4
  1. Suppose that the company you are working in didn't do these things on purpose to assess the candidate's reaction in all of these situations, but such situations truly occured. Would you feel it as unethical if the company rejected an applicant that behaved poorly on these situations? These things (and these causes of rejection) happen all the time. Most usually the sentiment of failing over them is not that of getting unfair treatment but that of just having bad luck.
  2. Secretaries confront daily all kinds of people and most times their experience in quick-judging a person is greater than that of perople in other professions. So consulting them has indeed a point. After all, these secretaries will have at some part to do work for the applicant (if hired).
  3. I am sure you must have noticed companies speaking about morale, team spirit etc. These things can't be counted, nor can the applicant prove whether he/she truly acknowledges them. But sometimes they are very important, even more important than the technical aspects of a job hire (whether one has that skill or another). After all skills can be learned, being a nice person is something pertaining to our personality and though not static, it's certainly harder to be altered. So yes, if a company truly regards these aspects as important, then they have a right to find a way to check on them, provided this way is not offending or illegal, which in the particular case doesn't seem to be.
| improve this answer | |
2

These tests all have a lot of problems that can get the company in legal problems except for the second one.

The first test runs into the problem that they don't know what conditions the person may have that would prevent them from lifting over a certain amount of weight which would prevent them from helping someone with a potentially heavy package. Not to mention if they are distracted by getting prepared for the interview they may not notice it or assume that it would be the job of the secretary or an actual employee.

The second test is fine as it is just asking for an opinion

The third test can be classified as assault and depending on the personality of the person in question it can trigger a bad reaction. Depending on how the person reacts or why they react it could result in the company regretting the test.

The final test is just plain rude as there is a good possibility that the candidate has to be somewhere else after the interview with this company, either going back to where they work currently or to another interview. While you might say it is a way to judge when things don't go on time it also shows bad faith by purposely not starting on time when you could.

| improve this answer | |
1

No, none of this is unethical.

No, there is no one to “report this to.”

As a junior, maybe instead of jumping to conclusions you use this opportunity to ask and learn from your seniors instead of going right to “report this!”. Maybe they should add a psychological test for that too.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    Discrimination against people with invisible disabilities isn't unethical? – nick012000 Apr 27 at 6:51
  • 5
    -1: If an interview practice opens up the company to discrimination lawsuits, then yes there is something to report. 1 & 3 are potentially illegal in some jurisdictions. – WetlabStudent Apr 27 at 7:37
  • 3
    The failure wouldn't be in the candidate's yelling per se, but in his inadequacy to deal with the potential problem. He'd likely be yelling at client personnel in a similar situation, and this would make him a liability when in a consultant role. If he evades, okay; if he yells but apologizes, very much okay; if he yells but offers his apology during the interview, okay with flying colors. – toolforger Apr 27 at 7:54
  • 5
    Similar for the struggling-with-box test. Holding the door open, finding people to help the person if you can't help on your own, these would all be passed tests; ignoring the struggling person would be a fail (in that test, this kind of stuff isn't necessarily a KO, e.g. if the candidate was late they may recognize that being late and under stress can make you fail and discount the failed test as irrelevant for the assessment, particularly if the candidate shows helpfulness in other situations on his way out). --- I.e. a lot depends on how the test outcomes are considered. – toolforger Apr 27 at 7:57
  • 2
    @mxyzplk-SEstopbeingevil That's an extremely privileged position to take. Yes, there are disabilities that can make you not help other people out, if you know that doing so will cause you physical pain, and there are disabilities that would make you lash out - consider what might happen if someone with Tourette's Syndrome was failed on the "bump" test because they had a verbal tic after being pushed. – nick012000 Apr 27 at 16:15
0

All I gotta say is ... "I wouldn't want to work there." And, I wouldn't.

I don't play games with my employers, and I'm not employed (for long) by any who play games with me.

I once was in for a programming-job interview when one of the interviewees asked a brain-teaser question (unrelated to the job) and the others abruptly seemed to be play-acting. I never quite figured out what they were on about, but I just smiled, rose to my feet, and said: "Gentlemen, I withdraw my application." And I walked out. Politely. But, quickly.

| improve this answer | |
  • So, you suggest the OP to quit their job, do I see this right? – guest Apr 27 at 16:13
  • 1
    And can you explain the point of your personal story to the question? – guest Apr 27 at 17:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .