Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why not just ask:
....what's your leadership style?
... how would you lead a team working on XYZ?
---- how HAVE YOU led a team working with UVW?....
I agree.
However, asking about leadership experience and asking about how an interviewee would react to a problem group is two different things.
Part of the problem is that the question has become a clip board question. In other words, it has become, from constant usage by HR, a 'standard' question.
So, HR interviewers and HA's with no brains or imagination or who suffer from linear thinking will ask the original question to see, as I said, if someone interviewing will fall into the trap of siding with the rabble rousers.
If I was interviewing kids, I might ask the same question since kids often don't have a broad or mature outlook and it would be an opportunity to see if a young person I am interviewing would naively show sympathy for the hypothetical problem group.
Thank God I no longer interview kids.
To be clear- I often will take a situation as described here and show alternate perspectives other than that being discussed since there are many people reading these posts and it will be helpful to someone in that vast peanut gallery to be made aware of possibilities not otherwise discussed. So I am not arguing with you so much as bringing forth additional sides to the conversation in case it is helpful to someone reading these posts.
It's all good. No umbrage taken. Just clarifying my point.....
You mentioned "an opportunity to demonstrate one's leadership." I was just responding....then that's what people should ask about: "leadership"....not tell me about a time when question that's not asking about -- leadership.
If the interviewer wants who a candidate would handle dissention, disagreement or difficult personalities on a team, then that's what they should ask.
Quote:
So, HR interviewers and HA's with no brains or imagination or who suffer from linear thinking will ask the original question to see, as I said, if someone interviewing will fall into the trap of siding with the rabble rousers.
Ah, my CD friend.... You might be surprised that these days there are people who expect that rabble rousers and snowflakes should be coddled, agreed with and "understood." After all, you wouldn't want them to "feel" unsupported and like they're "not being heard."
[b]...
For those unaware of the STAR system, the questions go like this...
Give me an example of how you would handle an irate customer phone call.
Tell me about a time when you performed well under enormous pressure.
Where do you see yourself in five years?
This may work for touchy-feelie jobs but they do nothing for finding the best candidate for technical jobs.
...
To be honest, I'm not sure I'd know how to answer those kinds of questions. What does the interviewer consider an "irate" customer phone call or "enormous" pressure? Their "enormous" pressure could be my routine day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadhunterPaul
I agree.
However, asking about leadership experience and asking about how an interviewee would react to a problem group is two different things.
Part of the problem is that the question has become a clip board question. In other words, it has become, from constant usage by HR, a 'standard' question.
So, HR interviewers and HA's with no brains or imagination or who suffer from linear thinking will ask the original question to see, as I said, if someone interviewing will fall into the trap of siding with the rabble rousers.
If I was interviewing kids, I might ask the same question since kids often don't have a broad or mature outlook and it would be an opportunity to see if a young person I am interviewing would naively show sympathy for the hypothetical problem group.
Thank God I no longer interview kids.
To be clear- I often will take a situation as described here and show alternate perspectives other than that being discussed since there are many people reading these posts and it will be helpful to someone in that vast peanut gallery to be made aware of possibilities not otherwise discussed. So I am not arguing with you so much as bringing forth additional sides to the conversation in case it is helpful to someone reading these posts.
Paul......
..
Going back to the original question, it could be taken either as one v one interpersonal relations or looking for a leader to solve a problem. Of course the issue with that question then becomes if you answer the wrong interpretation. And from leadership in action, the person most capable of solving a lack of leadership problem in the company will probably not give the canned answer that HR wants to hear. Because a good leader won't give an answer until he/she has looked at all side and all parties to the problem.
Ah, my CD friend.... You might be surprised that these days there are people who expect that rabble rousers and snowflakes should be coddled, agreed with and "understood." After all, you wouldn't want them to "feel" unsupported and like they're "not being heard."
.....yeah, I know. Fortunately for me, I don't recruit such characters. They are not in my world and I'm not in theirs.
Ah, my CD friend.... You might be surprised that these days there are people who expect that rabble rousers and snowflakes should be coddled, agreed with and "understood." After all, you wouldn't want them to "feel" unsupported and like they're "not being heard."[/quote]
Well, when interviewing people I ask, and when being interviewed I expect to be asked, questions like "tell me about a time when you x y z". Note there is a subtle but important distinction between this and "how you would handle x y z". I am looking for, or providing, actual things that the candidate did, not hypotheticals.
I don't know whether this is exactly the "STAR" method or not.
For me it's not an issue with the STR format, per se.
I just think it's sill only asking STAR questions -- and NOTHING based on the resume. And HR people who ask every candidate -- regardless of experience -- the same questions...who provide no feedback, no conversation, nothing. Just move from question to question, like it's an interrogation.
How on earth does that help you find and determine who's "the right fit" for your job and/or organization/company -- which is what the interviewers all say the want isn't it? But more experienced candidates -- AND HR PEOPLE THEMSELVES know it doesn't. So we're all participating in a game we know is just a game. But what else is new, I suppose.
Of course, it's not the only time in life we're in a situation with others where we know we're going through the motions or a sham, just to go along-and-get along. In any instance in life I marvel when people/companies say they want A -- yet do B. It's a fascinating paradox. (like at work when the boss acts like he doesn't know why why so many people are leaving. Or exit interviews that ask why morale is bad, when the employee knows management already knows. It's just an unfortunate farce that adults just can't seem to NOT participate in. We do it for survival of course. Two or more people in a room or face to face and no one can state the truth. You look at each other and each of you know, you both know it, but neither can drop the facade. But I still think it's interesting subject matter to study.)
You ever have a conversation or have been in a situation with someone you know is lying to you -- and THEY know you know -- and you still both just play your roles? THAT is a STAR format interview to me.
For me it's not an issue with the STR format, per se.
I just think it's sill only asking STAR questions -- and NOTHING based on the resume. And HR people who ask every candidate -- regardless of experience -- the same questions...who provide no feedback, no conversation, nothing. Just move from question to question, like it's an interrogation.
How on earth does that help you find and determine who's "the right fit" for your job and/or organization/company -- which is what the interviewers all say the want isn't it? But more experienced candidates -- AND HR PEOPLE THEMSELVES know it doesn't. So we're all participating in a game we know is just a game. But what else is new, I suppose.
....
I can't answer for everyone out there, but we used to be required to ask every candidate the same questions in the same format. No conversation. The list of forbidden questions and topics was long. The whole game was driven by affirmative action -- they were scared to death of getting sued by some candidate over for some form of discrimination. It wasn't even about actual discrimination anymore but about how could someone deliberately misinterpret the wording to create a lawsuit.
Fortunately they've backed away from that so that now we just have to document every question and response in case someone sues later.
Yeah....we could likely compare notes.
I'll just say I'm familiar with government agency interview procedure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Star?
