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.
This may or may not fit your particular situation but when asked that question, there could be an opportunity to demonstrate one's leadership.
My first reaction to such a question is that 'other workers who can't get along' is someone else's problem, namely, their supervisor.
On the other hand, it is possible an employer may be looking for those with leadership abilities, people who are promotable.
Being someone who can bring a group of people to a common focus, who can get a group of people to drop their bs and learn to work together is someone a company will see as someone they can promote to a management position.
So while I would first think they need to work on improving their supervisors' leadership and management skills, I would take that opportunity to talk about how I would intersect with that group enough to bring them together in peace.
Sounds airy fairy but assuming it is true, I would take the question as an opportunity rather than push the problem away as not being 'my' problem.
Assuming everything I've said fits, it is an opportunity to show hiring managers one is or would be a center of influence.
(It is also possible the question is asked because they want to know a new hire is not going to throw in with the group that is seen as a problem. The real problem could be that the group that is fighting with each other is because the company/department is being poorly run and the hiring managers want to be sure a new hire does not see the problem as lying with management so much as with the 'trouble makers'. In other words, what if the [real] problem lies with management? How would you know unless you can read people and see that the hiring managers are jerks or work there long enough to discover the underlying problem lies with the supervisor/managers/senior leadership?)
Paul....
..
Paul, I respect your comments and feedback on here, however, interview questions should really target the role to be filled. Inquiring about leadership skills when the job role is for a non-managerial desktop support position or an entry-level GIS technician is premature. Candidates at this point in their careers are concentrating on getting some experience. They aren't considering leadership at all and an employer shouldn't expect that of them. Now, if the position was for a GIS coordinator or a similar role, I can see leadership skills being on the radar. Back to my experiences with this question in interviews, the questions were frame specifically about how I would deal with two other employees who can't get along. That's a managerial issue. The question also sends a red flag to the candidate that management doesn't have the ability to moderate the workplace. If they are having problems with conflict in the workplace they need to get a manager that get in there and get people back on track, or if it is an issue with an employee who has a personality problem, they need to get rid of that person so the organization can move on. As far as me, as a candidate for a non-managerial position, if the question pertains to a personal conflict with another coworker, I tell them I try to divert the discussion away from the conflict. Maybe I'll send an email to a supervisor if my coworker is getting in the way of getting work done.
I'll also add that most of the questions candidates are asked only show up in interviews because people don't know how to interview. So, they find a list of questions on a website, then ask the candidates to respond to those questions. STAR questions, and other rhetorical questions such as, "where do you see yourself in five years," were questions for upper-level management and other people seeking permanent positions in a company with a clear path to career progression. Now we have people interviewing candidates at Best Buy asking them where they want to be five years from now. Odds are they aren't going to be working at Best Buy, and Best Buy and other retail and service sector employers decide the path their employees are going to take at the company, so asking the question is pointless and the only reason the question is asked is because the individual doing the hiring doesn't have the gumption to learn how to interview properly.
And that's why you see so many frustrated job candidates on the internet.
If they are having problems with conflict in the workplace they need to get a manager that get in there and get people back on track, or if it is an issue with an employee who has a personality problem, they need to get rid of that person so the organization can move on.
Do you know how many people in government and private sectors jobs SHOULD be fired or disciplined, but are not? Who instead are shuffled into other departments and even promoted?
I suppose I ask that facetiously because I'd imagine you do know of multiple cases such as that.
Just like STAR interview questions which most everyone knows aren't the best way to hire. People know who these trouble makers, bullies and incompetents are and they're not gotten rid of as often as they should be.
I have sympathy for the really good managers whose hands are tied. I really do.
... interview questions should really target the role to be filled. Inquiring about leadership skills when the job role is for a non-managerial desktop support position or an entry-level GIS technician is premature.
Back to my experiences with this question in interviews, the questions were frame specifically about how I would deal with two other employees who can't get along. That's a managerial issue. The question also sends a red flag to the candidate that management doesn't have the ability to moderate the workplace. If they are having problems with conflict in the workplace they need to get a manager that get in there and get people back on track, or if it is an issue with an employee who has a personality problem, they need to get rid of that person so the organization can move on. ....
I'll also add that most of the questions candidates are asked only show up in interviews because people don't know how to interview.
Now we have people interviewing candidates at Best Buy asking them where they want to be five years from now........so asking the question is pointless and the only reason the question is asked is because the individual doing the hiring doesn't have the gumption to learn how to interview properly.
And that's why you see so many frustrated job candidates on the internet.
Hi,
So, yes, everything you said here is true. My point originally was to suggest how to handle the question since the question needs to be answered if asked. (We could suggest someone point out or ask if the company is being poorly run, thus the 'what if' question but that won't get the applicant/candidate the job.
On the other hand, even a dysfunctional company/culture is an opportunity for an enterprising person who knows how to either go with the flow or maybe actually contribute toward fixing things. That same person could end up being promoted for taking intelligent initiatives on the job toward helping to resolve employee relations issues. Hopefully, such a person would be working in concert with the relevant manager and not bucking the system.)
If a company/company culture is dysfunctional but a young person needs that min wage job, they have to go with what is being offered, even if the questions being asked are what I call 'clipboard' questions where a less than competent HR/HA is asking questions by rote instead of wrapping the questions around the candidate/applicant and the job that needs filling.
So, yes, the bigger picture exists as you describe it but instead of suggesting a person being interviewed by a lazy/incompetent interviewer simply get up and leave (since the question suggests a dysfunctional supervisory/managerial culture and who would want to work in such an environment?) does not answer the question. Again, it is entirely possible in many cases for an hourly non-exempt person to work at their level while sticking to their assigned job and avoiding questionable peer activity.
One of my specialties is to figure out workable strategies for a given situation as opposed to suggesting someone just 'walk away'.
I took a gas station attendant job while in high school, being told by an outgoing worker that the boss fires everyone periodically, harassing them into quitting so 'watch out'. He had lasted ninety days, a record, he said............I lasted about eight months because I worked the system as it existed at the time. I needed the job so I positioned myself accordingly.
Part of my agenda here and on my job is to encourage people to take charge rather than become victims.
It's about making lemonade since candidates/applicants can't necessarily fix a broken culture but someone with initiative and a sense of adventure and personal survival can, if they desire to do so and have the inner tools, work a broken system for as long as it serves them to do so.
Also, just to squeeze this in, it is common for a well-running company to have a less than competent HR department. So I also encourage people not to judge a company by how its HR department executes. Answer their dumb questions in a manner that feeds them what they want to hear, get the job and accelerate toward excellence for as long as it lasts.
Thanks for your comments to me.
Paul.....
..
Last edited by HeadhunterPaul; 10-19-2019 at 12:05 PM..
Reason: added text
Paul, I respect your comments and feedback on here, however, interview questions should really target the role to be filled. Inquiring about leadership skills when the job role is for a non-managerial desktop support position or an entry-level GIS technician is premature. Candidates at this point in their careers are concentrating on getting some experience. They aren't considering leadership at all and an employer shouldn't expect that of them. ....
Interesting thoughts. I've said earlier in the thread that I'm not a fan of hypotheticals and the canned responses that go with them because they don't really tell me how someone will really act. I much prefer your real history.
Now that said, I am very much interested in your leadership abilities even though I'm interviewing for entry level jobs. Even in separating out which resumes to interview I'm looking for signs that someone has shown leadership (appropriate to their age/opportunity of course) because even though I'm interviewing you for the GS-7 job today, I'm also interviewing you for the potential to grow to a GS-13 job in 4 years.
If they can get from a 7 to a 13 in four years, that's some doing (depending on their gov and private sector experience of course).
For the positions we're hiring for, performance based growth is built into the position. Very much an up or out mindset is what we're looking for. With strength of character and initiative to take on high risk/high visibility tasks.
This may work for touchy-feelie jobs but they do nothing for finding the best candidate for technical jobs.
I disagree. I manage a technical group and the difference between people who get hired and don't, is their ability to communicate during the interview process. Because if you can't do that, you aren't much use to us, because people work in teams and we can't have someone working with us who doesn't value this. It is just as simple as that. You need to change your attitude and realize you work with people. Software developers who wrote most of the programming code that goes into production don't spend 100% of their time coding. Coding comes last and they have to work with people to get there. That means communicating with others in meetings, phone, chat, and have a strong command of the English language in email too. Whoever or whatever gave you the impression that all you need to know is the technical part, you've been severely misguided. It may have been different 40 years ago, when anyone who could spell computer correctly got hired, not that's not the case any longer, and that's a good thing.
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.
I never ask questions like that. I explain a project and a situation and ask how they would approach it. Because if I asked them "tell me a time when you..." I have no way of knowing if this is a story they made up or not. But if I tell them about real work and ask how they would approach it, that tells me how they think. And no, giving a perfect right answer isn't important the question is about their thought process. Because if someone has the right approach then I feel comfortable putting them in new situation. I also pay close attention to the follow-up questions they ask me about the situation. But listening to a rehearsed speech to canned questions, let's be real, that's a waste of time and it doesn't apply. Sure they get points for going through the effort, but that doesn't tell the interview anything really. Cause they could be memorizing a speech their friend told them.
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.
Driven by affirmative action? Who told you that? Let's try...here is question to ask:
Q: How do you do a bubble-sort?
Now show me how you would ask that question applying this driven by affirmative action?
Interesting thoughts. I've said earlier in the thread that I'm not a fan of hypotheticals and the canned responses that go with them because they don't really tell me how someone will really act. I much prefer your real history.
Now that said, I am very much interested in your leadership abilities even though I'm interviewing for entry level jobs. Even in separating out which resumes to interview I'm looking for signs that someone has shown leadership (appropriate to their age/opportunity of course) because even though I'm interviewing you for the GS-7 job today, I'm also interviewing you for the potential to grow to a GS-13 job in 4 years.
You get hired in as a GS-7, in fours years, you know what you will be? A GS-7.
No one has that sort of time table of hiring someone to promote them for this imagery position they've put on hold until the future when you are ready for it. They don't promote people, they have openings and everyone applies for them.
If there is a GS-7 opening then they need someone now to work in that job, and that job will always be needed because after all, it is the government and nothing goes away. So if it sounds like they are interviewing you to promote you to a GS-13 in the future, this is simply part of their recruitment.
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?
