![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 9:26:13
Is it never possible to be honest in a job interview?
I've been with the same employer for over twenty years, but I can foresee circumstances where it would be necessary to look for a new job.
Isn't it possible to just tell the truth? I'm really good at what I do. I do it quickly and accurately. I tend to be a bit inflexible and don't really care for change. That's good in some ways, because in me you'll find a solid reliable worker who isn't looking to move up the corporate ladder. While I can be polite and most people don't find me objectionable, I really do better in the background.
If you're looking for a smart, quick, efficient worker who you can count on over a long period of time, I'm your man. If you're looking for someone who interviews well and has great people skills and is very flexible and motivated, you'd better keep looking.
Is that really so awful?
(I didn't want to divert Poet's thread.)
Posted by octopusprime on August 1, 2004, at 10:20:20
In reply to An interview question - Daisy, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 9:26:13
> Is it never possible to be honest in a job interview?
i'm not daisy but i'd like to comment :)
i would edit your sphiel as follows:
> Isn't it possible to just tell the truth? I'm really good at what I do. I do it quickly and accurately. ... That's good in some ways, because in me you'll find a solid reliable worker who isn't looking to move up the corporate ladder. ...
>
> If you're looking for a smart, quick, efficient worker who you can count on over a long period of time, I'm your <ins>wo</ins>man. ...>
> Is that really so awful?think of a job interview as an extended sales pitch, dinah. keep it positive. it is absolutely not required to lie (in fact, i would recommend against it). but emphasize strengths and do not offer up your weaknesses involuntarily.
while you may not like change, that kind of inflexibility is not very popular with many employers. you will be asked how you deal with change, and being inflexible and not able to deal may cause the employer to consider another, more flexible, candidate instead. you can call yourself "methodical", and perhaps you "like routine", and maybe you "need some time to adjust to change", but i wouldn't emphasize the negative.
it's all spin. not lies, but spin.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 11:14:24
In reply to Re: An interview question - Daisy, posted by octopusprime on August 1, 2004, at 10:20:20
It's kind of sad when you think about it. I mean, that sort of interview is great for a sales position or public relations position. But if an employer is looking for a good technical person who is honest and straightforward, it's a darn shame that the people who get the jobs are the ones who can spin it. I don't suppose I'll ever be able to get another job, except with people who know me and know my work.
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 1, 2004, at 11:42:11
In reply to Re: An interview question, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 11:14:24
Remember it wasn't so long ago that I thought I was un-employable and would never find a job.. and look at me now!!
I guess I was in the lucky position of them already knowing I had some mental health problems, but I was totally honest and open in the interview, and was myself, which apparently really swung it for me.
Nikki x
Posted by Racer on August 1, 2004, at 12:03:09
In reply to Re: An interview question, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 11:14:24
I get all up in arms over this one, too, Dinah. My husband, for example, is a GREAT programmer -- with all the social skills and salesmanship of most really good programmers. Sure makes interviewing a duck shoot for him, right? Especially if the ducks are in another county...
Same with politics, for that matter. In a lot of elections over the past 20 years or so, I've watched people I really respected go down in flames against others who don't look like anything more than what we used to describe as "sales slime" when I was a Suit. (Admittedly, the more localized the election, the more apparent this part has been. By the time they're running for state or national offices, most all of them are competent promoters.) Way back in 1984, I voted with all my heart for Mondale, simply because I felt he was telling me the truth -- especially about taxes. That's because I value that honesty, as a sign of respect for me as a voter. Alas, that's just not possible these days, with so much at stake.
And if you look for it around you, you'll see the same phenomenon in almost every area of your life: the pharmaceutical companies have a hard time being honest about the downsides to their drugs, because no one wants to hear that, say, their anti-psychotic can trigger metabolic syndrome X -- even if the benefits of that drug make it a reasonable trade off for most people who take it!
Mark Shields brought this up the other night, discussing the DNC. He said that the one thing he really missed was anyone calling for a collective sacrifice for the good of the nation. Personally, I think he's hit on the major problem we face today -- but I'm gonna resist the temptation to go on about that. :-D Can you imagine? Me resisting any impulse?
Going back to job interviews, regardless of how we feel about it, we still have to choose between two not-very-attractive choices: Spinning ourselves and playacting the part of that Ideal Candidate; or taking the very real risk of not getting the job. It's always been true that, with a choice between two more or less equally qualified candidates, an interviewer will always go for chemistry. If you can get along well with the interviewer, and he or she feels as if you're someone who could fit into the office personality pool, you've just scored 6 out of ten on the interview. After all, no matter how qualified you are, you're still gonna be spending 8 to 10 hours a day with these people, right? They don't want to spend that much time with someone they feel uncomfortable around, right? On the other hand, sometimes it really does feel so slimy and dishonest, I want to go home and shower it all off when I walk out of one of those interviews. Just creepy.
By the way, I've got two distinct sides to my personality: one side is light and sunny and breezy and easy-going (when i'm not drowning in the pit, at least), but the other is pretty much polar opposite of that. Serious, goal oriented, focussed, and a bit humorless -- pretty much, what you think of when you think "Accountant", not surprisingly. I'm also a tall woman, who is smart and not comfortable backing down when I'm right. You can imagine the sorts of responses that's gotten over the years, right? Aside from the attacks from men about my "obvious" sexual orientation, there's a lot of "she's just a [rhyhms with rich]" or worse. Instead of backing me up -- like, maybe, because I was right? -- my last boss used to come after me to 'be nicer to the sales guys.' You know what? Sucks a lot, but it's also the way the world is.
My solution was to get out of Business with a capital B, and get into non-profits, where I could just steamroll over the real idiots without worrying so much. But I absolutely feel your pain over this issue. I *can* present myself well -- too many years as a trainer, using my bright and sunny side -- but anyone who hires me because I look so sunny and easy will get a shock. I justify it by saying, "Well, if you're going to hire on the basis of what is effectively a sales pitch, it's your expectations you should be examining, NOT my social performance in this position. And now that that's done, do you want to discuss my PROFESSIONAL performance?" Not sure what the answer is. Maybe a realignment of corporate values?
Until then, I guess we'll just remind each other that the world ain't perfect, and it's what we got.
Posted by Catgirl on August 1, 2004, at 12:45:31
In reply to An interview question - Daisy, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 9:26:13
I agree with everyone's posts so far. I think the trick is to spin it, but not so far that you are actually going to end up getting a job that you will be miserable in because it's not a good fit for you.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of employers spin it too! I think that quite frequently a job is not all it was promised to be.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 18:40:02
In reply to Re: An interview question - Daisy, posted by Catgirl on August 1, 2004, at 12:45:31
I concentrate on things like how much I hate my job and how bad the deadline driven nature of the job is for my health.
But I have never actually applied for a job or had an interview. I've had the same job for twenty years and both this job and the job I had during college came through people I knew.
And as much as I dislike my job, I'd truly hate a job with a corporate culture. At least at my job, my responsibility is to do the work, not socialize. They don't care if I work at home, or go straight to my office without much socialization. And with a few exceptions, I've gotten along well enough with users that while they might not chat with me on the phone like they would with some, only one or two have asked not to directly deal with me. :)
Of course, my therapist would say that there was no luck involved. He thinks I have an uncanny knack for finding people and situations that are nice fits for my ummmm.... personality style and personal quirks. ;)
Racer, I think I am a lot like your husband. And I think I'd find it equally hard to play the game. It's a rotten shame, isn't it? My husband has the happy coincidence of having the technical skills and the people skills. Especially the sort of people skills that work well in corporate culture. It's funny. He has absolutely no ability to pick up on atmosphere or nuance at all, and little introspective ability, and both seem to be an advantage to him at work.
Posted by daisym on August 1, 2004, at 19:56:41
In reply to Sometimes I forget how lucky I am., posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 18:40:02
I actually was bracing for a deluge of "oh no, be yourself completely" and thought I'd be the bad guy. I think the responses you've received are very practical.
And that was what I was going to say, "be practical." Think about it from the employer's viewpoint -- we know everyone is "spinning" and putting their best foot forward. So if you run into someone who doesn't, you have to wonder if this is their "best" what is their "regular"? I highly value what I consider self-preservation skills. Please don't tell me, your boss, that you missed an appointment with a client because you overslept. Tell me you were "running late" or "had an appointment." And for gosh sakes, don't ask me in an interview "how much hassle are those parents, really?"
I could tell you stories...
I want to see someone who thinks highly of their skills and knows what they would add to my team. I think OP got it right when she said phrase the truth in a positive way and don't offer up your weaknesses. I also want someone who respects the process enough to "dress up" at least a little, for the interview. It tells me they are willing to make an effort. People argue all the time, "but you are hiring me, not my outfit." But that isn't true in a way...we are hiring you to represent our company, perform tasks and be part of our employee retention program. I believe strongly that retention is hugely important, and I believe that everyone must play a part in that.
I think, Dinah, we are back to talking about social norms and how comfortable you are following them, or not. There are environments where I would never get a job in my heals and suit. And I don't care what the fashions are, you can't let your belly button, and other body parts, hang out in my office.
But my guess is you would do fine in an interview. Because I can't see you picking a company that didn't value what you had to offer. And references are a huge piece of why I hire someone. So, no worries.
Posted by octopusprime on August 2, 2004, at 0:42:30
In reply to Sometimes I forget how lucky I am., posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 18:40:02
> Of course, my therapist would say that there was no luck involved. He thinks I have an uncanny knack for finding people and situations that are nice fits for my ummmm.... personality style and personal quirks. ;)
dinah this is me as well. and i think we all do this. my current employer simultaneously brings out the best and worst in me, and my current job is very well suited to my "creative" "work" habits. :) it's a blessing and a curse that i could analyze to death in therapy or just go on a beach vacation and forget about.
but i guess that is part of the magic chemistry that got me the job in the first place. i wonder if it might be more appropriate to ask a philosopher how that happens.
i can say with some confidence, however, that there are other employers out there that will complement your sparkling personality (note that positive spin!)
the reason i say spin is just so that you don't get too negative on yourself. i agree with daisy's comments about putting one's best foot forward in the interview. let them discover your worst after they've committed to paying you :)
i know you were not ever a dater or a job-hopper or a joiner or a mover or a shaker or any of those kinds of things. i am a job-hopper (on the order of 10 jobs and 50 job interviews, and i'm 25), so here is my perspective: it's freeing to look for a new job in a way. you get to see what opportunity is there. a new job is a fast track to changing your life. it's frightening but satisfying.
with a caveat: deadline pressure *never* *ever* goes away.
good luck.
ps - to racer - were you my twin separated at birth? i identify with this so strongly (except for the accountant part) ...
> By the way, I've got two distinct sides to my personality: one side is light and sunny and breezy and easy-going (when i'm not drowning in the pit, at least), but the other is pretty much polar opposite of that. Serious, goal oriented, focussed, and a bit humorless -- pretty much, what you think of when you think "Accountant", not surprisingly. I'm also a tall woman, who is smart and not comfortable backing down when I'm right. You can imagine the sorts of responses that's gotten over the years, right? Aside from the attacks from men about my "obvious" sexual orientation, there's a lot of "she's just a [rhyhms with rich]" or worse.
Posted by pegasus on August 2, 2004, at 16:33:17
In reply to An interview question - Daisy, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 9:26:13
Hi Dinah,
This is a really good question, and I like what everyone else has said so far. It's a tough position, when you feel that you have to be dishonest (at least by leaving some relevant details out) in order to even get a job.
It sounds to me as though what you need in a job is something where it isn't necessary to be part of a team. Because if working in coordination with others isn't an issue, then the people skills and flexibility that you say you lack shouldn't be as relevant. Unfortunately, working well with others is important for most positions in most companies, and in those cases, interviewers will certainly be looking for your potential in those areas.
I've interviewed a fair number of people for a variety of positions over the years (in a tech company), and if someone said to me what you write in your post (in those words), I would definitely not hire them for a position in my company.
But if someone said, "I'm really good at what I do. I'm smart, quick and accurate. I like to be on top of things, and so I strive to find an efficient way to complete my work and stay with an approach that works. Because of this, I am a solid reliable worker that you can count on for the long term. I also work independently quite well, and was explicitly trusted in my last job to work at home. I found that arrangement particularly efficient, and it suited me well." Well . . . that would be a different story.
It's not just about skill at spinning. It's also about your attitude about your work. If your attitude about yourself isn't positive, then why should a potential employer's attitude be? But, as you point out, those more negative qualities are not necessarily alway liabilities. They are things you've learned to manage, and that won't get in your way, and may even be strengths in some situations.
I hope this is helpful, and not too harsh sounding. I'm intending to be helpful, but maybe I could work on my "spin" a little?
pegasus
Posted by Poet on August 2, 2004, at 18:03:52
In reply to An interview question - Daisy, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 9:26:13
Hi Dinah,
I think interviews should be called auditions because whoever memorizes and performs the best script gets the job.
Poet
Posted by pegasus on August 2, 2004, at 18:36:39
In reply to Re: An interview question » Dinah, posted by Poet on August 2, 2004, at 18:03:52
I'm afraid that I have to disagree. I think whoever gives the best impression that they'll fit the job well is usually hired. But those people are usually not performing a memorized script. They are saying things that they truly believe.
At least that's been my experience as an employee and boss. I've rarely discovered later that an impression I got during an interview was incorrect. Even the guy who was an advocate against daylight savings time. (He didn't just argue against it - he actually changed the clocks all around the building. We had to use a different time when inviting him to meetings than we did with everyone else.) He was high maintenance, but still had valuable talents. And we predicted that during the interview.
pegasus
Posted by JenStar on August 2, 2004, at 19:02:00
In reply to An interview question - Daisy, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2004, at 9:26:13
hi Dinah,
I think it's important to be honest in an interview, because a skilled interviewer will have a good BS detector.But it's also important to use the right words, because like it or not, it's the easiest way (along with body language) to make that first impression.
Instead of saying 'most people don't find me objectionable' say 'I get along with just about anyone, and I find that most people enjoy working with me.'
Instead of 'I do better in the background' say 'I enjoy being the solid backbone of the group. My skills lie in helping run the day-to-day tasks and ensuring that everyone is on track, etc.' That way you're using positive words to describe the same activity or behavior.
Instead of 'I don't like change' say 'I'm willing to change AND I always like to weight the risks beforehand. I definitely do my research to understand the pros and cons of any change, and ensure that the change will benefit the organization before just jumping in head-first. Here's an example of how I researched and implemented an important change in my current job, yada, yada, yada...."
You seem so smart and intuitive from your posts. But maybe not enough self-confidence? The best thing in interviews, and what is hard for most women, is to brag without bravado. You really have to sell your high points. (of which I'm sure you have many!)
I would recommend AGAINST using the words "inflexible" in any way, unless you're discussing inflexibility towards sexual misconduct in your subordinates, inflexibility towards racism in your subordinates/team, or inflexibility towards breaking of any safety codes or safety regulations.
As an interviewer (at least, when I was an interviewer!), this is a taboo word. Especially with the economic situation today, most employers value employees who can turn on a dime, adapt to change quickly and easily, and often investigate and suggest changes to make the company more effective and efficient. although there are many people who are less flexible than they purport and than they'd like to think, it's still scary to hear a potential hire TELLING you they're inflexibile. Just saying that you ARE flexibile sort of indicates a willingness to flex.
anyway, I'd encourage you to think more positively about yourself and your work, and make sure those positive things come out when you talk about the job.Take care!
JenStar> Is it never possible to be honest in a job interview?
>
> I've been with the same employer for over twenty years, but I can foresee circumstances where it would be necessary to look for a new job.
>
> Isn't it possible to just tell the truth? I'm really good at what I do. I do it quickly and accurately. I tend to be a bit inflexible and don't really care for change. That's good in some ways, because in me you'll find a solid reliable worker who isn't looking to move up the corporate ladder. While I can be polite and most people don't find me objectionable, I really do better in the background.
>
> If you're looking for a smart, quick, efficient worker who you can count on over a long period of time, I'm your man. If you're looking for someone who interviews well and has great people skills and is very flexible and motivated, you'd better keep looking.
>
> Is that really so awful?
>
> (I didn't want to divert Poet's thread.)
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2004, at 19:34:47
In reply to Re: An interview question - Daisy, posted by JenStar on August 2, 2004, at 19:02:00
It won't ever be an issue.
It has recently occurred to me that in the natural order of events, I probably won't have a job for life with the company I currently work for, but hopefully I'll have a job for a long time.
And when the time comes to have to move elsewhere, I think I have enough contacts with people who know me that I can probably locate a job without too much trouble.
But who knows.
It does serve as a good reminder to me though, that although I hate my job I should be grateful for it anyway. Those reminders are always fortuitous I think.
And I was struck with the number of people who thought my presentation lacked self confidence. :) I've always been appropriately confident about my work. When I used to free lance, the people I worked for were really sorry when I quit. And I received a job offer or two based on my work, from people who had access to it from my freelance work. Perhaps, if anything, I'm a bit too confident. lol.
I wonder if my style comes across as more self effacing than I actually am.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.