Quote
Job Applicants' Cultural Fit Can Trump Qualifications (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-03/job-applicants-cultural-fit-can-trump-qualifications#p1)
At a recent job interview at Summit Partners, a private equity firm in Boston, an applicant was asked, "If you could pick one person to play you in a movie, who would it be?" An audit staff applicant at New York accounting firm Ernst & Young was asked, "What are the top five cities you want to go to and why?" An online magazine asked an editor, "Where do you vacation in the summer?"
Job interviews are becoming more like first dates. The employment site Glassdoor has collected 285,000 questions asked by hiring managers, and the following four rank among 2012's 50 most common, though they have little to do with work: What's your favorite movie? What's your favorite website? What's the last book you read for fun? What makes you uncomfortable? Over the last couple of years, spokesman Scott Dobroski says, the site has found "a significant rise in questions asked about cultural fit."
In the December issue of the American Sociological Review, Northwestern professor Lauren Rivera concludes that companies are making hiring decisions "in a manner more closely resembling the choice of friends or romantic partners." Rivera found that apparently off-topic questions have become central to the hiring process. "Whether someone rock climbs, plays the cello, or enjoys film noir may seem trivial," she wrote, "but these leisure pursuits were crucial for assessing someone as a cultural fit." As a result, Rivera argues, "employers don't necessarily hire the most skilled candidates."
The phrase "cultural fit" may summon up obnoxious images of old boys clubs and social connections, but it's a powerful buzzword among human resources professionals. A cooperative, creative atmosphere can make workdays more tolerable and head off problems before they begin. "I used to work for an e-commerce company that spent a lot of time refining its culture," says Mercedes Douglas, now head of recruiting at Kikin, an Internet search startup. "I hired someone as a manager, and it created a lot of tension because he didn't fit in. People tried to alienate him because they weren't interested in him as a friend," she says. And it also goes the other way. "I once hired a woman who really didn't have the right background or experience for the job, but who I hit it off with during the interview," says Rebecca Grossman-Cohen, a marketing executive at News Corp. (NWS). "And because we got along so well, I was able to train her easily, and she ended up doing great things for us."
Especially in this slow economy, more employers are asking "Star Trek or Star Wars?" (as a programmer was recently asked by an employer) because fit is believed to be a strong predictor of employee retention. The longer employees stay around, the more companies save in hiring and on-boarding costs. For instance, the online retailer Zappos (AMZN) offers new employees who are struggling $4,000 to quit after a week's work, rather than waste resources to train someone who doesn't gel with the group. The sandwich chain Pret A Manger even goes so far as to have potential employees work for one day, after which they're either voted in or out by the existing team. Applicants who don't get along with others are paid for their time and asked to leave.
Glassdoor's Dobroski reports that job seekers cite company culture as their second-highest priority, "almost tied with salary." In an employment market in which many first-time employees relocate for work, offices are becoming surrogate families and social communities. New hires, especially young workers, want the secret Santa gift exchanges, the karaoke nights, and, increasingly, like-minded colleagues who share their values.
"These trends are being driven by millennials because they care about culture," says Dan Schawbel, author of Me: 2.0. "Research shows that millennials typically stay at a job for about two years—and they have different priorities. They'd rather have meaningful work over more pay, or work for a company that gives back or cares about the environment. They want a culture that's less hierarchical, more flexible, and more understanding of difference, because millennials are the most diverse generation."
This last point presents a modern quandary: How do companies value diversity and cultural fit, especially if hiring managers are often biased toward hiring people much like themselves?
"A lot of times, cultural fit is used as an excuse" for feelings interviewers aren't comfortable expressing, says Eric Peterson, manager of diversity and inclusion at the Society for Human Resources and Management. "Maybe a hiring manager can't picture himself having a beer with someone who has an accent. Sometimes, diversity candidates are shown the door for no other reason than that they made the interviewer a little less at ease."
In Rivera's study, one Indian woman says hiring based on cultural fit "seems to me a very [shakes her head] American thing. But it's what [companies] want." Yet this idea of tightly knit cultural affinity seems to run counter to the U.S.'s melting-pot ethos, as well as our glorification of diverse cinematic superteams—from The Magnificent Seven to Ocean's Eleven, and onto Star Trek, Star Wars, The Matrix, and The Avengers. "In all of these stories," says Sean Howe, author of the history Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, "it's not just the accumulation of complementary abilities that makes the group succeed, it's the ways in which each individual is challenged and transformed by the very environment of diversity. Which, come to think of it, is really what society is all about."
Hiring is the moment when these American ideals about team diversity collide with the reality of building a cohesive, practical staff. For the manager, it's also the time when abstract notions about corporate culture collide with instinct and bias. We may aspire to model our workplaces after the Starship Enterprise but in reality they often look more like the Borg Cube. Most companies have elaborate systems of checks and balances and executive-level diversity officers who work hard to ensure inclusiveness of race, gender, and sexuality. And working exclusively with your pals can also have a major competitive downside: groupthink.
"It's probably human nature to generally like to hire people who look like us, sound like us, act like us. But you get a culture of sameness," says Randy Hains, managing partner of Atlanta's Bell Oaks Executive Search. "People lack an understanding of how to go out and recruit for a diversity of thought—those people who break the rules but are great for the company. An EBay (EBAY) or a Google (GOOG) will hire those intellectual guys who won't fit into most Fortune 500 companies, whereas a Home Depot (HD) or a Coca-Cola (KO) will hire a guy because he fits in perfectly, not realizing that he's not going to move the needle—not even a little bit."
Numerous studies have proven that diverse workforces give companies competitive advantages in skill, employee retention, innovation, and profits: A 2009 study by University of Illinois sociologist Cedric Herring found that companies with the highest levels of racial diversity reported, on average, 15 times more sales revenue than those with less diverse staffs. And the American Sociological Review survey warns that a focus on hiring employees with the same hobbies and backgrounds can limit diversity. To avoid this tendency, companies now struggle to codify what, exactly, they mean when they talk about cultural fit.
"A skilled recruiter can override those biases," says Amy Hirsh Robinson, principal of workplace consulting firm Interchange Group. "Sometimes you need to change your culture because there might be that one person who has a different thought that could have saved a business."
The trick to building a creative, modern workforce might be asking all those silly questions—What's your favorite movie? What's your favorite book? What makes you uncomfortable?—and valuing most highly the answers you've never heard before. "It's quite possible to define that office culture as one that's open to diversity, so that you're looking for openness in an employee," says SHRM's Peterson. "You just have to decide if you're hiring for the culture you have or the culture you want."
I know a bit of this goes on where my wife works and maybe in my office too (though I'm a bit more removed from it if it does). Treating an interview like a first date sounds... I dunno. I wonder what that would entail for CdM. It might explain some things.
My favorite interview question to ask is "What do other drivers do on the road that annoys you the most?"
I don't ask it because it tells me anything about their "culture"; or whether I'd like to have a beer with them, but I do glean some personality traits that way. Mainly their level of motivation and stuff like that.
Culture is a big thing in the gaming industry.
Like all big things that percolate through HR, there is grain of truth in it, as well as large amounts of misapplication, empty buzz words, and general bullshit.
Well culture seems important as in an office, you'll often see your co-workers more frequently than friends/extended family. A person with great qualifications isn't worth much if he can't work with the team.
This is why boarding school blue bloods clone themselves at banks and law firms.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 30, 2013, 06:29:55 PM
My favorite interview question to ask is "What do other drivers do on the road that annoys you the most?"
Tailgate.
Is that a good answer or bad answer?
So much for interviewing for a job from mim. I assume "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY DICKFUCK!" sound the same in an interview setting.
Tie for first: driving slow in the fast lane and not using turn signals.
In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills. IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems. That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2013, 07:16:47 PM
In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills. IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems. That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.
:cheers:
I know who I'd prefer to be interviewed by on this forum.
I am silently judging all of you.
Agreed with dguller and mongers.
I didn't read the entire op, but if i had to chose a coworker and the choice came down to me liking him, or him able to do the job I'll take the competent one 100 times out of 100.
I think like an engineer because that's what I am. It does not always occur to me to try to be likable, though I'm way better at that than I was when I was younger.
I was one asked during a job interview "who is your favourite comedian".
When I thought about it later, Rodney Dangerfield might not have been the best answer. :hmm:
"Fit" was and continues to be a big factor when hiring new lawyers. While in this profession I do agree you don't want to hire people largely incapable of human interaction, I think the focus on "fit" is to the professions detriment.
This is largely because I have worked in government for awhile now. Hiring is much more structured. As a result we have a... wide variety of personality types. But you know what, whether I like the person or not has little to no bearing as far as I can tell on whether that person is a good prosecutor.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2013, 08:14:26 PM
I was one asked during a job interview "who is your favourite comedian".
When I thought about it later, Rodney Dangerfield might not have been the best answer. :hmm:
I'm pretty sure that beats "Bill Hicks."
I could care less if I like or dislike my co-workers. So long as I can work with them, that's all I care about.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2013, 08:14:26 PM
I was one asked during a job interview "who is your favourite comedian".
I'd have to answer George Carlin to that one, and if it resulted in me not getting the job then well, both parties are better off. :)
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2013, 07:16:47 PM
In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills. IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems. That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.
I think the decision hierarchy for hiring should go like this:
1. Is this individual qualified to work here (i.e. not a felon, authorized to work in this country, etc.)?
2. Is this individual qualified to do the job they are being considered for?
3. Is this individual the best fit for the team?
In other words, points 1 and 2 are like gates they have to be able to pass thru. Anyone who passes through them gets evaluated against the rest as to whether they are the best fit... so I wouldn't necessarily be hiring the most qualified person, but the one who is the best fit who is qualified (and if they're also the best qualified person, then great). You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.
Quote from: Caliga on January 30, 2013, 08:58:10 PM
You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.
Some jobs more than others.
Quote from: Caliga on January 30, 2013, 08:58:10 PM
1. Is this individual qualified to work here (i.e. not a felon, authorized to work in this country, etc.)?
2. Is this individual qualified to do the job they are being considered for?
3. Is this individual the best fit for the team?
In other words, points 1 and 2 are like gates they have to be able to pass thru. Anyone who passes through them gets evaluated against the rest as to whether they are the best fit... so I wouldn't necessarily be hiring the most qualified person, but the one who is the best fit who is qualified (and if they're also the best qualified person, then great). You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.
If they're not a weirdo, do they really fit on *your* team? :hmm:
Being weird is relative, isn't it? :)
I think I mentioned that we have this IT Security Consultant working for us right now named John Jones. I called him Martian Manhunter when I met him in person and a couple of people immediately got the joke. :sleep:
I've also done the KHAAAAAAAN! thing before and everyone got that one as well. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on January 30, 2013, 08:58:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2013, 07:16:47 PM
In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills. IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems. That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.
I think the decision hierarchy for hiring should go like this:
1. Is this individual qualified to work here (i.e. not a felon, authorized to work in this country, etc.)?
2. Is this individual qualified to do the job they are being considered for?
3. Is this individual the best fit for the team?
In other words, points 1 and 2 are like gates they have to be able to pass thru. Anyone who passes through them gets evaluated against the rest as to whether they are the best fit... so I wouldn't necessarily be hiring the most qualified person, but the one who is the best fit who is qualified (and if they're also the best qualified person, then great). You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.
Exactly. The point isn't to hire people who are unqualified but can get along with their co-workers; rather, it's to pick the people from the pool of qualified applicants who can best fit in with the existing team. It's not like most job opening don't attract plenty of qualified applicants.
And "best fit" doesn't necessarily mean someone who will be interested in socializing with their co-workers after hours, either.
Quote from: dps on January 30, 2013, 09:42:44 PM
Exactly. The point isn't to hire people who are unqualified but can get along with their co-workers; rather, it's to pick the people from the pool of qualified applicants who can best fit in with the existing team. It's not like most job opening don't attract plenty of qualified applicants.
And "best fit" doesn't necessarily mean someone who will be interested in socializing with their co-workers after hours, either.
I don't like to use the word "qualified applicants". That implies that there is a binary threshold of competence, beyond which the excess amount doesn't enter into an equation. When it comes to analytic jobs, at least, that IMO doesn't make sense. Very good qualified applicants are going to make for much more productive employees than just barely qualified.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 30, 2013, 06:29:55 PM
Quote
Numerous studies have proven that diverse workforces give companies competitive advantages in skill, employee retention, innovation, and profits: A 2009 study by University of Illinois sociologist Cedric Herring found that companies with the highest levels of racial diversity reported, on average, 15 times more sales revenue than those with less diverse staffs.
Man. The only people more stupid and worthless than journalists are academics. I wonder if corelation and causation are the same thing? They are if you're a journalist or academic.
The problem with a lot of today's creative industries is that extroverts have somehow convinced everybody that typical extrovert traits are a net positive for any employer and typical introvert traits are a net negative.
This is of course bullshit, as extroverts, in addition to making good first impressions and being sociable and fun to work with, are also rather bad when it comes to attention to detail, being disciplined or seeing a project to its end. Unfortunately, introverts prefer to fume quietly in their cubicles instead of trying to convince the world of this.
The fact that people in recruitment positions who invent these new recruitment processes are extroverts (i.e. it's a joke job that lazy schmoozers are attracted to) does not help.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2013, 08:14:26 PM
I was one asked during a job interview "who is your favourite comedian".
When I thought about it later, Rodney Dangerfield might not have been the best answer. :hmm:
"Fit" was and continues to be a big factor when hiring new lawyers. While in this profession I do agree you don't want to hire people largely incapable of human interaction, I think the focus on "fit" is to the professions detriment.
This is largely because I have worked in government for awhile now. Hiring is much more structured. As a result we have a... wide variety of personality types. But you know what, whether I like the person or not has little to no bearing as far as I can tell on whether that person is a good prosecutor.
Additionally, the "fit" criterion may also be an easy smoke screen for some forms of racial, cultural, class or other forms of discrimination.
I mean, not being an asshole is one thing, but a lot about our willingness to engage in social interactions with others and the form such interactions take is determined by our culture, class, gender, views etc. And as with culturally-biased IQ tests, interview questions like "where do you spend vacations" really do not give you a lot about the candidate's personality, but tell you a lot about his social background.
It is not hard to imagine having a law firm where the "fit" simply becomes an upper middle class heterosexual white male.
Isn't there a concern, as well, that some of the personal questions quoted in fact allow the interviewer to learn information about the candidate that he is prohibited from asking for directly?
I mean, an honest answer to a question about last vacation in 9 cases out of 10 would give you a pretty good idea about the candidate's marital status and whether he or she has any kids; in many cases an answer about a favorite comedian would disclose the person's political leanings, etc.
Of course people can lie or withhold the truth, but then what's the point of this charade?
Ok I now read the full article and it seems to raise a lot of the same concerns I just did. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 02:12:06 AM
Isn't there a concern, as well, that some of the personal questions quoted in fact allow the interviewer to learn information about the candidate that he is prohibited from asking for directly?
Sure, that's a possibility, but it's also true of questions that are more directly about the job, too. For example, "Are you willing to relocate?" is a perfectly valid question to ask applicants for lower level management jobs, simply because a lot of those positions require people to relocate. But if you ask someone that question, 9 times out of 10 they'll going to tell you their marital status as part of their answer.
Actually, most applicants will just volunteer their marital status without any prompting, anyway.
:yes:
At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 01:49:44 AM
Additionally, the "fit" criterion may also be an easy smoke screen for some forms of racial, cultural, class or other forms of discrimination.
Well almost by definition it is cultural discrimination.
QuoteAnd as with culturally-biased IQ tests
For some reason a group from another culture always scores the highest on our culturally biased IQ tests :(
Quote from: Caliga on January 31, 2013, 08:40:43 AM
:yes:
At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.
Well most people going into a job interview are not aware they are supposed to be withholding information.
Quote from: Neil on January 30, 2013, 11:19:52 PM
Man. The only people more stupid and worthless than journalists are academics. I wonder if corelation and causation are the same thing? They are if you're a journalist or academic.
Maybe if you're an academic in one of the politicized fields like sociology. Plenty of academics understand causation just fine.
Quote from: Caliga on January 31, 2013, 08:40:43 AM
:yes:
At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.
But that's exactly what I have a problem with. If you are not allowed to ask for certain information, but then you ask questions which, if answered honestly, will almost always reveal the information you are not allowed to ask for, this becomes a charade. And since most people are not comfortable with lying or telling half truths, even if they deliberately answer in a way that does not give away the sensitive information, this will also be noticed by the interviewer and most likely will count against them.
So the entire thing becomes a fig leaf for discrimination.
So what would you rather have happen?
Job interviews are a charade by definition.
- What would be your worst defect?
- I work too hard.
Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2013, 10:11:12 AM
Job interviews are a charade by definition.
- What would be your worst defect?
- I work too hard.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 31, 2013, 08:40:43 AM
:yes:
At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.
But that's exactly what I have a problem with. If you are not allowed to ask for certain information, but then you ask questions which, if answered honestly, will almost always reveal the information you are not allowed to ask for, this becomes a charade. And since most people are not comfortable with lying or telling half truths, even if they deliberately answer in a way that does not give away the sensitive information, this will also be noticed by the interviewer and most likely will count against them.
So the entire thing becomes a fig leaf for discrimination.
Bah.
I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.
But if I am a, say married young female I know darn well I don't disclose that I'm trying to get pregnant (and thus go on mat leave) during a job interview. People are well aware of what might count against them.
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2013, 07:16:47 PM
In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills. IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems. That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.
This. I don't need colleagues I can hang out with, I need colleagues that make my, and each other's, professional lives easier.
If they're good for a beer after work too, then that's an coincidental benefit.
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2013, 10:23:56 AM
I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.
That's another problem with letting a candidate volunteer sensitive information. People who have an answer to a restricted question that is perceived to be positive will volunteer the answer, while those with a negative answer wouldn't, at which point their silence would give it away anyway.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2013, 10:41:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2013, 10:23:56 AM
I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.
That's another problem with letting a candidate volunteer sensitive information. People who have an answer to a restricted question that is perceived to be positive will volunteer the answer, while those with a negative answer wouldn't, at which point their silence would give it away anyway.
Exactly.
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
So what would you rather have happen?
Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.
I'm an avid catamaran sailor and I love my bank's raise your rate CD.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2013, 10:58:54 AM
I'm an avid catamaran sailor and I love my bank's raise your rate CD.
English please? :unsure:
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
So what would you rather have happen?
Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.
So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
So what would you rather have happen?
Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.
Good grief. So I have a perfect candidate in front of me who I must disqualify because they said they were, say, recently divorced?
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 11:01:28 AM
English please? :unsure:
It's a line from an Ally Bank commercial. Mildly amusing, worth searching for on YouTube.
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 11:01:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
So what would you rather have happen?
Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.
So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.
Really? I have been to a number of interviews (both as an interviewer and when talking to headhunters from other firms) and we spent an hour or so talking without any personal life subjects ever coming up.
I find it odd that when people talk about, say, hiring someone as a M&A lawyer, the discussion must always go into marital status or where they go on vacation.
It is especially funny considering that, when I started a thread recently about disclosing my relationship status at work (where I have worked for 13 years), so many people were adamant about such things never coming up in work conversations (I think BB may have been one of them), but then they are unable to fathom such things not coming up during an hour long talk of two strangers.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 10:00:23 AM
But that's exactly what I have a problem with. If you are not allowed to ask for certain information, but then you ask questions which, if answered honestly, will almost always reveal the information you are not allowed to ask for, this becomes a charade. And since most people are not comfortable with lying or telling half truths, even if they deliberately answer in a way that does not give away the sensitive information, this will also be noticed by the interviewer and most likely will count against them.
So the entire thing becomes a fig leaf for discrimination.
I'm not saying you
should do this. I'm saying there are ways to obtain this information if you're hell-bent on doing so.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 11:08:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 11:01:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
So what would you rather have happen?
Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.
So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.
Really? I have been to a number of interviews (both as an interviewer and when talking to headhunters from other firms) and we spent hour or so talking without any personal life subjects ever coming up.
I find it odd that when people talk about, say, hiring someone as a M&A lawyer, the discussion must always go into marital status or where they go on holiday.
It is especially funny considering that, when I started a thread recently about disclosing my relationship status at work (where I have worked for 13 years), so many people were adamant about such things never coming up in work conversations (I think BB may have been one of them), but then they are unable to fathom such things not coming up during an hour long talk of two strangers.
I wasn't one of those people. Marital status will come through if one is wearing a ring.
Also as a candidate, I know it can be positive for me to talk about some of those sensitive things. Being single can be played up to show that I can easily relocate / be available for travel.
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2013, 10:23:56 AM
I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.
Anyways... not when I interview new prospective laywers, it isn't. :P
And actually, anecdotal evidence, from talking to partners and counsels, is that this is not viewed as a positive, especially when the kids are very young, as you will be viewed as someone unable or unwilling to work long hours or on weekends. Plus there is always a risk of some kid-related emergency coming up (which is pretty often).
My wife's uncle had an interview a few years ago where he went out of his way to say he was married, had two kids, was a deacon at his church, etc. When he told me about this I told him I thought he had made a mistake and should never divulge this sort of information. He looked at me like I was retarded and said he felt it was critical to get the interviewers to understand what sort of 'person' he is, as opposed to just a collection of qualifications.
Clearly he wasn't being interviewed by Mart since he did get the job. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 11:08:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 11:01:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
So what would you rather have happen?
Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.
So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.
Really? I have been to a number of interviews (both as an interviewer and when talking to headhunters from other firms) and we spent an hour or so talking without any personal life subjects ever coming up.
I find it odd that when people talk about, say, hiring someone as a M&A lawyer, the discussion must always go into marital status or where they go on vacation.
It is especially funny considering that, when I started a thread recently about disclosing my relationship status at work (where I have worked for 13 years), so many people were adamant about such things never coming up in work conversations (I think BB may have been one of them), but then they are unable to fathom such things not coming up during an hour long talk of two strangers.
I never said they were bound to come up. Which is why I think my hypothetical 'newly married female looking to get pregnant' can get through a job interview without calling attention to her status.
In fact in my interview for this job it only came up in the very last question - my now boss asked me something like 'well you seem like a great candidate. My only concern is that you've moved around - how do I know you'll stay here' To which I replied we had a new son and wanted to be close to family, so were unlikely to move around just for kicks any more.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 11:11:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2013, 10:23:56 AM
I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.
Anyways... not when I interview new prospective laywers, it isn't. :P
And actually, anecdotal evidence, from talking to partners and counsels, is that this is not viewed as a positive, especially when the kids are very young, as you will be viewed as someone unable or unwilling to work long hours or on weekends. Plus there is always a risk of some kid-related emergency coming up (which is pretty often).
Well, for
most people I think view it as a positive. Means (or they think it means) I'm responsible, dependable and devoted.
There are a few job environments where they do want you to be 'married to the job'. I suspect your law firm might be one of them. In which case its best for those employers and me to know we are not meant for each other.
I got my current job because the partner interviewing me liked the pattern on my tie.
It was an MC Escher tie.
I get my jobs because people come up to me and offer me jobs.
Quote from: Malthus on January 31, 2013, 11:24:32 AM
I got my current job because the partner interviewing me liked the pattern on my tie.
It was an MC Escher tie.
Mine had the text of the Rosetta Stone on it. :P
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2013, 11:18:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 11:11:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2013, 10:23:56 AM
I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.
Anyways... not when I interview new prospective laywers, it isn't. :P
And actually, anecdotal evidence, from talking to partners and counsels, is that this is not viewed as a positive, especially when the kids are very young, as you will be viewed as someone unable or unwilling to work long hours or on weekends. Plus there is always a risk of some kid-related emergency coming up (which is pretty often).
Well, for most people I think view it as a positive. Means (or they think it means) I'm responsible, dependable and devoted.
There are a few job environments where they do want you to be 'married to the job'. I suspect your law firm might be one of them. In which case its best for those employers and me to know we are not meant for each other.
It can also apply to, say, hiring someone to work a night shift--stangely, parents of small children often prefer not to work night shifts. OTOH, if you've got a family to support, sometimes you have to take what you can get.
Personally, I never cared whether or not an applicant was married. I was always careful to explain the working hours and conditions to anyone I was seriously considering, and to ask them if any of what I was telling them would be a problem. If it was going to be a problem, I didn't hire them. As far as why it would be a problem for them, I didn't really care, but most people who had a problem would go into great detail about why.
It's not that the person was not getting hired because of having kids, but I heard more than once someone saying about a recent hiree that they are concerned about his job performance because he has young kids but that they are willing to give him a chance.
And to be honest I don't really get the connection why not putting a condom on and/or being a heterosexual means you are responsible, dependable and devoted. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 11:01:57 AM
So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.
Do you normally say you are gay at your job interview?
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2013, 01:43:31 AM
The problem with a lot of today's creative industries is that extroverts have somehow convinced everybody that typical extrovert traits are a net positive for any employer and typical introvert traits are a net negative.
This is of course bullshit, as extroverts, in addition to making good first impressions and being sociable and fun to work with, are also rather bad when it comes to attention to detail, being disciplined or seeing a project to its end. Unfortunately, introverts prefer to fume quietly in their cubicles instead of trying to convince the world of this.
The fact that people in recruitment positions who invent these new recruitment processes are extroverts (i.e. it's a joke job that lazy schmoozers are attracted to) does not help.
:yes: I'm mostly rather introverted, but I am a great actor and can do an excellent job of faking extroversion for an interview. It's when I'm in the actual job day-to-day that I can't keep it up. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2013, 03:57:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 11:01:57 AM
So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.
Do you normally say you are gay at your job interview?
Nope but then I generally don't say that in my day-to-day life either. Irrelevant for most people I come in contact with.
So would you ding someone for wearing a wedding ring to an interview?
Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2013, 06:22:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2013, 03:57:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 31, 2013, 11:01:57 AM
So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.
Do you normally say you are gay at your job interview?
Nope but then I generally don't say that in my day-to-day life either. Irrelevant for most people I come in contact with.
So would you ding someone for wearing a wedding ring to an interview?
No, but for talking about their kids? Yes.
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2013, 03:55:49 AM
And to be honest I don't really get the connection why not putting a condom on and/or being a heterosexual means you are responsible, dependable and devoted. :huh:
The idea is that if you have others depending on you for their financial support, you're less likely to quit your job on a whim or do things that would result in being fired. While I don't really subscribe to that view, it's not an unreasonable assumption that someone with more than just their own immediate desires to consider would be more responsible. It's probably true to a limited extent, but IMO how responsible someone is is more a matter of individual differences.
Heterosexual employees can be asked to bring dates to various functions. Shareholder value.
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2013, 03:55:49 AM
And to be honest I don't really get the connection why not putting a condom on and/or being a heterosexual means you are responsible, dependable and devoted. :huh:
No it is the raising of the kids that indicates that and the things dps said. The guy who has 29 kids with 27 women should probably NOT mention that in his job interview. I mean use common sense here Marty.
Stats show there is a correlation, at least for men, but as we know correlation not causation etc. There is a gay dude in my office who is raising his nieces and has a partner I have to say that is one responsible, dependable and devoted guy. I am unaware if he has used condoms though.
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2013, 03:55:49 AM
And to be honest I don't really get the connection why not putting a condom on and/or being a heterosexual means you are responsible, dependable and devoted. :huh:
Have you ever known a gay who was responsible, dependable or devoted?
One should never, ever hire a gay.
Andrew Sullivan. Don't know him personally.
Quote from: dps on February 01, 2013, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2013, 03:55:49 AM
And to be honest I don't really get the connection why not putting a condom on and/or being a heterosexual means you are responsible, dependable and devoted. :huh:
The idea is that if you have others depending on you for their financial support, you're less likely to quit your job on a whim or do things that would result in being fired. While I don't really subscribe to that view, it's not an unreasonable assumption that someone with more than just their own immediate desires to consider would be more responsible. It's probably true to a limited extent, but IMO how responsible someone is is more a matter of individual differences.
I remember when I started out in Malthus' firm one junior associate had just bought a new house. Someone, in a tone meant to imply they were joking but they really weren't, said that the partners will love to hear that as it means she was much less likely to ever leave the firm. She wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage otherwise.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2013, 11:54:27 AM
I remember when I started out in Malthus' firm one junior associate had just bought a new house. Someone, in a tone meant to imply they were joking but they really weren't, said that the partners will love to hear that as it means she was much less likely to ever leave the firm. She wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage otherwise.
One of the oldest dirty tricks of management was to encourage employees to get married and start famillies and buy homes. Then they knew they had them.
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2013, 11:56:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2013, 11:54:27 AM
I remember when I started out in Malthus' firm one junior associate had just bought a new house. Someone, in a tone meant to imply they were joking but they really weren't, said that the partners will love to hear that as it means she was much less likely to ever leave the firm. She wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage otherwise.
One of the oldest dirty tricks of management was to encourage employees to get married and start famillies and buy homes. Then they knew they had them.
Yup. All too true.
Without major life committments and big bills to pay, it is all to easy for associates to say "fuck this crap, I'm going to be an artist or a writer/volunteer for charity work in the Third world/devote my life to a good cause here at home".
Law work (for example) tends to be non-stop stress and many do not love that, and would not do it except that they need the cash. Yet it takes years to develop a good associate to the point where they are earning money. So firms want to know they are likely to stick around.
Today I was talking to my boss about Dawid, my new flat and my mortgage. I always get nervous when she asks about my mortgage. :ph34r:
*snort*
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2013, 03:52:39 PM
Today I was talking to my boss about Dawid, my new flat and my mortgage. I always get nervous when she asks about my mortgage. :ph34r:
I thought you were suppose to be rich.