Strangest person you have interviewed ?

[Doofus]

98elise said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

+1

It's astonishing how many candidates do no research at all.

Agreed, there are a number of standard things you do for an interview. Knowing a little about the company is standard stuff. It shows you put a little thought into the interview process. No different to turning up on time.

Yes, but this thread is about strange interviews, not about how good an interviewer you are.

[Pit Pony]

98elise said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

+1

It's astonishing how many candidates do no research at all.

Agreed, there are a number of standard things you do for an interview. Knowing a little about the company is standard stuff. It shows you put a little thought into the interview process. No different to turning up on time.

But can they do the job ?

I went for an interview at land rover in 1989.

The interviewer asked me what I knew about the company. One of the things I knew was that they were working on the discovery.

The interviewer denied the existence of such a project, which was introduced about 6 months later.

I didn't get the job, because when I was asked when I could start, I said I needed to finish my degree, exams in 8 weeks time, but i wouldn't get the results for another 4 weeks. They decided that I should have applied to the graduate scheme. I told the interviewer, that I would have done that, but the starting salary was too low and as I was holding offers paying £2k more than the graduate scheme, it would be pointless. Apparently I put short term cash above my long term career.

[omniflow]

I think it was around 2007 - I was working for a large regulated organisation and the focus at the time was very much on diversity and political correctness.

I interviewed a chap for a role in my team, it was in IT. After about 10 minutes he started talking about how he'd found god and converted to Christianity. This then became the theme for all of his responses as he ramped up the spiel and started (I think) to try to convert me. I carried on with the interview as best as I could (keeping a straight face being the biggest problem), and then wrapped it up as soon as I realistically could.

I got straight on the phone to HR to explain what had happened and that I wasn't discriminating against the bloke for his beliefs, it's just that I didn't feel an interview was the right place to try to convert the interviewer to your religion. It's crazy that I felt the need to do this, but I did.

The worst part of it was the bloke lived in my direction and I used to see him on the train every couple of weeks.

[HTP99]

I remember a few years ago my manager was interviewing for a car sales position.

This guy comes in all casual, long hair (nowt wrong with long hair perhaps it should have been tied back though) shirt untucked and about 3 buttons from the top undone, can of open Red Bull in hand (maybe someone from here!).

He sat in my managers office, slouched back, leg on opposite knee, swigging from his can of Red Bull, it looked like the interviewee was having a chat with his mate.

He didn't get the job.

[techguyone]

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

Yes. I've done the same.

Always a good method, and yes, so many fall at this hurdle.

[bucksmanuk]

8 years ago, I was interviewing for a design engineer, and this bloke turns up with the most incredible academic CV I’ve ever seen. Research fellow, many papers published, and a self-declared (and he probably was) expert in his rarefied field.

He felt this role was a step down for him, as, and I quote “I would be able to contribute immediately as soon as those above me make way for me due to my amazing talents”. My colleague and I interviewing him nearly slid off our chairs in disbelief.

We showed him a drawing and asked him to comment on how it would be made. He could hardly read the drawing, and then commented that it couldn’t actually be made. With that my colleague took the actual part out from beneath the desk and showed it to him. He told us the drawing wasn’t the same as the part … hmmm….OK…

It went on like this for 45 minutes, and eventually we just gave up and thanked him for his time…

We googled him afterwards and all his prior experience checked out so it wasn’t BS…

[ARHarh]

techguyone said:

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

Yes. I've done the same.

Always a good method, and yes, so many fall at this hurdle.

Last interview I went to i could not find out anything, bar the directors names, about the company. One of the first things i asked was why I couldn't find any info, then apologised for my lack of knowledge. Turns out they were very secretive about their process and were going to launch in a few months time. They were impressed by the fact I had found out the directors names.

[zippy3x]

techguyone said:

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

Yes. I've done the same.

Always a good method, and yes, so many fall at this hurdle.

I'll bite...

Why is this a "good method" and what do you think this question actually demonstrates about a candidate?

[vixen1700]

bad company said:

I interviewed a candidate who turned up with his dog. No it wasn’t a service dog or anything, he just thought he’d bring the dog along.

That makes me laugh far more than it should really.

[limpsfield]

zippy3x said:

techguyone said:

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

Yes. I've done the same.

Always a good method, and yes, so many fall at this hurdle.

I'll bite...

Why is this a "good method" and what do you think this question actually demonstrates about a candidate?

Surely if you are going to work for someone, you want to know a bit about the company anyway?

And knowing about the company can help you tailor your answers and experience to what you think might fit

[zippy3x]

limpsfield said:

zippy3x said:

techguyone said:

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

Yes. I've done the same.

Always a good method, and yes, so many fall at this hurdle.

I'll bite...

Why is this a "good method" and what do you think this question actually demonstrates about a candidate?

Surely if you are going to work for someone, you want to know a bit about the company anyway?

And knowing about the company can help you tailor your answers and experience to what you think might fit

I totally agree, and would always advise people to do this, but that's not really what I asked.

The original two posters seemed to use this as a binary pass/fail question. So I think my question still stands.

[Hammer67]

zippy3x said:

techguyone said:

Hammer67 said:

When I interviewed for jobs I always asked candidates to tell me about the company they had applied to join.

All I was looking for was the very basics of who/where/why/what that could have been found by a quick Google.

This would utterly stump many of them, often they didn`t know the first thing about it.

I found it quite useful in sorting the wheat from the chaff on a few occasions.

Yes. I've done the same.

Always a good method, and yes, so many fall at this hurdle.

I'll bite...

Why is this a "good method" and what do you think this question actually demonstrates about a candidate?

I`ll bite back.....

Independent thinking.
Planning and preparation skills.
A better understanding of what the job role would be.
To demonstrate some knowledge of and interest in the company structure, activities, range, size, mission statements, ethics.

Etc,etc, etc.

Mainly, to show me, the interviewer, the candidate has bothered to put some effort into the interview as I have to arrange it in the first place.

All the above are desirable qualities, no?

What would you think of a candidate who, when asked this question, can`t string a sentence together?

[zippy3x]

Hammer67 said:

I`ll bite back.....

Independent thinking.
Planning and preparation skills.
A better understanding of what the job role would be.
To demonstrate some knowledge of and interest in the company structure, activities, range, size, mission statements, ethics.

Etc,etc, etc.

Mainly, to show me, the interviewer, the candidate has bothered to put some effort into the interview as I have to arrange it in the first place.

All the above are desirable qualities, no?

What would you think of a candidate who, when asked this question, can`t string a sentence together?

Good answer, unfortunately in the real world what it actually demonstrates is that the interviewee has been to an interview before or has googled about interviews, and knows this question is coming.

So in reality it demonstrates none of the things you've mentioned (I suppose googling or knowing about interviews in general could be considered planning and prep, but I certainly wouldn't be hiring someone for demonstrating something so basic)

Regarding those who can't answer the question, I would say it demonstrates lack of knowledge of the interview process, and lack of desire to find out such, and would definitely put it down as a negative, but I certainly wouldn't be marching prospective candidates out of the door based on this.

[i4got]

zippy3x said:

Hammer67 said:

I`ll bite back.....

Independent thinking.
Planning and preparation skills.
A better understanding of what the job role would be.
To demonstrate some knowledge of and interest in the company structure, activities, range, size, mission statements, ethics.

Etc,etc, etc.

Mainly, to show me, the interviewer, the candidate has bothered to put some effort into the interview as I have to arrange it in the first place.

All the above are desirable qualities, no?

What would you think of a candidate who, when asked this question, can`t string a sentence together?

Good answer, unfortunately in the real world what it actually demonstrates is that the interviewee has been to an interview before or has googled about interviews, and knows this question is coming.

So in reality it demonstrates none of the things you've mentioned (I suppose googling or knowing about interviews in general could be considered planning and prep, but I certainly wouldn't be hiring someone for demonstrating something so basic)

Regarding those who can't answer the question, I would say it demonstrates lack of knowledge of the interview process, and lack of desire to find out such, and would definitely put it down as a negative, but I certainly wouldn't be marching prospective candidates out of the door based on this.

I'd say that it is THE most basic preparation for interview. Any book, web site, school preparation, conversation with someone about the interview process will tell an applicant that they should research the company as the question will almost certainly be asked.

They either didn't expect the question in which case they did no preparation on the interview process, or this did know the question was probable and took no action as a result of that knowledge.

It says to me they couldn't be bothered to do the bare minimum.

[Hammer67]

zippy3x said:

Hammer67 said:

I`ll bite back.....

Independent thinking.
Planning and preparation skills.
A better understanding of what the job role would be.
To demonstrate some knowledge of and interest in the company structure, activities, range, size, mission statements, ethics.

Etc,etc, etc.

Mainly, to show me, the interviewer, the candidate has bothered to put some effort into the interview as I have to arrange it in the first place.

All the above are desirable qualities, no?

What would you think of a candidate who, when asked this question, can`t string a sentence together?

Good answer, unfortunately in the real world what it actually demonstrates is that the interviewee has been to an interview before or has googled about interviews, and knows this question is coming.

So in reality it demonstrates none of the things you've mentioned (I suppose googling or knowing about interviews in general could be considered planning and prep, but I certainly wouldn't be hiring someone for demonstrating something so basic)

Regarding those who can't answer the question, I would say it demonstrates lack of knowledge of the interview process, and lack of desire to find out such, and would definitely put it down as a negative, but I certainly wouldn't be marching prospective candidates out of the door based on this.

Whichever way you hang it, when interviewing multiple candidates for a role, you are in effect, finding ways to differentiate between them and find the best candidate.

This question was a valuable tool in that process.

I never marched anyone out of the door when they "failed" this question.

[zippy3x]

i4got said:

I'd say that it is THE most basic preparation for interview. Any book, web site, school preparation, conversation with someone about the interview process will tell an applicant that they should research the company as the question will almost certainly be asked.

They either didn't expect the question in which case they did no preparation on the interview process, or this did know the question was probable and took no action as a result of that knowledge.

It says to me they couldn't be bothered to do the bare minimum.

Again, I largely agree. But what does it tell you about their ability to do the job, or indeed their enthusiasm or preparation in the actual role you are looking to fulfil?

As I said above, I would put this down as a negative, but I'm still unable to comprehend how this is a pass/fail question.

I guess my second point would be this. I'm a contractor (software development). In 15 years of contracting, I've been asked this question once. If it's such a brilliant, one stop, pass/fail question, why don't companies ask it of contractors?

[zippy3x]

Hammer67 said:

Whichever way you hang it, when interviewing multiple candidates for a role, you are in effect, finding ways to differentiate between them and find the best candidate.

This question was a valuable tool in that process.

I never marched anyone out of the door when they "failed" this question.

I think you're original quote was "wheat from the chaff", which would infer it's a fairly important question for you.

If I were you, I'd be looking for different, better ways to differentiate candidates, rather than a question that the vast majority will only pass because they've done basic googling

[i4got]

zippy3x said:

Again, I largely agree. But what does it tell you about their ability to do the job, or indeed their enthusiasm or preparation in the actual role you are looking to fulfil?

As I said above, I would put this down as a negative, but I'm still unable to comprehend how this is a pass/fail question.

I guess my second point would be this. I'm a contractor (software development). In 15 years of contracting, I've been asked this question once. If it's such a brilliant, one stop, pass/fail question, why don't companies ask it of contractors?

As an ex contractor myself, my view is that most interviewers are pragmatic enough to understand that most contractors don't care who they work for as long as the money (and to an extent the tasks) are acceptable. They certainly won't be expected to get involved in the politics and with the ethos of the organisation in quite the same way that you'd expect from a permanent employee.

Its like the difference between marrying someone and just having a hook-up. I'd expect most people to want to know a bit more about who they plan to marry.

[zippy3x]

i4got said:

As an ex contractor myself, my view is that most interviewers are pragmatic enough to understand that most contractors don't care who they work for as long as the money (and to an extent the tasks) are acceptable. They certainly won't be expected to get involved in the politics and with the ethos of the organisation in quite the same way that you'd expect from a permanent employee.

Its like the difference between marrying someone and just having a hook-up. I'd expect most people to want to know a bit more about who they plan to marry.

Again, I agree, but to continue your analogy, would you view a negative answer to a completely trivial question as a valid way of deciding not to marry?

[i4got]

zippy3x said:

i4got said:

As an ex contractor myself, my view is that most interviewers are pragmatic enough to understand that most contractors don't care who they work for as long as the money (and to an extent the tasks) are acceptable. They certainly won't be expected to get involved in the politics and with the ethos of the organisation in quite the same way that you'd expect from a permanent employee.

Its like the difference between marrying someone and just having a hook-up. I'd expect most people to want to know a bit more about who they plan to marry.

Again, I agree, but to continue your analogy, would you view a negative answer to a completely trivial question as a valid way of deciding not to marry?

No but if my prospective wife asked me "tell me whet you love about me" and I said I haven't really given it any thought then I wouldn't be too surprised to find a ring shaped dent in my forehead.