The Worst Interview Question

[jjfz3000]

Which one of the above is the worst or most useless interview question and why?

I would probably say it's the one asking for your weaknesses. The employer wants to know if the candidate's weaknesses would affect the job, but obviously no one would ever use a weakness that's relevant to the job. I would probably use ones like I have a poor understanding of the existence of anti-matter.


All of those questions are good at finding out poor candidates, but you can't find out who's qualified.


EDIT: My definition of "worst interview question" is not the most difficult or strange, but one that doesn't reveal anything about the candidate.

Another danger is that asking questions which have "creative" answers make the interview too subjective. For example, I love playing chess, and if someone answers that he want to be the pawn since it has the potential to transform into other pieces then I would probably think it's pretty creative. But someone else might think he's a nerd and it would be a dull answer. But the problem is the interviewer is rarely the person's boss or co-worker so how would he know what kind of answer the boss would prefer?

[ullyeus]

Search funtion...and we have a careers section.

and it's a stupid question.

[45ED]

Which one of the above is the worst or most useless interview question and why?

I would probably say it's the one asking for your weaknesses. The employer wants to know if the candidate's weaknesses would affect the job, but obviously no one would ever use a weakness that's relevant to the job. I would probably use ones like I have a poor understanding of the existence of anti-matter.

All of those questions are good at finding out poor candidates, but you can't find out who's qualified.

I would say the worse interview question would be the one for which there is no apparent, viewable question. Because if there is no question asked/posted, there can be no answer given. And if someone expects you to answer a question you have no way of knowing, you're screwed.

But really, why are these contenders for the "Worst Interview Question" title? IMO, they're not really into your answer as much as they are into how you answer the question. That in tandem with what the answer is gives an employee a lot of stuff to work with when considering a candidate's potential as an employee.

[dealguy2]

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

[ullyeus]

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

??? I think this would and is a fantastic question that gives you real insight into a person and how they would deal with a situation...

[dealguy2]

??? I think this would and is a fantastic question that gives you real insight into a person and how they would deal with a situation...

This is the typical standard crap everyone gives the scripted answer to. If an interviewer asks me this I know for sure they're idiots and they don't take this seriously. You can tell from someone's resume if they can do the job. The purpose of the interview is to determine whether or not the resume is factual. After the interview if the person seems legit then you phone the references as a final check.

[tail_duck]

This is the typical standard crap everyone gives the scripted answer to. If an interviewer asks me this I know for sure they're idiots and they don't take this seriously. You can tell from someone's resume if they can do the job. The purpose of the interview is to determine whether or not the resume is factual. After the interview if the person seems legit then you phone the references as a final check.

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

You seem very naiive and narrow minded. I wonder who had the brains to hire you? Two out of your 3 handpicked questions are standard and are not stupid as they relate to job function. I totally agree with you on the animal question.

As for my answer to this poll: the soup option. All of the other questions? Anyone with a job should know the EXACT answer to all of the questions if you know how interviews work. For example, tell me about yourself can be redirected back to the interviewer 'personally or professionally'? Guaranteed 9/10 they'll say professionally where you retort your past experience leading up to qualification for the job you're being interviewed for.

[red120]

The worst interview question is the one you didn't anticipate.

Or, from the HR perspective, the best..

[Tig]

All of the following are signs the interviewer is a douche bag:

1) What is one of your weaknesses?
2) Tell me about a difficult situation you've dealt with at work.
3) If you were an animal which one would you be?

When the economy was better I'd usually just wish them a good day after one of these bombs was dropped. Now I'd probably stay and just mutter the memorized responses like everyone else does. Why the hell do people waste their time with this crap?

I've interviewed lots of people and asked #1 plenty of times. If someone walked out on me after facing that question then I would think that there is something seriously wrong with their head and be grateful that they never got the opportunity to go further into the interview process.

If they gave me a canned response, then that would tell me something as well. What you don't realize is that as a hiring manager, sometimes the manner in which you answer is more important than the answer itself. Sometimes I ask abstract questions and encourage the candidate to talk the solution out loud so that I can judge their problem solving techniques and cognitive thinking (I commonly pose a problem to them and ask how they would go about finding an answer). Other questions are designed to see how they handle stressful situations. I don't care about the asnwer, but instead trying to elicit a reaction that I can gauge. As far as the technical side is concerned (I hire developers), the content that I use and the way in which I structure my interviews, I will know your competency level within the first few minutes (I administer an oral test). The rest of the time, I am trying to figure out if you're a good fit for the team, if you're going to bail down the road. Heck, Ive even got questions designed to let me know how prone you are to ADD or if you can focus for extended periods of time without taking cigarette and coffee breaks every 30 minutes. And your answers will be judged based on verbal responses as well as non verbal cues. You're not doing yourself any favors by being naive.

Edit: Over the years, I've even had a few people look me in the eye and tell me that they have no weaknesses. Now, I like that answer because you've gotta have balls to give it and I love self assurrance. But I also know other hiring managers that will strike you out for something like that because they view it as arrogance. So it's a crapshoot.

[ullyeus]

This is the typical standard crap everyone gives the scripted answer to. If an interviewer asks me this I know for sure they're idiots and they don't take this seriously. You can tell from someone's resume if they can do the job. The purpose of the interview is to determine whether or not the resume is factual. After the interview if the person seems legit then you phone the references as a final check.

hmmm...well...you're wrong.

[chrome_dout]

hmmm...well...you're wrong.

+1

[BananaHunter]

If you think a question is stupid, chances are good that it's you who can't can't see the logic behind it. There are more naive candidates than there are dumb interviewers. Interviewers tend to be people from HR or managers who have demonstrated competence at work.

There are lots of traditional interview questions and a prepared candidate can give canned answers for them. Odd questions are good for testing your character. Without a prepared answer, the typical person will say whatever is on their mind.

Even if the question seems stupid, you should demonstrate that you can adapt. If you don't see the purpose behind the question, you should ask the interviewer to clarify.

By the "worst" question I think you should be asking about the most difficult.

[jjfz3000]

If you think a question is stupid, chances are good that it's you who can't can't see the logic behind it. There are more naive candidates than there are dumb interviewers. Interviewers tend to be people from HR or managers who have demonstrated competence at work.

There are lots of traditional interview questions and a prepared candidate can give canned answers for them. Odd questions are good for testing your character. Without a prepared answer, the typical person will say whatever is on their mind.

Even if the question seems stupid, you should demonstrate that you can adapt. If you don't see the purpose behind the question, you should ask the interviewer to clarify.

By the "worst" question I think you should be asking about the most difficult.

Well, traditional interviews don't work. Most interviews are now either behavourial or case-based. The first one basically asks you about how you handled a situation at your previous job. The second one presents a new case or scenario and asks the candidate to solve it.

The problem with questions above is that candidates are not going to reveal things that would compromise their chance of getting the job.

You can then argue, it's not the answer that counts it's the attitude or manner through which the candidate answers. But that doesn't make sense. People are nervous during interviews their attitude then doesn't reflect their attitude at their job.

How do you know the attitude of someone who's being monitored and scrutinized will be the same as when he/she has to do work without any supervision? I know a lot of shy people who are actually very nice and helpful friends. But other who seem very out-going are actually very manipulative and destructive, subtly.

EDIT: There are good and bad interviewers. Just because a doctor is a doctor doesn't mean she'll make no mistakes.

[molala]

I never encountered the:

If you were an animal/a can of soup/some other random object, which one would you be?

question.

[williamsauga]

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Its nobody's business!