#interview tactics

[sweaterkittensahoy]

As Long as I'm Thinking about Job Interview Stuff

Here's my general pattern for answering the "Tell us about time you failed / dealt with a bad co-worker / had to struggle to complete something /etc."

These questions are asked to suss out if you're an asshole. The reason there's more than one of them is to see if you have a shit talking problem that can take a little time to show itself. Basically, interviewers are trying to get a sense of if you're gonna be a fucking problem once you're comfortable at a new workplace.

I literally once watched myself lose a job because the managers asked, "How do you deal with people who might be temperamental at times?" It was a software company, so I figured they meant "At least one of our engineers is a huge asshole, but we think he's worth keeping around even if he yells at people." And so I said, "Look, we all have our moments, and I do my best to be understanding if someone's having a tough time. I think it's important to remember we're all working together and trying to make something succeed. That being said, if the problem is I'm getting yelled at because someone else is being unprofessional, I'm not going to stand there and allow that abuse. I will be talking to HR, at a minimum, and if that doesn't resolve it, I will take care of it myself."

And, let me be clear, the moment any positive vibes left the room was when I said, "I'm not gonna stand there and allow that abuse." Which told me EXACTLY how they were handling the situation currently.

Anyway, sorry for the recipe blog wander. Back to the point. Here's how I handle the questions where they want you to discuss something negative.

I take a moment to think. Yes, I know the question is coming and already have a few options picked for an answer, but taking a moment to think before answering means I'm not gonna stumble over my words when I start.

Start with the negative. If the question is, "Tell us about dealing with a difficult co-worker," Start at the problem. "Well, I remember once I worked with someone who really didn't like answering questions via email."

Explain why it made the job difficult. "Given that what I do is focused on getting things written down, I prefer sending questions via email whenever possible so I always have a clear starting point on the information I use, even if the information changes a lot through conversation."

Restate the problem as the beginning of the solution. "But, this person didn't like to answer questions in writing, so I started going over to his desk and asking him the questions."

Say something nice about the problem. "He was great face-to-face. Always happy to help."

Explain the solution. "And it turned out he was happy to read anything I would print out and hand him. So, I'd go ask him the questions, go back to my desk and do a first draft based on what he'd said, and then give him a physical copy to mark up."

Stamp a positive final remark on it. "Once I realized how to best communicate with him, he was very open to helping. If I walked over with a first draft, he'd just look at it right then so I could make updates as quickly as possible. And he started letting me know if there were any major design changes on the way and explaining it to me earlier in the process, which made it easier to make updates."

That's my technique. The biggest thing of it, I think, is to make sure your answer is sincere. Don't use a situation where you still want to shove someone into traffic. Pick a situation where you feel like it actually turned out well in the end.

[asiamediasearch-blog]

By Manali Mittal You just walked into the interview room and bang- everyone in the interview panel seems to be appreciative. Then days after you have sent a Thank-You note, you wonder what went wrong that you didn’t hear from the company again. Some of

[kellenmyers]

Blog Post #10

Part 1: One of my sources, an article from the Guardian entitled “How the iPod became a tool of war,” tells of music’s effect on Iraqi soldiers, and expands on Jonathan Pieslak’s book Sound Targets, and his viewpoints.The Guardian expands on his ideas, specifically that of the iPod/digital music players effect on soldiers, stating how motivational music can quickly and drastically change an individuals through the songs being played, and how tracks turning ordinary people/soldiers into “monsters.” Although this source is brief, it expands on Pieslak’s ideas and thoughts through the means of an Exhibit Source, where much of the information in this article can be used for interpretation or analysis on the same ideas as that of those in Sound Targets. 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/sep/28/heavy-metal-music-us-army-iraq 

The second source I have comes from the APA (American Psychological Association) telling of the effects music has on an individual and their health. Daniel Levitin, a Neuropsychologist, scientist, musician, author and record producer tells, through the means of an interview, how music can affect one’s mental and physical health. Levitin holds B.A. in Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Science from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon. In addition he has been in several musical groups, both classical and contemporary, including rock bands, making him a wonderful source and expert on this subject. He provides evidence of how music can alter brain chemistry, promote healthy immune system, and promote other positive effects on the body, as well as the negative ones. He also tells of interesting miscellaneous facts that can add to Pieslak's argument such as listening to Mozart to improve ones IQ tests. Although some might interpret this article as an Exhibit Source because of specific things being mentioned, this article would be considered a Background Source, because it provides (very strong) general information and basic facts that greatly enhances and strengthens what Pieslak tells of in Sound Targets. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/music-health.aspx 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2:

How has music been used as an interrogation technique? Do you consider it to be no touch? Do you think it should be used in this capacity? (Make sure you do the reading before you answer these questions.) I believe that music is most definitely an interrogation technique. It influences almost everyone’s moods and actions, and would almost certainly influence anyone in an interrogation/interview setting. Depending on the type of music being used in the interrogation, whether something relaxing or subtle, such as a Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata,” or something more driven/intense such as a “Enter Sandman” by Metallica, the music builds a foundation/motivator for the person being interviewed to go off of. In Chapter 4 of Sound Targets, Jonathan Pieslak tells of many different interesting musical or audible interrogation and torture excerpts ranging from a baby's cry, to Brittney Spears or Metallica. It is interesting to read what Pieslak shares of people's reactions are to these different types of sources, especially over a long period of time. It is also interesting what the laws, especially that of the U.S. allow to be used and not used in terms of music selection and torture tactics, as well as the barriers that are set. While some anticipate music be used as a secondary source to enhance or attract people to propaganda, using it as a primary source is very interesting to read about, learning of the direct effects that it has on an individual. I believe that music is absolutely considered a non-touch technique and an excellent way to interrogate someone. Any method of interrogation that doesn't involve physical contact or harm seems much more constitutional and just, and should unquestionably be used in capacity as one of the most sought out ways to interview an individual, both domestically, as well as overseas/in a warfare setting. A prime example from Sound Targets comes from p. 79, stating “unless you are a biblical literalist, Joshua did not make the walls of Jericho with his trumpets, but he psychologically dislocated the defenders with that operation.” This shows that music, while still being a form of interrogation, is a psychological method, rather than a physical/touching method. The fact that when someone is being interviewed while not being physically harmed and producing the same results as someone who is being physically harmed undoubtedly shows the power of music.

[annoyingpr]

The Unwelcome Interruption

Yes, I know it's the job of the PR executive to jump in during an interview to save an executive from himself, but it's one of the most infuriating thing for a reporter, who is working hard to build a decent flow to the conversation. The next time you want to jump in to add some extraneous fact, don't. We're not going to be listening anyway. Rather, we'll be silently seething at the interruption.