From the Ask Tom mailbag:
Question:
I have only been reading your blog for a couple months so bear with me for the inane question. I was curious when I read today’s post why you consider the question “Where do you want to be in 5 years?” the most idiotic question you could ask in an interview. I have been in quite a few interviews and have heard (and asked) some idiotic questions in an attempt to learn how to identify good talent and a good fit to my team so I would love to get your take on this interview question.
Response:
I have a very strong bias in the interview stage of recruiting (and I have to give Barry Shamis the credit). First, I believe that preparation is the key to gaining enough information to make a better hiring decision. But it’s not enough to gain a higher quantity of data. The quality of the data is as important.
So, what data is helpful and what data is NOT helpful, even damaging.
Helpful
- Real facts.
- Verifiable facts.
- Real, verifiable facts about past performance.
- Real, verifiable facts that demonstrate the translation of technical knowledge into applied performance (behavior).
- Real, verifiable facts that demonstrate the translation of attitude and emotion into applied performance (behavior).
Not Helpful
- Stuff that got made up.
- Stuff that got exaggerated.
- Stuff that came from a textbook, but was never actually applied in past performance (behavior).
- Conjecture.
- Opinion.
- Stuff that is not verifiable.
- Stuff that exists only in the mind of the candidate, with NO basis in reality.
So, look at this question, “Where do you want to be in five years?” Which bucket does it fall into? Helpful? Not Helpful?
For me it depends. “Where do you want to be in five years” is probably bordering on useless, but it might be helpful combined with some other questions to find out how the candidate has met their personal career goals in the past.
The most important aspect of interviewing is preparation. Spend some serious time and think of meaningful questions that are easy for the candidate to understand (but not necessarily answer). Without clear, useful questions all bets are off!
Daniel
I agree with the type of data you are suggesting here. I struggle with execution. Interviewing is an art and a technical process. Too much intrepretation on the interviewers and interviewees instead of direct brutal dialogue. You have “real and verifiable facts” strewn throughout your statements and obviously your philosophy. This is solid, but deals nothing with the interviewers skills in interpretation and bias built form their caree to that point.
The issue is the bias that intreprets on both sides. I was in an interview (2nd and decision making interview) within the last two weeks for a contract position where all of the questions were slanted towards a project managment aspect. The trouble was the need was for a functional consultant. Now, I obviously knew what I was interviewing for, so why the slant form them.
#1- their bias of my resume came out in the in questions
#2- I had answered many functional questions in the 1st interview, why no continuance or follow-up?
#3- I was the only one to make it to that cut from three in the first level
I realized what was going on 15 minutes in and attempted to redirect my answers without being disobedient to the questions. They made it clear that somwwhere between the previous week, where I was a shoo-in and a formality to bias got in the way.
Real and verifiable facts are always open to bias….that is my bias…I know 🙂