This is Part 2 of this article. Read Part 1 here.
*Note:
1. Throughout the article, the phrase “the business field” or “the business world” means the whole society where people join the workforce. It does NOT only represent people who work in a business-type position, but also every people who work in office jobs.
2. Throughout the article, “Boss” only refers to the CEO or the owner of the company; it does not refer to the “Supervisor” who is not a CEO but manages some employees. “Boss” and “Supervisor” is different in the article as above describes.
3. Throughout the article, “employers” is referred to the boss, hiring manager, and HR. It is NOT only referred to as a boss or an owner of a company.
4. When a situation in the article is not specifically pointed to as a “situation in Taiwan”, such a situation happens in the West, too.
2. Stop asking these interview questions
Some interview questions need to be discarded. This article in 2017 from human resource expert, Liz Ryan, lists 10 interview questions employers need to stop asking. Unfortunately, many bosses, hiring managers, and HRs are still asking these questions. For example, “what is your weakness” this question is still often asked. If you are a boss, hiring manager, or HR, I suggest you read this article and discard these questions in that article [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2017/09/24/ten-interview-questions-you-need-to-stop-asking-job-candidates/?sh=e3d03aa5fb19 . A Linkedin post by the same expert, Liz Ryan, provides a detailed answer to why some of the questions are bad, and what to ask instead [2]https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_stop-asking-candidates-1-why-do-you-want-activity-6683117226645696512-ViTL/ . These articles are published in 2017 and are very popular. It’s a shame that many work professionals skipped such articles when they “did come across these articles”, or they read them but don’t stop asking these questions. Then they continue asking these questions that shouldn’t be asked. Obviously, these work professionals don’t care about their employees’ development or how to find the right people to hire – that’s why they skip such articles or don’t accept the suggestions. Anyway, you may check these articles out, as well.
In addition, Liz Ryan also wrote an article suggesting some answers to these stupid interview questions. If you are a job seeker, you may check it out [3]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/smart-answers-stupid-interview-questions-liz-ryan/ .
Yes. These questions should be discarded. I also would like to add some questions. But before that, I would like to add a few of my points to Liz Ryan’s articles. Even though I agree with most of her points, there are two points I don’t agree with.
2.1 My view of the interview question: What is your weakness?
I agree that this “Weakness” question needs to be discarded, but I don’t fully agree with her point regarding why this question is bad. Three reasons from her perspective: One, many cultures do not believe people are flawed and need improvement. Two, an employer has no right to know what another person’s weakness is. Answering a perspective regarding “It’s not a religious viewpoint that people have a weakness”, she says in an article, “It sure as hell isn’t a scientific view. Even if we agreed that people have weaknesses, why would you feel it is your privilege to pry into someone’s life that way? [4]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/please-god-make-them-stop-asking-whats-your-greatest-weakness-ryan/ ” Three, retorting the reason from HR professionals that asking the “weakness” question lets them know whether a candidate is self-aware, she thinks, “These folks do not understand what self-awareness is. It means knowing yourself, not evaluating other people”.
Ok. I don’t fully agree with her reasons; I agree with the view that “It’s not a religious viewpoint that people have a weakness”, but because of that, I also agree with HR professionals’ perspectives that this question can let them know whether a candidate is self-aware. I think Liz’s argument isn’t enough to retort this perspective. She tried to express that people can be self-aware of themselves, but people shouldn’t evaluate whether other people are self-aware. Nevertheless, there is no reason in terms of why people shouldn’t evaluate whether other people are self-aware. No one wants to work with arrogant people (though often happens). Employers should hire people who are willing to improve themselves, not employees who never improve themselves, and people need to improve themselves to make them better employees. That’s why whether a person is self-aware is a crucial point for evaluating candidates, and that’s the original purpose of this interview question. I am not sure why Liz thinks this “Weakness“ question is a private question, but this question never involves a candidate’s privacy as long as the answer is about weaknesses related to work.
Anyway, despite that I agree with the HR professionals’ perspectives, I still agree that this “Weakness” question needs to be discarded. Why? Because it’s a pointless question. That it’s pointless is not because it is a private question (It can be not private if you ask and answer in the right way as I said), it’s because this question can’t help employers find candidates who indeed are self-aware, only causing candidates’ headaches.
Let me explain it in detail. Many articles on career websites suggest candidates answer this “Weakness” question in three ways: First, say something that doesn’t hurt you as a candidate. For example, “I focus too much on details”. Second, discuss non-essential skills which are not key to the success of the job: “I frequently get nervous when I think about presenting in front of a crowd or group of people. Fortunately, as a counselor, I don’t need to possess that skill. I excel with communication when working one-on-one, or in a small family setting, which is essential for my role as a counselor [5]https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/job-interview-question-what-are-your-greatest-weaknesses”. Third, mention a weakness you are trying to improve with how you plan to improve it, or a weakness that you have already improved with how you did it: “I am not good at public speaking. I have signed up for a course to learn how to improve this. I also joined a public speaking group. I hope with time this will be improved [6]https://cv-nation.com/blogs/news/12-examples-of-weaknesses-for-your-job-interview [7]https://www.myperfectresume.com/career-center/interviews/questions/what-is-an-area-you-always-wanted-to-improve .” These answers are all great answers, but there is one problem: Not all of the three types of answers tell you whether the candidate in front of you is self-aware. The third way is the type of answer that can let you know the candidate who answers such an answer is self-aware and indeed have the intention to improve. However, the first and second way is not. Since the first and second types of answers are about qualities or skills which aren’t essential to the success of the job, it’s hard to know whether a candidate is self-aware to the extent that he/she will improve himself/herself to make himself/herself a better employee “for the success of the job”. Therefore, to conclude, I agree that employers should stop asking this Weakness question, but my reason is different from Liz’s reasons regarding privacy and regarding that people shouldn’t evaluate. My reason is that you won’t always get an employee who is indeed self-aware and will improve himself/herself to make himself/herself a better employee “for the success of the job” because of asking this question. If you are going to ask this question anyway, ask in this way instead: What is a work-related weakness of you that you are currently working on, or already improving? This way can restrict the types of answers to only the third type of answer, which is the only type of answer that is relevant to the success of the job. Equally importantly, if you ask in this way, you have to accept that some candidates are very excellent and therefore their answer will be that they do not have any work-related weakness that matters to the success of their jobs (They may have some disadvantages, but they don’t have any work-related disadvantage that matters to the success of their jobs ).
By the way, many Taiwanese employers need more improvements than the majority of U.S. companies. Nowadays, many career websites in the U.S. suggest candidates make the answer to this “Weakness question” relevant to work, and also state that candidates will be likely to face follow-up questions from employers if they give a Weakness that is irrelevant to work. However, in Taiwan, many employers accept weaknesses that are irrelevant to work as an answer. Stop accepting such an answer and start asking “What is a work-related weakness of you that you are currently working on, or you already improve?” instead will be the way of both making you find better candidates and respecting candidates’ privacies.
In addition, first, many suggested answers from Taiwanese on Taiwanese websites are only about the first type of the answer: “I focus too much on detail”, “I am a perfectionist”, etc. Most Taiwanese websites do not include the second and third types of answers. I suggest Taiwanese candidates check out some English websites to look for some professional answers to answer this Weakness question if having to answer this question.
Second, I don’t know if this is common in western countries, but in Taiwan, hiring managers and HRs often request candidates provide “three” weaknesses – not one, but three. Since it’s a common interview question, many hiring manager and HRs seems to think this is an easy interview question. I do think that it’s possible that most western companies only ask for “one” weakness, not three. Otherwise, the “Weakness” question in the majority of websites will be “Give me three of your weaknesses”. To Taiwanese hiring managers and HRs: Do you see the three ways to answer this question now? Then you still think it’s easy to provide three weaknesses now? For example, are you going to list out three skills you are lacking and say you have signed up for courses for each of them “at the same time”? In reality, learning one skill probably takes some time. How are you going to learn many skills “at once” when works are so busy? Therefore, even if you still want to ask this Weakness question, one weakness is enough; stop asking the candidate to provide “three” weaknesses.
2.2 My view of the interview question: What is your five-year plan?
“What’s your five-year plan?” is another interview question that Liz urges employers to stop asking. I agree with this, but I would like to add some of my perspectives. Liz comments on this question, “None of your business unless you’re offering me a five-year gig. Irrelevant, unless you’re offering me a five-year gig. Is that what you’re offering?” Well said. I agree with her. Nevertheless, although I agree that this question should be discarded, I do think this question has its advantages. I will explain what advantages it has and what should employers and candidates do. In addition, there is one of Liz’s reasons I don’t fully agree with. She thinks candidates don’t need to share personal life plans at an interview, when they might be divergent from the ‘ideal path’ imagined by a possible next boss [8] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140824055148-52594–where-do-you-see-yourself-in-five-years/ . I partially agree with this view – A personal life plan shouldn’t have to be shared, but not fully agree with it. I will explain in a later paragraph.
Let me start with one of the common comments on Linkedin. There are some people on Linkedin echoing Liz’s suggestion, “What if my five-year goal is to be in your (the hiring manager) position?” I agree. Working hard and looking for a promotion is normal and nothing wrong with that, but saying “I hope I can get promoted” is weird, as the direct promotion means the hiring manager’s current position. However, actually many people’s reasons for their objections to this question are this: “Nothing. I have no plan.” This can be a good reason only in some cases, but not in all cases. In my view, many people don’t seem to understand the purpose of this question. This question can be used in a good way. The purpose of this question is actually about letting a hiring manager knows a candidate’s career goal and how he/she plans to achieve this within this company if hired. A hiring manager can help a candidate execute this plan and achieve this candidate’s career goal in the end. For example, if a candidate answers that she/he would like to get promoted, while other candidates or current employees in the same position did not say that, this means this candidate has more ambitions than other employees. Hence, if you hire this candidate, you may give this candidate more important tasks that may lead to a promotion, while giving other employees only normal and must-do tasks in this position. Until now, people think a candidate who doesn’t have a five-year plan is bad because he/she lacks motivation for work. But that’s actually fine. Not everyone has to be ambitious at work. Thus, not every person wants a promotion; this means more responsibilities and possibly more work that leads to work overtime. If an employee is willing to stay in their current position, he/she doesn’t need to take on more responsibilities or be assigned important tasks. Another example that can illustrate this case is a Customer Service job. Because it’s a job that can be easily replaced and the possibility of career development in this job isn’t high, more people who do this job won’t seek career development, compared to people in other job categories. If there is a candidate who wants to have career development in this job, when there is an important task, you can think of this person and give her/him that task. ( By the way, the two examples do not only represent jobs that don’t have a high possibility of career development of this job. I am only expressing that such jobs have more people who won’t seek career development than other jobs do, so it’s a good example to explain. ) The two examples show this question is good when used and understood on a good day. However, I have seen many supervisors ask this question only because other supervisors ask this question. They don’t care about employees’ career development when asking this question; they only care about themselves. Therefore they only see this question as a Pro-forma question. They often accept answers related to personal life which Liz questions why should candidates share their personal goals with managers. There is no need to share personal goals because these personal goals are not answers that should be provided or accepted in a job interview.
The last example is if a candidate’s career goal is switching around different departments, building experience in each of the departments, then getting promoted because of rich and broad experience, since the hiring manager knows this candidate’s wish when hiring this candidate, the hiring manager can check other departments’ needs with supervisors in other departments and therefore help to transfer this candidate to another department in the future. Some supervisors will think, “Why should I waste my time training this employee but getting this employee to leave my team?” Some people will even say, “She/He can’t speak this plan out. Keep that in her/his mind! Speaking this out means “I won’t work for you after 2 or 3 years”. This makes she/he like an idiot who doesn’t know the work society.” This comment will probably come from a Taiwanese supervisor. However, many supervisors in U.S. companies are willing to help transfer their employees to another department and they are happy when their employees can grow up within the company. If you think in the above ways – “it’s a waste of my time” or “A candidate can’t speak such a plan out”, you are a supervisor who is not only outdated and selfish as you don’t care your employee’s career development but also an idiot, as you ignore the contribution this candidate can make during the time she/he works for you – before you transfer her/him to another department. Even if you don’t help transfer this employee to another department after a certain amount of time (Maybe it’s two years), this employee will leave for another company for a better opportunity as every employee “including you” do. More importantly, even if a candidate says her/his plan is to build experience in your company and look for a better opportunity in another company after 5 years, that should be acceptable, as well. Some people will say a similar thing, “That’s everyone’s plan, but he/she can’t speak this plan out. Keep that in his/her mind! Speaking this out makes she/he like an idiot who doesn’t know the work society.” In this case, even the U.S supervisors may agree that speaking this during an interview makes this candidate looks like an idiot. However, let me tell you: First, you are the one who asks this “five-year-plan” question. If you don’t want an honest answer, why do you ask this question and waste both your and your candidate’s time? You ask this question only because other supervisors ask this question. Only for doing a Pro-forma thing? Then why not just discard this question as Liz suggests? Unless you work for a government and your government demand you must ask this question, nobody force you must ask this question. Second, having a concrete plan shows this candidate has a goal for her/his career, and it may be ambitious. That should be a good thing. Even though a goal for 5-years-later is no longer about working for you or this company, having a concrete plan with such a goal is still better than having no plan and only wanting to get a salary by staying in this company forever. Again, you should instead focus on what “contributions” this candidate can bring to you with her/his abilities “during the time she/he works for you”, and then decide on which candidate you will hire based on the candidates’ abilities and their goals, NOT hiring a candidate who will work for you for the longest time. I really don’t understand why you are annoyed when an employee expresses her/his interest in moving on to another opportunity that is not about working for you, either switching to another department or leaving for another company for a better opportunity. Your employee is not your slave. Focus on what “contribution” this candidate can bring with her/his abilities during the time she/he works for you instead.
By the way, first, I am not saying you should “only” hire candidates who look for career development. Candidates who don’t look for promotions are okay as long as he/she can complete the normal tasks of the job. You can hire either of them or hire both of them if there are multiple vacancies for the same position. However, in Taiwan, I see many candidates who don’t have a goal for their careers get hired and get promoted. Many candidates who are equally capable of doing the job don’t speak out about their real plans, just as other candidates don’t. They get hired simply because of the personal preference of the hiring managers. If you let these candidates express their real plans and evaluate candidates based on both their abilities and their goals, the result will be different.
Second, as I said, I don’t mean you have to hire a candidate when he/she has a goal. Sometimes his/her goal can’t be achieved within your company. Some businesses may not exist in the company you work for. If that’s the case, you can be honest and tell your candidate that, let him/her decide whether he/she is still interested in this position.
Liz comments on this five-year-plan question, “We may have life goals that don’t intersect with a neat and tidy career path with whichever employer we’re talking to today. Should we share those personal life plans at an interview, when they might be divergent from the ‘ideal path’ imagined by our possible next boss? [9] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140824055148-52594–where-do-you-see-yourself-in-five-years/ .
Here is my view:
First, since these are “personal” life plans, there is no need to share them with a hiring manager or HRs. It’s hiring managers and HRs should stop accepting such answers because they love to get a sense of a candidate’s personality by snooping on people’s privacies. And you don’t have to share these personal plans with your boss, either. To both hiring managers and candidates: Just focusing on what a candidate plans to achieve in terms of a job is enough.
Second, yes. There are some candidates who don’t have a goal in work but only have goals in their personal life or some candidates whose plans are about better opportunities in other companies that are also different from the ‘ideal path’ of their possible next boss. In both types of cases, you should refer to my previous paragraphs for examples of how hiring managers and HRs should comprehend such goals. It’s okay for candidates directly express that they don’t look for promotions and only want to get salaries by doing the normal tasks required in this job. It’s also okay for candidates who directly express that they want to build experience in this company and will check out better opportunities in other companies after five years.
Therefore, to conclude, this five-year-plan question is good if both hiring managers and candidates know the purpose of this question, utilize this question in a good way, and comprehend candidates’ answers to this question in a good way. Yet, I still suggest that hiring managers can discard this question, but candidates can proactively describe and talk about five-year plans with hiring managers if they want some help from future supervisors. You can weigh in this factor along with every candidate’s abilities, then make your decision on who to hire.
Note: By the way, another article by Liz Ryan in 2017 teaches the right way to interview a job candidate. I think most of the points in the article are good, though I don’t think every point of the article is entirely correct. I won’t discuss what points I don’t agree with in this article, but there are still some great points in that article; you may check this article out.
2.3 Other interview questions I suggest employers STOP ASKING
Ok. Let’s talk about what are some other interview questions that I think employers shouldn’t ask candidates.
2.3.1 What did you do in this gap in your resume?
Yes. STOP asking this question. This should also be an outdated question. Some people will think of the case that stay-at-home moms trying to go back to the workforce. That’s NOT my main point here. Yes, there do have some discrimination in that case. Nevertheless, although there are indeed some employers who still discriminate against women who come back to the workforce after a big gap because of being a stay-at-home mom, many other employers nowadays actually accept women who have a career gap because they were stay-at-home moms, as long as these women as candidates have possessed the necessary and up-to-date skills that can perform the job duties. In other cases, there are some reasons that are about taking time with families, having treatment in a hospital, having travel, or doing a working holiday in another country. These reasons, despite being personal, are often already acceptable among many employers, too. The key point I want to make is not about these already-accepted answers; the key point I want to make is this: There are also other reasons that may not be acceptable among employers. For example, leaving a company in less than 2 years because of a variety of reasons and having a long time in finding a new job. Or just join a company recently but find this company has some problems that you can’t accept, or this company isn’t suitable for you. Therefore, you start looking for another job while still working for the current company. As a result, you leave a gap in the resume because you can’t mention this experience in your resume: Employers will think you are too unstable and suspect you may leave their companies very soon if hiring you. Believe me. Although such experiences look disgraceful judged based on the way of thinking of the current society, many of you have experienced a similar thing, either it’s because of work politics, the management style of the supervisor, the management style of the company, the majority of work assigned to you isn’t what you expected before joining, or the picture that your supervisor described isn’t quite as same as the reality in the office. Many of you have experienced one or more of these, don’t you? Some of you choose to stay in the company and find a new job at the same time; some of you choose to leave right away. Either way, if finding a new job isn’t quite smooth, it will take a long time to find a new job, thus creating a gap in your resume. Many of you have experienced a similar thing and looked for fake reasons to answer this “Gap” question.
In my view, this “Gap” question shouldn’t be asked.
First, even if there is a gap because of these reasons, so what? It’s time for bosses, hiring managers, and HRs to accept that leaving a company in less than 2 years because of the above reasons should NOT be disgraceful things, and these people should STOP asking this “Gap” question.
Second, as I said, many employers accept a type of gap: “go to travel”. However, they do not accept candidates having a big gap and didn’t tell any reasons that look “reasonable” in employers’ eyes. They think candidates having a big gap with no reason represents a red flag – there are some issues with such a candidate, so companies didn’t hire him/her. If they find a candidate leaving a company in less than 2 years, they think this candidate is unstable and may leave the company very soon if hiring this candidate. Employers will say they want to know if a candidate with a career gap has done something to strengthen his/her abilities during that gap in order to go back to work. However, as I said, many of us have experienced leaving a company in less than 2 years because of work politics or any problem in the company, creating a gap in the resume. It seems odd to me that employers can accept reasons such as “taking time with family” or “going on a travel” which have nothing to do with “strengthening job skills”, but can’t accept candidates having a gap because of other reasons. If a candidate has a big gap without a commonly-accepted reason, they think “that’s bad”; if a candidate goes to travel, they think, “Ok. Just taking a break. Nothing big deal. I will see if she/he has the abilities I look for.” Let me ask you: If a candidate already possess necessary skills to perform the job you are hiring before a gap, why do you care whether a candidate has done anything meaningful during a gap? Since whether possessing the necessary skills to perform the job or not is what you look for in a candidate who went back from a travel, isn’t it? Now, is whether a candidate did anything meaningful during a gap or not still important? NO. What a candidate did during a gap is a candidate’s privacy and none of your business as long as a candidate possesses the necessary skills to perform the job. Because of that, whether a candidate has a long unemployment period while doing nothing is none of your business. A red flag because this may indicate many companies didn’t hire him/her out of some problems of this candidate? If a candidate possesses the necessary abilities to perform the job you are hiring based on your evaluation and you feel there is nothing wrong with his/her attitude, why does it matter that other companies didn’t hire him/her? Can’t you have your independent thinking and make decisions with that? Therefore, even if a candidate has done nothing during a gap while the other candidate did go on a travel to another country, so what? Even if there is a gap because of no reason, so what? Why can’t a person lay on his/her bed and do nothing during a gap? These are candidates’ privacies, and candidates shouldn’t be required to share these with employers. It’s none of your business as long as this person possesses the necessary skills for the job.
Because of the above reasons, stop asking candidates this “Gap” question.
2.3.2 What’s the thing you don’t like about your previous employers?
When you see this question, what is your first reaction? “Don’t tell anything bad about your previous employer. Employers will think you are complaining about your previous employer.” This sounds reasonable. The purpose of this question is to know a candidate’s attitude toward previous employers, according to Glassdoor[10]https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/guide/what-did-you-like-least-about-your-job/ . However, many career websites, such as Zippa, suggest candidates that stay focused on tasks, or in other words, focus on what over who, when answering this question. Zippa suggests, “choose a specific example of unreasonable expectations put on you, such as consistently working sixty-hour weeks when you had been told in your interview that you would work forty except in rare circumstances [11]https://www.zippia.com/advice/what-did-you-like-least-about-your-last-job ”. Despite this suggestion is reasonable and rejecting bad candidates who complain about people instead of tasks is nothing wrong with that, in my view, answering this “previous-employer” question in some ways which are viewed as “red flags” in the common way of thinking since a long time ago should be acceptable.
Let me explain by examples mentioned by Zippa.
(1) “My boss was overbearing and unreasonable.”
Common Thought: Are you going to have that same attitude if a new boss critiques your work?
My view:
It is certainly true that a candidate who bad-mouths a previous supervisor may indicate he/she is a bad employee who has a bad attitude toward his/her supervisor. However, we have been in this work society for a certain time. As you all know, there are indeed overbearing or unreasonable bosses in the world. Many of you have encountered one or a few of them. Do you really think that it must be this person’s fault when a person complains about his/her boss? Let’s be honest. When a person complains about his/her boss at a normal time instead of an interview, many of you will also complain to that person about the bad behavior of your boss if you agree with that person’s complaint. If that’s the case, why do you care whether a candidate doesn’t like his/her previous supervisor? It may indeed be this candidate’s problem, but it could be the supervisor/boss’s problem, NOT this candidate’s. However, in the real world, many employers will think a candidate is bad when they found a candidate dislikes his/her previous supervisor/boss. Even if a candidate does point out a reasonable reason that he/she dislikes the boss, that won’t help.
Candidates who look for new jobs because of their bosses usually follow the suggestion from many career websites to answer this “dislike about previous employers” question: Find a specific example of unreasonable expectations. Yet, those “unreasonable expectations” are still given by their supervisors/bosses. Moreover, a person also can dislike his/her supervisor/boss because of the management style of the supervisor/boss, which in some cases is not about unreasonable expectations, but should be acceptable in many cases, too. From my point of view, it should be okay for candidates to say their supervisors/bosses are unreasonable because of “what the supervisor/boss did” – this “what the supervisor/boss did” could be about an unreasonable expectation, or it could be about the management style of the supervisor/boss.
(2) “I wasn’t getting along with my coworkers.”
Common Thought: If you were having so many issues with your colleagues, you aren’t likely to fit in with a new team, either.
My view:
Same reason. It’s certainly true that such an answer may indicate this candidate won’t fit in with a new team. However, we have been in this work society for a certain time. As you all know, there are indeed bad colleagues in the world. Many of you have encountered one or a few of them. If that’s the case, why should you care whether a candidate doesn’t like his/her previous colleagues? A candidate is indeed bad or the previous colleagues of a candidate are indeed bad – It could be either case.
(3) “The repetitive work became tedious. I need a challenge.”
Common thought: While it’s good that you like to be challenged, most jobs have a repetitive routine. The hiring manager would have good reason to be worried that you will leave if you aren’t adequately challenged.
My view:
It’s true that every type of job has some repetitive work that needs to be done. Yet, some of you in the early time of your career might once experience that “the majority of” work assigned to you is repetitive, not work that makes you grow and strengthen your abilities. In my view, it’s not true that you should accept the majority of work given to you are repetitive tasks unless you work in a job type that is highly replaceable itself, such as an administrative job or a Customer Service job. Furthermore, some of you in some Western countries actually already accept the “too-much-repetitive-work” this answer for a certain time. Look at this suggested answer to the “Dislike about the previous employer” question from Zippa, a career website. It suggests “show how this negatively impacted your potential” with an example: “The unreasonable amount of paperwork I was required to do prevented me from doing what I do best, which is working with people and forming connections with clients.” Quick question: The unaccepted answer said “I need a challenge”. Doesn’t “no challenge” also prevent an employee from achieving his/her potential? In another example of answering “Why did you leave your last job”, a career website AgHires suggests one of the good answers is this: “My current role isn’t using all of my skills, and I would like to find something more challenging. [12]https://blog.aghires.com/why-did-you-leave-your-last-job/ ” Doesn’t this answer also say “want something challenging”? Isn’t the answer “the majority of works are repetitive”, also indicate the same or similar thing: “This role isn’t using all of my skills as the majority of work is repetitive”, or “This role doesn’t let me grow, as the majority of work is repetitive”? In fact, whether all of the work of a job is challenging or not, as long as the majority of work is repetitive, there is no or only a little room to grow and therefore won’t help an employee’s career. So I don’t know why even in some Western countries that already accept a similar answer, employers in these countries still think it’s a red flag when hearing “too much repetitive work”. Again, it could be either case – That a candidate indeed has a problem that is unreasonable, or that there is indeed too much repetitive work which is reasonable. Sadly employers just see this as a red flag in every case.
In conclusion, again, it’s not always a candidate’s fault in every case.
(4) “I didn’t have enough flexibility with my schedule.”
Common thought: This type of response indicates that you’re likely to abuse sick days and exhaust your requests for time off, or show up late and leave early. Even if you justify your response by trying to work around schedules for dependents, it still leaves a bad impression on a boss who would rather hire a reliable employee who’s able to work a full shift.
My view:
Again. Even if there are some employees who abuse sick days and exhaust requests for time off, that doesn’t mean all employees who want some flexibility in their schedules are such bad employees. In this flexibility case, it depends on what type of job they are in. Can a Sales have enough flexibility so he/she can meet with clients at night and doesn’t show up in the office in the morning? Since even it’s at night, meeting with clients is still part of the work, why do a Sales have to work a long time? Can a software engineer who is a night owl and is more productive at night have enough flexibility, so he/she can code at night and doesn’t show up in the office in the morning? These are all possible and reasonable reasons for desiring “flexibility with the schedule”.
Why this “Dislike about previous employers” question shouldn’t be asked?
Ok. As I said, these common unaccepted answers don’t always indicate that there are some problems with candidates in every case. It could be either case – A problem of the candidate, or a problem of the previous company. What’s more, everyone’s experience is a bit different from the others. Not every time that a boss/hiring manager/HR can comprehend a candidate’s experience and make the right judgment. If you “indeed” encounter a bad new employee with a bad attitude, you can just fire him/her in the shortest period required by your local labor law without delay (To be clear, you have to make sure it’s indeed the employee’s fault, not your fault such as the cases I described above). If you are worried that a candidate may leave a company too soon because there are some similarities between your company and the previous company, no need to worry about this. A candidate usually tries to find out if there are some downsides he/she cares about by asking some relevant questions. I will suggest that just stop asking this “Dislike about your previous employer” question.
2.3.3 What is your interest except for work?
Since it’s irrelevant to work, why do you ask this question? In my view, this is actually the candidates’ privacies and none of the employers’ business. Many employers ask this question to find out whether a candidate is good to work with. My answer is NO; this question can’t let you find out whether a candidate is good to work with. Many of you have misunderstood the meaning of “good-to-work-with”. For example, if a candidate has an interest in playing soccer, but he/she often rejects the reasonable amount of repetitive tasks that every job has (the amount of them is not the majority of work), is this still an employee that is good to work with? The answer is NO. However, many employers hire candidates based on the answer to this “Interest” question. Some employers even like to hire candidates who have the same interest as him/her. Many employers hire a candidate because they personally like a candidate, rather than because they appreciate a candidate’s professional abilities and attitude “at work”. By the way, many people have got the meaning of “attitude” wrong: In the case of working, it should be referred to as “attitude of work”, and an attitude of work is equal to an attitude “at work”. Attitude at work has no relationship with a person’s interests except for work; there are many work-related questions you can ask to learn about a candidate’s attitude at work instead of a “Personal Interest” question. Now you see why you have misunderstood the meaning of “good-to-work-with”. Thus, let me repeat again: Instead of hiring based on personal preference, I suggest bosses/hiring managers/HRs hire a candidate based on your evaluation of her/his professional abilities and attitude “at work”.
Aren’t there many professional and work-related questions that can be asked? Rather than asking about interests except for work, ask about the candidate’s past work experience and some professional questions and evaluate a candidate’s abilities based on those questions instead. If a candidate is a freshman, you can ask about that freshman’s experience in school, intern jobs, or part-time jobs.
2.3.4 What does your parent/sibling make for a living? Do you have a boyfriend?
The last question exists in Taiwan but does not exist in the U.S. and some Western countries. ( I am not sure if it exists in other parts of Asia or some other Western countries. ) Many Taiwanese employers will ask questions such as “How many people are in your house? What does your parent make for a living? Is that job lucrative? What do your siblings make for a living? Is that job lucrative? Wow, how lucrative it is! Do you have a boyfriend? What does your boyfriend make for a living? Is that job lucrative? You don’t have a boyfriend? We have a young guy in our company. How about introducing him to you?”
Some big and well-structured Taiwan companies (Yes. “Big and well-structured” companies.) even include some of such questions in their resume form which must be filled out during an interview.
These questions are ridiculous. In many Western companies, these questions wouldn’t be asked because it’s candidates’ privacies and irrelevant to candidates themselves. It looks like many Taiwanese companies have been outdated for a long time. Just stop asking such questions.
Read the next part: Part 3 of this article by clicking the link.
Support me with donations and by following me on social media.
Every article I wrote is gone through days of deep research and thinking by me before it is written. If you like my articles, kindly support me, so I can write more quality articles.
( *Note: The unit of donation on the page is U.S dollars. )
If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people.
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin
Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.References
Chrissy Slora
The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin