Follow up to Odd Interview Questions

This is in follow up to my earlier post about odd interview questions.

Many of you read a piece in the Wall Street Journal called How to Ace a Google Interview: click here. It alluded to the famous “blender question”:

You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and thrown into a blender. Your mass is reduced so that your density is the same as usual. The blades start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do?

I am posting this letter, which appeared in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, verbatim. It articulates my feelings on the matter of odd interview questions perfectly!

“I don’t take issue with asking job candidates how they would handle situations that might arise in a new position or with posing questions intended to gauge a candidate’s seriousness. We need more of such scrutiny so that key decision-makers are competent and properly engaged.

What we don’t need are questions involving hypothetical jumping out of blender jars and animal characterizations masquerading as scientific assessment (“How to Ace a Google Interview,” Review, Dec. 24). These have nothing to do with the performance of any job and seem to reflect only a runaway ego on the part of the interviewer. They bespeak an “I’m smarter than everyone else” mentality, which purports to find a connection between this drivel and job performance, which is, of course, only apparent to those with comparable intellects.

It’s also revealing that the essay approvingly depicts the “blender” interviewer, even though the interviewer arrived late and sweaty, without any consideration of the applicant’s time and with a lack of attention to customary personal hygiene. So many of our problems result from this sort of self-absorption and lack of respect.

You serve your readers well by noting trends of this nature, but please don’t treat every bizarre fad as being incredibly insightful. Many times, the emperor really doesn’t have any clothing.

Martin B. Robins

Barrington Hills, Ill.

---

In Uncategorized