
The Interview Question You Should Always Ask - astrec
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/01/the_interview_question_you_sho.html
======
gravitycop
The meat of the article:

 _After you have narrowed the pool of applicants down to those with the
skills, experience, and knowledge to do the job, ask each candidate one
question:

What do you do in your spare time? [...]

people are often successful not despite their dysfunctions but because of
them. Obsessions are one of the greatest telltale signs of success. Understand
a person's obsessions and you will understand her natural motivation. The
thing for which she would walk to the end of the earth._

~~~
cperciva
_What do you do in your spare time?_

IANAL, but I've heard warnings that this question might be illegal since (a)
it isn't directly related to an applicant's ability to do a job, and (b) it is
likely to reveal information about the applicant's marital status, children or
lack thereof, ethnicity, and/or religion.

~~~
astrec
It's not illegal to ask a question which in answering, the applicant may offer
such information.

Illegal: Are you a U.S. citizen? Where were your parents born? What is your
native language?

Legal: Are you authorized to work in the U.S.? What languages do you speak?

Illegal: Are you married? Do you have, or plan to have children? Have you ever
been divorced? What do you do for child care?

Legal: Are you willing to relocate? Are you willing and able to put in the
amount of overtime and/or travel the position requires?

Illegal: Are you a U.S. citizen? What is your religion? Are you practicing?

Legal: Does your religious affiliation, if any, interfere with your working in
this position?

Illegal: How old are you?

Legal: Are you over 18?

The very first interview question I ask is "Tell me about yourself".

~~~
arockwell
Why can't you ask if someone is a US citizen? I thought certain jobs (e.g.,
DoD contractor needing security clearance) required citizenship? Or are you
only allowed to ask about that in specific circumstances?

~~~
cperciva
From what I've read, you're apparently supposed to ask "do you have a security
clearance" and "are you eligible to get a security clearance" -- i.e., ask the
specific question you need answered rather than asking a more general question
from which you can infer what you want to know.

~~~
tptacek
A 5 second Google search will show you that there are plenty of jobs that
overtly require US Citizenship. For example, all TSA screeners must be US
Citizens.

This is kind of a diversion from the real discussion. It's unlikely that
anyone reading this board can legally ask interviewees about their
citizenship.

------
TomOfTTB
This is a variation of a theme that seems to pop up regularly here and I’m
always surprised that smart people can buy into such a simplistic idea.

The problem here is this theory completely dismisses the need for diversity in
a company. In my experience the very worst performing companies are ones that
are packed with clones of their founder. Because no matter how gifted their
founder might be he can’t know/do everything. So in the end companies with
people who are identical end up with a very limited set of skills.

Building a company is like building a baseball team. Just as your first
baseman is going to have a completely different set of skills than your
outfielder a programming lead (who should be obsessive) is going to have a
completely different set of skills than a marketing manager (a job that
generally benefits from someone who goes out a parties at night).

~~~
astrec
a) A simple idea doesn't infer a simplistic idea.

b) _Building a company is like building a baseball team..._

Which is pretty much exactly what the article says:

 _What if you were hiring a receptionist? What spare-time activities would
suggest to you that a candidate might be a star?

Well, what do star receptionists do? Don't think of all the million things
they might do. Just think of the one or two most important things. Perhaps the
best ones are super friendly and well organized. Well, if a candidate likes to
spend his spare time alone reading a book, he probably won't be your star. But
if he throws a dinner party once a week, you'll know you've got a winner.

Greg Davis, my friend the fishing guide, is on the water fishing with clients
six days a week. Can you guess what he does on his one day off?_

~~~
TomOfTTB
You said: Which is pretty much exactly what the article says:

Not really. In this one paragraph he's actually suggesting there is no great
skill to being a receptionist other than being social (which I believe to be a
bit elitist btw). That is why it differs.

But in every other part of the article the author suggest hiring people who
are obsessed with their area of expertise so much so that they spend their
spare time on it (even the last sentence you quote about Greg Davis alludes to
that point).

The point I was making is that some people are useful because they are
contradictions. The programmer who spends his free time playing guitar in a
band might bring perceptions to a discussion that the programmer who codes at
night would never think of. Even though being in a band at night does not fit
the rigid ideal this article suggests.

~~~
astrec
_In this one paragraph he's actually suggesting there is no great skill to
being a receptionist other than being social._

Really? What an incredibly long bow to draw.

~~~
TomOfTTB
I'll be honest, I have no idea what the sentence means (long bow?)

But let me try to elaborate on my point. The author gives several examples and
in each example he cites the person's job and then points out how the fact
that they spend their time using the same skills in their personal life makes
them the best qualified for their job. Examples

Greg Daniels: Job: Fishing Guide - Free Time: Spent Fishing Captain
Sullenberg: Job: Pilot - Free Time: Accident Investigator for Airlines

So his premise is that people who spend their spare time using the same skills
as they use in their jobs make better employees. He then brought up the
Receptionist example and cited "throwing dinner parties" meaning the skill
behind throwing parties is what he think applies to being a receptionist. But
his thesis is the same he just sees the skill behind receptionist as
socializing

My counter point to his argument was that diversity is valuable and that
people who hone skills other than the ones directly related to their job are
just as valuable because they can generate insights from those unrelated
skills. That's why it's important to have those people along with the people
who spend their free time on work related skills.

------
biohacker42
In my spare time, I don't code, because I do code for a living 8+ hrs a day,
and in addition to that I have a life.

When I am not working, I DO code for fun, because I enjoy coding.

A better question might be, have you ever done what you do for pay, for free
just because you think it's fun.

~~~
timr
Absolutely. Once, at an interview with an un-named, extremely large tech
company, the recruiter asked me if I had a "passion for technology", so I
decided to have a little fun:

 _"I'm not sure what that means."_

 _"Oh...you know...passion. When you look around the campus on any given
night, you see lots of lights on. That's passion."_

 _"Actually, I think that's called 'overtime'."_

I didn't get that job. Guess I wasn't 'passionate' enough.

------
DenisM
I don't do interviews but one thing I will always look for in others is
"passion for technology". If you code at nights for coding's sake you've got
passion and I want to be your friend.

~~~
critic
I know some people with a lot of "passion for technology" (Linux, Mac,
iPhones) who are essentially idiots. Luckily, the only programming languages
they barely know are Bash and the like, so they can't do much damage. Ass-
kissing keeps them employed though.

~~~
DenisM
Under pressure of mounting evidence and upon consideration I confess that
"passion for technology" is not a sufficient criteria.

I guess there is more nuance to this.

Among my friends the ones I emphatise the most with are the ones who _do_
something. Solve coding puzzles, write code that's useful for others, tinker
with new technologies just to satisfy their own curiosity or even only talk
about doing these things (which I think is a precursor). This in contrast to
those who spend their free time watching TV, doing sports or hanging out.

OTOH I can easily believe that there are people who can do these _coding_
things yet wouldn't be much fun at all. Somehow I just don't meet them.

