The hypocrisy of Job Interviews

[Eagles]

Let me preface this by saying I realize not every job interview/application follows this criteria.

I was listening the the radio and they were talking about how Calvin Johnson, Amobi Okoye, and Gaines Adams all admitted to using marijuana in college when they were interviewed. Although I do not have proof I'm sure there are many other players in the draft who have smoked marijuana in college but only the guys who were honest end up getting in trouble.

Frequently job interviews will ask questions like this to "test the character" of the person they are interviewing however they are hugely flawed because there is no rational benefit to telling the truth. Therefore the only reason why someone would tell the truth is because they are morally opposed to lying, so the people with the strongest moral compass end up being punished.

In fact the only value I could see in using these types of questions would be to see who tells the truth because those people are acting irrationally and you would not want them working for you(Although I doubt business do this).

Given that these tests are effectively useless why are they so common? Is it just another example of people acting illogically or is there some merit to these types of tests?

edit: I realize I missed something. Another reason someone might tell the truth is that they are simply apathetic and do not care if they get the job. Obviously you would want to weed people like this out of your business.

[27offsooot]

But then there are those that honestly reply no to such questions.

[NLSoldier]

I think wilbon nailed this on PTI, he said answering yes probably makes most GMs MORE likely to draft the guy. With the way the question was worded, like 90% prob should have been answering yes.

[JaredL]

The problem isn't really what you mention. The problem is that the best and worst give the same answer.

I would say in order of preference the NFL/Company X would have it people who haven't done illegal drugs > people who have and say yes > people who have and say no.

So basically the question only separates the honest drug users from the dishonest drug users and the the honest non users. It doesn't do a whole lot of good to ask.

Since the goal of any interview question should be to separate candidates, this question isn't good.

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem isn't really what you mention. The problem is that the best and worst give the same answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often when hiring people, you'd rather hire a truly terrible candidate than one that's merely sub-par. This is because the total clowns are (relatively) easy to get rid of, while the simply sub-par guys tend to hang around for a long time.

[Eagles]

FWIW Drug use is just one example there are dozens of questions like this.
I.E.
If you saw another employee stealing supplies would you tell your boss?
No matter what you answer it really doesn't tell the interviewee much.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem isn't really what you mention. The problem is that the best and worst give the same answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often when hiring people, you'd rather hire a truly terrible candidate than one that's merely sub-par. This is because the total clowns are (relatively) easy to get rid of, while the simply sub-par guys tend to hang around for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would you hire either of them?

[LouBlue]

A lot of companies are using a method called Behavioral Based Interviewing. Using that method, they ask you to describe situations in which you have encountered certain types of circumstances, and you're asked to explain how you dealt with them and what the outcome was. The idea is that past behavior is a pretty good predictor of future behavior. The questions are developed in such a way as to make it unclear exactly what they're looking for, so it's hard to cheat. Also, trained interviewers drill down to get more details when you're telling the stories, making it difficult to make up a series of stories on the fly which could help you in a meaningful way.

[27offsooot]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW Drug use is just one example there are dozens of questions like this.
I.E.
If you saw another employee stealing supplies would you tell your boss?
No matter what you answer it really doesn't tell the interviewee much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but the same principle that JaredL and I had already stated still applies. Some people really would take the most ethical route, others would say they would and wouldn't, and a small minority would say they wouldn't.

But I think the main point of ur argument, that these questions are useless, is completely valid. What might be better is more open-ended questions like, "what in your life do u regret most"... if it's something like only getting an A- on my 5th grade history test, then that can be a much more valuable tool. Of course, nobody really wants to get too personal on interviews.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem isn't really what you mention. The problem is that the best and worst give the same answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often when hiring people, you'd rather hire a truly terrible candidate than one that's merely sub-par. This is because the total clowns are (relatively) easy to get rid of, while the simply sub-par guys tend to hang around for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting I was going to say something almost the opposite, which is depending on the job, there may not be some great skill set necessary to succeed. So it maybe beneficial to hire a bunch of mediocre employees while passing up on great guys, but reducing your chance of a false positive

The other stupid one which bothers me is when they ask questions like if but in scenario X would you do Y.
Never, rarely, occasionally, usually, always.
Since I'm a giant nit and I am honest. It pains me to say never or always because I know there are situations where I wouldn't do it. Obviously from a rational perspective it is much better to say never and always even if you telling a very small lie.