Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM's Asshole Test

johnpublic.mataroa.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 604 posts

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#141

Post by todd8 »

My interview for IBM back in the 1980s went well, and I got the job as a software architect. I don’t remember much about the interview; it must not have been stressful.

The strange thing for me was a weird day of interaction with a group of around 30 other new hires. We were divided into teams and had to work together to solve problems, etc. I always suspected that we were not being trained but instead graded on some sort of scale by those leading the exercises.

I worked at IBM for 5 years and never discovered what that was about.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#142

Post by wruza »

cmckn wrote: post #93
eej71 wrote: post #67

Decades ago, in the days before uber, my employer would fly in candidates from college campuses as part of an onsite interview. The candidate would fly in the night before and we relied on a taxi service to bring the candidate to the hotel. Then in the morning the same service would bring them to the onsite and of course bring them back to the airport at the end. It was a whole curated process. Little did the candida…

Hm, I don't dig this. I don't think it's ethical to evaluate a candidate's interactions when they weren't informed they were being evaluated. People are stressed heading into an interview, and may be upset afterwards. Unless they're interviewing for a public-facing role, I don't see how this behavior is relevant to the job; and discussing it with a hiring committee invites all sorts of "cultural fit" biases that make…

Ethics aside, in my experience this type of character tends to contaminate their surroundings with this undirected negativity. It’s like a black hole that has no sides, only the mass of their ego. I have a friend like this, and while we are still friends and can manage that, I would never work together with him. It’s okay to be sad, stressed, angry. Not okay to spill it all over the world.

Otoh, not clear what gp means by “rude”. Someone could perceive sad/neutral silence and “thank you, goodbye” as rude-ish too.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#143

Post by jonas21 »

This is generally called a "stress interview" and, as I understand it, they used to be more common decades ago.

These days, I think it would be considered wrong to deceive candidates or to purposefully increase their level of stress (at least when interviewing for a normal desk job). If someone were to try this today, the only thing it would prove is that the interviewer is an asshole.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#144

Post by throwaway6532 »

maxtollenaar wrote: post #71

Wharton MBA has this Team-based Discussion (TBD) as a part of their application process. From what I hear, it is to weed out Asshole type of personality. In regard to how effective the method is, I'm not 100% convinced.

Kind of makes you wonder where all the assholes work?

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#145

Post by slg »

Honestly I see two asshole tests here. Some of the candidates failed the first one. IBM failed the other. This type of dishonest and unnecessarily stressful approach tells me that I probably don't want to be working there. Even just professing that a candidate needs to work well under stress is somewhat of a red flag. Why are your employees under so much stress? I am software developer not a trauma surgeon. If I am under regular stress, that is a failure in management of my employer.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#146

Post by hindsightbias »

eej71 wrote: post #67

Decades ago, in the days before uber, my employer would fly in candidates from college campuses as part of an onsite interview. The candidate would fly in the night before and we relied on a taxi service to bring the candidate to the hotel. Then in the morning the same service would bring them to the onsite and of course bring them back to the airport at the end. It was a whole curated process. Little did the candida…

Was told if you interview with the FBI, the interview starts the moment you go through the door.

And be careful what you say at the bar.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#147

Post by jkubicek »

throwaway6532 wrote: post #92
cobaltoxide wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2006 is ancient history. But also, it's a basic interview technique to explain your thinking out loud.

Yeah, in my experience this is really what it's all about. Thinking out loud helps them assess how you reason through trade-offs, potential ideas you run through, edge cases you catch, at what stage you catch them and how you go about addressing them etc.

Thinking out-loud also prevents candidates from going completely off the rails. Maybe they missed an important detail or are solving a different problem than what the interviewer intended. These things happen, better to catch them early in the interview.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#148

Post by hedora »

kragen wrote: post #98
cobaltoxide wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2006 is ancient history. But also, it's a basic interview technique to explain your thinking out loud.

Wouldn't that fail unless your thinking is as slow as speech?

Not if you can compress your thinking it into something short. Good code interviews test communication skills too.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#149

Post by conorcleary »

slg wrote: post #145

Honestly I see two asshole tests here. Some of the candidates failed the first one. IBM failed the other. This type of dishonest and unnecessarily stressful approach tells me that I probably don't want to be working there. Even just professing that a candidate needs to work well under stress is somewhat of a red flag. Why are your employees under so much stress? I am software developer not a trauma surgeon. If I am u…

Well how does one become part of management?

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#150

Post by themodelplumber »

brianmcc wrote: post #75

Enjoyed the story but I am dreading "the group test" becoming the new why-are-manhole-covers-round cargo cult nonsense :-)

Just wait until people figure out that group composition can also affect whether people appear to be assholes, apathetic, etc. The wrong grouping will give even the most otherwise-perfect wallpower the permission and impetus to speak up and completely torch their opportunity.

On top of that, one evaluator in the right/wrong evaluation group can change the very definition of asshole on the spot and get group buy-in, given specific group composition.

To me a big part of the issue is that it's one test for one property, in one group configuration, by one evaluation group configuration...one might say it's _singularly_ disappointing to hear about that aspect.

One would hope a technology company could see the value in more scientific testing principles at least at a basic level? Hope my straw goggles are on, showing me straw-structures in straw-corporations.

Post reply on HN