Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: C-zom on April 18, 2012, 05:23:25 pm
-
Because it does not work. During an application to a restaurant as a Host position I had a glowing interview and Outstanding marks on my interview paper by the General Manager. He went on to lie about a reason I can't be hired, and sent me home. I went home and a friend working there told me "lol you failed the bull**** test". Laughing, I told him you CAN'T fail those. They're monkey-tier questions. He laughed again and said, "Oh, you can. You'd never believe how. Agree and Disagree aren't answers, they're red flagged."
So I've done research. More people need to know this so they can actually get jobs and have success.
http://melbel.hubpages.com/hub/Unicru (http://melbel.hubpages.com/hub/Unicru)
Answers are never just agree or disagree. They are either strongly agree or strongly disagree even though any normal person would just say a simple agree or disagree for some of the questions.
------
Now I know why I didn't get the job: I answered honestly.
These tests should be banned. They screen for sociopathic, egotistical liars and give them full points, instead of looking for honest people who naturally wouldn't always Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree because they are human.
----
These tests are unfair to ability or competence. The real sad thing is how many good qualified people are being screened out of these jobs. With the economy the way it is the last thing we need is another completely arbituary wall set up these "personality" tests.
----
And thousands more comments. If you're struggling to find a job and are pumping out these online applications, this could be why no one is calling you. Because you Agreed. You didn't Strongly Agree.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123129220146959621.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123129220146959621.html)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/8448309502/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/8448309502/)
-
Huh
Now that is interesting.
This is why I like working for small business.
-
I agree with this post
-
I'm not surprised. I'm infuriated. But I can't tear up an online application, so my anger is wasted.
-
I'm literally so mad that this has been losing me job after job that I'm speechless but whatever. Just, fucking, whatever.
-
Now I know why I didn't get the job: I answered honestly.
No, because you answered dispassionately. The fact that you think you need to be dishonest to seem passionate is to compound the problem. Nobody wants to hire a robot, or a liar.
You should be asking yourself why you are applying for a job that you don't want so much that you struggle for breath, much less the right words, when you talk about it.
If they built a questionnaire on your dream job, don't you think you would have stronger answers?
Don't mean to kick you while you are down, but I am long past the point where I would settle for just a job. I would rather starve to death than waste my time making some other asshole rich off my misery.
-
Except the questions they ask aren't about the job, they're about you. If you aren't really that social, why would you put down that you're VERY social? Or shit like that...
-
Now I know why I didn't get the job: I answered honestly.
No, because you answered dispassionately. The fact that you think you need to be dishonest to seem passionate is to compound the problem. Nobody wants to hire a robot, or a liar.
You should be asking yourself why you are applying for a job that you don't want so much that you struggle for breath, much less the right words, when you talk about it.
If they built a questionnaire on your dream job, don't you think you would have stronger answers?
Don't mean to kick you while you are down, but I am long past the point where I would settle for just a job. I would rather starve to death than waste my time making some other creeper rich off my misery.
Uh, those quotes aren't from me, they're from the few thousand people in a rampage on that sites comments box. Read through them if you want to get a taste for real world suffering in a first world job economy. They're just figurative examples of how asinine this quiz is, and how it only selects robotic morons and sheeps who use the cheat sheets. There is NO SUCH THING AS A WRONG PERSONALITY, but now corporate america wants you to believe there is.
-
Wait, so you don't fit the personality profile that a company wants to hire, so it's their fault you don't get the job? And how does this effect the economy again? They are hiring someone right? So they are doing their part for the economy, just not your individual economy.
I had an phone interview with a company several years back who gave me a few of these types of questions. At the end they told me that I had all the right experience, but they were not going to take me to the next phase of the process because I said I didnt think it was important for people to like me. While I completely disagree with this being relevant, it's their company and they have the right to base their hirings on anything they want.
-
Except they're not hiring people who are best for the job based on the skills, they're hiring people based off which button you clicked. Idk. It pisses me off that I'd be awesome for a job and probably do it better than anyone else and I don't get the job because someone else's buttons were pressed better.
-
That's just the first screening, and just because you have the skills does not mean you will fit in. And you really have no way of knowing what skills others may or may not possess.
-
My confidence levels really suck. So when I say I'll be the best for the job, I mean it. :P Anything animal related I excel at.
-
Except the questions they ask aren't about the job, they're about you. If you aren't really that social, why would you put down that you're VERY social? Or shit like that...
Uh, those quotes aren't from me, they're from the few thousand people in a rampage on that sites comments box. Read through them if you want to get a taste for real world suffering in a first world job economy. They're just figurative examples of how asinine this quiz is, and how it only selects robotic promelons and sheeps who use the cheat sheets. There is NO SUCH THING AS A WRONG PERSONALITY, but now corporate america wants you to believe there is.
Don't worry - I got that, but you picked this item out among thousands.
Get over your self-importance and sense of entitlement.
If they are hiring for a sales job, guess what, you need to be social. If they are hiring for any job that requires teamwork, guess what you need to be social. In fact, you need to be social for just about any job except a shepherd.
And the questions were actually not that much about sociability - they seem to be more about accountability, determination, and service to others. In fact, I think they do a great job of weeding out self-importance and self-entitlement.
I am a sales trainer for a major multi-national company, and I have seen and participated in many personality tests - they really don't lie. In fact, most are designed to check if you are giving dishonest answers, which is the reason for having so many questions. BTW if any company does this kind of test, you probably have the same odds as just dropping your CV off in a box.
I applied for the job I am in now online, from Canada, to work in Belgium. As soon as I applied, I did some research online and found out the phone number of the most likely hiring manager's office, and called the switchboard. I asked them to direct me to the hiring manager, but I had the wrong office, so they gave me another switchboard number. So I called again, and isolated the hiring manager's name, but he was not in. I got his email address, and emailed him personally, attaching 2 letters of reference, titled the email "Getting past the electronic gatekeeper", stated my purpose clearly and succinctly, and asked if we could chat in the next week.
He did not answer for a week, so I followed up with another email, to which he replied "How did you get my name?" (ie that was all he wrote in the email), to which I replied "I will tell you over the phone, and you will find it interesting." I got 10 minutes with him by phone, and when we spoke, he looked up my application online, and saw that it had been rejected out of hand because I was not an EU citizen (which was exactly what I expected would happen).
I asked him if he preferred to hire an EU citizen or someone who had the right experience and was determined to excel in a job they passionately wanted. I connected with him over LinkedIn, offered to do a personality test, which I did. They made me an offer, and I negotiated for a good amount more.
This is the second time I have done this kind of thing for an overseas job, which is the hardest kind of job to get. The previous time, I actually paid to have a personality test done, and sent the results to the hiring manager to get him on board... I had to do that because I had practically no experience for the job and could only make the case that I was determined, transparent, and clever enough to break down the fucking artificial walls organizations put up to dissuade the less passionate.
For another job, I created a 10 page market analysis of the company, with a tactical plan on how to increase their sales, specifying the actions I would take in the first year if they hired me. That won me an interview, and in the interview, they asked me technical questions to which I did not know the answer. I told them I didn't know, but would get the answer within 24 hours. The guy who asked the questions, just shut his book as if to signal that the interview was over, (he was the technical guy in the equation), so I asked "Is it important to know this?" He fluffed a little, and said, "well, of course it is", to which I answered, "Then I will learn." The VP took advantage of the situation, and asked the best interview question I have ever been asked, "How will you learn?" I answered "I will read the internet, consult trade publications, and if I can't find the answer, ask a colleague." If I had answered "Well, don't you offer training?", the interview would certainly have been over and I would not have had the job, which I wanted very badly.
If you take a job you feel passionately about, it really doesn't feel like work. It feels like fulfilment. It is like getting laid versus being in love. Actually more like getting laid with the one you love.
C-Zom I don't know shit about you, but here is my read of you: you are an analytical person, who values precision, strategic insight, and pragmatism over what-if. Direct accountability is not your thing. You are more of a prima donna than a teamplayer. You believe in universalism - ie fair systems and procedures, over particularism - ie preferential treatment. You are probably an engineer, and if you are looking for a marketing or sales job, choose marketing. Good market analysis is hard to do, and is the basis of strategy for any company big or small. A retail job is not for you - it makes you a stationary target who has to be switched on at all times, bubbly, and a supreme tactician. It would be a waste of your strengths. There is such a thing as a wrong personality for a particular job.
-
(http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/jobsearch.png)
-
Both of you are literally missing the point aithne and I are making, to the point where you're making gigantic asses out of yourself. Again, skim the article, read the comments. This is not about an automated questionnaire making or breaking your future. It is about the semantics of technical ass questions.
Will you be mean to customers? Disagree. WRONG. STRONGLY DISAGREE WAS RIGHT. Is not a proper way to screen people, and goes to show its just a diminishing returns/boyscout generator. I disagreed, shove your own head up your ass, there is no difference between disagreeing and REALLY disagreeing. That is our point. We had the right answer, just not right enough.
Try putting this in a real world scenario like a conversation.
"Yo C-zom go clean the tables."
"Sure thing boss."
"YOU'RE FIRED."
"Why!?"
"You didn't say 'absolutely with no questions asked, boss'"
-
Diasagree would be totally wrong. It means you are reserving the strongly disagree because you might be a little mean, or occasionally mean to customers. Answering anything other than strongly disagree means you don't understand how important the behaviour is to the company. The questionnaire is not a test, but an evaluation of your judgement, understanding, and principles. All you need to do is prove that you know the right answers in theory. If you fail in practice, they will just fire you. But if you don't get the concept to start with, why should they risk putting you in front of their precious customers?
In a tough economy, you want people who will ABSOLUTELY never be mean to customers. Even if you are only thinking it would only happen 1% of the time, the answer is not absolute. Period. If that translated to a 1% loss of customers, and a consequent 1% drop in revenues, for a company that makes a net operating margin of 10% (which is generous for retail in the current economy), that would translate to a 10% drop in profits.
Ask an olympian what he would do to run 1% faster.
-
You are trying to illustrate to me rather conceptually the life and rationalizing ideas behind the desk of a CEO and business. Specifically, the reason they dehumanize the application process in order to secure the perfect robotic worker. Obviously anyone with a brain understands that, it is not my point, and you are sadly missing mine again. It is severely obvious to anyone struggling in the job economy like myself or aithne or millions of others that brutal robotic efficiency, connections, good luck AND charisma are nescessary to secure what were considered "starter jobs" and "joke jobs" ten years ago. I was told I needed 2 connections and a years work experience to work at Mcdonalds, too.
You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying "Why do the corps do this?" I am saying that is is complete and utter bullshit, with 1984 directly around the corner.
-
Both of you are literally missing the point aithne and I are making, to the point where you're making gigantic asses out of yourself.
No, I get your point. But you are absolutely wrong.
also, lol post 6969.
-
I think the problem is, you are too hung up on the wording rather than the meaning. Think about the choices this way
1 - No
2 - Not Really
3 - Sort of
4 - Yes
The middle two are non-committal answers, which are really the same. They want you to be decisive.
-
No, C-Zom's right. No sane human is going to be able to truthfully answer "strongly (dis)agree" over "(dis)agree" to all or even most of these questions. It weeds out the honest people and brings in the arseholes, douchebags, and sociopaths (and the obnoxiously friendly waiters and waitresses at restaurants that nobody likes but some restaurants encourage for some reason that I can't fathom).
-
No, C-Zom's right. No sane human is going to be able to truthfully answer "strongly (dis)agree" over "(dis)agree" to all or even most of these questions. It weeds out the honest people and brings in the arseholes, douchebags, and sociopaths (and the obnoxiously friendly waiters and waitresses at restaurants that nobody likes but some restaurants encourage for some reason that I can't fathom).
No, it weeds out people who don't understand their potential employer. It weeds out those who are not customer-centric. It weeds out those who are too arrogant to beat a simple exercise, in which the potential emplyer is actually communicating what they want, and letting you do the test over and over until you get it right. Once you get it right, you understand what they want, and if at that point you decide to continue with your application, and it really doesn't fit your particular moral dogma, then you are either dishonest or desperate. If you reflect on what they want and it is OK with you, then you are truly an honest fit for their company.
You are trying to illustrate to me rather conceptually the life and rationalizing ideas behind the desk of a CEO and business. Specifically, the reason they dehumanize the application process in order to secure the perfect robotic worker. Obviously anyone with a brain understands that, it is not my point, and you are sadly missing mine again. It is severely obvious to anyone struggling in the job economy like myself or aithne or millions of others that brutal robotic efficiency, connections, good luck AND charisma are nescessary to secure what were considered "starter jobs" and "joke jobs" ten years ago. I was told I needed 2 connections and a years work experience to work at Mcdonalds, too.
You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying "Why do the corps do this?" I am saying that is is complete and utter oxshit, with 1984 directly around the corner.
It is not concept, it is reality - businesses are very complex to run, and a weak link at the front end can cause disaster for a company's profits. If you understand your prey, you can strategize, if you can strategize, you can move on to appropriate tactics.
They are not dehumanizing the process, they are offering a way to communicate to you what they want. A way for you to prove that you are intelligent enough to beat the system, because beating a system means mastering it, and this one is pretty simple... If you can master this simple application process, maybe you can master other systems they use to run their business. It is a game, and nothing more. But if you think you are beat, then you are beat.
No company wants robotic workers, today they want people who can master robots. A system like this is just a robot - it is your Kobayashi Maru.
BTW McDonald's has had that rule in place for ever. I worked at Wendy's for a year because I got turned down by McD's, but I hadn't learned the game by then, so let me share some useful tips for getting a job at any starter location:
- Find out which shifts they have the hardest time filling.
- Show up to apply during those shifts (most likely early morning).
- Ask if you can speak to the manager for a few minutes.
- Be prepared to wait until the shift or rush period is over - don't leave, this is a demonstration of commitment.
- If they say you have no experience, offer to work for free for a week (they will never take you up on this for insurance reasons, but at least it is a valid response to an objection, and the conversation doesn't stop there).
- Offer to work on call, but state your objective to build your hours up to X per week. This way you demonstrate humility, an eagerness to earn the hours, and goals.
- Have a good, but simple answer to the question "why do you want to work here?" The 'honest' answer of course is "because I need a job", but a more practical one, which is just as truthful, is "to learn and prove myself, to be a member of a well-run team". There is 'Truth' and 'truth'.
C-Zom, you are frustrated, and I understand this, but these are obstacles that you can break through or better yet move around. Just as you would in any strategy game or FPS.
BTW 1984 already passed...
-
I understand both sides of the argument about the test and my current solution is... don't care, redoing my application to correctly answer questions, getting job. Thanks for the information. I expected the questionnaire to show the employer a broken down statistical analysis and all this deep stuff, including a bit of a counter-cheating mechanism (if all answers are strong, then likely cheating or lying, which the employer wouldn't want). Meh, makes no difference to me. Just a bit of extra time.
-
Why would strong answers indicate lying? It is just a Yes or No. Everything in between is gray.