OT - Behaviorial Interviewing

[pkq]

A VP of HR interviewed me last week for an engineering position using behavioral interviewing. This was my second trip. He was antagonistic and attacking. He used the stress interview to get a reading on me. I had been prepped for this company having succession (management) plans for me and they were "jazzed" about me. The plant people really wanted me, after the first interview. It became quickly apparent the VP had no such ideas or liking. It was a very disappointing discussion. Is ticking off candidates, your plant people really want, a common practice these days? Is it possible to summarize and evaluate a 45 year life and a 16 year career in a heavily politicized, Fortune 500 company during a 1 hour interview?

IMHO, he attacked engineers for being "oblivious to politics." He then asked if I "just didn't get the politics" of my last position. Most engineers "get" politics but choose to not participate, which is the camp I fall into. I got the politics but everyone was higher than me so I was somewhat powerless. All I could do was stick with the technical and financial facts. My thought is that engineering is a noble profession undeserving of such an attack. Personally, I thought the VP wrong for going there.

This VP pushed for something negative others would say about me. I have been told the man who destroyed my reputation, with my previous employer, told people I am "aggressive and arrogant." Some confuse confidence and competence, which I am, with arrogance. The VP was OK with that thus attacked "aggressive" as the negative of "assertive," which I have been called, too. He pushed hard for what I had done wrong to gain that "aggressive" label. I pushed for improvements (obsolete equipment) and doing the right thing legally and per corporate standards. The plants wanted this work done so it should have been a no-brainer for the engineering department, a service organization. Anyway, does upper management still view "aggressiveness" as a negative when applied to women?

After interviewing with the VP, I wasn't sure I wanted to work for a company that would hire a man willing to attack an engineer with my credentials, qualifications, and experience. I have a good reputation in the process control arena, too. My new attitude came across with subsequent people. So they got the impression I wasn't interested in the position. I was. Someone planted the seed that I may have been given the opportunity to resign from my old position in lieu of being fired. Not the case. I resigned and caught them in a very bad position (8.5 months later no replacement for me). I wonder if he would have talked with a lawyer or doctor with 16 years experience in that manner.

Does a VP of HR really need to know another company's "dirty laundry" to assess a potential candidate? I think "no" but this VP insisted he did to determine my "fit" for their company. He didn't think excessive travel and hours were valid reasons for leaving. I do and few opportunities exists for engineers like me in my old employers flattened structure.

Overall, I think I should have simply walked away from these interviews, when they began so poorly, saving my time and theirs. Whatever happened to respect?

I am open to any ideas you ladies have. This is a completely new process for me. If I need an attitude adjustment, feel free.

[pkq]

Thanks Soggy. I am, in part, looking for encouragement and support. But if I need to adjust my thinking, I am willing. I am imperfect by a long shot. I don't know everything but have a good technical support network for my areas of ignorance.

I cannot go into great detail but I was doing the right thing by my former employer. One engineer, who adopted my plan, told me how thrilled he was with the new system. He spent over a decade discouraging other engineers from making requests to improve process controls. With the new system, he was confident of being able to meet any request.

The ill-planted seed can be gained, if one is biased initially and asks questions to get the answers needed.

Travel and long hours have left me somewhat isolated socially. People didn't know when I was in/outta town. When one is single and childless, isolation is not good. My soul was whithering, which allows for lots of other problems to develop. I've had some tough stuff to overcome in life and sometimes it just gets to be too much, even for me.

[SalsaMTB]

I'm sorry you had such a rough interview, but it's probably best to find out now rather than later how the company is run. I see interviewing as a two way thing. Not only is the company interviewing you to see if you have what is required for a position, but you are also interviewing the company to see that they fit your requirements. If you felt like you were treated poorly in the process, I would not take the position. He is a leader and representative for the company and if you don't like the way he conducted business, I would be hesitant on how the company is run.

I do think a company has a right to know why you are interviewing for a new job. They need to know why you want this particular position and why you left your current position. If you tell them up front that you left your job because of time and travel and the position you were interviewing for had the same situation, it would be in your benefit to find that out ahead of time. I definitely do not feel it is a poor reason to leave a company. Every person has their priorities, and if company can not respect that, they're not worth your time.

I recently got a new position (I'm an engineer too!) and they did ask about my reason for wanting a new job but didn't pry for more details or try to turn my response as a negative. They accepted my answer. They asked me how many hours I was willing to work and I was honest with my answer. I'm not looking for a job that has me at my desk for 60 hours a week. They respected my honesty and I got the position. Never during the interview did I feel I was being attacked.

Not all companies are like that. You just have to keep looking. A company should value and understand your responses in an interview and decide afterward if you meet the criteria they are looking for.

[CorsairMac]

{{{{{{{{pkq}}}}}}}}} I'm so sorry to hear about such a negative interview!! I agree with you - actually I was always told to Never air your previous employments dirty laundry, it can reflect negatively on you. I've only had 1 employer ask me about a previous employment environment and I just simply said I didn't wish to discuss it. Since I've been at my job since 1998 I have not a clue what the current interview practices are. If they really are this "assertive" maybe I'll just stay here in my current position fat and happy! I know you've been job-hunting for awhile and I'm keeping you in my thoughts that you find the right one for you. I agree with Salsa: an interview is a 2-way street and it sounds like this "street" was in a bad neighbourhood!

[pkq]

Reasons for leaving my last, and only employer, are stated on my resume. Most companies have been satisfied with them and people within the prospective employer were satisfied. Few want 50% travel and 60-90 hour weeks during those periods, especially without compensation on any level.

I agree that prospective employers have a right to know why I left and what I am looking for. I can articulate it but that VP really pushed on the issue of my resignation. He wanted reporting hierarchies, which really began to open pandora's box in the last position. They needed to restructure, still do. I may have been OK, if he'd not wanted reporting heirarchies. He pushed on those issues, too, almost felt as though he was holding me responsible for why things weren't addressed with the reporting structure in the last position. My chain of command in that position was not one to question and they made it very clear. They wanted unquestioning submission and were very clear about it.

This VP was not going to be placated with any innocuous reason for leaving. I was too tired from riding lots of miles and not sleeping enough, wanted to explore the area. So I stupidly fell into his trap. If I had known prior to talking with him there were no management opportunities for me with them, I would have walked out. I am not perfect, don't know everything about human nature but want to learn and be developed. Maybe I don't deserve to be developed and promoted. If that's true, so be it. The plant people wanted me. I was their top pick by a large margin so I was very surprised to run into such an antagonistic VP of HR.

The recruiter was surprised, too, because I have a strong resume and come across well on the phone and in person. He was surprised by the VP's path. The recruiter sent lots of other engineers for another position in the same plant. None were chosen although they have great resumes and come across well verbally, too. They have been seeking to fill that position for months. They are working with multiple recruiters, too. They are indecisive or looking for even better talent than us to relocate to a non-primo area, i.e., the largest nearby town has a population around 4,000. Never the twain shall meet.....

The VP had already been very offensive with the "aggressive" tactic. It was a bad sequence of events. However, after interviewing with him, I did not want the position. I thought him a bad representative of a company especially talking to an engineer of my background as he did.

I have interviewed with other companies wanting 15 years experience but I have too much depth in my years. They think I would get bored and move on. Who knows? There are no guarantees in this life. Seems management now wants loyalty from its employees but they've created the monster of loyalty to self with "right sizing" over the last two decades. They don't even ask so I don't know who really gets cheated in that situation.

Tricky waters to navigate.

[bikerchick68]

yikes... I am an HR Director and I must say that not many companies use behavioral interviewing that I know of anymore! Often times this type of interviewing can lead to violations of discrimination laws, by the interviewer making inappropriate comments... and frankly most people see this as an ineffective system of interviewing with the exception of a handful of situations where it is practical to see the results of serious stress on an employee... such as those being interviewed for law enforcement positions...

the VP sounds like he had a separate agenda... perhaps he already found a candidate that he liked and made it difficult for others intentionally...

glad you found out now... best wishes in the job search.

[sisson]

Hi
I'm an organizational development consultant and do alot with companies re: talent management, executive coaching, etc. As a result work alot with HR folks. Sounds like this person violated most of the rules of thumb you use in establishing trust etc. These are hard experiences that make us all grow and learn in the process. My advice to you is let go of it. I would take this as a sign that this corporate culture is not for you. It also sounds like the interview was loaded with tension. On their part... I am not sure what they were trying to uncover. Perhaps on yours, you had some old baggage that you feel you needed to defend. Remember in an interview... don't defend anything. You learned alot in this interview. You learned what some of the traps were and hopefully to avoid a dissection of the past which no one will really understands anyway. My guess is that you are very earnest and upfront and got caught with a bull in the china shop who was trying to prove something. You will have so much better an experience next time. Remember...this probably was not meant to be and they are the loser. Goodluck
Suzanne