cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advocate I

Re: Don’t be getting too high…

Alright!

 

So... this ...

 


@mgoblue93wrote:

You have some interesting interview experiences...

 

> On a couple other occasions, I felt like a psychologist,

> listening to the complaints of senior people who should

> have been interviewing me for a job.

 

Are you sure those were "complaints" or was the interviewer trying to tell you about the challenges of the position and the response they are seeking from a successful candidate would be to outline how one's experience would directly correlate to a plan/solution for the problem(s).

 

Generally, in senior level positions (which I believe you're applying for), one doesn't get to work easy "complaints" -- easy stuff is already handled at lower levels.  Which leads to why senior level interviews are harder and are more dialog/situational than straight Q & A.

 

> Frustrated by their own lack of apparent certification accomplishments

 

Hmmm... I'm  guessing making things personal like that, not in fact either, isn't a good way to land an offer.


 

 

... is exactly why this conversation is important!  

 

I am extremely grateful to have a group of professionals where I can share my experiences whether they be frustration or jubilee - and then - be offered alternative viewpoints and perceptions that I may not have considered.

 

Eric B.

Highlighted
Community Champion

Re: Don’t be getting too high…


@Baechle


 

 

Lamont Robertson
M.S., M.A., CISSP, CISM, CISA, CRISC, CDPSE, MCSE
Highlighted
Contributor I

Re: Don’t be getting too high…

@Baechle

 

Good post.

 

However, I wasn't debating perspective.  I was commenting about someone making personal (rather than business-related)  assumptions about their interviewer in a negative manner.  Not a good example for a careers forum.

 

It devolved into something ugly because the OP called the responders "classless"; then OP then backpedaled and didn't own their very own words... all the while continuing to ramp up the personal rhetoric. 

 

I do have the EQ to handle tough conversations, which also benefit the community, and we all should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. 

 

I don't have the patience for personal attacks or lacks of integrity.

Highlighted
Advocate I

Re: Don’t be getting too high…

Christopher,

 


@mgoblue93wrote:

 


However, I wasn't debating perspective.  I was commenting about someone making personal (rather than business-related)  assumptions about their interviewer in a negative manner.  Not a good example for a careers forum.

I hear you.  Maybe that was the position of the OP but that's not what I (and a few others) initially understood the post to be.  Then again, maybe the OP didn't do a good job of explaining the basis for his observation. 

 

If the rest of us are not debating alternative perspectives and alternative theories to the OP - then aren't we just making negative comments about personal beliefs about the OP?  Then are we the pot or the kettle?

Highlighted
Advocate I

Re: Don’t be getting too high…

Lamont,

 


@Lamont29wrote:

I have moved past past this already. I am actually embarrassed by the residue.


It's a teachable moment, and I'm still learning.

 

One of the things that I find interesting about this particular forum (as opposed to the Yahoo! Group) is that it appears to have branched out beyond people snagging their credits for doing book reviews and pontificating on technical concepts.

 

I think that it was extraordinarily brave of you to put out to our community your personal experiences and let us dissect it.  Hopefully, even if for a moment, you'll stop being embarrassed long enough to realize you brought up several difficult issues in one post,

 

(a) the core of your post which is that your prospective employer is being sized up by the prospective employee during an interview, not just the other way around;

 

(b) that even senior and experienced people have difficulty reading into a scenario especially when it doesn't involve a straight forward technical problem - as I'm reminding of the tree swing engineering cartoon; and

 

(c) that opening up to the community about our perceptions, beliefs, and biases is good ego hygiene as much as it is a professional development opportunity for our soft skills.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric B.

Highlighted
Contributor I

Re: Don’t be getting too high…

then aren't we just making negative comments about

> personal beliefs about the OP?

 

Nope. 

 

It's entirely possible to comment on behaviors observed without it being a personal comment.

 

For example, if I make a mistake around a peer and someone comes up to me and say, hey, you were wrong there; have you considered xyz, that's not a personal comment.  They didn't call me names.  They didn't make assumptions about me.  That's a comment about something they observed I did, perhaps I made a mistake, and it's a learning moment for both of us... and NONE of that goes to who I am as a person.  High EQ people know that.

 

Generally, in such a scenario, I'm grateful for the feedback as well.

 

Getting back to the example of this thread and sorry to be blunt, I reject the notion that commenting on behaviors is somehow a hindrance to exploring alternatives.  Which is completely okay that you and I have our own thoughts.  The group's participants are free to express their thoughts and that's what makes this forum interactive.

 

Here's why I just wrote what I did to you (re: "reject the notion" statement).  I kept my reply focused on the thoughts, the words... I didn't make assumptions about you @Baechle.  I didn't resort to ad hominems of calling you "classless" for example.  I didn't comment on you the person.  I didn't turn the discussion into whining about likability.  

 

I commented on your reply which may have implied that my observation of someone making personal assumptions about another is contrary to exploring alternatives.  My take is it's not.  Claiming "I'm my interviewer's psychologist" or "my interviewer is frustrated by their lack of accomplishments" is not a good example for a careers forum.  If one wants to talk about a bad interview experience, keep it to the business and keep it to facts.

 

Ironically, things would have been much better if we actually DID explore alternatives... such as, "I think my interviewer was having a bad day..." or "they asked this question or had this response to something I said, what does the forum think"... but no, we've got someone who signs their posts with a bunch of alphabet soup saying, "my interviewer is frustrated by their lack of accomplishments"... yeah, I'm going to make a comment on that!  It's passive/aggressive garbage.  Nobody knows the motivations of someone sitting across from them like that.

 

So yes, there is a difference between making observations and making it personal and it's not prohibitive to exploring alternatives... and I appreciate your time and this discussion!  🙂

 

Highlighted
Advocate I

Re: Don’t be getting too high…

Christopher,

 

So here is what I see.  Both of us read the OP, and both of us made assumptions about the basis for the OP comments.  I have an idea of what your assumptions were, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth here.

 

My assumptions created a scenario that flowed like this:

 

A prospective employee enters an interview.  The prospective employee is a senior person in their field, and enjoys the knowledge and challenges that their field of work brings with it.  During the interview it becomes apparent that the leadership conducting the interview have experienced frustrations regarding their own career development and education and training opportunities.

 

The assessment that the prospective employee makes is, the employer currently faces a deficit in leadership at the employee-engagement level.  The prospective employee has a choice to make.  They can either (a) decide that being an engagement leader is a role they want to fill; or (b) decide that the role they want is more technical, and that an organization without the engagement issue already in place is a place they don’t want to work.

 

What I deduced from Lamont’s comment, was the (b) scenario.  What I offered in return is the (a) scenario as an alternative perspective, and career option.  I personally, would choose the (a) scenario.  There may be a (c) or (d) or some other scenario I haven’t considered.

 

Lamont’s original post may be too short to fully understand what was going on here.  He didn’t say if this was just a bad day for him that colored his memory of the event, or if he walked into the interview room and everyone was literally laying back on couches talking about their mommy.

 

I would like to know what scenario you came up with when you read his post to get a better understanding of your replies.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric B.

Highlighted
Community Champion

Re: Don’t be getting too high…


 

 

Lamont Robertson
M.S., M.A., CISSP, CISM, CISA, CRISC, CDPSE, MCSE
Highlighted
Contributor I

Re: Don’t be getting too high…

Also, Google and a good dictionary are

> great references to get you started on

> the road to clear critical thinking.

 

I see you haven't learned your lesson.

 

I use duckduckgo.com for searching.  It's more secure than Google.  If you were anything more than a paper infosec professional, you'd know that.

 

It's also very interesting you use words in your replies after I have used them first.  LOL!

 

> I will in short order be adding PhD to my mix of alphabet soup

 

Great.  Makes no difference to me.  I'm assuming that whatever school would give you a PhD is probably a regionally accredited, for profit, diploma mill.

 

Troll on!

 

 

Highlighted
Community Champion

Re: Don’t be getting too high…


@mgoblue93wrote:

 

 

Lamont Robertson
M.S., M.A., CISSP, CISM, CISA, CRISC, CDPSE, MCSE