When I pressed them about the relevance, they indicated that they often have heated debates on all manner of topics, so they wanted to see my thought process.
I enjoy solving complex problems, but socio-ethical problems are way outside of my wheelhouse.
I politely indicated that I didn't think the company was a good fit for me.
The answers ran the gamut from lazy to fantastic to terrifying. A lot of answers where generic "coalition building" variety. The better answers identified key areas to focus on like infrastructure, basic services, etc. The best answers had clear goals and possible government structures supporting accountability.
Bad answers had the exec consolidating power and crushing opposition. The worst answers had the exec killing people to achieve their goals. Not joking, I had several answers that where "I would find my rivals and kill them".
Overall I thought it was a good question as those who performed well on it and where hired built great sustainable orgs and those who did poorly where usually shown the door within a year. Those who did well where able to take a crazy situation, break it down into smaller problems, and then solve for them while those who did poorly where usually relying either escaping the problem via committees or flat out crushing opposition.
Asking a politically charged question on statecraft and judging the answer based on your own personal ideas about how to run a state strikes me as a bizarre way to conduct an interview, even for an exec.
>The worst answers had the exec killing people
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes?
The guy posing Arab Spring interview questions sounds just like those 65 year old talent scouts in MoneyBall skipping over a talented 3rd baseman because the kid “doesn’t have good legs.” Humans are immensely stupid and irrational when it comes to judging other humans.
Maybe because they're faster?
Hardly a success story, in my opinion.
But as an employee, I’d sure prefer being treated like a human being...
The thing is all these weird interview strategies work at some level. Its very self-reinforcing. If a company kept hiring duds, they would change their interviewing style.. or simply go out of business after hiring enough dummies.
Seems like exactly what you want so you don't get people who will be playing the opposite sort of political games than you want (whichever sort you may prefer).
Suppose your new country has a $1bil in its budget, then spending that billion on schools and hospitals and infrastructure for the people means that there is suddenly $1bil that is not being siphoned of by the corrupt old guard that might still hold levers of power.
If you give them nothing, then they will rebel against your rule. If you try to compromise and give them $500m, they will only be loyal until someone comes along and offer them $750m and then loyal only until someone else can give them $900m. So the game is stacked in such a way that the only way to stay in power is to siphon of the $1bil on corrupt cronies and spend nothing on the people.
That is why it makes sense to purge those old enemies, but that may be difficult in itself.
Of course, the fact that I wouldn't do any of this in real life is also why I'm never going to face this hypothetical.
I'm going to guess "Abdicate power as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible to whoever seems most likely to be next in line, so that nobody is ever tempted to come after me or mine, because I am not suited for such a role and I deeply know it" would probably not be considered a viable answer by the questioner....
The proper answer is: introduce democratic government, clean up the country, introduce proper amenities (healthcare, etc) and spread the wealth for the benefit of the people.
Fact of the matter is: absolute power corrupts, and plenty of people would loot the oil money reserves for their own benefit if they had the chance. Just have a look at what happens in Russia.
But what I think OP meant, is that the bad things which happened in Iraq were not the intended outcome of what the US did. Those other, more horrible things were intended consequences, not mistakes.
Not quite sure why. Some tries:
1. A mistake implies a single decision.
2. Slavery worked as intended, right? It was more evil than mistaken.
Either way, you sure derailed my derailing of the topic, so I'll stop here :)
Or if they did start with a democratic government, to limit the voting to certain groups, like the US, Canada, and Australia did before universal suffrage.
Are there any successful countries that haven’t “cleaned up” first but introduced universal democracy?
Democracy means shifting it from a small number of people keeping you in power to all of the people. It's not easy.
CGPGray did a great video on this model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs (Based on The Dictators Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith.
- Would you discount the person for not being able to answer your question right there?
- Would you think that this is a person who doesn't like to make rash decision (or the opposite)?
- Would you be thinking that this person is wasting your time?
- Would you allow it or have 'em answer right then and there?
Suppose the interviewee had answered, "I would work towards a proper implementation of Sharia law." or "I would start by building Christian churches and state-sponsored public preaching." or "I would start by replacing all mosques with science-and-technology museums."
At that point any candidate who wasn't hired could have a good starting point for a lawsuit based on hiring discrimination by protected class.
I mean in the US you can sue for whatever you want, but the likelihood of it happening or being an issue is quite small in this scenario.
I don’t know anything about Libya’s political and social situation. For example, how many people decided I was the leader? Is the military on my side? Is there an opposition with a tendency for violence? Have they attacked before?
There are too many unknowns for me to decide what is and isn’t a good answer. But definitely, the exec’s response would be good to identify culture fit.
You cannot placate a place like Libya without violence. Thinking otherwise is first-world delusion. It's worse - it's the same line of thinking that plunged the country into chaos under the guise of liberating it from a dictator. That's not a defense of Gadafi - it's a reality of things going from bad to worse.
In your phrasing you asked "what happens". Did any candidates you thought were good give the actual answer: a disaster for Libya, and the person is removed from power?
That is the actual answer.
Of course not. All of your "passing" answers to "what happens" includes building up infrastructure, basic services, etc.
In other words, what you really just asked didn't match your words. You really asked: "Convince me that you are qualified to lead Libya".
Unsurprisingly, the people who realized that this is what the question was, and gave you an objectively false answer, get a passing grade. Those who did not this, or who answered correctly as asked, fail.
Those who were understood what you really wanted, and who also successfully convinced you that they're qualified to lead Libya, "built great sustainable orgs" whereas "whose who did poorly where usually shown the door within a year".
You could have done just as well asking "The company has decided we are building a social network to compete with Facebook. We put you in charge. What happens?"
What actually happens of course is nothing good. It doesn't mean it's not a bad interview question, but a good answer is not the factually correct answer.
Without knowing what kind of company you're working at, here's the way I'd answer the "the company has decided to pivot to building Facebook. You're in charge. What happens?" first based on what I'd actually tell you, then truthfully.
Answer you want to hear:
"Boy, agrippanux, this is a tough one. I hope I'd get some equity because as you know, social networks have a network effect where success means they blow big, and that's what we're going to do. agrippanux, I've long been interested in social networks so even though your company is not really in this space, I think I could really identify some of the areas people feel strongly about, including advertising, privacy, filter bubbles, and also social media addiction. We will end up having to tackle the network effect, so we will start by identifying niches where our company already has a really strong presence. agrippanux, we don't really do much direct technical support to customer's issues, so I would start by having our web page redirect seamlessly to our in-house Facebook competition that I'm building with the team you give me, as a kind of closed beta, so that we can get a steady stream of users asking us questions and getting used to the network. We can then stealthily work on the underlying technology, while testing it with a continuous stream of real user input. As a next step, we would license this answer solution to other companies. Companies will appreciate being able to have the narrative be on their pages, and by building up factual answers and technical support, we would end up building up an expectation of value and reliability - the opposite of "fake news" plaguing social media. Many early adopters are avid supports as well, and the next step will be allowing some members to answer other people's questions as well. The third stage will be introducing some company events such as pizza parties and this type of thing, in the biggest cities. This kind of approach will let companies capture their own audiences, promote those who support their products as online grassroots supporters, and be a clear alternative to the marketing mess on Facebook. Over time we are a viable social network built on the technical foundation that you have, agrippanux, in this very building at this very moment, and based on the good will and brand that your company has spent years building - and leverage that to be a successful full social network. That's why you've put me in charge of replicating a social network using our technologies and employees, and I am confident we can do it." (Then, after a beat, since your jaw just hit the floor at how awesome my answer was.) "Hey so do I get some equity if I help you take down Facebook or what?"
That's a great answer. It's not truthful though. Bam. I just got hired for whatever role you're actually interviewing me for.
Truthful answer:
"Whoever made this change in direction is an idiot. While it is nice for me to get the resources to roll out a social network 'to compete with Facebook', it's probably doomed to failure, and my top priority would be getting out of it alive. I'd probably spend a lot of marketing money getting a few million transient users who aren't actually engaged, and then jump ship to an actual social media company that knows what they're doing and has a mature product with a real value proposition. This company has no chance of creating a viable social network."
See? One of them is the truthful answer that ACTUALLY describes what really happens. Just as you asked. It's similar to exec consolidating power and crushing opposition. And one of them is the fake answer that answers the real question: "Convince me you're qualified to replicate Facebook under our company, using a few hundred thousand dollars." It's similar to the question "Convince me you're qualified to lead Libya."
An insane question. But perhaps a good question.
OP is hiring executives, not yes-men. You want people who give you the factually correct answer, because you want people who will behave ethically. Execs have to worry about regulation and corporate risk and you do not want liars in those positions.
That's why this is a terrible question.
"Execs have to worry about regulation, corporate risk, and managing perceptions both internally and externally. You do not want someone spouting the literal truth without a filter in those positions."
That's why it's a great question. It requires a filter.
Libya is also a very complicated place, and so it's difficult to answer without quite a lot of knowledge.
The question reeks of that ridiculous 'American can-do neo-colonialism can solve anything' kind of problem, and in that context is basically offensive.
Any answer, given by any candidate could only totally gloss over the most important in a ridiculous and igornat way.
"Bad answers had the exec consolidating power and crushing opposition." ?
This is exactly how pretty much all leaders in the the Middle East establish power. Do you think they are stupid? Or maybe that there is some kind of underlying systematic issue here?
Secondarily, is the ugly reality of the answers: you can't 'build infrastructure' while opponents are thwarting you at every turn. 'Killing your opponents' in such a situation may actually be a rational thing to do. Of course it sounds very outrageous to be talking about this in an interview, moreover, it's doubly shocking coming out of people without that kind of relevant (i.e. military) experience.
This question is just loaded with problems, I suggest you adapt it to some other more neutral context.
Heh, I actually wouldn't have minded that too much - but in addition to being a software engineer I'm also a former Army officer.
In any case, I think such a task can be relevant, if you're working in a fast-paced and competitive environment (esp. one with a lot of non-technical staff) you need to be able to hold your own in an argument. You wouldn't want to be the guy who is always right but gets overruled 99% of the time because you're unable to persuade others.
> ...but socio-ethical problems are way outside of my wheelhouse.
Mine too, and probably 99%+ of the world's population. But that doesn't stop most people from having strong opinions on subjects they don't understand.
Then you'll hire a bunch people who like arguing about things they aren't qualified to argue about. I'd much rather have a coworker who admits what they don't know and is willing to learn about it rather than someone who is willing to vigorously argue in support of an arbitrary position.
On the other hand, I don't want to work in a group where the right answer only gets picked if it's backed by someone with an assertive personality.
>“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
I'm 5/7 out of 22, +2 if I go back a decade or two
So that's 4 I definitely haven't done, 4 I kinda did, and 13 I definitely did (I count 21 total not 22).
lol tyop , I also count 21
Why would you sabotage possible good candidates just so you can get your needless debate rocks off?
Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I've never heard of that. Would you mind sharing a link?
> Though David Rowe, a veteran architect of the Wharton forecasting model, has played a key role in developing the firm's econometric model, the senior staff, including Miss Eickhoff, Judith Mackey and Lucille Wu, is mostly female. Mr. Greenspan explains the gender bias with the free-market pragmatism that has become his hallmark: "I always valued men and women equally, and I found that because others did not, good women economists were cheaper than men. Hiring women does two things: It gives us better quality work for less money, and it raises the market value of women."
That is, just a few decades ago, the leading economic consulting firms in the world—economists!—were regularly overpaying men because they didn't want to hire equally capable women, such that Greenspan could find an obvious mispricing in the labor market.
Imagine how much more poorly people who are not economists and not owners of their firm must be making hiring decisions on much less blatant biases than gender.
I think there are multiple solutions to a gender wage gap resulting from markets with irrational participants, and reducing the market value of the overpaid gender is a perfectly valid way to accomplish it. I think that's what he's doing.
I would be very happy to have answered that question and would be a plus one in my books if I can have these types of heated talks with my coworkers.
And led to problems with group-think and an inability to think in different ways.
Now granted my hiring sample is less than 100, but that has been my experience so far.
If the purpose is to do what you say, then you have to say that. If in an interview you find yourself trying to trick the people interviewing, for any reason whatsoever, you're not clever, you're a dick and your company, by extension, is a bag of dicks.
It is not. But they cannot ask you "did you vote for party X? Because everyone here votes for party X and it would be awkward to have someone with Y sensibilities", that would be discriminating.
One of my favorite interviews was when I was posed the question: "you work for the railroad, we've just spent several months asking our customers how they feel about the service; the majority of them are unhappy, what do you do?".
I spent an enjoyable hour in front of a whiteboard working on ideas with the interviewer.
I’ve also done a one hour codility online coding test more recently. I thought I’d hate it but frankly it’s wasnt over the top hard and kinda fun.
You self-selected out, because you didn't like their culture.
Seems like a great outcome for both parties!
Ever more reason to go outside ones comfort zone.
My reasoning: I would like my team members to be able to contribute in all aspects of product development. This includes not only engineering decisions but also work with the product managers in identifying both potential new features as well as short comings or issues with some requirements. It also tells me how narrow or broad a particular person's knowledge base is.
Let me try to put it in other words: it may tell me if a particular frontend engineer would be open to exploring backend development? What if the language stack changes, will they be open to exploring new languages, stacks, frameworks, OS, platforms. Or, will they be limited to what they know. Will they be able to just code what they're told, or will they be able to form and express their opinion about yet unknown things.