Brutal interview question: "It’s 4:30 on a Friday and you're going out of town. You get an assignment that's due Mon."

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Corn-fused

No, you are not the only one who takes the middle ground. No one should ever be expected to always be the one to give up everything in their life for their job. Everyone should contribute their fair share equally so one person is not always burdened with the responsibility.

But how do you decide which is "fair". Suppose you have 2 employees who are qualified to do the work, Employee #1 and Employee #2. Employee #1 is the one who most recently worked a weekend to meet a last minute deadline or scope change by a major client. Now it happens again, who do you ask to work? Employee #2 has a non-refundable vacation booked that was planned months ago. Employee #1 has no real plans other than watching TV. What is fair? Do you ask Employee #2 to give up his plans and his non-refundable vacation cost, just because Employee #1 more recently worked a weekend? Or do you ask Employee #1 to work again, so that Employee #2 doesn't lose his vacation and his money? If you ask Employee #2, do you compensate him for the lost vacation and the lost money?

My point is that the concept of "fair" doesn't really work, since what is "fair" to one person is going to be "unfair" to somebody else. So the employer really should have some means in place, such as the "on duty" idea that another poster mentioned, or the calendar idea or the "protecting" idea that I mentioned.

A well run, fine-tuned business is responsible for orchestrating and managing these types of occurrences to assure everyone contributes their fare share and/or prevent this from being or becoming a common occurrence, which it shouldn't! So it starts at the management level and if that is dysfunctional and the proper people are not in place at that level then the whole place will end up a hot mess and be dysfunctional as well.

But even the best-run business can't stop their major clients from coming up with unreasonable demands.

But the real issue in this thread, starting with the OP's interview question and everyone's reaction from there, is that everyone is trying to make this a black/white issue and it is not even close to that.

Which is exactly what I said, but you disagreed with me!

There is no right or wrong answer. People need to think outside the box. The interview question is not asked specifically because that situation ever happens or even happens frequently. It is asked to find out MANY things about a person, as I have mentioned in my other posts in this thread. In a nutshell they want to find out more about YOU and your style and work ethics; who you are, your initial reaction to the question (positively or negatively), if you will or will not elaborate your feelings and opinions about the question, what kind of team player you are, whether you take initiative and whether you are proactive and what solutions and suggestions you bring to the table regarding this type of situation if you were the one to be hired, etc., etc.

I guess an outside the box answer would be something like, agree to work, but pay another coworker out of pocket to do the work in your place? Your coworker will make some tax free money, the work will get done, you will get to keep your vacation, and although you will lose money, it will be less than what you would have lost if you canceled, and you avoid accusations from your employer that you are "not a team player" or "unwilling to work overtime".

[Corn-fused]

If you can't understand any of this then I personally don't feel you are capable of being in a position to make any of those types of decisions. I have already explained it very thoroughly.

Of course "I" would not (in that situation) make #2 cancel their plans and lose all that money!!! That is not even working smart. In that EXACT scenario, with no other variables, I would have #1 do it and then #2 can do double duty the next time. AND if #2 always has commitments and can never cover then YOU have a problem that you, and only YOU can deal with because it IS a problem and should not be happening.

And sure the 'on duty' or 'on call' would probably work because I 'assume' that would be scheduled months ahead so if someone was going to make plans they would schedule around their 'on duty' or 'on call' schedule. But, there are also situations that come up that the 'on duty' and 'on call' schedule will have to change due to last minute situations like family emergencies, etc. Or even weddings, births, family reunions, holidays, etc that will have to have changes to the schedule and have someone else pitch in to cover for them.

But the calendar idea I personally don't think is a good idea. From how I understood it, is have every employee tell the employer their personal life and write it on a calendar for EVERYONE else to see and let them know what they are doing on their 'off time' all the time. And that is nobody else's business! It is an invasion of privacy to give everyone a play-by-play of their personal life. And besides, if there is a company calendar and people need to ask off or schedule vacations or days off then the person who handles that info, such as HR, already has that info to schedule people accordingly.

MOST of these 'emergency projects' have to be worked on a case-by-case basis anyway because there are too many variables with each company and each situation such as how many employees can do the work, how critical is the contract and deadline, how often does this happen, how many employees are needed for the project, etc., etc.

And as far as the 'out of the box', what I mean is it is NOT just a yes or no question in the interview. They don't want you to just say yes or no! It is a time for the interviewee to elaborate on the answer to the question and not just give a yes or no answer. Give the interviewer different situations and variables on that question so they can get to know YOU and how you think and work such as, why you would work it and under what circumstances you would work it or why you wouldn't and what circumstances you wouldn't work it.

If you just answered the question with "yes, I will would work it" then you are telling the interviewer that you aren't even a realistic thinker because you are committing to something you don't even know what the options and circumstances are and nobody can commit ALL the time. And if you say "no, I would not agree to work it" then you are telling them that you aren't a team player or committed at all. They are trying to see whether you can think outside of the box, meaning can you elaborate, strategize, reason, manage, organize, be a team player, ask for examples, negotiate, etc., etc.

I don't know how else to explain it. It is not rocket science. It is just using common sense.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Corn-fused

If you can't understand any of this then I personally don't feel you are capable of being in a position to make any of those types of decisions. I have already explained it very thoroughly.

I understand everything that you are saying. You are attacking me for no reason. You aren't even really disagreeing with what I'm saying, but attacking me anyway.

Of course "I" would not (in that situation) make #2 cancel their plans and lose all that money!!! That is not even working smart. In that EXACT scenario, with no other variables, I would have #1 do it and then #2 can do double duty the next time.

I agree. But not everybody agrees, and I ever started a thread on that topic a few years ago (in 2012) where the majority clearly disagreed with me. In any case, the concept of "fair" and "unfair" is meaningless, since what is fair to one person is going to be unfair to another.

AND if #2 always has commitments and can never cover then YOU have a problem that you, and only YOU can deal with because it IS a problem and should not be happening.

First of all, that is where the "on duty" idea that another poster mentioned and the "protecting" idea that I mentioned come into play. Secondly, if we are talking about the typical tight deadline, if Employee #2 can't or doesn't want to work weekends, why can't he/she work longer hours during the week, as I have done in the past. Of course that won't help with the scenario where an emergency comes up at 4:30 PM on Friday. Maybe if somebody is never available to work weekends (maybe he/she is the sole caretaker of an elderly relative on weekends) but is an otherwise valuable employee, then maybe make some sort of deal, such as that employee accepting a lower salary, or less vacation time, or maybe being asked to work certain holidays in lieu of weekends. You keep bringing up the concept of "fair" but fair does not always mean equal.

And sure the 'on duty' or 'on call' would probably work because I 'assume' that would be scheduled months ahead so if someone was going to make plans they would schedule around their 'on duty' or 'on call' schedule.

Exactly. And if an employee choose to plan something during his/her on duty weekend, he/she knows very well that he/she might be forced to cancel and not receive any reimbursement for non-refundable costs that are lost.

But, there are also situations that come up that the 'on duty' and 'on call' schedule will have to change due to last minute situations like family emergencies, etc.

Of course that is going to happen, and there needs to be some method of handling it.

Or even weddings, births, family reunions, holidays, etc that will have to have changes to the schedule and have someone else pitch in to cover for them.

An employee can just switch his/her on duty weekend with another employee. Simple. You are making it more complex than it has to be. All of the events that you mention are typically known months in advance.

But the calendar idea I personally don't think is a good idea. From how I understood it, is have every employee tell the employer their personal life and write it on a calendar for EVERYONE else to see and let them know what they are doing on their 'off time' all the time.

No, that is not what I meant. What I meant is, somebody can post on the calendar, in advance, that they are unavailable the weekend of May 23-24. They don't need to tell anybody what they are doing if they don't want to.

And that is nobody else's business! It is an invasion of privacy to give everyone a play-by-play of their personal life.

No, that is not what I was suggesting!

And besides, if there is a company calendar and people need to ask off or schedule vacations or days off then the person who handles that info, such as HR, already has that info to schedule people accordingly.

But nobody requests vacation time for weekends and holidays, since the office is presumed closed anyway. Again, I posted on this topic back in 2012, and it was amazing how not even one poster understood what I was saying!

MOST of these 'emergency projects' have to be worked on a case-by-case basis anyway because there are too many variables with each company and each situation such as how many employees can do the work, how critical is the contract and deadline, how often does this happen, how many employees are needed for the project, etc., etc.

Again, we are agreeing, but you attacked me anyway.

And as far as the 'out of the box', what I mean is it is NOT just a yes or no question in the interview. They don't want you to just say yes or no! It is a time for the interviewee to elaborate on the answer to the question and not just give a yes or no answer. Give the interviewer different situations and variables on that question so they can get to know YOU and how you think and work such as, why you would work it and under what circumstances you would work it or why you wouldn't and what circumstances you wouldn't work it.

If you just answered the question with "yes, I will would work it" then you are telling the interviewer that you aren't even a realistic thinker because you are committing to something you don't even know what the options and circumstances are and nobody can commit ALL the time. And if you say "no, I would not agree to work it" then you are telling them that you aren't a team player or committed at all. They are trying to see whether you can think outside of the box, meaning can you elaborate, strategize, reason, manage, organize, be a team player, ask for examples, negotiate, etc., etc.

I don't know how else to explain it. It is not rocket science. It is just using common sense.

But the truth is, employers are looking for the doormat who will put the company above everything else and expect nothing in term. That is how you have to act in the interview if you want any chance of getting hired. How you act when you have the actual job may not be the same as what you say in the interview.

[mitsguy2001]

I see Corn-Fused hasn't even tried to respond. I'm not surprised.

[Corn-fused]

I am not responding because it just isn't worth it, sorry. You just don't read or comprehend very well.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Corn-fused

I am not responding because it just isn't worth it, sorry. You just don't read or comprehend very well.

You obviously are either not reading my posts, or you do not read or comprehend very well.