This is the best form of interviewing, and the one form that teaches early-on exactly what the purpose of an interview is: all sides learn through mutual interaction if they can benefit one another.

True, the technical credentials are there- you are smart.
True, the social credentials is what is under the microscope, which in the business world would be illegal.

But, the manner of interaction is what identifies the Fit-ins from the Don’t-fit-ins and the Fits-me from the Doesn’t-fit-me.

The questions upper classmen asked themselves when ‘interviewing’: can this person ease ‘work’ pressure in the house, get along with enough folks in the house, participate in social events, work as a team during interhoues events?

The question frosh ask themselves: can I do work with these folks at three in the morning? Would i enjoy their social events? Sports events? Would I be respected, or dragged down to habits I don’t like…

And with this very simple one week process, all tech undergrads have the power to interview well. We ask more questions, we inquire more about the working environment, and ultimately we are not afraid to decline an offer…

In a way I see it as almost the reverse of treating people as children you need to nurture: you need to treat all the other people in the project as adults who can deal with the nasty trade-offs in the situation if their treated on almost equal footing, even if that means you don’t get the warm fuzzy feeling of being a pseudo-parent.

You can’t necessarily say that just because the person’s specific details do not match the overall social culture that the person wouldn’t be hired. As a matter of fact Gay Circus raising may be just the specific difference that would help round out the group culture. Many times as the CEO of a middle-sized business I look for diversity specifically. Someone that is too culturally boxed in, is not a good fit for us. So while you may be correct in that Delta is hiring only ‘like-minded’ people I don’t think it’s something you can assume.

Secondly I have personally found that I’d rather have someone with the right attitude than someone with the best credentials. I can’t tell you how many uber-engineers I’ve hired only to find them a drag on the entire project. They can’t get along or communicate with people then the project can fall apart. Especially if your looking for a leader in the team. Often for me it’s important to understand the person more holistically than just go over their credentials. When I see a person holisitically I can find more specific opportunity for their contribution to the team. Or if they seem unable to communicate well, in a friendly way, about issues that are not very complex I know that no matter how smart or capable they wouldn’t be a good fit for a team. Great on lone-projects but a bad team member.

And then you wind up in the worst possible situation. Having to release a very capable individual for their inability to get along with or work with their other team members. Incredibly disappointing.

But most managers are not in the business of discovering hidden or secret talents – they are in the business of finding people who will fit in and contribute to specific organizational goals. The best clues to those useful traits (so the executive quoted thought) are background, personality and character. The occasional useful freak will need to distinguish himself with his/her talent.

Hiring an employee is not like recruiting a “balanced” freshman class. Universities, especially rich universities, can afford to waste a number of admittances on improbable characters, because students are cheap and you don’t have much invested in them. A bad hire for a manager is much more costly. He/she can disrupt the function of your organization for months, or sometimes years, not to mention the expense and grief of firing them.

Can someone who has expertise clarify on whether or not such questions can be asked during an interview??

Thanks again!

It’s a really difficult balance to strike, and essentially boils down to the pros and cons of groupthink. Get people who are too sympatico, and inevitably you’ve got the blind leading the blind. But I’ve been in the “team of rivals” version of “group” dynamics, and “clusterfrak” is the most family-friendly term I can think of to describe it. It’s really hard to say no when everybody loves each other. It’s excruciating to say yes when you actively hate some or all of your colleagues.

Actually, given how hard it is to find that perfect balance, maybe the best approach is to stop trying so hard and require all managers to take a semester of conflict resolution.

At least, we’re told at our company not to ask those kinds of questions of interviewees. We’re not even allowed to comment on a person’s address, or ask things like “So what’s your favorite part of Boston?” or “Oh, you studied in France? What do you think of French politics?” (You are, of course, allowed to ask about the relevant educational experiences that happened in France–just nothing else.)

It might not be specifically illegal, but it certainly opens you up to a lawsuit to ask those kinds of questions. You ask a candidate to tell you about where he grew up in the interview, and then you decide he’s not the most qualified, and he sues you for racial or ethnic discrimination.

In scientific circles, the technical aspects play a much larger role. In fact, someone can be borderline paranoid schizophrenic and still be a great mathematician (e.g. Gödel).