So, yesterday's interview with the foreclosure firm was with three HR people. I hate interviewing with HR.
With lawyers, interviews are easy. I go in, talk about my job for a little bit, but mainly just shoot the shit with the interviewer. I'm a reasonably personable and interesting person, so 90% of the interview always goes very well. Granted, the 10% about my work experience has been a pretty big hindrance, but there's not much I can do about that.
Interviews with HR are completely different. They come in with their prepared questions, fire at will, and just wait for my prepared answers. That's it.
Maybe it's just because I'm better at the first type of interview, but I honestly don't think that an interview with HR gives any indication of how well I'll perform a particular job. At least the lawyers get a sense of my personality and what I'll be like to be around every day. The HR people only get to know how well I can make up answers to inane questions.
Do you really think that my answer to, "Describe how you have resolved a conflict at work" is a good indication of how well I'll do a job? No. It's just an indication of how well I can lie.
Luckily for me, I'm also pretty good at lying.
D:
ReplyDeleteHR is such bullshit. Lawyers, at deposition and trial, ask direct meaningful questions and expect responsive answers. Otherwise, we re-ask the question until the person answers it or looks like a fool.
Foreclosure firms must do great if they can afford to waste money on things like HR. For most small to medium law firms, outside consulting firms can take care of your payroll and health insurance management obligations for less than the cost of a salaried HR employee.
And they have 3 HR people no less!
I'd liquidate these positions and use the money to throw a huge Holiday party, or just pay myself a bonus.
Gus