Related Posts
More Posts
Hi Google - I am requesting guidance!
I am prepping for my interview specifically GCA and open ended questions. I struggle to tell if the outcome should be talking through your process/steps (maybe for a question like - how would you go about determining program complexity) vs a specific solution such as create x new product, for x market by x date based on my assumptions. Is the desired outcome something I can clarify with the interviewer?
Enthusiast
8/3 Thread (General):
Additional Posts in Human Resources
Pro
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
I’ve seen a few companies do this as a way to test how someone would do in the actual role working with the team. Factually speaking, this would be the best way to interview because it is no longer hypothetical. However it is a bit of a departure from the norm
No! I stupidly did this 12 years ago for a nonprofit company in Seattle. I participated in a brainstorming activity on the first day. They liked an idea I had for tracking their fleet vehicles and had me create the spreadsheet and templates on the second day. They "decided to go in a different direction"....using my design and template and plan.
I had a friend of a friend that worked there and shared with me about the new fleet vehicle policy and tracker a few weeks later.
a Division of Dartmouth Hitchcock did the same to me. I lost a lot of respect for the organization.
I used to do this in the restaurant business for management positions, where you paid a candidate (through an agency) for a 1/2 day shift follow so that they could get a realistic idea of the job and the manager could gauge their actual interest.
Doing this in other roles, such as HR, does not seem to have any practical benefit. I would pass.
Nope.
That’s a no.
That is excessive. To ask someone to come work for two days to test drive you is nuts. I assume you have to take PTO time to accommodate? Sounds like either a company that has never hired someone in the role you interviewed or, they are a conservative company that makes decisions slowly or with hesitation.
It depends on the structure of the two days. Did they tell you what would be involve?
These sound like performance based interviews. They want to get as close to real data about what it would be like working with you and to see your skill set in action. It’s seems like it’s an attempt to gather unbiased data.
I have seen something like this done in the space of a thirty minute interview, not over two days. It’s a grey area, because they are putting you and other candidates in an odd position if you are currently employed. At scale it doesn’t make for the best candidate experience.
Do it and send them a bill for your time worked.
Include an estimate for a proposed HR compliance project that will address these kinds of labor law issues.
You left out what role this is for which changes a lot. If it's for a generalist we would never do that. I've done half-day working interviews/ride-alongs for very senior-level or highly technical positions where we must see them interacting to validate working knowledge before extending an offer. During that time we would never expect any kind of production and clearly state they are not working. This was for a couple of roles with a salary in the top 0.5% of the company. But it's very rare and I would never do that for anything less than what I've done it for in the past or BOLI could come knocking.
Huge red flag. If they really want you, they will offer you the position. Shows that this organization lacks the ability to train new hires and they expect the world when you start.