Self-ratings



  • Am I the only one who thinks that employers making hiring decisions based on self-ratings are stupid?  Is there something I'm missing?



  • I've never heard of this (unless you're just talking about responses in interviews). Do you have a link or something that talks about this? A story to share?



  •  I don't understand why you would say, 'just' responses in interviews.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @tharpa said:

     I don't understand why you would say, 'just' responses in interviews.

    If someone in an interview tells me they're in expert in something, I'll find out if it was true inside of a week, and if it wasn't they'll find the door not long after that. (And that's if I can't trip them into giving a bullshit answer during the interview - in which case they won't be offered the position at all.) If they tell me they're learning it, I'll likely still offer them the position (in fact, I take it as a good sign when someone strives to develop their skill set professionally) but I'll be a bit more lenient about expecting them to be immediately productive.

    So, it probably works out better to be modest about your skills. In an interview I'm trying to ascertain also a feel for your personality: do you communicate well, can you integrate with the team, do you have a big head (which can be a Dunning–Kruger effect red flag), are you passionate about your profession or is it just-a-job. How many fucks you give is a better indicator than your confidence level in your skill set - I can teach you skills, I can't make you care about it.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @tharpa said:

     I don't understand why you would say, 'just' responses in interviews.

    If someone in an interview tells me they're in expert in something, I'll find out if it was true inside of a week, and if it wasn't they'll find the door not long after that. (And that's if I can't trip them into giving a bullshit answer during the interview - in which case they won't be offered the position at all.) If they tell me they're learning it, I'll likely still offer them the position (in fact, I take it as a good sign when someone strives to develop their skill set professionally) but I'll be a bit more lenient about expecting them to be immediately productive.

    So, it probably works out better to be modest about your skills. In an interview I'm trying to ascertain also a feel for your personality: do you communicate well, can you integrate with the team, do you have a big head (which can be a Dunning–Kruger effect red flag), are you passionate about your profession or is it just-a-job. How many fucks you give is a better indicator than your confidence level in your skill set - I can teach you skills, I can't make you care about it.

    Are you hiring?


  •  Let me also answer your question apart from the "just".  I just had a phone interview with an employer.  It was about five minutes.  It consisted solely of the employer (whose title was "Senior Practice Support Systems Engineer") asking me to rate myself on a scale of 1 - 5 on various skills.

    Do you see any potential pitfalls with this system?



  • @tharpa said:

    I don't understand why you would say, 'just' responses in interviews.

    That's apparently because I didn't understand why you would say "self ratings" instead of "interview." You made it sound like there was some new fad, like a QUIS TEST or whatever.

    I think the answer is that you're probably asking bad questions. This reminds me of the debates about whether torture ever provides useful information. Obviously, getting someone to say, "I'm an expert" is analogous to a guilty plea. So if you rely on an answer like that, I agree that would be stupid. But you can ask questions that demonstrate some sort of knowledge or familiarity with the job, too. There are other things, like credentials and past experience, which can help back up the results of the interview. None of these are perfect, of course, nor is any other hiring strategy.



  • @tharpa said:

    Do you see any potential pitfalls with this system?
     

    Anyone who scores too many 5s is branded an egotistical liar and disqualified from the interview process.

    ... hmm, nope, no pitfalls. That works pretty well.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @tharpa said:

    Do you see any potential pitfalls with this system?
     

    Anyone who scores too many 5s is branded an egotistical liar and disqualified from the interview process.

    ... hmm, nope, no pitfalls. That works pretty well.


    You just rejected Chuck Norris.



  •  So what kind of a scale are you using?  Is it a linear scale?  Does 5 mean "in the top 20%"?  What's the population against who they're being rated?  Nope, it's not possible that someone could be in the top 20% of several skills.  

     Or is it a logarithmic-type scale?  Yep, the interviewee should just know that.  And if the interviewee asks too many questions about something as simple as a self-rating, well, that's a red-flag right there.  

     Better to lie than seem egotistical.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @tharpa said:

    Do you see any potential pitfalls with this system?
     

    Anyone who scores too many 5s is branded an egotistical liar and disqualified from the interview process.

    ... hmm, nope, no pitfalls. That works pretty well.


    You just rejected Chuck Norris.


    He scored "6" on all the questions.

     



  •  The phrase "egotistical liar", in this context, appears to be self-contradictory.  If they're egotistical, then they believe that they're 5's on "too many" skills.  So they wouldn't be lying, just mistaken.  

    And if they were lying, then it would mean that they knew that they weren't that great, so they wouldn't be egotistical.

    My last boss, even though he didn't always apply his intelligence outside of technical matters, was extremely smart and knowledgeable on software engineering/programming matters.   If I had to rate him, I would give him all 5's on a wide variety of technical skills.  He did not come across as either egotistical or a liar.  But if he were to apply for another job, and he was asked self-rating questions, he would have to lie so as not to seem like an egotistical liar, otherwise he would be rejected.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @Lorne Kates said:
    @tharpa said:
    Do you see any potential pitfalls with this system?
     

    Anyone who scores too many 5s is branded an egotistical liar and disqualified from the interview process.

    ... hmm, nope, no pitfalls. That works pretty well.


    You just rejected Chuck Norris.
    On a scale of 1 to 5 Chuck Norris scores all 6s.

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    @Lorne Kates said:
    @tharpa said:
    Do you see any potential pitfalls with this system?
     

    Anyone who scores too many 5s is branded an egotistical liar and disqualified from the interview process.

    ... hmm, nope, no pitfalls. That works pretty well.


    You just rejected Chuck Norris.
    On a scale of 1 to 5 Chuck Norris scores all 6s.

     


    On a scale of 1 to 10 Chuck Norris scores NaN.



  • @tharpa said:

    My last boss, even though he didn't always apply his intelligence outside of technical matters, was extremely smart and knowledgeable on software engineering/programming matters.   If I had to rate him, I would give him all 5's on a wide variety of technical skills.
    Yes, some people really are exceptional, and when they're called upon to describe what they're capable of, will come up with stuff that would be ludicrous coming from almost anyone else:

    @Leonardo da Vinci said:

    1. I have a sort of extremely light and strong bridges, adapted to be
    most easily carried, and with them you may pursue, and at any time flee
    from the enemy; and others, secure and indestructible by fire and
    battle, easy and convenient to lift and place. Also methods of burning
    and destroying those of the enemy.

    2. I know how, when a place is besieged, to take the water out of the trenches, and make endless variety of bridges, and covered ways and ladders, and other machines pertaining to such expeditions.

    3. If, by reason of the height of the banks, or the strength of the place and its position, it is impossible, when besieging a place, to avail oneself of the plan of bombardment, I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc.

    4. Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion.

    5. And if the fight should be at sea I have kinds of many machines most efficient for offense and defense; and vessels which will resist the attack of the largest guns and powder and fumes.

    6. I have means by secret and tortuous mines and ways, made without noise, to reach a designated spot, even if it were needed to pass under a trench or a river.

    7. I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them. And behind these, infantry could follow quite unhurt and without any hindrance.

    8. In case of need I will make big guns, mortars, and light ordnance of fine and useful forms, out of the common type.

    9. Where the operation of bombardment might fail, I would contrive catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other machines of marvellous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of offense and defense.

    10. In times of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings public and private; and in guiding water from one place to another.

    11. I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay, and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may.

     



  • @da Doctah said:

    Yes, some people really are exceptional, and when they're called upon to describe what they're capable of, will come up with stuff that would be ludicrous coming from almost anyone else:

    @Leonardo da Vinci said:

    1. I have a sort of extremely light and strong bridges, adapted to be
    most easily carried, and with them you may pursue, and at any time flee
    from the enemy; and others, secure and indestructible by fire and
    battle, easy and convenient to lift and place. Also methods of burning
    and destroying those of the enemy.

    2. I know how, when a place is besieged, to take the water out of the trenches, and make endless variety of bridges, and covered ways and ladders, and other machines pertaining to such expeditions.

    3. If, by reason of the height of the banks, or the strength of the place and its position, it is impossible, when besieging a place, to avail oneself of the plan of bombardment, I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc.

    4. Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion.

    5. And if the fight should be at sea I have kinds of many machines most efficient for offense and defense; and vessels which will resist the attack of the largest guns and powder and fumes.

    6. I have means by secret and tortuous mines and ways, made without noise, to reach a designated spot, even if it were needed to pass under a trench or a river.

    7. I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them. And behind these, infantry could follow quite unhurt and without any hindrance.

    8. In case of need I will make big guns, mortars, and light ordnance of fine and useful forms, out of the common type.

    9. Where the operation of bombardment might fail, I would contrive catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other machines of marvellous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of offense and defense.

    10. In times of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings public and private; and in guiding water from one place to another.

    11. I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay, and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may.

     

     

     

    And this was at the age of 30.  "I, I, I"  No sorry, Leo, we're looking for a team player.

    The usual interview process is like reading tea leaves.

     



  • @tharpa said:

    And this was at the age of 30.  "I, I, I"  No sorry, Leo, we're looking for a team player.
    And yet, he did get the job.  The Duke of Milan obviously didn't go to business school.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @da Doctah said:

    @tharpa said:

    My last boss, even though he didn't always apply his intelligence outside of technical matters, was extremely smart and knowledgeable on software engineering/programming matters.   If I had to rate him, I would give him all 5's on a wide variety of technical skills.
    Yes, some people really are exceptional, and when they're called upon to describe what they're capable of, will come up with stuff that would be ludicrous coming from almost anyone else:

    @Leonardo da Vinci said:

    1. I have a sort of extremely light and strong bridges, adapted to be
    most easily carried, and with them you may pursue, and at any time flee
    from the enemy; and others, secure and indestructible by fire and
    battle, easy and convenient to lift and place. Also methods of burning
    and destroying those of the enemy.

    2. I know how, when a place is besieged, to take the water out of the trenches, and make endless variety of bridges, and covered ways and ladders, and other machines pertaining to such expeditions.

    3. If, by reason of the height of the banks, or the strength of the place and its position, it is impossible, when besieging a place, to avail oneself of the plan of bombardment, I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc.

    4. Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion.

    5. And if the fight should be at sea I have kinds of many machines most efficient for offense and defense; and vessels which will resist the attack of the largest guns and powder and fumes.

    6. I have means by secret and tortuous mines and ways, made without noise, to reach a designated spot, even if it were needed to pass under a trench or a river.

    7. I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them. And behind these, infantry could follow quite unhurt and without any hindrance.

    8. In case of need I will make big guns, mortars, and light ordnance of fine and useful forms, out of the common type.

    9. Where the operation of bombardment might fail, I would contrive catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other machines of marvellous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of offense and defense.

    10. In times of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings public and private; and in guiding water from one place to another.

    11. I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay, and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may.

     

    Dear Leonardo,
    after careful review we regret to inform you that your application to Starbucks has been rejected. Our barristas are held to the utmost standards of quality, and your qualifications, while impressive, do not appear relevant to the position you applied for. As consolation, please find attached a $5 Starbucks gift card, redeemable at any Starbucks location.


  • @joe.edwards said:

    Dear Leonardo,
    after careful review we regret to inform you that your application to Starbucks has been rejected. Our barristas are held to the utmost standards of quality, and your qualifications, while impressive, do not appear relevant to the position you applied for. As consolation, please find attached a $5 Starbucks gift card, redeemable at any Starbucks location.

    He should take this rejection in his stride and apply as a Domino's delivery driver. Point 7 on his CV would allow him to deliver in the dodgiest of areas...

    @Leonardo da Vinci said:


    1. I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them.


  • @tharpa said:

    Am I the only one who thinks that employers making hiring decisions based on self-ratings are stupid?  Is there something I'm missing?

    Self-rating are only used during appraisal periods.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.