Blatant Red Flags in Job Interviews



  • I have recenlty quit my current job without having anything new (in other words, the most bonehead of moves in the book), and got on the interviewing scene again.

    Today, in one of those interviews, the interviewer often spoke about the excellent financial condition of the company (no debt... the usual stuff). However, I saw that as a blatant red flag.

    I would like to hear from the DailyWTF members regarding this and other kind of blatant red flags one should be wary about when going to an interview.


  • Fake News

    And it was a "blatant red flag"... why?



  • Good question.

    I saw it as a red flag because if a company is stable, there is no need for the recruiter to mention the "money" issue over and over (he did mention it several times, with specifics on what banks where they working with and that they were debt free and such). In my opinion this sounds like this: "Financially, we're in deep shit."

    As far as I know, he could as well just being honest with me, but given my experience, every time money comes up in a conversation, it ain't good.


  • Fake News

    OK, that makes more sense if he were constantly hammering on it.



  • Why would you see excellent financial condition as a red flag?

    If the guy was talking about it at all, I am guessing it was a fairly small place, and that's good information to have (if you can independently verify). Did they have relatively new equipment? Or was it aging, dust covered, and looking in dire need of replacement? New stuff implies money to spend/investment. Are they in full-burn mode? If they are burning through cash as though it were going out of style, they might be flush now, but it's a bad sign that they can't properly manage what their investors have invested. All companies have debt. Apple and Google both carry debt (see financial pages) and they have more money than they know what to do with. How did they get out of debt? Is it a one time cash infusuion and the clock is ticking before they need another one? Or are they just really profitable selling some whiz-bang stuff?

    Other blatant red flags:

    - the hostile interview: when they guy is being unbelievably rude to see if you can handle users/customers being that way (do you really want to deal with people like that all day long?)

    - the uninterested interviewer: if the guy interviewing you seems bored, stop the interview and ask: You seem distracted; is this not important? Then watch for the reaction, which will speak volumes

    - the unknowledgeable interviewer: if they don't know the answers to their own questions and keep referring to an answer key, you need to find out if nobody at the company has the knowledge and that's why they're trying to hire you, or the guy (and by extension, his boss, who thinks the guy is qualified to judge your abilities) is just clueless (do you want coworkers like that?)

    - the guess-what-I'm-thinking type questions (you know, the ones where no matter what answer you give, they keep saying: what if you couldn't do that?): context is everything here. If the guy is polite but trying to get you to an obvious point, he may be using the questions as a means to an end. If the guy is just being a jerk, run!

    - the quote-the-manual questions: you know, the ones where they ask you what some subtle point in the third paragraph of the javadocs (pick your language) says about some edge case: if that's all they're asking or focusing upon, then you want to force the interview in a different direction. It's highly unlikely that the job revolves around using that one aspect of some object. Dig for information on the types of problems they are trying to solve. What problems are they encountering and what approaches are they using? Their answers can provide volumes of this-is-good or jump-out-the-window-and-run data for you. If you can't get answers, it's a bad sign.

    - the why-do-you-want-to-work-here question: It's stupid. Any nitwit can google the company and see what they do. If you give a good answer (I like the direction you're taking in advancing xyz using abc), it's pointless. If you give anything less, it can count against you. I use this as an opportunity to turn it to my advantage: I haven't yet made that descision. I'm hoping to get some information here that will help me make that choice. (and without giving the guy a chance to respond, immediately say...) Can you possibly shed some light on your source control/release management/design-requirements processes, developer involvement and tools you use. If they guy has half a brain, it's his opportunity to brag. You then read between the lines. If he pushes for an answer to the original question, it's a red flag about the interviewer, but not necessarily the job.

    - If possible, try to spend 5 minutes chatting with some developer who was NOT supposed to interview you - sometimes you can get a much more realistic picture of the lay of the land in this manner

    - In general, trust your gut feeling. If you think the person is stupid/clueless/a jerk, even if you're wrong and they're not, you probably won't like working with them.

    Good luck.

    Oh, and one minor whack with my Clue-Bat for quitting without having something else first!

     




  • Regarding your question, the interviewer talked about it often (for me, if you need to state time and time again that you have your finances straight, chances are you don't).

    Thank you very much on the red flags.

    @snoofle said:

    Oh, and one minor whack with my Clue-Bat for quitting without having something else first!

     


    That hurts, but then again, i deserve it.



  • @Anarud said:

    (for me, if you need to state time and time again that you have your finances straight, chances are you don't)

    I'd kinda agree with you on that point, but it's more of a point that you should dig at than a 'run don't walk' sign.  Was the company in an industry were most carry lots of debt?  Or maybe they got out from under a big debt recently.  Any time something gets mentioned often it's a good idea to ask some questions about it as it's obviously a point of interest (and getting people talking about something interesting to them makes a better impression as well as getting you more details about them).



  • From what I saw, locallunatic, my mind was telling me: "Flee... Flee at once from this place or a curse shall be upon thee".



  • @snoofle said:

    - the hostile interview: when they guy is being unbelievably rude to see if you can handle users/customers being that way (do you really want to deal with people like that all day long?)

    Extreme negative feedback.



  • Let's just say if I had this kind of interview, I would have failed because I would have thanked the interviewers for their time and left.

    Period (now matter how desperate I was to get a job at said company).



  • (since they are SMBC Theater videos, you probably shouldn't watch them at work unless it's pretty liberal place)

    As applicant? Even in this economy you should be able to find something better than 8th floor.

    As interviewee? Pretty sure own sacrificial baby knife should raise some flags



  • @snoofle said:

    - If possible, try to spend 5 minutes chatting with some developer who was NOT supposed to interview you - sometimes you can get a much more realistic picture of the lay of the land in this manner
     

    I'm not sure whether this constitutes a WTF or not, but my last employer had a standard procedure of three interviews, from your prospective direct supervisor and his/her two immediate superiors.  Great, except that when I was interviewed, two of those three people were out of the office (I think the top one was halfway around the world at the time) so I actually got interviewed by designated substitutes.

    May have actually worked to my advantage in the long run.



  • @da Doctah said:

    my last employer had a standard procedure of three interviews, from your prospective direct supervisor and his/her two immediate superiors.  Great, except that when I was interviewed, two of those three people were out of the office (I think the top one was halfway around the world at the time) so I actually got interviewed by designated substitutes.
     

    Pre-designated, or just 'Crap, we forgot about the interview'?

    I had one once that was supposed to be a panel interview with three 'top men'. The actual conversation went "We'd normally get you right in for your panel interview, but all our top men have a full schedule today. How's next Thursday at two?" "Thursday's fine. So I'll be sitting down with the lead and such then?" "I'm not sure who, but they will be top men on the project and able to answer your questions."

    Instead, I got one 'top man's secretary, someone from the help desk, and someone from HR who thought the job had already been filled. The first ten minutes of the interview were the HR drone arguing with the secretary over why they had to hire two people instead of just making the first one work for twice as long. The next ten minutes was Help Desk Googling things from a sheet Secretary had and explaining them to HR, and the last ten minutes were generic 'Who wants to be an Ass-kissing Toady?' and 'Are you smarter than a Sociopath?' types of questions.

    I never did hear back afterwards.



  • @snoofle said:

    - the why-do-you-want-to-work-here question:

     

    Actually i ask "why would you want to work here" or "why did you apply for this job". It's important to know motivation of your maybe future employee imho. On the other hand "I need a job" or "i want to make more money than at my current job" is an acceptable answer. You have no idea how many people appy to jobs without evenbothering to check what your buisness is or without any motivation. And i don't want to hire someone unmotivated :)

     



  • @NoOneImportant said:

    'Are you smarter than a Sociopath?' types of questions.

    I never did hear back afterwards.

    I see...



  • @snoofle said:

    Why would you see excellent financial condition as a red flag?

    Sometimes, it's important to distinguish between a company that is in excellent financial condition, and one that claims it's in excellent financial condition.

    Are they debt free because their income exceeds their expenses?

    Or are they debt free because no bank in their right mind will loan them money?

    I know I'd trust my gut on those questions, but I know my gut is pretty reliable. YMMV.



  • @snoofle said:

    - the guess-what-I'm-thinking type questions (you know, the ones where no matter what answer you give, they keep saying: what if you couldn't do that?): context is everything here. If the guy is polite but trying to get you to an obvious point, he may be using the questions as a means to an end. If the guy is just being a jerk, run!
     

    Ugh, I hate those.

    Actual interview question I faced once upon a time:

    Q: So what would you do if you couldn't make it in one morning because your car broke down?

    A: I'd ride my bike. I only live about a mile from here.

    Q: Well, what if your bike was broken too?

    A: Then I'd walk. Again, I live nearby.

    Q: Well, what if you couldn't walk? (Yes, she actually did ask that.)

    A: Then I'd call in sick, as I obviously have a broken leg!

     

    I never heard back from them, though I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the job anyway.

     



  •  Well, what was your answer to her next question, "What if you had no legs?"

     



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    Q: So what would you do if you couldn't make it in one morning because your car broke down?

    A: I'd ride my bike. I only live about a mile from here.

    Q: Well, what if your bike was broken too?

    A: Then I'd walk. Again, I live nearby.

    Q: Well, what if you couldn't walk? (Yes, she actually did ask that.)

    A: Then I'd call in sick, as I obviously have a broken leg!

     

    No, no, no.  Correct response to the last question is "I'd flap my arms and fly to work!"

    If they're allowed to make up a world with whatever conditions they want, then I get to do the same.

     



  • @da Doctah said:

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    Q: So what would you do if you couldn't make it in one morning because your car broke down?

    A: I'd ride my bike. I only live about a mile from here.

    Q: Well, what if your bike was broken too?

    A: Then I'd walk. Again, I live nearby.

    Q: Well, what if you couldn't walk? (Yes, she actually did ask that.)

    A: Then I'd call in sick, as I obviously have a broken leg!

     

    No, no, no.  Correct response to the last question is "I'd flap my arms and fly to work!"

    If they're allowed to make up a world with whatever conditions they want, then I get to do the same.

     

    if you had a world you controlled, you'd still go to work? I'd be rolling my 27th pandaren monk and eating ice cream, then using magic to make myself not get fat and ugly.



  • @Anarud said:

    I have recenlty quit my current job without having anything new (in other words, the most bonehead of moves in the book)

    I did that about three and a half years ago.  I thought it was dumb at the time, but in retrospect I couldn't stand another minute of the job I had, so it was a good move.Hopefully you will also find the move good in retrospect.

    Today, in one of those interviews, the interviewer often spoke about the excellent financial condition of the company (no debt... the usual stuff). However, I saw that as a blatant red flag.

    I would like to hear from the DailyWTF members regarding this and other kind of blatant red flags one should be wary about when going to an interview.

     

    I dunno, it could be a positive.  Maybe the solid financial situation is unusual in the niche/industry and they call attention to it.  My company, which is private but can no longer be considered small, prides itself on never having gone into debt - all our expansions have been financed by our current and past revenue. Our interviewers might mention it - it's very unusual, but our CEO strongly believes in fiscal security for our company.



  • @Cat said:

    @Anarud said:

    I have recenlty quit my current job without having anything new (in other words, the most bonehead of moves in the book)

    I did that about three and a half years ago.  I thought it was dumb at the time, but in retrospect I couldn't stand another minute of the job I had, so it was a good move.Hopefully you will also find the move good in retrospect.

    Let's hope so. If the interviewing scene in Portugal is hard as it is, I can't even imagine the dating scene ;)

    @Cat said:

    Today, in one of those interviews, the interviewer often spoke about the excellent financial condition of the company (no debt... the usual stuff). However, I saw that as a blatant red flag.
    I would like to hear from the DailyWTF members regarding this and other kind of blatant red flags one should be wary about when going to an interview.
     

    I dunno, it could be a positive.  Maybe the solid financial situation is unusual in the niche/industry and they call attention to it.  My company, which is private but can no longer be considered small, prides itself on never having gone into debt - all our expansions have been financed by our current and past revenue. Our interviewers might mention it - it's very unusual, but our CEO strongly believes in fiscal security for our company.

    Given the fact that I hail from Portugal, and as you surely must have seen in the news, the financial crysis is hitting most people in a very hard way, I tend to get skeptical. Good for you if your company has managed to go on debt free.

    Thanks anyway on your insights.



  • @Cat said:

    My company, which is private but can no longer be considered small, prides itself on never having gone into debt - all our expansions have been financed by our current and past revenue. Our interviewers might mention it - it's very unusual, but our CEO strongly believes in fiscal security for our company.

    ...and slow growth. Of course, maybe a lot of growth isn't possible where you are. This can be perfectly fine for a private company, assuming it's what the owners want. Generally, there's a mix of equity and debt that allow growth to be financed at a low cost without diluting equity or requiring as much reinvestment of profits. Debt isn't necessarily a sign of fiscal insecurity.


  • Fake News

    @boomzilla said:

    Debt isn't necessarily a sign of fiscal insecurity.
    I, for one, work for a debt-free company. Once the depression is
    recognized, we won't have to worry about the bank calling our loans at a
    bad time, because, well, we don't have any loans. Of course, we still have to worry about bank solvency.

    "Slow growth" became a stigma only when it also became fashionable for MBAs to leverage their companies' assets into the sky. In this finite planet on which we live, high growth is only possible while suckers are able to finance it. That time is nearing its end - on a worldwide basis. Just ask people in Greece, Portgual, Italy, Spain, et fucking cetera.

     



  • @lolwhat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Debt isn't necessarily a sign of fiscal insecurity.
    I, for one, work for a debt-free company. Once the depression is
    recognized, we won't have to worry about the bank calling our loans at a
    bad time, because, well, we don't have any loans.

    WTF? Or, you could use a type of debt instrument that doesn't give them the ability to call the principal early.

    @lolwhat said:

    "Slow growth" became a stigma only when it also became fashionable for MBAs to leverage their companies' assets into the sky. In this finite planet on which we live, high growth is only possible while suckers are able to finance it. That time is nearing its end - on a worldwide basis. Just ask people in Greece, Portgual, Italy, Spain, et fucking cetera.

    Thanks for shouting your financial, economical and historical ignorance. Of course, the type of industry matters a lot, as capital intensive industries require...more capital than less capital intensive industries. Your argument is like saying we should avoid using river water because people drown in rivers.

    Anyways, as I mentioned, if the owners think that their return on their capital is good enough, or that whatever they'd do with the additional capital raised through debt isn't work the risk, then not having debt may make sense for them. We all have different goals in life.


  • Fake News

    @boomzilla said:

    you could use a type of debt instrument that doesn't give them the ability to call the principal early
    Of course, if the lender is a preferred bankster, such as Jon Corzine or Angelo Mozilo, then it matters not one bit if the loan gets called and breaks a contract - you're fucked anyway. Also, even if you were to borrow using such an instrument, the interest rate would be significantly higher, yes?
    Thanks for shouting your financial, economical and historical ignorance.
    What a profoundly cogent argument! Next, you'll tell me that deficit spending is perfectly fine to do and nothing could ever go wrong because of it. While you're at it, you may wish to research the Biblical concept of jubilee and ask yourself why this included the periodic repudiation of all private debts.



  • @lolwhat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    you could use a type of debt instrument that doesn't give them the ability to call the principal early

    Of course, if the lender is a preferred bankster, such as Jon Corzine or Angelo Mozilo, then it matters not one bit if the loan gets called and breaks a contract - you're fucked anyway

    No, no. You have it backwards. Those guys can get away with never repaying any money ever. Well, at least, Corzine can.

    @lolwhat said:

    Also, even if you were to borrow using such an instrument, the interest rate would be significantly higher, yes?

    Well, that depends, of course. Wait, you were expecting to get something for nothing?

    @lolwhat said:

    Next, you'll tell me that deficit spending is perfectly fine to do and nothing could ever go wrong because of it.

    You've been talking with blakey's aliens from Pluto, haven't you?

    @lolwhat said:

    While you're at it, you may wish to research the Biblical concept of jubilee and ask yourself why this included the periodic repudiation of all private debts.

    No, I don't think I'll wish for any of that.



  • @boomzilla said:

    ...and slow growth. Of course, maybe a lot of growth isn't possible where you are.
     

    Actually, we have consistent growth, and it's pretty fast - right now we're growing at about 25% per year (over the past 15 years we've averaged about 18% growth per year).  We're the 'premium' vendor in our field, and we use the money we already make to hire more people and expand our product line.  We're honestly more constrained by the number of programmers that meet our standards than we are by any financial concerns.


  • Fake News

    @boomzilla said:

    @lolwhat said:
    @boomzilla said:
    you could use a type of debt instrument that doesn't give them the ability to call the principal early

    Of course, if the lender is a preferred bankster, such as Jon Corzine or Angelo Mozilo, then it matters not one bit if the loan gets called and breaks a contract - you're fucked anyway

    No, no. You have it backwards. Those guys can get away with never repaying any money ever. Well, at least, Corzine can.

    Fair enough. However, the point still stands that banksters are sociopathic cocksuckers who commit crimes orders of magnitude worse than holding up a liquor store, then get off with slaps on the wrist, if that. My trust in banksters is not high, in case you didn't figure it out.
    @lolwhat said:
    Also, even if you were to borrow using such an instrument, the interest rate would be significantly higher, yes?

    Well, that depends, of course. Wait, you were expecting to get something for nothing?

    Uh, no, just stating a fact.
    @lolwhat said:
    Next, you'll tell me that deficit spending is perfectly fine to do and nothing could ever go wrong because of it.

    You've been talking with blakey's aliens from Pluto, haven't you?

    Yeah, the ones who know what happens when you have two geometric series with different exponents. For the sake of argument, let's call one of those series "national debt", and the other "GDP".
    @lolwhat said:
    While you're at it, you may wish to research the Biblical concept of jubilee and ask yourself why this included the periodic repudiation of all private debts.

    No, I don't think I'll wish for any of that.

    Never mind, then. Do carry on and continue your educated ignorance. Just be sure you can outrun zombies.



  • If the both of you could actually explain things instead of dancing around sligning low-level mud because it's quite clear right now that neither of you know how anything works.



  • @lolwhat said:

    However, the point still stands that banksters are sociopathic cocksuckers who commit crimes orders of magnitude worse than holding up a liquor store, then get off with slaps on the wrist, if that.

    Yes, criminals should be treated like criminals. The corporatism and byzantine nature of our current government often prevents this, which is a massive problem. Unfortunately, the response of the political system is more of the same (e.g., Dodd-Frank). Because we all know that the solution to a government failure is more government!

    @lolwhat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @lolwhat said:
    Next, you'll tell me that deficit spending is perfectly fine to do and nothing could ever go wrong because of it.

    You've been talking with blakey's aliens from Pluto, haven't you?

    Yeah, the ones who know what happens when you have two geometric series with different exponents. For the sake of argument, let's call one of those series "national debt", and the other "GDP".

    Mostly I was just amazed at the non sequitur of talking about public debt vs corporate debt. They are very different things, and you seem to have thought that you had a point.

    @lolwhat said:

    Do carry on and continue your educated ignorance.

    You've yet to demonstrate any ignorance on my part in your random spew, except, I suppose on the topics of Biblical jubilee debt forgiveness or whatever. But in fairness, you haven't made much of a case for expending effort to learn about it. Anyways, what are you, some kind of theocrat?

    @dhromed said:

    If the both of you could actually explain things instead of dancing around sligning low-level mud because it's quite clear right now that neither of you know how anything works.

    Well, I brought up stuff like cost of capital for a business, and how debt is a way to acquire capital without diluting equity or requiring excessive reinvestment of profits. Somehow, that inspires lolwhat to rant about his least favorite banking villains and basket case economies. I guess that's all fine, but he shouldn't be so indignant when he's called on going OT like that (i.e., a rant that wasn't a direct response would have been a perfectly fine derailment of the thread, and would have gotten a completely different response).



  •  P.S. At "It's quite clear" I meant to put "It appears". Brain fart. It happens.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lolwhat said:

    While you're at it, you may wish to research the Biblical concept of jubilee and ask yourself why this included the periodic repudiation of all private debts.

    You're really close to having a good point. All you have to do is explain why this is a good idea.



  • @lolwhat said:

    @boomzilla said:

    Debt isn't necessarily a sign of fiscal insecurity.
    I, for one, work for a debt-free company. Once the depression is
    recognized, we won't have to worry about the bank calling our loans at a
    bad time, because, well, we don't have any loans. Of course, we still have to worry about bank solvency.

    "Slow growth" became a stigma only when it also became fashionable for MBAs to leverage their companies' assets into the sky. In this finite planet on which we live, high growth is only possible while suckers are able to finance it. That time is nearing its end - on a worldwide basis. Just ask people in Greece, Portgual, Italy, Spain, et fucking cetera.

     


    Eh. Slow growth is only really a major stigma if you have a high P/E ratio - because it implies the current earnings are most of the picture, and therefore the company's been overpriced. Naturally, slow growth is a huge problem if you're losing money (as many new startups are wont to do...) Of course, slow growth doesn't really make you interesting to new investors, either...
    and if that's okay, then bully for you. you don't need 'em.



  • Back to OP's topic (I know, I know) I was wondering what you guys thought about this: I'm looking for a new position (long story with my current position, let's say management and sales WTFs) so I applied to a bunch of ads on Seek. A few weeks ago I met with a few recruiters and they all seemed positive, etc, as they do. This week I applied directly to a company and had an interview with their HR. She mentioned the MD recognised my name from an email subject line he deleted without reading. Turned out the same position was pre-advertised by the recruiter and he sent through resumes as a pre-emptive strike but the MD wasn't interested in any of those.

    Is this a red flag? I guess the recruiters are feeling the economic downturn too and resorting to such tactics.



  • @Zemm said:

    Back to OP's topic (I know, I know) I was wondering what you guys thought about this: I'm looking for a new position (long story with my current position, let's say management and sales WTFs) so I applied to a bunch of ads on Seek. A few weeks ago I met with a few recruiters and they all seemed positive, etc, as they do. This week I applied directly to a company and had an interview with their HR. She mentioned the MD recognised my name from an email subject line he deleted without reading. Turned out the same position was pre-advertised by the recruiter and he sent through resumes as a pre-emptive strike but the MD wasn't interested in any of those.

    Is this a red flag? I guess the recruiters are feeling the economic downturn too and resorting to such tactics.

    Medical doctor? What?



  • @Ben L. said:

    Medical doctor
    Managing Director. Not a common term?



  • @Zemm said:

    @Ben L. said:
    Medical doctor
    Managing Director. Not a common term?

    I was confused too. You could try defining your acronyms before using them? So you can be sure people know what the holy shit you're talking about? Just a thought.



  • @Zemm said:

    Back to OP's topic (I know, I know) I was wondering what you guys thought about this: I'm looking for a new position (long story with my current position, let's say management and sales WTFs) so I applied to a bunch of ads on Seek. A few weeks ago I met with a few recruiters and they all seemed positive, etc, as they do. This week I applied directly to a company and had an interview with their HR. She mentioned the MD recognised my name from an email subject line he deleted without reading. Turned out the same position was pre-advertised by the recruiter and he sent through resumes as a pre-emptive strike but the MD wasn't interested in any of those.

    Is this a red flag? I guess the recruiters are feeling the economic downturn too and resorting to such tactics.

    Before you give your resume to a recuiter, get in writing that they will not submit it to any client without explicit notification and authorization. Then you have a leg to stand on [ I am basing my information on the USA]. If you post to "job boards" be extra careful. Often an "introduction" rather than a resume is more appropriate, and can/should include a statement of intent, and instructions for agencies not to distribute.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You could try defining your acronyms before using them? So you can be sure people know what the holy shit you're talking about?
     

    Here are some other acronyms in my post you might need defining:

    OP = Original Post(er)
    WTF = What The Fuck
    HR = Human Resources

    So seriously you never heard of MD before? In a job interview context it should have been obvious! It's even suggested on Wikipedia.



  • @Zemm said:

    So seriously you never heard of MD before? In a job interview context it should have been obvious! It's even suggested on Wikipedia.

    I've never worked at a company in my life that even had a job title of "Managing Director". I care not what Wikipedia says!



  • @Zemm said:

    Turned out the same position was pre-advertised by the recruiter
     

    Blah I just found out a different recruiter did the same thing. He sent me the name of an American company just starting an Australian arm in my city - which is advertising a role I'm interested in (in the US). I just found the Australian arm is advertising a different position directly on Seek so I just gave them a call directly and asked them. They hadn't even heard of this recruitment agency. Grumble Obviously this guy assumed since they are looking for that particular skill set in the US and they are opening up here they'd be looking for more of the same.

    Doesn't bode well with the other recruiters then.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I've never worked at a company in my life that even had a job title of "Managing Director". I care not what Wikipedia says!

    Around here [New York City & vicinity] I find "managing director"s typically exist where there are at least 5 levels of management. This is almost a certainity in any financial firm.


Log in to reply
 

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