I've actually interviewed with Zume in winter 2017/2018, they've initiated the contact through one of the platforms that only accepts the top-5% of applicants in the first place.
They've set me up for a failure during the initial phone screen by asking a tricky set of two simple questions that noone else has ever asked together and in that order, where you have to answer the first question before you see the second one:
* “You've worked at company X. Rate your performance on a scale from 1 to 10 for how your supervisor would rate you.”
* “What is the reason for your separation from company X.”
(Try doing these two questions in the above order if you've ever been let go from any job, and when the answer to the first question is fixed before the second question is revealed.)
These bros then went ahead and made a hard rejection right there on the phone, waiting for my reaction as if I'm a zoo specimen (it was kind of a shock to me at that time, as I've never been hard-rejected and humiliated like that before or after this incident).
Am I now surprised or disappointed these folks have failed? Not really. You get what you preach. The whole idea seemed kind of stupid and overblown in the first place.
>(Try doing these two questions in the above order if you've ever been let go from any job, and when the answer to the first question is fixed before the second question is revealed.)
I just always assumed people made things up for these questions and rehearsed their fake story ahead of time.
> I just always assumed people made things up for these questions and rehearsed their fake story ahead of time.
How could you do that if you've never heard of the questions? (I did hundreds of screens, and it's never came up before.) Does everyone always research what questions each company asks? I guess if you're aware of the trap, it might be possible to avoid, indeed. Then it becomes a test on whether you've researched the company or not prior to the call; whether or not if have ever been fired; and whether or not you're a good liar.
Also, even if you're aware of the question — do you rate yourself below 7, or hide the fact that you've been let go by the person rating you 7 and above?
I've found questions about past jobs and why I left to be common enough. So I feel it's beneficial to have a narrative that paints one in the best light (ignores the negatives, promotes the positives, etc.).
>Also, even if you're aware of the question — do you rate yourself below 7, or hide the fact that you've been let go by the person rating you 7 and above?
That depends on your ethical views on lying. Personally, I don't owe companies anything and they will lie to my face about things if it benefits them (like layoffs, financial state, worth of options, etc.).
And how are you meant to know what your manager actually thought? And even so is it all that relevant? Maybe you are leaving due to a poor relationship with your manager, maybe internal politics. Plenty of reasons why a great candidate wouldn’t be thought of very highly by their current manager.
I wonder what they're looking for in those questions.
I did interviews for a while (granted that's not the same if you're pitching a startup). Man I hated it. All the recommended questions came with no real goal or anything to look for that I thought told me anything about what this person can do for me.
I guess maybe Zume they're just looking for a "good" answer to maybe indicate you could answer those kinds of questions in a pitch or whatever and not look bad... but what does that tell anyone anyway?
I asked other interviewers why they asked what they asked and what they thought it told them.
Everyone was just some myopic thing where they had a story where they had some bad employee and they think they're bad because X or good because Y and ask a question that they think shows them X or Y ... but nothing seemed to indicate that they really learned anything.
Sounds like they were "top grading" which is a interviewing technique promoted, among other places, in the "Who" book. (see https://whothebook.com/). An internet search will turn up the gist of what they're looking for.
Interestingly this technique is usually used for executives though, like all interview strategies, this one is also not perfect.
We use the technique - We find a lot of "diamonds in the rough" with it - people that have a low opinion of themselves but their coworkers love them and their work.
It also helps filter out people who can interview extremely well but can't work with other people.
I basically wound up throwing the interview 45 minutes in; I realized I didn't want to work at a place that was going to be so strict/formal for any position in their company.
Yes, I'd do 100 whiteboard interviews before I do another one of those.
Edit: I tried finding original emails, and it was actually a different food-robot startup, not Zume. It's funny how they all look alike. Original comment cannot be edited anymore, looks like, only 2 hours later.
They've set me up for a failure during the initial phone screen by asking a tricky set of two simple questions that noone else has ever asked together and in that order, where you have to answer the first question before you see the second one:
* “You've worked at company X. Rate your performance on a scale from 1 to 10 for how your supervisor would rate you.”
* “What is the reason for your separation from company X.”
(Try doing these two questions in the above order if you've ever been let go from any job, and when the answer to the first question is fixed before the second question is revealed.)
These bros then went ahead and made a hard rejection right there on the phone, waiting for my reaction as if I'm a zoo specimen (it was kind of a shock to me at that time, as I've never been hard-rejected and humiliated like that before or after this incident).
Am I now surprised or disappointed these folks have failed? Not really. You get what you preach. The whole idea seemed kind of stupid and overblown in the first place.