Showing posts with label interview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interview. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Work Life: Zoom vs MS Teams. Able to Point on Screen Share Host Screen

There is one feature that I really miss on Microsoft Teams (as of 7/21/2022) that is available on Zoom is the ability to point at things on the host screen.

This is a super handy feature for demos or training. I have the ability to just point directly where I am either asking questions about or tell them where to click or look at.

Why is this super handy? Because I seem to be terrible at explaining things with words to people. I have really tried to do my best. "Your mouse/cursor is directly on it" and you watch them move the mouse to look for their cursor (at least I assume they lost it even though they were moving it around). Or I ask "move 1 inch to the right" and I see them move all the way to the right side of the screen. Then you ask them to go back and you watch them go no where near where they were before. I tried to get them to go to an object I know they found before and suddenly they have no recollection of the name, object, or even why we are having the call to begin with. Yes, I am starting to use hyperbole but I think any online trainer will understand the pain.

Interview

Maybe this should be the interview question on how to follow directions? :D

This would have been a wondrous way to make someone even more anxious when they realize they cannot understand simple directions (which may or may not even be their fault!). "Point there! No, not there! Lower, lower, lower.... too low! Higher, a bit higher... no, no, no... too far!!"

Friday, January 14, 2022

RANT: I hate poor-quality developers who appear to be ace developers- Consistency

The first problem I have with poor-quality developers is how inconsistent they are with many aspects of development. I especially do not like the ones that self-claim to be "good" developers because they delude themselves that they are not susceptible to bad habits by pretending they are one-off issues not to be addressed.

The latest list of request consisted of something like the follow:

WebAPI

webApi

WEBapi


Those are the names of the databases a list of objects I was supposed to copy. It is in a nice table, and it is to me so clearly obvious they are not in the same format. One can argue that this makes no difference to the database, but this attitude to inconsistency is everywhere in this persons work: email, documentation, chats, etc. Anecdotally, I feel there is a strong correlation to poor consistency with the quality of developers. If they cannot even be consistent with a simple list, I question their consistency with more important details.

And this is evidenced by other changes that I have to promote. I promoted an object that had the word "complited" in it. AND it passed code review. This could be a "fat finger" problem but there are times when the spelling is completely off where I already feel sorry for the other developer that has to troubleshoot this. They also have deal with names that developer had mistaken a number 1 with lower case l or a capital I, or when there is a mysterious space in a name where the agreed pattern is to not have any spaces. I also have had requests to objects that do not exist because they used the wrong database name or server on a regular basis. The list goes on and on: missing documentations, missing dates, wrong ticket number, even numbered lists that have missing numbers, etc.

I can understand mistakes here and there, but when does it become a real problem. In most cases, I can figure it out but it is taxing on the amount of time it takes me to research (or time to rant).

What triggered me to write this post is that these types of developers tend to be the first to claim their #1 pet-peeve is inconsistencies or they have an OCD to be perfectionists or they rarely ever make these mistakes. From my own experience, I can tell you that the best developers I have worked with never had to make these claims. Even developers of average skills would not make this claim. Somehow the worst offenders ALWAYS make this claim and out of no where.

I rarely ever have to ask if this bothers them. I just point it out and suddenly they will say one of the three statements above. It takes all my efforts to not have my jaw hit the floor. Not only that, but they have never improved in this area.

But how does this really translate to their code quality. They go through a lot of defects. Their code is consistently returned. They always claim poor quality of requirements yet other developers seem to have much fewer code returned to them.

Are you detail-oriented?

This has made me question the interview question "are you detail-oriented?" I always answer this with a lot of concern and I do intentionally do that in my interviews. The reason is I feel that anyone that says they are detail-oriented with a lot of confidence are the above type of people. In some sense, I feel this is almost a trick question for both the interviewer and the interviewee. Could there be people who are hyper detail-oriented? Yes, but that will show in their answers to other questions.

There does seem to be an aura of detail-oriented wanabes versus actual people who are. To me, the difference in the way they approach problems. Wanabes tend to give lots of information that seems relevant but does not quite answer the question. They are the people I would go into a meeting for a simple question, spend an hour, people feel it was productive, but then seem like they didn't get an answer to their question.

On the other hand, real detail-oriented people gives you what seems like a very short answer. Sometimes it even includes information that seems irrelevant. But then once you start working on it, you realize that you do need that information.

I answer the question that I am not very detail-oriented but that I seem to be more consistent than most of my peers. I even explain why I answer hesitantly. I also explain that there is a level of detail that is warranted for different cases. If we are discussing the big picture, we do not want to be inundated with details questions that is not ready to be answered. If it was a life-critical component, I am quite capable to be consistent most of the time. I will admit that I am not super consistent, but will explain that I have methods to improve on my accuracies.

I am not detail-oriented at all with these blogs. Most of the time, I just type as I think of things to talk about. I rarely go back and proofread my blogs unless it is too obvious that I need to move something to another part of the blog. I also "proof" if someone leaves a comment only because I cannot remember what I wrote and need to reference... and I have found quite a few grammatical and spelling errors.

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

Interview: Good or Bad? Google, Amazon, Microsoft brain-teaser interview questions

This is a good question to understand a candidate's ability to problem solve.

Super vague and opiniated history of question

Just historically, Google and Microsoft have asked these questions since 2000. And see how much they have grown since then. The extremely vague and generic macro outlook to me rather indicative that something was right during that period of time. My guess why this was more effective in the beginning because the people who wrote the questions knew why they were asking the question.

Now there are too many people who do not understand the intentions of the question.

Not For Interviewers

The biggest problem to these questions is the interviewer. Majority if not all interviewers do not even understand the intention of the question. The main reason is that interviewers just ask a list of questions that need to be answered. The company gives them the list, and they ask it. So like many other questions, they think the right answer is the correct answer.

I've interviewed with many companies who have asked these questions, and none knew the intention of the questions. I know this because I knew the answers to all of them. There were a couple new ones but they were far easier than FAANG. When I answer them, the interviewer are easily impressed and moves on. In many cases, I would even give them other questions I knew of and they would be even more impressed.

Even if the interviewer has some clue to the question, they have no way to score a candidate like they can with technical questions. Also interviewers are not hired to have problem solving skills, so how well can they judge another person's problem solving skills? 

So basically, this is not an interviewer question. This is a hiring manager's interview question to ask and only if the hiring manager understands why they are asking this question.

Why the question?

The point of the question is to understand the candidates problem solving skills. In my opinion, this is one of the most important skills I look for. The main reason is that technology is always changing and I can train information, but I cannot train (or at least have no time to train) problem solving skills. I am looking for the candidate's ability to take the problem, break it down, ask questions, etc. 

The question is actually meant to be nearly impossible to solve for most candidates. That is probably why arbitrary questions became a thing too (like "how many tennis balls fits in a jumbo jet"). Because everyone became so obsessed with the actual answer than the reason why they asked it. And knowing the answer is quite useless for software engineer employees. If there's an answer, it is cheaper for the company just to buy the answer. What the company needs is an employee that can solve the problem that doesn't have an answer to it.

Bad Hires from Traditional Interviews

One example in my life on this difference was this one time that we hired a highly certified employee. He had many, many Microsoft/Cisco certificates. He had a lot of work experience. His projects were never completed. Near the end of his employment, the owner had me help him with a project and he couldn't tell the difference between a class and an object. I told the owner that he wasn't worth the time to train. We could hire a college grad that could do more.

Another example was a college "graduate" that was tasked to setup a computer with Windows. He was provided an install CD. He installed, then got stuck with a video driver. A bit odd for him to ask for help with this, but I answered his question. 6 hours later, my colleague calls me over and we find that he never installed the video driver because he didn't which video driver to install. The PC case was already open, and I just google the video card name and it was the first result that comes up. My colleague told me that he just told our boss to let him go. I learned that he had actually asked everyone how to install the video driver and still couldn't figure it out. We also found out later that he didn't actually graduate but dropped out of school.

Another example was a transfer from another department. He came with a lot of recommendations from his previous group. He was also very good at talking and making others feel good. Although he had the credentials, he was not able to do anything on his own. Every task had to be spelled out, even if it was a repeated task. Not only did it have to be explicitly written down, he had terrible attention to details. This was almost clear to me within the first 5 minutes of interacting with him for the first time.

My final example was a person that we actually hired before and basically fired for incompetence. I did my best to give her the benefit of the doubt. Even then, she was only able to accomplish two tasks of thousands of tasks. The two tasks being to copy a file to another server (which she actually copied to the wrong server... twice). I even had her screen share and watch her do it incorrectly, then corrected her (just to make sure she had access). At the end, I had her delete the file and have her do it again on her own. She was never able to do this for an entire week with a daily reminder. She was hired to be a procedure manager and she could not even copy files (she had plenty of tasks that was to set up meetings or talk to people but none of those were ever done).

My point with all this was that they all passed the interview. I did not interview any of them. To this day, I have no clue how they even lasted 5 minutes. I think firing people is harder than rejecting, and I wanted to fire all of them within minutes. I think the brain-teaser or open-ended questions are great to weed these people out.

Many candidates that I have recommended are either the longest tenured, promoted, or very well-liked.

Other Questions

These brain-teaser / open-ended questions should not be the only question to determine a candidate. This is just to understand the candidates ability to problem solve. 

One type of candidates that do well but are toxic to the company are the ones that are very smart but also have very big egos. So it is important to ask other questions that will determine their ability to work with others. In general, you do not want those candidates. If you do, then you need to make sure they and your existing staff have the right environments to handle such situations.

Another type are those that often cannot stop asking questions or only sees problems. The main problem with these candidates is that they analyze too long. A group could afford maybe one of these candidates if they are very good at identifying critical issues, but it is equally important to have someone that counter-balances to make sure things still move forward.

Reference

https://douglastclee.blogspot.com/2013/02/interview-oddball-and-riddle-questions.html
- Almost seems like I contradict myself here but not really. Will have to review that post in more detail.

Friday, September 10, 2021

My Thoughts: Who Should Give Salary Range in Interview? IMO Companies

Yes, I am very biased as I have only been an employee. And I want to believe that even if I were a manager, providing the salary would be in my best interest too. But until that day happens, my thoughts will always be biased.

First, there is only one reason for a company to request the interviewer's salary range. Purely a power trip to see how much fear someone has in not getting the opportunity. Sure there are plenty of blogs and articles about psychological analysis for one's ego.

Because if the ask is greater than their budget, they can cut all ties even if the candidate could potentially provide greater value than they expected. To me, that means they are not looking for the best candidate.

If the ask is within their range, then they can kind of expect a somewhat amicable interview process.

If the ask is lower than their range, this is the same as within range but now they have the option to offer less. And there are plenty of blogs and articles that suggest that this is not in the interest of the employer. Also there are comments and feedback that candidates were offered more than they expected.

Personally, I have never had an employer give me more than I expected. In most of companies, I have also learned that I was paid much less than my peers even though I did the same work if not better (yes, I know this sounds very biased... perhaps I should write a blog on why I think I was not only better but preferred).

Among all the people I have worked with, I have never heard of anyone within my circle that was offered more than they asked. I don't quite ask, but talking about salary does come up every so often typically around review season. But this is more implicitly implied since I do not ask explicitly.

Back to the point

The main reason I do not believe I should ever share my expectations is that I want to get paid for the work that I will be doing. If they are asking me to work 20 hours per day, I don't mind being paid half the normal salary. If I only have to do half the work of my peers, then I don't mind being paid half their salary.

So until I know how much work I will be doing, why would I give what my expectations are? If I give my real expectations and it greater than the offer, I will never know if they are offering easier work which I may consider.


My other point

What is the big deal with companies not providing the salary range?

Some say they want to save time in case the range is too far apart. If I can see the range, then I can save you the trouble and skip over your job post. I would save you the trouble to even calling me to ask my salary expectations.

They may miss out on some good candidates. Yea, and then you would not be able to afford them and wasted all that time anyways.

Salary expectations do not match all industries and all geographical areas. Why force the candidate to give a static number that means only something in one place and time and industry? Let me decide whether it is worth my time to do that line of work.

If you don't get enough candidates then offer more. If you get too many candidates then lower the offer. 

My conclusion

So I believe a fair negotiation between company and candidate is far greater than the ability to pay less or even the perception of paying less. Even if you were a fair company, I will never know. It will always be over my should that I could have been more aggressive.

The company has the power to replace you. I have no power to change the amount of work I will get after I get hired (except for quitting). 

I think the HR industry has a great potential to be so much better. I think there are still many opportunities for new companies to enter the market purely by hiring the right people. I also believe there are plenty of people who are willing to build a career just to be at a fair and just company for a lower wage. But because we are asked first, the general candidates fear to be paid too low which thus causes us all to fear those who fear. 

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Scammish: Job boards and Company Online Jobs Listings (based on my personal experience and thoughts)

To be fully honest, I am not a fan of the current HR (Human Resource) industry/practice today.

I have used glassdoor, indeed, monster, linkedin, and a couple others in the past. And my experience is that I rarely ever get any response from any online applications (including directly on the company websites). All my work opportunities (nine different employments, eleven if you count contract to hire) have come through a physical person whether that is a friend, acquaintance, or even a recruiter.

Yet when I interview through traditional means, my success rates to get offers are extremely high, nearly 100%. And usually with a day or two of my interview (which makes me think my salary request is on the low end, and never has a company offered more than my ask). So this makes me think there are a couple things I am doing incorrectly with online applications.

The easier and within my control is not using the proper keywords or catchphrases that will get me past the automatic filtering system. I have so many variants of my resume. I tailor my resume to the job positions. So I like to think that I should have been accidentally correct at some point.

The other reason is a bit scammish. I have seen a few of these practices myself.

The simplest one is that some companies are require to post positions publicly even though they already have someone in mind. This typically is with larger corporations and most definitely for contract-to-hire positions. As mentioned above, I have had a couple of these. This transition took time, and part of the reason is that HR has to post the job publicly and it needs to be up for a certain period of time. They will field the minimum candidates with the minimum amount of work. I may have been focused on my work, and I am not one to keep an eye out for what my managers do, but I am pretty sure they did not interview anyone. Eventually, I get transitioned to full-time employee status. Therefore, people saw the post, applied, and most likely never heard back.

Technically, this is not the job boards fault but it kind of is if they scrape these positions from the company websites which most of them do.

A more scammish practice is companies that are not real. They just post jobs to just collect data. I have worked for a marketing group, and there is a lot of bartering for personal information (especially behind the scenes). One of the biggest values to data is how much of their data is legit data. Job applicants on job boards are one of the best and easiest sources of data to be collected. I use a separate email and phone for my job search. After applying to certain unknown companies, I get sudden spikes of spam. Sometimes all it takes is just to publish your resume on the board which I typically get smaller spikes and more sporadic.

A similar practice but more borderline scammish is corporations doing similar practice but only to populate their HR system of records. Because they purchase bulk amounts of job postings, companies that have remaining posts will just use them to post non-existent positions. This has all sorts of implications. The simplest is just to have a queue of available candidates. Second, they can see how desperate the candidates are which can be used to set their expectations on how much they pay their current employees. Last, they can also use that on low-balling other or future candidates.

Suspiciously, even the job boards ads and site metrics seem to avoid how effective they really are. Many states number of users but they don't state how successful they are. Maybe it is also due to users abusing the system too. But if they claim number of users then they must take responsibility that number is somewhat accurate, thus they should have the ability to give some estimate on how successful users are. Otherwise, they should not market how many users they have.


References
https://zerista.s3.amazonaws.com/item_files/ab2f/attachments/458970/original/source_of_hire_2018_pdf.pdf

Wednesday, September 8, 2021

Interview: Job Entails More than One Role

Release management is quite time consuming, similar to project management. So I find it odd when companies feel that they need to create a role that is really two or three roles. I can understand if they were much smaller in size, but they shouldn't be expecting people to have all the experiences they are looking for. Sure, I can fake it to land the job but I am still a loser that the company cares that I be more honest but will choose the guy who was most likely faking it.

I actually had an interview with a company that was hiring a release manager but expected that person to also code, deploy, and handle change management. I made the mistake of saying that is a lot of work for a single person (I also confirmed that this is a single person role, and not a team of people sharing all the responsibilities). Oh, and I also forgot to mention that the role is also a management position that will have future direct reports in a year or two (which really means 2+ years), so they are also looking for someone with direct report experience.

In the corporate world (I worked for two fortune 10 companies), each with the responsibilities they listed are handled by multiple individuals at full-time capacity. There are people who does change management full-time and coding full-time and plenty of managers who do not do any of that level of work. Deploying is something some developers have to do if there are not enough resources, and none of them enjoy doing that. Plus, a lot of release management is also during off-business hours.

So, I was honest and explained that it was a lot of work for a single person, and that it would be difficult to find someone that really wants to do all that much less someone who has the experience of each one. Of all the release managers I have met, I think only one colleague and myself had development backgrounds. I have had no RM managers with development background, nor worked with one. We also had to work with a team of change management people.

I think I wasn't selected because I had no direct report experience even though I gave them some of my leadership roles. The reason is that seemed to be the low-energy part of the interview. The interview was at least able to fake excitement over my other skill sets.

The other day, I saw the role was re-posted again on the job boards so I guess they haven't found a person yet. A year and a half later, the position is still available.


Saturday, September 4, 2021

Work Life: (Exempt) My Personal Advice to Avoid These Steps on Your Yearly/Periodic Review or Interview or Status Update or Self-Evaluations

I have been working professionally for 15+ years, and I have coached quite a few colleagues and friends what I have learned the hard-way. Many who struggled with promotions or raises have found success with my suggestions.

For this article, I'm going to use a scale of 1-5. 5: Beyond expectation; 4: Meeting expectation; 3: Sometimes expectation; 2: Well below expectation, possible suspension; 1: Likely to get fired soon. Some companies have more points; some put different names to them; some also in reverse order. In my personal opinion, they all basically boil down to this type of model based on the results of my reviews.

This is also primarily for paying jobs where the work is not very well defined (exempt, no overtime pay) versus most hourly jobs (non-exempt). My experience is also wholly in the white-collared world. This may also work for blue-collared work too.

Give Yourself Full Score if You Do Not Know Your Benchmark

If you do not know your benchmark for scoring, give yourself the full score even if you believe that you deserve a 3 or even a 2. Force your employer to explain to you why you do not deserve a 5. 

The only exception to this is if your employer already gives you feedback on a regular basis. In that case, make sure that you fully understand what is being asked. You should make sure that you do understand when you receive those feedbacks. But if it is too late to fill in your self-eval, then put in a higher score. Don't put it too high as you may appear that you didn't get anything out of your regular reviews.

I have also never experienced nor heard anyone experience any negative effects of giving themselves a 5 even if it is obviously not a 5 work. Still use some judgment on whether your manager is the type to take offense. My work has always been 4-5. I do get some 3s but they are primarily for skills I do not have the opportunity to do. The most common one is improving company core values. Which I believe they default for everyone. But I still give myself a 5 just to hear my manager tell me that it is basically defaulted to 3 for everyone. This is when you learn this is whole exercise is quite pointless. But since it is required, I suggest everyone to make use of this to get as much information as they can from it.

Do not mistake that the score is for you to guess what you think the company thinks of you. This is what you think of yourself. If you believe you meeting expectation, then give yourself that score.

The main reason for this is because most managers also have no clue. Your problem is if you give yourself a 3 and a non-deserving person gives himself a 4, then you lose out. The manager won't even look or reconsider. You are automatically filtered out. HR has even less clue. Most do not even know your name.

Last is that it may even be potential that your work is a 5 but you don't know it! Maybe you thought all that training was normal, but you don't know that you produced the best candidates. Another scenario is that your group outperforms another group. You may be average in your group but still outperform another group top performer. As mentioned earlier, let the company tell you why you don't deserve it because they will happily let you keep your 4 even if they believe you deserve a 5 or even a 5+ because 4 is cheaper for them. 

Keep Track of Your Own Activities

Keep track of as many activities as you can do without impacting your work, because you are bound to forget them by review time. By activities, I do not mean just big projects. I mean meetings you hosted, important meetings you attended, any exceptions to your normal role, people who trained (or partially trained) even if it was only 30 minutes, documentations created. Many people I have coached assume these are small tasks so they do not record these information.

The problem is that some of these small things amount to big things. The difficulty of tracking these is that it is too late by the time it becomes a big thing. For example, I had to do a presentation on our internal processes. Managers loved it and had me present more. My roles have been development or process management, and no one else in my role or level presented. So by the time I had my review, I can only said that I spent significant amount of time training. Which they down-played because what is "significant"? When I started tracking numbers, this became much easier to present and leverage myself to my needs.

Ultimately, you are trying to justify your time. There is approximately 2000 (50 weeks of 40 hours) hours of full-time work in a year.

Also see Give Managers Ammunition.

Give Managers Ammunition

Most managers have absolutely no idea about your quality of work. A decent one will at least vaguely know if you are better than someone else. If you think it is difficult to give yourself a number score, imagine having to give a number score to someone else?

So help your manager fight for you. This is where your self-evaluation and your list comes in handy.

In reality, most managers don't know what to do. So it makes it easier for your manager to stand out if you give him some information that helps him leverage for you.

Start with not lowering your score. If you give yourself a 4 but in reality you are a 5, it is an uphill battle for your manager to explain why you should be a 5 when you gave yourself a 4. The manager also plays a similar game with their managers. Not all managers know where they stand among their peers either so you may be shafted for having a 4 in an outstanding team versus a 5 in an underperforming team. At least with 5's, the discussion can be had.

When that discussion can be had, it is typically pretty easy for managers to impress too with data. For example, 2000 promotions may be normal for me but that sounds impressive to upper management. Especially if a peer group does not provide any numbers at all. 2000 can be a crappy number in reality, but the perception is that my manager appears more prepared. The more data, the harder it is for a competing manager to leverage the benefits. Number of resolved tickets, requests, time-to-completion.

As I have repeated a couple times, this can only be done if that information is provided.

Not Everything Needs to be Monetary Compensation

With large corporations there are limits to a raise, the timing may not be correct. With small companies, they may not have the funds. Or your manager may be weak in fighting for your values.

Negotiate training time, bigger budget (or get a budget) to purchase work related products or software, promotion in name only (even just a jr to sr, or level 1 to level 2; make up a new position if one doesn't exist... this is free to the company), etc.

These are investments that you can use in the future when money becomes more available (whether that money comes from your current employer or future employer). If current employer does not honor your value, then other companies can at least justify the higher salary.

Don't Work Overtime Except for Exceptional Reasons

At least start reducing your overtime hours. You will never be able to reduce your hours until you decide to. Do not wait until you have a new member in your team.

Why? The reason is quite simpler than you think. No one tracks the hours of salaried employees. Most managers barely know the hours. Even if they do, most likely they are also working overtime. Because no one knows, upper management only compares your work to the calendar.

So let us say that you did 100 tickets over 80 hour work week. Because upper management don't know the hours, to them that is 100 tickets per week. If they hire a new person and assume that person is your clone, if you both work 40 hours, you still get 100 tickets completed. To upper management, they do not understand because now you are completing the same amount of work for the double the cost.

Along similar reasoning, if you were given a raise for working 80 hours and you are now working 40 hours, then upper management cannot justify your salary. So it is important that salary is in-line with your base hours otherwise it will be very difficult to ever return to normal hours.

If you are already doing extreme overtime, the path of least resistance is to slowly reduce your hours and let things fail. This requires you to set the proper expectations and "upset" some people.

Business is not perfect so some overtime is acceptable if it is seen as an exception. Once that overtime becomes a household name, then things get more complicated. Even reducing salary is more complicated than you'd think.

Overall, personally, I think it is good for both company and employees that expectations are set properly for the long-term. This is a difficult track because most managers do not know how to overlook short-term gains over long-term gains but it kind of starts with a person. "It's all business" will dictate that if someone is willing to put themselves in position to do more work for same or less pay, they will continue to exploit it.

This was a long round-about way of saying to avoid using overtime as a reason to get a promotion or a raise. Use overtime to get a bonus or other one-time benefits so that it is not tied to your base work. Once it is tied to your base pay then you will have a difficult time separating the two if you ever wish to work normal hours again.

Exception is if you plan to continue to work overtime for the remainder of your tenure of that job. I specifically use job and not employer is because one of the easier methods to get out of the downward spiral is to apply for a new role. The farther the role is from the original, the easier to start over.

Friday, July 30, 2021

Interview: How would you direct someone else on how to cook an omelet? (Take 2)

How would you direct someone else on how to cook an omelet?

Gather Answers to Follow-up Questions

Why am directing someone?

  • Instructional?
  • To cook me breakfast?
  • For himself? How many tries? How many eggs? Are there eggs?

Who is "someone"?

  • Experience
  • Age
  • Language
  • Customs
  • Culture
How? Where?
  • In-person? Virtual? Text? Amazon how-to? SMS?
  • Language?
  • High elevation?
  • Stove? Campfire? Barbecue?

Goal?

If I get this question in my next interview, I feel like my goal is to keep asking questions and hope to not answer the question. I think it would be entertaining to see how far I can push without actually answering the question which then go back to the first post with modifications to the additional information.

Reference

Take 1: https://douglastclee.blogspot.com/2013/01/interview-how-would-you-direct-someone.html

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Interview: Attentive to detail? It is a rather low bar to pass.

 I remember early in my career there were several questions I struggled with in interviews. One of those questions was "Are you detail oriented?" In my mind, I am always seem to miss a minor detail. I seem to consistently score 99% than 100%. If there was a silly mistake to make, I can make it. So I was always hesitant in responding to this question. But of course, I knew better and responded yes anyways because there is no other answer to this question.

First, what a useless question from interviewers to ask a question that any intelligent person can answer but cannot verify.

Second after years of experience, I am way, way, way, way more detail oriented than most people I have worked with. And those that were more detailed spent too much time on details than getting the work done. I know most people will claim this whether this is true or not, but I am saying that they are on the more extreme side. 

Because everyone kind of have to answer that question (now more indirectly than directly like in the past), that means all those people also claimed they are detail-oriented.

Now, I want to say that I am far from perfect. But there are so, so, so many details that I catch that just makes me wonder why we even hired this person. What broke the camel's back to make my publish this post was where one of our developers repeated the same ticket number in the description. The number is right next to the original number. The developer added to the description, #12345, right next to that exact number so that it read #12345, #12345.

COME ON.... that is too blatantly obvious. They even had to click in the field to update so it is not like they copy/pasted too quickly.

Another example is when they provide their list of changes, they consistently miss items on their list. More than 50% of the time.

Grouping remaining examples together: they misspell objects (in development this is quite important because they are use shorthand so I cannot tell if it is intentional or not), they repeat items, they do not enter data consistently (eg they will repeat an item name but have different types).

I am lucky to have one good ticket with no errors 10% of the time. And this is just with requests. If I get into email messages, instant messages, etc... it just boggles my mind how terrible my colleagues are with details. Of course, I am not saying they are terrible people or workers. I am just saying that being detail-orient is way more overrated than most intelligent people think.


Conclusion

If you ever get the question, be confident that you are detail-oriented especially if you finished in the top 10% of your high school class or got into a top-tier university, you are easily more detail-oriented than most people.

That is besides the point that the question is just useless like "are you a good person?" or "are you telling the truth?" One answer lets you progress and the other... well, no one chooses the other answer. That's why they are useless questions. Sometimes I wonder if HR even tries. Or if I want to be more open-minded, I think HR wastes too much time on the bottom 20% than the top 80%.

Friday, March 6, 2020

Interview: What Project Were You Most Proud Of? (Software Engineering role) (Failed)

I have had several interviews in the last couple months. This was probably one of the most popular questions for me (January - February 2020), "Describe to me about one of your proudest projects that you worked on?"

Because I was a release manager applying for a software engineering role, this question was quite tricky because I did not work on projects. I had other projects that I would like to share but they were not really programming projects or projects where I produced something. In most cases, I managed and delegated so I gave those samples.

Thinking back on those interviews, I do not feel that I gave good responses to the question. I also tried to provide a side project that I worked on as a release manager. The proof-of-concept did not get enough traction to be approved for actual use, although everyone liked the idea. Environment and management of an application was not something management wanted to handle, as they rather just purchase a third-party system or none at all.

Perhaps, I should have used a project that I worked on back when I was a programmer. I am not sure what a good response would be even after seeing what our developers do. Especially in an agile environment, the developers no longer work on projects in the same sense as a waterfall project. They are constantly just writing code per user-stories, test, and refactor. Most of them do not know the full project scope. Maybe they should, but from a procedural point-of-view, this method has been rather effective for the company.

Perhaps more effective for the company in that the developers will have trouble finding new jobs because they may also struggle with the same question. Without the experience, they will not know how to position themselves in such a way where they can also gain something that they can market.

Given that I was not able to even get a second interview with any company that asked this particular question makes me really think that I am definitely failing this question at some level. There have also been other weak parts of my interview that may have also contributed like not being the local vicinity (even though I recently moved to the area) and no in a current programming role which a couple HR managers have told me directly.

Sunday, February 2, 2020

Interview: Have You Experienced Something (When You Haven't)

I had an interview when the interviewer asked me to describe an experience when I had direct influence in pushing an agenda in a release last minute for a role in release management.

I am paraphrasing the question as I cannot remember the exact wording of the question, and also that he repeated the question a couple more times with different words.

My Response

My response was on the line that I had never had to step-in to "force" a deliverable to be in a release. The reason I believe that I do not have these situations in my 8 years as release management is due to my ability to bring people together to re-evaluate the situation and re-prioritize the work. Development team can only do so much in 24 hour days, and there is a limit to how much can actually be done no matter how many people you throw into the issue within a short period of time (ie last minute). Both teams have had little issue with my methods. I manage the most applications on the release management team, so I handle a lot of different teams. I have had good reviews, and no one has complained of my methods.

I wish I responded that eloquently on the interview, but the bulk of the message is there.


My Reaction to the Questions

Oddly enough because the interviewer was really stressing this question, I was suspecting there was so underlying issue at the company especially in the release management role. I tried to address this concern (unsure if that really is the case). I mentioned that specific task really lies on the product or program owner. I am not shy on taking on other responsibilities or going beyond the traditional bounds of the release management role to get things done. 


My Personal Thought on Result

I do not think I passed the interview, unless the line of questions was to try to incite some reaction from me by asking the same question differently. At the end of the interview, the interviewer also did not seem interested in answering my questions. I do not believe that I answered his question.

Post-Interview Thoughts

I spent too much time rewording my initial answer to answer his follow up questions. I should have redirected the question so that he gave me a scenario and I would then describe to him how I would have handled it. Thinking back on it, I think that would have been the best method to clarify the concern or at least in some way to side-step the initial question.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

My Thoughts (on results as asker): Interview question: 9 balls, find one odd with a balance scale

Disclaimer: This post does not contain the answer the question, although this may contain small hints.

I have posed this question to several people, and found it interesting the common logical point people get stuck on. The most common answer I get is three. Out of 20 or so people (rough estimate), only 1 person (math teacher) figured this out on their own.

Majority of the responses is that they put four on each side. If equal, then the one on the table. If not, take the group that is heavier. Put two on each side, then one on each side.

After they have exhausted their thoughts, I would clue them by asking why they choose four. Why not one, or two, or three?

What I found most interesting is that majority of the people still cannot come up with the answer of two. The reason I find this very interesting is because they use similar logic when they put four balls on each side. The other interesting oddity is even if they brute force the answer (by trying one on each side, then two on each side, then three on each side), some still cannot come up with the answer.

As an Interviewer

Although I enjoy asking this more like a party game, I do not think this is a very effective question for an interview. The question does not effectively get the interviewee to talk out loud, even after I tell them that they should think out loud.

Perhaps they do not want to appear unintelligent by going through wrong assumptions even though everyone does it as part of the process. Or perhaps they don't want to appear to be using brute force.

Maybe a more reasonable assumption is that it is much faster to go through it in your head than talking out loud since the samples are simple enough. Unlike more out-of-the-box questions like how many golf balls fit in a Boeing 747 or monkey with a sombrero, where the question naturally gets interviewees to talk out loud.

Since the interview already is time limited, my personal opinion is that there are better questions to ask if I am trying to test someone's ability to think through a problem. Although


Reference

Search for "interview 9 balls"

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Interview: Are you more of a hunter or a gatherer?

Internal thoughts

My initial thought is neither as the concept seems a bit archaic. But to go with the flow, I think both. The natural answer could also to be a leader for managers. Although it may seem like thinking outside the box, it does not really answer the question. What are the questions?


  • Can you think outside the box (choose an option not provided)?
  • Are you proactive (hunter) or passive (gatherer)?
  • More go with the flow (hunter) or need time to analyze the problem (gatherer)
  • More vulgar (hunter) or civilized (gatherer)?
  • More risk tolerant (hunter) or risk averse (gatherer)? 

Of course, some of the descriptions could be flipped but I think this is a decent guide. So thinking through this, I want to tell a story on how I can attack a problem. And the problems that I enjoy solving are operational problems like how we work as a team and making processes more efficient. This target is more mobile thus making it seem more like a hunter.

My answer

I feel that I am better suited as a hunter. To be more specific, I think I am more of a sniper hunter. The skillsets of a hunter requires the ability to analyze a moving target. While a gatherer would require the ability to analyze more static variables which seem more suited for research or academic-type people, or collect details and facts before coming up with a solution. I am more natural at following moving targets.

I am not the type to just jump in and battle it out which would seem more like an in-fighting type hunter. Nor am I the type to just try everything and just hope something hits or sticks... something like a shotgun.

My preference is definitely more precise and surgical like a sniper. Not one that is able to hit the target, but one where it would not hurt the ecosystem. For example, my MO is typically to meet with the subject matter experts to learn their pros and cons. I attack the problem by slowly adjusting my processes to align with my findings. Not to just adjust to appease them, but to nudge them in the direction I would like them to go. In some cases, people won't even realize that they have changed for the better.

So on the scale, my strongest value from experience would be in the middle of hunter and gatherer but leaning towards the hunter category. My other value is that my skills allow me to be anywhere on the spectrum. If I have to go in fighting, I could hold my own. Or if I have to do a 500-page thesis, I can also do that.

Afterthought

It is possible that a scenario could be created to suit a gatherer. Given the limited amount of time to think for an interview, I prefer to choose the path that seems easiest to explain to someone which typically would be the natural way that I associate two different scenarios. This may well be easier as a gatherer for someone who is more attuned to that line of thinking. 

The important thing is to stay focused on what you want to demonstrate to your interviewer. Sometimes it may be figuring out what they are asking, but in this case I think the situation is to create an open-ended question to give some leeway to tell a story.

Also, I think reading the comments on glassdoor helps. Pretend that you are an interviewer and you asked this question to 20-30 people, and those are the answers that you got. Some seem interesting at first, but then you realize a lot of people respond in similar fashion. Remember that one response to one question does not define you. There is nothing wrong if your answer may be similar to another, just know that you'll have to excel elsewhere to make a difference.


Monday, December 14, 2015

Searching an offer to get a raise should be allowed

The Fish for a Raise Game - "Some applicants only want to get a job offer so they can go back to their current employer to ask for a raise."

I do not agree with this. Allow the applicant and if he gets a raise, then you don't want him anyways. Also if they get a raise, then your offer was not good enough. This should be a win-win for both applicant and employer.

If you are afraid of job-hoppers then stop paying below competitive rates. If you are afraid of looking bad, then don't offer unrealistic salaries or rates.

If you are an applicant and treated like this by your recruiter, I suggest you find a different recruiter. Most recruiters are only looking for one thing... and that is not the client nor the applicant. Low offers and high turn-overs are the lifeline of headhunters.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

I am a Release (noun) Manager, not Release (verb) Manager

I've been getting several calls from cold-calling recruiters for positions seeking a release manager. After a couple questions, I end up correcting most callers that they are looking for a release engineer. I rather call them deployment managers because most of them understand that rather than release engineer.

This site provides a good explanation of the difference between the two.

I am a release manager (release as a noun), not a release manager (release as a verb). In my line of work/responsibility, I do not actually release any code or compile any code or touch any code (except maybe to forward the package to the operations team which I really should not be doing).

Another way to look at it is that I am like a project manager who are managers on the project level while I am a manager on the release level. If a problem is on the project level (something wrong with project requirements) then it is managed via the project manager. If that same problem cannot be remedied within the release schedule, then it becomes a release level problem thus requiring a release manager to review the impacts.

A release (in my world) is a set of projects to be deployed within the same window. The projects may have weak or strong correlations with other projects within the same release. Not all companies require a release manager as most companies deal with only single project releases. There may be several projects but none are dependent on the other so can always be deployed independently, or small enough to be easily managed by the development teams or existing project managers.

Our releases typically have 2-4 large projects, several small projects, and other production issue patches. For us, releases require quite a bit of coordination due to limited resources including both human resource and hardware resources. Our environments are hardware dependent costing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars so we cannot just simply "spin" up another test environment.

The release manager does not (in my opinion) have the authority to make a final decision on how the new issue should be resolved. The release manager has to be capable of providing the different options and the recommended course. The product, customer, or client should make the ultimate decision.

Typical choices could be:
  1. delaying all phases to accommodate the new timeline
  2. removing the project from the release (there still exists risk that this still delay the deployment if there are issues removing the project)
  3. do not fix and deploy with a known defect (adds risk to customer satisfaction and/or data integrety)
  4. shorten the timeline of a future phase if possible (typically requiring a group to work overtime)
  5. use the buffer time if one was implemented (typically adds risk to a shortened quiet period)
These terms are not set in stone as the position (to me) seems relatively new (within the last decade) as can be seen by all the recruiters that does not know the differences either. The terms have been around long enough for some stability in their usages. Truthfully, I did not know about this type of position until I was hired here, and didn't know about release engineers until the recruiters started giving me job descriptions that did not match my roles.


Reference

http://www.plutora.com/insights/2014/release-management-vs-release-engineering/

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Work Life: Job Hunting While Employed

Why haven't human resource managers or recruiters improved the process in finding applicants? It frustrates me to no end why they have to call during the day. When there is finally a job that actually sounds interesting, the interview must be within the next 2-3 days and during work hours.

Perhaps someone that is unhappy with his work could pull it off or someone who is ok with lying to their boss (i.e. calling in sick). But I am (at least I think that I am) very professional about the work that I do. I am almost always busy, so where am I supposed to find time to consider a job opportunity.

There were a couple interviews that I did go to. Primarily because I happened to have some downtime and was able to take some time off. One of the benefits of being a contractor as opposed to being an employee. I feel there is more freedom in how to manage my time.

One of the most upsetting experience was that the manager I was supposed to meet was overbooked during my interview and did not notify myself or the recruiter. I took an entire day off and drove an hour to not even have an interview. I did not even get to meet anyone. I sat in the lobby and waited for my recruiter to call me to tell me why no one was showing up. They also never called back to apologize. Tranzact is totally on my black list now.

As for interview questions, I feel that everyone is surprised when they ask why I am looking and that I respond that I am not looking. I reply that I am perfectly content at my current job, but that I am always willing to consider better opportunities. In my interviews, I always seem to end up asking most of the questions. I have also received a high percentage of offers.

I have rejected all offers so far because I have not been satisfied with the companies. I feel that they start off on the wrong foot with me because they need someone immediately. This tells me a couple things. They have poor resource management. They also have poor contingency plans. This is reinforced by stressing that the start date is as soon as possible, but no more than 2 weeks. Most of other questions are about management and process. Very few interviewers seem genuine in their responses in that they seem to be avoiding certain points. None seem to impress me with what they have.

Perhaps this is because I only respond to cold-calling recruiters so these opportunities are high-stressed environments. I have also found that these recruiters will always try to negotiate your rate down from whatever numbers you give them. There was one that I had absolutely no interest in but the recruiter was very persistent. When he asked, I gave him a number that was high but somewhat reasonable and he countered with a number slightly lower than that. He never did call back though, so I at least found a way to keep some of them away. I am not sure why either, but a lot of these recruiters also have very poor call qualities. I have no problems with anyone else that I speak with and I am on a lot of conference calls.

Well, that's the end of my rant. I really hope that the industry will some day figure a better way to run. It is really tempting to me to start a recruiting company just to demonstrate how it should be done! :D

Monday, March 17, 2014

Interview: Rating Yourself on a Scale

"Where do you place yourself on a scale in [insert vague subject] from 1-10? 1 is nothing at all and 10 is knowing everything."

Simply put, I think the answer is always 7-9. You may go with a 5-6 if the subject is not directly related to the position, like piano for an engineering position (unless the specific engineering position deals with pianos).

Explanation of My Logic

First of all, they are not going to accept anyone with a score below 7. So why not try 7 at the minimum? You were not going to get the job anyways if you answer less. Worst case, you get called out on your knowledge on the subject but at least you got the interview. At which point, you just hope your other strong points will compensate for the "lie". Even then, the "lie" is insignificant because the scale is so subjective anyways that you can talk your way out of it.

The score cannot be 10 because you cannot possibly know everything. You may still get the interview, but it is way to easy for someone to question your ability when you are unable to answer certain basic questions in a few that you do not know. In this case, it may be worth not having the interview because it will be a waste of your time. You will have a much better chance with a 9 than a 10 even if you think you know everything. Because if you really were a 10, you will not need to be going through an interview process especially one that is going to ask for your expertise on a scale.

So at this point, the answer cannot be 1-6 or 10. This leaves 3 numbers: 7, 8, and 9. If you are an amateur go with 7. If you are experienced, go with 8. If you think you are an expert, go with 9.

Amateur is someone that can look up (i.e. Google) the question and find an answer. Experienced is someone that can do some of the work on your own (i.e. without supervision or review board). Expert is someone that other people will come to you for recommendation, design, or proof-of-concept.

My Perception on Reality

Like almost all interview questions, the answer is what the recruiter wants to hear not your real answer. If you were a real all-star, you wouldn't need to go through the regular grueling interviews that most of us common folks have to go through.

For the few that struggle with projecting an untruth or using my (insane) logic above, I will sadly tell you that my experience has very unkind to me. I have tried to actually scale myself to my knowledge of the subject. For example, I say that I am an average programmer so that I say that is a 5. I can easily say that I have not received any follow up calls when I give that answer.

I have spoken with a few friends of mine who now have been in the field for about as long as I have. They know my level of experience. Trusting their words, my experience is actually much higher than what I rank myself. Even then, they say that it is subjective to the people that they had to interview. They tell me that they get plenty of people who rank themselves 8-9 who barely know any programming.

Although they are easy to filter out in the interview, the automated systems are much more lenient. Unfortunately, this also means that people like me will be filtered out even though my experience is clearly higher than others. Basically, this is a total win-win for exaggerating your skill sets because not only do you at least get an interview, you also removed some of your competition.

Because of this, I am extremely tired of seeing "requires excellent communication skills, writing and oral" because the level of 'excellence' is no where what I think is actually excellent. To me, excellent means something that you excel at and should make fewer errors than most people. I do not consider myself on the excellence caliber, yet I am oftentimes correcting other people's emails, messages, logs, etc.

I do not even mean simple, human error type errors. I mean that they consistently spell the same common words incorrectly. Words that are commonly spelled correctly like beautiful or introduction. It does bother mean when someone uses manger instead of manager but I do not think it is acceptable to misuse than and then. Not using the serial comma bothers me, but I will reluctantly accept it.

I have even had coworkers (including managers) have me write out the communications just because I word things better. Yet when we post the job description, they still use that they require excellent communication skills. 

Can you speak English (with or without an accent)? Do you use spell-check? Do you know basic grammar (there was a director born and bred in the US midwest that spelled grammar as grammer)? If you answer yes, then the answer is that you have excellent communication skills.

We have hired people where I cannot even understand the person because of his accent. We have hired people who cannot spell. We have hired people who have very poor grammar. So, do not lose an opportunity just because you have lower self-esteem than other people.

Hopefully someday recruiters will learn the fruitlessness of these types of questions to candidates. The scales are useful but it should be derived from questions that are not relative to the candidates' perception of the industry.

Relative/Subjective Scale

Assuming that I am an average programmer, I will not be researching all the programming languages, all the designs, all the architectures, etc. There is no way that I would know what a 10 would even mean. Obviously, the scale could not be on the subject itself because everything is basically infinite.

A better idea would be that it is relative to other people in the industry. I think of myself as average because I find an equal number of people who can program better as those who cannot program better. Truthfully even as I rethink that concept, there are so many people out there that know things that I do not know... basically, the more I think the smaller my value on the scale becomes.

Even assuming that I am a pioneer in C#, there are still so many people who will know Java, C++, VB, and so many more programming languages better than I can. How can I possibly put myself on the scale?

Sigh... I just have to state that I hate these types of questions, not because of the reasons I stated above because logic is comforting to me. But because, I still try to figure out if there are better logical answers even though I know there are none thus just wasting my energy. I hope writing this will help.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Work Life: Hire Character. Train Skill.

"Hire Character. Train Skill" ~ Peter Schutz

I saw this quote on LinkedIn and thought it interesting. Although it sounds nice, I have rarely found any company that train any skill sets. Maybe that is because of my limited knowledge of different companies. I would guess that I know about 10-15 companies.

Even with that said, character is still very important in the dynamics of a company. For example, I work very well in an open-knowledge environment where people share information and their knowledge. This is very evident in my current role where the group is slowly converting contractors with employees.

Although it is odd that contractors are more open about their work, I think the main contribution to this difference is the age group. The contractors are a much younger generation than the transferring employees. The employees are coming from a very old technology group that is slowly phased out.

It makes business sense from a 1000 foot view why this transition is happening, so I am not going to delve too much into that. What I find interesting is that the incoming employees are very possessive of their work, but not aggressively possessive. By this, I mean that there are small nuances in their behaviors that make it more difficult for our group to adapt to certain issues.

On top of that, they are very compartmentalized in their view of their roles. Before, we share some responsibilities when we are overwhelmed with a certain task. Thus, we were somewhat interchangeable in our roles. If one of us were out, someone else could easily back up for a small period of time. Now, the new employees are very reluctant to explain what they do and very reluctant to take other work. Oftentimes, they just say that they are too busy with their work.

What I really dislike about this is that meetings now require more people which in turn makes it less effective for each person on the call. Today, there is a call that requires three people from our group because it impacts three different roles. One of the roles is more encompassing the other two which was assigned to one of the employees.

I have been trying to explain that she was the only person needed from the call because she has access to our data. We only contribute about 5 minutes worth value to a 30+ minutes meeting. Although I've explained this, she says that she is too busy to know that information thus requiring us on the call.

It may be possible that she is very slow in this, but I used to manage her role, the one I have now, and other roles. I used to do all that before without a lot of problems (yes, I am not fully utilized now but I use the time to learn the technology and help with other more value-adding processes). Thus, I have a very hard time understanding why she does not have time for something that took me about 4 hours a week to do (I tracked that because her predecessor also had the same time issue).

Even if I was wrong in my assumption and she really is busy, she is also on my daily calls that provides the status to the very information that she needs and something she should be tracking. Of course her excuse is that she is multitasking so does not know what is going on. First, my list is a subset of hers thus there is really no reason for her not to ever be doing something else. In other words, all my items are relevant to her list. Second, if she does not get anything from my meeting then she should not need to join my meeting.

Basically, the newcomers are not as focused in making our time more effective. With each new person, this pattern seem to be normal and also seem to be acceptable. At the same time, the general feel within our entire project group is that quality seem to be decreasing. This has been going on for over half a year.

I guess that was a long way of ranting and saying that character is important because it changes the dynamics of the group. And sadly, I'm not sure if it is better to hire character than skills. Although skills can be taught and character may have greater impact, my reluctance is our ability to understand someone's character within a short interview process. Even then, can any character pick up the required skills needed?

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Interview: New Oddball Interview Questions for 2013 from Glassdoor

Question was asked: "If you were on an island and could only bring 3 things, what would you bring?

  • If I were already on a deserted island, I wouldn't be able to bring anything.
  • If I were bringing something from the island, it would depend on what island I was on.
  • If the question meant 3 things to bring to a random, deserted island for survival, then a knife, shovel, and a fishing line (or fishing net or fishing rod if it came with a line).


If you were a pizza deliveryman how would you benefit from scissors?

  • Cutting coupons and self-defense
  • I liked this response: It would keep me from running.

Are you more of a hunter or a gatherer
  • Because I am typically assigned to solve more complex problems, I have more experience as a hunter. Complex problems tend to require the ability to analyze a moving target. Otherwise, I can be a hunter or a gatherer effectively.
What is your least favorite thing about humanity?
  • I actually interviewed with ZocDoc, and my questions were all technical. All questions were generic programming questions that you regurgitate from a text book. Sadly, I do not perform well with those questions. Seriously... who says they are going to use polymorphism when they design, architect, or program? Or list the different types of sorts when most frameworks already provide solutions to sort data? Although I can answer them, I think part of my mind goes into why do they even ask these questions. Sorry for the rant.
  • People who complain but do not vote. People of apathy deserve what comes to them. Procrastinators know it is their fault. But, whiners think they are right, portray an illusion that their problems are bigger than they are, and yet do nothing about the problem thus wasting everyone's time, attention, and energy.
  • People who think oddball questions are a waste of their time, especially if those people are engineers.
Can you instruct someone how to make an origami "cootie catcher" with just words?
  • What is a "cootie catcher"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_fortune_teller
  • Yes. Get a square paper, fold corners toward the front center to form a smaller square, fold corners toward the back center to form an even smaller square, create two creases by folding and unfolding the square into rectangles, stick fingers underneath the square flaps created
What's the color of money???...
  • The color of blood and sweat

Reference

http://www.glassdoor.com/Top-25-Oddball-Interview-Questions-LST_KQ0,34.htm