> The quality to seek in employees is perseverance and obedience. And this familiar interview style tests for just that.
I know some actual interviewers who ask these types of CS heavy, puzzle based, brainteaser type of questions. They say that their rationale for asking questions like this is to gauge the candidate's attitude and to see how they behaviorally respond when presented with this kind of problems. In many ways, they are testing for submission in candidates. Basically, if you up and leave when asked how many manhole covers there are in New York, their system worked perfectly: they weeded out a candidate who they think would be an entitled prima donna. Corporate environments often require foot soldiers who will do the job without complaining, hence the testing for absolute obedience.
I disagree with this tactic but unfortunately it is quite widely employed during the selection process.
If the bar for "absolute obedience" is not storming out of the room when asked a dumb question, then yay for absolute obedience.
Someone who really was the superstar candidate who shouldn't be bothered to answer pointless riddles would surely have the communication skills to tactfully change the subject to how they're the best candidate for the job.
I know some actual interviewers who ask these types of CS heavy, puzzle based, brainteaser type of questions. They say that their rationale for asking questions like this is to gauge the candidate's attitude and to see how they behaviorally respond when presented with this kind of problems. In many ways, they are testing for submission in candidates. Basically, if you up and leave when asked how many manhole covers there are in New York, their system worked perfectly: they weeded out a candidate who they think would be an entitled prima donna. Corporate environments often require foot soldiers who will do the job without complaining, hence the testing for absolute obedience.
I disagree with this tactic but unfortunately it is quite widely employed during the selection process.