TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> Well, yes. But that doesn't really answer the question:
> unless they really have been bit by the andrewbug, why would they think
that
> being aggressive and rude during the interview will get them any real
> information about the knowledge and skills of a potential employee?
Let's not forget that words like aggressive and rude are subjective. What
they mean to one person may not be what they mean to another. I've ran into
this issue in my own workplace: what one person perceives as aggression may
be perceived as effective criticism by another. For example, since you
mention Andrew Plato, very rarely did I think that his posts were
aggressive, though many others apparently did. :)
Perhaps the interviewer felt that he or she was being thorough. Perhaps
other interviewees appreciated the depth of the questions. Probably some
folks felt like they were being treated aggressively.
YMMV, but in my experience, it's tricky to hire someone, and it's best to
make the right decision at the outset than to deal with it later on down the
road, after some period of employment. Though I'm youngish and haven't been
in the professional workplace terribly long (less than 6 years or so) I've
seen some folks in most of my gigs that probably shouldn't be there. To
avoid making a hiring mistake, I think it's appropriate for interviewers to
grill their applicants as hard as they feel necessary. Some folks may
perceive this as rude. Others may perceive it as giving them the
opportunity to really show what they know. Ultimately, if the interviewee
doesn't like it, they don't have to take the job.
Now don't get me wrong: there _is_ a line, (for example, the inappropriate
sexual references some people have cited) but it seems to me that's more
often related to that particular interviewer's personality as a person, and
less related to their position as an interviewer.
-Chris Grant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com
Buy RoboHelp Office in May and you'll save $100 with our mail-in rebate.
Or switch from Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp to RoboHelp Office for only $499.
Get the help authoring tool PC magazine recently awarded a perfect score!
Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
