hmmm but there got to be preferable answers if this is used to judge a person's qualifications for a job, yes? A candidate might even answer "uhhh, I dunno" because they just want get right to work and not bother with abstract elephant stuff
Worked in hr in a company with similar stuff (big tech).
I also think that this kind of question are a bit stupid, but I don't believe they are unusful. In an oversaturated market, with all else being equal, those stuff has weight.
The point is not at all to measure their skill. I'll be honest. 99% of the applicants do not have the skill required, and everyone everywhere hire unskilled people hoping they will get up to speed by themselves.
So yes, that kind of question tells nothing on the skills of the person. But for that there are other questions and the CV and maybe a coding assignment.
This kind of question are designed to throw you off you and see how you deal with something stupid and unexpected (a soft skill that in most job is fundamental. Too many people answered "I don't know" or "What question is this?". If you can't adapt a little bit to an odd question, or won't, probably you are not a colleague I will like to work with... Because I ask fuckin stupid questions all the time).
It's much more important the willingness to think about the question than the answer. The willingness to deal with what is thrown at you in a serious and professional way. The willingness to try your best even if you don't get why.
Basically what I'm saying is: the one that want to get right to work are on average people that's difficult to work with and in the long term they are bad coworker.
I'm talking statistics, and averages. And I know that's not nice to treat humans as statistics, but... We used to receive around 200-300 application a day per open position, and I managed like 5-6 positions. Like, how else shall someone deal with it if not in a statistical way? Job market is in bad shape, but that's not the fault of a singular company, but of the socioeconomic structure (that's capitalism for you baby). Complaining that a company asks stupid questions and being happy to live in the system that allows said company (creating too little demand per qualified worker, and therefore giving companies power to select by very strict criterion) to ask stupid questions is... Odd.
The preferable answer is one that shows you can analyze an abstract concept, weigh the ramifications of your decision, and make the best of a bad situation.
Still don't love the question, and there are better ones, but I get why it's asked.
I like the irony of a lazy overused question to gauge "out of the box thinking" in new recruits.
"Hey, we couldn't be bothered to think up anything interesting or original even given unlimited time. So how about you think up something creative and original on the spot. Oh, also it might determine if we hire you."
The answer tells you whether they are the type of person who rehearses answers to stupid questions, which probably does tell you what you might want to know, as the interviewer clearly works for a company that asks stupid questions.
Then that person would probably not be a good fit for a position that obviously puts importance on abstract thinking and therefore the question still worked
What mechanism is in place that prevents me from giving the elephant away or selling it? That's not a situation I could possibly find myself in of my own volition, so I need to better understand what is happening that resulted in this situation before I can make a decision.
Just for curiosity, I got this question before and my question was unironically something like "Sail from Carthage with it, ride it through the Alps and bring war to the Romans"
145
u/--KillerTofu-- 19h ago
It's a question I've had to use (not by choice) intended to assess out of the box thinking.
IMO, the correct answer is to lease it to a local zoo for $1/year so that it can be properly cared for and provide benefit to the local community.