Horstman’s Wager (Part 2 of 2)
September 24th, 2007Today, we cover the 2nd in a two-part series on Horstman’s Wager.
Last week we covered the basics as to why “Playing the Game” doesn’t work … today we get into the details of the dreaded Horstman’s Wager MATRIX.
During the show, we refer to the printed matrix included in the slides for this series. Although the slides are typically only available to premium members, given how much easier having the slides can make following this particular podcast, we’ve made this week’s slides available to everyone … enjoy!
Extra Content
Legend: 
Members-Only 
Premium 
Interviewing Series
Members-Only Premium Interviewing Series
Stumble it!Trackback URL for this post: http://www.manager-tools.com/2007/09/horstmans-wager-part-2-of-2/trackback/
September 24th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Mark and Mike
Great Podcast. Very practical advice. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, as the demand far exceeds supply in view of the growth bubble,people use the Puffery and come in to the organization. Yes, its another matter, that after some time the true color gets exposed, they just fail and move out and cycle repeats with the next candidate. Frustrating, when you see this happening. Wonder, what the solution is on long term?.
I guess the guys learn from this to be “Honest with themselves”, so that it makes things easy for them and the interviewer.(Would they!!).
Wonder what Organisations can do as gate keeper to dig deep to find that guys are playing the game?.(Of course, its not worth it, considering time and resource involved, this could be exception)
Agree, that the guys need to “Be themselves”. They need to develop a mindset of taking forward things as they come. Candidates some times need to realize that Short term losses are great step towards growth leading to long term gains(change of personality, knowledge improvement, developing character etc)
Interesting to know about what the experience about this in the other part of the World!!
Karthik.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Mark and Mike
I think this was probably your most useless pod-cast yet. You’ve patiently gone to great lengths (2 whole pod-casts) to explain something as simple as ‘Don’t be so galactically stupid’. I enjoyed it but spent the whole time wondering if there were people really so dumb out there that they needed two whole shows to get it. Your thoughts on what to prepare (i.e. yourself on yourself) were enlightening to me but as soon as you said it (in previous casts) I didn’t need another two casts to ram it home.
Of course you’re right to do this for those that haven’t yet figured out: “Do what you know is right.” Hard work vs. the ‘easy’ way always has a clear winner.
Thanks and keep it up.
Lincoln
September 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Lincoln,
Thanks for the remarks … the blog and the forums are a great way for us to keep in touch with what works and doesn’t work with our audience. And when it doesn’t work for some folks, it’s always great to know.
And there must some better words for this kind of feedback than “your most useless pod-cast yet”, yes?
thanks,
Mike
September 24th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Mike - I can’t access the slides. Comes up with a window asking for log in name and password. Entered my info but it just cycles back to the same window…is it me?
September 24th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Hi Mark and Mike,
You’re doing a great work with the interview series since the interviewee point of view. But what about the interviewer side? Many of us have to deal with this role as often, if not more, as the former one. I learned a lot with the podcast on Quick and Dirty Interviews, and listening to the interview series I have learned more on how to interview, but for sure you have something to say on this topic. Don’t you?
September 24th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
donnachie,
The slides/shownotes for this podcast (and most others) are premium content and available to premium members only (more details available here: http://www.manager-tools.com/premium-content/
regards,
Mike
September 24th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Luis,
You’re absolutely right … we’ll have a lot more to say about the process of Interviewing from the employer side.
One note: In addition to the Quick and Dirty Interview cast, we did one other on preparing for interviews (from the employer side) — How to Prepare for an Interview.
regards,
Mike
September 24th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Mike-
Mark’s blog post states that this week’s slides are free to everyone, not just premium subscribers. I think this is what donnachie is referring to.
Lincoln-
While the topic of the podcast might seem obvious to you, there are plenty of posts in the forums suggesting “playing the game” is a workable interviewing technique.
-Rich
September 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
As someone who has been in nearly-constant interview mode for the past year, I can tell you that there are PLENTY of people playing the game. I’ve had people look me in the eye and take credit for things that I know (yes, know — 100%!) that they were not responsible for.
Oh, if only everyone was part of the MT world!
September 25th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Rich,
Thanks … yes, I see the problem now. I thought the slides *were* publicly available.
I’ll get that fixed asap.
thanks,
Mike
September 25th, 2007 at 1:04 am
For what it’s worth, Mike, I completely disagree with lincoln. You have produced much less worthwhile pocasts than the last two!
Ok, not quite what I mean. But, not being familiar with Pascal’s wager, the concept was insightful and the general discussion about interviewing was useful. Plus it was the most eloquent and well-reasoned smackdown of unethical behaviour I have seen in a long while. I mean sure you could just say that “playing the game” is wrong mmkay? But actually showing it through logical analysis was well worth the effort.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Thanks, tomas … I’ll take the good as well as the bad!
Mike
September 25th, 2007 at 8:57 am
RichRuh, tomas and Mike and Mark
I didn’t mean to sound THAT harsh. I think though as soon as you equate ‘playing the game’ to being unethical then the answers soon get very obvious. Anyone who suggests ‘playing the game’ just needs to be asked if would want other people playing the game to get jobs with them Or worse.. imagine your boss ‘played the game’ to get his job… That should be enough for anyone to want to get rid of this behaviour both by example and encouraging others.
I’ve actually yet to hear a truly useless cast. Even the casts that they (M&M) say don’t have actionable content, such as year reviews etc. are still very useful.
Lincoln
September 25th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Both…
please can I have a public license for this so I can play it all my candidates? At least 50% of them think I’m stupid enough to be gamed, and if I think I am, I just make the interview longer. You can only keep the game up so long.. and I have time if you do!
Wendii
September 25th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Wendii,
We have a saying in India that the crow is black everywhere.
Looks like Universal Phenomenon.(or Problem)
Karthik.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I love the podcasts from day one. Just listened to 3 this week. Mark, you said some young people today do not want to be coached. This fascinated me since I get the same feedback, even though some want feedback and want to improve their performance. I’d appreciate you elaborating on this.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
The second favorable outcome is box two, not box three.
*boom*
That was a powerful moment as I could feel my world view shifting. Of course this statement is true, but if I was to pick without thinking I would have chosen box 3. “I’m interviewing, so clearly I’m looking to get an offer,” I’d think. No, I’m looking for an offer from somewhere I’d *fit* and *want* to work. Thank you for the readjustment.
I’ve been in box 2 before, and upset that I didn’t get the gig. Even when I knew I wouldn’t take it because it was a bad fit. That I’ll get over (and this new mindset will help). At least now I don’t have to worry about getting stuck in either box three or box four.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
DMather-
I doubt I said exactly that, unless I was referring to the twisting of coaching into a negative (”hey - you messed up, the boss wants to see you for some ‘coaching’.”) There ARE young people who have a bad attitude about coaching..because their previous view of coaching, from schools, a good one, has been overtaken by bosses who only “coach” when someone needs “corrective action.”
Lousy bosses end up creating lousy employees. This chicken happened before that egg.
Mark
September 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Spazm-
Your comment is the one I’m most pleased to see. THAT insight - NOT box THREE! - is what I see as leading folks to working on their preparation.
Glad we’re helping.
Mark
September 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Wendii-
Well said. It occurs to me: maybe we can ask those ethical, prepared candidates to shun the game players, by complaining to them about how THEY are the reason interviews take so darn long!
Mark
September 28th, 2007 at 4:02 am
We’re talking about “playing the game” to get the offer when the position will be a good fit for us.
Something interesting that I did not hear mentioned in the cast that seemed like a natural follow on comment.
I would think that going through an interview with the attitude of looking for a mutually good fit will be remembered by the interviewers. There may not be a fit now, but someone who interviewed you today may think of you or recommend you to a colleague for a position in the future. If you are perceived as “smart” or “slick”, slim to no chance.
Craig
September 28th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Craig,
Exactly that happened in our organization. Someone who was not a fit for one team was introduced to one of my peers because he would be a fit there. It would never have happened if he had been “gaming” instead presenting himself honestly and with enthusiasm.
John
September 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Craig and John-
I’m not following. Why would someone play the game if they thought they were a fit?
Mark
(written wirelessly on my new mac (transition almost complete) in the Admirals Club at Ohare on my way home)
September 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Mark,
BLUF: Someone might ‘play the game’ even if they thought they were a good fit because they believed, and may even have been taught, that playing the game was the only way to get the job.
During the early 1990s (immediately after leaving university) I was unemployed a number of times and landed up attending a number of programmes run by local colleges and universities to help unemployed graduates get into work (we were in the middle of a major recession, graduate unemployment and under-employment were at a peak). When it came to CV writing and interview prep training game play was taught as the only way forward, the paradigm (to warp something you yourself have said) was “It doesn’t matter how good you are, it’s how good you can fool the interviewer into thinking you are because there’s at least a hundred other people just as good as you actually are who’ve applied for the same job.” Regardless of what you think about the first two parts of that sentence, at the time everything after the word ‘because’ was certainly true of the job market for recent graduates, if anything the competition is under estimated.
One particular thing I remember from those classes was in one session (the course was called GRADMAN (short for Graduates and Managers) run by University of Central England out of their Business Development and Strategy Unit) where an attendee asked about the weakness question and how to handle it. The tutor’s response was to describe how the best answer she’d ever heard to the question “What are your weaknesses?” was “Chocolate!”
There were many books on the market at the time that followed the exact same thought process, ‘play the game or you’re sunk’.
The books are still available and I don’t doubt there are still people out there teaching the ‘play the game’ method of job applications. I know that at least 2 schools are still teaching the ‘Tombstone’ CV (Name and contact details at the top; education from age 11 in reverse chronological order showing institution, courses studied and dates of study; work experience in reverse chronological order showing employer, dates of starting and leaving, job titles and key duties; finally personal interests, ideally one academic, one sporting and one leisure) that I was taught in the mid 1980s.
Anyone who has been through training like that or read those books, and doesn’t hear anything different, is going to believe that interviewers are playing some complex game of trick questions and the only way to win (i.e. get a job offer) is to play the game and beat them at it.
Stephen
September 28th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Mark,
I should have been more clear in sharing the observation that the preparation strategies for interviewing and job searching can be thought of playing a game too — one with a different objective (a much longer term objective of a good fit and career path). This in contrast with the “game” of getting an offer, which is what I understand as the smaller “game” referred to in the podcasts.
Re-reading the first sentence, I see how my sentence is grammatically ambiguous. How about this re-reading with parentheses indicating the objective of the bigger game (playing for box 1):
We’re talking about “playing the game” to (get the offer when the position will be a good fit for us).
Great casts. I got and agree with the message.
Sorry for confusion.
Craig
September 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Mark,
Apologies for being unclear. He was not a fit. We both recognized it. He did not try to “game” the system, but acted ethically. He was also a much closer fit for another team. He therefore was introduced to another opportunity.
So here is another advantage to Square 2: you don’t get an offer, but are welcomed into a network where you might find a good fit. This won’t happen in Square 4.
John
PS: John Nash’s game theory is often presented in two-by-two’s like this. So in a sense, Horstman’s wager is related to game theory. Not trying to imply that anyone should game. It’s always unethical. Sorry for not being 100% clear here.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Stephen-
Great post and thanks for sharing the story! I can see what you mean, and it’s clear we have more work to do. There are millions out there laboring under (after being taught) false and misleading principles.
Mark
September 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
John-
I always wanted my stuff to be compared to smart guys like John Nash! Thanks for the clarification.
And nice call on the referral.
But most importantly, thanks for the insight into our model: you are so right about the unintended benefit of square 2 vs. square 4.
To say nothing of the dread of what a square 4 referral feels like. Imagine KNOWING you’re not going to get the offer for the job you’re lying to get…only to have to go to some other interview that the lying you is right for but you have NO interest in.
Makes me think of Hugh Grant’s character in Notting Hill, trying to spend a few minutes with Julia Roberts and having to interview movie actors.
DREAD!
Mark
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am
Protect your inbox (4): Go async!…
«Brokenness» © col_adamsonIf you want to be distracted from your work, give in to chatting, instant messaging (IM), phone calls or meetings. These are the ultimate productivity killers, because they suck up all your attention, break your flow an…
October 24th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Schütze Deine Inbox (4): Werd’ asynchron!…
«Brokenness» © col_adamsonWenn Sie sich von der Arbeit ablenken lassen wollen, versuchen Sie es doch mal mit Plausch, Chatprogrammen (Instant Messaging, IM), Telefonkonferenzen oder Besprechungen. Das macht der eigenen Produktivität gründlich …