I've come across this guy talking about this before, and it arrived in my inbox again today:
http://youtu.be/3p28MFt8RBA
The idea is basically this: when you're in an interview, you need to somehow (I'm not sure at which point you do this?) whip out a document you've prepared, showing how you've researched a problem with the company, and found a way they can be improve by some measurable way, and emphasise that it's something you'd like to get to work improving for them.
I just... I'm going to take him at his word, that, apparently, lots of people have had success with this. I just can't imagine it going well at all. One of the top comments there gets it right - a hiring manager commenting that they'd assume this person was the most presumptive idiot he'd ever met.
I mean, what can you really know about a company from the outside? Even as an expert in your field/role, I just don't think you could know that much about what a company needs, or even the particular department you're applying to work at. Sure, you can see some stuff from the outside... but you can't see the myriad factors going on under the surface, the personnel and budget shortages, the conflicting time and value demands, the hidden organisational structures and who-owes-who-what. There's just... so much going on that I can't imagine any hiring manager who I've ever faced just sitting there a bit dumbfounded, uncomfortable before slowly becoming aggressive and wanting to get me the hell out of there.
I can't see it working
So many reasons... where do I begin...
Let's start with the chances your analysis is actually right. As you said, as an outsider, you've got no idea what the real problems are. If the interviewer does decide to throw everything out the window and analyse this, you'll probably end up looking like a complete goose when they start trotting out reasons why it won't work.
It probably won't get that far, though, because the interviewer has a job to do. You're just going to annoy them by derailing the flow of the interview with your poorly researched schtick. You have no power in the interview. Annoying your interviewer is not going to improve your chances of getting an offer.
Then there's audience. Who says that the person interviewing you has any knowledge or power in that area? If you *do* happen to land the coin on its edge and your analysis *is* right, do you think your luck's going to hold out and the appropriate decision maker is the one interviewing you?
There is the *slight* possibility that if you were interviewing for very senior roles in certain organisations this *might* not backfire, but why take the risk? I can tell you for certain that if someone tried this on me, I'd take great delight in ripping their arguments to shreds before showing them the door, and putting a "Not No. HELL NO." note on their hiring file.
Right?! That's what really
Right?!
That's what really gets me: who on earth are you presenting this to, and when is this magic time when you're supposed to whip out this briefcase?
As far as I can tell it's during salary negotiation (although, the question of "What salary are you looking for?" can come up long before you've got an offer - so this is happening, most likely, before you have an offer, i.e. when you're NOT negotiating).
He's done this video twice, and on the original he's only talking to freelancers, who *are* in a position to research and offer proposals - it's expected of them, really. But then he expands it to interviews in general.
My only reason for thinking he's not totally full of guff is that he says it's worked for "hundreds and hundreds" of people. The only thing I can think is he must be talking about freelancers (the majority of his testimonials talk about the success it had with "clients" rather than "employers").
---
Rory
6147
Control of Interview
Sounds like an attempt to control the interview. I wouldn't go there unless asked.
--Michael
I love their advice.
I love their advice. I hope all my competition follows it.