I wonder if I'm the only person who thinks an interviewer should assess whether the person can do the job, and that an interviewer pushing someone to their limits seems like an inappropriate activity for the employer-employee assessment process.
I feel like there are two different conceptions about what it means to "do a job" that are co-existing within the economy, and a lot work-related offense and disgruntlement occurs because of mismatched expectations.
In one conception, "a job" means that your boss sets out a list of tasks for you to do, and you do them, consistently and reliably. As long as you do what you are told, you will be paid the salary agreed upon. If you do it long enough, you will be promoted. Under this conception, there is no reason for a job interview to do anything other than ascertain whether you are qualified to do the tasks listed in the job description.
In the other conception, "a job" means that you're responsible for looking around the organization, identifying ways to either generate more revenue, make customers happier, or eliminate inefficiencies, and then go do them. Your boss's job is to remove roadblocks and introduce you to coworkers that can help you. The specific tasks you will be working on are unknown at the time of hire, and it is part of your job description to discover them. If you generate value for the organization, you will be promoted. Under this conception, it makes sense for a job interview to push you as far as possible, because if it turns out you're more qualified than the position, the position can be extended so you have more impact and get correspondingly higher compensation.
When people with the first conception apply to jobs with the second conception, they wonder why their employer demands so much of them, why there are no clear guidelines, and why they don't advance while people hired after them shoot right by them and end up becoming managers. When people with the second conception apply to jobs with the first conception, they get bored, step on other peoples' toes, make political enemies, and end up getting kicked out.
Adding to the complication, your boss is many companies is far more likely to hold the second conception of what a job is, because that's how he got promoted. Good managers can adjust their managerial style to make both types of employees productive, but bad managers assume everyone is just like them and complain about how employees are so lazy these days, while those employees complain about how their manager doesn't know what he wants.
Also complicating things, the first type of job is dying out. In many cases, they're being replaced by automation, and the jobs themselves disappear in favor of machines. In other cases, their boss is being replaced by an app, and those jobs become contract positions for Uber or Postmates or DoorDash or Amazon.
Great response. To add more details... the second type of managers respond very poorly to when their workers have no idea what is going on and can’t reach targets/goals. In this case they need more leadership.
The first types of jobs Should have good leadership where the complex parts have already been decided and all that’s left is the implementation.
The issue is what happens when a worker for a type 2 manager is smarter and knows exactly what to do? That employees best course of action in their perspective is to get their boss fired and take their role since they are more capable.
When the type 2 manager gets frustrated due to incompetence that becomes scary since they lash out at their underlings for incompetence.
Type 1 jobs are more relaxing on the psyche as you don’t have to think about
Better yet, the interviewer should have experience in said job, as to better evaluate a potential candidate.
I'm pretty sure, most of us have come across folks who pretend to know something, you ask them easy, little, but esoteric questions, that prove whether or not they even have knowledge in something.
At least for big firms, this isn't out of the realm of possibility. Small companies... I get it. They have to then base it off experience, references and gut feelings.
