The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That question is a trap and you should never give them any answer that will have them question you.
If anything, I would have turned the question around...I would have said something like, "it seems as if you have some history of letting new hires go within the first 60 days of hiring them. Can you tell me what was some of the reasons why you needed to make that decision?"
Really, lay offs? Have you asked the HM if they had bothered to secure the budget for the job and how well the company is doing? If, in fact, there was any layoff exercise you should be aware of?
It’s a completely inappropriate question. And, someone got cute and sold them on this terrible question. There is no correct answer, except to say: “if you had to fire me after 60 days, it would be a huge loss for your Company”.
I know I'll get flack for this, but I think "What would you/your bosses say is your biggest weakness?" is almost as bad as this question. For the same reasons.
If you want to see how I overcame an initial deficiency or how I made personal improvements as it pertains to my work, then ask THAT. But "Come on and damn yourself a little bit" is an ineffective, hostile approach to interviewing candidates.
You should be trying to see what I can do for you, not trying to put me on defense.
It’s a stupid question too because the “best” answer you’ll ever get is some bullshit about working way too hard, which the applicant memorized beforehand. It doesn’t really help answer the most important question: “will this person be a good employee?” Because you won’t get an actual honest answer.
I bet it was a small company lol. Wtf...
"Because I solved all your problems and you didn't need me anymore." It's a self-consciously hokey question so I'd give a self-consciously hokey answer. I'm not gonna Reddit drama queen this—I don't take it as a flag personally. Just kind of a dumb one and an accurate reflection of how new the company is to hiring people.
I feel like if you follow it up with a bunch of questions about their financial solvency, referencing this question, they will feel uncomfortable and stop asking it lol.
A bear comes crashing through the window glass in the cafeteria. He’s rage hunting cake…and it’s Carol’s birthday. I quickly grab a steak knife and throw it across the cafeteria. It comes so close to the presidents head that it slices a single strand of her hair. It then lands squarely in the brain of the bear, killing it instantly.
President fires me because I ruined her $200 haircut, and the bear fell on Carol’s cake.
I’d joke it off: “since this seems extremely unlikely based on what a solid company you are and my noteworthy work history, I’d say it would have to have been that I was so dedicated and promising from the onset that an insecure manager decided to separate me out of fear that I would hurt their chances of being promoted. Hahaha… I kid… seriously though, drinking, it would definitely be excessive drinking.”
I wonder if they ask that shit to candidates beyond entry level.
If they do, it says bad things about them.
And if they don't, it says other bad things about them.
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
Who thinks this is a good question to ask???
"Uh, stealing", "I banged your wife" there are NO good answers.
I would have said something like "management felt threatened that I was progressing far faster than anticipated and saw me as a threat to their future goals despite never talking to me about their concerns."
There’s no good answer for this question. If I got laid off because I’m the newest person on the team, that means you lied to me about how secure the company is. Layoffs don’t just happen within 60 days. They’re often considered and discussed at the top level and then there’s legal ramifications behind it. That means the consideration of layoffs was happening at the time of my interviews or even before then.
If I got fired because I was in over my head or wasn’t able to please my boss, I either read the job wrong and went in without knowing the full details or I wasn’t given all the details of what my work load would be like. If it’s the former, that’s on me but knowing me and my history, I’ve never faced that. If it’s the latter, once again I was lied to about what I’m walking into as there’s likely a pattern of people coming into the role and either leaving or getting fired because the role is impossible or the boss is impossible.
If the idea of this question is to suss out those that would not be able to perform, why are you even at this stage of the interview process?
If someone in a an interview asked me this I would say "Because I complain to HR about your constant gas problem?" and then I would grin..
At this point, I am either getting the job, or not.
If a company fires an employee within 60 days, either the employee has done something major (wrong answer), or the company isn't planning longer term than 30 days (wrong answer, but from the other direction). I'd reply something like "because you feel likey efficiency and dedication are just too much for you to handle", the question is obv messed up.
‘Yeah, I’m not doing this. You need to realize I can get a real job anywhere with two phone calls and a handshake, asshole. Let’s hope you develop some basic human decency for the person you do hire. Take care.’
THATS my reply.
> They said the "correct" answer was like if they needed to do layoffs I'd be the newest hire
That would indeed be my answer to that question. That, or "the onboarding process is dysfunctional and I never got access to the resources I need to do my job".
Either one puts the company in a less-than-good light, so it's likely I'd get rejected for "not being a team player", but let's face it: if they're asking these sorts of questions, that's already a foregone conclusion.
"Because you watch terrible tik-tok videos about a 'brilliant' interview technique such as asking this question and then saw some new way to weed out the 'bad' people"
I saw a clip of this exact question making the rounds recently preaching about its effectiveness. They probably saw the same video and thought it was a brilliant thing to ask. Before this became the new armchair hiring manager question it was "Why shouldn't we hire you?"
The correct answer would be "If you fired people within 60 days of working here, I wouldn't touch this company with a 10 foot pole"
Companies like this need to be put in their place.
Well, getting fired and getting laid off are too vastly different things, so points off for communication skills from the HM.
If someone asked me this, my first thought was to answer something like "I don't see any reason a company would do that without facing some massive unexpected financial hardship that demanded a reduction in force." Then I would go on to ask "Is this something that is likely to happen in this role?" And judge them very skeptically on their response.
That question is horrible. Also I love the comments saying about legal cases, because if you have an interview question like this I'm 100% using it in an unfair dismissal case!
Also the true answer would be I've probably told a micromanaging twat to go fuck themselves. But I digress...
‘I’m not sure, maybe theft or arson. Life’s a lottery so lets see what happens’
Definitely smile while saying this so they know you don’t take the question seriously.
I understand that as "give me a reason I can use to fire you if I want to". So I'd tell them that's completely false about me, such as "I tend to rely on my coworkers too much to get the job done", such that when I get the job they'll never have one instance of me doing that to justify the firing.
Yeah, first to fire is normally last to hire. Never understood this as to me it's kind of backwards corporate illogic.
For example, let's say a corporation suffers from a failed and/or subpar cyber security or tech posturing - despite having a team of security or tech engineers who are constantly stretched with meeting deadlines, deliverables, milestones, whatever. As a result, the company now wants to and/or is forced to find someone senior who can produce quality results. Yet, for 2 years they continue to struggle to find "said quality talent" who can help them followed by becoming a permanent employee.
Whereas, after 2 years of their internal stack being overworked, suffering from burnout, etc is how they find the right candidate, hire him or her, only to fire them later on because "they were last to hire" which makes them "first to fire." To me? This makes zero sense for if a company is struggling or has been struggling to find "quality talent." If you ask me? I personally wouldn't fire them as who wants to continue struggling? Like, isn't the goal to "win" followed by "beating your rival competitors" in the industry said company operates? 😂 #WTF
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Because you desperately want a legal case?"
"Because you are bored and think a lawsuit will be the spice your life needs"
Inhouse lawyers complaining about lack of workload
That question is a trap and you should never give them any answer that will have them question you. If anything, I would have turned the question around...I would have said something like, "it seems as if you have some history of letting new hires go within the first 60 days of hiring them. Can you tell me what was some of the reasons why you needed to make that decision?"
The question sounds like they are warning you.
Absolutely. I would walk away from that company immediately.
Legit a moment where I let there be like, five seconds of total silence while I stare at each of them. Then get up and walk out without saying a word.
Really, lay offs? Have you asked the HM if they had bothered to secure the budget for the job and how well the company is doing? If, in fact, there was any layoff exercise you should be aware of?
I read HM as His Majesty for some reason.
I think Charlie could work out something with the budget, sure.
You would think a HM would know the difference between firing someone vs. laying them off but no, you would be mistaken.
"Failure to recognize circumstances outside of my control, as I would not do anything to warrant termination with cause."
That's a badass answer for a fucked up question
"probably someone fucked up during the hiring process, either due to bad requirements or lack of budget"
Yup
It’s a completely inappropriate question. And, someone got cute and sold them on this terrible question. There is no correct answer, except to say: “if you had to fire me after 60 days, it would be a huge loss for your Company”.
I know I'll get flack for this, but I think "What would you/your bosses say is your biggest weakness?" is almost as bad as this question. For the same reasons. If you want to see how I overcame an initial deficiency or how I made personal improvements as it pertains to my work, then ask THAT. But "Come on and damn yourself a little bit" is an ineffective, hostile approach to interviewing candidates. You should be trying to see what I can do for you, not trying to put me on defense.
It’s a stupid question too because the “best” answer you’ll ever get is some bullshit about working way too hard, which the applicant memorized beforehand. It doesn’t really help answer the most important question: “will this person be a good employee?” Because you won’t get an actual honest answer.
CEOs son in-law needs a new job.
“You probably needed to get rid of me as witness to all those possible flagrant workplace abuse violations.”
ur management is incompetent.
This is the answer they’re looking for in not hiring you…most likely
My first thought
I bet it was a small company lol. Wtf... "Because I solved all your problems and you didn't need me anymore." It's a self-consciously hokey question so I'd give a self-consciously hokey answer. I'm not gonna Reddit drama queen this—I don't take it as a flag personally. Just kind of a dumb one and an accurate reflection of how new the company is to hiring people. I feel like if you follow it up with a bunch of questions about their financial solvency, referencing this question, they will feel uncomfortable and stop asking it lol.
Two ways to respond to this: 1. *press end call* Or 2. *walk out* It’s only going to get worse the longer you stay.
A bear comes crashing through the window glass in the cafeteria. He’s rage hunting cake…and it’s Carol’s birthday. I quickly grab a steak knife and throw it across the cafeteria. It comes so close to the presidents head that it slices a single strand of her hair. It then lands squarely in the brain of the bear, killing it instantly. President fires me because I ruined her $200 haircut, and the bear fell on Carol’s cake.
Piss poor planning on your part or gross incompetence on mine.
“Uh because I’d be banging the HR lady?”
Because you've gone belly-up.
I’d joke it off: “since this seems extremely unlikely based on what a solid company you are and my noteworthy work history, I’d say it would have to have been that I was so dedicated and promising from the onset that an insecure manager decided to separate me out of fear that I would hurt their chances of being promoted. Hahaha… I kid… seriously though, drinking, it would definitely be excessive drinking.”
I wonder if they ask that shit to candidates beyond entry level. If they do, it says bad things about them. And if they don't, it says other bad things about them.
Another case of HR/Intake trying to be the smartest people in the room.
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 Who thinks this is a good question to ask??? "Uh, stealing", "I banged your wife" there are NO good answers. I would have said something like "management felt threatened that I was progressing far faster than anticipated and saw me as a threat to their future goals despite never talking to me about their concerns."
There’s no good answer for this question. If I got laid off because I’m the newest person on the team, that means you lied to me about how secure the company is. Layoffs don’t just happen within 60 days. They’re often considered and discussed at the top level and then there’s legal ramifications behind it. That means the consideration of layoffs was happening at the time of my interviews or even before then. If I got fired because I was in over my head or wasn’t able to please my boss, I either read the job wrong and went in without knowing the full details or I wasn’t given all the details of what my work load would be like. If it’s the former, that’s on me but knowing me and my history, I’ve never faced that. If it’s the latter, once again I was lied to about what I’m walking into as there’s likely a pattern of people coming into the role and either leaving or getting fired because the role is impossible or the boss is impossible. If the idea of this question is to suss out those that would not be able to perform, why are you even at this stage of the interview process?
Stupid ass question.
If someone in a an interview asked me this I would say "Because I complain to HR about your constant gas problem?" and then I would grin.. At this point, I am either getting the job, or not.
What a great way to turn off all candidates. That’s a garbage question I never would have asked when I was a hiring manager.
If a company fires an employee within 60 days, either the employee has done something major (wrong answer), or the company isn't planning longer term than 30 days (wrong answer, but from the other direction). I'd reply something like "because you feel likey efficiency and dedication are just too much for you to handle", the question is obv messed up.
"Gross incompetence. However, rest assured, that I'll never happen with me"
"I've never been fired from a job within 60 days of hire. So you tell me what the reason would be."
Nope, that's a trap.
‘Yeah, I’m not doing this. You need to realize I can get a real job anywhere with two phone calls and a handshake, asshole. Let’s hope you develop some basic human decency for the person you do hire. Take care.’ THATS my reply.
"Because I'm doing so well that I'm making management look incompetent." Lol
"Probably because I made the mistake of ignoring red flags and accepted a job I shouldn't have"
> They said the "correct" answer was like if they needed to do layoffs I'd be the newest hire That would indeed be my answer to that question. That, or "the onboarding process is dysfunctional and I never got access to the resources I need to do my job". Either one puts the company in a less-than-good light, so it's likely I'd get rejected for "not being a team player", but let's face it: if they're asking these sorts of questions, that's already a foregone conclusion.
Probably assault and battery, on you.
"Because you watch terrible tik-tok videos about a 'brilliant' interview technique such as asking this question and then saw some new way to weed out the 'bad' people" I saw a clip of this exact question making the rounds recently preaching about its effectiveness. They probably saw the same video and thought it was a brilliant thing to ask. Before this became the new armchair hiring manager question it was "Why shouldn't we hire you?"
# "If we were to fire you within the first 60 days of hiring you, what would be the reason?" "Um...because y'all are assholes?"
The correct answer would be "If you fired people within 60 days of working here, I wouldn't touch this company with a 10 foot pole" Companies like this need to be put in their place.
Well, getting fired and getting laid off are too vastly different things, so points off for communication skills from the HM. If someone asked me this, my first thought was to answer something like "I don't see any reason a company would do that without facing some massive unexpected financial hardship that demanded a reduction in force." Then I would go on to ask "Is this something that is likely to happen in this role?" And judge them very skeptically on their response.
That question is horrible. Also I love the comments saying about legal cases, because if you have an interview question like this I'm 100% using it in an unfair dismissal case! Also the true answer would be I've probably told a micromanaging twat to go fuck themselves. But I digress...
"mocking HR and his stupid questions from the hiring process, I guess"
Bc my boss felt threatened by my awesome skills 🤪…but seriously…I don’t see what that question is trying to discover…but maybe I will try it out 😂
If you wanted to pay severance more than my salary. Then decline from moving further.
‘I’m not sure, maybe theft or arson. Life’s a lottery so lets see what happens’ Definitely smile while saying this so they know you don’t take the question seriously.
That’s not the “correct answer,” they should be aware of any financial troubles NOW, not at the moment it becomes necessary to layoff.
“A mistake”
"Your leadership team have their heads up their asses and didnt plan annual headcounts properly. I would advise them to resign."
Run!!!!
I have never been fired in my life.
You’re too good for us, please go somewhere else. Thanks and good luck in your future endeavors. With the highest regards, Papadopoulos
I understand that as "give me a reason I can use to fire you if I want to". So I'd tell them that's completely false about me, such as "I tend to rely on my coworkers too much to get the job done", such that when I get the job they'll never have one instance of me doing that to justify the firing.
"You'd gone insane and decided to fire your best worker."
Remove “like” from your vocabulary. Judge Judy
Yeah, first to fire is normally last to hire. Never understood this as to me it's kind of backwards corporate illogic. For example, let's say a corporation suffers from a failed and/or subpar cyber security or tech posturing - despite having a team of security or tech engineers who are constantly stretched with meeting deadlines, deliverables, milestones, whatever. As a result, the company now wants to and/or is forced to find someone senior who can produce quality results. Yet, for 2 years they continue to struggle to find "said quality talent" who can help them followed by becoming a permanent employee. Whereas, after 2 years of their internal stack being overworked, suffering from burnout, etc is how they find the right candidate, hire him or her, only to fire them later on because "they were last to hire" which makes them "first to fire." To me? This makes zero sense for if a company is struggling or has been struggling to find "quality talent." If you ask me? I personally wouldn't fire them as who wants to continue struggling? Like, isn't the goal to "win" followed by "beating your rival competitors" in the industry said company operates? 😂 #WTF
"Because you found out I killed my last interviewer".
"extremely poor hiring practices"
Cuz the managers are off THIER meds??
With my history and performance the only reasons would be a toxic workplace or mismanagement. I hope neither of those are factors here.
“Answering this stupid ass question” and then walk out
Like, totally, like.