Interview Filter: suck up or be honest?

March 13, 2017 8:04 AM

I have an interview tomorrow, and in doing some research I've learned that I'm ambivalent about a core part of their current mission. From a HR perspective, is it wise to engage with this during the interview (I don't mean actually telling them they're wrong or arguing with them, just being honest about that ambivalence), or is it better to voice wholehearted support it until I'm in the door?

I have spent a long time training for a job in my field, and paid secure jobs are rare. I now have an interview tomorrow for a large organisation but I'm a bit conflicted about actually working for them, and in particular one aspect of their ethos. I'm not sure how to play that tomorrow.

It's pretty much a philosophical debate of which there are two sides, and I've generally been on the other side from them. What they believe isn't unethical or immoral or anything, it's just different from my core training which I chose specifically because it ties in with my own views on autonomy. So while I can see where they are coming from, it goes against the grain to think I will be making some decisions when working for them that would not be my natural way of dealing with certain issues. However I am open to the idea that I may feel differently when working with the reality of the situation, and also to the possibility that just because I have a fixed idea in my mind doesn't mean I am right or can't be persuaded by experience. (Apologies for the vagueness.)

This issue will definitely be addressed in the interview as it's quite definitive for them. I was thinking of saying something like "You know, I have held different views in the past and to be honest this is a question I have had to consider while thinking about applying for this job, but I am open to having my thinking changed and becoming more informed about this area, and am committed to working within your organisation's framework." What I'm wondering is, if you're a HR type person, is someone doing this in an interview a major "this person will be a trouble-maker, pass!" flag, or a positive sign that I'm not a nodding-dog who will say anything to get the job but actually have thoughts and opinions and am open to discussion? Does anyone actually want that at interview stage? I feel I'd be dishonest just to tell them how fabulous their policy is, but then again I would really love the breathing space of having this job at least for a while for many reasons, even if it turned out that I didn't end up working there long-term. Part of me says if I'm honest and they don't hire me then it wasn't a good fit anyway, and another part is reminding me that I have a mortgage and currently one job that I hate and sessional work with very insecure funding and just shut up and do your best to get this ffs.

Basically, is it better to be myself or play the game until I'm home and dry?

posted by billiebee to Work & Money (25 answers total)

I've never had a job--even when working for dream orgs--in which I agreed 100% with the organizational philosophies and activities. I'd venture to say this is the norm unless one is self-employed. If you're not forced to make decisions you feel are immoral or unethical, do you really think you have a problem that's worth disclosing to a prospective employer? It would certainly stand out in your interview if you brought it up. If the employer asks you directly in an interview about something along these lines, I would be as diplomatic as possible and try to circumlocute my response to avoid saying flatly that I disagree with some policy.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 8:09 AM on March 13, 2017 [4 favorites]

It seems to me that if you fool them into a job, you may find that it's a bad fit -- if you address it in the measured way you indicate, you'll get some sense of how likely that issue is to become something that you're hit over the head with versus something they hope you'll become persuaded on.
posted by acm at 8:10 AM on March 13, 2017 [4 favorites]

my first instinct is that you should keep your opinions to yourself. Even after they've hired you. You're agreeing to be a part of their mission if you take the job.

My second instinct is that you should ask questions about it. Try not to ask them condescendingly. "Your mission is to save goats. Why the focus on goats? Does that include other creatures of similar fashion such as llamas?" etc

Show interest and engage them on the topic. If you get asked straight out about supporting the mission:

"We believe that all the goats should be saved! Do you agree with that goal, billiebee?"
Billiebee, who hates goats deeply and thinks they don't need to be saved in the slightest, "I will work hard toward the saving of the goats."
posted by INFJ at 8:15 AM on March 13, 2017 [5 favorites]

It's going to depend on how mission-driven they are. Sure, everyone is in theory, but I have worked in places where it was lip service and others where it informed every move they made. I would go into the interview with questions that probe this. Where I currently am (and I am involved in the hiring process), someone telling us they are not 100% bought into our mission is an immediate interview ender because I am at one of those places that is driven solely by their stated mission. I think you are eventually going to be unhappy there based on how you framed this above.
posted by archimago at 8:16 AM on March 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

Best answer: If you want the job, don't tell people in the interview that you're opposed to one of their core mission statements, but if it is as core to your work and theirs as you describe, be prepared to answer questions about the difference, because it seems like it might come up whether you mention it or not.

"Oh, we see from your history that you're more of an Zian, we're Yian's here at MegaOrg. Will that be an issue?"
"When you study X, you have to take either a Yian or a Zian perspective, but I am really open to both sides. With my history of Zianism, I'm actually quite eager to see the Yian perspective in action."

But obviously all of this depends on what X is, what Yian and Zian represent, and how much you care. Can you happily make Yian decisions despite being a Zian? We couldn't possibly know.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:32 AM on March 13, 2017 [21 favorites]

Agree that you should focus more on asking questions about the approach than putting a stake in the ground re: your position. I think if you get further down the line, it's ok to have a nuanced conversation with the hiring manager about this philosophical divide, but unless you are an absolute rockstar, I can't see how bringing it up now helps you. (saying this as a regular hiring manager in an organization with a strong philosophical stance on an issue central to our field, but not an HR person)
posted by lunasol at 8:35 AM on March 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

Still go to the interview whatever you decide, it's good practice.
posted by Leon at 8:38 AM on March 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

Oh, and one thing to be aware of, if this is really a bright red line for you: one of two things will happen. Either you will get into the job and gradually change your mind, starting to see things more from their perspective, and eventually becoming more of a [thatside] person, OR you will not change your position but always be the "[thisside] person" at your org. The latter can be an ok experience or it can be terrible, depending on the culture of the org and how diplomatic you are. But definitely think about these two potential outcomes and how comfortable you are with either.
posted by lunasol at 8:40 AM on March 13, 2017 [3 favorites]

If you are willing to do the work that supports this core mission goal, it is irrelevant how you feel about it. They are hiring you for the doing not the feeling. Say nothing that will jeopardize this rare job opportunity if you actually want it.
posted by DarlingBri at 8:47 AM on March 13, 2017 [8 favorites]

You know, I have held different views in the past and to be honest this is a question I have had to consider while thinking about applying for this job, but I am open to having my thinking changed and becoming more informed about this area, and am committed to working within your organisation's framework.

If you say this, you won't get the job. At most I would turn the question around and ask them: "This is the way I learned this model. It has strengths X, Y and Z. Your model has strengths A, B and C. How do you address the strengths of one modality versus the weaknesses of the other?"

This shows that you know and have thought about both, and it may give you some indication on how rigid they are in terms of their model.
posted by cnc at 8:50 AM on March 13, 2017 [8 favorites]

You probably need to be less ambivalent than the statement in your post to get hired, and it sounds like this job would be a step up from your current job.

Does their approach have benefits you can list? Can you approach it as broadening your experience (i.e., both viewpoints are important, you only got one in your training and want to learn more about the other)? You could follow on from that with a question about examples of how they use their philosophy in daily work, which will give you an idea of whether you can be reasonably content in the job. In a not-tiny org, department cultures will probably vary in how gung-ho they are about company philosophy.
posted by momus_window at 8:52 AM on March 13, 2017 [2 favorites]

Best answer: I went to a job interview once for which I was very qualified. The interview went well until we got to the point where we were discussing the various roles of the job. Let's call them A, B, C, D, E, and F. Typically, in this field, you might wind up doing A, B, C, and D, but it'd be normal to do any combination of 3 of those, or even just 2, or sometimes just 1.

So when I mentioned that I was enthusiastic about B, C, and D, and less oriented toward A, it didn't strike me as being remarkable.

But instead it was at that point that I understood the metaphor "the light went out of their eyes." The entire mood of the interview changed and we wrapped up quickly. I knew I no longer had a shot at the job.

I still don't know if it was because they considered A a core aspect of the job, or if it was simply because I'd expressed anything less than readiness (if not sparkling enthusiasm) for something. And obviously the situation isn't parallel. For me, though, I have no intention of ever saying ambivalent about any aspect of a job in an interview again.
posted by wintersweet at 8:59 AM on March 13, 2017 [5 favorites]

is it wise to engage with this during the interview or is it better to voice wholehearted support it until I'm in the door?

Don't look at this as either/or. You can engage by asking (with non-accusatory language and friendly tone) about how that mission works out in daily activity.

"As part of my research for this interview, I read the mission statement. I was struck by [section you want to inquire about]. Can you give me an example of how that plays out in the way the company deals with clients (or employees deal with each other; or pick your example)? Was there ever a time when the company acted in concert with this mission even though it might have cost them a customer, or revenue?

You might learn that the mission statement is little more than words on paper. Or, you might learn that it's followed religiously. Either way, you'll make a more informed decision about the job.
posted by John Borrowman at 9:16 AM on March 13, 2017 [9 favorites]

I wouldn't touch on the question directly, but instead ask questions about the business model and growth prospects, day-to-day processes, reporting structures and so on. All these questions show an active interest in them without sounding accusatory and will fill in the details for you of how mission driven they are. Ask the right questions and you'll sound eager to them while also getting your worries addressed without sounding confrontational.

From the other side of the interview table, I ask all kinds of innocuous sounding questions to do something similar. I mean, I'd like to just ask, "are you competent?" but I could never hope to trust the answer I got from that question.

If you want to be more direct and not confrontational you could say, "I read your mission and it says [x]. Can you tell me how that gets put into practice?" "How does that improve [performance/efficiency/customer satisfaction]?" None of those questions would raise any red flags.
posted by plinth at 9:49 AM on March 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

This issue will definitely be addressed in the interview as it's quite definitive for them. I was thinking of saying something like "You know, I have held different views in the past and to be honest this is a question I have had to consider while thinking about applying for this job, but I am open to having my thinking changed and becoming more informed about this area, and am committed to working within your organisation's framework."

Putting it this way would be a red flag for me, as someone who has been a hiring manager. It reminds of the person who interviewed for a senior position at my organization (a technology nonprofit) who had a lot of relevant experience for the job, but also described themselves as "a bit of a luddite/technophobe." Um.

Instead of talking about your ambivalence about applying and your willingness to change your thinking, turn this around into a positive -- that you are bringing experience with the [other philosophy] and will be interested in bridging gaps/finding commonalities between that and [interview company's philosophy.]
posted by desuetude at 10:15 AM on March 13, 2017 [5 favorites]

You can't accept verbally endorsing this ethos for a few minutes in an interview, but you're willing to actually endorse it full-time by working for this place day-in and day-out? Are you sure you'd be content to actually work there? If not, don't interview, if so, "I'm really excited to dive into this ethos and learn more about it!"
posted by Ausamor at 10:32 AM on March 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

Tell them honestly about how you can and will do what they want. As has been noted above, the purpose of an interview (in a healthy organisation) is to try to work out what and how you'll do in the role, not what you feel about it. Don't bring your beliefs into it, just talk about how your experience allows you to contribute to their approach. If they are only interested in hiring a true believer in their approach, or you are only interested in working for an organisation which is a true believer in yours, then you're probably a bad fit. But as it doesn't sound like the latter is true, and you'll only find out if the forme is true by going to the actual interview, you seem to have nothing to gain by bringing up beliefs that appear to be irrelevant to the questions that need to be addressed at the interview: (1) do you want to work there, and (2) are you the best person for the job.
posted by howfar at 11:25 AM on March 13, 2017

If you are willing to do the work that supports this core mission goal, it is irrelevant how you feel about it. They are hiring you for the doing not the feeling.

This reeeeeeaaaally depends on the issue, the organization, and the role. As I said, I work in an organization where our approach around one of the key philosophical debates in our field is very important - it informs almost everything we do. Now, this probably won't matter on a day to day basis for someone in most of the operations departments like finance, HR, facilities (though it will come up for them periodically) but in pretty much every other role, disagreeing on this approach without being able to change their mind would either impede a staffer from doing their job effectively or make them miserable, unless their aim was to change the organization (which is sometimes what is needed, but that's a whole other conversation and you have to be very committed to it and clear-eyed about it).

That said, OP, it sounds like you are still pretty new to the field, so unless this gets at something that is really core to your value system, I would go for it whole-heartedly with an open mind. Because chances are you would learn a lot that will make you more effective at whatever it is you do.
posted by lunasol at 11:57 AM on March 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

If they are interviewing you, and someone just like you, and one person is on board, and the other is already hedging bets in the interview , I think you know who they will hire.

I think we all have a small self delusion about our worth and uniqueness in job roles, which generally serves us well, but it's sadly not a view shared by employers, who tend to regard us as interchangeable cogs. And if we're looking for cogs, why would we pick one that wouldn't fit right? If you want the job, lie about this.

(I'll also say a a sometime hirer, when people start laying out discomfort working for my employer, or working to the JD, in the interview, experience has been that it only gets worse from there, and they are usually a bad fit. Make of that what you will).

Best of luck whatever you decide.
posted by smoke at 12:54 PM on March 13, 2017

The fact that you have held different views in the past is probably clear from your resume, so whatever you say has to start with acknowledging that. I also wouldn't lie (e.g., act like a huge convert), as that'll become clear over time and lead to burnt bridges.

But what you propose sounds like "I'm internally opposed to your approach but reluctantly open to changing my mind, and in the meantime, I'm willing to override my own ethics to work within your framework." It sounds like you'll be back out the door soon.

Maybe you could do some soul-searching about why you'd even consider working for them and then talk about that, something like -- "You know, I have held different views in the past. But I've also [realized / been coming to realize] that [my old view] is [sometimes / often] [only part of the picture / counterproductive]. Your organization's track record demonstrates the value of [the alternative view]. I would welcome an opportunity to work from this framework."

I'd be careful about trying to sell the merits of your background with the other camp unless you see signs that they're trying to broaden their approach. I'd assume they're die-hard believers.
posted by salvia at 1:43 PM on March 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

Best answer: You're getting two very different categories of answers here, one from people who work in nonprofit organizations and one from people who work in for-profit companies. Basically all of my experience is in the nonprofit world, so I'll assume that you're talking about a nonprofit or political organization.

There's a good chance that the people who will be interviewing you know "the other side" just as well as you do, if not better. I work at an advocacy organization that frequently partners with groups across the political spectrum on shared goals. Two different organizations might use very different arguments and have very different membership bases, but in reality, we're all talking to each other all of the time. So even if you don't end up taking the job, think of this as a networking opportunity.

The interviewers may be impressed to see you come in with an understanding of the ideological divide, but come into it with a sense of humility and eagerness to learn. Think of ways to frame the perspectives as complementary. "I've always wanted to get the chance to work with the Meatball Organization. As you know, I've worked most of my career on the spaghetti side, so it's great to come over here and see the big picture."
posted by roll truck roll at 2:58 PM on March 13, 2017 [2 favorites]

I'd say that you need to prepare yourself for a spectrum of answers all the way from "I understand the mission of the place and will follow it gladly" to "I have reservations about the mission, but my priority is helping people, and that's what I'll do (within the constraints of the mission)". Sugarcoat either of those appropriately.

I'm assuming that you're in a situation where the people with the power to set up big institutions back in the past might have objectives that don't fit with modern ones, so you're not going to be the only person they interview who'll have reservations, and they might well share those reservations themselves. Which is why you're best off working out how much people are true believers before you address how committed you are to their mission.

And good luck. As far as I can tell, you're great at this job, and you'll make people's lives better if you get it.
posted by ambrosen at 2:59 PM on March 13, 2017 [2 favorites]

This will differ based on how seriously the company takes its mission. I'm a hiring manager at an incredibly mission-driven company where the mission is part of daily work, not just lip service or a plaque on the wall. A significant portion of the interview process is designed specifically to see if you're enthusiastic about and feel aligned with our mission and values.

If, during an interview, I got the impression you were less than enthusiastic about that mission, I wouldn't recommend that you be hired--less because of the effect it would have on me/my team (because sure, of course you can probably rock the job without the mission alignment if you've got the right skills), and more because I'd know you wouldn't be happy in an environment where every project and every meeting every day is all about the mission. Being constantly expected to promote and support something you're not into is no fun, and even if you'd do a great job, I'd suspect that you'd probably leave a lot sooner than someone who believes in the mission.

On the other hand, this is the only company I've worked for where I'd say that. Every other place I've worked (even really great places), the mission statement and values posted on the wall were just something to look at. If you'd come into an interview with me and didn't specifically show any enthusiasm about it I wouldn't have cared.

I guess it also depends on the sort of mission it is. Like, obviously if you don't believe in abortion, it's not a great idea for you to go work at a women's clinic whose mission is access for all. Slightly less obviously, if you're not a dog person, working for an organization whose primary mission is saving all puppies in the whole world probably isn't a great idea, because you're not going to be engaged with your work (or fit in with your puppy-passionate coworkers). Same with going to work for a software company that's dedicated to free and open source software when you couldn't care less about software licenses. But many organizational missions have much less impact on your daily work, and you could likely get away with not caring about the mission.
posted by rhiannonstone at 8:35 PM on March 13, 2017

I have found that any criticism of the company will result in not getting the job. This applies even to well-meaning constructive criticism designed to show you know their business and have great ideas to improve it. People don't like it.
posted by w0mbat at 11:50 AM on March 14, 2017

Response by poster: Thanks all. I took the general advice and didn't state my ambivalence about the policy. The interview went really well and they gave me excellent feedback at the end, right before they told me that actually as it turns out they aren't hiring for that job but instead for a less-skilled position which I'm overqualified for. (I said "But...didn't you advertise for X and not Y?" and they said "Yes." I see.) So screw them and their mission! And then I got home to an email from someone in the field who has asked me to meet with them tomorrow with a view to starting work immediately. So the moral of the story is...actually I have no bloody idea. But thanks everyone for your help!
posted by billiebee at 6:41 AM on March 15, 2017 [1 favorite]