QUOTE(wlcling @ Jan 25 2006, 11:47 AM)
i would like to deepen that scenario...
Some people tend to get 'stuck' when they hear these kinds of questions. If the scenario fits, I would go by the 2nd option. If I would to entertain the customer myself, the interviewer might think I am focusing on the wrong areas. (I have staff to do that, why am I doing the nitty gritty details when I am supposed to be guiding my staff to handle that through my leadership role instead).
However in interviews I try not to leave any dead silence after questions, which is by answering as quick as possible. This however means less time thinking = less thoughts to present. (Which might actually be bad depending on the situation)
What do you guys think? I know a lil dead silence is not extremely harmful, but let's say an interviewer poses you a tough question (even to a point that the question's really tricky). You rack your mind to understand the question, you feel the points you want to say out are somewhere buried on your grey matter, but you are just not finding it. Would you keep trying to find your answer thus allowing prolonged dead sillence (you are not even sure if you can find the answer or not), or do you think it would be better if after some thinking, you admit you do not know the answer.
So really the situation is:-
Prolonged silence with possibility(?) of answering the question VS Short silence with admitting 'defeat'.
So, what' it be?
interviews should be in two ways. i believe that u can have the liberty to throw back questions to ur interviewers until u have a clear picture of the intention of the question- breaking down, e.g the general question into smaller details which is easier to respond to, or till u managed to find a viable answer.Some people tend to get 'stuck' when they hear these kinds of questions. If the scenario fits, I would go by the 2nd option. If I would to entertain the customer myself, the interviewer might think I am focusing on the wrong areas. (I have staff to do that, why am I doing the nitty gritty details when I am supposed to be guiding my staff to handle that through my leadership role instead).
However in interviews I try not to leave any dead silence after questions, which is by answering as quick as possible. This however means less time thinking = less thoughts to present. (Which might actually be bad depending on the situation)
What do you guys think? I know a lil dead silence is not extremely harmful, but let's say an interviewer poses you a tough question (even to a point that the question's really tricky). You rack your mind to understand the question, you feel the points you want to say out are somewhere buried on your grey matter, but you are just not finding it. Would you keep trying to find your answer thus allowing prolonged dead sillence (you are not even sure if you can find the answer or not), or do you think it would be better if after some thinking, you admit you do not know the answer.
So really the situation is:-
Prolonged silence with possibility(?) of answering the question VS Short silence with admitting 'defeat'.
So, what' it be?
some silence is not that crucial. in fact, the interviewers themselves will sure pause briefly before they can digest ur answer and to ask u another one. as long as u presented urself to be able to think to provide good answer, that one will definitely better than just opening ur mouth and blabbering. the impression u gave during the answering part will be judged as how u will really respond when u work for them, ie. confronting the customer in that example- either will u think of the situation or just merely make decision without understanding the customer's complaint.
Jan 26 2006, 02:14 PM

Quote
0.0427sec
0.48
7 queries
GZIP Disabled