OP Is the Only One Who Doesn't See It

[merula]

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-was-issued-a-receipt-but-gov't-claims-they-didn't-receive-payment/msg3202327/#new

Just pisses me off a bit because people like OP drive up costs for all of us. Local governments are where a real impact can (sometimes) be made and change can start.

So they knew the account number was illegible on their check and tried to use it to pay anyway?  Sounds like fraud if that’s the case.

It's slightly more complicated because it was a crappy government system versus a physical check, but essentially the same situation. And yeah, it's fraud to try to get something when you know you haven't paid for it, but OP is calling the fact that his bank statement confirms he hasn't paid "legally immaterial".

[GuitarStv]

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-was-issued-a-receipt-but-gov't-claims-they-didn't-receive-payment/msg3202327/#new

Just pisses me off a bit because people like OP drive up costs for all of us. Local governments are where a real impact can (sometimes) be made and change can start.

So they knew the account number was illegible on their check and tried to use it to pay anyway?  Sounds like fraud if that’s the case.

It's slightly more complicated because it was a crappy government system versus a physical check, but essentially the same situation. And yeah, it's fraud to try to get something when you know you haven't paid for it, but OP is calling the fact that his bank statement confirms he hasn't paid "legally immaterial".

This is why we can't have nice things.

[ixtap]

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-was-issued-a-receipt-but-gov't-claims-they-didn't-receive-payment/msg3202327/#new

Just pisses me off a bit because people like OP drive up costs for all of us. Local governments are where a real impact can (sometimes) be made and change can start.

So they knew the account number was illegible on their check and tried to use it to pay anyway?  Sounds like fraud if that’s the case.

It's slightly more complicated because it was a crappy government system versus a physical check, but essentially the same situation. And yeah, it's fraud to try to get something when you know you haven't paid for it, but OP is calling the fact that his bank statement confirms he hasn't paid "legally immaterial".

My favorite  part was when they defined shady as actions not aligning with words, then repeatedly insisted that they had clearly said they would pay if they had to (they just didn't think they should have to). It would seem that they were eventually convinced to pay, which gave them a stand to double down on their words.

[Sibley]

https://www.askamanager.org/2024/01/our-employee-was-the-victim-of-a-scam-did-we-mishandle-it.html

OP in this case was asking if they were in the wrong at least.

[GuitarStv]

https://www.askamanager.org/2024/01/our-employee-was-the-victim-of-a-scam-did-we-mishandle-it.html

OP in this case was asking if they were in the wrong at least.

Woah.

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

[merula]

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

Looks like you answered your own question there

[Sibley]

https://www.askamanager.org/2024/01/our-employee-was-the-victim-of-a-scam-did-we-mishandle-it.html

OP in this case was asking if they were in the wrong at least.

Woah.

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

Some commentators thought that the church applied the playbook for clergy/employee abusing someone, despite it not being applicable.

[GuitarStv]

https://www.askamanager.org/2024/01/our-employee-was-the-victim-of-a-scam-did-we-mishandle-it.html

OP in this case was asking if they were in the wrong at least.

Woah.

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

Some commentators thought that the church applied the playbook for clergy/employee abusing someone, despite it not being applicable.

Yeah . . . you don't treat someone who isn't a rapist like a rapist.  Bizarre.

[charis]

https://www.askamanager.org/2024/01/our-employee-was-the-victim-of-a-scam-did-we-mishandle-it.html

OP in this case was asking if they were in the wrong at least.

Woah.

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

Some commentators thought that the church applied the playbook for clergy/employee abusing someone, despite it not being applicable.

Eh, anything that could be construed as outside the strict religious norm for sexual behavior can be quickly lumped into a broad category of deviant behavior.  The church's overreaction (treating him like a criminal and/or mentally ill) is very unsurprising, at least to someone familiar with religious organizations.

[GuitarStv]

https://www.askamanager.org/2024/01/our-employee-was-the-victim-of-a-scam-did-we-mishandle-it.html

OP in this case was asking if they were in the wrong at least.

Woah.

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

Some commentators thought that the church applied the playbook for clergy/employee abusing someone, despite it not being applicable.

Eh, anything that could be construed as outside the strict religious norm for sexual behavior can be quickly lumped into a broad category of deviant behavior.  The church's overreaction (treating him like a criminal and/or mentally ill) is very unsurprising, at least to someone familiar with religious organizations.

I guess that's the problem with being unable to distinguish between real, dangerous deviant behaviour and behaviour you simply don't approve of because your God said it was bad.

[dandarc]

Churches are just generally terrible employers too - often run with by a bunch of volunteers many of whom think the staff should also be working for free.

[Villanelle]

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

Looks like you answered your own question there

Ha!

[Weisass]

https://www.askamanager.org/2024/01/our-employee-was-the-victim-of-a-scam-did-we-mishandle-it.html

OP in this case was asking if they were in the wrong at least.

Woah.

What the hell kind of legal council advises firing an employee who was victimized, told his employer, and did nothing wrong?  Jesus.

Some commentators thought that the church applied the playbook for clergy/employee abusing someone, despite it not being applicable.

Eh, anything that could be construed as outside the strict religious norm for sexual behavior can be quickly lumped into a broad category of deviant behavior.  The church's overreaction (treating him like a criminal and/or mentally ill) is very unsurprising, at least to someone familiar with religious organizations.

I guess that's the problem with being unable to distinguish between real, dangerous deviant behaviour and behaviour you simply don't approve of because your God said it was bad.

Yea, as someone who works in a mainline Protestant church, this sadly does not surprise me at all. Screams of an over-reaction from a bunch of volunteer hr folks who were more worried about the optics of parents finding out that the youth pastor has a sex life (gasp!) than worrying about the employee. I wish churches could be better employers, but so many of them are not.

[lhamo]

Textbook high demand religion shit  -- cult-like control structures wrapped up in a fluffy cushion of purity culture/guilt/fear of eternal damnation.  Common across many religious institutions -- LDS, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and most evangelical/fundamentalist Christian sects -- especially things like the IBLP (what the Duggar family was involved in and what my own family was into at one point).  I've gone deep down this rabbit hole the past few months via several youtube channels/podcasts that have excellent content:  Mormon Stories, Cults to Consciousness, Jordan and McCay, Fundie Fridays, NUanceHoe, Growing Up in Polygamy.  Lots of very good content out there.  Hopefully this guy has found some of it and is well down the road to a healthy deconstruction of the f-ed up belief system he was lucky to get away from.

[partgypsy]

Regarding dogman, there are neighborhood/HOA, city and county restrictions for number of dogs one can house. State restrictions are usually the LEAST restrictive of these regs. These regs were created for safety and health reasons. As you can see from this list there are entire states where you would be breaking local housing regs by bringing 5 dogs. So yes he is being unreasonable https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/dog-limit-per-household-by-state

[Weisass]

Textbook high demand religion shit  -- cult-like control structures wrapped up in a fluffy cushion of purity culture/guilt/fear of eternal damnation.  Common across many religious institutions -- LDS, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and most evangelical/fundamentalist Christian sects -- especially things like the IBLP (what the Duggar family was involved in and what my own family was into at one point).  I've gone deep down this rabbit hole the past few months via several youtube channels/podcasts that have excellent content:  Mormon Stories, Cults to Consciousness, Jordan and McCay, Fundie Fridays, NUanceHoe, Growing Up in Polygamy.  Lots of very good content out there.  Hopefully this guy has found some of it and is well down the road to a healthy deconstruction of the f-ed up belief system he was lucky to get away from.

Not trying to quibble about the edge cases, but the link identified the church in question as mainline Protestant, so this was not a community like what you are describing. More likely they were overly conservative in applying risk tolerance at the expense of the actual victim. Consider it a classic case of forgetting the victim whilst worrying about the institution.

[dandarc]

Textbook high demand religion shit  -- cult-like control structures wrapped up in a fluffy cushion of purity culture/guilt/fear of eternal damnation.  Common across many religious institutions -- LDS, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and most evangelical/fundamentalist Christian sects -- especially things like the IBLP (what the Duggar family was involved in and what my own family was into at one point).  I've gone deep down this rabbit hole the past few months via several youtube channels/podcasts that have excellent content:  Mormon Stories, Cults to Consciousness, Jordan and McCay, Fundie Fridays, NUanceHoe, Growing Up in Polygamy.  Lots of very good content out there.  Hopefully this guy has found some of it and is well down the road to a healthy deconstruction of the f-ed up belief system he was lucky to get away from.

Not trying to quibble about the edge cases, but the link identified the church in question as mainline Protestant, so this was not a community like what you are describing. More likely they were overly conservative in applying risk tolerance at the expense of the actual victim. Consider it a classic case of forgetting the victim whilst worrying about the institution.

Could totally see my UU church (supposed to be a progressive denomination and I heard one long-time member describe it as the "most liberal" church in our city) doing something like this depending on who our personnel committee chair is in the future - I think you get even more variation in terms of reasonable policy / consistency with volunteers. Just general competence and effort is even more variable than with paid staff. "Internally conservative" - my 3 years as chair of the finance committee were clearly uncomfortable for long-timers who viewed that committee's role as gatekeeping / blocking changes.

[Weisass]

Textbook high demand religion shit  -- cult-like control structures wrapped up in a fluffy cushion of purity culture/guilt/fear of eternal damnation.  Common across many religious institutions -- LDS, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and most evangelical/fundamentalist Christian sects -- especially things like the IBLP (what the Duggar family was involved in and what my own family was into at one point).  I've gone deep down this rabbit hole the past few months via several youtube channels/podcasts that have excellent content:  Mormon Stories, Cults to Consciousness, Jordan and McCay, Fundie Fridays, NUanceHoe, Growing Up in Polygamy.  Lots of very good content out there.  Hopefully this guy has found some of it and is well down the road to a healthy deconstruction of the f-ed up belief system he was lucky to get away from.

Not trying to quibble about the edge cases, but the link identified the church in question as mainline Protestant, so this was not a community like what you are describing. More likely they were overly conservative in applying risk tolerance at the expense of the actual victim. Consider it a classic case of forgetting the victim whilst worrying about the institution.

Could totally see my UU church (supposed to be a progressive denomination and I heard one long-time member describe it as the "most liberal" church in our city) doing something like this depending on who our personnel committee chair is in the future - I think you get even more variation in terms of reasonable policy / consistency with volunteers. Just general competence and effort is even more variable than with paid staff. "Internally conservative" - my 3 years as chair of the finance committee were clearly uncomfortable for long-timers who viewed that committee's role as gatekeeping / blocking changes.

Yea, it’s one of the more unfortunate things that tends to happen in “the church”, even the progressive ones. It is super frustrating for those of us who found ourselves working in a system so resistant to change or flexibility, when for many of us (myself included) the passion to serve was absolutely unattached to institutional protection, and all about service and mission. Learning how to cope and bend the institution towards creativity and goodness, and in the case of this link, towards justice, is a big project.

[acepedro45]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/daughter-betrayal-care-and-feeding-advice.html

I am an aggrieved single mother with a special needs son. For some strange reason, my younger daughter has prioritized going to college, earning money and building a life of her own over becoming the caretaker of her now-adult older brother as she enter adulthood. She lucked her way into some kind of "scholarship" - to study finance instead of social work to boot! She is ruining my retirement plans with her selfishness.

I am not a Slate subscriber so I only see the question. Please somebody with a subscription tell me the OP got a dose of reality.

[turketron]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/daughter-betrayal-care-and-feeding-advice.html

I am an aggrieved single mother with a special needs son. For some strange reason, my younger daughter has prioritized going to college, earning money and building a life of her own over becoming the caretaker of her now-adult older brother as she enter adulthood. She lucked her way into some kind of "scholarship" - to study finance instead of social work to boot! She is ruining my retirement plans with her selfishness.

I am not a Slate subscriber so I only see the question. Please somebody with a subscription tell me the OP got a dose of reality.

Huh, I'm not a subscriber either but I can see the whole thing. Here's the reply:
 

Dear Abandoned,

You don’t. Stop trying.

At some point, you decided that Kayla’s wishes and hopes shouldn’t matter; that she has no right to make decisions about her own future. I think it’s admirable that she worked hard and landed a good scholarship despite you discouraging her at every turn; it probably took real strength and courage to make her own path despite a lifetime of being told that she was selfish to want anything for herself. Your daughter isn’t choosing money over family or “bombing” you in any way. She is choosing to live her own life and make decisions for herself—which she has every right to do—instead of allowing you to dictate what happens to her.

I think it’s really sad that you blame your children for what happened in your marriage. It is never the fault of children when adults divorce (though it’s sadly common for people to try to pin this on disabled children, especially). Though I don’t dismiss the reality or the importance of Josh’s needs—we should all get the support we require!—your letter raised some questions for me regarding how he’s been treated as well. I also find it tragic that you’ve undermined your kids’ relationship by telling Kayla that loving or supporting her brother has to mean giving up all thoughts of anything she may personally want. By attempting to control your daughter’s life and her choices in this suffocating way, you’ve effectively deprived your children of a sibling relationship that could have been close, important, and nourishing to both of them.

Though our situations are very different, I am the parent of an autistic child who gets a lot of support, and I am not a stranger to some of the worries you probably have. But meeting her needs—which includes thinking about the future and what will allow her to have the most independent life possible—is ultimately my responsibility, not her sibling’s. Their relationship and bond is theirs, not mine, to define, and I view their responsibility to one another primarily in terms of love and respect: I just want them to always be part of each other’s lives.

I am not saying that siblings can’t or shouldn’t be involved in supporting disabled siblings. If Kayla wanted or felt able to move home to be more available to you and Josh, that would be one thing. But I suspect that even if she once imagined making that choice, you’ve now made it feel fairly impossible to her by continually dismissing and driving her away. It’s not her fault, and it’s certainly not Josh’s. Kayla isn’t “selfish” for wanting to go to college, pick her own major and career, and live where she chooses. I don’t know if you are ready to take responsibility for your actions, apologize to both your children, and let them figure out what kind of sibling relationship they want to have or build. But whether or not intrafamily healing is possible at this point, between you and your children or between the two of them, I strongly encourage you to seek the professional help you need to deal with your issues so you can stop making them your children’s burden.

[merula]

Slate has a few articles free and then a paywall, but incognito or an alternate browser usually works.

Holy buckets on that mom. Not a whole lot of parents who would be heartbroken that their child is going into business instead of social work.

[lhamo]

I suspect that the daughter probably INTENDS to make buckets of money (more than her mom could imagine) in finance or some similarly lucrative career and then will PAY for her brother's care, at least partially. But with a mom like that, she is keeping tight lipped so that she can do it as a generous gesture once she has her own financial foundation built, not as something her mom expects/feels entitled to.  I mean, mom already clearly feels entitled to her entire future.  Who encourages their kid to go into social work if money is tight, for god's sake? 

[dandarc]

I suspect that the daughter probably INTENDS to make buckets of money (more than her mom could imagine) in finance or some similarly lucrative career and then will PAY for her brother's care, at least partially. But with a mom like that, she is keeping tight lipped so that she can do it as a generous gesture once she has her own financial foundation built, not as something her mom expects/feels entitled to.  I mean, mom already clearly feels entitled to her entire future.  Who encourages their kid to go into social work if money is tight, for god's sake?

This. Mom and Dad did a piss-poor job of planning. Lucrative career at least leaves a possibility that someone is actually going to ensure the son gets taken care of when they pass away.

This one hits home in a "how the hell is this the parents' plan!?" way - my wife has a cousin who is like a brother who is now 43 and disabled - he's better off than many folks, but clearly he'll never be able to truly manage his own affairs. His mom passed away a lot earlier than anyone expected - cancer in 2019. His dad is his caretaker but is roughly 85 years old now. His brother died before that of a drug overdose. He has a half-sister, but she's got her own autistic son that will clearly take priority and she has some health-problems of her own.

My MIL controls cousin's money and doesn't get along with cousin's dad (who divorced her sister many decades ago). In any event, there's actually a pretty perfect group home specifically for men in our cousin's situation in their small-ish southern city that has expanded and has 4 new spots available. When we visited my wife, MIL, and I even visited the place, met the folks who run it (both high-level and day-to-day) and some of the residents. Really does look like a good place for him, and the opportunity is now (has been nearly a decade since this place last had any openings at all). But MIL and cousin's dad refused to talk about things (yet again) and make it a priority to get cousin in to this place before it fills up again.

So to me, it sure looks like we're headed to a repeat of 2019 when my wife's aunt was trying to finally put some kind of plan together literally on her death bed.

Try to remind both my wife and myself this is NOT actually our circus as often as I can - despite wife's feelings about everything and really wanting to help out in the long-term care plan for our cousin. They grew up like siblings, and there's nothing she can really do in this situation (we've tried for a few years to make this conversation happen, but nothing of substance ever comes out of it).

[Sibley]

The title is actually not click bait. And while I think the response is pretty harsh, isn't also not un-true.

https://captainawkward.com/2024/01/22/1418-need-to-convince-my-ex-husband-to-have-my-babies/

[Miss Piggy]

The title is actually not click bait. And while I think the response is pretty harsh, isn't also not un-true.

https://captainawkward.com/2024/01/22/1418-need-to-convince-my-ex-husband-to-have-my-babies/

Wow...that was 100% worth the 3 minutes it took me to read. Just...wow. That is one of the best "WTAF?" responses I've ever seen to an advice-seeking question.

[G-dog]

The title is actually not click bait. And while I think the response is pretty harsh, isn't also not un-true.

https://captainawkward.com/2024/01/22/1418-need-to-convince-my-ex-husband-to-have-my-babies/

I love this line of the response:
“The problem is that every single part of your plan on its own is the worst plan I’ve ever heard, and together they form a bullshit Voltron worthy of its own wing in the International Shitshow Museum.”

[ixtap]

The title is actually not click bait. And while I think the response is pretty harsh, isn't also not un-true.

https://captainawkward.com/2024/01/22/1418-need-to-convince-my-ex-husband-to-have-my-babies/

I love this line of the response:
“The problem is that every single part of your plan on its own is the worst plan I’ve ever heard, and together they form a bullshit Voltron worthy of its own wing in the International Shitshow Museum.”

"Your rotting soul is not your ex's problem" was pretty good.

[G-dog]

The title is actually not click bait. And while I think the response is pretty harsh, isn't also not un-true.

https://captainawkward.com/2024/01/22/1418-need-to-convince-my-ex-husband-to-have-my-babies/

I love this line of the response:
“The problem is that every single part of your plan on its own is the worst plan I’ve ever heard, and together they form a bullshit Voltron worthy of its own wing in the International Shitshow Museum.”

"Your rotting soul is not your ex's problem" was pretty good.

Yep - that too.

[ATtiny85]

The title is actually not click bait. And while I think the response is pretty harsh, isn't also not un-true.

https://captainawkward.com/2024/01/22/1418-need-to-convince-my-ex-husband-to-have-my-babies/

I love this line of the response:
“The problem is that every single part of your plan on its own is the worst plan I’ve ever heard, and together they form a bullshit Voltron worthy of its own wing in the International Shitshow Museum.”

"Your rotting soul is not your ex's problem" was pretty good.

Yep - that too.

I just hope the ex has blocked her number and doesn’t fall for any tricks.

The response is spot on, what a train wreck.

[Psychstache]

The title is actually not click bait. And while I think the response is pretty harsh, isn't also not un-true.

https://captainawkward.com/2024/01/22/1418-need-to-convince-my-ex-husband-to-have-my-babies/

I love this line of the response:
“The problem is that every single part of your plan on its own is the worst plan I’ve ever heard, and together they form a bullshit Voltron worthy of its own wing in the International Shitshow Museum.”

Loved it. That is a Billy Madison level response there.

[lhamo]

The Captain is such a good writer! 

That OP is Example Numero Uno of the kind of person who really needs to be in therapy.  Whoosh. 

[JetBlast]

Another solid contribution from ask a manager.

http://www.askamanager.org/2024/02/i-was-rejected-because-i-told-my-interviewer-i-never-make-mistakes.html#comments

[jfer_rose]

Another solid contribution from ask a manager.

http://www.askamanager.org/2024/02/i-was-rejected-because-i-told-my-interviewer-i-never-make-mistakes.html#comments

Oh good! If you hadn’t posted this, I would have done so.

Ironic that he made so many mistakes in telling his interviewer he doesn’t make mistakes (and it’s aftermath).

[merula]

Thirding that, just came here to post it! :D

If the details weren't completely off, I would've thought this OP was someone I once interviewed with. As a follow-up to one of the questions, she asked "Knowing what you do now, would you do anything different?" I said something about a change I would've made around the edges; I didn't realize the optics of X so I would've managed that better. In the feedback for not hiring me, she said that she wanted to "see the courage of my convictions" and wanted me to answer that I wouldn't have done anything different. Many years later, I'm now her peer, and Alison's assessment of "The only people who think they don’t make mistakes are people who are oblivious to weaknesses in their work, or too arrogant or insecure (and those are often two sides of the same coin) to acknowledge them." is this lady to a T.

[G-dog]

I was going to post that too. The lack of self-awareness and pure arrogance was stunning.

[GuitarStv]

I've never made a serious mistake at work.  I'm not perfect at all . . . like I've screwed up lots of relatively minor stuff that I've had to go back and fix.  But nothing of any real consequence or that caused a long lasting issue, so always have problems with that sort of question . . . because I don't have any really big thing to talk about.  Eventually I just made up a plausible sounding mistake and solution, and that's what I use now.  While the guy in the letter certainly sounds like an asshole, I kinda agree with him that it's a dumb question.

[MissNancyPryor]

Bright side!  This guy now has an answer for his biggest mistake!

"I was an unmitigated prick to people interviewing me because I made assumptions about them, talked down to them, and generally came off as an arrogant asshole.  Then I stalked one of the panel members to scold her for her obvious mistake in not hiring the Fabulous Me.  It took me a decade of being blackballed in the industry before I was able to return to the same level of work that I held before I murdered my career." 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I've never made a serious mistake at work.  I'm not perfect at all . . . like I've screwed up lots of relatively minor stuff that I've had to go back and fix.  But nothing of any real consequence or that caused a long lasting issue, so always have problems with that sort of question . . . because I don't have any really big thing to talk about.  Eventually I just made up a plausible sounding mistake and solution, and that's what I use now.  While the guy in the letter certainly sounds like an asshole, I kinda agree with him that it's a dumb question.

I guess the question could be rephrased to not say biggest, but don't you feel like there's benefit to learning how someone processes mistakes? I'm sure you could just say I did this or that thing without it being huge, and here's how I handled it. I have a go to answer to that question that was a mistake that was cleared up in about a day or so but that I learned a lot from about managing stress and realizing that most mistakes are fixable.

[GuitarStv]

I've never made a serious mistake at work.  I'm not perfect at all . . . like I've screwed up lots of relatively minor stuff that I've had to go back and fix.  But nothing of any real consequence or that caused a long lasting issue, so always have problems with that sort of question . . . because I don't have any really big thing to talk about.  Eventually I just made up a plausible sounding mistake and solution, and that's what I use now.  While the guy in the letter certainly sounds like an asshole, I kinda agree with him that it's a dumb question.

I guess the question could be rephrased to not say biggest, but don't you feel like there's benefit to learning how someone processes mistakes? I'm sure you could just say I did this or that thing without it being huge, and here's how I handled it. I have a go to answer to that question that was a mistake that was cleared up in about a day or so but that I learned a lot from about managing stress and realizing that most mistakes are fixable.

As part of an interview question?  No, I don't think there's any value at all.  Because what you're really testing for is how the person reacts to your question rather than the content of what they tell you - for any relatively standard interview question like this one most of the time the content they tell you is a completely fabricated falsehood designed to make the candidate sound good.

[merula]

Very literally, if you've made any mistakes at work, there's one mistake that is the biggest mistake. And as several commenters on the original post pointed out, the actual mistake doesn't matter much, it's the ability to recover, reflect, and learn from it.

That said, the roles I hire for require a high willingness to take risks. People who don't have relatively large mistakes to share tell me that they will also not be willing to take the risks necessary to succeed.

[Poundwise]

I've never made a serious mistake at work.  I'm not perfect at all . . . like I've screwed up lots of relatively minor stuff that I've had to go back and fix.  But nothing of any real consequence or that caused a long lasting issue, so always have problems with that sort of question . . . because I don't have any really big thing to talk about.  Eventually I just made up a plausible sounding mistake and solution, and that's what I use now.  While the guy in the letter certainly sounds like an asshole, I kinda agree with him that it's a dumb question.

I guess the question could be rephrased to not say biggest, but don't you feel like there's benefit to learning how someone processes mistakes? I'm sure you could just say I did this or that thing without it being huge, and here's how I handled it. I have a go to answer to that question that was a mistake that was cleared up in about a day or so but that I learned a lot from about managing stress and realizing that most mistakes are fixable.

Assuming that the letter writer actually had never made a mistake at work, he still could have spoken honestly but more tactfully.  For instance he could have said, "I've been fortunate enough to not have made any impactful mistakes in my career so far, but here are the steps I take to double check my work and thinking. And if I were to make a big mistake, this is what I think I'd do, based on watching others do..."

[GuitarStv]

Very literally, if you've made any mistakes at work, there's one mistake that is the biggest mistake. And as several commenters on the original post pointed out, the actual mistake doesn't matter much, it's the ability to recover, reflect, and learn from it.

My biggest real mistake would be something like . . . "I forgot to check in code a couple days in a row and then had a disk failure - so lost a two day's worth of work.  I felt like a dumbass, so made a reminder in Outlook that triggers an hour before the end of every day to always checkin my work and it hasn't happened again.  I learned to never trust myself to remember things when under pressure and to schedule reminders whenever possible as a backup plan."

The problem with that answer is that it's a relatively trivial mistake and solution.  So if I were to actually use it, the interviewer is likely to penalize that truthfulness.  Ironically, this forces me to make up something that sounds like a more plausible big mistake so I can come up with a nicer sounding solution.  It's pointless hoop jumping, but that's what some lazy folks in charge of hiring need to hear.

That said, the roles I hire for require a high willingness to take risks. People who don't have relatively large mistakes to share tell me that they will also not be willing to take the risks necessary to succeed.

Yeah, this kind of mistaken short-cut thinking on the part of interviewers is why people are forced to lie in interviews when confronted with these boiler plate 'interview questions'.

Honestly, I think the whole process of interviewing for a position (at least an engineering position) is badly flawed.  I'd much rather (as both manager and worker) to have a quick chat that covers technical aspects and glaring communication issues and then a couple week paid trial period to see if something is going to work out.  It's a nightmare from an HR perspective, but I bet it would help hire the right person for the job much more often.

[EvenSteven]

Very literally, if you've made any mistakes at work, there's one mistake that is the biggest mistake. And as several commenters on the original post pointed out, the actual mistake doesn't matter much, it's the ability to recover, reflect, and learn from it.

My biggest real mistake would be something like . . . "I forgot to check in code a couple days in a row and then had a disk failure - so lost a two day's worth of work.  I felt like a dumbass, so made a reminder in Outlook that triggers an hour before the end of every day to always checkin my work and it hasn't happened again.  I learned to never trust myself to remember things when under pressure and to schedule reminders whenever possible as a backup plan."

The problem with that answer is that it's a relatively trivial mistake and solution.  So if I were to actually use it, the interviewer is likely to penalize that truthfulness.  Ironically, this forces me to make up something that sounds like a more plausible big mistake so I can come up with a nicer sounding solution.  It's pointless hoop jumping, but that's what some lazy folks in charge of hiring need to hear.

That said, the roles I hire for require a high willingness to take risks. People who don't have relatively large mistakes to share tell me that they will also not be willing to take the risks necessary to succeed.

Yeah, this kind of mistaken short-cut thinking on the part of interviewers is why people are forced to lie in interviews when confronted with these boiler plate 'interview questions'.

Honestly, I think the whole process of interviewing for a position (at least an engineering position) is badly flawed.  I'd much rather (as both manager and worker) to have a quick chat that covers technical aspects and glaring communication issues and then a couple week paid trial period to see if something is going to work out.  It's a nightmare from an HR perspective, but I bet it would help hire the right person for the job much more often.

Back in the 80s I was working at a power plant outside of a little city called Pripyat. We were testing some emergency water pumps, and the reactor almost went to zero. I restarted it, but I messed up the control rod configuration. Oops. Yatta yatta yatta, they changed the name of the town.

[grantmeaname]

Honestly, I think the whole process of interviewing for a position (at least an engineering position) is badly flawed.  I'd much rather (as both manager and worker) to have a quick chat that covers technical aspects and glaring communication issues and then a couple week paid trial period to see if something is going to work out.  It's a nightmare from an HR perspective, but I bet it would help hire the right person for the job much more often.

Would your job grant you an extra two weeks of leave at will to search for a new job, with no consequences upon your return?

[Villanelle]

I think with most jobs, they know you have the skills and experience or you don't even make it to the interview.  So the interview is more about whether you are a cultural fit, whether the way you make decisions aligns with the organization or department, etc.  For highly technical positions that are only technical positions, sure, a test of some kind might be better.  But even then, you could easily end up with a guy like the letter writer, and that's the entire point.  That guy may be a great programmer, but he'd still be a nightmare employee.  I think his entire situation shows exactly why interviews are valuable and not badly flawed.  They did exactly what they are supposed to --weed out a guy with the experience and technical skills, but that you still most definitely don't want to hire.

Even a 3 week trial may not bring to light that this guy is a nightmare.  During that time, if he doesn't need to be corrected, directed, or have his work scrutinized, everything may seem fine.  If no one sees a way better than his and tries to tell him that, all seems well.  So the interview found what a 3 week trial likely wouldn't.

Probably the best option would be to have both, but these trial periods would be nightmares for employees.  Certainly you couldn't secure a new job while still working your old one.  And you would also have to pause your search, do the trial, and then continue your search if that fell through.

These posts lead to a nice conversation last night with DH during our dog walk.  He's beginning a job search and starting to prepare for interviews. I asked him this question to see if he had an answer, then I told him about the AAM letter and resulting conversation.

His answer is basically the same for the "biggest mistake" and "biggest weakness" questions, with one having more details about a single specific incident.  We talked about how his answer shouldn't just be the mistake or the weakness, but also that he's aware of the issue and therefore takes steps to mitigate it.  So it does show how he thinks, but also that he's self-aware and knows how to manage this area of weakness. Sure, some employer could be like, "yeah, we can't have a guy with a tendency to do X as that's not a fit for us", but mostly, they will [hopefully], think, yes, this shows us he learns from his mistakes, is thoughtful about balancing some instincts that are useful in some cases but not-great in others, and he can be managed effectively."

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I've never made a serious mistake at work.  I'm not perfect at all . . . like I've screwed up lots of relatively minor stuff that I've had to go back and fix.  But nothing of any real consequence or that caused a long lasting issue, so always have problems with that sort of question . . . because I don't have any really big thing to talk about.  Eventually I just made up a plausible sounding mistake and solution, and that's what I use now.  While the guy in the letter certainly sounds like an asshole, I kinda agree with him that it's a dumb question.

I guess the question could be rephrased to not say biggest, but don't you feel like there's benefit to learning how someone processes mistakes? I'm sure you could just say I did this or that thing without it being huge, and here's how I handled it. I have a go to answer to that question that was a mistake that was cleared up in about a day or so but that I learned a lot from about managing stress and realizing that most mistakes are fixable.

As part of an interview question?  No, I don't think there's any value at all.  Because what you're really testing for is how the person reacts to your question rather than the content of what they tell you - for any relatively standard interview question like this one most of the time the content they tell you is a completely fabricated falsehood designed to make the candidate sound good.

From that perspective, I understand you. By that perspective, though, pretty much any non technical interview question is without merit. Unless you're literally problem solving on the fly or answering some sort of knowledge test, anything else could be fabricated.

[Villanelle]

I've never made a serious mistake at work.  I'm not perfect at all . . . like I've screwed up lots of relatively minor stuff that I've had to go back and fix.  But nothing of any real consequence or that caused a long lasting issue, so always have problems with that sort of question . . . because I don't have any really big thing to talk about.  Eventually I just made up a plausible sounding mistake and solution, and that's what I use now.  While the guy in the letter certainly sounds like an asshole, I kinda agree with him that it's a dumb question.

I guess the question could be rephrased to not say biggest, but don't you feel like there's benefit to learning how someone processes mistakes? I'm sure you could just say I did this or that thing without it being huge, and here's how I handled it. I have a go to answer to that question that was a mistake that was cleared up in about a day or so but that I learned a lot from about managing stress and realizing that most mistakes are fixable.

As part of an interview question?  No, I don't think there's any value at all.  Because what you're really testing for is how the person reacts to your question rather than the content of what they tell you - for any relatively standard interview question like this one most of the time the content they tell you is a completely fabricated falsehood designed to make the candidate sound good.

From that perspective, I understand you. By that perspective, though, pretty much any non technical interview question is without merit. Unless you're literally problem solving on the fly or answering some sort of knowledge test, anything else could be fabricated.

Even if they are fabricated, I think people's answers to questions still give very solid insight into them.

Expanding on my comment that DH and I discussed his potential answer to questions like this, the specific example he gave is pretty convoluted.  Given that he can easily rabbit-hole when speaking, we talked about how it would be easy for him to get bogged down in the details, trying to explain the situation, when what's really important is the weakness/mistake part of it, which is that when an urgent situation comes up, his first instinct is "act!!!".  (This was trained into him since when you are a pilot, if the engine goes out, you don't have 10 minutes to sit and ponder options before executing.)  So we talked about how it would be easier to just simplify the actual situation to get to that same major point. 

Even if the entire thing was fabricated whole-cloth, what someone chooses to fabricate still shows what they value, what they think of themselves, and what they think the company is looking for.  To go back to our AAM letter, what if that guy actually makes tons of mistakes and lied because he thought that "perfection" is what they wanted to hear?  It shows that what he values and prioritizes isn't in line with what the company values.  Even if he hadn't been a massive AH about it, saying he hasn't ever made a mistake of any kind--even if a lie--still says, "this isn't the right fit" 

If someone chooses to lie and say their mistake was being overly involved with the staff they oversee because they think the company wants a clear chain of command, if the company culture is such that they want managers to be hands-on and in the trenches, it shows they are a bad fit. 

There are very often fundamental truths in the lies we choose to tell.  I think an interview panel gets a lot of out answers that include lies. 

[Freedomin5]

Honestly, I think the whole process of interviewing for a position (at least an engineering position) is badly flawed.  I'd much rather (as both manager and worker) to have a quick chat that covers technical aspects and glaring communication issues and then a couple week paid trial period to see if something is going to work out.  It's a nightmare from an HR perspective, but I bet it would help hire the right person for the job much more often.

This is exactly how Chinese labor contracts are written. You are interviewed and are offered a contract with a three-month probation period. At the end of the three months, you either have successfully completed probation or are let go, depending on your performance. Most people successfully complete probation. It’s no more work for HR than hiring someone who quits after a couple months.

[MayDay]

As a hiring manager I think it's a great question. I don't really care how huge the mistakes was that someone tells about, I want to see how they talk and think about recovering from a mistake. Do they blame others? Do they intake responsibility? Does the response include communication? Learning?

For most of us, we probably didn't have some horrible costly mistake that was a big deal.

[GilesMM]

Honestly, I think the whole process of interviewing for a position (at least an engineering position) is badly flawed.  I'd much rather (as both manager and worker) to have a quick chat that covers technical aspects and glaring communication issues and then a couple week paid trial period to see if something is going to work out.  It's a nightmare from an HR perspective, but I bet it would help hire the right person for the job much more often.

This is exactly how Chinese labor contracts are written. You are interviewed and are offered a contract with a three-month probation period. At the end of the three months, you either have successfully completed probation or are let go, depending on your performance. Most people successfully complete probation. It’s no more work for HR than hiring someone who quits after a couple months.

We typically do this in the US as well since most states are "at-will" situations where one can be fired at any time for nearly any reason.  Most new hires are on probation six months and subject to termination if they don't stack up. Still, interviews are critical for finding who might be a good match according to their ability to solve problems, work collaboratively, think on their feet, etc.