日本电影情书经典台词:你应该在面试中常备的问题

不管你是一个新的中层领导还是新当选的总统，众所周知你有三个月时间来为自己的新角色做出点有影响的事。当为工作面试做准备时，应试者犯下的一个错误就是认为大多数问题都是关于以往经历，而不是被聘用后立马计划做些什么。

New hires have to impress their bosses, peers, and employees in less time than it takes some of us to arrange a meeting. So if you're interviewing for a job, plan to be asked the question: "What do you hope to achieve in your first three months?"

新雇员应给老板、同事和那些工作时间比我们少专门安排面试的雇员留下深刻印象。所以如果你正接受面试，做好回答这个问题的准备：“头三个月的工作你期望达到什么样的目标？”

First, approach this question — and indeed, every interview question — as an audition. Imagine your interviewers running a movie in their heads where you are sitting working with their team, presenting to their boss, talking to customers or shareholders.

首先，对待这个问题——而事实上，应对待每一个面试问题——像试镜一样。想象你的面试官脑中正在放电影，电影里你正和团队坐在一起工作，向老板汇报，和客户或者股东交谈。

Second, beware of extremes. The savvy candidate knows to take some care before jumping in with proposed improvements, but this often leads to bland over-caution: "I wouldn't make any changes until I had learned a lot more about the organisation and consulted with my colleagues." That answer is not only predictable, but a little too safe for most jobs.

第二，提防极端。聪明的应试者知道应小心提出改进方案，但是这往往因为过分谨慎而变得乏味：“在我从公司和同事那里学到更多的东西前我不会做出任何改变。”这个回答不仅有可预见性，而且对大多数工作而言过于安全。

另一个极端是应试者指出公司犯下的所有错误并且给出颠覆性的改动策略——通常足以激怒面试官。其他的应试者承诺的的比他们能做的多，或者表达仅仅可能的天真观点。

The best answers take a middle ground, effectively saying, "Yes, I will learn and listen, but I will also get on with things." It's unwise to be deeply critical of the organisation — the system you are trashing could be the brainchild of one of the people in the room. Better approaches use phrasing such as, "This is the approach I would take..." or "Here's something I have tried elsewhere which I believe could help you." Try presenting changes as suggestions open to interrogation — the beginnings of a strategy rather than the whole deal. Throw in some quick wins — short-term results that can be obtained at minimal cost without treading on anyone's toes.

最好的答案采取折中策略，这样说更有效，“是的，我会学习并且倾听，但是我也需要熟悉过程。”强烈批评一个公司是不明智之举——。比较好的处理方法是采用诸如“这是我会采用的方法……”或“这是我在其它地方已经尝试过的方法，我相信这对你也会有用”这类措辞。试着用建议方式陈述公开征集的改动措施——策略之始而不是整个策略。奉送一些立竿见影的措施——在不触犯任何人利益的前提下用最少成本可取得的短期结果。

Finally, think about your presentation. Long-term success will often be based on your visibility within that initial three-month window, and your interviewer wants to know what you will look like in the role and what impact you might make.

最后，考虑一下你的陈述。长远的成功基于你在前三个月这扇窗口里的表现，你的面试官想知道你如何扮演你的角色并做出哪些影响。

Too many candidates concentrate on content — far too much of it — forgetting that a panel is really trying to find out whether you fit the part. Address this larger question by following a simple 3-part structure:

太多的应试者专注于面试的内容——而且多了去了——而忘记评审委员会其实在试着发现你是否适合这部分工作。他们通过简单的三步法来解决这个问题：

1. 分析能力。简单描述你的所见和理解。你的回答听起来越“高屋建瓴”越好。

2. 融会贯通的能力。吸收组织外部的观点，并能结合自己的经验。

Suggested actions. Clear recommendations, offered with some caution because you would of course need more detail before implementing any of them.

3. 提建议的能力。明晰的提议，并提供一些需加以谨慎的地方，因为在你实施任何措施之前当然需要更多的细节。

Whether it's explicit or not, most questions are all variations on the 90 day question — do you 'get' the needs underlying the role, can you fit in, and can you deliver?

不管这是否明确，大多数关于这90天你能做什么的问题是不同的——你知道你需要做什么吗？能否胜任你的角色？你能贡献出什么？

Suggested further reading: Michael Watkins's The First 90 Days reinforces the widely held assumption that judgements made about your performance in the first three months impact hugely on career success. The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome by Jean-Francois Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux suggests managers do tend to make fairly rapid and instinctive decisions about whether new staff are stars or problems.

建议进一步阅读：Michael Watkins的《最初90天》（The First 90 Days）补充了一个广泛的假设，即人们对你头三个月表现的判定极大地影响了你未来的职业生涯。Jean-Francois和Jean-Louis Barsoux合著的《“开始就失败”综合症》（Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome）建议管理者应做出迅速的直觉判断新员工会是办公室的明星还是大麻烦。