Sales Interview Questions in Michigan

this is an easy answer its sort of subtle. depends on your market segment. you want to get rid of the state with no customers :o) at that level its your quota that's important.

That question is either worded wrong or needs some long consideration.

The question was basically pick a state to get rid of and tell why.. No considerations given...

The only one in existence. (Reread your question.)

Well, we'd have to get rid of Maryland and Virginia both... only way to be rid of our real problem - Washington, DC.

Because theres basically nothing of use there and it would be easy to annex to Canada

I would follow this question with a question - is the goal of getting rid of a state to decrease down to 49 states? In that case I would combine two or more states together, allow them to keep separate, regional offices for politicians, and re-zone the new area to determine the proper number of senators, House representatives, etc. If the goal is to completely eliminate one state from the Union, I would let the states decide. There has to be a state who wants to leave the union. It's really not my decision to make.

Because theres basically nothing of use there and it would be easy to annex to Canada

"I would follow this question with a question - is the goal of getting rid of a state to decrease down to 49 states? In that case I would combine two or more states together, allow them to keep separate, regional offices for politicians, and re-zone the new area to determine the proper number of senators, House representatives, etc. If the goal is to completely eliminate one state from the Union, I would let the states decide. There has to be a state who wants to leave the union. It's really not my decision to make." You would just make the interview annoyed with that answer, as you're just dancing around. Its a simple question. Pick a state, and give your reason why. Don't over analyze the answer. It doesn't make you seem clever, it makes you appear full of yourself.

So Hoog, how would YOU answer this question?

Texas.. ever been there? Yes, we can do without.

Texas? I think NOT. It has one of the most important shipping ports in the U.S., not to mention one of the busiest international airports in the U.S., and is also a "hub" between NYC and CA. Idaho? Have you every been to Idaho? Okay, delete Idaho only so long as the U.S. wants to get eliminate one of the better travel destinations in terms of outdoor activities (winter OR summer). It would be just as easy to eliminate Vermont or Maine, for that matter -- give one of THOSE states to Canada. How about doing the U.S. a favor and get rid of California and all of its financial problems, earthquakes, forest fires, and mudslides.

It appears that the goal of this interview question is to reveal the existence of some deep-seated prejudices and anger issues in the interviewees.

1) Its a stupid question. 2) Probably would tell the interviewer hes wasting my time. Goodbye, going to talk to his/her manager. Kinda like "Are you a glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty question" Its a stupid.

Why give Canada a state? What makes people think that Canada wants a piece of the USA? If you're insistent on getting rid of a state, get rid of Alaska because that is clearly very far north and engulfed by Canada. As well, Canada is very good at dealing with the cold temperatures and with dealing with vast amounts of tundra/snow/ice. They excel at being able to travel across this snow and dealing with avalanches and cold-temperature rescue missions. I think Canada could efficiently deal with Alaska :0)

Texas -- because we can make it and be better off without the other 49! (-:

I would say New Jersey. Bye bye cows & industry.

frame the question. Jack Bauer has to decide which state to eliminate the population of, or else 50 megaton nuclear weapons will go off in the middle of the 5 largest US Cities. Then the choice would be Wyoming, with the lowest population, with a "bonus" of Dick Cheney ;^) If his choice is which state to annex to a foreign country, then using the same logic either New Mexico to Mexico or Maine to Canada. Not Alaska or Hawaii you ask? No - both states are in very strategic geopolitical locations.

disturbingly vague question. Is the goal of "elimination" to reduce the number of states to 49? Or is it to choose a state to break into more manageable parts and cause the number of states to increase? Or is it to pick a piece of real estate to obliterate? Or is it to cede a state to a neighboring country? If no guidance were available, I would assume the idea is to create a more manageable landscape. In that context, I would break California in two, making North California and South California. Why? Each of the two new states would be more homogeneous and a little easier to govern than the existing single state of California.

new jersey. nuff said.

Thats f-n ridiculous. I love how employers think interviewing is a big game when there are so many unemployed people out there trying to take it seriously.

The question does require more framing. What criteria am I using to eliminate a state? If the interviewer really does just want you just give your personal opinion than the above poster is right, its just trying to ferret out your politics, religion or personal preferences and really is not appropriate. However, if what they looking for is for you to show that you know how to tackle a vague problem by asking the right questions and further refining the requirements, this could show how a potential candidate thinks. I personally would ask for more information on what they mean by 'eliminate' - what they mean by that has a huge impact on my decision process. As I said above, I would ask what the criteria would be - am I judging based on what is going to be best for this company, for the country, for myself? What is the time frame for this elimination? If eliminate means completely annihilate via atom bomb and I have to decide in the next 60 seconds, I am going to pick the least populated state. If the time frame is 6 months I can choose based on the value of the land, since I can move the people. If eliminate means kick out of the union and force them to become their own country, and I am doing what is best for me, I would pick the state I travel to least and have the fewest friends who live there. If my goal is to do what's best for the country, I would pick the state that has the least economic value. Just answering the question with something like 'Nebraska, because its boring' shows that you aren't considering the situation properly before making a decision. If the interviewer is thinking like Hoog and is annoyed by your trying to gather more information before making a decision, you don't want to work for that company anyway.

I was thrown by this question and after a moment decided on New Jersey - haven't been there mostly because their reputation precedes them - though controvesy does keep things interesting. In retrospect I'd respond with Rhode Island. Not big enough for anyone to miss and not sure what they offer to the whole!

Did you know that there is a United States of Mexico? or AKA United Mexico States.....

There is one United States. If your asking to get rid of one of the states in the US I would have to say Washington DC. Just being honest.