How Would You Move Mount Fuji?

Back Bay Books

Chapter One

In August 1957 William Shockley was recruiting staff for his PaloAlto, California, start-up, Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory.Shockley had been part of the Bell Labs team that invented thetransistor. He had quit his job and come west to start his owncompany, telling people his goal was to make a million dollars.Everyone thought he was crazy. Shockley knew he wasn't. Unlike a lotof the people at Bell Labs, he knew the transistor was going to bebig.

Shockley had an idea about how to make transistors cheaply. He wasgoing to fabricate them out of silicon. He had come to this valley,south of San Francisco, to start production. He felt like he was onthe cusp of history, in the right place at the right time. All thathe needed was the right people. Shockley was leaving nothing tochance.

Today's interview was Jim Gibbons. He was a young guy, earlytwenties. He already had a Stanford Ph.D. He had studied atCambridge too - on a Fulbright scholarship he'd won. Gibbons wassitting in front of him right now, in Shockley's Quonset hut office.Shockley picked up his stopwatch.

There's a tennis tournament with one hundred twenty-seven players,Shockley began, in measured tones. You've got one hundred twenty-sixpeople paired off in sixty-three matches, plus one unpaired playeras a bye. In the next round, there are sixty-four players andthirty-two matches. How many matches, total, does it take todetermine a winner?

Shockley started the stopwatch. The hand had not gone far whenGibbons replied: One hundred twenty-six.

How did you do that? Shockley wanted to know. Have you heard thisbefore?

Gibbons explained simply that it takes one match to eliminate oneplayer. One hundred twenty-six players have to be eliminated toleave one winner. Therefore, there have to be 126 matches.

Shockley almost threw a tantrum. That was how he would have solvedthe problem, he told Gibbons. Gibbons had the distinct impressionthat Shockley did not care for other people using "his" method.

Shockley posed the next puzzle and clicked the stop-watch again.This one was harder for Gibbons. He thought a long time withoutanswering. He noticed that, with each passing second, the room'satmosphere grew less tense. Shockley, seething at the previousanswer, now relaxed like a man sinking into a hot bath. Finally,Shockley clicked off the stopwatch and said that Gibbons had alreadytaken twice the lab average time to answer the question. He reportedthis with charitable satisfaction. Gibbons was hired.

Find the Heavy Billiard Ball ...

Fast-forward forty years in time - only a few miles in space fromlong-since-defunct Shockley Semiconductor - to a much-changedSilicon Valley. Transistors etched onto silicon chips were as big asShockley imagined. Software was even bigger. Stanford was having acareer fair, and one of the most popular companies in attendance wasthe Microsoft Corporation. With the 1990s dot-com boom and bullmarket in full swing, Microsoft was famous as a place whereemployees of no particular distinction could make $1 million beforetheir thirtieth birthday. Grad student Gene McKenna signed up for aninterview with Microsoft's recruiter.

Suppose you had eight billiard balls, the recruiter began. One ofthem is slightly heavier, but the only way to tell is by putting iton a scale against the others. What's the fewest number of timesyou'd have to use the scale to find the heavier ball?

McKenna began reasoning aloud. Everything he said was sensible, butsomehow nothing seemed to impress the recruiter. With hinting andprodding, McKenna came up with a billiard-ball-weighing scheme thatwas marginally acceptable to the Microsoft guy. The answer was two.

"Now, imagine Microsoft wanted to get into the appliance business,"the recruiter then said. "Suppose we wanted to run a microwave ovenfrom the computer. What software would you write to do this?"

"Why would you want to do that?" asked McKenna. "I don't want to goto my refrigerator, get out some food, put it in the microwave, andthen run to my computer to start it!" "Well, the microwave couldstill have buttons on it too."

"So why do I want to run it from my computer?" "Well maybe you couldmake it programmable? For example, you could call your computer fromwork and have it start cooking your turkey." "But wouldn't myturkey," asked McKenna, "or any other food, go bad sitting in themicrowave while I'm at work? I could put a frozen turkey in, butthen it would drip water everywhere."

"What other options could the microwave have?" the recruiter asked.Pause. "For example, you could use the computer to download andexchange recipes." "You can do that now. Why does Microsoft want tobother with connecting the computer to the microwave?" "Well let'snot worry about that. Just assume that Microsoft has decided this.It's your job to think up uses for it." McKenna thought in silence.

"Now maybe the recipes could be very complex," the recruiter said."Like, 'Cook food at seven hundred watts for two minutes, then atthree hundred watts for two more minutes, but don't let thetemperature get above three hundred degrees.'"

"Well there is probably a small niche of people who would reallylove that, but most people can't program their VCR."

The Microsoft recruiter extended his hand. "Well, it was nice tomeet you, Gene. Good luck with your job search." "Yeah," saidMcKenna. "Thanks."

The Impossible Question

Logic puzzles, riddles, hypothetical questions, and trick questionshave a long tradition in computer-industry interviews. This is anexpression of the start-up mentality in which every employee isexpected to be a highly logical and motivated innovator, workingseventy-hour weeks if need be to ship a product. It reflects thebelief that the high-technology industries are different from theold economy: less stable, less certain, faster changing. Thehigh-technology employee must be able to question assumptions andsee things from novel perspectives. Puzzles and riddles (so theargument goes) test that ability.

In recent years, the chasm between high technology and old economyhas narrowed. The uncertainties of a wired, ever-shifting globalmarketplace are imposing a start-up mentality throughout thecorporate and professional world. That world is now adopting thepeculiar style of interviewing that was formerly associated withlean, hungry technology companies. Puzzle-laden job interviews haveinfiltrated the Fortune 500 and the rust belt; law firms, banks,consulting firms, and the insurance industry; airlines, media,advertising, and even the armed forces. Brainteaser interviewquestions are reported from Italy, Russia, and India. Like it ornot, puzzles and riddles are a hot new trend in hiring.

Fast-forward to the present - anywhere, almost any line of business.It's your next job interview. Be prepared to answer questions likethese:

How many piano tuners are there in the world? If the Star Trektransporter was for real, how would that affect the transportationindustry? Why does a mirror reverse right and left instead of up anddown? If you could remove any of the fifty U.S. states, which wouldit be? Why are beer cans tapered on the ends? How long would it taketo move Mount Fuji?

In the human resources trade, some of these riddles are privatelyknown as impossible questions. Interviewers ask these questions inthe earnest belief that they help gauge the intelligence,resourcefulness, or "outside-the-box thinking" needed to survive intoday's hypercompetitive business world. Job applicants answer thesequestions in the also-earnest belief that this is what it takes toget hired at the top companies these days. A lot of earnestbelieving is going on.

To an anthropologist studying the hiring rituals of the earlytwenty-first century, the strangest thing about these impossiblequestions would probably be this: No one knows the answer. I havespoken with interviewers who use these questions, and they haveenthusiastically assured me not only that they don't know the"correct answer" but that it makes no difference that they don'tknow the answer. I even spent an amusing couple of hours on theInternet trying to pull up "official" figures on the number of pianotuners in the world. Conclusion: There are no official figures.Piano-tuner organizations with impressive websites do not know howmany piano tuners there are in the world.

Every business day, people are hired, or not hired, based on howwell they answer these questions.

The impossible question is one phase of a broader phenomenon. Hiringinterviews are becoming more invasive, more exhaustive, moredeceptive, and meaner. The formerly straightforward courtship ritualbetween employer and employee has become more one-sided, a meat rackin which job candidates' mental processes are poked, prodded, andmercilessly evaluated. More and more, candidates are expected to"prove themselves" in job interviews. They must solve puzzles, avoidgetting faked out by trick questions, and perform under manufacturedstress.

"Let's play a game of Russian roulette," begins one interview stuntthat is going the rounds at Wall Street investment banks. "You aretied to your chair and can't get up. Here's a gun. Here's the barrelof the gun, six chambers, all empty. Now watch me as I put twobullets in the gun. See how I put them in two adjacent chambers? Iclose the barrel and spin it. I put the gun to your head and pullthe trigger. Click. You're still alive. Lucky you! Now, before wediscuss your rsum, I'm going to pull the trigger one more time.Which would you prefer, that I spin the barrel first, or that I justpull the trigger?"

The good news is that the gun is imaginary. It's an "air gun," andthe interviewer makes the appropriate gestures of spinning thebarrel and pulling the trigger. The bad news is that your careerfuture is being decided by someone who plays with imaginary guns.

This question is a logic puzzle. It has a correct answer and theinterviewer knows what it is. You had better supply the right answerif you want the job. In the context of a job interview, solving apuzzle like this is probably as much about stress management asdeductive logic. The Russian roulette question exemplifies themind-set of these interviews - that people who can solve puzzlesunder stress make better employees than those who can't.

The popularity of today's stress - and puzzle-intensive interviewsis generally attributed to one of America's most successful andambivalently regarded corporations, Microsoft. The software giantreceives about twelve thousand rsums each month. That is amazingwhen you consider that the company has about fifty thousandemployees, and Microsoft's turnover rate has been pegged at about athird of the industry average. Microsoft has more cause to beselective than most companies. This is reflected in its interviewprocedure.

Without need of human intervention, each rsum received atMicrosoft is scanned for keywords and logged into a database.Promising rsums lead to a screening interview, usually by phone.Those who pass muster get a "fly back," a trip to Microsoft'sRedmond, Washington, headquarters for a full-day marathon offamously difficult interviews. "We look for original, creativethinkers," says a section of the Microsoft website that is directedto college-age applicants, "and our interview process is designed tofind those people." Six recent hires are pictured (three are women,three are black). "Your interview could include a technicaldiscussion of the projects you've worked on, an abstract designquestion, or general problem-solving puzzles or brainteasers. Thetypes of questions you'll be asked vary depending on the positionyou're looking for, but all are meant to investigate yourcapabilities and potential to grow. It's important for us to findout what you can do, not just what you've done." Another companypublication advises bluntly: "Get over your fear of trick questions.You will probably be asked one or two. They are not exactly fair,but they are usually asked to see how you handle a difficultsituation."

Riddles and Sphinxes

"Not exactly fair"? It's little wonder that some compare this styleof interviewing to fraternity hazing, brainwashing, or the thirddegree. As one job applicant put it, "You never know when they aregoing to bring out the guy in the chicken suit."

Another apt analogy is that familiar type of video game where youconfront a series of odd and hostile characters in a series ofconfined spaces, solving riddles to get from one space to the next.Not many make it to the highest levels; for most, after three orfour encounters, the game is over. As classicists point out, thosevideo games update the ancient Greek legend of Oedipus and thesphinx. The sphinx devoured anyone who couldn't answer her riddle:"What is it that walks on four legs in the morning, two legs atnoon, and three legs in the evening?"

Oedipus solved the riddle by answering "Man." A baby crawls on allfours, an adult walks on two legs, and the elderly use a cane as athird leg. It was, in other words, a trick question.

The sphinx tale puzzles people even today. Why didn't they justshoot it? is the reaction of most college students. The principalsource for the story, Sophocles's Oedipus Rex, is a realistic andpsychologically nuanced tragedy. There the man-eating she-monster isas out of place, one scholar noted, as Godzilla would be if he wereto lumber into the New York of Coppola's Godfather trilogy. Still,something about this crazy story strikes a chord. We all undergotests in life. Maybe we succeed where all others have failed - ormaybe not; at least, it's a common fantasy. There is somethingfamiliar in the banality of the riddle too, and in the weirdness ofits poser. They remind us that the tests of life are not alwaysreasonable and not always fair.

Tales of people proving their mettle by solving riddles exist incultures around the globe. The "ordeal by trick question" waspossibly raised to the highest art by the monks of Japanese Zen. Zenriddles are the antithesis of the Western logic puzzle, though onemight describe them as demanding an extreme sort of outside-the-boxthinking. A student of Zen demonstrates worthiness by giving asublimely illogical answer to an impossible question. Zen masterShuzan once held out his short staff and announced to a follower:"If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you donot call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wishto call this?" In traditional Zen teaching, the penalty for a pooranswer was a hard whack on the head with a short staff.

So Microsoft's "not exactly fair" questions are not exactly new. Thecompany has repackaged the old "ordeal by riddle" for our own time.

Continues...
Excerpted from How Would You Move Mount Fuji?by William Poundstone Copyright © 2003 by William Poundstone. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.